MR. MILLER AND HIS REVIEWERS—DOCTORS DOWLING, CHASE,
JARVIS, ETC.—THE FOURTH KINGDOM—THE LITTLE HORN—PROPHETIC
NUMBERS—SEVENTY WEEKS—COMING OF CHRIST, ETC.
“As it will be proper to take some notice of the controversy between Mr.
Miller and those who entered the lists against him, it may as well be
referred to in this connection. As his views gained adherents, various
publications of sermons, reviews, &c., were issued from the press—the
design of which was to counteract his expositions of prophecy. Some of
these were direct attacks on him, and others only indirect, by opposing
the long-established principles of Protestant interpretation. The
controversy had respect principally to the following points:—
“1. The Fourth Kingdom of Daniel, 7th chapter.
“2. The Little Horn of the same.
“3. The Little Horn of the 8th.
“4. The Length of the Prophetic Periods.
“5. The Commencement of the Seventy Weeks of Dan. 9.
“6. Their Connection with the 2300 days of Dan. 8.
“7. The Rise of the Little Horn of the 7th.
“8. The Nature of Christ’s Second Advent.
“9. The Return of the Jews.
“10. The Epoch of the Resurrection.
“Mr. Miller laid no claim to _originality_ in his position respecting any
of the above points; but maintained that they were established opinions
of the church, and, being so, that his conclusions from such premises
were well sustained by human as well as by divine teachings. While his
opponents attacked the view he took of these points, no one of them
assailed the whole; but each admitted his correctness on some of the
points; and, among them, the whole were admitted.
“1. _The Fourth Kingdom of Daniel._ This he claimed to be the _Roman_.
In this, he had the support of the ablest and most judicious expositors
of every age. William Cunninghame, Esq., of England, an eminent
expositor, in speaking of the four parts of the great image of the dream
of Nebuchadnezzar, says that they are ‘respectively applied by Daniel
himself to _four kingdoms, which have, by the unanimous voice of the
Jewish and Christian churches, for more than eighteen centuries, been
identified with_ the empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.’
Should this be questioned, the witnesses are abundant. In the Jewish
church, we have the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, Josephus, and the
whole modern synagogue, including the names of Abarbanal, Kimchi, David,
Levi, and others. In the Christian church, such as Barnabas, Irenæus,
Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechism, Jerome, and according
to him, all ecclesiastical writers, Hyppolitus and Lactantius in the
early ages; since the Reformation, Luther, Calvin, Mede, T. H. Horne,[18]
Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Dr. Hales, Scott, Clarke, Brown,[19]
Watson,[20] Bishop Lloyd, Daubuz, Brightman, Faber, Noel, Dr. Hopkins,
and almost every biblical expositor of any note in the Protestant church.
Those who make this application of the four parts of the image have no
difficulty in making a like application of the four beasts of Daniel
seventh. The remarkable similarity of the two visions requires this.
“This long-established opinion was controverted by Prof. Stuart of
Andover, in his ‘Hints,’ before referred to. He said: ‘The fourth beast
in Dan. 7:6, &c., is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the divided Grecian
dominion, which succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great.’—_Hints_, p.
86.
“Prof. Irah Chase, D. D., said: ‘The fourth empire was that of the
successors of Alexander, among whom Seleucus was pre-eminent.’—_Remarks
on the Book of Daniel_, p. 20.
“Others, of lesser note, copied from these, and took a similar position
respecting the fourth kingdom.
“Of those who opposed Mr. Miller on other points, John Dowling, D.D., of
New York city, in his ‘Exposition of the Prophecies,’ did not assail this.
“Rev. W. T. Hamilton, D. D., of Mobile, Ala., in his ‘Lecture on
Millerism,’ said: ‘I freely admit, that in his general outline of
interpretation (excluding his dates), following, as he does, much
abler men who have gone before him, Mr. Miller is correct. The several
dynasties prefigured in the great metallic image of Nebuchadnezzar—in
the vision of the four beasts, and of the ram and he-goat—Daniel himself
points out. Mistake there is not easy.”—p. 18.
“Dr. Jarvis, D. D., LL. D., of Middletown, Ct., in his ‘Two Discourses on
Prophecy,’ also applies the fourth beast in the same manner.—p. 42.
“J. T. Hinton, A. M., of St. Louis (‘Prophecies Illustrated’), said:
‘The dream of the image, the vision of the four beasts, that of the
ram and he-goat, and the “Scriptures of truth,” give us four detailed
descriptions of the history of the world, from the time of Daniel to the
“time of the end;” and the Apocalyptic visions refer to the same period
as the latter portion of the prophecies of Daniel.’—p. 25. ‘The dream
of the image is of the greatest importance; it leaves _without excuse_
those who would reduce the remaining prophecies of Daniel to the narrow
compass of the little acts of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Nothing
can be clearer than that the gold, the silver, the brass, the iron, and
the clay, are designed to cover the history of the world in all its
successive ages.”—p. 27.
“Again he says: ‘We think our readers will concur with us, and with the
great mass of writers on prophecy, that the “ten horns” or Daniel’s
“fourth beast,” and “the beast rising out of the sea, having seven
heads,” of the Apocalyptic visions, refer to the ten kingdoms into which
the Roman Empire was divided. Of the identity of the ten-horned beasts of
Daniel and John there can be no reasonable doubt.”—p. 232.
