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. But 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 host to be trodden under foot?" Answer, "Unto two thousand three hundred days." With this translation, I have no difficulty. But what vision? I answer, the ram, he-goat, and little horn. Mr. Dowling, on pages 85 and 86, has endeavored to make people believe that I fix the rise of the little horn at the beginning of the vision. I cannot impute this to his ignorance; it cannot be less than a wanton disregard to truth; for he well knew I had applied the little horn" to Rome pagan and papal. See page 59 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 readers 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. 8. Remember the question: "For how long time shall the vision last?" The vision begins with the ram pushing westward, which is Persia warring against Grecia, according to Mr. Dowling'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 transgression of the Jews should come to the full. See the instruction of the angel, Dan. viii. 23-25: "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." 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 kingdom. He says, "To this it may be replied, that while in most instances in this prophecy," and he ought to have said 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 logic, Mr. Dowling? Suppose, sir, you write me a letter; in that letter you use the word "student" ten times-nine times you explain yourself to mean a "wise man;" would it be begging the question to call the tenth a "wise man?" 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 admitted my proof, and brought not a particle of proof from the Bible to support his assertion, I can safely rest my view, that it means the Roman kingdom, or that abomination spoken of by Christ, Matt. xxiv. 15, which would destroy the city and sanctuary, the Jews as a people, and magnify himself, and stand up against Christ.

66

I shall now examine the evidence he has brought against the seventy weeks 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 back without a shadow of a reason? I reply, I have read

his third lecture very carefully, to discover whether he has any reason whatever for placing the commencement of the 2300 years at the same time as the commencement of the 70 weeks, and I can discover 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 but 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 to Daniel, ix. 23, [not viii. or ix. 21,] Therefore understand the matter and consider the vision?" He has quoted a wrong verse, and then says the word "the" 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 vision," &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 throw darkness upon the people, to misrepresent my views, and to clothe the scripture in a mantle of darkness.

In pages 84-86 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 to trouble the Jews, and. the Romans began to work deceitfully. All his arguments, then, are founded on false premises. And I may well say the whole of his arguments are built upon false premises and conjectures. His four years, 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 our chronology. And from the end of the 70 weeks I

may reckon "backwards or forwards" as I please. Now, sir, if the instruction that Gabriel gives Daniel in the 9th chapter is concerning the vision of the 8th chapter, then I am right. If not, then I may be

wrong.

Let all of our readers examine for themselves, and then their blood must be on their own heads. I wish not to deceive any nor be deceived. I ask the reader to read Daniel viii. 16-19; then read Daniel ix. 21 to 24; and determine for himself what "vision" the angel came to make Daniel understand, and what "vision and prophet or prophecy" would be sealed up by the 70 weeks. This is the turning point, and Mr. Dowling knows it, or he would never have tried so hard to misquote and darken my arguments, which he will not call " arguments," and by which expression he has discovered his prejudice, and his unfitness to review any serious or candid work. "Let no man deceive you by any means." WILLIAM MILLER.

Low Hampton, July 13, 1840.

REVIEW OF DOWLING. No. II.

DEAR BRO. HIMES:-I am pained to the heart when I see the deceit and art that are used at the present day to lull the church to sleep and deceive souls. Yes, I see even those who profess to be servants of Christ and lovers of souls, taking sides with the scoffer, and ridiculing and treating with contempt an important doctrine of the Bible, which has eternal consequences hanging upon a right understanding and a just appreciation of its truth. Of all the writers which I have seen, none is equal to “John Dowling, A. M., pastor of the Pine-street Baptist church, Providence, R. I." He, in my opinion, will be the means of sinking more souls into perdition, than your "Par

sons Cooke, Whittemore, Skinner, Cobb, Thomas," and all the host of scoffers put together. For they have only prompted men to read and hear with more attention and profit. But Dowling steals upon men in that sly, deceitful, and artful manner, that they are chilled before they know it, and poisoned with a noxious vapor by the air they breathe. The effects will be easily seen, wherever Dowling's work is read and believed: the Bible will be neglected, reformations will cease, and indifference succeed.

Permit me, now, in a farther review of this work, to examine a few of his main attacks on my "four pillars," as he calls them. 1. The 2300 days, Dan. viii. 13, 14. This he has endeavored to destroy, root and branch; and if his assertion were evidence, I would give it up; but to a rational and free mind it is not sufficient. He begins with the 70 weeks, at the last end of my argument. (He calls it no argument.) You may inquire why he begins with the seventy weeks. This is very evident;--he wishes to avoid the main argument. And first, he asserts, over and over again, that I am ignorant. This would throw some dust in the reader's eyes. What is his final conclusion? I answer-he finally concludes, that 70 weeks were fulfilled in 490 years, and ended A. D. 33. Ignorant as I am, we agree in this to a charm. Very well. What is his next argument? His next argument of any bearing or force is, that "the vision of the ram and he-goat" was Antiochus Epiphanes. Here, he is very careful to keep out of sight my argument that the three visions, had at three several times, are but one prophecy: Nebuchadnezzar's dream, Daniel ii. 26-45; also Daniel vii.; and then Daniel viii., the ram and he-goat. My argument was, that these three visions are but one prophecy. "The dreams are the same," as Joseph said to Pharaoh. And if this be true, then the little horn, instead of being Antiochus, must be the Roman kingdom. This would be natural; and then, to be consistent, all the proof that I should be under any obligation to show would be the agreement between the little horn