Occasional remarks: addressed to Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, M.P. in answer to his late pamphlet, entitled A calculation on the commencement of the millenium, &c. With cursory observations on that gentleman's speech in the House of Commons, March 31st, 1795, respecting the pretended prophecies of Richard Brothers, by George Horne, D.D. ... 1795
Oulton, Walley Chamberlain
 HALHED, *Efq. _ 1 2 1 4) i = 1 o 5 : + % | : * 4 p nf * * : * * . F — = [1 —_ - . ——ä ap-<cwny ow ? E ö 4 — Ly : | 1 8 W. F ky C „ 4 * /. 2 8 * | OCCASIONAL REMARKS: ' ana | NAT HANIEL BRASSEY HALHED, M. P IN ANSWER TO HIS LATE PAMPHLET, ENTITLED A CALCULATION ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MILLENIUM, &c. WITH CURSORY OBSERVATIONS | | ox THAT GENTLEMAN's SPEECH IN THE | HOUSE OF COMMONS, March giſt, 1795, | RESPECTING THE PRETENDED PROPHECIES or | s RICHARD BROTHERS, By GEORGE HORNE, D. D. AUTHOR OF SOUND ARGUMENT, DICTATED BY COMMON | Fg | SENSE, &c. 4, | « Ears have ye, and hear not- % Neither will ye underſtand.” — — — — OXFORD! PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, And ſold in London by T. Booſey, Old Broad Street 3 J. Lee, New Street, Covent Garden; J. Binns, Leeds; J. Hurſt, Wakefield ; Mudie and Son, Edinburgh; N. Rellaſon, Coventry; and W. Briſtow, Canterbury. + 4 :, 4 9 : U 3 1 - * * : 2 n ” , 70 N 4 * v7 2 ? * 4 « 35 * , K 1 3 1 +4 N 7 6 1 = 4 | : ** "ws = 1 . , 8 * r (2 —. & 7 o = i i$ 4 e : ** 1 = y © 17 ip ins + wv * j £ 4 2 4 = 0 3 h * L 1 (7 = ö 51 Lt 8 ** , * 1 * k 4 ' A 1 4 ' i | F * * 1 4 * þ iN _ £ N * ' ? v N +1 'S- 2 \ 1 15 5 +3 * N * * 3 My bi v4 PS q 1 l CY Ny 4 N * * K ( 78 w es 1 \3 4 2 2 4 4. 4 y + ” | . 4 3 4 po 4 T 2 0 * 4 5 i 6 i: Bs ? 4 — — 5 1 G * — *. * * o » 2 0 2 U 0 4 o - . . "0 5 of *. » - * * ? 1 - 4 * i * 4 — — . . * s *. * 5 4 * , "Y A - -. * 0 9 * * * — * - > bY 9. * * 1 * % = % * a. * - 7 i oy q — + — —. . P .— K 0 by ; * ® * . s F 0 » - * 7 + 7. 4 - , *. ; * -. OCCASIONAL REMARKS, &c. — U— 3 'T nouvcnH I am conſcious that I can derive but little credit from a controverſy on a ſubje& ſo futile and contemptible, as the pretended inſpi- ration of Mr. Brothers, yet as Mr. Halhed has wrote what indeed he truly terms A Short Reply, wherein he has endeavoured to ſet aſide a ſe- rious confutation, I think it my duty to reſume my pen, and convince an impartial public, (not- withſtanding Mr. Halhed's partiality to Mr. Brothers), that the whole of that pamphlet, entitled © A Calculation of the Millenium, &c.“ is incon- filtent, and repugnant to Divine Revelation. | This writer, aſſuming a certain degree of conſe- g. commences with Ob- ſervations on the Millenium, a doctrine I know | ſupported by ſome, particularly the late Dr. | Whiſton, a divine whom I'preſume Mr. Halhed will readily admit to be a man of learning.—Dr. N 1 Whiſton quenee in his undertakin ESI Whiſton alſo made a calculation—but mark the event the period which the learned Door fig- niſied for this heavenly change upon earth, was the year 1720—this is ſeventy five years ago, but the earth remains exactly in the ſame terreſtrial ſtate it was, prior to the birth of the learned prognoſl:- cator, —For my part I candidly acknowledge that I have not diſcovered one paflage in the revealed word, either under the Jewiſh or Chriſtian diſpen— ſation, that authorizes ſuch an idea. And it ap- pears evident to me, that the 20th and 21ſt chap. ters of the Apocalypſe, are emblematical deſcrip- tions of the happineſs which the ſaints are to en- joy in heaven after the reſurrection; for unleſs we give it this interpretation, we have no view in all this comprehenſive prophecy of the final cataſtro- phe of terreſtrial things. The new keaven and the new earth are, therefore, expreſſions, I think, to de- note the everlaſtingtriumphs of Chriſtianity : and the thouſand years an intimation that the church ſhould be at reſt a long time. In the 2d epiſtle of St. Peter, chap. ili, v. 13, a new heaven and a new earth are mentioned as a renovation of all things, 2 new and perfect ſtate, and in the- Old Teſtament, ' the prophet Iſaiah repeatedly uſes the terms as an application to the church of Chrilt, Several of our (.# [1 our commentators upon the 21ſt chapter of the Revelation (And I John ſaw the holy city, New Feruſalem, Sc.) think he ſaw in the viſion an appearance of a city, which ſeemed to be let down from heaven, and appeared pendent, as it were, in the air, and in ſuch a view, that the foun- dations were viſibly diſtinguiſhable from the ſuper- ſtrudure; and this he conſidered not as actually the abode of the bleſſed, but as a figurative repre- ſentation of the holineſs and felicity in which they were to dwell ; ſo that it was a type of what the church itſelf ſhould be. On this ſubject it need only be obſerved, that as the firſt believers of the Millenium failed in their computation, little credit can be paid to the future eſſays of others. In the Short Reply which Mr. Halhed has given as an anſwer to ſome of my