Miller's Reply to Stuart's "Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy"

IN THREE LETTERS,
ADDRESSED TO
JOSHUA V. HIMES.

1842

REMARKS OF THE PUBLISHER

THE following Letters were addressed to us originally for the "Signs of the Times." The author did not design them as a thorough review of Professor Stuart's work; his object was merely to expose some of its principal absurdities.

We give it in this, as well as in other forms, that its circulation may be the more extensive.

J. V. HIMES.
BOSTON, DEC. 1, 1842.

4

BLANK PAGE.

MILLER'S REPLY TO STUART

LETTER I

DEAR BRO. HIMES:- I have read the book you sent me, "Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, by M. Stuart." I find the writer, after an elaborate introduction, has divided the subject which he discusses into three distinct parts: 1st. "Occult or double sense of prophecy." 2. "Prophecy not intelligible until it is fulfilled." 3. "Designation of time in the prophecies." I have been pleased, edified, and instructed, by reading this work. I was pleased to see the Christian spirit in which, apparently, the book was written; so unlike Mr. Dowling, the "Puritan," or "Watchman," or any of the scurrility with which I have been assailed by a selfish priesthood, or a hireling press, that I must confess I felt a union of heart and soul, for the writer, which I rarely feel for any of our modern writers on theology. They are manifestly the most Christian, candid, and reasonable arguments

6

that I have ever met with, from any source whatever; and if I have not the truth, as it respects time - for on the two first points we exactly agree - I would as readily yield the palm of victory to Moses Stuart, the writer of this book, as any man I have any knowledge of at this time. To be conquered by such a writer, would be an honor my vanity would almost covet: yet I dare not yield the truth of God's word to any man, nor for any consideration whatever, however glorious it might be in the sight of my fellow-men, or gratifying to an unbelieving multitude. One thing I ask, and that will I seek after. If truth compels me to disagree with this writer, whatever I may write, may it be done in the same spirit as to me appears to possess the excellent writer of this little book before me.

On his first head or question, "Are there many occult passages in prophecy which are pregnant with a double meaning?" - I answer, very few, and with the writer I agree, "that if such a principle be admitted, how is it possible to ascertain within what bounds it shall be confined." By this, I do not understand the writer to mean, that there are no types, nor analogies in the Bible, which types and analogies were once prophecies; for instance, the destruction of the old world by water, which was a prophecy in the days of Noah, is by our Saviour applied as a type, or an analogy of the destruction of the world by fire. Again, the travel of the children of Israel through the wilderness into the land of Canaan is applied unto us, by Paul, as a sample: if we conduct as they did, we shall meet with like judgments. Therefore I am perfectly

7

agreed with the writer, that there is no double meaning to words in the prophecies of the Old and New Testament.

In his second part, as I have named it, "Prophecy not intelligible until it is fulfilled," I am pleased to see our views so perfectly harmonize. I say with the writer, if God has revealed any truth, that truth may be understood; but I would not say, neither do I understand the writer of this book to say, that men will all see the truth and know it, and in all ages of the world, and at all times. No, for if that were the case, we should have no need of this book which he has written to teach us how to understand prophecy. Although God may have revealed things plainly and intelligibly, yet it may by us be rejected, or clothed in a mantle of mysticism, and so hid for ages, for aught I can see, and then brought to light by the diligent application of some of his servants. Surely, the writer will not deny this, for his object in writing this book is, as he says, to do away with an error, that has for years become almost or quite universal. So, you can see, we are happily and clearly agreed on this point.

His next, and third part: "Designations of time in the prophecies." On this point, his rule, which he has laid down on page 65, is perfectly right, and must, I think, stand the test in all cases. "Every passage of Scripture, or of any other book, is to be interpreted as bearing its plain, and primary, and literal sense, unless good reasons can be given why it should be tropically (figuratively) understood."

Thus far I can agree with the learned author;

8

but here I must stop: his rules of interpretation are good, his general remarks on the nature and manner of prophecy I admire; but when he comes to apply those rules, I see neither reason nor common sense in the application.

I shall not follow him through all his arguments and explanations; but shall select a few. And first, his views of the little horn, in Dan.vii.7,8,20,21-26, meaning Antiochus Epiphanes, are wholly without evidence; not even a color of testimony can be brought from the Scriptures to prove that point. Yet he asserts it as though no one ever doubted it: this proves that his reading on that point has been very limited.

This horn does not belong to the Grecian kingdom, nor is it one of the four into which Grecia was divided. See Dan.vii.7: "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns." Now read the heavenly teacher. Daniel vii.23: "Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." After Daniel had given the account of the Grecian kingdom in the sixth verse, he says he saw in his vision another beast, which is explained to mean the fourth kingdom upon earth. Is it possible to prove that a third can be the fourth? A third

9

may have four heads, but it is the same beast still. Here we have another one, different from all other kingdoms that were before it. Where was the wide difference between the Syrian and the other three kingdoms into which Alexander's was divided? All arose in the same manner, all made war on each other, and each in its turn succeeded in its warlike enterprises. Neither one of them was able to subdue all the other three. Yet Daniel tells us that "three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots," and by the little horn, which our author calls Antiochus. Again, this kingdom was to have ten kings when this little horn should rise up: for he is to rise after them, and among them, and subdue three of them. This, then, cannot, by any fair construction, be applied to Antiochus.

This little horn was to make war with the saints, and prevail against them until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. See verses 21,22. What kingdom? See verses 26,27: "But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." It is a "great kingdom," 'under the whole heaven," and an "everlasting kingdom," and, "all dominions serving and obeying him." Now if the Jews mean the saints, as our author tells us, according to his

10

own showing, the Jews have not yet got the everlasting kingdom. See his own remarks, on page 139, on Acts i.6,7. And of course Antiochus is yet alive, making war, and prevailing against the Jews. No wonder our author complains against the English and American commentators. If he follows them, all their wisdom, and his too, is not able to extricate him from a very foolish dilemma. Let him apply this to the Roman kingdom, and all will be clear and natural.

We cannot avoid seeing, as I sincerely believe, that the kingdom which is given to the saints of the Most High at the destruction of the little horn, cannot be any kingdom possessed by the Jews at that time or at any time subsequent. If it is figurative, then the rules of our good brother will not apply; for it is not used in the 27th verse as a symbol or representation, but as an explanation of the 14th and 22nd verses, by the heavenly visitor himself. See verse 16: "I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things."

Then by what stretch of imagination we can apply this little horn to Antiochus, is to me ten times more mysterious than the occult sense, of which the writer so justly complains. Why not then make the application where it belongs, to the fourth or Roman kingdom, and the little horn to Antichrist making war against the true saints, until the glorious appearing of the great God (Ancient of days) and our Saviour Jesus Christ, in the clouds of heaven? Surely there can be

11

no objection against this hypothesis, because all must admit that then, when Christ shall come the second time, he will come to receive unto himself a kingdom which will be eternal. Luke xix.15: "And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading." Then will the saints possess the kingdom promised, James ii.5: "Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?" Why, I ask again, in the name of all that is dear in heaven or earth, cannot our teachers apply the prophecies of the Old Testament to the precious promises in the new? 1Pet.i.9-13: "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus

12

Christ." Here is a plain rule of the application of Old Testament prophecy. Why not follow it? Has God blinded the eyes of our seers and our teachers, so that they cannot see? Or have our sectarian quarrels produced a confusion in the ranks of our expositors of the word of God, so that truth has fallen in the streets, and but few men left? In Daniel, 7th chapter, how perfectly plain do we trace the prophetic history of our world, from the days of Daniel to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven, the judgment of the saints, and the everlasting kingdom of the glorified children of God. And yet this good man, this teacher in Israel, sees not a single ray of light this side of Antiochus, a Syrian king, who died 164 years before Christ was born. If Christ should come now, would he find faith on the earth? O God, have mercy, and open the eyes of our teachers! Again; he tells us, on pages 86 and 87, that the events predicted in the 11th chapter, from 21-45, and the whole of the 12th chapter, are to be referred, altogether, to Antiochus Epiphanes. This to me is still more unaccountable, how men of such erudition as Moses Stuart, can for a moment suppose that all the description given here, can or ought to be applied to one man. Yes, and that too, describing the events that were to happen to the people of God in the latter days, beginning with the fifth king of Persia, and ending with a resurrection; Daniel x.14 to xii.4. I know that Moses Stuart has the authority of some of the expositors in the Roman Catholic church, for his understanding of these prophecies. He has given their sentiments in

13

their own words, and I am afraid he has not been careful enough to compare their views with the word of God. They were too much interested in the conclusion, to be received by me without a careful examination. And if it can be shown that the prophecy fails to be fulfilled in Antiochus, in any one point, then the whole must fall. Matt.v.17,18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Let us then examine the first verse of the 12th chapter. "Then shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people." When did this happen? If these expositors are right, "then," at the death of Antiochus or immediately afterwards, Michael stands up. Has any one been able to show satisfactorily who this is? I answer, no. "And there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time." Was there a time of trouble after Antiochus's death? This is not tropical language; remember our rules. Can any man produce such a historical fact as to warrant this expression? Mr. S. tells us, page 92, "No wonder that the angel pronounced those of the pious and believing Jews to be blessed, who lived to see such a day of deliverance. The great enemy of their nation and their God had fallen; Judas Maccabaeus had become everywhere victorious; the sanctuary was now cleansed of its pollution, pure worship was restored, and the Hebrews had every