“2. _The Little Horn of the seventh chapter of Daniel._ This he held
to be the papacy. This was no novel view of that symbol, being, as it
was, the view of the whole Protestant world. See Dr. Clarke’s Notes on
2 Thess. 2; Croly on the Apoc., pp. 113-117, Horne’s Int., vol. 4, p.
191, Watson’s Theol. Dic., p. 62, G. T. Noel, Prospects of the Church of
Christ, p. 100, William Cunninghame, Esq., Political Dest. of the Earth,
p. 28, Mede, Newton, Scott, Daubuz, Hurd, Jurieu, Vitringa, Fleming,
Lowman, and numerous others of the best standard expositors.
“Prof. Stuart, Prof. Chase, and others who applied the ‘fourth beast’ to
the four divisions of Alexander’s successors, applied the little horn of
the same chapter to Antiochus Epiphanes.
“Mr. Hinton took the same view that Mr. Miller did of this symbol.
He said: ‘If any other events of history can be set forth and made
to fill out _all the particulars_ mentioned by Daniel and John, we
should be happy to see them stated; till then, we shall believe the
little horn rising up amidst the ten horns, and having three of them
plucked up before it, to refer to the rise of the papacy in the midst
of the kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided in the sixth
century.”—p. 237.
“Dr. Dowling, Dr. Hamilton, and others, who admitted that the fourth
beast symbolized the Roman Empire, also applied its little horn to the
papacy.
“3. _The Little Horn of the eighth chapter of Daniel, that became
exceeding great._ This Mr. Miller believed to be a symbol of Rome. In
this view he was sustained by Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Dr. Hales,
Martin Luther, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Clarke, Dr. Hopkins, Wm. Cunninghame,
and others.
“Dr. Horne said of the first three above named: ‘Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop
Newton, and Dr. Hales, have clearly shown that the Roman power, and no
other, is intended; for, although some of the particulars may agree very
well with that king (Antiochus), yet others can by no means be reconciled
to him; _while all of them agree and correspond exactly with the Romans,
and with no other power_.”—_Intro._, vol. 4, p. 191.
“In addition to these, almost all the old writers who applied it to
Antiochus Epiphanes did so only as the type of Rome, where they looked
for the Antichrist. St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the fourth
century, said: ‘This, the predicted Antichrist, will come when the times
of the (pagan) Roman Empire shall be fulfilled, and the consummation
of the world approach. Ten kings of the Romans shall rise together, in
different places indeed, but they shall reign at the same time. Among
these, the eleventh is Antichrist, who, by magical and wicked artifices,
shall seize the Roman power.’
“Prof. Stuart, Prof. Chase, and even Dr. Dowling, with others, applied
this symbol to Antiochus Epiphanes.
“Rev. R. C. Shimeal, of New York (“Prophecy in Course of Fulfillment”),
dissented from Mr. Miller, and also from the foregoing, and understood
this horn to symbolize the Mahommedan power. Mr. Hinton took the same
view.
“Mr. Miller was sustained in his application of this point by Dr.
Hamilton and Dr. Jarvis. The latter said: ‘Sir Isaac Newton, with that
sagacity which was peculiar to him, was the first, I believe, who showed
clearly that this little horn was the Roman power.’—p. 43.
“4. _The Length of the Prophetic Numbers._ In explaining these, Mr.
Miller adopted the Protestant view, that they represent years. There is
probably no point respecting which Protestant commentators have been
more agreed than this. Faber, Prideaux, Mede, Clarke, Scott, the two
Newtons, Wesley, and almost every expositor of note, have considered this
a _settled question_. Indeed, so universal has been this interpretation
of these periods that Professor Stuart says: ‘IT IS A SINGULAR FACT THAT
THE GREAT MASS OF INTERPRETERS in the English and American world have,
for many years, been wont to understand the _days_ designated in Daniel
and the Apocalypse as the _representatives or symbols of years_. I found
it difficult to trace the origin of this _GENERAL, I might say ALMOST
UNIVERSAL, CUSTOM_.’—_Hints_, p. 77.
“He also says: ‘For a long time these principles have been so current
among the expositors of the English and American world, that scarcely
a serious attempt to vindicate them has of late been made. They have
been regarded as _so plain_ and so well _fortified_ against _all
objections_, that _most expositors_ have deemed it quite useless even to
attempt to defend them. One might, indeed, almost compare the ready and
unwavering assumption of these propositions, to the assumption of the
first self-evident axioms in the science of geometry, which not only may
dispense with any process of ratiocination in their defense, but which do
not even admit of any.’—_Hints_, p. 8.
“Prof. Stuart, however, dissented from this ‘almost universal custom,’
and claimed that the prophetic days—the 1260, 1290, 1335, and
2300—indicated only days. Of the 1260 he said: ‘The very manner of the
expression indicates, of course, that it was not the design of the
speaker or writer to be _exact_ to a day or an hour. A little more or
a little less than three and a half years would, as every reasonable
interpreter must acknowledge, accord perfectly well with the general
designation here, where plainly the aim is not statistical exactness, but
a mere generalizing of the period in question.’—_Hints_, p. 73.
“Again he says: ‘A statistical exactness cannot be aimed at in cases of
this nature. Any near approximation to the measure of time in question
would, of course, be regarded as a sufficient reason for setting it down
under the general rubric.’
