"Who sav'd his country? who her greatest friend? And Fame shall sound thy praise from pole to pole." The British Tully is here plainly displayed; but the bard has foreborne to pourtray the British Catiline. MISCELLANIES. A Letter to a Friend, occasioned by the Death of the late Right Honourable William Pitt. 8vo. Pr. 24. Hatchard. 1806. THE writer of this Letter is evidently a pious man, who seeks to convince Ministers that, in governing the kingdom, they should not court the favour of man, but seek to do that which is pleasing to God. This is, certainly, most true in the abstract; but he presses the point too far, and seems to think, that the Minister who conscientiously makes the welfare of his country the primary object of his pursuits, is guilty of sin, and does that which is offensive to the Almighty. At least so we understand him to mean, in the following passage: "With what distinctness does he perceive that, were a Country to be saved by exertions, neither produced by, nor directed by the love of God, stupendous as they might be in their own magnitude, and in the evidence which they carried with them of zeal, intelligence and wisdom, in the sight of God they would be not only unavailing, but offensive; that should the most extraordinary benefits be conferred on mankind, by labours founded on the desire of fame, or of any other earthly attainment which they sought, and would have no reward from our Father who is in heaven.'" We take leave to ask the author, whether if a Minister who, in all respects, leads a good and Christian life, adopt means for the defence of his Country, which are perfectly consistent with justice, and in no respect contrary to the precepts or known will of the Deity, although the love of God may not have been his motive for the adoption of such means, his conduct can be considered as offensive to God? We should wish to know what part of the Gospel can be brought in support of a supposition which appears to us monstrous in itself, and repugnant to that charity which Christ preached and practised. Surely the desire of fame, if sought to be gratified only by promoting the welfare of, and conferring the most extraordinary benefits on, mankind, is by no means incompatible with the love of God!. Either the author has not clearly expressed his meaning, or he meant that which he is utterly unable to justify. A Synoptical Compendium of British Botany (from the Class Monandria to 1806. THIS is an abridged translation of Dr. Smith's work, and contains only a tabular view of 407 genera. What use such an imperfect epitome can be to the young student of botany, we are at a loss to conceive, as he will not find any description of the greater part of those flowers which are more common in our gardens, than those indigenous to the country.That a complete system, thus reduced to tables in the manner here adopted, would have been very useful, we can readily believe, particularly as the tables are neatly executed; but that only part of such vegetables as are natives of Britain, must be of little service either to the young or experienced botanist, we can as easily determine. Nor do we think that a compendium of undefined terms can ever be useful to young students; and the more experienced will always look on it with contempt. Bowni. cal science, we fear, will be little advanced by the well-meant labours of this Linnean Associate, who may perhaps find himself better pleased with his work than with the returns of publication. REVIEWERS REVIEWED. FABER'S DISSERTATION ON THE 1260 YEARS AND THE MONTHLY SIR, Stockton-upon-Tees, June 4, 1806. I HAVE been favoured with a sight of the opinion entertained of my Dissertation on the 1260 Years, by the Editor of the Monthly Review; and shall feel myself much chliged to you to insert, in The Anti-Jacobin Review, the following remarks upon it. Speaking of the various attempts to elucidate the Prophecies of Daniel and St. John, this person observes :-"How many have ventured to interpret the hieroglyphic symbols contained in these books, and to assign the fulfilment of the prophecies which they contain, to particular periods and events; and how remarkably have their expectations been falsified by. the mere progress of time, and their lofty speculations been shewn to be the mere figments of opinion! Numbers of learned men have engaged in this daring enterprize; and, when we advert to the wild fancies which they have promulgated, we know not whether we should wonder most at their their presumption, or at their weakness. Hitherto all attempts appear to have completely failed; and nothing that was in the least degree satis. factory to the man of sense and sound judgment has been produced *.” com Unless 1 quite mistake the import of this decisive passage, all commen. tators on Daniel and St. John are condemned in the lump; every attempt appears to