THE position of the Advent Herald, relative to the 2300 days of Dan. viii, is certainly very unpleasant. The conductors of that paper have formerly maintained the connection between the 70 weeks and 2300 days, and those who disconnected the two periods have been considered by them, as departing from the "original Advent faith." The Herald has also ably and fully defended B. C. 457 as the period from which to date the 70 weeks. If both of these positions maintained by the Herald are correct, then the 2300 days terminated in 1844, as taught by the Review. But the Herald objects to this view of the subject, on the ground that the event placed at the end of the 2300 days did not occur. What is that event? Answer: "Then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed." Now is there scripture proof that the cleansing of the Sanctuary is the coming of Christ and the burning of the world? We can find none. If others can, we invite them to present it, and if they wish, we will publish it in the Review.
Bro J. N. Andrews, in his work on the Sanctuary and 2300 days, has given the scriptural view of the cleansing of the Sanctuary, which is in perfect harmony with the "original Advent faith." If the Herald would take this view of the subject, it would not be driven to the necessity of denying the connection between the 70 weeks and 2300 days. It would not now be tearing down what it once labored to build up. But while it rejects the harmonious view of this important question, it is poorly prepared to meet existing errors on definite time.
We give the following from the Herald of Nov. 26th, which gives some idea of the unpleasant position of the Herald, also the position of Edwin Burnham, one of the most influential Herald men.
Reply to "Remarks on the 2300 Years."
[THERE being in the following, an expression of dissatisfaction at our remarks respecting a former article, we shall refrain from any comments on it.—When there is manifested by any an unwillingness to the correction of historical, chronological or other inaccuracies, or to be met by arguments as terse and pointed as their own, we forbear any effort to enlighten them, however wide from the mark they may wander.—Ed.]
BRO. BLISS:—1. You say "we expected to make no comments" on the article I wrote on the 2300 days. Well, as I made no one responsible for it but myself, I did not expect it to be treated as it was.
2. You say "we learn that it is, preached in connection with Berick's time." No, not exactly; Berick preaches Christ will come in 1854; I preach that I believe he will come before the summer of 1856.
3. You tell us that the time between the vision of the eighth and ninth chapters of Daniel is 16 years. I have never yet found any vision, or "appearances," in the ninth chapter of Daniel, unless you make Gabriel himself a vision. And certainly he needed not to be explained! What if the visit in the ninth chapter was 16 years after that in the eighth? it matters not if it was 40 years. In the eighth chapter Gabriel explains the events of the vision, but where in the eighth chapter, or any where else, except in the ninth, is there any data given for the 2300 days? And what was the use of giving the length of the vision without giving any data? After Gabriel had given the explanation of the events of the vision in the eighth chapter, he told Daniel to "shut thou up the vision." I conclude Daniel did as he was told to. Thus he was left 16 years with only an understanding of the events of the vision, without an understanding of the data of it; in this time, among other things, he read "books." He, at length, set himself to fast and pray: while thus engaged Gabriel came to him about the time of the evening oblation. What did he say? Ans. "I am now come to give thee skill and understanding."
Understanding about what? Ans. THE VISION.—What vision? Ans. The one in which he had seen him at the beginning 16 years before. Why should we rend apart what God hath joined together? Some of our brethren in New York think you are "throwing away" "Father Miller's key"!!
4. You say Daniel, when he said none understood it, meant none but himself. He does not say none but himself. Why infer? If he did understand all of it why did Gabriel come for his words to make him understand THE VISION? He had never at this time had but two visions, that the Bible speaks of. Well, it could not have been the first one, recorded in the seventh chapter, because that he did understand (see Dan. vii, 16), so then it must have been the data of the eighth chapter vision.
5. You say that a man cannot be astonished at what he does not understand. A little to fast! Were not Belshazzar's lords astonished at the writing on the wall before they understood it? (See Dan. v.)
6. You labor to separate the seventy weeks from the 2300 days; how many more "strong points" of "the original Advent faith" are yet to be overturned? You did not object, a few days since, at the office, that they were connected, but said you thought they were 2400 years. Do you still think we have yet got to wait 100 years longer?