14

prospect of independence." I will agree that the description given of these times by this writer, is highly wrought up, to meet another event in the prophecy under contemplation. Yet our time of trouble fails: "And at that time," in this time of trouble, "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." Who are these, and what book is this they are written in? Was this accomplished at that time? I answer, No. The author of this book dare not assert it, although he apparently wrought up our minds, by the glowing description which I have just quoted, to expect something very graphic; yet when he comes to the point, he slips over in perfect silence in this place, although he had before (page 88) acknowledged Daniel xii.1-3 difficult to interpret. Why not then tell us what it does mean? But as it happens, to the glory of God, we are not dependent on Mr. Stuart to tell us; the angel himself has informed us. "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

We must remember the rules given in this book of "Hints," etc. No tropical words where the sense is plain; no occult or double meaning in this passage. One of two things, then, must be true. Either the resurrection did take place in the time, times and a half, under Antiochus, and all the people of God, every one of them whose names are written, or ever shall be written in the Lamb's book of life, did awake to everlasting life; or Antiochus is not the one designated in this prophecy, as Mr. S. says.

15

Now which dilemma shall we take? I answer, I will choose to let Antiochus go, and take a resurrection to come, and I think our good Br. Stuart will do the same, if he is wise. "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars, forever and ever."

This grand and sublime description cannot, without doing the utmost violence to tropical language, be applied to so barren and insignificant a circumstance as the Jews in their corrupt state, into which they were sunk, between the last of the prophets and the birth of the Messiah, being released from one petty tyrant to fall under others more severe within four or five years. See 1Maccabees 7th and 9th chapters.

Common sense would forbid such a construction of this prophecy, and I am well satisfied, that with all Mr. Stuart's knowledge, he has not a clear knowledge of the history of the Jews at the time specified. This prophecy cannot have reference to Antiochus. The next verse shows that the book of Daniel was shut up and sealed until the time of the end. Mr. S. says, to the end of these troubles with Antiochus; but that would be departing from his own rule, unless he can prove that the resurrection, which is immediately mentioned before, was fulfilled at that time, which he has not done. Then, I am at liberty to fix my own construction; and he tells us, plainly, that there cannot, with any propriety, be an occult or double meaning in prophecy. And when the Bible tells us that "those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," and to "everlasting life" too, I cannot,

16

to accommodate myself to any man's theory call it spiritual, when I believe in a literal one to come. This I am satisfied is Br. S.'s rule. Neither can I apply the words in Daniel vii.10-13, to a mystical sense, and in other places make the same words and sentiments literal, without a "thus saith the Lord." Therefore, when the angel tells Daniel that "those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," and Christ tells me "the hour is coming when all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth," I cannot believe one a mystical and the other a literal sense, without any further cause being shown, than my, or another's anxiety to have Antiochus mean the little horn. Daniel vii.8-25, and 11-12 chap. And if this view which Br. S. has given of these prophecies be true, then his principles of interpretation cannot be correct, without he allows himself, what he is not willing to grant to others, to depart from his own rules, where his own views require such a departure.

As it respects his exposition of times in Dan.7 and 12, we shall reserve it for future remarks, and examine now into his views on Daniel 8th chapter, p. 93. He says, "One, and only one more period in the book of Daniel claims our present attention; this is in chapter viii.14. In the vision seen by Daniel, as there related, one angel inquires of another, 'How long the sanctuary and the host were given to be trodden under foot.' The answer is, 'to two thousand three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.'"

Our teacher has made a very sad misstatement

17

in stating his question, not by design, we cannot believe; for he is too good a man to mislead any one. True, my critical neighbor says, he discovers a trick or design in thus stating the question; but wherein? say I. Do you see he has enclosed the question in a single comma, showing that it is but partially stated, while he has enclosed the answer in double commas, showing it is all true? says my neighbor. No, no, said I, this is all jealousy. Mr. S. is too good a man to favor deception at all; it is an inadvertency; he will correct it in a moment when he sees it. The question is not 'How long the sanctuary and host are given to be trodden under foot?' but it is, as Br. Stuart will acknowledge, "How long shall be the vision?" or as some translate it, "For how long time shall be the vision," "concerning the daily (or continual) sacrifice (or wicked) and transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and host to be trodden under foot?" The answer must be according to the question, or one of these heavenly messengers must be in an error - either the one asking, or the one answering the question; and surely I dare not say either is wrong. Then the question resolves itself into the following particulars: "How long shall the ram push against Grecia, or westward, northward and southward; and the he-goat coming from the west, breaking the two horns of the ram, smiting him and casting him down to the ground, and stamping upon him, and then becoming very great; and he must be broken, and then four more rise up in his room, and they continue to be very wicked, notably so; and when they have

18

accomplished their wickedness, then shall arise another horn, which waxed exceeding great, above all the horns before it, towards the south, east and north, it waxed great to the host of heaven, cast down the stars and stamped upon them, magnified himself in his heart, even to the prince of the host, and stood up against the Prince of princes, the Lord Jesus Christ, cast down the truth to the ground, and practised and prospered, until the Ancient of days came, and the Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven, and these will be broken without hand?"

This last horn is the one which takes away the daily sacrifice, and places in the room of it, the abomination that maketh desolate, and is himself the desolator, and will only be destroyed at the consummation. See Daniel vii.11,26: "I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end." ix.27: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." In this verse the same abominations are spoken of, as in Daniel viii.13, and this sweeps away at one blow, Br. Stuart's exposition of the little horn being Antiochus; for no one can pretend that Antiochus lived after Christ; and yet we

19

find the same desolator overspreading abominations until the consummation, and that determined is poured upon the desolator.

This too harmonizes with Christ's word as given by Matthew (xxiv.15): "When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand;") and if our Br. S. would divest himself entirely of his prepossessions for Antiochus, and not be continually harassed by that old spectre, he would at once see that the Scriptures harmonize, and would not have to resort to such ridiculous subterfuges as he has on pages 99 and 100, to do away the force of Christ's words.

He would also see the exact agreement between Daniel's little horn, (xi.36,) "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done," and Paul's man of sin, (2Thess.ii.3,4,) "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition: who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 'But there is but little hope for such men. Pride of opinion goes a great ways with men of his standing, and they are slaves to popular applause; and all you

20

can say or write will do him no good, nor the class in which he moves,' - whispers Satan in my ear, while I am writing. Get behind me, Satan, say I. A man who writes with so good a spirit, and gives us such good rules, will see that it is all a fable about Antiochus being prophesied of anywhere in Daniel, except in chap.xi.11,12; and that from the 14th verse of the 11th chapter to the end of the 12th, all is a relation of the things which have been literally and will be fulfilled to the end of the gospel period, and the coming of Christ; and is all concerning the fourth and last earthly kingdom in our world.

My limits will not allow me now to show that every word of Daniel xi.14-45, has been literally fulfilled under the history of Rome, the fourth kingdom in Daniel's vision; and that that vision carries us to the end of all indignation, and to the consummation, when the body of this beast (Roman kingdom) is given to the burning flame. If then it can be shown that the history of Rome better fulfils the prophecy, and leaves no difficulty but what may be easily surmounted, why not leave the Antiochus system of explanation to its fate, with all its insurmountable difficulties, and take that which harmonizes with all Daniel's visions, the history of the world, and New Testament writers?

I shall now examine Mr. Stuart's remarks on the "designation of time," by his own rule.

1st. Time, as specified in Daniel viii.14: "And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." We have already examined the

21

question, and find it does contain a history of the world, from the Medo-Persian kingdom to the end of indignation, when that which God hath determined shall be poured upon the desolator, or to the end of the transgression of desolation, which is the end of the Roman, or fourth kingdom in the world. Thus far the vision is as plain to my mind as the rays of the sun in its meridian splendor. The answer then is, "unto 2300 days;" but, says the critic, it is "evenings, mornings." No matter, all men seem to understand it days; for it is so translated in every language with which we are acquainted at the present day. Therefore this can never be made plainer, if this compound Hebrew word should be criticised upon until the judgment shall set. I am sick of this continual harping upon words. Our learned critics are worse on the waters of truth, than a school of sharks on the fishing banks of the north, and they have made more infidels in our world than all the heathen mythology in existence. What word in revelation has not been turned, twisted, racked, wrested, distorted, demolished, and annihilated by these voracious harpies in human shape, until the public have become so bewildered, they know not what to believe? "They have fouled the waters with their feet." I have always noticed where they tread, the religious spirit is at a low ebb; it becomes cold, formal and doubtful, at least. It is the mind of the Spirit we want, and God's word then becomes spirit and life unto us.

