Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "undefined".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    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 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.MRSH 66.2

    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 50:21: “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.”MRSH 67.1

    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 readers become mad, or has God given them eyes of slumbering, that they should stumble and fall and be snared and taken?MRSH 67.2

    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 7:21, 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 7:7, 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: and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”MRSH 68.1

    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 1:6: “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 7:19-22: “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 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 7:9, 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 judgment was set, and the books were opened.” First, — “Thrones were cast down;” compare Daniel 2:35: “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.” 1 Corinthians 15:24, 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 Ephesians 1:22: “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 Isaiah 9:7: “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 Revelation 20:12: “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 Revelation 5:9-11: “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 thousands.” Here we have the same number, the same saints, the same judgment, and the same reign on the earth. Jude 14, 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 7:11-14: “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 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.MRSH 69.1

    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.MRSH 73.1

    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 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.MRSH 73.2

    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 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.MRSH 74.1

    Yours, etc.

    WILLIAM MILLER.
    Low Hampton, Dec. 12, 1842

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents