time, from the Rationalists of Germany. They have not only rejected the book, but treated it with contempt and scorn, insisting that its authenticity would soon be as little regarded as the story of Jack the Giant Killer.

The objections of Porphyry to the Book of Daniel,—so far as we have the means of knowing them,-- are not very formidable. He thinks it unreasonable that a great king, like Nebuchadnezzar, should bestow so much honor upon a captive, merely for interpreting his dream; blames Daniel for receiving the king's gifts; and ridicules the queen-mother for coming in to speak to Belshazzar, pretending to know more than he. He puts the strangest and most unrearonable interpretations upon some of the visions of Daniel, so that none of them might reach beyond the time of Antiochus. He insists, against the authenticity of Daniel, that it was written, originally, in Greek. But this is not true; and the only ground on which he could urge such a pretense is, that he included in the book the apocryphal stories of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon, which no Protestant, Christian, or Jew admits to belong there.

The objections of the Germans to the authenticity of Daniel are equally fallacious with those of Porphyry. One is, that in our present Hebrew Bibles, the Book of Daniel is not placed among the prophets, but in the third class of sacred books the hagiography. But we have the most conclusive proof that the book has been misplaced by Jewish critics, and probably with design. Its original place was among the prophets, between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. There we find it in the Septuagint. There it was in the time of Josephus, and of all the fathers of the first three centuries, as appears by their catalogues, and their positive testimony. Its place was changed by the Maronites and Talmudites, about the time of Jerome, and probably on account of Daniel's definite predictions as to the coming of the Messiah. The Messiah must have come, according to Daniel; for his seventy weeks had long been fulfilled. To be rid of this testimony, the Rabbins thought that the easier way would be,--not to reject the Book

of Daniel from the canon, for this they never did,— but to take it out from among the prophets, and place it in the third class of their sacred writings. And there it has stood, in our common Hebrew Bibles, ever since. It will be seen from this statement how little reason there is for questioning the authenticity of Daniel, on account of its place in the Jewish hagiography.

The other objections to Daniel all resolve themselves into this: The book contains accounts of miracles, and also the most remarkable predictions. This we admit; and if this constitutes a valid objection to the book, then we renounce it; we give it up. If miracles and predictions are impossibilities, which never did take place, and never can, then the greater part of the Book of Daniel is a fiction, and must be abandoned. But this objection, it must be remembered, does not stop with Daniel. It sweeps away the books of Moses, the four evangelists, and most of the other books of the Bible.

The course of Rationalists and infidels in regard to the predictions of Scripture is very remarkable. Show them prophecies, of which we can not point to the precise fulfillment, and they say, "These are no prophecies at all. They have never been fulfilled, and never can be." But show them other predictions, like those of Daniel, which have been most obviously and remarkably accomplished, so remarkably, that there is no possibility of denying the facts of the case, and then the pretense is set up that the alleged prophecy is a forgery, written after the events which it pretends to foretell. It is history, and not prophecy. This is the way in which Daniel has been treated by the whole tribe of infidels, from the days of Porphyry to the present time, and it shows conclusively the intent and object of these men. If they can not destroy the credit of the Bible in one way, they will try another. They will never be satisfied do not intend to be- until this dreaded, hated book is discarded, and its authority trampled in the dust.

The evidence, external and internal, of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel is as conclusive as any moral evidence can be. The prophet Ezekiel, who was contemporary with Daniel, and

in captivity with him, testifies repeatedly to the existence of such a man as Daniel — a man in the highest repute throughout the East for wisdom and goodness. "Though those three men-Noah, Daniel, and Job - were. in" the guilty land, "they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness." Again, speaking of the Prince of Tyre, and rebuking him for his insolence and self-conceit, Ezekiel says: "Behold thou art wiser than Daniel, and there is no secret which they can hide from thee." Ez. xiv.: 14, 20; xxviii. : 3.