“‘By the 1260 days,’ he said, ‘no more than three and a half years
literally can possibly be meant’ (p. 75); and of the 2300: ‘We must
consider these 2300 evening-mornings as an expression of simple time, _i.
e._, of so many days, reckoned in the Hebrew manner.’—p. 100.
“Prof. C. E. Stowe, D. D., of Andover Mass., in his ‘Millennial
Arithmetic,’ claimed that ‘_day_ does not mean _year_ in the prophecies
any more than elsewhere and that ‘a definite designation of time was not
here intended, but only a general expression.’—p. 13.
“Prof. Chase agreed with Prof. Stuart respecting the 1260 days; but
said of the 2300: ‘The period predicted is _not_ two thousand and three
hundred _days_ but only _half_ that number—1150.’—_Remarks_, p. 60.
“Dr Dowling agreed with Prof. Chase that the 2300 were half days; but
differed both from him and Prof. Stuart respecting the 1260, of which
he says: ‘I believe, as Mr. Miller does, and indeed most Protestant
commentators, that the 1260 years denote the duration of the dominion
of the papal Antichrist. After comparing these passages, and the entire
prophecies to which they belong, with the history and character of
papacy, I cannot doubt that this is the mystical Babylon, whose name is
written in Rev. 17:5; and that, when the 1260 years are accomplished,
then shall that great city, Babylon, be thrown down, and shall be found
no more at all.’—_Reply to Miller_, p. 27.
“Prof. Pond, D. D. (of Bangor, Me.), in his ‘Review of Second Advent
Publications,’ was in doubt whether the periods of Daniel could be proved
to be years; but was willing to cut the matter short by conceding the
point that it may be so.—p. 22.
“Dr. Jarvis, Mr. Hinton, Mr. Shimeal, and Prof. Bush, sustained Mr.
Miller respecting the significance of the prophetic days.
“In speaking of the application of the 2300 days to the time of the
persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, Dr. Jarvis says: ‘This interpretation
would, of course, be fatal to all Mr. Miller’s calculations. It is not
_surprising_, therefore, that it should be eagerly embraced by many of
his opponents. But, with all due deference, I think there are insuperable
difficulties in the way of this scheme, which makes Antiochus Epiphanes
the little horn.’ ‘I make no difficulty, therefore, in admitting the
evening-morning to mean a prophetic day.’—_Sermons_, p. 46. He further
says that Daniel was told to shut up the vision, ‘because the fulfillment
of it should be so far distant; a strong collateral argument, as I
understand it, for the interpretation of 2300 prophetic days.’—_Ib._, p.
47. And ‘The vision is the whole vision of the ram and he-goat.’—p. 45.
“Prof. Bush, in writing to Mr. Miller, said: ‘I do not conceive your
errors on the subject of chronology to be at all of a serious nature,
or in fact to be _very wide of the truth_. In taking a _day_ as the
prophetical time for a _year_, I believe you are _sustained_ by the
_soundest exegesis_, as well as _fortified_ by the high names of Mede,
Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, Scott, Keith, and a host of
others, who have long since come to _substantially your conclusions_ on
this head. They _all agree_ that the leading periods mentioned by Daniel
and John _do actually expire about this age of the world_; and it would
be strange logic that would convict you of heresy for holding in effect
the same views which stand forth so prominently in the notices of these
eminent divines.’ ‘Your results in this field of inquiry do not strike
me as so _far out of the way_ as to affect any of the great interests of
truth or duty.’—_Ad. Her._, vol. 7, p. 38.
“Writing to Prof. Stuart, Prof. Bush said: ‘I am not inclined
precipitately to discard an opinion _long prevalent in the church_, which
has commended itself to those whose judgments are entitled to profound
respect. That such is the case in regard to the _year-day_ calculations
of prophecy I am _abundantly satisfied_; and I confess, too, at once to
the pleasure that it affords me to find that that which is sustained by
_age_ is also sustained by _argument_.’ Again he says: ‘Mede is very
far from being the first who adopted this solution of the symbolic term
day. It is the solution naturally arising from the construction put,
in _all_ ages, upon the oracle of Daniel respecting the SEVENTY WEEKS,
which, by Jews and Christians, have been interpreted weeks of years, on
the principle of a day standing for a year. This fact is obvious from
the Rabbinical writers _en masse_, where they touch upon the subject;
and Eusebius tells us (_Dem. Evangl._ 8, p. 258—Ed. Steph.), that this
interpretation in his day was _generally_ if not _universally admitted_.’
“I have, in my own collection, writers on the prophecies, previous to
the time of Mede, who interpret the 1260 days as so many years, and
who are so far from broaching this as a _new_ interpretation that they
do not even pause to give the grounds of it, but proceed onward, as if
no risk were run in taking for granted the soundness of the principle
which _came down to them accredited by the IMMEMORIAL usage of their
predecessors_.’—_Hierophant_, vol. 1, p. 245.
“If the old, established principle of the year-day theory is wrong, then,
said Prof. Bush, ‘not only has the whole Christian world been led astray
for ages by a mere _ignis fatuus_ of false hermeneutics, but the church
is at once cut loose from every chronological mooring, and set adrift in
the open sea, without the vestige of a beacon, light-house, or star, by
which to determine her bearings or distances from the desired millennial
haven to which she had hoped she was tending.’
