"The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened."
By WM. C. GAGE.
SUCH is the title of a work on the prophecies, by Wm. C. Thurman, professing to give new light on the prophetic periods, and aiming especially to establish a new system of chronology. The work has already been noticed in the Review, and some of its errors pointed out; but as I have lately been examining the book with considerable interest, I take the liberty of criticising what may be considered some of its weak points. And in the first place we might inquire whether the author had not undertaken a big job in endeavoring to accomplish all which the book professes to do, viz.: to remove the seals from the book of Daniel (which he claims was sealed up until 1864), and to establish a new system of chronology which shall supersede all others, and form a basis for calculation by which we may know the definite time of the coming of Christ. The book is more commonly known as "Thurman's Chronology," and we think fairly entitled to the name, for, while we respect the learning and ability displayed in the argument, we must protest against being compelled to receive "my tables," and "my calculations," in preference to those of experienced astronomers whose accuracy has never before been questioned. The first step of Elder Thurman is to demolish the canon of Ptolemy. As all students of prophecy are aware, our commonly-received Bible chronology has this canon for its foundation where the Bible itself does not give a datum, so that to invalidate the chronology so long in use and so generally accepted it will first be necessary to unsettle Ptolemy's canon; hence Elder T.'s effort in this direction. Perhaps it may not be amiss to give, in this connection, a short extract from an article in the Advent Herald: "This canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B. C. 457; and the accuracy of this canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. 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 large 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 epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guess-work." From the foregoing it is evident that any attempt to destroy this canon must be made by endeavoring to prove the eclipses incorrectly computed. This attempt is made by Elder Thurman, and so, to be able to follow him, a knowledge of astronomy is requisite; we will only notice his manner of dealing with one or two points. If we understand the matter rightly the canon is not absolutely dependent on every one of these eclipses for its accuracy, but their concurrent agreement is considered as powerful evidence in its favor, so that if one or two of these eclipses be considered doubtful, or not clearly established, it would not necessarily follow that the canon is destroyed. An effort is made to prove that two of these eclipses cannot be found, and at the close of his argument he admits that had they been found he would frankly acknowledge that Ptolemy's canon was correct. Now if the removal of these two eclipses invalidates the canon, it is of the utmost importance that it should be fairly and clearly done, so that none may doubt. We give an extract to show his method of dealing with one of them: "The next eclipse of the sun as offered in support of Ptolemy's canon is in S. Bliss's catalogue dated thus: 'B. C. 547, October 22, Aft. 6, 35; total; when Cyrus took Larissa in Media.' He gives Xenophon as authority, who says: 'At the time the Persians were wrestling the empire from the Medes, the King of Persia could not make himself master of the city Larissa until it happened that the sun, obscured by a cloud, disappeared, and the darkness continued till the inhabitants being seized with consternation, the town was taken.' (See his 'Expedition of Cyrus' b. iii, s. 4.) From the language of Xenophon, we may conclude this was not an eclipse of the sun, but what we call a dark day, caused by a thick cloud passing over the sun. This, therefore, proves nothing. We will,171however, give it a passing notice. According to Ferguson's tables there were about 10½ digits eclipsed; but my tables make about 8 digits." Now mark the language "we may conclude this was not an eclipse of the sun;" and again, "according to Ferguson's tables there were about 10½ digits eclipsed; but my tables make about 8 digits." Now must we believe, upon such evidence as this, that no eclipse occurred at that time? Is it not rather quite good argument that the eclipse really did occur? As we cannot follow him in all his astronomy we will simply notice a point which he tries to establish, which must weaken his argument in the estimation of the candid reader. He gives it as the opinion of one or two practical astronomers that in order to be noticeable, an eclipse should be at least three digits in magnitude, and then, upon this, endeavors to establish as a principle that all eclipses of less than three digits were, at that age, invisible. What he means by "that age" we are unable to say, unless people's eyes were poorer in that age than in this, for if memory serves us rightly we have distinctly seen eclipses of 2½ digits. Now if his arguments is all based upon this assumption we may readily see where it will lead us. If his tables fix an eclipse of less than three digits at a certain point of time, it will not require history to corroborate it, for it was, "invisible!" Again, if history fixes a visible eclipse at a certain point and the tables make it less than three digits, of course the history is unreliable. So much for his astronomy. Perhaps it will look like presumption for one so ignorant of the science of astronomy to criticize an author so conversant with it, but if we are not allowed to criticize on account of ignorance we certainly must not accept it for the same reason. We have, however, simply endeavored to show wherein his astronomy did not accord with common sense, for even great men may err. Other errors I leave for practical astronomers to point out, satisfied that sufficient evidence has not yet been presented to shake my confidence in the long-established chronology which has stood the test of so many efforts to shake or remove it. In commenting upon the "going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem," he interprets the "commandment" as given by the Lord to Cyrus before he became king or had power to execute it, and then dates the sixty-nine weeks from the time when he came into power, or the first year of his reign, whereas the scriptures date them from the going forth of the commandment, and not from the time when, in after years, it might go into execution. He argues also that this period could not commence at the seventh year of Artaxerxes, because that date had been fixed upon previous to 1864, the time when the sealed book of Daniel was opened! and declares this to be a sufficient reason for rejecting all the dates previously fixed upon, even if there were no other reason. If this argument holds good we ought to reject all expositions of Daniel's prophecy made previous to that time, for it was not asserted simply of the periods, but of the "words" and "the book" that they were sealed to the "time of the end." Acting by this rule we must give up all our old positions in regard to the symbols, &c., which even Elder T. is not willing to do. But perhaps enough has been said to show the fallacy of the reasoning upon which this new chronology is based. While we have endeavored to show the weakness of the position taken by its author, we have a better one to offer in its stead, for the position of Seventh-day Adventists on the question of the sanctuary is one which sheds a glorious flood of light upon the great advent movement of 1840-4, and indeed upon the whole plan of salvation. Admitting that the twenty-three hundred days can be shown to end at a point of time yet in the future we are no better off in regard to the definite time of the second advent, for those days extend to the cleansing of the sanctuary which is neither the earth nor the church. For a full exposition of our views on this subject, the reader is referred to the work entitled "The Sanctuary and Twenty-three Hundred Days," published at the Review office. How extensively this new time movement may prevail remains to be seen; but certain it is that the progress of the third angel's message does not depend upon definite time, nor will it be hindered by it from accomplishing its work in preparing a people for the coming of Christ. May the Lord help us to become established in the truth and made ready to stand in the day of his coming.