In the World's Crisis of Oct. 3, we find an article signed "W. S." (Wm. Sheldon), which we have read with considerable interest, and in reading we felt a strong inclination to notice some of its statements. It is headed, "Miller's Mistake Explained." It is based on the following report of a sermon in Worcester, Mass., by Eld. Goodrich:— "The Worcester Evening Gazette of Sept. 18th thus reports a discourse given by a Seventh Day preacher:— 'Elder Goodrich, at Reform Club Hall, last night, took for his text Dan. 8:14: "Unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The speaker said: "This text is the great foundation upon which William Miller based his calculation that the second coming of Christ would take place in 1844. His conclusion was reached thus: An angel was commissioned to make Daniel understand the vision of chapter 8. In this explanation the angel said, Dan. 9:24, Seventy weeks (490 years) are cut off upon the Jews from the 2300 years. And this period was to begin at the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, from which point of time to Messiah the Prince, or the time when Christ was anointed, which took place at his baptism, should be 69 weeks, or 483 literal years. The commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem went forth in 457 B. C., according to Bible chronology, Ezra 7. Add 483 to 457 B. C. and it brings us to A. D. 27, when our Lord was baptized and began his public ministry, saying "The time is fulfilled." Of the remaining week of the 70 which were cut off upon the Jews, the angel says, Dan. 9:27, "He (Christ) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week (seven years); but in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." Christ confirmed the covenant with the Jews himself the first half of the 70th week. From the time of his baptism in A. D. 27, autumn, till his crucifixion in the spring of A. D. 34, 490 years taken from 2300 leaves 1810, to which add 34, and we have 1844."' 'The speaker said: "We claim that Mr. Miller was mistaken in the event to transpire, but that he was correct in his chronology. He supposed that the earth was the sanctuary, and that its cleansing would be by fire at Christ's coming."' 'The elder stated that there is not a text in the Bible where the earth is called the sanctuary. He then quoted several texts to show that the sanctuary, of this dispensation, which was to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 years, is the heavenly sanctuary, the great antitype of the earthly sanctuary, which Paul says was a "pattern of things in the heavens;" and that its cleansing began at the end of the 2300 years, when Christ, our High Priest entered the most holy apartment of the sanctuary above, according to the type."' On this Mr. S. comments at considerable length. His first point is as follows:— "1. It is true that Miller ended the 70 weeks at the cross, instead of allowing them to run to the end of the war against Jerusalem, and also ended the 69 weeks at the Messiah's baptism, instead of ending them at his real advent into the world, treating these two distinct measurements as parts of one with the same beginning." In Mr. Miller's Lectures, first published in 1836, he took the position that the 70 weeks ended at the crucifixion. But in the Advent Shield and Review, published in May, 1844, we find the following words by Josiah Litch:— "It has never yet been proved that the crucifixion of Christ just finishes the 70 weeks. On the contrary, Dan. 9:27 gives us a strong intimation, nay, more than an intimation, a strong assertion, that in the midst of the week, within its limits, he should cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease." By quotations presently herein made, it will be seen that the Advent Herald agreed with Eld. Litch. The position that the 70 weeks ended at the cross he seems to consider that of S. D. Adventists. But it is not our belief, and it never was; and we are surprised that he should even intimate such a thing. We say, and have always said, that the 69 weeks reach to the baptism of Christ, and "in the midst" of the remaining one week of the 70 he was crucified—not at the end of it. And a remark of Mr. S. in another place in his article is of interest brought into this connection. It is as follows, the italics being his own:— "When Christ entered upon his public ministry he began by saying, 'The time is fulfilled'—not the time of his being slain as the Lamb of God, but simply the time of his manifestation as the Lamb of God, for John had just exclaimed, 'Behold the Lamb of God.'" Very well; with this we agree. But when an individual abruptly says, "The time is fulfilled," we take for granted that he refers to a specified time. What relation has this to the prophecy? Now it was a matter of prophecy that a certain time should reach "to Messiah the prince." We say it was not to the time of his birth; there was no announcement of any time fulfilled there, and the expiration of no prophetic period was located there. We believe the 69 weeks ended "at the time of his manifestation as the Lamb of God," as Mr. S. says, and as he more distinctly says at the end of the paragraph: "the time of his manifestation to the people at large." And if this time was not a fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, who will tell us of what time the Saviour spoke which was then "fulfilled?" If no time had been specified to end there, then it was the fulfillment of nothing at all. "2. He also began to reckon from the 7th of Ezra, which incorrect chronology sets down as 457 B. C.; but no commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem can there be found." This may well be styled "a short and easy method" of disposing of some important and strong evidence. After the passing of the time preached by Mr. Miller, A. D. 1843-44, it was still believed by many that Dan. 8:14 (the 2300 