“5. _The Commencement of the Seventy Weeks._—These were believed by
Mr. Miller to be the weeks of years—four hundred and ninety years—and
commenced with the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus to restore and build
Jerusalem, according to Ezra seventh, B. C. 457. This has also long been
considered by commentators to be a settled point; and it probably would
not have been disputed were it not for a desire to avoid the conclusion
to which Mr. Miller came, on the supposition that it was the beginning
of the 2300 days. On so settled a point as this it is only necessary to
mention such names as Horne (see Int., vol. 1, p. 336, vol. 4, p. 191),
Prideaux (see Connection, pp. 227-256), Clarke (see Notes on 9th of
Daniel), Watson (Theol. Dic., p. 96), William Howel, LL. D. (Int. of Gen.
His., vol. 1, p. 209), Scott, and Cunninghame.
“This point was not much questioned by any. A Mr. Kindrick, in a ‘New
Exposition of the Prophecies of Daniel,’ said: ‘They are seventy
years only, and commenced with the birth of Christ and ended with the
destruction of the Jewish nation.’—p. 4. Rev. Calvin Newton affirmed, in
the _Christian Watchman_, that they were fulfilled in seventy literal
weeks. And Prof. Stuart said: ‘It would require a volume of considerable
magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying and contradictory
opinions of critics respecting this _locus vexatissimus_; and perhaps a
still larger, to establish an exegesis which would stand. I am fully of
opinion that no interpretation as yet published will stand the test of
thorough grammatico-historical criticism.’—_Hints_, p. 104.
“Mr. Shimeal, while he admitted that they are weeks of years, commenced
them four years later than Mr. M.
“Dr. Hamilton sustained Mr. Miller on this point. He said: ‘The
interpretation which Mr. Miller gives of Daniel’s seventy weeks,
commencing with the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus, in the seventh
year of his reign (B. C. 457), for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and
terminating with the death of Christ, A. D. 33, is, in the main, correct,
because here Mr. M. but gives a tolerably faithful report of the result
of the labors of the learned Prideaux and others in this field of
research.’—p. 18. This interpretation was not denied by Dr. Jarvis, Mr.
Hinton, and Mr. Morris. And Dr. Dowling said: ‘Mr. Miller says the four
hundred and ninety years begin B. C. 457, which is correct. He says they
end A. D. 33, which is also correct.’—p. 49.
“6. _The connection between the 70 weeks and 2300 Days._—This was a
_vital_ point in the chronology of Mr. M. to bring the end in 1843. The
Rev. William Hales, D. D., the most learned modern chronologer, says:
‘This simple and ingenious adjustment of the chronology of the seventy
weeks, considered as forming a branch of the 2300 days, was originally
due to the sagacity of Hans Wood, Esq., of Rossmead, in the county of
Westmeath, Ireland, and published by him in an anonymous commentary on
the Revelation of St. John, Lon., 1787.’—_New Anal. Chro._, vol. 2, p.
564. He elsewhere calls it ‘the most ingenious of its class.’
“The argument which Mr. Miller used in support of this point was based
upon the literal meaning of the Hebrew word, which, in our version of
Daniel 9:24, is rendered ‘determined’—_cut off_, or _cut out_,—and the
circumstances in which Gabriel appeared to Daniel, as stated in the ninth
chapter, with the instruction given.
“In the 8th chapter of Daniel is recorded a vision which was to extend
to the cleansing of the sanctuary, and to continue 2300 days. Daniel had
‘sought for the meaning’ of that vision, and a voice said: “Gabriel,
make this man to understand the vision.” Gabriel said to Daniel: ‘I will
make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation; for,
at the time appointed, the end shall be;’ and then proceeded to explain
the symbols, but said nothing of their duration. At the close of the
explanation Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; and he says he
‘was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.’
“Three years subsequent to that vision, Daniel—understanding ‘by books
the number of years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the
prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations
of Jerusalem,’—set his face unto the Lord to seek by prayer and
supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes. He proceeded
to confess his own sins and the sins of his people, and to supplicate
the Lord’s favor on the sanctuary that was desolate. While he was thus
speaking, Daniel says:—‘Gabriel, whom I had seen in _the vision_ at the
beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the
evening oblation; and he informed me, and talked with me, and said: ‘O
Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the
beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come
to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the
matter and consider _the vision_. Seventy weeks are _determined_’ &c.
‘From the going forth of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem
unto Messiah the Prince:’—after which Jerusalem was to be made desolate
‘until the consummation.’—Dan. 9:20-27.
“Dr. Gill, a distinguished divine and scholar, rendered the word
‘determined,’ _cut off_, and is sustained by good scholars.
“Hengstenberg, who enters into a critical examination of the original
text, says: ‘But the very use of the word, which does not elsewhere
occur, while others, much more frequently used, were at hand, if Daniel
had wished to express the idea of determination, and of which he has
elsewhere, and even in this portion, availed himself, seems to argue
that the word stands from regard to its original meaning, and represents
the seventy weeks, in contrast with a determination of time (_en
platei_), _as a period cut off from subsequent duration, and accurately
limited_.’—_Christology of the Old Test._, vol. 2, p. 301. Washington,
1839.
“Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, gives _cut off_ as the definition
of the word, and many others of the first standing as to learning and
research, and several versions have thus rendered the word.[21]
“Such being the meaning of the word, and such the circumstances under
which the prophecy of the seventy weeks was given, Mr. Miller claimed
that _the vision_ which Daniel was called on to consider, and respecting
which Gabriel was to give him skill and understanding, was _the vision_
of the 8th chapter; of which Daniel sought the meaning, which Gabriel was
commanded to make him understand, but which, after Gabriel’s explanation,
none understood; and that the seventy weeks of years—_i. e._, four
hundred and ninety that were _cut off_—were cut off from the 2300 days of
that vision; and, consequently, that those two periods must be dated from
the same epoch, and the longer extend 1810 years after the termination of
the shorter.
“The same view was advocated by several English divines. Rev. M.
Habershon says: ‘In this conclusion I am happy in agreeing with Mr.
Cunninghame, who says, “I am not aware of any more probable era which
can be selected for the commencement of the 2300 years than that which
has been chosen by some recent writers, who supposed this period to
have begun at the same time with the seventy weeks of Daniel, or in the
year B. C. 457, and consequently that it will terminate in the year
1843.”’—_Hist. Dis._, p. 307.
“The celebrated Joseph Wolf, though dating the seventy weeks and 2300
days from B. C. 453, commenced them at the same epoch.—_Missionary
Labors_, p. 259. And Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, who is high authority in
the Presbyterian church, in a discourse on ‘Cleansing the Sanctuary,’
says: I undertake to show that Daniel’s ‘seventy weeks’ is the beginning
or first part of the ‘two thousand three hundred days’ allotted for the
cleansing of the sanctuary; that Daniel’s ‘time, times, and a half’ is
the last or concluding part of the 2300 days.’
“Prof. Stuart, Dr. Dowling, Prof. Chase, and others, who denied the
year-day calculation when applied to the 2300 days, of course dissented
from Mr. Miller on this point. Dr. Dowling went so far as to _deny_(!)
that the Hebrew article _hai_ (THE) is in the phrase ‘the vision.’ in the
original of Dan. 9:23.
“Of those who admitted the year-day theory, Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Jarvis, Mr.
Hinton, and Dr. Pond, denied any connection between the two periods. Dr.
Hamilton commenced the 2300 days B. C. 784, and ended them with the era
of the Reformation, A. D. 1516. The others did not hazard any opinion
respecting the time of their commencement.
“Mr. Miller was supposed to be sustained on this point by Prof. Bush,
who did not consider him in any serious error respecting the time. And
Mr. Shimeal said, ‘I trust it will not be deemed a violation of that
modesty which becomes me, if, for the reasons here given, I withhold my
assent from the conclusion of the Rev. Dr. Jarvis on this subject; which
is that the seventy weeks form no part of the two thousand three hundred
days.’—p. 34.
“7. _The rise of the Papacy—the Little Horn of Dan. 7._—Mr. Miller
claimed that the one thousand two hundred and sixty years of the papacy
were to be reckoned from A. D. 538, by virtue of the decree of Justinian.
This decree, though issued A. D. 533, did not go into full effect
until 538, when the enemies of the Catholics in Rome were subjugated
by Belisarius, a general of Justinian. In this view, as to the rise of
papacy, he was sustained by Croly (see his work on Apoc., pp. 113-117);
G. T. Noel (see Prospects of Ch., p. 100); Wm. Cunninghame, Esq. (Pol.
Destiny of the earth, p. 28); Keith, vol. 1, p. 93; Encyclopedia of Rel.
Knowl., art. Antichrist; Edward King, Esq., and others.
“Prof. Stuart and Prof. Chase, in applying this little horn to Antiochus,
and the beast of the Apocalypse to Nero, explained these numbers in days,
satisfactorily to themselves.
“Dr. Jarvis, who admitted that they symbolize years, denied Mr. Miller’s
commencement, without assigning any other. He said: ‘I would rather
imitate the caution of the learned Mr. Mede, with regard to the time of
the great apostasy, “and curiously inquire not, but leave it unto him who
is the Lord of times and seasons.”’
“And of the 1260, 1290, and 1335 days, Mr. Dowling said, ‘If I am asked
the question, As you reject the interpretation Mr. Miller gives of these
prophetic times, can you furnish a better? I reply, _I do not feel myself
bound to furnish any_’!—_Reply to M._, p. 25.
“Dr. Hamilton rather agreed with Faber and Scott, in dating from the
decree of Phocus, A. D. 606.
“Mr. Shimeal sustained Mr. Miller in dating from the decree of Justinian,
but reckoned from the _date_ of its _issue_, instead of from its going
into effect.—p. 45.
“8. _The Coming of Christ._—Mr. Miller contended that this was to be
literal and personal. This was the view which had been entertained by the
church in all ages, and is recognized in the formulas of faith adopted
by all evangelical churches. Whether his coming is to be pre or post
millennial, is another question; but that Christians, in all ages, have
believed that Christ will come again in person to judge the world, will
not be questioned.
“That Christ will ever thus return was denied by Prof. Stuart and Prof.
