I trust I have shewn sufficiently at length, the sort of investigation which I have adopted, and that,-whatever use I may have made of this, it is in itself worthy of all acceptation. I have also shewn, in the Preface to my larger work, what the character of that is, which has been almost universally adopted: viz. that it is a wild system of conjecture, so contrived and bolstered up by artificial rules, canons, and other expedients, that it necessarily anticipates the results, which its contrivers determined from the first it should. This, I say, is too obvious to escape any one of moderate perspicacity; but, as it promises things most glorious, and indeed enables its advocates not only to explain prophecy in any way they please, but also to become prophets themselves, it is of too promising a character, and takes too fast a hold on the mind, to be readily given up; and this I will venture to predict will not very soon be done, at least by its present admirers and captives.

The system of interpretation which I have adopted is not, I am sorry to say, of quite so easy and flattering a character. It demands an ardent love of truth in the Inquirer, as also extensive and unwearied research; and, when this has been submitted to, it affords nothing beyond Apostolical Christianity in the establishment of the New Covenant; and this as once effected throughout the whole world by miracle, with the fact, that nothing can be, or may be, either added thereto, or taken therefrom. All which, however, as a thirty-years' student of prophecy of no small credit, in Mr. Mede's school, once told me, is nothing beyond mere milk and water! Another-and probably the very Reviewer answered in my Notes, and a preacher of it-has unblushingly affirmed, that by it nothing better than wind* has yet been brought forth! But, to dismiss

Apostles, and Evangelists, have all conspired to enounce the same events, and to confine these to one and the same general period. But, as what they have so said cannot be made to square with the dicta of Messrs. Mede, Brightman, Elliott, &c. (p. 108), I must necessarily have done very wrong, and very foolishly, i. e. in bringing together their many testimonies, in order to shew their perfect unanimity on these times and events, and as connected with the establishof Christianity!

*See the Preface to my work on Prophecy. I may now notice a few more of my Reviewer's objections both to me, and to my theory and here I will pass over all that is mere opinion, and will proceed to the little which has been given by way of proof. "There are (p. 110) some,"

“unnatural and far-fetched interpretations. . . . so palpably absurd, that to mention them is sufficient... to satisfy any impartial reader of the incorrectness

all this palpable and presumptive blindness and weakness, we proceed.-

of the theory of Dr. Lee." Now then for the proof. "The strange hypothesis that Domitian . . . was the wilful king of Daniel, forces him to interpret the language, ' and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour," &c. (Dan. xi. 38), as denoting that he would cause his own images to be placed in the temples for worship, as though it were possible for a man to worship himself!" i. e. if Domitian had the images of himself, according to my Book, placed in the temples for worship generally, it must follow, that I have made him worship himself! And so, of necessity, my theory is bad, and my interpretation monstrous, &c.! To this exquisite morsel of criticism no further reply need surely be made: the will, and weakness, of its author must indeed be sufficiently apparent.

My next monstrosity is, my having made the king of the north and south the same person, &c. But my results require that, at this time, the ruling power be an universal monarch: and this makes it necessary, that the king both of the north and south be one and the same. But, Why has not this prodigy of Apocalyptic interpretation shewn that this could not be the case? Because, no doubt, it was more easy and more agreeable, to act the judge and to condemn !

"Once more (ib.), Daniel, in chapter xii. 1, says, ' At that time shall Michael ... stand up, &c., i. e. clearly at, or about, the same period of time, as the events related in the foregoing verse, viz. the destruction of Antichrist. This did not, however, suit the Professor's theory, and he therefore understands by the words at that time, a period two hundred and fifty years before!" I am sorry to say I have to accuse my Reviewer here of various crimes and misdemeanors: and, first, that this is a wilfully and utterly untrue statement! I have, with our Lord, made the beginning of the sorrows to be experienced at that time, the fall of Jerusalem; and the end of them, the fall of the last Persecutor: and, consequently, their continuance to fill that whole period, according to Daniel (ib. ver. 7). And again, I have made that period to comprehend the fall of the Antichrist, just as Daniel says it should. My friend's opinion seems to be, that I have blundered in giving any extent at all to this period; and this, I suppose, his "at" or "about" is intended to shew. And, once more, if I have truly fixed the time for the fall of the Antichrist-which this takes for granted-my theory has forced me to do rightly, in this particular at least.

66

I am next charged with monstrous absurdities in my notions on the great prophetic periods, which may be termed the landmarks of prophecy. 'These," says my very gracious censor, are disposed of in the most summary manner, just as the author thinks fit." I answer, they are disposed of precisely as they are in these sheets, and because the author has thought it fit to do so. He also says, with this gentleman, that they certainly are the landmarks of prophecy. And, further, that he has proved this, to the utter and everlasting ruin of the specious speculations put forth by this very honest Reviewer and Interpreter. Let him, if he can, prove the contrary. He also gives one more example of my monstrosities. In discussing, "How long shall be the vision (Dan. viii. 14), it is replied, unto two thousand three hundred days,... Dr. Lee simply says, 'These... days denote an indefinite period,'" &c. But Dr. Lee has simply said much more, and that which necessarily defines the duration and close of this period. This statement is therefore, as before, untrue! it also lacks the proof, which so great a writer ought, for his own sake, to have given.