aſſertions, we muſt excuſe a little apparent warmth in his expreſ- ſions: not being able to confute my arguments, he harps upon a ſuppoſetion, and does not conſider, that in ſo doing, he rails at much greater authorities than me; Lowth, Newton, Clerk, &c. underſtood Greek I preſume, and yet THzy were inclined to think that the mention of the Spirit deſcending like a Dove was like not in form but deſcent; the Greek word © being a reference not to the ſhape but man- B 2 | ner, 77 . * ek es "a * 7 ec ymq ot - 3 ner, and it was their opinion, as the goſpel, parti. cularly of St. Luke, had during the writers perſe- cutions ſuffered much by various tranſcripts, that their bibliographers were guilty of ſeveral errors, Kc. But we will allow, that the Holy Spirit was, bond fide, in the ſhape of a Dove. Mark the humi- lity of Richard Brothers, who ſays, * it appeared to him in the identical ſhape which it did to our « blefſed Redeemer,” and in the ſame ſentence declares, it was larger than a Dove” ! Does not the prophet give himſelf the lie? Is it pol- ſible, that Mr. Halhed ſeriouſly ſuppoſes, that Dr. Clerk could not read the goſpel in Engliſh, when he confuted Dr. Whiſton, the only divine that ever attempted to prove that the mother of Jeſus had ſons and daughters ? Yet we read that Dr. Whiſ- ton, finding his probats inſufficient, chearfully gave up the point. OrxLxy, in his pamphlet, (which otherwiſe 1s unworthy of notice) accuſes me for herein differing from every other perſon who holds the trinitarian belief—but it is evident, this writer never read the produttions of any of our eminent divines, who go upon the authorities of St. Jerome, St. Chryſoſtom, &c. Had he even looked out for the article Brother in any of our common dictionaries, he would bave found I was not (s) not ſingular in my opinion. For the future, I adviſe this writer to think -before he ſpeaks; and read before he writes again. He further repro- bates the idea of Moſes being a learned man, but I will appeal to Mr. Brothers himſelf, if it be not the opinion of all the Jews? A grant that Moſes was a meek man, and ſlow of fpeech ; and if Mr. Offley could have attended to what he did read, he might have ſeen it ſo acknowledged in © Sound “ Argument.” But when Moſes received the divine miſſion, he was endued with a ſufficient power and eloquence to accompliſh the taſk. If Moſes had not been ſkilled in the oriental languages, he could not have ſtood before the King of Egypt to addreſs him and contend with the magicians, &c. The goſpel of St. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and the word which we tranſlate firſt born in chap. i. has a very extenſive ſignification, and may allude to the majeſty and honour of our Redeemer;—but even if we take it in our oun ſenſe, L think Mr. Halhed has given his £860 without a WU ERETOR .- Beſides, Mr. Brothers calls 4 AMES the ELDEST ſon of Mary—ergo, he cannot be the $E£cOND-BORN., The word firſt-born here im- plies that Mary had no children before, not that ſhe _ a any ofterward5,—it 1 is a juſtification of the pro- Ps 6 pou ; — iS, a Gary 1 — * —U—ä M: a — « * a CA as ae __ — 4 * EE 2 — — va 5 S g a e pattie a ot oo * d 2, 43 gr : . i 7 8 ”—_— n —— * SF . aret a, — 3 5 GET IT — — x" - 2 2 a - K r * * 2 * , * 2222 NR | r 4869 phecy, that Jefus ſhould be born of 4 virgin. 1 fhall, however, for Mr. Halhed's ſatisfaction, en- ter into this point more largely, to ſhew, that up- on ſcripture authority we have every reaſon to believe, that James, &c. were the children of Mary the wife'of Cleophas, and fiſter of the bleſſed. Virgin—ergo, the Lord's firſt couſins, according to our appellation. We read of three of the name of Mary—viz. Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary the wife of Joſeph and mother of our Lord, St. John, chap. xix. v. 25. Now, the other Evangeliſts, when they mention g Mary the mother of James, &c. would they not, think you, have ſaid in preference the mother of Feſus, if it was to her they alluded ? See St, Mat- thew, chap. xxvii. v. 56. St. Mark, chap. xv. v. 40, and St. Luke, chap. xxiv- v. 10. If, allo, our Saviour had afually brothers, is it not natural to ſuppoſe, that he would have committed the care of his mother to them, and not to St. John, wha was the youngeſt of all the apoſtles? In ſhort, we have no authority to ſay that the mother of Teſus had any ſons and daughters, or certainly more particular mention would have been made of them. A writer indeed to prove that the terms of mother, father, brother, &c. are indiſcriminately uſed 1 — p uſed in the ſcripture, as endearing names, obſerves that our Saviour recommended his mother to St. John, amidſt his ſufferings, thus, {© Behold 1h «© mother.” However, as mention is made by St. Matthew, of the mother of Zebedee's children, and this Zebedee is ſuppoſed to be the father of St. John, both mothers might have been preſent, and the ſenſe here ſpoiled by the diviſion of verſes, St. John, chap. xix. v. 25, 26. Chriſt when he be- gan to