The words "evenings, mornings" convey to our mind the idea of days; thus this vision is 2300 days long, says the reader. Yes. But

22

how can all this be? says the inquiring mind. Can three kingdoms rise up and become great; from a small people become a strong nation; conquer all the nations of the earth, and then in its turn be subdued and conquered by a kingdom still more fortunate, and so on through three successive kingdoms, and do this in little over six years? Impossible. But God has said it, and I must believe. Now the only difficulty is in time. How can this be? Very well, says the dear child of God, I remember me; God says I must "dig for the truth, as for hid treasure." I will go to work, and while I am digging, I will live by begging. Father in heaven, I believe it is thy word; but I do not understand it; shew me thy truth. I had rather have one humble prayer of this kind, with an English Bible in my hand, than all the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Br. S. ever knew. The child then takes the word day, and compares spiritual things with spiritual, to find what his heavenly Father means by days in a figurative sense; for he is satisfied it cannot be literal. The first text he lights upon is in Num.xiv.34, "each day for a year." May this not be it? says the child. He takes hold of it by faith, carries it home, lays it up in his cell of sweets, richer than a lord, and again goes forth in search of more. He now lights upon Eze.iv.6: "I have appointed thee each day for a year." He is now rich in very deed - two jewels in one cell. He does not stop to criticize like a Stuart, and query, and reason himself out of common sense and reason too; but Abraham-like, he believes, and lays up his treasure at home. I see, says the child, this use

23

of days was so ordained by my Father in two cases, and two witnesses is enough: but I am not certain that I have a right to use these jewels in this place; I will go and beg, and dig again. In this excursion he lights on Daniel ix.23-27: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people," etc. Seventy weeks of what? says the critic. I do not care a fig, says the believing child, whether you call it days or years; I know how long it was in fulfilling. How long? Exactly 490 years, from the decree given in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, 457 years before Christ, unto his death, 33 years after the birth of Christ, making exactly 490 years, or seventy sevens of years of the vision. But of what vision? says the critic. Why, says the child, it is the last vision Daniel had, in the 8th chapter. Are you certain of that? I am; it can refer to no other; and as the seventy weeks were a part of the vision, cut off from the vision, and did seal the vision and prophecy, I want no better evidence to show that these jewels which I have laid up, now have an application; for 490 years cannot be a part of six years, and of course the 2300 must be so many years; and if all the skeptics in Christendom, and the Stuarts in the habitable earth, should try to make me believe that the vision in the 8th chapter of Daniel was fulfilled under Antiochus Epiphanes, I could not do it. Thus would the believing child reason. This I know too by experience. But let me state this in another way. I find in the vision of Daniel things spoken of as the "abomination that maketh desolate." I find my Saviour mentioning

24

the same thing, and showing that it would exist even forty years after his time. I cannot believe that he was mistaken, and the end of that same thing was two hundred years before. "For at the time appointed, the end shall be." But Br. S. may say that it was the end of the pollution of the sanctuary; but this cannot be true, for we learn that twenty years or more after the death of Antiochus, Simon, the high priest, drove out the heathen who had polluted the sanctuary and the holy place; 1Maccab.xiv.36. Also our Saviour found the temple a den of thieves; therefore it could not mean the end of pollution.

These reasons, with more which can be and have been presented, are evidence strong that this vision could not have been fulfilled in six years. Then the conclusion is that days are used in a figurative sense.

Then I find, in the two cases above mentioned, they were used in that sense. Have we no right to compare Scripture with Scripture? Surely Br. S. is wise above what is written. 1Cor.ii.13: "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

The writer has admitted (page 76) that days in these two cases are symbols of years. Then why not use them so in Daniel and Revelation? Because God has not told us plainly here to so use them, says Br. S. But I say he has told us what is equal to it. He has given us definite time; he has told us what shall happen in that time. Common sense and a few years of experience show clearly it could not be, neither was it true, in a literal sense. Shall we charge our heavenly Father with folly? No. Let us first

25

take the precaution to be wise, compare Scripture with Scripture, as did Daniel, (ix.2,) pray as did Daniel, (ix.4-20.) It may be, after all, a symbol, methinks Daniel might have said. God revealed unto Belshazzar the end of his kingdom by a symbolic writing on the wall. Why not reveal unto us the end of all earthly kingdoms in symbolic language on the sacred wall of his word?

Do not start so, Br. S.; I am only reasoning from analogy, and I perceive you have done the same, pages 137,138. But let us pursue our analogy. When God revealed this to this proud and wicked monarch, he saw the fingers and symbolic writing, and was afraid; Daniel v.7,8: "The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed in scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Then came in all the king's wise men; but they could not read the writing, nor make known the interpretation thereof." Now the analogy. God has revealed by symbolic language the end of the world; Luke xxi.26: "Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." The world call on their D. D.'s, A. M.'s, Professors, Rev.'s, etc. - (Isa.xxi.11: "The burden of Dumah. He calleth to me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night?") - but they are all confused,

26

no two of them can agree; some cry one thing and some another. We have seen the D. D.'s calling it all "moonshine;" the A. M.'s putting it off for "ages yet to come;" the professors throwing it all upon the back of Antiochus; the Rev.'s charging it all to old Jerusalem; and thus we are, "confusion worse confused."

But the analogy: Daniel viii.13-26: "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now, as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his

27

eyes is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days."

And now we will be as wise as Belshazzar; at least we will call in Daniel. Hear him. Daniel ix.20-27: "And while I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin, and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God; yea, while I was speaking in prayer, even the man 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 shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved:

28

therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." What do we learn from him? We learn that days are to be understood years in his prophecy; (not the historical parts of it;) for the seventy weeks were to seal up the vision and the prophecy, which it could not do, if the vision was only six years and a third in length; it would far exceed it. We see, in the 27th verse Daniel carries us far beyond the death of Christ, until the burning day, and destruction of the abomination that maketh desolate,

29

or the desolator. Then this seventy weeks, for so it must be rendered, (Professor S. to the contrary notwithstanding,) is 490 years of the vision of Daniel viii.14: "And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Then if 490 years was a part of this symbolical hand-writing, showing the end of earthly kingdoms, and especially the end of mystical Babylon, I ask what night must she be slain? When will the kingdoms of this world be weighed in the balance of God's justice and be found wanting; be dashed to pieces like a potter's vessel, and carried away like the chaff of the summer's threshing-floor, and no place found for them?

But what does Daniel further tell us? See Daniel xii.10-13: "Many shall be purified and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." "Many will be purified and made white." Was this done when Antiochus died? If so, then I cannot understand what being clothed in white means. But it is explained, Rev.xix.7,8: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself

30

ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." It is the marriage of the Lamb, which could not have been 164 years before Christ was born. "And tried." When is this? Let the apostle James tell us, (i.12): "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him." "And the wicked shall do wickedly." So they were doing in Babylon, eating and drinking, and so they will be doing when Christ comes. Matt.xxiv.48-51: "But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My Lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; the Lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." "And none of the wicked shall understand." So it was in Babylon. Daniel v.15: "And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not shew the interpretation of the thing." And so will it be in the end of the world. See Luke xxi.35: "For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth." "But the wise shall understand." So it was when Babylon fell. Daniel v.14: "I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in

31

thee, and that light, and understanding, and excellent wisdom, is found in thee." And so will it be when mystical Babylon shall be destroyed by the brightness of Christ's coming. 1Thess.v.4. "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." 2Thess.ii.8: "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

You need not be alarmed for your rules, Br. Stuart. I am only reasoning from analogy; and surely you will not deny me the same privilege you have so abundantly improved upon yourself. And now, my dear Br. Stuart, let me give you some two or three good pieces of advice, as part payment for those you have given me, and I will pay you the remainder anon.

1. Say not, God cannot symbolize time, when he reveals all other parts by symbols.

2. Never write a book against any man, until you have read him, and thoroughly understand him.

3. Say not in your heart Christ will not come in 1843, lest he come and find you sleeping.

4. Take 490 from 2300, and add the life of Christ, 33, and you will find the true sanctuary cleansed, of which the temple at Jerusalem was only a shadow.

5. Take away the veil of Judaism from before your face, and you will look for the better promise; as did Abraham.

W. M.

LETTER II

DEAR BROTHER HIMES: - I am aware, if the professor was the only person I expected to benefit by my remarks, I should not trouble myself to write nor others to read what I have to present. If it was only to gain the mastery over Professor Stuart, I am not so visionary as to suppose, that, in the eyes of the world, I could have the most distant prospect of succeeding. It is a well known fact that the fashionable world do give to the men of letters what the ancients did to the priests of their idol gods - an implicit confidence in all they utter. The world, therefore, will laugh at my foolish daring, and my friends, if I have any, will stand aghast at my temerity in attacking this bearded lion in his den.

I have nothing, therefore, to expect from the world; and, if I fall, to hope for from my friends. One thing I ask, and that I shall expect to have, the prayers of all, that truth may triumph in the earth, and error be exposed, however plausible it may appear. I will not have it said in the great day, that truth had no

33

advocates in this day of tribulation, for fear of men. Therefore, my whole strength and dependence being put in God, I will try, by his assistance, to undo the awful effects of the doctrine of peace and safety by this learned author.

