« PoprzedniaDalej »
BRIEF REVIEW OF DOWLING'S REPLY
TO MILLER. No. I.
DEAR BRO. HIMES:--) thank you for the hook you sent me," Doucling's Reply lo Miller." I was in hopes, when I read his introduction, we should have fuir argument at least; yet when he gave his reasons for exposing my expositions, (as he calls them,) I hud some fears that I had not found in him an honest, disinterested opponent.
“ Were the doctrine of Mr. Miller established upon evidence satisfactory to my own mind, I would not rest till I had published in the streets, and proclaimed in the ears of my fellow-townsmen, and especially of my beloved flock, "" THE DAY OF THE LORD IS AT HAND!" Build no more houses! plant no more fields and gardras! forsake your shops and farms, and all secular pursuits, and give every moment 10 preparation for this great event! for in three short years this earth shall be burned up, and Christ shall come in the clouds, a wake the sleeping dead, and call all the living before his dread tribunal.' It is not, therefore, in a captious spirit that the following piges are sent into the world, but in order to vindio cate myself, as a minister of the gospel, from what would be a most criminal neglect in not sounding such an ALARM."
The amount of the above extract is simply this: he would disobey the positive command of Christ, “occupy till I come," and counteract a prophecy of the dear Savior, Luke xvii. 28-30, “Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot: they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, the, huilded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven,
and destroyed them all: even thus shall it be in the duy when the Son of man is revealed,"--and be a finitic. No danger, Mr. Dowling; with these inotives, God will never call you 10 warn mankind : your wisdom would be folly with God. but I have read the work, and, if I am not in an “egregious error," I plainly saw that Mr. Dowling was laboring in an uphill business. It was like ihe prayer we heard in Boston last winter, when the speaker prayed to God, “tegging that he would not sulier inen to burn up their Bibles after 1843." I find it, also, to be full of the same spirit of loasting and bragging which we find in “Miller Overthrown," “ Miller Exploded," “ Boston Resolution," &c.; all of which are signs of the last days. See 2 Tin. iii. 1,2: “ This know, also, that in the last days perilous times shall come; for men shall be lovers of llieir own selves, coretous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, discbedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.” Cur great men were in trouble; therefore Mri Dowling must throw darkness upon the Bible- he must preach up that men cannot understand the Bible unless we come to him or some other A. M. or a D. D. Let me here say, once for all, I do not despise good men who may hare worn or now wear these titles. I do not despije learning; for of all things on earth wbich I ever beheld, a humble, learned inan I truly lore. But I do despise these baubles or titles, which have become 100 common in the christian world, which the Son of God never wore, and taught his followers to rejert.
Mr. Dowling begins first with the seventy Weeks; and, after shifting, twisting, and turning, he says, p?ge 49, “Mr. Miller says the 490 years begin B. C. 457, which is correct. He says they end A. D. :333, which is also correct." This is all I ask. If it ended in 33, then 1810 would end in 1843. Let this part of the controversy he settled here. No matter when Christ died, it has nothing to do with the argument. We are then agreed that 70 weeks or 490 days were just fulfilled in 490 years, ending A. D. 33. So far we agree. In his next section, page 53. after quoting
Daniel's vision, he then begins to confuse the minds of his readers, by quoting all the ancient and modern opinions of men ;--he dares not stand on Bible alone. B'ut I shall not follow him in his confusion of tongues. We wish to understand the question, Dan. viii. 13, “For how long a time shall the vision last, the daily sacrifice be taken away, and the transgression of desolation continue, to give both the sanctuary and hust to be trodden under foot ?" Answer, “'Unio two thousand three hundred days." With this transLition, I have no difficulty. But what vision? I answer, the ram, he-goat, and little horn. Mr. Dav. ling, on pages 95 and 86, has endeavored to make people believe that I fix the rise of the little horn at ille beginning of the vision. I cannot impute this to his ignor.ince; it cannot be less than a wanton disregiril to truth; for he well knew I had applied the "little horn" to Rome pagan and papal. See page 5. of his own work. The text inquires, “ For how long time shall the vision last?" not how long shall the little horn last? So all that he has said on that point is sheer duplicity, to blind, and draw his read ers from the point at issue. The point at issue is, doth the vision contain any thing, or time, but the history of Antiochus, and the time he defiled the temple ? I answer, it does; and every reader must see that it contains a part, if not all, of the Persian history, all of the Grecian, and all of the little horn," which evidently includes Antichrist, which power is to end only with Christ's coming. See Dan. vii, 21, 22. 