days) reached to the second advent. Of course they believed those days had not expired, and that Mr. Miller had made a mistake as to their commencement. They began to search for other reckonings, and pitched upon various other events, real or imaginary, as marking the commencement of the days, and set the time for the advent accordingly. They did not at all improve upon the argument of Mr. Miller, but they felt themselves shut up to a necessity to get another starting point, as they were (and are) determined to insist that the prophecy revealed the time of the coming of the Lord. Sylvester Bliss was editor of the Advent Herald, the paper of which Eld. J. V. Himes, the co-laborer of Mr. Miller, was the publisher. Mr. Bliss was a man of superior education, a thorough student of prophetic chronology, upon which he published a book. In 1856, a correspondent of the Herald tried to remove the old Advent landmark on the 2300 days, and fix their termination in the (then) future. Now Mr. Bliss did not pretend to explain the reason of their disappointment, but he frankly contended for the accuracy of Mr. Miller's calculations, and of the accuracy of the chronology on which he based his argument. He replied to the correspondent in the following language:— "The Bible gives the data for a complete system of chronology, extending from the creation to the birth of Cyrus, a clearly ascertained date. From this period downward we have the undisputed Canon of Ptolemy, and the undoubted era of Nabonassar, extending below our vulgar era. At the point where the inspired chronology leaves us, this Canon of undoubted accuracy commences. And thus the whole arch is spanned. It is by the Canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period of seventy weeks is fixed. This Canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B. C. 457; and the accuracy of the Canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. The seventh weeks date from the going forth of a decree respecting the restoration of Jerusalem. There were no decrees between the seventh and twentieth years of Artaxerxes. Four hundred and seventy years, beginning with the seventh, must commence in B. C. 457, and end in A. D. 14. Commencing in the twentieth, they must commence in B. C. 444, and end in A. D. 27. As no event occurred in A. D. 27 to mark their termination, we cannot reckon from the twentieth; we must, therefore, look to the seventh of Artaxerxes. This date we cannot change from B. C. 457 without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy's Canon. To do this, it would be necessary to show that the number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated, have not been correctly computed, and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guess-work. As the seventy weeks must terminate in A. D. 34, unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we inquire, What evidence marked that termination? The time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than any other which has been named. And the crucifixion, in A. D. 31, in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony which cannot be easily invalidated."—Advent Herald, March 2, 1850. And again, seven years later, 1857, having had time and opportunity to often review the ground, he spoke as follows on the point:— "There are certain chronological points which have been settled as fixed; and before the seventy weeks can be made to terminate at a later period, those must be unsettled, by being shown to have been fixed on wrong principles; and a new date must be assigned for their commencement based on better principles. Now, that the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus was B. C. 464-3, is demonstrated by the agreement of above twenty eclipses, which have been repeatedly calculated, and have invariably been found to fail in the times specified. Before it can be shown that the commencement of his reign is wrongly fixed, it must first be shown that those eclipses have been wrongly calculated. This no one has done, or ever will venture to do. Consequently, the commencement of his reign cannot be removed from that point."—Advent Herald, Feb. 15, 1857. Since that time a would-be wise man by the name of Thurman wrote a book entitled, "The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened." He affected great knowledge of Astronomy; said he had computed the eclipses and found that Ptolemy's Canon was unreliable, and that he had demonstrated that the Lord would come in 1866. He was so confident that he believed he was specially commissioned to open the seal of the book of Daniel. He had a public discussion in Boston on the subject of the credibility of Ptolemy's Canon, in which he utterly failed to make good his attacks upon it. The last time we conversed with him, which was after 1866, he said in effect that he had concluded to be more modest in his statements. We think that every one who attacks that Canon of Chronology would do well to profit by his example. Prideaux, a well-known and well-accredited author, speaks thus of the credibility of Ptolemy's Canon:— "But Ptolemy's Canon being fixed by the eclipses, the truth of it may at any time be demonstrated by astronomical calculations, and no one hath ever calculated those eclipses but hath found them fall right in the times where placed; and therefore this being the surest guide which we have in the chronology, and it being also verified by its agreement everywhere with the Scriptures, it is not, for the authority of any other human writing whatsoever, to be receded from." And this is but a tithe of the evidence which may be presented in its favor. Is it true, as Mr. S. says, that no commandment to restore and build Jerusalem can be found in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, or B. C. 457, as given in Ezra 7? We say in this he is greatly at fault. Ezra 6:14, speaking of the finishing