Full download ebook at ebookgrade.

com

Housebuilders Bible 13th edition B07VX88326

The

https://ebookgrade.com/product/housebuilders-
bible-13th-edition-b07vx88326-the/

Download more ebook from https://ebookgrade.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Flavor Bible The

https://ebookgrade.com/product/flavor-bible-the/

Orgasm Bible 1st edition The

https://ebookgrade.com/product/orgasm-bible-1st-edition-the/

ESV Reformation Study Bible The Reformation Study Bible

https://ebookgrade.com/product/esv-reformation-study-bible-the-
reformation-study-bible/

Fusion Marketing Bible The

https://ebookgrade.com/product/fusion-marketing-bible-the/
Position Sex Bible The

https://ebookgrade.com/product/position-sex-bible-the/

Introduction to the Hebrew Bible Third Edition

https://ebookgrade.com/product/introduction-to-the-hebrew-bible-
third-edition/

PowerScore GMAT Critical Reasoning Bible (The

PowerScore GMAT Bible Series Book 1) The

https://ebookgrade.com/product/powerscore-gmat-critical-
reasoning-bible-the-powerscore-gmat-bible-series-book-1-the/

Men's Fitness Exercise Bible The

https://ebookgrade.com/product/mens-fitness-exercise-bible-the/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 “15. I believe the wise, they who are to shine as the
brightness of the firmament, Dan. 12:3, will understand the
time. Eccl. 8:5; Dan. 12:10; Matt. 24:43-45; 25:6-10; 1
Thess. 5:4; 1 Pet. 1:9-13.
“16. I believe the time can be known by all who desire to
understand and to be ready for his coming. And I am fully
convinced that some time between March 21, 1843, and
March 21, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of
computation of time, Christ will come, and bring all his saints
with him; and that then he will reward every man as his
works shall be. Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12.

“With the commencement of the new year, he issued the following

ADDRESS TO BELIEVERS IN THE NEAR ADVENT.