Bush. The former said that he had ‘a deeper conviction than ever of the
difficulties which attend the supposition of a _personal_, _actual_,
and _visible_ descent of Christ and the glorified saints to the
earth.’—_Hints_, 2d ed., p. 153. Again: ‘All the prophecies respecting
the Messiah are invested with the costume of figurative language.’—_Ib._,
p. 183. And again: ‘Christ himself assumed a visible appearance,’ at his
first advent, ‘only that he might take on him our nature and die for sin.
When he appears a second time, there is no necessity for assuming such a
nature.’—_Ib._, p. 185.
“Prof. Bush gave as his opinion, that ‘the second advent of the Saviour
is not affirmed to be _personal_, but _spiritual_ and _providential_;
and that the event so denominated is to be considered as having entered
upon its incipient fulfillment at a very early period of the Christian
dispensation.’—_Anastasis_, p. 9.
“Mr. Dowling and others, who admitted the personal coming of Christ at
the _close_ of the millennium, claimed that the predicted reign of Christ
on earth during that period is to be _spiritual_.
“But Mr. Shimeal sustained Mr. Miller in his belief that the advent
will be personal and pre-millennial. And Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont
(Two Discourses on the Advent), while he claimed that the time was not
revealed, said, nevertheless, ‘we would admonish you, with still greater
earnestness, to keep your souls in constant readiness for your Lord’s
advent, and in a state of sacred desire to behold him in his glory.’—p.
29.
“9. _The Return of the Jews._—Mr. Miller looked for no return of the
Jews previous to the resurrection of the just; and the righteous of that
nation, who have died in the faith of Abraham, with all Gentile believers
of like precious faith, he regarded as the subjects of all unfulfilled
promises to Israel—the fulfillment of which will be in the new earth, and
in the resurrection out from among the dead.
“That the promise to Abraham has reference to the resurrection state, is
no novel or unscriptural view.
“Rabbi Eliezer the Great, supposed to have lived just after the second
temple was built, applied Hosea 14:8 to the pious Jews, who seemed likely
to die without seeing the glory of Israel, saying: ‘As I live, saith
Jehovah, I will raise you up in the resurrection of the dead; and I will
gather you with all Israel.’
“The Sadducees are reported to have asked Rabbi Gamaliel, the preceptor
of Paul, whence he would prove that God would raise the dead; who quoted
Deut. 9:21: ‘Which land the Lord sware that he would give to your
_fathers_.’ He argued, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had it not, and as
God cannot lie, that they must be raised from the dead to inherit it.
“Rabbi Simai, though of later date, argues the same from Ex. 6:4,
insisting that the law asserts in this place the resurrection from the
dead, when it said, ‘And also I have established my covenant with them,
to give them the Canaan;’ for, he adds, ‘It is not said to _you_, but to
them.’
“Mennasseh Ben Israel says: ‘It is plain that Abraham and the rest of the
patriarchs did not possess that land: it follows, therefore, that they
must be raised in order to enjoy the promised good, as, otherwise, the
promises of God would be vain and false.”—_De Resurrect. Mort._, L, i.,
c. 1, sec. 4.
“Rabbi Saahias Gaion, commenting on Dan. 12:2, says: ‘This is the
resuscitation of the dead Israel, whose lot is eternal life, and those
who shall not awake are the forsakers of Jehovah.’
“‘In the world to come,’ says the Sahar, fol. 81, ‘the blessed God will
vivify the dead and raise them from their dust, so that they shall be no
more an earthly structure.’
“Luther, Calvin, and many other divines of the era of the Reformation,
apply the promises to Abraham in a like manner; as do many divines of the
present time.
“Of those who entered the list against Mr. Miller, Dr. Dowling, Mr.
Shimeal, and Dr. Hamilton, strenuously contended for the return of the
Jews in the flesh to Palestine.
“Prof. Stuart sustained Mr. Miller so far as the question has respect to
the true Israel, applying the promises to all who are of the faith of
Abraham.
“10. _The Epoch of the Resurrection._—Mr. Miller held that the
resurrection of the just will be pre-millennial, and that that of the
wicked will be at the close of the millennium. This hinges on the
interpretation given to Rev. 20:4-6. It is worthy of note that, during
the first two centuries, there was not an individual who believed in any
resurrection of the dead, whose name or memory has come down to us, who
denied that a literal resurrection is there taught.
“Eusebius admits that Papias was a disciple of John the Evangelist, and
that he taught that, ‘after the resurrection of the dead, the kingdom of
Christ shall be established corporeally on this earth.’—[Hist. Lib. 3,
Sec. 39.] And Jerome quotes Papias [De Script. Eccles.] as saying, that
‘he had the apostles for his authors, and that he considered what Andrew,
what Peter said, what Philip, what Thomas said, and other disciples of
the Lord.’ Irenæus taught that at the resurrection of the just the meek
should inherit the earth; and that then would be fulfilled the promise
which God made to Abraham.
“Justyn Martyr, who was born A. D. 89, seven years before the Revelations
were written, says that he and many others are of this mind, ‘that Christ
shall reign personally on the earth,’ and that ‘all who were accounted
orthodox so believed.’ He also says, ‘A certain man _among us_, whose
name is John, being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that
Revelation which was shown to him, prophesied that those who believe in
our Christ shall fulfill a thousand years at Jerusalem.’
