As we were disappointed in our expectations, based upon the argument of the chronological fulfillment of the types, it is necessary that we should examine
THE DEFECTS OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
The argument was that as some of the types had been fulfilled chronologically, the remaining types must also be chronologically fulfilled. This argument would be logical as far as the analogy goes if all the types which have thus far been fulfilled, had been fulfilled chronologically. For, if some which have been fulfilled have not been chronologically fulfilled, it follows that those which are yet to be fulfilled, may be so, and not chronologically. A law, to be universal, must be shown to be without exceptions. A single exception invalidates its universal application. And if a law is demonstrated to be not of universal application, it ceases to be a rule to be relied upon in the settlement of doubtful questions. This is the case with the argument under consideration. Some of the types which have been fulfilled, were not fulfilled chronologically. Consequently, those which remain to be fulfilled, may not be chronologically fulfilled. This will be seen more clearly by examining
THE TRUE CHRONOLOGICAL ARGUMENT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE TYPES.
We find that there were various observances under the Mosaic law, which were shadows of good things to come, and we suppose that they must be all antitypically fulfilled under the Christian dispensation; but the point of interest is, how far they are, or are not, to be chronologically fulfilled. We find at Christ's first advent, a portion of the types were fulfilled as to time. Another portion of them were fulfilled, but not as to time. The killing of the paschal lamb on the 14th of Abib, was chronologically fulfilled by the crucifixion of our Saviour the same day; and so was the offering of the first-fruits on the morrow after the Sabbath of the paschal week, by his resurrection, the first-fruits of those that slept. As God has thus observed times in the fulfillment of those types, no man can deny but those which are unfulfilled may be fulfilled in their time. But there were other types which were not thus fulfilled; and therefore it is not necessary that they should be fulfilled chronologically. The goat for the sin-offering, which was slain on the tenth day of the seventh month, was fulfilled in the death of Christ the fourteenth day of the first month; and the scape-goat, on which was laid the sins of the people, and led away into the wilderness the same day, was fulfilled in Christ about the first of the eleventh month, when the Spirit led him away into the wilderness, immediately after his baptism; and when John next beheld him he exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world." The high priest also entered the holy of holies on the tenth day of the seventh month; but our High Priest entered the holiest of all in the third month, when he ascended into heaven itself, and sat himself at the Father's right hand, to make atonement for the sins of the world. We also find that some of the types, which can only be fulfilled at his second advent, had their observances at one season of the year; while others, which shadow forth the same event, were observed at other seasons of the year. The feast of the wheat harvest, a type of the resurrection of the righteous, was in the third month; the coming of the high priest out of the holiest of all to bless the waiting congregation, was in the seventh month; the coming of the children of Israel out of Egypt, the passing over them by the destroying angel, and the slaying of the Egyptians, were all in the first month; the blowing of the jubilee trumpet, and the deliverance of captives, were also in the seventh month. As, therefore, the types which shadow forth the second advent were observed on different days, they cannot all be fulfilled chronologically; and, if it is not necessary that all should be thus fulfilled, it may not be that any must; or, we cannot tell which day should be thus distinguished. And as some of the types of Christ's first Advent were fulfilled on days which were honored by the observance of other types, and others—the leading the scape-goat into the wilderness, and the entering of the high priest into the holy of holies—were fulfilled on days which had been honored by no observances; if we reason by analogy, and judge of the future by the past, they leave us entirely in the dark as to the day which will be honored by the advent of the Lord. And, therefore, we need to watch continually, in obedience to our Saviour's commands, to live with our loins girt about and our lights burning, to live in daily and constant expectation of his glorious appearing. And while we are thus daily looking, if we should continue here, as it may please God to have us, for the trial of our faith, until the anniversary of those days which were chosen of God, and set apart for the observance of the rites of the Mosaic law, we may look to them with peculiar interest; and to those feasts which have never been honored by an antitypical fulfillment, we may look with still greater assurance; and yet it cannot be shown but that any day may witness the coming of the Lord.
In endeavoring to bring out the "true chronological argument which is contained in the types," we think the Shield has made a wide misapplication of some of the types themselves. For instance, the scape-goat is not a type of Christ, but, as has been clearly demonstrated since 1844, of that being upon whom Christ will lay the sins of his people when he bears them from the heavenly Sanctuary at the close of his ministration; namely, Satan. And he who can think that Christ's being led away into the wilderness, before the work in the Sanctuary commenced, was the antitype of the scape-goat's being sent away, which could not take place till after the work in the Sanctuary was finished, must indeed be weak in the faith of "chronological argument."
Again: The entrance of the high priest into the most holy place was not typical of Christ's ascension into heaven itself; for he then entered, and commenced his ministry in, the first apartment of the heavenly Sanctuary, as was foreshadowed by the work of the priests in the earthly sanctuary.
Our disappointment was not the result of the view taken of the chronological fulfillment of the types, but of mistaking the event which the prophecies declared should be fulfilled at that time. "Could we then have understood the subject of the heavenly Sanctuary, our disappointment would have been avoided." The cleansing of the Sanctuary by our great High Priest, and his descending in the clouds of heaven with flaming fire, are events between which there is a marked distinction. The other types mentioned in the article may yet be fulfilled according to the principle adopted in this note. [Ed. REVIEW.146
THE TERMINATION OF THE PROPHETIC PERIODS.