“‘Dear Brethren:—This year, according to our faith, is the last
year that Satan will reign in our earth. Jesus Christ will come,
and bruise his head. The kingdoms of the earth will be
dashed to pieces, which is the same thing. And he, whose
right it is to reign, will take the kingdom, and possess it
forever and ever. And the God of peace shall tread Satan
under your feet shortly. Therefore, we have but a little time
more to do as our good brother, Paul, was commanded, Acts
26:18, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to
light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them
which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
“‘Let us then put forth our best energies in this cause; let
every one of us try, by persuasion, by the help and grace of
God, to get one, at least, of our friends to come to Christ, in
this last year of redemption; and, if we succeed, what an
army of regenerated souls may we not hail in the new
heavens and new earth! I pray God, my brethren, that
nothing may deter you from this work. Let scoffers scoff, and
liars tell lies; we must not suffer ourselves to be drawn from
our work. Yes, the glorious work of salvation, within a few
short months, will be finished forever. Then I need not exhort
you more on this point; you yourselves know the value of this
great salvation.
“‘And another thing it is well for us to remember. The world
will watch for our halting. They cannot think we believe what
we speak, for they count our faith a strange faith; and now
beware, and not give them any vantage-ground over us. They
will, perhaps, look for the halting and falling away of many.
But I hope none who are looking for the glorious appearing
will let their faith waver. Keep cool; let patience have its
perfect work; that, after ye have done the will of God, ye may
receive the promise. This year will try our faith; we must be
tried, purified and made white; and if there should be any
among us who do not in heart believe, they will go out from
us; but I am persuaded that there cannot be many such; for
it is a doctrine so repugnant to the carnal heart, so opposite
to the worldly-minded, so far from the cold professor, the
bigot and hypocrite, that none of them will, or can, believe in
a doctrine so searching as the immediate appearing of Jesus
Christ to judge the world. I am, therefore, persuaded better
things of you, brethren, although I thus speak. I beseech you,
my dear brethren, be careful that Satan get no advantage
over you by scattering coals of wild-fire among you; for if he
cannot drive you into unbelief and doubt, he will try his wild-
fire of fanaticism and speculation to get us from the word of
God. Be watchful and sober, and hope to the end for the
grace that shall be brought unto you at the revelation of
Jesus Christ.
“‘Think not, my brethren, that I stand in doubt of your
perseverance. I know your faith, your love, and hope, to be
rooted and grounded on the word of the Almighty. You are
not dependent on the wisdom or commandments of men.
Many, if not all of you, have examined for yourselves. You
have studied, and found true, what at first was only reported
unto you. You have found the Bible much more precious than
you had before conceived; its doctrines to be congenial with
the holy and just character of God; its precepts to be wise,
benevolent and kind; and its prophecies to be clear and lucid,
carrying conviction of the truth and inspiration of the
Scriptures, by a harmony of manner and matter from Genesis
to Revelation. In one word, you have found a new Bible, and
I hope and believe you have read it with new delight. I fear
not that you can ever be satisfied with the views of our
opponents; their manner of explaining Scripture is too carnal
to satisfy the devoted child of God.
“‘Then let me advise to a continual searching for truth, both
for faith and practice; and wherever we have wandered from
the word of God, let us come back to the primitive simplicity
of the gospel once delivered to the saints. Thus we shall be
found ready at his coming to give an account of our
stewardship, and hear our blessed Master say, “Well done,
thou good and faithful servant; enter thou in to the joy of thy
Lord.” Every truth we get from the blessed book prepares us
better for his coming and kingdom. Every error prevents us,
in part, from being ready. Let us, then, stand strong in the
faith, with our loins girt about with truth, and our lamps
trimmed and burning, and waiting for our Lord, ready to enter
the promised land, the true inheritance of the saints. This
year the fullness of time will come, the shout of victory will be
heard in Heaven, the triumphant return of our great Captain
may be expected, the new song will commence before the
throne, eternity begin its revolution, and time shall be no
more.
“‘This year—O blessed year—the captive will be released,
the prison doors will be opened, death will have no more
dominion over us, and life, eternal life, be our everlasting
reward. This year—O glorious year!—the trump of jubilee will
be blown, the exiled children will return, the pilgrims reach
 their home, from earth and Heaven the scattered remnant
come and meet in the middle air,—the fathers before the
flood, Noah and his sons, Abraham and his, the Jew and
Gentile, all who have died in faith, of every nation, kindred,
tongue, and people, will meet to part no more. This year! the
long-looked-for year of years! the best! it is come! I shall
hope to meet you all through faith in God and the blood of
the Lamb. Until then farewell. May God bless you, and sustain
you in the faith.
“‘May you be patient in all tribulation, and endure unto the
end. May you this year be crowned with immortality and
glory. And finally, my brethren, pray God, your whole body,
soul, and spirit, be preserved blameless unto the coming of
the Lord Jesus Christ.’
“‘William Miller.
“‘Low Hampton, Jan. 1, 1843.’

