“Prof. Bush, while he admitted that all ‘the leading periods mentioned by Daniel and John do actually expire about this age of the world’ (Letter to Mr. M., p. 6), claimed that ‘the great event before the world is not its physical conflagration, but its moral regeneration.’—p. 11.
“Mr. Hinton said: ‘It is possible we may have reached the goal of the world’s moral destiny. It is, indeed, our deliberate opinion that we are in the general period of termination of the 23d century alluded to by the prophet ... and that the events alluded to in the phrase “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” are now actually passing before us.’—p. 121. But he considered the event ‘a resurrection from death in trespasses and sins.’—p. 336.
“Dr. Dowling, Dr. Hamilton, and others, while they did not admit, with Prof. Bush, that the present age ‘is just opening upon the crowning consummation of all prophetic declarations,’ contended that the millennium ‘is to be ushered in, not by a literal resurrection of the bodies of the saints, but by the figurative resurrection of the holy men of all past ages, in the numerous instances of eminent piety that shall appear in every nation under heaven.’—Dr. H., p. 30.
“Prof. Stuart, while he admitted that the resurrection here brought to view was a resurrection of the body, limited it to the martyrs, and denied that there is to be a descent of Christ to the earth, or a visible reign of the martyrs with him.
“Dr. Jarvis did not deny the event for which Mr. Miller looked; and Mr. Shimeal taught, with Mr. Miller, the resurrection of the glorified saints, and their visible reign with Christ on the earth; but he held that they would reign over the converted nations, and denied the conflagration previous to the end of the thousand years.
“And Bishop Hopkins gave as his opinion that the consummation ‘is drawing nigh; how nigh none can tell.’
“There were various other issues between Mr. Miller and his reviewers; but they were more collateral than vital to the question at issue, and are not, therefore, particularly noticed in this connection.
“It is seen, from the foregoing, that Mr. Miller’s points, taken separately, were not new or original with him; and that the peculiarity of his theory consisted in putting them together; and that, while none of his opposers condemned the whole, and each point separately was admitted by some of them, there was no more unanimity between them than between him and them. They had not only to battle with Mr. Miller’s theory, but each had to disprove those of the others.
“It was, therefore, not surprising that the reviewers of Mr. Miller made no impression on those who held his opinions. It was seen that to oppose him they were ready to abandon old established principles of Protestant interpretation. Even the Boston Recorder (Orthodox Cong.) said: ‘It must needs be acknowledged that our faith is greatly shaken in the interpretations on which, in common with most of our own brethren, we have heretofore relied, and which forms the FOUNDATION of the baseless theories of Miller!’ And the Christian Advocate and Journal (Meth. Epis.) said: ‘If his (Prof. Chase’s) views in regard to the prophecies of Daniel be correct, the long-established opinion that the Roman Empire is the fourth kingdom of the prophet, must give way to the more successful researches of Dr. Chase. Some other opinions, which have been thought to be settled beyond a doubt, ARE TERRIBLY SHAKEN.’
“Those who adhered to the established principles of interpretation did not fail to perceive that Prof. Stuart, Dr. Dowling, Prof. Chase, &c., had not fairly met Mr. Miller, and that their expositions would not stand the test of sound criticism.