To fupport these opinions, the Author has entered into a very wide range of enquiry; has examined, upon almoft every topic, the fyftems of the writers who have preceded him in this kind of research, and has criticized not only the works of departed authors, of Mede, the two Newtons, More, Lowinan, Fleming, &c. but alfo the fpeculations which our own times have produced in the writings of Mr. E. Whitaker, Dr. Zouch, Mr. Kett, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Bicheno, and Mr. Butt. In an Appendix, he has alfo noticed two publications which have appeared pofterior to his first Edition; thofe of Archdeacon Woodhoufe, (now Dean of Lichfield) and of Mr. Nifbett. There is, general speaking, much acuteness and ability displayed, in these examinations, and there refult from them fome valuable deductions, which we intend to note in the courfe of this article; but it muft, at the fame time, be allowed, that this examiner of other authors betrays more of felf-confidence and prefumption, and lefs of candid hesitation, than becomes an enquirer upon difficult and abftrufe questions. His polemical attacks are furious and difdainful, and he gives no indulgence, no quarter to thofe fellow foldiers whom he cannot range under his own banner. It is not our office to follow him through the whole of his career; for, to what would it lead us, but to a fecond review of treatifes which have already paffed our examination, and to an altercation about terms, frequently of very doubtful meaning, and ill underfood by the parties difputing. The pleas, rejoinders, and explanations of contending authors, are not the inoft grateful portion of literature. We fhall content ourselves with reporting and examining the prominent features of Mr. F.'s own fyftem. To begin with his principles of interpretation; they are generally profeffed to be thefe: "1. To affign to each prophetic fymbol its proper definite meaning, and never to vary from that meaning; "2. To allow no interpretation of a prophecy to be valid, except the prophecy agree, in every particular, with the event to which it is fuppofed to relate; "3. And to deny that any link of a chronological prophecy is capable of receiving its accomplishment in more than one event." P. ix. To the two firft of thefe, every difcreet interpreter of prophecy will readily accede: but the third is a principle which will by no means be admitted by thofe, who are verfed in the language and predictions of holy writ, and in the writings of our ableft and moft judicious divines. Our limits will not permit us to difcufs the merits of this queftion, on which the reader, who has not hitherto informed himfelf, will find fatisfaction in the books fpecified below *; and from the frequent application of chronological prophecies to primary and fecondary events, by Chrift and his Apoftles, he will be convinced, that fuch acceptation of them cannot be excluded; this author, himself, indeed in feveral paffages of his work, feems to admit this principle, which, if we do not mifunderftand him, militates directly against his own canon, as above ftated. Speaking of Matt. xxiv. 30, he fays, "this prophecy may poffibly relate ultimately to the times of the fecond Advent, but there feems to be little doubt, that it primarily relates to the destruction of Jerufalem" vol. i. p. 94. Again; fpeaking of the Antichrift of 1 John ii, he fays, that "the Apoftle had primarily regard to certain heretics of his own time," and that Antichrift is a fort of generic name, including all perfons who answer to the feveral parts of the ample defcription, which is given of the character of that monfter." (Vol. i. p. 133.) He alfo fets forth, that the prophecy of Joel, (Ch. ii, &c.) has a two-fold application, and that St. Peter applies it to the times of the firft Advent of our Lord, as typical of the times of his fecond Advent." Vol. i. p. 115. We object therefore to a canon, which, by Mr. F.'s own admiffion, appears contrary to the authority of fcriptural nfaget. But as the author has applied it principally, if not folely, to the correction of Mr. Kett's fyftem, who seems to have extended the licence of applying typical prophecies to an unwarrantable degree, we fhall not find occafion to differ from him materially on this fubje&t. To thefe profeffed rules of interpretation, Mr. F. has added others, which we find difperfed in the body of his work; and to which we fubfcribe our unreferved aflent, which we have * Sir Ifaac Newton on Prophecy: p. 251. Bacon de Augm. Scient. lib. ii. c. ii. Ep. Warburton Div. Leg. book vi. Bp. Lowth Prælect. xi. Bp. Hurd on Prophecy, Serm. iii. iv. v. Bp. Sherlock on Prophecy; Difc. ii. Jortin's Rem. on Eccl, Hift. p. 188, &c. Ep. Horne, Pref. to Pfalms. Jones on Fig. Lang. of Scripture. Woodhoufe on the Apocalypfe, Ch. vi. 16. Nares's Warburton Lect. Serm. viii. And now in Bp. Horsley's Sermons, Vol. ii. p. 73, &c. + It is true that Mr. F.'s rule limits it to "a link of a chrono logical prophecy," on which he may perhaps found a diftinction, but the diftinction is not in all inftances clear. indeed premised, as our own fentiment: 1ft, on the application of Prophecies, which are yet unfulfilled. Such fecret things," as unaccomplished prophecies, "belong unto the Lord our God;" and it is a vain wafte of time to weary ourselves with conjectures refpecting the precife mode of their accomplishment. Upon thefe points, when we go beyond what is written, we exceed our commiffion and it has almoft invariably been found, that the commentator, who attempted to fhew how a prophecy was about to be fulfilled, was by the event convicted of error. We may fafely and pofitively declare what will come to pafs, and we may even fay how it will come to pafs, fo long as we refolutely confine ourselves to the explicit declarations of Scripture: but to point out the manner in which an event will be accomplished, any farther than the word of God hath revealed the manner of it, is to pry too curiously into what he hath purposely concealed, and to aim at becoming prophets, instead of contenting ourfelves with being humble and fallible expofitors of prophecy. What the Bible hath declared, that we may without hefitation declare: beyond this, all is mere vague conjecture. It was very wifely remarked by Sir Ifaac Newton, that "the folly of interpreters has been to foretell times and things by the Apocalypfe, as if God defigned to make them prophets. By this rathnefs they have not only expofed themfelves, but brought the prophecy alfo into contempt. The defign of God was much