“In compliance with the wishes of Elder Marvin Eastwood and his
congregation, in Waterford, N. Y., Mr. Miller lectured there from the
last day of December, 1842, to the 8th of January, 1843.
“On the morning of the third day, the Congregational minister
called on him, with a deacon of his church, and wished to ask him a
few questions. Five other gentlemen soon came in, and took seats in
the room. Mr. Miller told the clergyman that he might ask any
question he pleased, and he would answer the best he could. The
minister accordingly asked him some twenty questions, each one of
which Mr. M. answered by quoting a text of Scripture. He then
thanked Mr. M. for his politeness, and acknowledged that he had
answered him fairly. ‘But,’ said he, ‘I do not believe your doctrine.’
“‘What doctrine?’ said Mr. M.
“‘I don’t believe God has revealed the time.’”
“Mr. M. asked him if he would answer three questions.[17]
 “The minister replied that he did not come there to answer
questions. One of the gentlemen present then inquired of the
minister why he would not answer. He said he did not come for the
purpose of answering questions, and did not choose to. The
gentleman then said to him: ‘I have disbelieved the Bible, but have
been one of your principal supporters many years; and, when Mr.
Miller has answered so many of your questions, if you will not let
him ask you three, I can pay you no more of my money.’ He added,
‘I have seen more evidence in proof of the truth of the Bible in the
few lectures I have heard from Mr. M. than in all the sermons you
have ever preached.’
“‘Why,’ said the minister, ‘how does Mr. Miller prove the truth of
the Bible?’
“‘By the fulfillment of prophecy.’
“‘And do not I prove it in the same way? Do not I show how all
the prophecies in reference to Christ were fulfilled in him?’
“‘Why, yes, you do that; but you have never shown that those
prophecies were written before Christ; and it is very easy to write a
history. But Mr. M. has shown us how the prophecies are being
fulfilled in our own day; he has shown us how the history of
Napoleon is a perfect fulfillment of prophecy; and I know that that
prophecy was written before the time of Napoleon.’
“The minister and deacon retired. The gentleman then turned to
Mr. Miller, and said that he and his four companions were infidels;
that they had attended his lectures; had become quite interested;
but had very curious feelings, and wished to know what ailed them.
“Mr. M. inquired whether they would attend any more of his
lectures.
“They replied that they should lose none of them.
“‘Well,’ said Mr. M., ‘I think I will not tell you what ails you; but, if
you will give close attention during the week, I think you will find
out.’
 “They attended his lectures, and, before the end of the week, with
a number of others who had been infidels, were rejoicing in the
goodness and forgiveness of God. At the close of his last lecture,
one hundred and twenty persons voluntarily arose for prayers; a
goodly number were soon rejoicing in the Saviour, and a glorious
result followed.
“On the 10th of January, 1843, Mr. M. began a course of lectures
in the Presbyterian church in Utica, N. Y., where an interest was
elicited which extended to surrounding places. Invitations were
received from many of the neighboring towns, which could not be
complied with. The meetings closed on the 17th, when forty or fifty
were inquiring what they should do to be saved. A good work had
been commenced, which continued for several weeks. The Methodist
Reformer, published in that city, announced that ‘many thoughtless
sinners and cold professors were stirred up to duty by them;’ and
the Baptist Register said, ‘Mr. Miller’s appeals were often very
pungent, and made a very deep impression on the audience, and
many came forward for prayer.’
“From the 21st to the 29th of January, 1843, Mr. Miller lectured in
Bennington, Vt. He then went to Philadelphia, Pa., and lectured in
the large hall of the Chinese Museum, which was crowded to excess,
from the 3d to the 10th of February. On the evening of the 7th, a
gentleman arose and confessed that he had been an infidel, but
could now praise God for what he had done for his soul. Many
others followed, bearing testimony to God’s pardoning mercy.
“The interest attending the lectures continued to increase from the
first till the evening before their close. On that evening the house
was filled to overflowing at an early hour. When the lecture
commenced, the crowd and confusion were so great as to render it
almost impossible to hear the speaker; and it was thought best,
after notifying the people what was to be done, and giving an
opportunity for all who wished so to do to go out, to close the doors,
and thus secure silence. This was done, and the speaker proceeded
to his subject. For about half an hour there was profound silence,
and deep interest was evinced by the immense audience, with the
exception of a few unruly boys. This would have undoubtedly
continued had it not been for the circumstance of a lady’s fainting,
and it becoming necessary to open the doors for her to go out.
When the door was opened, there was a rush of persons who stood
outside for admittance. As soon as this was done, and a few had
come into the room, an unruly boy raised the cry of ‘fire,’ which
threw the whole assembly into confusion, some crying one thing,
and some another. There did not appear to be any disposition on the
part of the multitude to disturb the meeting; but all came from the
rush and cry. The disorder arose more from the excited fears of the
people than from any other cause. Order was again restored, and
the speaker proceeded for a few moments, when another rush was
made, and the excitement became so great within as to render it
expedient to dismiss the meeting.
“The police of the city were willing to do what they could, but
there was nothing for them to do; for they could not govern the
excited nerves of the audience.
“On Friday morning the multitude were again assembled at an
early hour for service, and Mr. Miller proceeded to answer numerous
questions which had been proposed. A most profound attention was
manifested until the meeting was about half through, when a man
arose and wished to propose some questions, which interrupted the
order of the meeting.
“The owners became alarmed for the safety of the hall, and
ordered the meetings to be closed after the afternoon service.
Although this fact was unknown except by a few persons, yet the
room was literally packed with a mass of living beings, who listened
with breathless silence to Mr. Miller’s last lecture.
“There had been no intimation given throughout of what had
transpired to close the meetings, until he came to bid them farewell.
There were then bitter tears and strong sighs. The announcement of
the fact came unexpectedly. The appeal was melting beyond
expression. Probably more than a thousand persons arose to testify
their faith in the truth of the advent near, and three or four hundred
of the unconverted arose to request an interest in his prayers. Mr.
Miller closed the services by a most feeling and appropriate prayer
and benediction. No blame was attached to the owners of the
Museum for their course.
“About this time it was announced, by a correspondent of
Bennett’s N. Y. Herald, that Mr. Miller had fixed on the 3d of April for
the advent. This being industriously circulated, led Prof. Moses Stuart
to say of ‘the men of April 3, 1843,’ “I would respectfully suggest,
that in some way or other they have, in all probability, made a small
mistake as to the exact day of the month when the grand
catastrophe takes place, the 1st of April being evidently much more
appropriate to their arrangements than any other day in the year.”—
Hints, 2d ed., p. 173. The New York Observer, of February 11, 1843,
in commenting on this suggestion of Prof. Stuart, thought it
sufficient ‘to quiet every feeling of alarm!’ As remarks like these, and
other equally foolish stories which are referred to in the following
letter, met the eye of Mr. Miller, he thus denies them through the
columns of the Signs of the Times:—