“Tertullian, who wrote about A. D. 180, says it was a custom of his
times for Christians to pray that they might have part in the first
resurrection; and Cyprian, who lived about A. D. 220, says that
Christians ‘had a thirst for _martyrdom_, that they might obtain a better
resurrection,’—the martyrs being raised at the commencement of the
thousand years.
“The first of whom we have any account that opposed this doctrine was
Origen, in the middle of the third century, who styled those who adhered
to it ‘the simpler sort of Christians.’ Mosheim assures us that the
opinion ‘that Christ was to come and reign a thousand years among men’
had, before the time of Origen, ‘met with _no opposition_.’—_Ch. Hist._,
vol. 1, p. 284.
“At the era of the Reformation this doctrine was revived, and taught by
Luther and Melancthon; it is in the confession of Augsburg (A. D. 1530);
was the belief of Latimer, Cranmer, and Ridley; is in the Articles of the
Church (Ed. vi., A. D. 1552); is not denied in the more prominent creeds
and confessions of faith of the churches, and was believed by Mede, Sir
Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Milton, Knox, Bunyan, Gill, Cowper, Heber,
Pollok, Greswell, and many other distinguished names of modern times.
“This point was vital to Mr. Miller’s theory, for, however correct
he might be in his _time_, without this _event_ he must fail in his
application of prophecy.
“Prof. Bush, while he admitted that all ‘the leading periods
mentioned by Daniel and John do actually expire _about_ this age of
the world’ (_Letter to Mr. M._, p. 6), claimed that ‘the great event
before the world is not its _physical conflagration_, but its _moral
regeneration_.’—p. 11.
“Mr. Hinton said: ‘It is possible we may have reached the goal of the
world’s moral destiny. It is, indeed, our deliberate opinion that we are
in the general period of termination of the 23d century alluded to by the
prophet ... and that the events alluded to in the phrase “then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed” are now actually passing before us.’—p. 121. But
he considered the _event_ ‘a resurrection from death in trespasses and
sins.’—p. 336.
“Dr. Dowling, Dr. Hamilton, and others, while they did not admit, with
Prof. Bush, that the present age ‘is just opening upon the crowning
consummation of all prophetic declarations,’ contended that the
millennium ‘is to be ushered in, not by a literal resurrection of the
bodies of the saints, but by the figurative resurrection of the holy men
of all past ages, in the numerous instances of eminent piety that shall
appear in every nation under heaven.’—_Dr. H._, p. 30.
“Prof. Stuart, while he admitted that the resurrection here brought
to view was a resurrection of the body, limited it to the martyrs,
and denied that there is to be a descent of Christ to the earth, or a
_visible_ reign of the martyrs with him.
“Dr. Jarvis did not deny the event for which Mr. Miller looked; and
Mr. Shimeal taught, with Mr. Miller, the resurrection of the glorified
saints, and their visible reign with Christ on the earth; but he held
that they would reign over the converted nations, and denied the
conflagration previous to the end of the thousand years.
“And Bishop Hopkins gave as his opinion that the consummation ‘is drawing
nigh; how nigh none can tell.’
“There were various other issues between Mr. Miller and his reviewers;
but they were more collateral than vital to the question at issue, and
are not, therefore, particularly noticed in this connection.
“It is seen, from the foregoing, that Mr. Miller’s points, taken
separately, were not new or original with him; and that the peculiarity
of his theory consisted in putting them _together_; and that, while
none of his opposers condemned the whole, and each point separately was
admitted by some of them, there was no more unanimity between them than
between him and them. They had not only to battle with Mr. Miller’s
theory, but each had to disprove those of the others.
“It was, therefore, not surprising that the reviewers of Mr. Miller made
no impression on those who held his opinions. It was seen that to oppose
him they were ready to abandon old established principles of Protestant
interpretation. Even the _Boston Recorder_ (Orthodox Cong.) said: ‘_It
must needs be ACKNOWLEDGED THAT OUR FAITH IS GREATLY SHAKEN IN THE
INTERPRETATIONS ON WHICH, IN COMMON WITH MOST OF OUR OWN BRETHREN, WE
HAVE HERETOFORE RELIED, and which forms the FOUNDATION of the baseless
theories of Miller_!’ And the _Christian Advocate and Journal_ (Meth.
Epis.) said: ‘If his (Prof. Chase’s) views in regard to the prophecies
of Daniel be correct, the _long-established opinion_ that the Roman
Empire is the fourth kingdom of the prophet, _must give way_ to the more
successful researches of Dr. Chase. Some other opinions, _which have been
thought to be settled beyond a doubt_, ARE TERRIBLY SHAKEN.’
“Those who adhered to the established principles of interpretation did
not fail to perceive that Prof. Stuart, Dr. Dowling, Prof. Chase, &c.,
had not fairly met Mr. Miller, and that their expositions would not stand
the test of sound criticism.
“Of Professors Stuart and Bush the New York Evangelist said: ‘The
tendency of these views is to destroy the Scripture evidence of the
doctrine of any real end of the world, any day of final judgment, or
general resurrection of the body. The style of interpretation, we assert,
tends fearfully to _Universalism_. This tendency we are prepared to
prove.’