It will have appeared I think to all, by whom reason and truth are preferred to prejudice and mere fancy, not only that the system of Mr. Mede is worthless, but that it must suffuse,-which it has actually done,-the Old Testament, and not a little of the New, with darkness that might be felt. This, I know, is the feeling of many; and it has long been mine. This it was, indeed, that first induced me to make inquiry on the subject generally: the result of which was, a very imperfect outline of the sort of inquiry now recommended, as also the larger work lately published upon it by me. The first had its faults, and these I have acknowledged: the last and larger work has no doubt its faults likewise; but, be these what they may, they have not yet been pointed out, notwithstanding the searching examination to which I took the earliest opportunity to submit it, and what has since been written, as examined here in the Notes. Since the publication of this latter work, I have been enabled to see much that I had not seen then, which will be found in the following sheets. Any candid criticism on either of these will be thankfully received and acknowledged; my sole object having been, to ascertain the truth, and faithfully to propound it.

One result I have arrived at, which I cannot but consider valuable, and this I will now submit to the Reader: it is this, viz. As we know of but one great promise made to the Fathers, which the coming of Christ was intended to fulfil, it should follow that,—as the Bible is necessarily consistent with itself,-every ministration of the Patriarchs, Prophets, and

"Still worse," it is added, "is the author's notion about the thousand years of millennial purity, mentioned in Rev. xx. 1-4. This period," continues my friend," denotes an indefinite period, which cannot exceed the end of Daniel's last week; by which he means the period of the destruction of Jerusalem." But this again is grossly untrue, as every one must see who will take the trouble to examine the same proofs as given in these pages. The conclusion now given is, “Surely one, who can understand the language ‘a thousand years' as denoting the insignificant period reaching from the time of Christ to the destruction of Jerusalem-about half a century-is utterly unworthy of the office he has taken upon himself to expound the prophecies of the Word of God." A sufficient refutation to all this will be found below. I need only remark now, that, as what is affirmed here is mere assumption, and sufficiently betrays the animus of its author, I leave it to shift for itself.

* I allude here to a private controversy of some months extent with a very highly esteemed friend, and one of the best-if not the best-of the writers of the school of Mede.

Apostles, would in one way or other be subservient to its fulfilment and this again, would have the effect of exhibiting in the Scriptures one plain, consistent, and invariable system: and, accordingly, that how numerous and various soever the modes of expression adopted might be, all would in the main conspire to put forth, declare, and illustrate, the particulars of this one great event.

And it is as obvious, I think, as words can make it, that this is the one unvaried theme of the teaching of the New Testament. In the song of the Virgin, for example (Luke i. 54, seq.), "He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy as he spake to our Fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever." But, What servant Israel could this be? Not the unbelieving, but the believing, Jews, of necessity, i.e. that very small Remnant, as noticed below, of which the inspired writers so often speak. And again, What was the mercy spoken of to the Fathers, if it was not that everlasting covenant made with Abraham, viz. that in his seed all nations should be blessed? (Gen. xii. 2, 3).

...

...

Again, in the song of Zacharias (ib. ver. 68, seq.), "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed HIS PEOPLE... As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been (ever) since the world began. To perform the and to remember his HOLY COVENANT; the mercy PROMISED oath which he sware to our fathers. . . to give light to them that sit in darkness;" i. e. to men of all nations: and here again, "His people" must be "the Election" of St. Paul and "the Elect" of St. Peter of necessity. (Rom. xi. 7. 1 Pet. i. 2.) And, accordingly, we have the "Gentiles" here "rejoicing with God's people," as Moses and Zacharias, and indeed all the Prophets, taught. See also chapter iii. 4-7, which fully gives us the mind of St. Luke on this subject.

Again, in the song of Simeon (chap. ii. 26, seq.), "For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of ALL PEOPLE; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of THY PEOPLE Israel," i. e. of that Israel of whom He was one; for many such then waited in Judea for the consolation and redemption of Jerusalem.* We have here, therefore, in every case, the promise made good as much to the Jews, as it was to the Gentiles: and this was the promise, made and

*Luke ii. 38.

confirmed in the Covenant given to Abraham. According to these worthies, therefore, the promises made to Israel were now to be fulfilled: while Israel after the flesh, i. e. improperly so called, could claim under no such promise: they had become branches to be broken off; and hence they became strangers to the COVENANT OF promise.

If we now turn to St. Peter (1 Eph. i. 12), we shall find him affirming, that the ministrations of the Prophets had respect solely to the salvation of Christ, and to the times of the Apostolic teaching of it. "Of which salvation," says he," the Prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you.... Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but UNTO US they did minister the things, which are NOW reported unto you." According to this, the Prophets ministered to nothing beyond Apostolical Christianity. They do not seem-i. e. as explained to us by the Apostles to have had any idea whatever of any future restoration of Jews, Christian Millennium, new Dispensation, personal reign of Christ on earth, or of any thing of the kind. And certainly, both St. Paul and St. John anathematize every thing else; the former, even if preached by an angel from heaven.

And once more, "To him" (says St. Peter, Acts x. 43) “give ALL the prophets witness," &c. And (ib. iii. 24), " Yea, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold THESE THINGS." And so our blessed Lord (Luke xxi. 22), "THESE be THE DAYS of vengeance, that ALL THINGS which are written may be fulfilled,” (i. e. within them of necessity). We have here, therefore, the fullest testimony, that, to these times, and to the things which should, and did, take place within them, all the Prophets from first to last, had given witness. But, Did they testify to any other times? Yes, say the rejected Jews who remain wilfully blind, they have also foretold those of our restoration, of a Millennium, &c., and so says the Judaïzing and prophesying school of Mr. Mede: and this, say they both, We can prove by our Cabbala; we can shew by our year-day-theory, &c., when—even to a month, nay, to a day-this shall take place: besides, add the latter, it is quite certain from the inefficiency of Christianity as we now have it, and from the consequences of this visible in the world, that the Prophets did speak of days which the Apostles