“‘Dear Brother Himes:—At the request of numerous friends, I

herein transmit to them, through you, a brief statement of
facts, relative to the many stories with which the public are
humbugged, concerning the principles I advocate, and the
management of my worldly concerns.
“My principles, in brief, are, that Jesus Christ will come
again to this earth, cleanse, purify, and take possession of the
same, with all his saints, some time between March 21, 1843,
and March 21, 1844. I have never, for the space of more than
twenty-three years, had any other time preached or published
by me; I have never fixed on any month, day, or hour, during
that period; I have never found any mistake in reckoning,
summing up or miscalculation; I have made no provision for
any other time; I am perfectly satisfied that the Bible is true,
 and is the word of God, and I am confident that I rely wholly
on the blessed book for my faith in this matter. I am not a
prophet. I am not sent to prophesy, but to read, believe, and
publish what God has inspired the ancient prophets to
administer to us, in the prophecies of the Old and New
Testaments. These have been, and now are, my principles,
and I hope I shall never be ashamed of them.
“‘As to worldly cares, I have had but very few for twelve
years past. I have a wife and eight children; I have great
reason to believe they all are the children of God, and
believers in the same doctrine with myself. I own a small farm
in Low Hampton, N. Y.; my family support themselves upon it,
and I believe they are esteemed frugal, temperate, and
industrious. They use hospitality without grudging, and never
turn a pilgrim from the house, nor the needy from the door. I
bless God that my family are benevolent and kind to all men
who need their sympathy or aid; I have no cares to manage,
except my own individual wants; I have no funds or debts
due me of any amount; “I owe no man anything;” and I have
expended more than two thousand dollars of my property in
twelve years, besides what God has given me through the
dear friends, in this cause.
“‘Yours respectfully,
William Miller.
“‘Philadelphia, Feb. 4, 1844.’

“The almost unparalleled abuse to which Mr. Miller was subject,

through most of the secular and some of the religious papers, during
this period, called forth the following manly rebuke from the Sandy
Hill Herald, a paper published in Mr. Miller’s own county:—

“‘FATHER MILLER.
 “‘While we are not prepared to subscribe to the doctrine
promulgated by this gentleman, we have been surprised at
the means made use of by its opponents to put it down.
Certainly all who have ever heard him lecture, or have read
his works, must acknowledge that he is a sound reasoner,
and, as such, is entitled to fair arguments from those who
differ with him. Yet his opponents do not see fit to exert their
reasoning powers, but content themselves by denouncing the
old gentlemen as a “fanatic,” a “liar,” “deluded old fool,”
“speculator,” &c., &c. Mr. Miller is now, and has been for many
years, a resident of this county, and as a citizen, a man, and a
Christian, stands high in the estimation of all who know him;
and we have been pained to hear the gray-headed, trembling
old man denounced as a “speculating knave.”
“‘Speculating, forsooth! Why need he speculate? He has
enough of the good things of this world to last him through
the few days which at longest may be his on earth, without
traveling from city to city, from town to village, laboring night
and day like a galley-slave, to add to a store which is already
abundant. Who that has witnessed his earnestness in the
pulpit, and listened to the uncultivated eloquence of nature,
which falls in such rich profusion from his lips, dare say that
he is an impostor? We answer, without fear of contradiction
from any candid mind, None! We are not prepared to say how
far the old man may be from correct, but one thing, we doubt
not that he is sincere; and we do hope that some one of his
many opponents will take the pains to investigate the subject,
and, if it be in their power, drive the old man from his
position. It is certainly a subject worthy of investigation, and
one fraught with momentous consequences; and no matter
who the individual is that promulgates the doctrine, if he
offers good reasons and sound arguments, drawn from the
word of God and from history, we say he is entitled to his
position until, by the same means, he is driven from it. Mr.
Miller certainly goes to the fountain of knowledge, revelation,
 and history, for proof, and should not be answered with low,
vulgar, and blasphemous witticisms.’