teach the doctors in the temple was only twelve years of age—mention is then made of his brothers and ſiſters, ſo chat it is morally impoſſible they could be brothers and ſiſters according to our lenſe if they were, then, as I intimated in © Sound « Argument,” they mult have been too young, ei- ther to have followed our Saviour, or defired a conference with him. In ſhort, upon clole in- veſtigation, we muſt agree with St. Jerome and others, I cannot overlook the ingenious remark of Mr. | Halhed, where he ſays, that St. Matthew wrote his goſpel after the reſurrection, &c. of our Savi- our—ergo, the firſt chapter which treats of his birth and genealogy, and is in ſhort an introduttion to the hiſtory of dur Saviour, before his divine ma- nifeſtation is to record facts er ſure reaſon was allcep 2 2 9 * I e 8 2 — EEG 7 — * 8 4 o - þ of - —. 2 — — 4 8 4 * 8 vr 2-5 — — —_—— a—_—_ "—_— — *w — 2 * 8 -— - « * 63 4 "a FEATS ITT OITEWTTT JE ES ES. ee. ot £7 Ent Corman, ach % | EE aſleep when this ſagacious obſervation was made, Every one muſt know, that the Evangelift would not have been competent to the taſk, if he had not been a witneſs of all. But what writer is that, who could begin with events of a poſt-date? As M r. Halhed has thought proper to cenſure my writings, as wanting ſomething of the gentleman, I beg leave to requeſt the impartial reader to compare my « Sound Argument” with Mr. Halhed's Short Re- ply, and candour will determine who is more abuſive, more ſelf-ſufficient! And as the learned writer (Mr. Halhed) underſtands Greek, and can alſo read the goſpel in Engliſh,. I cannot ſuppreſs my ſurprize that Mr. Halhed himſelf does not write better En- gliſh in ſo sRoRT a Reply ;—ſuch a“ confuſion of tenſes, ſuch a miſerablet arrangement of words, breathe very little erudition, and leſs indeed of the ſcholar! It will be neceſſary, that Mr. Halhed may ſee the difference between an aſſertion and a ſuggeſtion, to take notice here of what I did aflert, and | which I already diſcover Mr. Halhed is incapable of anſwering. * E. g. Who fall, at the ſame time, Rave obſerved, &c. + E. g. Which I knew before he took up his pen about as well as Dr. Horne, &c, , (. 9 I. I afferted, that the old interpretation (as Mr. Halhed is pleaſed to term it) of Daniel's vi- fions, as it points out the full accompliſhment of thoſe prophecies, is much preferable to any new that can now be given. | II. That Mr. Brothers's declaration that he 1s the prophet which Moſes promiſed, is falſe and im- pious, for reaſons already given, which reaſons Mr. Halhed could not anſwer. III. That our bleſſed Saviour is the prophet alluded to by Moles, for reaſons already given, which fully demonſtrate their ſimilitude, and be- cauſe Chriſt himſelf refers the Jews to the teſti- mony of Moſes. IV. That the ſpirit of prophecy has ceaſed with the power of working miracles, both being now unneceſſary, as the will of God is already revealed, This aſſertion being a fact, it muſt, therefore, be evident, that all who pretend to gifts of prophecy» are either inſane or impoſtors, and that all who be- leve in dreams, are weak and credulous ; there being no longer occaſion for thoſe inſtruments | whereby God was graciouſly pleaſed to make known his ſacred will, it being already revealed i in the boly Rue | 8 * T0 0 x a P ²˙ OP. — 2%. A -- — OT ea T1 SE ES ee . RE ter 4 _—— — ——————— — UÄ— — ä́Äê— fins, 2 — ; . * x — 60109 V. That it is not expreſsly mentioned in the goſpel, that Mary- the mother of Jeſus, had ſons and daughters ; if it was, why all theſe doubts or argument, and why did Dr, Whiſton waver in his opinion ? | In addition to theſe aſſertions I ſhall take the liberty to advance others - bbut do not intend to trouble Mr. Halhed with any more ſuppoſitions, as perhaps if that gentleman ſhould unfortunately be tempted to reſume his pen, my aſſertions and ſuppoſitions may, for brevity”s fake, be hurled into one undiſtinguiſhed maſs. But to proceed. - I aſſert, that Mr. Brothers has given ſufficient reaſon to think, that he does not underſtand what a prophecy is; and I have great reaſon to doubt whether any one of his advocates comprehend its true meaning. However, it is charitable to in- ſtruct the ignorant. A prophecy never was found- ed upon another's prophecy—yet Mr. Brothers builds all his prophecies upon thoſe of Daniel, &c. he ſhould, therefore, term himſelf an interpreter, not a prophet—but even if he did, common ſenſe muſt rejett the pretence, ſeeing that if prophecies are not fulfilled, no perſon was ever commiſſi- . oned to explain them, becauſe a knowledge of human events would overturn the whole ſyſtem al 41 of life and action, it never was, therefore, the divine pleaſure, that the fulfilment ſhould be anti- cipated, as that would be a degradation to divine omnipotence, the intimations of future events were to be hereafter proofs of the Chriſtian revelation, but not to retard action not to diſmay us from our prelent purſuits, for if retarded or diſmayed, what divine