and the Roman kingdom. The little horn in the 7th chapter is explained to mean the fourth or Roman kingdom. See Dan. vii. 7, 8. And what rule has Mr. Dowling to apply the same "little horn," in the next vision, to some other kingdom, when the inspired writer has nowhere told us he meant another kingdom, but the reverse? See Dan. viii. 1: "After (or like) that which appeared unto me at the first." Then he sees the vision of the Medes and Persians; (compare_ Dan. vii. 5, with viii. 3, 4;) then of the Grecian, Dan. vii. 6, with viii. 5-8. Then the little horn answers to the fourth kingdom. Now let us compare Daniel vii. 7, 8, with viii. 9, 10. The first was "dreadful, and terrible, and strong exceedingly." The other "waxed exceeding great towards the south, towards the east, and towards the pleasant land." The first "devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it." The next, "It cast down some (or residue) of the host and stars to the ground, and stamped upon them." The first, Dan. vii. 21, "made war with the saints and prevailed against them." The other "waxed great against the host of heaven." The first "shall speak great words against the Most High," Dan. vii. 25. The last, "Yea, he magnified himself against the Prince of the host." The Roman kingdom is described by Moses, Deut. xxviii. 49, 50, as a nation of fierce countenance," " a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand." Daniel says this little horn is a king of fierce countenance and understanding dark sentences." The first, Dan. vii. 25, 26: "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." Now, viii. 24, 25: "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.”

Surely, Mr. Dowling, this is an argument that you. cannot guess away; nor can all the magicians, astrologers, sorcerers and soothsayers of Babylon confute it.

The next argument Mr. Dowling brings is," that he does not regard the 2300 evenings and mornings as prophetical days or years," page 84. What do I care what he regards? Shall we crouch and fawn to his dogmatism? No, my dear reader; if you have read my lectures, you know I have proved as clearly that the 70 weeks is a part of the vision, as he has proved that the 70 weeks were 490 years. And if 490 years were included in the same vision, (see Dan. ix. 23, 24,) then of course his 3 years and 55 days, and all his long struggle on that point, is but wind. For the question is, as he has shown, page 70,-"For how long a time shall the vision last?" I answer, as he says, page 71, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days." But what was to be done in the vision? The text says, as Mr. Lowth translates it, "The daily sacrifice be taken away, and the transgression of desolation continue." What does Daniel say about taking away daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation continuing? Dan. xii. 11: 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." Here, Mr. Dowling, are 1290 days, and you acknowledge, page 71, that these are probably years; where then are your "1150 evenings and mornings?" A lame conclusion, poor logic, this! What else must be done in the vision? "To give both the sanctuary and host to be trodden under foot." What do Daniel and John say about treading under foot? Dan. vii. 7, 19, 25: "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. 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 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." 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."

These times spoken of in Daniel and Revelation mean 1260 years, he admits, on page 71. Where then is your 1150 common days, Mr. Dowling? Is there no argument in this? The argument about the little horn, page 86, “Placing the little horn which was to spring from the head of the goat, before the time when the goat began to exist," which he charges me as having done, is a subterfuge too base to be replied to, and an argument too silly to need a serious answer. The vision began 457 B. C., not the little horn.

If Mr. Dowling's cause is so weak that he must lescend to such misrepresentations, and contradictory arguments, I would advise him to apply to the Boscon clergy for a resolution" in his favor, or to get a few more puffs from the "Watchman" and "Secretary," to sustain him in his inconsistent course!

I have removed the principal difficulties that he has thrown in the way of sincere seekers after truth, and now take my leave of the work.

WILLIAM MILLER.

Low Hampton, July 18, 1840.

BRIEF REVIEW OF S. COBB'S LECTURES ON THE "MILLER MANIA."

THE REV. S. Cobb, of Waltham, Mass., some time last year gave a course of lectures to the Universalist society in that town, and has since published them in the "Christian Freeman," under the caption of the "Miller Manic." The following passing notice of them, by brother Miller, will give the reader some idea of their merit.

DEAR BRO. HIMES: I have by your politeness received Rev. S. Cobb's Lectures on the "Miller Mania." I think a few such lectures would do good among the followers of Universalism here. For they have been taught here that Christ will never come again to the earth, that his second coming was at Jerusalem; and Mr. Cobb has admitted that the "glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" is yet future. He has also admitted that Paul, in 1 Thess. iv. 16, means a coming that is yet future. Admitting these two passages to apply to the future coming of Christ, it follows, of course, that all Mr. Miller claims may be true; for the passages of like import and expression must have a like meaning. 1st. Take Titus ii. 13: "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Then the text in Heb. ix. 28 must have a similar meaning and the same fulfilment. "So Christ was once offered to hear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him (looking for, says Paul to Titus) shall he appear (glorious appearing) the second time (first time was when he was offered, second time will be when he comes to bless

his people and consummate their hopes) without sin unto salvation." Where then can his coming to Jerusalem be placed? It cannot be his first, for that was before. It cannot be his second, for that is the one we are looking for, and yet in the future. Can Mr. Cobb get a space between one and two? Try again, my dear sir; it is a difficult task, but try again; you can wrest the scripture. A desperate cause needs a desperate effort.

Again; let Mr. Cobb compare 1 John ii. 28: "And now, little children, abide in him; that when he shall appear we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." Was this written before Jerusalem was destroyed? Be careful, Mr. Cobb; you may yet prove that John was dead before Jerusalem was destroyed, and if so, your theory all goes to the wind. If, then, this text from John's epistle was written twenty years after Jerusalem was destroyed, then his appearing must be in the future. 1 And why this caution, "Little children, abide in him," &c.? How is this? who can be ashamed before him at his coming, if all will be happy and holy? This text does favor my views, surely. "Some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Mr. Cobb admits that 1 Thess. iv. 16, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first," is a future coming of Christ. This is admitting the whole ground; for the following verses, to the fourth verse of the fifth chapter," Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape,"