2 Thess. ii. 3. Remember the question : “ For hou: long time shall the vision last?” The vision begins with the ram pushing westward, which is Persia warring against Grecia, according to Mr. Dow. ling's own showing. Then for him to say the answer only includes Antiochus Epiphanes, is a perversion of the question. It includes Grecia under Alexander, the four kingdoms into which his was divided, then another power, called a “little horn," when the tran.s. gression of the Jews should come to the full. See the instruction of the angel, Dan. viii, 23-25: “Aut , 155 in the latter time of their kingdom, when the trans. gressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stund 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 poliey aiso he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall mignify himself in his heart, and hy peace shall destroy many: he shall al.o siind up against the Prince of princes: but he shall be broken without bind.” Was this all done under Antiochus ? was it not his own power which defiled the temple ? Surely it was. But Mr. Dowling says this "little horn means a person, not a kingdon. He says, “To this it may be replied, that while in most instances in this prophecy," and be ought to have suid in every instance, "a horn does signify a kingdom, to assert that it does so in this case is begging the question." Is this your Ingic, Mr. Dowling? Suppose, sir, you write me a letter; in that letter you ase the word “student" ten times-nine times you explain yourse:f to mean a “wise man;" would it be begging the question to call the tenth a “wise inan?" And if my opponent called it “a fool," would he not be put upon his proof to show you meant in this isolated case“ a fool?" And as Mr. Dowling has admilied my proof, and brought not a particle of proof ljóma the Bible to support his assertion, I can safely rest my view, that it means the Roman kingdom, or that abomination spoken of hy Christ, Matt. xxiv. 15, which would destroy the city and sanctuary, the Jews as a people, and magnify himself, and stand up against Christ,
I shall now examine the evidence he has brought * against the seventy wecks being a part of the vision.
In this he evidently has tried to blind people's eyes, by hiding the truth and throwing dust.
“But the reader who has not read Mr. Miller's book will inquire, Does he place the date so far bark without a shadow of a reason? :: 1 reply, I have read
his third lecture very carefully, to discover whether he has any reason whatever for placing the coin'mencement of the 2300 years at the same time ag the commencement of the 70 weeks, and I can discorer none, except a most singular inference he draws from the words in Dan. viii. 21, 'the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision, at the beginning, touched me,' &c."
He says I have brought no other proof hut Dan. viii. 21. Now let the reader turn to my lectures, page 57, twenty-second and twenty-third lines from the top. “Does not the angel say 10 Daniel, ix. 23,
not viii. or is. 21,) Therefore understand the matter and consider the vision ?" He has quoted a wrong verse, and ihen says the word “ther is not in the Hebrew; he dares not say the word "the" is not in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth verses, --" to seal up the rision," &c. You see, my dear reader, how your ministers will stoop to the meanest subterfuges to deceive you, and “cry peace." But not all of them. No: I bless God there are a few honest ones left yet. But this book is evidently got up to throwy darkness upon the people, to misrepresent my views, and to clothe the scripture in a manile of darkness.
In pages 84-36 he has misrepresented my views entirely: I have nowhere said the “little horn" began the vision, or had its rise until 158 years B. C., when the Grecians ceased 10 trouble the Jews, and the Romans began to work deceitfully. All his
arguments, then, are founded on false prennises. * And I may well say the whole of his arguments are
huilt upon false premises and conjectures. His four Tears, of which he attempts to make so much, has no effect on my system at all. I think Christ died A. D. 33. He thinks Christ died A. D. 29. But the end of the 70 weeks, he says, was A. D. 33 Very well, sir, this is all I ask; you may think what you please about Christ's death, it is the year I want, whether you reckon 453 and add 37, or reckon 457 and add 33. We agree it is 33, according to oni chropology. And from the end of the 70 weeks I