“The Hartford _Universalist_ said of Professor Stuart: ‘He puts an
uncompromising veto upon the popular interpretations of Daniel and
Revelation, and _unites with Universalists_ in contending that most
of their contents had special reference to, and their fulfillment in,
scenes and events which transpired but a few years after those books were
written.’—_Oct. 15, 1842._
“Mr. Hinton said of the same: ‘We regret that, in the midst of the
great moral conflict with Antichrist, which is now carrying on, those
into whose hands the saints were so long given should find so able
a coadjutor. We have, however, no fears that Christians of sound
common sense, and capable of independent thought, will, after a candid
consideration of the scheme which excludes papacy from the page of
prophecy, and that which traces in the prophetic symbols a faithful
portraiture of its abominations, make a wrong decision. Since we have
read the work of the learned Stuart, we have rejoiced the more that
our humble abilities have been directed to the defense of the old
paths.’—_Proph. Illus._, p. 231.
“Of Mr. Dowling, Dr. Breckenbridge said: ‘As for this disquisition of
Mr. Dowling, we may confidently say that it is hardly to be conceived
that anything could be printed by Mr. Miller, or Mr. Any-body-else,
more shallow, absurd and worthless. There is hardly a point he touches
on which he has not managed to adopt the very _idlest conjectures_ of
past writers on the prophecies; and this so entirely without regard to
any coherent system, that the only clear conviction a man of sense or
reflection could draw from his pamphlet, if such a man could be supposed
capable of believing it, would be that _the prophecies themselves are a
jumble of nonsense_. Such answers as his can have no effect, we would
suppose, except to bring the whole subject into ridicule, or to _promote
the cause he attacks_.’—_Spirit of the 19th Century, March No., 1843._
“Again he says, in speaking of ‘the general ignorance which prevails on
this subject,’ that of it ‘no greater evidence need be produced than the
fact that this pamphlet of Mr. Dowling has been extensively relied on,
yea, _preached_, as a sufficient answer’ to Mr. Miller.
“On surveying the whole field of controversy, Professor Bush, while he
claimed that the spiritualists were nearer the truth, said of them: ‘They
have not answered the arguments of their opponents, nor can they do it
on the ground which they themselves professedly occupy in respect to a
millennium. Assuming that that period is yet future, and its commencement
of no distant date, the Literalists, or Adventists, bear down with
overwhelming weight of argument upon them, maintaining that the second
coming precedes and ushers in that sublime era. The spiritualists say,
Nay, but refuse to commit themselves to a defined position. All that they
know is, that there is to be a millennium of some kind, occurring at some
time, introduced in some way, and brought to an end from some cause; and
that immediately thereupon the Lord is to descend from heaven, burn up
the earth, raise the dead, and administer the judgment; but as to the
what, the when, the how, the why—on these points they rest content in
_knowing nothing_, because of the impression taken up that _nothing is to
be known_.”—_N. C. Repos._, 1849, p. 248.
“Dr. Jarvis, in his sermons, was particularly severe on Mr. Miller, but
afterwards did him ample justice, as in the following. He said: ‘Mr.
Miller, in his eagerness to make out his scheme, absolutely falsities
the language of the Bible. He makes Jehoram to have reigned five years,
where the Scripture positively says he reigned eight; and between Amaziah
and Azariah, or Uzziah, he introduces an interregnum of eleven years,
for which he has not even the shadow of an authority in the Bible. He
quotes, indeed, chapters 14 and 15 of the 2d book of Kings; and this
may be sufficient for those who are ready to take his opinions upon
trust. But, if you examine the chapters to which he refers, you will be
astonished to find that there is not in either of them one word upon the
subject.’—_Sermons_, p. 55.
“In his preface to his sermons Dr. Jarvis makes the following correction
of the above. He says:—
“‘It will be seen that in speaking of the curtailment of the
reign of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, from eight to five
years, and the introduction of eleven years of interregnum
between the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah, he has censured Mr.
Miller in too unmeasured terms. These particulars he is bound
to explain.
“‘It would have been easier, and perhaps more advantageous to
the author, to have made the alterations silently, and omitted
the censure. But would it have been equally honest?
“‘In preparing the introductory volume of his “Ecclesiastical
History,” he had carefully avoided reading modern writers on
chronology, for fear of being biased by their systems. For this
reason he had never read the learned work of Dr. Hales; and
though familiar with Petavius, Usher, and Marsham, a good while
had elapsed since he had consulted them on the parts of history
connected with the prophecies. But these great writers being
entirely silent as to any interregnum in the kingdom of Judah,
the existence of such an interregnum was entirely a new idea
to him. Mr. Miller quoted 2 Kings, 14, 15, without mentioning
the verses from which he drew the inference; and it was not
till the author had read Dr. Hales’ “Analysis” that he saw the
correctness of that inference. If this admission gives Mr.
Miller an advantage, he is fairly entitled to it. We cannot,
for one moment, suppose that he knew anything about Dr. Hales
or his work. As a plain, unlettered man, his perspicuity in
reading his Bible, and _his Bible only_, is much to his credit;
and we ought to consider it as giving additional force to the
reasons assigned by Dr. Hales, that an ignorant man, as Mr.
Miller confessedly is, should, from the mere examination of
the Bible, have arrived at the same conclusion. The censure,
however, in the sermon, holds good with regard to the reign of
Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings, 8:17; 2 Chron. 21:5);
but, being equally applicable to Archbishop Usher, should not
have been laid particularly at Mr. Miller’s door.’