power could then appear in the accompliſh- ment? The intention of a prophecy is to confirm the truth of revelation— this is already done, and therefore its utility ceaſeth. When we conſider then the intent, and its preſent inutility ; when, | moreover, we conſider the impoſſibility of diſco- vering prophecies, if they are not yet accompliſh- ed, mult it not be agreed, that neither Mr. Brothers, nor his advocates, underſtand what a prophet is lor a prophet's words ſhould be or:g:nal—and what is more, though it may ſeem paradoxical, obſcure, (otherwiſe it would deſtroy action) that when it is accompliſhed, divine wiſdom may be more mani- feſt! All the prophetic writings are obſcure, be- ing deſigned for the inſtruction of ſuture ages, not for the times preſent ; otherwiſe, as Biſhop New- ton obſerves, our actions would not be fo free; ſome would be for haſtening the accompliſhment, others for defeating it, and God's providence, of C 2 Courſe, — — — rr % * 2288 28 2 > K 3 5 For,” 2 D * 5 +4 " 4 s — " E _— Ce oe - "i * AY Þ. 4 Fi PET a 77 Eo 2 — : * * dern — — __— zz — . ⏑ — EP In —  conſpicuous in their com- pletion. The deſigns of Providence are hidden and inſerutable ; they are not for the eyes of man: vain, therefore, preſumptuous, and impious, are 1 they that pretend to unlock them with Ax v key. If the old interpretation of Daniel's viſions, be not the fact, and that they remain ſtill to be ful- filled, time alone, and not Mr. Brothers, or any * other of his perſuaſion, can aſcertain them. | I affert, alſo, that the prophets of old, gave am- ple teſtimonies themſelves of their divine inſpira- tion, being, by the ſame power that commiſſioned them, endued with the ability of diſplaying ſuch extraordinary miracles as ſufficiently declared their eminence. They did not ſeck the teſtimony of other men; they never promiſed to work mi- | racles, but wrought them inſtanty to promile, and to perform, are as oppoſite as to aſlert, and to ſuppoſe; and even if a miracle be performed, that has been long promiſed, the wonder is dimi- niſhed by anticipation, Theſe aſſertions I recommend to Mr. Halhed's ſcrious conſideration, and ſhall now make ſome deſultory remarks on thoſe additional declarations which he has been pleaſed to publiſh, pro malo publics ! | | | | I cant. \ ( 18) I cannot but notice in the firſt place, that Mr. Halhed declares he will demoliſh, all together, the expoſition of certain former clear ſighted divines, reſpeQing the viſions of Daniel; becauſe Mr. Hal- hed is battered and annoyed with their interpre- tation. 1 am ſorry that a plain tale ſhould put any perſon to confuſion, for all the ingenuity of Mr, Halhed ſerves but to enhance its plauſibility. Notwithſtanding the ſagacity of Mr. Halhed, in diſcovering that ha is the ſuture tenſe, I inſiſt upon it, that the four ſucceſſive monarchies already mentioned, and which are ſo underſtood by all commentators, are thoſe alluded to by. the. four | beaſts. Io ſupport this aſſertion, take the fol- lowing reaſons. We find that Daniel (as in his 8th chapter) was in Sheſhun, a chief city in the province of Elam, which is in Perſia, though he dates the viſion which appeared to him in the third year of BeHhaz- zar. Daniel was in Babylon called to expound the hand-writing, when the city was taken, chap. v. ver. 13, &c. But, when Darius the Median had taken Babylon, and had ſo enlarged his dominions by the kingdom of Babylon, he for the better go vernment of che whole, ſet over the affairs of the kingdom, one hundred and twenty princes, and three —— —-— — ——— * =” — 0 Li [ + (i 4 2 iS "F rs * 'F 4 * 1 * f iy 13 1 5 & *Z ; * 4 85 1 4 \\B. 1 4 I». * 1 iN 1 * 7 $7 N 1 ( 14 ) three preſidents over them, of whom he made Daniel chief; ſo that there is great reaſon why he ſhould be in the royal city of Shuſhan. But this event happening in the third year of the reign of Belſhazzar, Danicl dates the viſion that year, though he was in Perſia when he ſaw it. In the firſt of this reign, chap, vii. God ſhewed in viſion unto Daniel, under the repreſentation of four beaſts, the four monarchies which ſhould rule in thoſe parts of the world, God having before ſhew- ed,. by Jeremiah, chap. xxv. ver. 11. the ſuffer- ings of his church under the „rt of theſe, for ſe- venty years; the ending of that monarchy, and the ſeventy years, were to be together in the ſelf-ſame year, which was allo to fall out in the reign of N e- buchadnazzar's grandſon, | Jeremiah, chap. xxvii. ver. 7, which was this Belſhazzar. Now in the laft of this Belſhazzar and the firſt of the Medes and Perſians, God ſhewed to Daniel how. long the church was to ſuffer under the three that were to ſucceed. Daniel, chap. vii. ver. 27, &c. and Pſalm rxii. Well might theſe heavy tidings occaſion the countenance of the prophet Daniel to change, by the trouble of his mind about this matter, as the repetition after, chap. viii. ver. 19, 26. in the de- ſcription of the three that were to reign, cauſed him tO ( 15 )) to faint even to ſickneſs for certain days ;* fo diſ. treſſed was the prophet in mind and in ſpirit, as he had expected that in this very year the church of God would experience a deliverance, for Daniel, chap. ix. underſtood, by the books of Jeremiah, that the end of the ſeventy years would happen in the firſt of Darius, together with God's providence in ending the firſt monarchy, Jeremiah, xxvii. ver. 7—they being at a loſs, at which of the three go- ings into captivity to head that number before, for there were three goings into captivity. 