It is true that Mr. Miller and his associates and numerous friends were disappointed in the definite time of the second coming of Christ. And as might be expected from the nature of the case, those who have not sufficient interest to investigate the subject, especially those who are opposed to the doctrine of the soon coming of the Redeemer, conclude that the second advent movement has been a fanatical mistake.
But we take a more favorable view of this matter. We hold that Mr. Miller was correct in three of the four fundamental points of Adventism, while on the fourth he was mistaken. But even this one mistake, viewed in the light of Scripture and reason, does not in the least affect his general position.
1. Mr. Miller was correct in his views of the pre-millennial second appearing of Christ. No doctrine is more plainly stated and more fully sustained by the sacred Scriptures than the personal appearing and reign of Jesus Christ. And whatever may be said of the views and labors of Mr. Miller, this fact will not be denied, that very many ministers of the different denominations changed their views upon the millennium, renouncing the popular view of the conversion of the world, and the spiritual coming and reign of Jesus Christ.
2. Mr. Miller was correct in his application of the prophetic symbols of Daniel and John. In this he is sustained by Protestant expositors generally.
3. He was also correct in his exposition and application of the prophetic periods. The dates fixed upon have stood the test of the most rigid criticism. And those Adventists who have changed to other dates have done so simply because of the passing by of the first periods of expectation.
4. But Mr. Miller was mistaken in the event to occur at the close of the prophetic periods, hence his disappointment. In the case of the 2300 days of Dan. 8, which period was the main pillar in his calculations, his error was in supposing the earth to be the sanctuary of that prophecy, and that it was to be cleansed by the fires of the last day.
The primary signification of the word sanctuary is “a sacred place.” Neither the earth, nor any portion of it, has been such a place since the fall of man, and the reign of Satan and of death began. The apostle’s commentary upon the typical system, in his epistle to the Hebrews, points to two sacred places as the sanctuary of Jehovah; first, the typical tabernacle of the Jews; and, second, the greater and more perfect tabernacle of which Christ is now minister in Heaven.[1]
But other great men have made as grave mistakes relative to the event to occur at the close of the great periods of Daniel as Mr. Miller. These, however, are soon forgotten, while that of Mr. Miller is ever fresh in the public mind. The learned late Geo. Bush, Prof. of Hebrew and Oriental Literature in the New York City University, in a letter addressed to Mr. Miller, and published in the Advent Herald for March, 1844, made some very important admissions relative to his calculations of the prophetic times. Mr. Bush says:—
“Neither is it to be objected, as I conceive, to yourself or your friends, that you have devoted much time and attention to the study of the chronology of prophecy, and have labored much to determine the commencing and closing dates of its great periods. If these periods are actually given by the Holy Ghost in the prophetic books, it was doubtless with the design that they should be studied, and probably, in the end, fully understood; and no man is to be charged with presumptuous folly who reverently makes the attempt to do this. On this point, I have myself no charges to bring against you. Nay, I am even ready to go so far as to say that I do not conceive your errors on the subject of chronology to be at all of a serious nature, or, in fact, to be very wide of the truth. In taking a day as the prophetical term for a year, I believe you are sustained by the soundest exegesis, as well as fortified by the high names of Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Kirby, Scott, Keith, and a host of others, who have long since come to substantially your conclusions on this head. They all agree that the leading periods mentioned by Daniel and John do actually expire about this age of the world, and it would be a strange logic that would convict you of heresy for holding in effect the same views which stand forth so prominent in the notices of these eminent divines. Your error, as I apprehend, lies in another direction than your chronology.”