otherwife. He gave this and the prophecies of the Old Teftament, not to gratify men's curiofities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own providence, not the interpreter's, be then manifefted thereby to the world. For the event of things, predicted many ages before, will then be a convincing argument, that the world is governed by Providence." May I add, without the imputation of vanity, in the words of the fame great and good man?" Amongst the interpreters of the laft age there is fcarce one of note who hath not made fome difcovery worth knowing; and thence I feem to gather, that Ged is about opening thefe myfteries. The fuccefs of others put me upon confidering it; and, if I have done any thing which may be ufeful to following writers, I have my defign.” P. 77 "Into thefe yet future matters however we must not dare to pry beyond what is expressly written. The book of futurity is as yet fealed; and who fhall open it before the appointed feason ? Vol. ii. p. 185. 2d. On the temptation to defcribe the paffing events of our own times as fulfilling particular Prophecies. * "Obferv. on the Apoc. p. 251, 252, 253.” I. A com "I. A commentator upon the prophecies of Daniel and St. John can never be too much upon his guard against the fascinating idea, that he may expect to find every paffing event of his own day there predicted. Before he ventures to introduce any expofition founded upon prefent circumftances, he ought to make it clearly appear, that it both accords with the chronological order fo carefully preferved in thofe prophecies, that it ftrictly harmonizes with the language of fymbols, and that it demonftrates every part of the prediction to tally exactly with its fuppofed accomplishment. How far I have attended to this found canon of interpretation in the remarks already made upon the character of the king who was to magnify himself above every God, upon the fcoffers of the laft days, and upon the tremendous calamities conceived to have been introduced by the blaft of the third woe-trumpet, the cautious reader muft decide. My object, however I may have fucceeded, has been the ferious investigation of truth, not the mere establishment of a fyftem. I have endeavoured to the best of my judgment to follow prophecy, not to lead it to my own preconceived scheme of expofition." Vol. ii. p. 277. By thefe tefts and no other, we proceed to examine the interpretation of facred prophecy detailed in this work. This may be divided under two he ds: 1. The first respecting the 1260 years, which is faid to be the period of the two great enemies of the Gofpel, Popery and Mohammedifm. 2. The fecond, refpecting the great Antichrift, and the refloration of the Jews. 1. The Author fhows, and, as we think, ably and fatisfactorily, that the 1260 are not days, but years: and that, most probably, they are folar and natural years, and not years of 360 days only. He then proceeds to prove, that this period can have no connection with the perfecutions of pagan Rome, and muft be of a later date; that is, after the empire became chriftian, and after the power was divided to the ten horns or kingdoms; and that it must have commenced with fome great apoftacy, fuch as is defcribed by St. Paul in his prediction of the Man of Sin, as well as by Daniel and St. John in their respective fymbolical Prophecies. In this deduction, he profeffes to follow the fcheme of Bifhop Newton, which is in very general acceptation. The author then proceeds to afcertain the proper mode of fixing the date and commencement of the 1260 years: and here we were furprifed to read this affertion, that "both Daniel and St. John Ipecify with much exactness the era from which thefe years are to be computed." If this exact fpecification could be pointed out, the queftion would be immediately decided, there would be an end to all difpute. But Mr. F. is unable to produce fuch authority; and after much difquifition, (which, however, is well worth the attention of the prophetical enquirer,) concludes only, that the year 606 is, with a high degree of probability, the commencement of the period. Even this conclufion appears to us fomewhat more bold and hazardous than the premises will warrant. For, according to thefe, we of this age are now living under this period. The end of it is confeffedly not yet arrived; and till that fhall arrive, (which will affuredly be marked by a wonderful change of events,) we muft fpeak with great hesitation of the time of its beginning. It is, in fhort, one of those Prophecies whofe completion is yet future, and concerning which we have already agreed with Mr. F., that " unaccom plifhed prophecies are fecret things belonging unto the Lord our God." "When the end fhall come,' fays Bishop Newton, "then we fhall know better whence to date the be ginning." The fame remark must be made on Mr. F.'s attempt to fettle the date of the famous numbers of Daniel XII. The reader will find many ingenious obfervations on this fubject; but to establish us in any certainty about them, we must "wait the time of the end." The Chapter on the Symbolical Language of Scripture, affords a great deal of juft obfervation; but this part of the work would have appeared with more precifion and advantage, if the author had produced fcriptural authority (as, for the most part, he might have done) for the meaning which he affigns to the prophetic fymbols. In the feventh chapter of Daniel, the faints, or times and laws, are given into the power of the little horn or kingdom, arifing after, or behind, the ten horns or kingdoms of the fourth beaft or empire, which Mr. F., with the majority of commentators, understands to be the Roman; and daring the period of time which is the particular object of Mr. F.'s enquiries. In the interpretation of this little horn, this author agrees, in the main, with Mede and the two Newtons, contending that it has been fulfilled in the dominion of the popes. But, whereas they look to its completion in the temporal power of the popes, he maintains that it is in their Spiritual empire only that we find the prophecy accomplished, He firft ftates his objections to the fcheme of thefe eminent commentators. (1.) The actions afcribed to the little horn, were never performed by the Pope, as a temporal horn, as the fovereign of his Italian principality, but as an ecclefiaftical power. (2.) The little horn is reprefented by the prophet as being already in existence previous to the eradication of the three horns: but the fcheme at prefent under confideration fuppofes, that the Papacy Y 4 became |