2 Chron. chap, xxxvi. ver. 6, 10, 17. But I ſhall enter more fully upon this ſubjeR, for the further inſtruction and confutation of all the would-be prophets of the preſent age! And firſt, I muſt premiſe that it is quite immaterial to enquire now much of this time is run out, in and under cach of theſe monarchies; there being ſo much time allotted by divine appointment for the whole x b. | * How different the modern prophets are from the anci- ent! The latter were frequently troubled, and for ſome time unacquainted with the interpretations of their viſions—but the wiſe men of the preſent day, are remarkable for their compoſure and aſfability they are never diſtreſſed in mind they never faint even to ſickneſs, but on the contrary, re- probate the idea of faſt days, and mourning. Nay, what is more, they underſtand their viſions as ſoon as they appear! Ir " 8 = s — h ES=I — — £ * 2 — "ex , „ - X 51% . ̃ Q EIT nn. eee dd x ati TE - i - „„ „ — Cf G I ” * Wo.” hy Ee 2 — — — * { 16 9 it is ſuſũcient to find the time as carried on in the ſcripture. And this account may be reckoned up thus. . 5 Firſt. We are to conſider the twenty- one years after the ſeventy years, expired in the ending of the Babylonian monarchy ; which was the time of Darius's reign, after he took Babylon, before Cyrus came to che throne ; who was foretold by Iſaiah, chap. xliv. ver. 28. to be the perſon who ſhould let go God's captives, and who accordingly did, Ezra i. The following is the ſcripture ac- count. _ The Medes and Perſians were but one monarchy, The government was in the ſeed of the Medes, at the time that Babylon was taken. Daniel, chap. v. ver. 31, and chap. ix. Darius was ſixty-two years old when he took Ba- bylon,* Daniel, chap. v. ver. 31. So that he might well reign twenty-one years more, for that amounts only to eighty-three, which was a common age. We alſo find that he ordered over the affairs of the kingdom, one hundred and twenty princes, and three preſidents, &c. Alſo by the motion of theſe * Surc there is ſome reafon for the prophet having na- dified this. | | prince: (19 princes, the king/made a law, which being as per- manent as thoſe of the Medes and Perſians, was the cauſe of Daniel's being thrown into the den of lions. Chap. vi. Upon Daniel's miraculous deliverance, the king made a decree to own the God of Daniel, and pub- liſhed it through all his dominions. Now theſe tranſactions muſt have taken up ſome time, and Daniel is ſaid to proſper all his reign. The prophet gives us the deſcription of this mo- narchy, under the ram. He tells us, that the two korns came up one after another, and the laſt grew higheſt, which was Cyrus @ Perſian. The mode of his aſcending the throne, I will not pretend to aſcertain, ſceing that in this point hiſtorians differ materially. Some think it was by conqueſt, others by marriage, or {ome natural alliance, which latter opinion is more likely: it is, however, proved by the ſcriptures, that he pi aſcend the thrane. Now theſe twenty-one years, are indubitably the twenty-ane days (a day for a year) that the Prince of the kingdom of Perſia withſtood him: Dan. chap. x. ver. 13- In the ninth chapter, we find that Daniel, after le had underſtood, by books, the expiration of the feventy years caplivity, under the Babylonians, „ ſets _ — — 223 — * *2 »- * \F P 5 EN "h kt j "4 4 +3 .» Fo | *% * * # 'Þ 1 s is 5 * * 15 it ſets himſelf to pray for mercy * deliverance, and hath no other anſwer than the viſion of ſeventy weeks, and the diviſion of them; which account was to begin from the going forth of the command- ment, to build the city of Jeruſalem: ſeven weeks it ſhould be building, and built ſixty-two to the Meſſiah, and in the midlt of the laſt week, the Meſſiah ſhould be crucified. So that in all this, | there is no direQ anſwer to Daniel's prayer for preſent deliverance. Now, as this prayer was in the firſt year of Darius, that is, not of his being a king, but his taking Babylon, and ſo being con- cerned with the church of God, we find that Da- niel, though advanced in years, ſets himſelf to pray again, chap. x. in the third of Cyrus; and is told that God was not unmindful of his prayer, but that deliverance was not yet to come. © The prince e of the kingdom of Perſia,” not the prince of Perſia, but of the kingdom, ſignifying Darius, who, though he was of the ſeed of the Medes, was prince of the kingdom of Perſia, © withſtood him,” that is, had not ſuffered Iſrael to go, though he had ſtrengthened