And first, HIS VIEWS OF THE LITTLE HORN in Daniel vii.25: "And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time." Page 83: "The first passage in Daniel vii.25, is so clear as to leave no room for a reasonable doubt. In verse 24 the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes is described; for the fourth beast in Daniel vii.7,8,11,19 to 26, as all must concede, is the divided Grecian dominion which succeeded the reign of Alexander the Great. From this dynasty springs Antiochus, verse 24, who is most graphically described, in verse 25, as one who shall speak great words against the Most High, and wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times and the dividing of time."

In this vision of Daniel's we have brought into view, by the representation of four great beasts, four great kingdoms. Daniel vii.3: "And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse from one another." Now read Daniel vii.17: "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth:" and verse 23: "Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which

34

shall be diverse from all kingdoms and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces." Can it be possible that this learned man can call this fourth beast Antiochus? How can the Syrian kingdom be called "diverse from all kingdoms?" It arose in the same manner as the other three, out of Alexander's kingdom. Antiochus never added either of the other three kingdoms to his; although he calculated to unite Egypt with his own; yet the Romans prevented it. [Rol., Book 18, chap. 2, sec. 2.] "And shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and shall break it in pieces."

Thus far, it is very certain we cannot apply this prophecy to Antiochus; and the professor knows that not one jot or tittle of God's word will fail, and therefore he passed over this in perfect silence. Where was his 'Bible exegesis' then? It is very certain that Antiochus never came up among ten kings, neither did he have ten horns. If he, as the professor says, is the little horn of the fourth kingdom, then he must have come up among ten, and taken away three; this fact his exegesis treats in silence, and I say cannot be applied to Antiochus.

Again: Daniel says, verses 9,10: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the

35

judgment was set, and the books were opened;" and this too in the lifetime of the little horn; for verse 11 - "I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld, even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame" - declares his death. "I beheld even till this beast was slain:" this was not true according to the professor's own statement; for he says this beast died with the cholera, as the professor supposes. "His body destroyed." Herein, too, Daniel was mistaken, for Rollin says his body was carried to Antioch, his capital. "And given to the burning flame." It is all different from the history. How mistaken Daniel must have been!

But this is not all. What else did Daniel see take place? Verse 13: "I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him." Can this be true? Did this all happen, and no history extant to give us an account - not even a tradition? Cannot our author contrive something to get us out of this difficulty? What do you say to a "Sybilline oracle," as in the case of Nero, and so have Antiochus rise up and defile the temple, when Matt.xxvi.64 - "Jesus saith unto him, Here-after shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" - shall come to pass? Again: Dan.vii.14: "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which

36

shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Can this mean the Jews? Were they called "all people, nations, languages?" also, "an everlasting kingdom, which shall not pass away?" And yet in less than two hundred years it was taken away from the saints. Acts i.6: "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" I do not understand all these things. Why did not our good professor enlighten us? Why leave the whole of this chapter, from the 7th to the 27th verse, all in the dark?

Now, sir, we will tell you what the rational, independent class of people believe about this vision: they believe that Daniel was a historical prophet; that he has given us a history of four great monarchies, which carries us to the end of all earthly powers, in the last of which (the Roman) they believe has arisen a power, combining in one blasphemous head (the pope) two pretended powers, civil and ecclesiastical, which by craft rule over kings, and pretend to have the power of God. They believe that his power is to continue three and a half times, forty-two months, or 1260 days. They know this power has come; they have felt its effects; they have suffered under its laws; they have heard, and do hear, its great blasphemous words. In this you cannot deceive them.

They believe - for why should they not? - that Daniel has, in his vision, numbered the time; and if we should understand it literally, they know that this power has already exercised the

37

same, 360 times its literal number. Then what shall we do? Shall we carry it back on to Antiochus? No. Why not? Because it will not apply to him, without making things figurative which God has not made figurative, and thus involve ourselves in darkness, and doubts, and inconsistencies. What then? Let us examine and see if time is not used in a figurative sense. If so, all may be harmonized. They examine and find, according to the professor's own concessions, two places, Num.xiv.34 and Eze.iv.6, where a day was used as a figure of a year. They apply it then to Daniel, and first to the seventy weeks. It measures exactly. They now believe, for they remember that the seventy weeks were to seal up (prove, or make sure, as a man's will is made sure, when the seal of the court is affixed) the vision and prophecy. This is common sense, that all can understand. We need not go to the schools of criticism and skepticism to learn to "doubt," and "cavil," and "wrest" God's word, to understand it.

But why, say you, did not God reveal these things in a plain, literal sense? Let Christ answer. Matt.xi.25: "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Read the context: he is talking of the judgment day. Compare Luke x.21; also Daniel xii.10; 1Thess.v.3,4. But has God in all cases revealed the time, having reference to the end of the world, in types and figures? I answer, yes. Why not then keep it from us? Because he has said, (Amos iii.7,)

38

"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants, the prophets." And it is to be as it was in the days of Noah. Was it in a symbol, then? I answer, it was. See Gen.vi.3: "And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."

Now we suppose Noah began to preach that God would destroy the world in one hundred and twenty years. The professors, skeptics, and critics come around him and say, where is your proof? He refers them to the word of God, which I have quoted. "Ah," says the critic, "that does not say a word about drowning the world now; it only means that man's life shall be shortened to one hundred and twenty years." Noah replies to them as in Gen.vi.7: "And the Lord said, I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air: for it repenteth me that I have made them." "O yes, we believe that: but God does not tell us how nor when, in this place." Then he declares God's purpose, verse 17: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die." "Yes, we admit that: but he does not tell us when: not at least until he destroys the earth; as he himself has expressly declared: 'The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them: and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.' And we know God will not destroy

39

the earth, until 'the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head,' and that is not done yet. And another argument, too; the world is in its infancy yet - not all inhabited. And we know God told our first parents to go forth and multiply, and replenish the earth. This command is not fulfilled. No danger; we understand our duty. Do you think, Noah, we can be scared by your humbugs? God has not revealed the time." Yet he did reveal it, as Professor Stuart now acknowledges. But if that scene was now to be acted over again, do you think he would own it? Never. It is now acting again, and he wants to have it revealed in plain terms.

When God sees best, for wise purposes, to reveal himself in parables and dark sayings - (Ps.lxxviii.2: "I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old;" Luke viii.10: "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but to others in parables: that seeing they might not see, and hearing, they might not understand,") - we have no right to complain. The reason is obvious; if it had been revealed in plain terms, sinners would have more abused God's mercies; and if it had been revealed any plainer than it is, how could scoffers say, "Where is the promise of his coming?" and at the same time be in the church? God's word must and will be fulfilled. It is evident that he did mean we should know when it would be near, even at the door. Matt.xxiv.33: "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the door." But it is just as evident

40

that those who vainly imagine themselves to have the key of knowledge, and boast of their Hebrew, and Greek, and Scripture exegesis, will not understand Matt.xiii.10-16, Mark iv.33,34, Luke xi.52.

If, then, this fourth kingdom in Daniel vii.7, etc., is the Roman empire, then the little horn can only apply to papacy, and the 1260 days in this vision, or "time, times, and a half," must be, of necessity, understood as symbolical days. We know that papacy has had "eyes like the eyes of man," more than three years and a half. But we may inquire what the eyes mean? I answer, they are like man's eyes. And what are man's eyes? Prov.xxvii.20: "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied." Daniel had just told us about a "horn between two eyes," which we all agree means the man Alexander. The eyes of Alexander were upon the kingdoms of the earth; he could not be satisfied until he had conquered the whole world; and then wept because there was not another for him to conquer. So would this horn seek for, and not be satisfied, until it had obtained universal power over the earth. Herein we have a clue to know when this horn began; when the pope began to desire and to seek after universal power over the saints, or the church, as in verse 21: "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." "And a mouth speaking great things." This is certainly as applicable to the pope as to any power ever known on earth, and has proved to a demonstration the prophecy of Daniel and of John to be of divine origin.

41

Then, from the 9th to the 14th verse, is a description of the judgment day, the second advent of Christ, the reward of the righteous in the glorified kingdom of God forever and ever. How could the professor pass over all this grand and sublime description of the judgment, the glorious scenes of the revelation of the Ancient of days, (the great God,) and the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, (Jesus Christ,) and receiving a kingdom which will be eternal? How could he treat all this with perfect silence? Surely his conscience must have felt a little sting. I ask every candid reader, where have we any clearer description of a judgment than here? If this passage does not describe the last judgment, then no man by the Bible can prove one. "The judgment was set, and the books were opened." Again: "Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

Is not this the kingdom spoken of in Matt.xxv.34: "Then shall the king say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world?" Surely this is an eternal kingdom, - "but the righteous into life eternal." And in Daniel it is an everlasting kingdom. "But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever;" 18th verse. Can it be possible that the Jews took possession of this kingdom in the days of Antiochus? Can there be two eternal kingdoms? I am convinced, that if our learned author understands

42

Bible exegesis, and this is a sample of his explanation of Scripture, I shall forever have occasion to be thankful that I did not so learn to understand Christ.