have completely failed, and nothing has been produced at all satisfactory to a man of sense and sound judgment, by which, I suppose, the Editor means himself. Thus are we modestly required to give up in toto, as wholly abhorrent even from common sense, the writings of the venerable Mede, the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton, the cautious and accurate Bishop Newton, and all others who have written on the same subject, merely because the Editor of The Monthly Review assures us, that he disapproves of them, and "knows not whether we should wonder most at their presumption, or at their weakness." As for the reasms why their commentaries are to be thus unceremoniously discarded, as having pletely failed," I cannot discover that he gives any beyond his own fiat, except, indeed, the following one, namely, "that every interpretation, which every one of them has advanced, is to be set aside, because some of them have been mistaken in assigning the proper date to the 1260 years." Thus the event has shewn that Mede was mistaken in his date; and, therefore, according to the stupendous logic of this Editor, not only all bis interpretations must be given up, but likewise all those of Bishop Newton, whom the event has not yet shewn to be mistaken in his date. Unless, however, I greatly err, neither Mede, nor Newton, nor myself, nor any other commentator, ever thought of peremptorily asserting that the 1260 years must necessarily be dated from such or such a period: we merely pitched upon that which respectively appeared to us the most probable. But, why every interpretation must "appear to have completely failed," because a commentator is mistaken in a date, I possess not critical acumen enough to discover. A man, for instance, may be perfectly right in pronouncing that the little horn of Daniel's fourth beast is the Papacy, and perfectly wrong in assigning the date of that period during which the Saints are to be given into its hand. His error in the latter point will not prove him wrong in his opinion on the former point; and still less can we allow, that the error in question will prove him wrong in his interpretation of other prophecies no way connected with the 1260 years.— The Editor, however, seems to have taken up the crude fancy, that, because some commentators have been mistaken in dating this period, therefore "all attempts to elucidate the prophecies of Daniel and St. John, appear to have completely failed:" in other words (for a single application of this argument will suffice), Mr. Mede has erred in dating the 1260 years: therefore not only he, but likewise Sir Isaac and Bishop Newton, and all other commentators who have written on the subject, have erred in supposing the four beasts, in Dan. vii. to symbolize the four empires: for, if they have not erred in thus interpreting the four beasts, their attempts have not "completely failed." Whatever opinion the Editor may entertain of commentators, I fear such reasoning as this will not be "in the least degree satisfactory to the man of sense and sound Monthly Review, May, 1806, page 72. judgment," judgment," unless, indeed, his sense and his judgment resemble those of the contriver of this argument. But, because hitherto all attempts appear to have completely failed," are we to conclude that Daniel and St. John are inexplicable? By n means, says the Editor. How then are we to attain to a right under. standing of them? He assures us, that he has "often endeavoured to repress this extravagance, this quixotism of exposition, this unwarrant able liberty of interpretation;" and he now with a solemn visage recommends every attempt to be laid aside, until when? why until some highly fa. youred person shall receive inspiration from above for that purpose; for his "wonder is, that Mr. Faber should not have doubted his incapacity, unless he had received some express illumination for the purpose." This project of the ingenious Editor, that no man is to undertake to explain the mysteries of prophecy, without a new light from the fountain of inspiration," will, to be sure, clip the wings of many a soaring commentator, both ancient and modern; and, whatever other merit it may have, it certainly possesses that of genuine originality. Till now I had always understood, that prophecies were revealed by divine inspiration; but that they were to be explained by human diligence and observation, by the study of history, and by comparings things that have come to pass, with things foretold. The Editor of The Monthly Review, however, assures us (and who shall dispute the assertion of a man, who requires us to give up every commentator, because he, the said Editor, declares that we ought to do so?) that this is quite a mistake, and that prophecy must not only be revealed by divine inspira tion, but must be expounded by divine inspiration