In the previous part of this article it was shown, that to complete the prophetic periods, it would be necessary to extend them as far into A. D. 1844 as they respectively commenced after the beginning of the respective years B. C. from which they were dated; and as we have no clue to the time in those respective years when the several events transpired from which the prophetic periods have been reckoned, it would be necessary for A. D. 1844 to expire, to disprove our dates for their commencement, or the accuracy of the chronologies, by which we have been guided. That year has now expired. We have consequently now reached a point of time to which none of the prophetic periods can be extended, if time has been correctly marked, and our dates for their commencement were correct. We must therefore acknowledge that we were either premature in those dates, or that human chronology is not perfectly accurate. In arriving at our chronological conclusions, we have followed those chronologies which have been considered as the most authentic. There is however a disagreement among the several chronologers respecting the dates of the several events from which we have reckoned the prophetic periods; but which is all harmonized within the circle of a few years. Those chronologers which we have followed have placed the date of the respective events at the earliest point within this circle. But as other chronologers have assigned to them a later point of time, we are justly entitled to all the time which is in dispute among them, before our position can in any way be materially affected, or its chronological bearings tested.
The seven times, or 2520 years of the Jewish subversion, we have always dated from the captivity of Manasseh. This captivity is placed in B. C. 677, or the year 4037 of the Julian Period, in the 22d year of Manasseh's reign, by Dr. Prideaux, Archbishop Usher, Jackson, Playfair, Blair and others; Guthrie, Horne, and Calmet date it B. C. 676, Dr. Hales, B. C. 675, (as the Jews in Seder Olam Rabba, and the Talmudists, date it. See Ganz p. 45.) and Dr. Jarvis, B. C. 674.
We reckon the 2460 years of the Great Jubilee from the captivity of Jehoiakim in the fourth year of his reign. This is dated B. C. 607, by Ptolemy, Petavius, Usher, &c.; but Playfair, Whiston, Prideaux and others date it from B. C. 606; while Berceux, Blair, Jackson and Dr. Hales date it in B. C. 605.
The 2300 days we begin at the commencement of the 70 weeks, at the going forth of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem, in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. B. C. 457 is assigned as the date of this decree, by Blair, Prideaux, Ferguson, Horne, Watson, Ptolemy, and the great majority of commentators. Other chronologers reckon the 70 weeks from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Usher, Petavius and others thus reckon, and date from the year 4260 of the Julian Period, or B. C. 454. Hengstenberg dates it and reckons from B. C. 455.
The "seven weeks, and the sixty and two weeks," or 69 weeks to the commencement of Christ's ministry, terminated, according to our chronology, A. D. 27, at Christ's baptism. In this we were sustained by Dr. Hales and others; but Prideaux, Ferguson, and others, who terminate the 69 weeks in A. D. 26, contend that they terminated with the baptism of John, and that our Saviour was not baptized till three years later; while Usher, Petavius, Hengstenberg, Lydyiat and others, extend the 69 weeks to A. D. 29 or 30.
The crucifixion of our Saviour is dated in the years 31, 32, 33 and 34, from the vulgar era, by different chronologists. Dr. Hales contends that it was A. D. 31; while Sir Isaac Newton argues that it was in A. D. 34. Scaliger, Usher, Pearson, Bacon and others argue that it was in A. D. 33. Ferguson, Prideaux, Bullinger, Blair and others, terminate the 70 weeks at the crucifixion; while Lydyiat, Usher, Petavius and others, extend them three and a half years beyond.
It will be seen by the above that there is a disagreement among chronologers respecting the dates of the events from which we have severally reckoned the prophetic periods. And yet that disagreement is all within a circle of a very few years. It will be also seen, that reckoning any of the prophetic periods from the latest dates which are assigned by any standard chronologers for the events from which we have reckoned them, they cannot be extended beyond A. D. 1847; while there are intermediate points between the present and that year, where they would terminate, if reckoned from other given dates. As this ground is "disputed territory," and as there are chronologers of note, which, if followed in their dates, would terminate the several periods at various points within this disputed circle, we are certainly entitled to all the time thus in dispute, before it can be proved that our chronology, or the several events from which we have reckoned, are incorrect. We have followed those chronologers which are admitted to be the most authentic, and have adopted those dates which are considered to be the best sustained. It is now proved that those which we have followed are not perfectly accurate; and while there is a variation from perfect accuracy, it cannot be shown whether that variation is one day, one year, more or less; nor can it be shown which of the several chronologers within the disputed circle, who in any way vary from the ones we have followed, are the most accurate. The dates of others may be as much too late as those we have followed have been too early. It will, therefore, be time enough to look to them when all the intervening time shall have expired. And the authority on which such are predicated is far more questionable than that on which we have relied. While therefore we are satisfied that the truth is among the chronologers referred to, we are unable to decide which of them presents the best evidence of its possession.
OUR POSITION
Is therefore the same as that presented in the last number of the Shield, in the article under that head. We regard this as a period of time in which we are emphatically to take heed to ourselves lest at any time our hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon us unawares. Our position is one of continual and confident expectation. With no time which must necessarily intervene between the present and the time of the Lord's return—having run out all the prophetic periods, according to the chronologers we have followed respecting the date of the events from which we have reckoned—being at the terminus of all historical prophecy; and occupying that point of time to which the primitive church and the reformers looked, and which is designated by the signs of the times; we may daily and hourly look for the coming of our King—not knowing the day or the hour, or when the definite time is, and yet knowing that it is at the very door, that it cannot be long delayed, and may burst upon us at any moment. Thus we will continue to wait and watch, praying for, and loving his appearing, doing all we can for the preparation of our fellowmen for that event, yet willing to tarry here God's time until Salem's golden spires shall burst upon our vision, and we shall enter upon eternal realities.