Again. He says (page 86): "Another parallel passage to Dan.vii.25, which we have just examined, is Daniel xii.7, where the same limitation occurs, and in connection (for this I cannot doubt) with the same individual, i.e. with Antiochus Epiphanes." What evidence has he brought that this time was limited to Antiochus? I answer, none; or at least none satisfactory to my mind. He asserts that Daniel xi.21-45, and xii. wholly, are concerning Antiochus. All was fulfilled under this petty king of Syria, in about six years' time. This is an instruction of the angel Gabriel, who came to inform Daniel what should befall the people of God in the latter days; and the time appointed was long, so Daniel says, (x.1,14,) or for many days. It is very evident, by this expression of Daniel, that he did not even suppose that it would be accomplished in six years. And we do know that it was not. For instance. Daniel xii.1: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people." At what time? At the time when Antiochus came to his end, the professor must say, to be consistent. "And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time." What! At the time when "Judas Maccabeus had become everywhere victorious; the sanctuary was now cleansed of its pollution, pure worship was restored, and the Hebrews had every prospect of

43

independence and happiness?" as says our learned professor, page 92. Surely that cannot be true; but let us hear more: "And at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one of them that shall be found written in the book." Is this to be understood of the Jews, and them only? Why say "every one written in the book?" What are they delivered from, - the tyrant's power and captivity, slavery and bondage? Short time of trouble, methinks; only three and a half years! If slaves in America could have been liberated every three and a half years, many human beings would have suffered much less misery. I ask what book is this spoken of? Surely one of those spoken of, Daniel vii.10; and can mean no less than the Lamb's book of life. But the angel himself has told us who they are that were delivered; from what, and whence they are. Daniel xii.2,3: "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars forever and ever."

It is as evident as the light, to every unprejudiced mind, that the time of trouble here spoken of, is the destruction of the wicked at the coming of Christ, the deliverance of the saints, the resurrection from the grave unto immortality and eternal life, and their glorified state in the kingdom of God. We cannot be mistaken concerning this. But let us see what the learned professor says on this point. Pages 87,88. "The only difficult question that will arise here

44

for the interpreter is, whether Dan.xii.1-3 is to be interpreted so as to refer it to the troubles which Judea experienced shortly before the great victory under Judas Maccabeus, which ended in the restoration of liberty to the Hebrews, and also to the blessings consequent on their renewed liberty, thus making it parallel with Ezek.xxxvii.1-14; or whether the passage looks forward to the Messianic (why not say Messiah's kingdom?) period and final resurrection. Into this question I cannot enter here; nor is it important to the object which I have in view." But I say it is important; for if this has a direct reference to the judgment day, then it harmonizes with the 7th chapter of Daniel, has a strong bearing on the question and answer in Daniel xii.6,7, and is a conclusive argument against the professor's supposition, that chap.xi.21-45, and xii. are a prophecy fulfilled under or by Antiochus, and shows that "people and saints," spoken of in this prophecy, cannot apply to the Jews exclusively; but to all saints, whether Jews or Gentiles; and he has said there can be no double meaning in Scripture, and has admitted that this passage may apply to the resurrection, and has brought no proof that it can be applied to the time of Antiochus. I cannot see why, as an honest man, he ought not to yield the ground he has assumed. I have not time to go into the 11th chapter, and show that what he calls Antiochus is a prophetic history of the Roman kingdom, from the time of the "league" with the Jews to the end of the world.

But now let us examine his text. Daniel xii.6,7. The man standing upon the waters,

45

clothed in linen, must be the Lord Jesus Christ, the same as is called Michael in verse 1. Compare Rev.x.1-5. In both places it is the same person, and both represent the same time. In Daniel he designates the end of time by three and a half times, carrying us to the end of these wonders, i.e. the resurrection of the dead, and shows that the seven times twice three and a half (having given the other three and a half, chapter vii.25) will be finished, as prophesied of in Levit.xxvi.24-35; Dan.iv.27-30; xxviii.64. Jeremiah xv.4-7; ix.16; x.21; Eze.xii.10-16.

Many more texts might be brought to prove that the people of God were to be scattered and torn by the kingdoms of the world, until seven times of captivity should pass over them, and then his people would be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God. This doctrine is not only taught by prophecy, but is also made known in types and allegories; Deut.xv.1; Jer.xxxiv.8-14; Dan.iv.25. Also Col.ii.16,17. I know our learned professor and his coadjutors will laugh and sport at the idea of types and allegories; but it is their turn to laugh now, and mine to weep and mourn; but soon God will laugh at their calamity, and mock when their fear cometh. It must be so, or the allegory would not hold good. Dan.iv.6,7. I have seen holy things turned to ridicule and reproach by these pretended servants of God. I expect them to employ ridicule where they cannot bring reason or truth. The people have, by their charity, raised up many a 'viper' to sting them, their benefactors, when they have been

46

nourished and warmed in the bosom of their benevolence. And when these dominators over the minds and thoughts and tongues of their fellow-men have served their turn with us, they turn and call us poor, ignorant fanatics, who never ought to think or speak until we have learned of them what their most excellent worshipfuls please to grant us, poor plebeians, to think or say. But, blessed be our heavenly Father, when we have passed the furnace of affliction, seven times hotter than it was wont to be heated, we shall come forth like gold seven times purified. When we shall have been seven years in bondage to the kings and kingdoms of this world, we shall come to the year of release; and when the great men of the earth shall be beating and bruising their fellow-beings, and promising themselves peace and safety a long while yet to come, and eating and drinking out of the vessels of the house of the Lord; then will be seen the fingers of a man's hand (what a feeble instrument!) writing on the walls of the now kingdoms of the earth, "mene, mene tekel." That will be the period of the "end of these wonders," and not till that shall come. This must be evident to every Bible student who is humble enough to believe God's word.

You will ask me, where is my rule for understanding the word of God thus? I answer, Luke viii.10; Mark iv.10-13; 1Cor.x.6,11; 2Peter ii.1-6. It is as plain that the time in Daniel xii.7,13, carries us to the resurrection, as any truth revealed in the word of God. And when we see our teachers of theology wresting these plain passages of Scripture

47

from their obvious meaning, it is high time for the church to awake out of sleep, and an evident token that God's righteous judgment is at the door; and soon the angel will lift his hand and swear that "time shall be no longer," and the mystery of God shall be finished as he hath declared to his servants, the prophets. Rev.x.7.

"And when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." Can it be in the power of a sane mind to believe that God did accomplish and finish the scattering of the Jews in the days of Antiochus? They were scattered by the Romans 270 years afterwards, and have never been a collected people since. It is self-evident that the scattering of the Jews, - or dashing of them, as he is pleased to translate it, - was not accomplished or finished then; and yet all these things were to be "finished." For myself, I believe the "holy people" in this text means the Christian church, both Jews and Gentiles, who will all be gathered when the fulness of this time comes, and when the mystery of God is finished. Eph.i.9,10: "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him." Also let the reader compare Eph.iii.3-9 with Rev.x.5-7, and Dan.xii.7. If I am not very much deceived, no unprejudiced mind can be at a loss one moment where to apply this text. Suppose Professor Stuart had been a believing

48

Jew, and lived in the time of Antiochus, and had been of the same mind he is now, or says he is, and one of his brother Jews had come along and prophesied or preached that the Jews were to be a scattered and a peeled people, dashed and scattered among all nations, more than 2000 years, then to come; and suppose the professor had been then an expounder of the law and the prophets, and was called upon to explain this text as being then fulfilled, - what would he say to his brother Jew, the prophet? He would say, as any man must say by him: "Sir, you are a false prophet; for God has told us plainly, in this very text, that when this three and a half years are fulfilled under which we are now groaning, then our scattering or dashing will be accomplished - yes, and finished too. So says the word. Therefore do you keep away from my flock of Pharisees, for I do not want my people excited by your false, alarming doctrine. Do you not see that, at the end of 1335 days, Daniel will stand in his lot? And do you not see, sir, that his standing in his lot means the resurrection? Read the first three verses of this chapter." "Ah," says the prophet, "that does not mean the resurrection: but ----" "But what?" says the professor. "O, I do not know - difficult to understand," says the prophet. "I see," says the professor, "you are a Sadducee: you do not understand either the Hebrew or the Chaldaic, or the exegesis of the Scriptures. How dare you prophesy evil of this nation, when God hath spoken peace after these days? I say you are a Sadducee; I will have no fellowship with you. You must not come into my synagogue."

49

Would not this be the natural result of such a case? I leave it for the reader to judge.

Or if we suppose another case: that the professor was now in controversy with a Jew, a Sadducee, and was under the necessity of proving the doctrine of the resurrection by the Old Testament; would he not put into requisition this very text, and prove by the same a resurrection unto eternal life; and if he did not believe such plain and positive proofs as these texts would be, would he not consider him a poor, blinded Sadducee? Let us be careful that our own mouths do not condemn us.