likewise. I had sup posed, that St. John's exhortation, to read and hear the words of his prophecy, was a sufficient sanction, even for an aninspired man to attempt to understand it; more especially since I could find no promise of com mentatorial inspiration, either in the Apocalypse, or in Daniel; and I be lieve all my predecessors supposed the same. A new light, however, is now thrown on the requisite accomplishments of an expositor; and it is to be hoped that posterity will profit by the discovery of the sagacious Editor. He fears, that "Christians of foreign communions will be offended at the presumptuous ground which we take;" and thinks, that "we im. peach both our judgment and liberality," (the more the pity) in confining the prophecies of Daniel and St. John as we do, instead of taking in America, and China, and Hindostan. That the Papists will be offended, I doubt not; but is the Editor so grossly ignorant of the subject on which he so peremptorily gives his opinion, as to require to be told, that there are commentators on those prophecies among foreign Protestants, who apply them much in the same manner as our English commentators do? China, and America, and Hindostan, however, ought surely not to be illiberally excluded, so as "to obtain notice among the hieroglyphic symbols." Alas! what would Mede, and the two Newtons, have thought of such a critic? He contends, that days in prophecy do not denote years, and is dissatisfied with the texts to which I refer. Will he be better pleased with Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks: which, if understood to speak of mere natural weeks, never was accomplished; but, if understood to speak of prophetic weeks, or 490 years, was fully accomplished? Or, if this will not do, will he be satisfied that the ten days of persecution of the Church of Smyrna mean ten years? He seems almost to fancy that I was the inventor of this mode of interpreting the prophetic days, if I may judge by his "exclamations of astonishment;" otherwise why should he be so marvellously surprized at my adopting the opinion of, I believe, all my Protestant predecessors? This shews how admirably calculated he is to review a work on prophecy. Mete ignorance, however, I can pardon; and even his petulant declaration, that our Medes and our New. tons have produced nothing" in the least degree satisfactory to the man of sense and sound judgment," I can look over: but the contemptuous levity with which he speaks of "the strange hieroglyphics of Daniel, and the still stranger which occur in the Apocalypse," deserves and will receive the reprobation of every believer. 66 In denying various assumptions of mine, as he calls them, he denies for the most part, perhaps, indeed, unconsciously (happy ignorance!) not my assumptions, but those of all who have written on the subject. If, how ever, it be a mere gratis dictum (a single instance will suffice), that the feet of the image branching out into ten toes, the fourth beast with ten horns, and the apocalyptic beast with seven heads and ten horns, are designed to symbolize the same power; if, I say, this be considered as a mere unwarranted assumption, we must indeed take the Editor's advice, and wait for inspiration. Nevertheless I can tell him, that men, whose judgment some will be perversely inclined to prefer to that even of the Monthly Reviewer, Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton, not to mention many others, have considered this point to be so indisputable as to require no proof. He says, that I maintain the year 1866, which is probably the last year of the 1260 years, to be the first year of the Millennium. I maintain no such thing. On the contrary, I stated on the authority of Daniel, that 75 years would elapse between the end of the 1260 years, and the commencement of the Millennium. Neither did I assert that Popery and Mobammedanism would be destroyed; or that Palestine would again be occupied by the Jews in that year. I only stated, that, if I were right in my date of the 1260 years, which I presumed not positively to say that I was, the seventh vial would be poured out in that year, the restoration of the Jews would commence, and the series of events predicted in Dan. xi. 40-45, would begin to be accomplished. Judgment will then only go forth against the enemies of God: a considerable space of time, probably 30 years, will elapse before it is finally executed, and before the tribe of Judah is completely restored. He says, that "in the unfigurative parts of the New Testament the restoration of the Jews is not mentioned, and it is not easy to perceive what good effect it would be calculated to produce. St. Paul states, that the blind. ness which has befallen" them is to be removed; but he does not intimate that, on their embracing Christianity, they are to be reinstated in * Rev. ii. io. the |
