SYNOPSIS OF THE PRESENT TRUTH.
As ANNOUNCED last week, we now call attention to the various views which have been promulgated in explanation of the passing of the time, and the great disappointment of the Adventists in 1844. 1. The Advent Herald, now Messiah's Herald, from time to time after 1844 put forth unanswerable vindications of the original dates. But its position hereby became extremely embarrassing; for to admit that the days had ended, and that the earth was not burned, would, according to its own premises, involve the word of God in a positive failure. In order therefore that the days might be indefinitely extended to the future, it denied the connection between them and the seventy weeks, by which alone we have any clue to their commencement, and thus set them adrift. We learn this from a series of questions addressed by a correspondent to the editor of the Herald, and his answers as follows:— “Question. In your ‘Chronology’ the cross is placed in A. D. 31. What are the principal objections which bear against its being placed in A. D. 39? “Answer. 1. The absence of any evidence placing it there. 2. The contradiction of the wonderful astronomical, chronological, and historical coincidences which show beyond the shadow of controversy that the 7th of Artaxerxes was in B. C. 457–8, that the birth of Christ was B. C. 4–5, that the thirtieth year of Christ was 483 years from the 7th of Artaxerxes, that the crucifixion was in A. D. 31, and that that was the point of time in the last week when the sacrifice and oblation should cease. “Ques. If the 70 weeks of Dan 9 do not commence in the 20th of Artaxerxes, how can the 2300 days begin at the same time with them, and yet terminate in the future? “Ques. Must we not henceforth consider that they have different starting points? “Ans. Yes.”—Advent Herald, May 22, 1852. We must now call the reader's attention to that portion of the “original Advent faith,” which once formed a part of a standing notice in the Advent papers, under the head of “Points of difference between Us and our Opponents.” It is as follows:— “We claim that the ninth of Daniel is an appendix to the eighth, and that the seventy weeks, and the 2300 days or years, commence together. Our opponents deny this.” Signs of the Times, 1843. The Herald itself has now denied this, and thus abandoned its original position, and gone over to the ground of its opponents. Again: “The grand principle involved in the interpretation of the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14, is, that the 70 weeks of Dan. 9:24, are the first 490 days of the 2300 of the eighth chapter.”—Advent Shield, p. 49. Art., Rise and Progress of Adventism. “If the connection between the 70 weeks of Dan. 9, and the 2300 days of Dan. 8, does not exist, the whole system is shaken to its foundation; if it does exist as we suppose, the system must stand.”—Harmony of Prophetic Chronology, p. 38. From these extracts it will be seen how serious a departure from the “original Advent faith,” is this denial of the Herald's, and of how grave a character. It is taking the position of the opponents of the Advent faith; it is ignoring the “grand principle involved in the interpretation of the 2300 days;” it is yielding a point by which “the whole system is shaken to its foundation.” Thus has the Herald turned traitor to its first principles, and ignominiously abandoned the Gibraltar of the prophetic periods to the hands of the enemy. And yet, “We are the Adventists,” is the presumptuous claim which it still puts forth. And what are the reasons for all this? Simply these:— “We have no new light respecting the connection between the 70 weeks and the 2300 days. The only argument against their connection is the passing of the time. Why that has passed is a mystery to us, which we wait to have revealed.”—Ad. Herald, Sept. 7, 1850. Conclusive testimony to show the connection of the 70 weeks and 2300 days has in its place been offered; and we submit to the judgment of the reader if the reasons above alleged are sufficient to disprove it, or to justify so glaring a departure from just rules of interpretation. Even the seeming objection against their connection has been since 1844 thoroughly removed, as will in due time be noticed. 2. Another class attempted to re-adjust the reckoning of the days by assigning a later date for the seventy weeks. They took the commission of Nehemiah, in the twentieth of Artaxerxes, as the starting point, and gave it such a date as to make the whole period terminate in 1854. This was the basis of the excitement on that point, time, that existed in some parts of the land. The merits of Nehemiah's commission have been already examined. We have seen that it will neither answer the import of the prophecy, nor harmonize with a single date. But 1854 has passed; and even allowing the 20th of Artaxerxes its proper date, B. C. 444, the 2300 days reckoned therefrom could only extend to 1857, which is also passed. That theory therefore has fallen; and those who have