If then these days can only end with the resurrection, it is impossible that these Scriptures can apply to Antiochus. And as the rules which he has given us in his Hints, are the same in substance, which I was forced to adopt more than twenty years ago, I cannot believe that Antiochus Epiphanes is even hinted at from Daniel xi.14, to the end of the 12th chapter. And if the prophecy does not belong to Antiochus, then he must acknowledge that the little horn can apply only to the papal power; and must agree with nearly all protestant writers, that time, times and an half, are, together with the other numbers in this chapter, to be understood in a symbolical sense. And our question cannot be settled on any other basis so fair and conclusive as this, and with me it is a matter of unshaken faith.

And now, my kind reader, you must judge; and I hope, for the benefit of your own soul, you will judge righteously. I know brother Stuart

50

has much on his side: he has talent, learning, popularity, public opinion, and the carnal heart to uphold him; he will have all the Catholics, all the Universalists, all the skeptics, three-fourths of the Orthodox, nearly all of other sects, Mormons not excepted. He will no doubt claim all the learning, and wisdom of the men of this age. But he has not compared Scripture with Scripture, nor has he all of the arguments on the subject; nor has he made all men feel so much peace and safety as he desired. Men's hearts are yet failing them for fear, and the midnight cry is yet being made. He may have made some few lay down their watch, and some scoffers to scoff louder; he may have some applause from the fearful and unbelieving: but he will hear dreadful imprecations in the day of retribution, if he is in an error. I hope, almost against hope, that he may see, and renounce his errors before it is forever too late. I beg of him, in the name of Jesus, to stop, and consider what he has done, if the views I advocate should be true. And if I am not correct, the perversion of Scripture was uncalled for, and was not needed: for the excitement will be sooner allayed by waiting for the event a few months, than by thus presenting such doubtful constructions of the prophecies as this book contains; and which must, if there is any honesty in the Orthodox ministry, call forth some warm debate; for one or two of the pillars of Orthodoxy are thrown down by this champion of Puseyism among New England Congregationalists; for if he is correct, I see no occasion for any division with the Romanists. If they are not the antichrist, which for centuries

51

we have been taught by his sect to believe, then that church of Rome has been vilified, defamed, and wantonly abused in the pulpit and by the press of this pretended Orthodox sect. I shall, therefore, if they are honest, look for a confession, or a disclaimer from some one of the class to which Professor Stuart belongs. Either let them confess, and go back to the mother church, or show that they have just cause for their denunciation of her abominations.

His doctrine on Revelation will be taken up next. Yours, in the truth, WM. MILLER.

LETTER III

DEAR BR. HIMES: - My time has been so much taken up of late, I have not been able to finish my remarks on Professor Stuart's "Hints on Prophecy." I will now examine him on Revelation.

His first argument is, that this prophecy was all, or nearly all, fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem, from the first chapter to the 21st verse of the 19th chapter. The main and only proof he has produced is from the texts, Rev.i.1,3, and xxii.7,12,20, - "Behold I come quickly;" and then says, page 106, - "The coming of Christ is the main subject of the book; so that the declaration here is, that what the book contains, will be speedily accomplished." Yet he has not come, as the professor implies in his remarks on pages 137,138. And now I ask, what shadow of evidence has he produced, that the things here spoken of were accomplished at Jerusalem? When the main subject of the book is the coming of Christ, and that yet future, I see no common sense, at least, in such arguments; and if the coming of Christ is prophesied of, as he says, then the time which intervenes between the prophecy and his coming, would naturally be filled up, as in other cases in

53

Old Testament prophecies, and in the twenty-fourth of Matthew.

Surely the writer must know that the evidence preponderates strongly in favor of this book being written more than twenty years after Jerusalem was destroyed; and if so, then his Hints ought to be taken as mere hints, not worth minding. His effort to destroy the figurative meaning of time in this book is like the mountain in labor; for, 1st, on the text Rev.xi.2, - "But the court which is without the temple, leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months," - he has put this treading under foot of the holy city by the Gentiles, forty-two months, at the very time when the Jews held possession solely of the city of Jerusalem, until the last week of the time which he has specified, which, after all, lacked a number of weeks of fulfilling the time specified in the prophecy. But never mind that; prophecy had better bend or break than Professor Stuart lose his popularity. And he has provided an armor for self-defence in this case; for he says, page 142, - "But let him who interprets these passages remember well that they are poetry." If this expression had come from any other quarter, standing in connexion as it does, in Professor S.'s book, the whole Christian world would cry out, Shame on such an author! But we live in a strange time; Bible can be changed to fiction, and fiction to reality.

Again; the professor, at the same time he calls Jerusalem the "holy city," has another event

54

transpire in which Jerusalem is called "spiritually Sodom and Egypt." Here is a plain and palpable contradiction; and if a common man had made a blunder so visible and easy to be detected, the world would have called him in dotage, or insane. How inconsistent are the views of such writers as Professor S., at the same breath to call Jerusalem the holy city, and spiritually Sodom and Egypt! We know that the house of God and the city of Jerusalem had been made desolate by Jesus Christ more than thirty years before its destruction by the Romans. Matt.xxiii.38: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." We know, again, if Jerusalem is meant by the "holy city," then the treading it down by the Gentiles is since its destruction, rather than before, and must continue to the end of the gospel dispensation. See Luke xxi.24: "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Now see the inconsistency of this writer; the forty-two months, or three and a half years, Rev.xi.2, is the time when the Romans besieged Jerusalem, and trod the holy city under foot, and persecuted the Jews, the holy people; when it is a well-known fact, that the Jews had possession of the city, and kept out the Romans during the time he has specified, except a few weeks, which he acknowledges is wanting to fill up the time. He then tries to prove that God is not very particular about time; if, in giving three and a

55

half years, he comes within a few weeks, he does well!

Then, Rev.xi.3, the 1260 days of the two witnesses prophesying, clothed in sackcloth, is at the same time. He intimates that these two witnesses are two Christians, who could not obey their Lord, and flee to Pella or the mountains, but staid in the city, and were persecuted by the Jews. In this he is very unfortunate, having neither history, common sense, nor the resurrection of Nero to help him out of his difficulty; for, if the reader will notice, it is Nero coming up out of the abyss, which, according to Professor S., is to make war with the two witnesses, Rev.xi.7, - "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them;" - and, as he has failed to prove that Nero did come up out of the pit or abyss at the close of the siege of Jerusalem, his construction of this passage in Revelation must fall into the abyss of forgetfulness with his Nero, and remain only as a memento of the folly of our would-be great men, and the insanity of the wisdom of this world.

Again, the church in the wilderness, Rev.xii.6-14: "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

56

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Wo to the inhabiters of the earth, and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." This was fulfilled at the siege of the city of Jerusalem. The Christians fleeing to the mountains is the church in the wilderness; but who is the dragon making war with the church? Not the Jews, for their persecution of the church ceased, as the professor says, when they left Jerusalem. Did the Romans cast out water as a flood, after those few Christians who fled from Jerusalem? There is no account of such a war. Verse 17: "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed,

57

which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." And the professor, instead of giving us facts on which to build his theory, is forced to bring in his vain and foolish traditions, and to suppose cases which history has not given, to give any color to his exposition of these texts; and when he has done all he can do, he evidently leaves himself and us in total darkness, and with this impression, - that Christ, who gave this revelation, and John, who wrote it, for fear of being prosecuted for treason, made use of old wives' fables to represent facts which were coming upon the earth, and which facts never did exist, nor ever will; for Nero's head never was healed nor ever will be, before the three and a half years, as he applies it, are fulfilled.

The reader must perceive that the beast in Rev.xiii.3-5, is the beast with the deadly wound healed; and, according to Professor S., the forty-two months were all fulfilled before the beast (Nero) was wounded to death. Therefore, what the author of this new theory has said in his book concerning the forty-two months in this chapter, is too silly to need a serious reply. No man can, or will, for a moment believe his exposition of the text.

All that Professor Stuart can or will claim, if he is honest, will be a cardinal's cap, as defender of the Roman faith, from the pope. His writings partake strongly of Puseyism, and he seems to be opening the door for a reconciliation to the mother church. I would therefore advise him to go home, and no longer deceive the public with his Protestant profession. If papacy

58

is not the head healed, and is not the woman sitting on the scarlet-colored beast, then is the Roman Catholic church the only true church on earth; and this he must acknowledge, to be consistent with himself.