him in his kingdom, chap. xi. ver. 1. This third year of Cyrus, might poſſibly be the firſt of his abſolute reign, for as Darius was old, 1t 1s probable that he might baye ruled two years under ( 19 ) under him; becauſe in the laſt chapter of the ſe- cond book of Chronicles, and the firſt-ofEzra, it 1s mentioned, That Cyrus in the firſt year of his reign, let Iſrael go; ſo that, probably, Daniel died in the firft year of the abſolute reign of Cyrus. The building of the temple in the time of Cyrus met with interruptions, but the people having renewed their labour, it was finiſhed in four. years; that is, the ſixth of the reign of Darius, Ezra, chap. vi. ver. 14, &c. The time which was here employ - ed, the prophet Zechariah tells us, is ſeventy years, chap. i. Now as the work was revived after ſe- venty years, in the ſecond of Darius, ſo it was fi- niſhed in his ſixth and laſt year. Artaxerxes then ſucceeded, and in the ſeventh of his reign beauti- fied the temple, and furniſhed it with ſacrifices, Ezra, chap, vii. ver. 21, &c. In the twentieth of his reign, another decree is ifſued to build the city, Neh. chap. ii. and here begins Daniel's ſe- venty weeks of years; and, by adding the ſeven- ty weeks of years, to the death of Chriſt, we have a plain and certain account of the time, That the prophecy of Daniel relative to the four beaſts has been already FJulfilled, is evident; nay, it is incontrovertible : if the accompliſhment of any ſtill remain, as ſome commentators imagine, the | D 2 final II 22 N S8 T7 a 3 , _ * _—_ — eee EI CO 7 r A * 5 * | | f ( 20 ) final deſtruction of papacy is alluded to by the other parts. Time alone muſt draw aſide the veil, and poſterity reap the advantage of the leſſon, We muſt derive our inftrutiion from what we Know, for it is impious and preſumptive in any mortal to LOOK FORWARD. Such attempt ſavours of re- ſiſtance, for if we endeavour to anticipate the di- vine will, we then r1cHT AGAINST Gop! If, indeed, what Mr. Brothers would fain perſuade us, is true, and what Mr. Halhed, and all the pſeudo- interpreters, Bryan, Wright, Cogan, &c. would fain make us believe will happen, why their advice to avert the deſtined evil? Can human power ſet alide the judgments of divinity ? | Let us now obſerve the admirable proof which Mr. Halhed advances of Mr. Brothers's preſent ſanity. He gives us a letter of his, written in the year 1790, to prove that he then poſſeſſed the pow- ers of reaſoning correctly logical, and of expreſſ- ing his thoughts in an eaſy and elegant diftion— ergo, he muſt be ſenſible now, Such is Mr. Hal- hed's argument: but a man may write a very ra- tional letter, and in five years beasmadas any perſon ſubſervient to a ſtrait waiſtcoat. Why did not Mr. Ialhed, ſince he is ſo intimate with Mr. Brothers, as thus to be acquainted with his correſpondence even - (. $229 even ſo far back as the year 1790, produce one of his letters of the preſent date, equally correct, eaſy and elegant. Let any one read the horrid farrago which precedes Mr. Halhed's teſtimony, ſigned Richard Brothers, and ſay, if he does not think it the pro- duction of a non compos mentis; for charity inclines me to think it is lunacy, and not a diſpoſition to impoſe, which poſſeſſes the man! So much for the letter, and now let us examine CAN DIDUS. This, we underſtand, is an anonymous writer, prepoſſeſſed in favour of Mr. Brothers, but who, for fear of be- ing laughed at, conceals his name, At firlt I ſuſ- pected, from the great ſimilitude of tile, that it proceeded from the ſame pen that had given us ſuch copious annotations on the prophecies ; but then, that author had ſubjoined his name to works equal- ly ridiculous. I began to doubt, and looked over Mr. Brothers's book, where it is aſſerted, the writer's name is declared. Among thoſe, whom the prophet has mentioned with the moſt profound re- ſpect, I diſcovered CAPTAIN HANCHETT. I hope this is not the gentleman—but certainly it is che molt reſpectable name we can find in the book alluded to in this manner. I ſhould be forry that a gentleman of the army ſhould betray the leaſt co- lour of ſuperſtition,—I will not believe it then, though e 2 — 1 — — — - «ilk. «A — — 2. — rr 4 | | | — ä ⁵ IE Ou DT OT nr — — ( 22 ) though ſtrongly armed! That the writer, how- ever, was aſſiſted by Mr. Halhed, on the phraſes ' reſt the onus probands ! Be the author of this * letter whoever he may, I will not heſitate in pro- nouncing him a fanatic, and fince he has not can- didly informed us who he is, he cannot poſſibly ac- cuſe me of not treating him li#e a gentleman, To prove the prophecies of Brothers, Mr. Candidus tells us, this wonder/ul man did ſo and fo, and did this and that—about three years ago, which have all come to pals; ſo we muſt take a mere ipſe dixit for the veracity of this. Why did not Mr. Bro- thers give his prediQions publicly then? Who 1s to know, or believe, what letters were written in 1792? They were not publiſhed at that time. Surcly the prophet ſhould have forc/zen the ne- ceſſity of making known, in due ſeaſon, what he pretends he was commiſſioned tb ſay and do: ſuch remiſſneſs affords great room for doubt, and I muſt beg Mr. Candidus's pardon, ſor ſaying that this very idea makes me look upon the whole as, * A TALE told by an 1D1oT, full of s0uxD and « FURY, ſignifying NOTHING.” * A favorite expreſſion of Mr, Halhed's, which is made ule of in Candidus's letter. 