rested upon it have been doomed to failure and disappointment which they might have avoided. And now that the utmost limit has passed to which the days can possibly be extended, we may hope that some will be willing to view the matter in its true light, and admit that the mistake must lay, not in the original reckoning of the time, but in the event to occur at the end of the days. The desperate position adopted by the Herald on account of the passing of the time in 1844, so far as we know, it still holds. We had supposed also, that the majority of its supporters might as a last resort, adopt the conclusion of the Herald, that the periods were not connected. How many of them privately entertain this view we cannot say; but we have not seen it publicly advocated; a prudent silence having for the most part been maintained concerning the prophetic periods. Some attempts at prophetic exposition, have, however, more recently appeared, but only sufficient to give evidence of a chronic condition of imbecility and chaos; One of the most significant references to the question before us, is the following from one of its prominent writers:— “That those periods are intended to enlighten our minds, and direct our faith in regard to the end of the gospel age, I fully believe. But not that we should so locate their commencement and terminus by historic events as to form a basis for full faith, such as we are required to have in the statements of the gospel. Gospel truths are clear and certain, requiring our implicit confidence. But human calculations, and historic applications, as connected with prophetic times (though important and useful when used modestly and carefully) may not demand such confidence.” He then proceeds to throw out some suggestions in regard to the prophetic periods in the form of questions, as follows:— “First. Is the definite year of Christ's advent clearly revealed in the Scriptures alone? “Second. Can all intelligent Christians understand the principle of prophetic reckoning and arguments by which to determine confidently and certainly at what point of time the periods end? “Third. Can all Christians accurately compute sacred chronology and definitely determine the age of the world? “Fourth. Are all Christians in circumstances which will permit them to gain access to historical and chronological works, and have capacity and time to study them and gain all the light which may be obtained by able and energetic students? “Fifth. Are children, young converts, and believers of small capacity required by the gospel to put full confidence in the deductions of more able men on prophetic times and historic research?” The import of these questions none can fail to perceive. It is to throw an uncertainty over prophetic reckoning; to foster the idea that the periods cannot be understood; and hence to discourage their study, and take the edge from those great truths that are built upon them. It is akin to that popular idea, that much of the word of God is beyond our comprehension and cannot be understood; or, in other words, that revelation is not revelation; which is infidelity. Of what use is a prophetic period with both ends in the fog? For what were they given, if there is no definiteness to be attached to them? No: all Scripture is profitable; and those prophecies and periods of years which lead us down to scenes connected with the end, are within the easy comprehension of all “able and energetic students,” of whom there are not a few, and they can bring them within the comprehension of every child. So it is with the 2300 days. With the data which the Bible gives, and the plain records of history, which are entitled to universal confidence, there need be no hesitation in the application. It is easy, natural, clear, harmonious, and definite. There stands that great period in the past like a monument of truth; and no efforts have been able to shake its foundations or to overthrow its structure. Beware then of those who would endeavor to obscure or remove the ancient landmarks. It is a fearful thing to err from truth. If the light in you become darkness how great is that darkness. It is not strange, after all the wild work that has been made by those who have compassed themselves with sparks of their own kindling, that some should have but little confidence in anything. But truth is not responsible for all this, and it is none the less clear, and the prophetic periods are none the less definite and certain on this account. The idea that if the termination of the prophetic periods is known, the time of the second advent is also known, is a conclusion drawn without warrant; for there is no prophetic period that reaches to the coming of the Saviour as will be hereafter proved. But yet they do bring us to events which it is not safe to lose sight of. The position of the third class, that the mistake which led to the disappointment in 1844, lay in the subject of the sanctuary, and not in the reckoning of the prophetic periods, will claim attention in our next.