“We like the following remarks, copied from an exchange, in

relation to this subject:—

“‘Millerism.—This is the term by which the opinions of those

who oppose the idea of a millennium, and maintain that the
end of the world will take place in 1843, are distinguished;
and they are thus denominated because Mr. Miller first
propagated it.
“‘We certainly are not a convert to the theory; but we feel
bound in duty to lift our voice in reproof of, and enter our
protest against, the infidel scurrility and blasphemous
witticisms with which some of our exchanges abound, and
from which religious periodicals are not wholly exempt.
“‘If Mr. Miller is in error, it is possible to prove him so, but
not by vulgar and blasphemous witticisms and ribaldry; these
are not arguments. And to treat a subject of such
overwhelming majesty, and fearful consequences—a subject
which has been made the theme of prophecy in both
Testaments; the truth of which, occur when it will, God has
sealed by his own unequivocal averments—we repeat it, to
make puns and display vulgar wit upon this subject, is not
merely to sport with the feelings of its propagators and
advocates, but is to make a jest of the day of Judgment, to
scoff at the Deity himself, and contemn the terrors of his
judgment bar.’

“The Pittsburg (Pa.) Gazette, also said:—

“‘We do not concur with Mr. Miller in his interpretations of

the prophecies; but we can see neither reason nor
Christianity in the unmerited reproach which is heaped upon
 him for propagating an honest opinion. And that he is honest
we have no doubt. True, we think him in error, but believe he
is honestly so. And suppose he does err in his views of
prophecy, does that make him either a knave or a fool? Have
not some of the greatest or best men who have lived since
the days of the apostles erred in the same way? And who will
say that all these, including Whitby, Bishop Newton, and
others of equal celebrity, were monomaniacs, and driven by a
pitiable or culpable frenzy to the adoption of their opinions?
The truth is, as we apprehend, that many of those who are so
indecorous and vituperative in their denunciations of Miller,
are in fearful trepidation, lest the day being so near at hand,
should overtake them unawares, and hence, like cowardly
boys in the dark, they make a great noise by way of keeping
up their courage, and to frighten away the bugbears.’

“The editor of the Countryman, in giving the synopsis of Mr.

Miller’s views, added:—

“‘The abstract of Miller’s views, which we give on our fourth

page, so far as we give it in this paper, is and has been,
according to what we have been able to ascertain, the
professed belief of orthodox Christians, from the day of
Christ’s ascension into Heaven until the present hour.
Therefore they are not merely Mr. Miller’s views, but the
acknowledged views of the Christian church, the received
Bible doctrine; and if Bible doctrine, then are they the truth.
“‘One of the apostles, who shared as largely in the
confidence and personal instruction of his Master as any,
concludes a reference to this subject in these words:
“Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be
diligent, that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot
and blameless.” 2 Pet. 3:14. If the things here referred to
have not taken place—and who will say they have?—they, of
course, are yet to transpire. If so, is not the caution of the
apostle as important in this our day as it was when he uttered
it? And if it was an event to be looked for and hoped for then,
should it be an object of less solicitude now? Every intelligent,
free moral agent upon earth, whether aware of it or not, has
an interest in this issue. He may absorb his mind in other
matters, he may drown reflection in the whirl of business or
pleasure, he may wrap his soul in projects of wealth or
ambition, and fill his aspiring eye with the anticipated glories
of some dazzling hight, but his interest still cleaves to the
immortality of his nature, and, sooner or later, he must
discover that it is the most important interest ever presented
to his consideration, or that is attached to his being or his
destiny. Is it not, then, the hight of wisdom to give heed to
these things, and examine them with all that diligence and
dispassionate attention their importance merits?’
 CHAPTER XI.
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.