1 ſhould ( 23 } I ſhould be glad to know, how the Stadtholder's being in this country verifies the prediction of his being cut off cloſe to the ground? Is this true? Non probatum eſt—like all the impartant prophe- cies of Mr. Brothers,“ it remains to be fulfilled ! Surely any rational perſon, that can trace the di- vine goodneſs, muſt be ſenſible, that the great pow- er of Providence was remarkably diſplayed in the wonderful deliverance of the Stadtholder and his family, particularly of him who came from Scevel- ing in an open boat, with only three men and a boy to navigate her. Has this the leaſt appearance that it was the divine will to annihilate the Stadthold- erſnip? On the contrary, the Prince of Orange's eſcape from ſuch imminent danger, indicates the bleſſed interpoſition of Heaven in his behalf; and I muſt, alſo, think that the late ſucceſſes of our Bri- tiſh fleet prove the prophetic ſpirit of Mr. Bro. chers to be a falſe one. be king of Sweden was aſſaſſinated in 17982, and how are we to know, that bond fide Mr. Bro- * This is the common ſubterfuge made uſe of, to paſs over thoſe ſeveral prophecies which cannot be explained, or proved, but I am ſurprized Mr. Brother does not, like the inſpired writers of old, give us ſome clue for aſcertainin 8 the date, : thers tt 4) chers propheſied his death previous thereto, par- ticularly as his prophecies ſeemed to have com- menced at that time? | Mr. Brothers did not foretel his being taken into cuſtody, and as to what people wouLD ſay, he might well have conjectured. One of the two prophecies of a late date, which are offered to us, as being verified, is that of the teſtimonies of Halhed, Bryan, Wright, &c. but when the prophet knew his friends, ſurely he had no great difficulty in divining what perhaps was already agreed upon, The other, certifying the inno- cence of the priſoners, who were lately tried and acquitted, but whoſe acquittal was not foretold by Mr. Brothers, reminds me of thoſe reſponſes of the heathen oracles, which artfully contained a double conſtruction. Had the priſoners been found guil- ty, the inſpired men might ſtill have uttered they were innocent. Candidus muſt certainly have been bard puſhed for proofs, when ke quoted this as an | inſtance of fore-knowledge. Now I ſhall take the liberty of pointing out ſome abſurdities, in thoſe pretended prophecies of Brothers, and alſo ſhew how very little the prophet is obliged to Mr. Halhed for his late pamphlets. | He ( 25 ) He pretends in a viſion to ſee London i in a ſcene of confuſion ; all the people armed and furious, and a large river coloured with blood. Foreſeeing, however, that in this he might be detected and ex- poſed, he afterwards tells us, that through his in- zerceſhon, London is pardoned for his fake, Pray can that man be tiled a prophet, who tells us | things that he acknowledges himſelf, will not come to paſs? But, now let us take notice of this great man's ſagacity and cunning—let us mark the won- derful information he gives us. Hap London veen deſtroyed, he declares, Ti >LACE WHERE Ir STANDS WOULD BE No .c E. Can all the witchcraft of fortune tellers, or penetration of gip- lies, exceed this extraordinary piece of news ! : Such is the prodigious wiſdom of this man, that he has diſcovered his deſcent from David, though he tells us it is now 1500 years fince his family was ſeparated from the Jews, and LosT ALL KNOW. LEDGE OF ITS ORIGIN. Had a Thady O Blun- der turned prophet, he could not ne been guil- ty of fo great a bull ! Mr. Brothers tells us, we ſhall be happy in 1798. Mr. Halhed, by his ingenious calculation of the Millenium, ſays, our limited happineſs will begin | (next) November, 1795. I wonder the prophet E and 1 8 } and diſciple. could not agree better. Thus ap- parent is the folly of diving too deeply into mat- ters waich are not to be penetrated ; thoſe who enter thedark labyrinth, are bewildered in the cloud, —ſhame will not let them retract, and they loſe themſelves by going forward, which conſequently leads to utter confuſion. Al calculations are idle pretences, they are impious. We are told by our Saviour, that the Son of Man will come lie a thief at night, and not even the angels in heaven know the hour: Shall man, therefore, weak man, preſume to aſcertain the time? Hence then theſe impious, vain, endeavours! I deſpiſe ſuch profane ſcrutiny, nor can I believe in a Millenium, when we are told, that after death, which is the wages of in, the gift is eternal life, through Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, Romans, chap. vi. ver. 23. The idea of a limited