As it respects the author's Messianic or Millennium day of which he speaks, pages 130-133, he has not pretended to bring a single proof from the Bible, neither can he bring any. He has blasphemously forbidden the Godhead, the dying love of Jesus, and the precious promises, to have anything but his millennium. He has told us that the close of this world will be a period of great prosperity and glory to the church, in plain contradiction to our Savior's own words, Matt.xiii.40-42: "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matt.xxiv.38,39: "For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away: so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." How inconsistent it is to suppose, that, after Christ has taken possession of the whole earth, after he has thoroughly purged his floor, conquered death and him that has the power of death, dashed the kingdoms of this world to pieces, and carried them away, that no place is found for them, set up a kingdom

59

under the whole heaven, which shall fill the earth, and that an everlasting kingdom, the subjects to be the same forever, never given to another people, and his tabernacle to be with men, his dwelling with them, and they made kings and priests to God and Christ, and reign on the earth with him - then, after all this, these temporal millennium advocates say that the world is to be burned up, consumed, and annihilated! This, to me, is both inconsistent and absurd, taught neither by Scripture nor reason. I believe the world must be cleansed, purged from the curse, from sin and sinners, before Christ will take possession and set up his glorified kingdom on the earth. I believe this will be done by fire. As the earth was once destroyed by water, so it is reserved to be destroyed by fire, and in like manner. And this is to be when Christ shall descend from heaven in flaming fire; and then he will make all things new, a new heaven and new earth. Can it be supposed that God will annihilate all the material heavens and earth, and make an entirely new work? No, by no means; for if this was the case, then man must be annihilated too; for man must be made new, for he is one of the things that is to inherit the new heaven and earth. Then, before the kingdom of God can be set up on the earth, the same must be made new, as man must be made new before he can be admitted into the kingdom of God; for flesh and blood, in this imperfect state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So must the earth be purified by fire; and every man's work must be tried, so as by fire. As the earth was once

60

baptized by water, so it is reserved to be immersed in fire; and then the glory of God will be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

I am truly astonished at the ignorance of the word of God manifested by our great men. I find among our common citizens more common sense, intelligence, much more, than in the higher ranks of our learned men. Why is it so? I cannot tell, without the same cause exists now as did when Christ used the words of Isaiah. See Matt.xiii.14,15: "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." See also Isa.vi.9-11: "And he said, Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate." I have come to this conclusion, that in nine cases out of ten our learned men have made the wisdom of this world their god, and they forget their dependence on God and his word; they

61

learn to criticize, and cavil, but not to believe and obey.

There is one evidence which they all give. In all their writings not a particle of truth do they admit is furnished by second advent writers. No credit whatever; they oppose every sentiment, however plain, like the judgment, and coming of the Son of man in the clouds, and the kingdom given to him, Daniel vii.9-14; or the resurrection, in Daniel xii.2,13. This is a strong evidence that the God of this world has blinded their eyes. Many of them are denying the resurrection of the body and a judgment day. These things are strong evidences that there is some blindness on their part, at least among common-sense minds. The learned class, as they call themselves, may puff each other, but this only serves to sink them lower in the minds of all honest thinking people. If Professor S. had only given his rules of interpretation, and there left his cause, he would have done much good; but when he comes to put in practice his own rules, he has shown his object to be, not to get truth, but to darken it by a multiplicity of words without knowledge. Now let any man read his explanation of the little horn in Daniel vii.8,11,21-25, and if this writer has got the truth, then I will, and must, acknowledge, that there is no rule binding in the Scriptures; for a greater departure, from the plain, simple meaning of words was never seen.

Again, his explanation of Matt.xxiv.15, - also of the wounded head healed in Rev.xiii.3-7, - all these passages, with many more

62

which might be shown, prove that the writer is hard pressed for arguments to support a theory of so feeble a texture that the illiterate and unlearned can demolish it at a blow.

Let the Professor beware, lest he puts into the hands of his enemies a weapon which will, if used against his orthodoxy, as he has used it against the figurative meaning of time, sweep his creed and church by the board. But in my mind, he has confirmed me more and more in the principle that God has, for wise purposes, revealed the end of the world by figures in a symbolical sense; and that for the very reason which Christ has given, Matt.xi.25: "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Therefore let us all be careful that we are ready, and no harm can befall us.

WM. MILLER.

APPENDIX

PROFESSOR STUART'S EXPOSITION OF THE KINGDOM, IN DANIEL VII.21,22

This Exposition is called out by the following letter from Bro. Charles Fitch, published in the "Signs of the Times," in August, 1842.

LETTER TO MOSES STUART

REV. MOSES STUART: - Dear Sir, - I have read your Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy. According to your request, I have heard you through. Will you please look at Daniel vii.21,22: "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

This horn, you tell us, is Antiochus Epiphanes. You also show that Scripture has no occult or hidden meaning.

Now, my dear sir, as you are a learned man and I an ignorant one, will you please inform us, from the plain and obvious import of the scripture language, how it was, or is, or is to be, that Antiochus Epiphanes, who died a hundred and sixty-four years before Christ was born, either did, or does, or will make war with the saints, and prevail against them, until the Ancient of days comes, and judgment is given to the saints of the Most High, and the time

64

comes, that the saints possess the kingdom. - Yours, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

CHARLES FITCH.
Albany, Aug. 13, 1842.

PROF. STUART'S NOTE, FROM 2D EDITION OF "HINTS," PAGE 87

"A writer in one of the periodicals of the day, who is wont to speak with unusual confidence in regard to the meaning of many prophecies, quotes Dan.vii.21,22, as sufficient of itself to refute all that is said here, in respect to applying the verses specified above to Antiochus Epiphanes. The sum of these verses, is, that 'the little horn' (beyond all doubt, Antiochus) 'made war upon the saints and prevailed against them,' and, 'the Ancient of days came, and rendered judgment to the saints,' (vindicated the cause of the pious,) 'and restored to them the kingdom' which had been taken away by Antiochus. In other words: God appears as the vindicator of the pious and persecuted Jews, and restores to them the rightful dominion of their country. This idea is thrice repeated in chapter vii.; first, in the account of the vision as comprised in verses 2-12, where vs.9-11 are appropriated to designate the condemnation and punishment of the little horn, 'whose mouth speaketh great things;' secondly, in vs.21,22, as already quoted; and thirdly, in vs.24-26, which are part of the explanations given by the angel. Now the writer in question, as many others have done, appears to have mistaken the judgment mentioned in vs.10,22, and the dominion given to the saints (v.22,) for the last judgment and millennial dominion of the church. How palpably erroneous this is, may be seen by consulting Dan.vii.13,14, where the later coming of the Son of man, and the

65

dominion which is given him, are plainly represented as subsequent to the judgment and punishment of Antiochus, as described in the preceding context. This decisive circumstance, the writer in the periodical to whom I have adverted, in his hast and in his zeal for favorite opinions, seems to have wholly overlooked. One who feels as much confidence as he appears to possess, ought at least to look more carefully on what sort of ground he is treading.

"Whatever there is of obscurity or uncertainty in respect to the fourth beast with his ten horns, as represented in chap.vii., it is made quite plain and palpable by chap.viii. In Dan.viii.8, seq., the dominion of Alexander the Great, its division among his four chieftains, and the rise of the little horn from one of these, are so plain as to be altogether undeniable. Then the characteristics of this 'little horn,' as given in chapter viii.9-12, are plainly the same for substance as those given in chap.vii.8,11,20,21,24,25. All is rendered still more certain by the repetition of the same characteristics in viii.22-25, which, in connection with v.21, shows very plainly, that the 'little horn,' and 'king of fierce countenance,' is of Grecian descent, and rules over one of the four kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided.

"All the real difficulty of the case arises from the fact, that the Messianic dominion, described in vii.13,14, and again in chap.vii.27, is mentioned as if it were an immediate sequent of the destruction of the little horn or Antiochus. So far as the manner of the description is concerned, one might judge this to be the case; for no interval of time is designated, and none is necessarily implied by the use of appropriate particles. But in cases very numerous, both in the Old Testament and in the New, the manner of announcing the Messianic kingdom is the same. No interval between it and earlier events is specifically designated. Yet nothing can be more erroneous than the conclusion that no interval of time, in such cases,

66

is to be supposed. It is impossible not to allow such an interval. So here, no one could err more than to suppose that the Messianic kingdom is to follow immediately after the destruction of the kingdom of Antiochus. The simple truth is, that the writer passes from one kingdom, restored to the ancient Jewish saints, to the description of another and greater one, still future. He makes no account of the interval of time, since he is not at all concerned, for his present purpose, with chronology.

"He who does not understand this common usage of the Hebrew prophets, must have made but little progress, as it respects the study and the knowledge of them. He who does understand it, can find no serious difficulties in the case before us."

BRIEF REVIEW OF NOTE AND APPENDIX OF 2D EDITION OF HINTS

DEAR BROTHER HIMES: - The second edition of "Stuart's Hints" has just come to hand. I have perused his appendix, and see nothing worthy of notice, except a dry pun on page 173, concerning the men of April 3rd, A. D. 1843. It is suggested that the 1st of April would have been a better day to have fixed upon for Christ to have come. I have no doubt but that he is honest in this suggestion, and if he could have altered the day of Christ's death from April 3rd to April 1st, his suggestion would be freely given. He invents or reiterates a lie, and then repeats a stale childish joke, and shows his heart to be anything but pious or devotional, on a subject so blessed as the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. His piece against Duffield is full of low, stale witticism, yet it is evident that the writer thinks he has given his brother a real drubbing; but I think he has exposed himself to a severe

67

chastisement, which he will be likely to receive, if his brother, Duffield, should see fit to use the rod which brother S. has put into his hand.