of the temple, says: "And they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." The work was accomplished under the decree of these three kings, and not under the decree of either one alone. It was one work, and the record counts the acts of the three kings "the commandment"—one commandment in three parts. The closing part of this commandment is found in Ezra 7:12-26. In the Hebrew Scriptures this part of Ezra 7 is found in Chaldaic, not in Hebrew, indicating that it is the original copy transferred by Ezra. Much more might be said on these points, but our time and space forbids at present. The 2300 days reach to the cleansing of the sanctuary; not to the completion, but to the commencement of the work. If our opponents had any strength of argument on this subject it would give color to their argument for removing the data on time. But here we have the entire argument, and, consequently, we have all the evidence on this subject to strengthen our position on time. If any think we are assuming too much on this point we invite their attention to the following statement of Mr. Sheldon, by which he thinks to overthrow our position:— "The effort to make it appear that there was need of a cleansing work in Heaven by quoting Heb. 9:23, is a failure. While the text reads, 'It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these,' the word purified here means, as in the 18th verse, 'dedicated.' 'Neither the first testament was dedicated without blood,' so the heavenly things were simply dedicated with blood. When under the law blood was applied to inanimate things, it was for their dedication, and not to remove pollution." When a drowning man catches at a straw he has our sympathy and our pity, because of his condition. But when a man deliberately casts himself into the sea with only a straw for his support, we may pity him also, but it is for quite another reason. Mr. Sheldon is not an ignorant man, which may appear to be unfortunate for himself in taking such a position as the above. He must know, if he has considered the subject even for a moment, that cleansing and dedication have not the475same meaning in lexicography, nor do they refer to the same work in the sacred record. The word in Heb. 9:18 has the proper signification of dedicate, and has not the signification of purify or cleanse. It might only by implication carry the idea of sanctify, in the sense of dedicating, or setting apart, or initiating. But the other has strictly the sense of cleansing, or purifying. So, all the Lexicons. But the difference of the works referred to is most decisive. In Ex. 24:3-8, is found the account of dedicating the covenant. Moses received the promise of the people to do the will of God, and he then sprinkled blood on the book containing the words of the covenant, and upon the people. Of this Paul distinctly speaks in Heb. 9. He also speaks of the work of the priest in cleansing the sanctuary, which was really the subject of his argument in this chapter. Now the process of this work is given in Lev. 16, and is as different from that of dedicating the covenant as can well be imagined. The dedication of the covenant occurred once, in the manner described. The cleansing of the sanctuary (in the type) occurred every year, and was performed as follows: The high priest—for he only performed this work—took the blood of a goat, slain in behalf of the people as a sin offering, into the sanctuary. In the most holy he sprinkled it upon and before the mercy-seat. Then in the holy he sprinkled the blood upon the altar, and put it also on the horns of the altar. In verse 16 it is said: 'He shall make an atonement for the holy [literally, the sanctuary], because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel.' Also in verse 18, of his work in the holy place, and upon the altar, it is said: 'And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.' The dedicating of the covenant was not done in the sanctuary; and the sanctuary was not dedicated yearly by the blood of the sin offering. The two works bore no resemblance to each other, either in form or object. In what manner was the sanctuary made unclean by the sins of the children of Israel? By the entering therein of their priest, their representative, who stood in their stead; who bore their judgment or their sins. The people never went into the sanctuary themselves. It was defiled by their sins borne by the priest, and by the priest it was cleansed by the blood of the sin offering. Now read Paul's words in Hebrews, and see if they will apply to a dedication: 'Into the second [the most holy] went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people.' Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged [cleansed] with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified [cleansed] with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into Heaven itself.' This in chapter 9. In 8:1-5, Paul says Christ is in Heaven, 'a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.' And of the work of the priests in offering sacrifices and gifts in the earthly tabernacle, he says they 'serve unto the shadow and example of heavenly things.' If this does not clearly establish our position in regard to our High Priest making the atonement in Heaven by purifying or cleansing the sanctuary therein from sin, we can see no use of offering proof on any subject. If Mr. Sheldon could offer as clear proof as this in regard to the 'sleep of the dead,' with as little show of force in objections as there is in objections against this truth, he would more easily convince the world that he is correct on that point. But on that subject he has stronger objections to meet than he can produce against us on this. We thought to divide this article in two, and extend the argument further, but have concluded to give what we offer on it in one, and ask the indulgence of the reader for its length.