happineſs, appears to me as ridiculous as the papiſtical idea of a limited puniſhment ; a purgatory, and perhaps it may be thought that the millenium and purgatory are one! Be that as it may, I ſhall ſtill adhere to the old excellent creed, The reſurrection of the body, and LITE EVER“ „ | But a circumſtance more ridiculous, and ex- traordinary than all, muſt now be taken into con- ſideration. Es ſideration. Mr. Halhed, not content with bear- ing written teſtimony of his friend, demanded the attention of the Houſe of Commons in his behalf : at a period when many weighty and important mat- ters were walting for diſcuſſion, this gentleman in- troduces Mr. Brothers and his ptophecies. For the honor of our country, leſt poſterity may de- ride our ſuperſtition and folly, may future hiſto- rians overlook this ſhameful buſineſs; or, if they ſhould take notice of it, may they remember to add the deſerved contempt which it received : to mention that no friend ſeconded the motion, no perſon thought it worthy a reply. He obtained the fiir and patient hearing he requeſted, but ſurely the mortification of being unanſwered muſt make bim deeply regret that he did not {till retain that uniform and reſpeAful ſilence he boaſted of. Had | he ſold his tongue inſtead of his ſoul, or while the latter © loitered an abandoned proſtitute in the « market,” had the former remained, “ ſtill ſul- „ lenly immovable at home,” he would not have had to regret its taciturnity : a thouſand pities in- deed he ever opened its © priſon doors“ by open- ing his mouth. This ſpeech has not, like many of our ingenious ſpeakers, loſt any thing by being re- corded, on the contrary, it has rather gained, for I E 2 am ( 8 ) am credibly informed that it 1s, as publiſhed, more correct and copious than it was when uttered; of courſe the reporters being thus enabled to give the matter ſo fully, were certainly indebted to the "A friendly communications of the ſpeaker. No doubt Mr. Halhed kas made ſome ſacrifices on the ſcore of friendſhip, but then he has made new friends—to wit, Mr. Brothers and his believ- ers—and perhaps he is better pleaſed with the ex- change. As to intereſt, he has in his teſtimony confeſſed that he was diſappointed in his expedta- tions from the fale of his foul, and as we all know | the vexations of iſappointment, we may, therefore, 1 account for the new line of conduct. A diſappoint- ed man vill oſten ſteer his courſe he knows not where, and enter into plans the moſt raſh and dangerous, | I have no intercourie” (aſſerts Mr. Halhed) with any man or ſet of men, public or private, whole principles, or whoſe aQions have, as far 02 Das I can judge, tended to the detriment of my cc cc country or any of my countrymen ; and that in e ſeparating myſelf from theſe gentlemen, with whom I had been always uſed to act on the queſ- tion of war and peace, I have conducted myſelf in a fair, open and conſcientious manner, ſtrictly £ a 66 c « within ( 29 ) ee within my duty as a member of Parliament, and *« my honor as a gentleman.” Though Mr. Brothers and his diſciple diſagree in ſome reſpeQs, yet there is a great ſimilitude be- tween them in others. I have remarked how the modern prophet, unltke any,of the ancient, has been guilty of very great egotiſm, and who that reads the beginning of Mr. Halhed's ſpeech, (as quoted) can deny, but what he ſpeaks very well of himſelf ? I muſt think, however, that he has degraded the character of a ſenator, by his late publications and ridiculous motion, and that he certainly has had an intercourſe with a man whoſe actions have tended both to the detriment of his country and country- men. If Mr. Brothers be inſane, he is excuſa- ble for all his wildneſs. We muſt pity his nusfor- tune—but is madneſs contagious ? Not unleſs com- municated by a bite. We muit, therefore, blame Mr. Halhed, except it is proved that he 1s bit and mad allo. I cannot conceive, why Mr. Halhed ſhould be at all ſurpriſed that Mr. Brothers was taken up— for my part, 1 am ſurpriſed that he was not in cuſ- tody long azo—and I am more ſurpriſed, that Mr. Halhed ſhould confeſs—openly confeſs, that he was in the habit of frequently ſeeing him theſe two months back—ſtrange infatuation! mortal weak- neſs—but let us take notice of the powerful reaſon he gives for his aſtoniſhment, at that which every rational perſon expetied—ae is ſurpriſed that he was apprehended, © becauſe he had latterly obſer- te ved that his houle in the forenoon was conſtant— & Iy filled by perſons of quality and fortune of « both ſexes, and the ſtreet crowded with their « carriages.” Now 1s not this the ſtrongeſt rea- ſon in the world for his being taken up? Was it not proper to prevent others ſrom being infatuated and deceived? Was it not proper when fo danger- ous a charadter was gaining ground (as evidently appears from Mr. Halhed's deſcription) to ſtop his mad career at once, and prevent others from being touched or infected, as in charity ve muſt ſuppoſe all Mr. Brothers's advocates are. 