Star.
London, England, 1808-03-24 00:00:00

AN OPEN BOOK.

Blerred it he that readeth, and they iLat give credit to
Me 'weird! cf. firopsecli, the Revelation of J•3l's CHRIST
[expl:.iniag the Prop- het I?anicl] and that keep the
things which are 'written therein : for the time is at hand."
( Rev. i. 1,3.)
. _
•

But if the Book of Daniel to continue sealed
till the time of the end of the Jewish dispmsation—lf
no human powers, however ingenio,lsly exerted, could
open or explain the sealed parts .till the MfrnsLut
should give the 'true meaning of them—how should it
be possible that, by following Jewish interpretations,
the Christian Church should ewer attain a rtht under.

tanding of their import ? Need we wonder, then, that
Commentators should miss their aim, when, treading
in the steps of the Jewish Doctors, they continue to
consider Jerusalem as the holy (4—the temple as the
ranctudry--theiewish High Priest as the Pi-inetofth_• Host
—Antiochus Epiphancs as the polluter of the santtuiiry,
the taker away of the daily, the author of the transgression
of desolation ; and the Roman armies under Theo, as'
those intended by the destroyert of the city and the sane-'
Nary Ought we not rather to be surprised that they
could ever think it possible that fight should be ex-
pected on this subject from those who have gi eye:, but
see not, and ears but hear not unto chit day, ° (Rom. xi.
8) ; or that they could, overlook the numerous
inti-
mations given in the Scriptures respecting the substi-
tution of another tabernacle—another sanctuary, or
holy place—another holy city, for those which exist-
ed under the Jewish dispensation:
•

Of little avail will it he to admit these truth's ge-
nerally, if we do not follow them to all their conk'
quences. " The Priesthood being changed (Heb. vii, '
12), there is made, of necessity, a change also of the
laws' and of every thing connected with it. The first co-
venant had a worldly sanctuary (Heb. ix. 1.) and in
this a place called, by eminence," the holiest of all,"
(v. 3), into which the High Priest entered alone once
a year, not Without blood, which he offered for him-
self and for the errors of the people (v. the Holy
Spirit signifying that the way into the true holiest of
all, was not male manifest while the first tabernacle was
standing, which was only afigure for the time then present,
until the time of the reformation by CHRIST. Now, if the
Mosaic institutions were to continue only till the time
of the reformation by CHRIST, and if Jerusalem, the
temple, &c. had no other sanctity than the legal holi-
ness derived from these institutions, is it not absurd
in those who call themselves Christians, to continue,
with blind Jewish predilection, to apply to that "Je-
rusalem, which is in bondage with her children,"
(Gal. iv. 25), events whiCh were to happen subse-
quently to the coming
.of HIM, to whom Moses, and
all the Prophets bore witness, as the end of the law ?
Have we not " a High Priest who is set on the right
hand of the Throne of the Majesty of the Heavens •
a Minister a the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle
whichthe Loup pitched, airefnot man ?" (Heb. viii. 1, 2. )
Hath not Clitusr come a High Priest of good things
by a greater and more perfect tabernacle than the one
made with hands ? (Hcb. ix. 2). HE hash not en-
tered into " the holy places made with hands, the
figures of the true, but into Heaven itself," (xi. '24.) In-
stead of the Jerusalem which is in bondage, have we not
the Jerbsalem which is above, and free ? (Gal. iv. 26).
In one word—Has not the time come in which the
true worshippers worship THE FATHER in the Spirit
and Truth of all the figurative institutions of Moses
(John iv. '23), being free from all bondage to the for-
mer weak, beggarly, worhiiy elements of rudSments ?
( Gal. iv. 3,9.)

From these few observations, it is evident that
things spoken of the city, the sanctuary, the sacrifice, the
oblation, &c. and referring to periods subsequent to
du anointing of the Most Holy (Dan. ix. 21), have no
relation to the city which formerly was called holy,
or to the worldly sanctuary and to the ritual of Moses.
They are mere adaptations of old terms to the time
of the New Testament dispensation.
As to the term " Prince of the Host," it never was
applied, in the Scriptures, nor any similar term, to
the Jewish High Priest ; and to make such an appli-
cation of it is not only arbitrary, but contrary to the
express plan and tenor of both the Old Dispensation and
the New. This is a point of some moment, but it will
not require many words to set it in a clear light—
Both of them were to have a High Priest, and (not
to insist here on other characteristic differences), there
was to be this distinguishing circumstance between the
two—the Priests under the law could only be of the
tribe of Levi, and could have none of the prerogatives
of Royalty, which belonged to another tribe, that of
.Judah. The New Dispensation, on the contrary, has
a REGAL HIGH PRIFST—" a Migh Priest after the
order of Melchisedec," (Heb. vii.) who was King
of Salem, and also Priest of the Most High Goo.—
The Christian Church has A GREAT HIGH PRIEST,
who is passed into the Heavens, JFSUS the Son of Con
(Heb. iv. 13), whom Gon hath made both Loan
(ruler, king, prince), and CHRIST (Acts ii. 36),
agreeably to what had been before prophecied of him,
" I have anointed my King upon Zion, the hill of my
Holiness." He is the PRIINCE OF THE Hos.r—it is the
name which he carries off his vesture and on his thigh
—" KING OF KINGS and LORD OF Loans ( Rev. xix.
16) ; for " the host," In Daniel, as will be proved in !
the course of the present disquisition, means the Kings
of the Earth, and particularly the Kingdoms of Ev-
rope—the body, or proper territory of Daniel's fourth
beast. But if CHRIST be the Prince of the Host, An-
tiochus Epiphanes can by no possibility be he who made
himself his equal, cast down his sanctuary, and took away
the daily (Dan. viii. 11) ; nor can the " Sanctuary,"
and " Daily" alluded to, be the daily sacrifice, and
the Temple at Jerusalem ; and the whole of the fa-
bric that has been reared by the numerous commenta-
tors and expositors who have gone upon this system,
must fall to the ground. But to return—
As the book of Daniel is the sealed book that was
opened in the days of John, it follows that the same
relation subsists between the writings of these two
Prophets, as between a lock and its key. They are
adapted to each other, and, if we would understand
I Me words that were closed up and scald till the time of the
, end, we must use them together ; attending at the
I same time, to what has been written upon the same
I subject by other Prophets and Apostles—for all scrip-
! ture is given by inspiration of Gon, and is profitable for
instruction (2 Tim. iii. 16.) If we wish to profit by
them, we must take the result which they may offer,
' even if it should reprove and censure what we may
have been taught to respect and venerate. If we
I hearken to the reproof, we shall find that the same
Scriptures also plint out what is necessary to be at-
tended to for the correction of those things which they
condemn, and give ample instruction in every thing
that regards our faith and practice. Instead of fol
. lowing the Jewish and Antichristian interpretations
of the Book of Daniel, which have been the principal
causes that have prevented him from being under-
' stood, let us carefully attend to the explanation that
has been given of this Prophet by " THE FAITHFUL
AND Tittle WITNESS," as recorded in the Apocalypse ;
in which the seals are removed from that book ; the
time for which the vision, and the Prophet who saw
it, were to continue sealed, having expired."