Both of these champions, in my opinion, are wrong. The one is too literal in a carnal sense, the other is too carnal in a spiritual sense; the truth lies between them both; and while the D. D.'s disagree, the common minds will get the truth. These men both are putting too much dependence on the wisdom of this world. Prof. S. shows plainly, by his writings and arguments, that he has much pride of opinion, and puts more dependence on his Hebrew and Greek, than in comparing scripture with scripture, or in trying to understand the mind and will of the Spirit, who inspired the holy men who wrote the several books of the Old and New Testament. There is a vein of scepticism which runs through all his writings, as though the writers of the sacred books were governed by selfish motives, such as worldly hopes and fears; for instance, Daniel saw nothing, wrote nothing, and knew nothing, only what concerned the carnal Jew, his people after the flesh. And John in the Revelation saw nothing but Jew. And he seems to represent John as hiding the plain truth, for fear of persecution from the bloody Nero; and cautions the reader to beware how he puts any trust in the natural interpretation of the Bible, remembering that it is poetry; as though the writers of God's holy book used great latitude, and colored high the things therein revealed; and were men of bigoted and narrow minds. I think he would do well to remember what God says by David, Psalm l.21: "These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself; but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes."

I am truly astonished to read from the pen of the Professor such scepticism. If Voltaire, or Tom Paine, had written thus, it would have been called blasphemous by the Christian world. Have our

68

readers become mad, or has God given them eyes of slumbering, that they should stumble and fall and be snared and taken?

His note on page 87 needs a passing remark. He says, "A writer in one of the periodicals of the day, who is wont to speak with unusual confidence in regard to the meaning of many prophecies, quotes Daniel vii.21,22, 'I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom,' - as sufficient of itself to refute all that is said here, in respect to applying the verses specified above to Antiochus Epiphanes. The sum of these verses is, that 'the little horn,' (beyond all doubt Antiochus,) 'made war upon the saints, and prevailed against them,' and 'the Ancient of days came and rendered judgment to the saints, (vindicated the cause of the pious,) and restored to them the kingdom, which had been taken away by Antiochus.'" A more barefaced misrepresentation of facts never was put together in so small a compass, as is given in this sentence. In the first place, he dare not name the writer to whom he alludes, for the good reason, that the writer of this note could not in any case be exceeded in presumptuous confidence; and therefore could not, by the Prof., with any propriety, be called unusual. Again; "the little horn, (beyond all doubt Antiochus.)" Hardly a man of common sense can be found, who believes the little horn, in the text referred to, is Antiochus. Daniel vii.7,8: "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots:

69

and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things."

Who does not see that this little horn arises among the ten horns of the fourth kingdom upon earth? How the Professor can call the Grecian or third kingdom, the fourth, is beyond the comprehension of a sane mind. See verses 16,17,18: "I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever." I ask, did the saints, in the days of Antiochus, take the Grecian kingdom, and possess it forever, even forever and ever? Why, then, the question, in Acts i.6: "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Read, again, Daniel vii.19-22: "Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." Is there not a complete connection, in these verses, with the fourth kingdom upon earth? And how can this be the third, which was the leopard with four heads? This, you see, is the "fourth beast," not the fourth head. Now let us look at the answer which the heavenly messenger gave Daniel, verses 23-27: "Thus he said, The

70

fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." Then Daniel says, "Hitherto is the end of the matter:" showing that the vision and instruction did not end until the end of the 27th verse. Can a man of a sound mind construe this scripture as does the Professor? I say, No. And I say the friends of the Andover institution had better report the Professor insane, take away his bishoprick, and give it to another, who at least can read and understand common language. He says: "Now the writer in question, as many others have done, (we thank him for this one truth) appears to have mistaken the judgment mentioned in verses 10,22, and the dominion given to the saints, verse 22, for the last judgment." What a mistake! Is it even possible to be mistaken on this point? I answer, No. If this is not a description of the last judgment, where can the Professor prove one? Here is the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ; see Daniel vii.9,10: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning

71

fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened." First, - "Thrones were cast down;" compare Daniel ii.35: "Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." 1Cor.xv.24,25: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet." And Eph.i.22: "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church." Second, - "Ancient of days did sit;" see Isa.ix.7: "Of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." Compare Rev.xx.12: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." And also Rev.v.9-11: "And they sung a new song, saying, thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts, and the elders, and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of

72

thousands." Here we have the same number, the same saints, the same judgment, and the same reign on the earth. Jude xiv.15: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." Then he will take vengeance on the wicked, whom he shall destroy by the brightness of his coming. Daniel vii.11-14: "I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom, that which shall not be destroyed." The two last verses he acknowledges are the coming of the Son of man; but the others are Antiochus. The kingdom of the saints is nowhere mentioned in the vision of Daniel, until we come to the 14th verse; that this verse describes the millennial kingdom of the saints, the Professor concedes. Then let me ask, what kingdom is that described in verse 18? "But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever and ever." Let the reader examine what kingdom. The Professor has not answered; he dare not answer. If he says it is a kingdom to the Jews in the days of Judas Maccabeus, he well knows that the Jews had no kingdom under Judas, and if they had, it has not been possessed by them forever, even

73

forever and ever; and this kingdom, he must know, is at the end of the fourth kingdom; therefore he has passed over this verse in silence, and shows conclusively, either his consummate ignorance, or his wilful dishonesty.

It is impossible for me to have charity for such reprehensible conduct; as much as I love him for his rules, so much must I detest him for his application of those rules, because it leads to deceive souls to endless ruin. Now, verse 22: "The time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." What kingdom? Every honest, intelligent man and woman in Christendom would answer, Why, that kingdom before spoken of in verses 14,18. And yet the Professor says, it is the kingdom given to the Jews in the days of Judas Maccabeus. "The kingdom," definite, showing clearly that speaker and hearer would understand that it was a kingdom before understood by both. If so, then this writer, of whom he speaks, is not so erroneous as the Professor, nor so palpably ignorant as the Professor would try to make us believe. But justice would require the fool's cap on the other head. I am certain the Professor must or ought to have been born on the very day he so affectionately and anxiously recommends to others.

Let me give one more quotation from his note, page 88: "The simple truth is, that the writer passes from one kingdom, restored to the ancient Jewish saints, to the description of another and greater one, still future." In what verse has the writer given us a kingdom restored to Jewish saints? It cannot be in the 14th verse, for that is a "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him;" not to Jews only, but unto ALL PEOPLE. And that is everlasting, never to pass away, nor be destroyed: this proves too much. Next is in the 18th verse. This cannot be the Jewish, for they are to take it and possess it forever: this proves too much. The next place mentioned is the 22nd verse. This refers us to the same possession

74

and kingdom as in the 18th verse. The 27th verse he gives up. Where, then, is there a kingdom restored to the Jews? No double meaning, Bro. S., remember.

Neither can history help this Professor out of his difficulty; for the Jews had no kingdom of their own at the time he specifies; they only changed masters, as all history will testify. Not more than one year from Judas's success, the Jews were under the yoke of Demetrius, and continued in bondage to Grecia and Rome, until their temple, nation, and city were destroyed by the Romans. This is the true account of this mighty kingdom which our Professor thinks he has found in Daniel 7th. Again; he says, "He (Daniel) makes no account of the interval of time, since he is not at all concerned, for his present purpose, with chronology." I wonder what the Professor will advance next, in plain contradiction to the word of God. Surely a child would know, that Daniel, in his vision, had a prophetic history of the world. No writer, who might be called Christian, has fallen under my observation, who has not admitted and believed that Daniel has given us an outline of the most important kingdoms and events, from his own day down to the coming of the Son of man, to receive and set up his glorified and eternal kingdom, which shall occupy under the whole heaven. And that cannot be true which says Daniel had no concern with chronology. He has plainly told us the history of Babylon, and proclaimed the night it would fall, by means of the writing of a man's fingers on the wall. He then as plainly related the history of Media and Persia, and named the kingdom which would succeed Babylon. He has called Grecia by name, and showed its power, acts, and fall, by the fourth kingdom. It has decayed and fallen by that kingdom which was to wax exceeding great, and trample all nations under its feet. The Roman has come and performed the acts assigned to it by this wonderful prophet. The ten horns arose in due

75

time; the little horn arose after them, plucked up three of them, and has sought to change times and laws, for 1260 years, or "time, times, and a half." He has given us 2300 days as the length of one of his visions. He has graphically described the judgment day, and given us the time of the end. He has declared the resurrection of those who sleep in the dust, and recorded the day when he will stand in the great congregation of the righteous. He has set up monuments, and marked the divisions of times and seasons, that the wise may understand the time of their deliverance. And yet we see a professor of divinity denying him to have given us a prophetic chart, a chronology of past and future events. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of our cities, lest you make the wicked to rejoice, and the uncircumcised to boast over us. Let me say one thing in honor to the church and clergy with whom I have associated since the Professor's "Hints" came out; there has not been one among them all, who has mentioned his writings favorably, or used them as arguments against me; while, on the other hand, I have not seen or conversed with an Universalist, Deist, drunkard, gambler, swearer, or infidel, but what is ready to use his weapons, and is rejoicing over me because the Professor has demolished the Second Advent doctrine. It is enough to chill the heart of any pious man, to see the effects his doctrine has on the worshippers of Baal, and the unconverted part of community. Yet "straws show which way the wind blows." May God show him his error, before he leads many more souls to delay a preparation for an eternity at hand.

Yours, etc.

WILLIAM MILLER.
Low Hampton, Dec. 12, 1842