66

This same Daniel testifies continually that he did see the visions attributed to him, and wrote the book which gives an account of them, and his testimony ought, in all fairness and consistency, to be taken, unless there is strong rebutting evidence against it. Then our Saviour directly endorses the authenticity of the book before us. When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains." Matt. xxiv.: 15. In this passage, our Saviour bears testimony to two things: First, that Daniel was a prophet; and, secondly, that he wrote the book ascribed to him, in which is repeated mention of "the abomination of desolation." Chap. xi.: 31; xii. : 11.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Paul speaks of some, "who, by faith, stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire;" referring obviously to the deliverance of Daniel and his three friends, as recorded in the book before us.

Josephus tells us that, when Alexander had come to Jerusalem, and entered into the temple, "the Book of Daniel was showed to him, wherein it was written that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians.* We have here direct proof that the Book of Daniel was in existence, and was referred to as a book of prophecy, in the days of Alexander the Great, more than two hundred years before the time when it is now alleged that this book was written.

In the first book of the Maccabees (chap. ii.: 59, 60), old Matthias is represented as encouraging his sons to stand up *Antiq., Book xi., chap. 8.

valiantly for the law of their God, by the example of Daniel and his three friends, who were miraculously delivered from the lions and from fire. Here again we have proof that the Book of Daniel was in existence, and was regarded as a sacred book, in the very commencement of the Maccabean wars, some time before the death of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Again, the fact that the Book of Daniel has a place in the sacred canon of the Jews is proof conclusive that it was not written in the Maccabean period, but far back in the time of the prophets. The Jews were exceedingly strict on this point. No book that was not written by a prophet, or under the direction of some inspired prophet or teacher, could ever have a place in their canon. This is the reason why none of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament were admitted. The suc cession of inspired prophets and teachers had ceased. But the Book of Daniel has made a part of the Jewish canon in all ages, from the time of the Septuagint translators and of Josephus to this day. It changed its place, as before related, in the Hebrew Bible, in the time of the Maronites, but was still retained, as it now is, in the canon of the Jews.

Then the internal evidence of the authenticity of Daniel is complete. The accurate knowledge which the writer displays of ancient history, manners, and customs, and of Babylonish and Persian peculiarities, shows that he must have lived at or near the time and place which the book declares. No later writer could have drawn, as he has done, the characters of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzer, and Darius, or described so truly their forms of government, their festivals, their customs, and manner of life. The character of Daniel, too, as exhibited in the book before us, is unique, and yet consistent,- a noble character, such as no falsifier could assume or depict. In short, this book is, even now, the best storehouse of Babylonish antiquities and customs that is extant. Why then should it be rejected? Why exclude it from the sacred canon, and thus extinguish the light which it has been sending down through the ages for more than two

thousand years, and which it is destined to shed upon the pathway of time, even to the end of the world?

If I had regarded only the objections of Porphyry to the Book of Daniel, the discussion might have been dismissed in much fewer words. But I felt desirous, as the subject was up, to go into a brief consideration of modern objections. To the enemies of the Bible, the Book of Daniel has been a stumbling block for long ages. And it is so still. If the Scriptures are to be discredited and destroyed, this book, with its predictions and their fulfillment, must be taken out of the way. Hence the multitude of assailants which have pounced upon it, and the persistent virulence of the attack. But the assault will be in vain. The Book of Daniel will hold its authority and place. There is much light yet to beam from it. It has many predictions yet to be fulfilled, which will confirm its truth and its inspiration, to the confounding of its enemies, and the rejoicing of its friends.

ARTICLE III.

THE GERMS AND GERMINATION OF ENGLISH CONGREGA

TIONALISM.

So far as the New Testament teaches any form of church polity, it teaches Congregationalism. So far as the history of the earliest churches shows anything regarding their polity, it shows it to have been Congregational. It is only when church history begins to be a record of selfishness, and strife, and ambition, that it discloses changes from the simplicity of Congregationalism to the assumptions of other forms of polity. A hierarchy is the offspring of human pride, not of Christian humility. In the long centuries of ignorance and superstition, priestly assumption and ambition ruled despotically. When the light of Christian intelligence and universal education began to pervade the darkness, the original Christian