Vermont Telegraph. March 28, 1838
BRANDON....SATURDAY, MARCH 24, 1838.
For the Vermont Telegraph.
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.
Brother Angier: In answer to your letter, published January 31, 1838, I would say: you admit that God has revealed time, and that these times are figurative. So far, I am pleased to agree with you, as it respects those passages which are quoted at the commencement of your letter. Then if I can show a Bible rule for understanding these figures, I have by your own concession proved my premises. This I think has been done in a former letter. I agree that God has in many cases revealed himself by literal as well as figurative language. Time, in all its several denominations, is used in the scriptures to convey unto us the duration of important epochs or events; and when the time is specified by any number prefixed or added thereto, as three and a half, or seven, &c., it becomes definite, and then comes under the rule of years, days, &c., as in Rev. xii, 6 and 14. It then makes good sense, and harmonized with all parts of the Bible. It is true that God has revealed himself in a great many places in his word, and in ages past, in literal years, days, &c., and in every case which I have examined they have been literally accomplished in the given time, except the case of Jonah. From this fact I get strong faith that God will accomplish all definite periods, although they may be revealed unto us in figures. Why God has revealed himself in figures, I cannot tell, neither is it for me to enquire? To be submissive to his will, and to try to understand his word, is my anxious desire. And whether I do, or do not understand it, I leave for the public to judge, and time will determine.
...
...
... In your letter published Dec. 20, 1837, second column, beginning of the second paragraph, you say, “there were a number of decrees concerning the restoration of the Jews, and rebuilding of Jerusalem.” I did not pretend to quote your words. Yet the words are the same sense; for all must acknowledge “the restoration of the Jews,” at that time, was “restoring the captivity.” So I understood you, at the time, and so I understand that sentence to mean yet.
This then must close my remarks to you. For I am fully convinced, no good can come of an altercation of this kind. God will take care of his own cause, and of me. A few days will disclose the truth. I remain, dear brother, yours, &c.,
WM. MILLER.
Vermont Telegraph. March 28, 1838, Page 106
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.—William Miller's rejoinder on this subject, closes with the present number. I cannot doubt that this announcement will be good tidings to the readers of the Telegraph generally. At least, it is an event which gives me great relief. The good or evil that may result from the discussion, I am not prepared to undertake to estimate. My reasons for admitting it into the Telegraph, were made known at the commencement. Whatever the result may be, there remains to me the consciousness of having aimed to do right. At different times during the discussion, I have been urged by friends and patrons to shut down the gate and stop the waters of bitterness. But this could not be done consistently with my views of the plainest and most obvious principles of free discussion, at any point short of the present. The discussion will now stop, unless brother Angier feels more than I do the importance of noticing such performances as have been exhibiting in the shape of rejoinders addressed to him—and he must also make me feel more than I now do the importance of his taking any further notice of the matter at present. If he feels called upon to repel the reiterated insinuation that he has only acted the part of an amanuensis, in his review, I will, for him, with the facts that are in my possession, venture to take the responsibility to pronounce the charge, or insinuation, a gross calumny. It is to be hoped that brother Angier will say the least that he possibly can; and if he will pass over the whole in “dignified silence,” all the better.
My own opinion, in the case at issue, has not been withheld to the present time, because I have had no opinion—but from a desire and design to do justly and fairly between the parties. That opinion, although of but little importance, it is now my duty, no less than my privilege, to give. It will may be indicated by the citation of a single passage from the mouth of the Great Teacher: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father only.” With this passage in particular, and with Scripture-teaching in general, before me, it looks like extraordinary presumption for any mortal to undertake to fix on the time of the Savior's second advent. After all William Miller has written, I am under the necessity of telling him that he has utterly failed of convincing my understanding. I cannot discover that he has made a single mark towards proof. It is true that after assuming certain premises, he has hence drawn remarkably strong conclusions. But his assumptions are yet to be sustained, as well in regard to his peculiar theory as to his charge of copying another's writings, brought against brother Angier. The latter is of one piece with the former, and just about equally tenable. These assumptions abound throughout his writings. If there be need of specifying a single instance in the innumerable mass,—take his exposition in regard to the two olive trees. What could be more perfectly arbitrary? What mind that ever asks for a reason, did not feel insulted at being required to receive implicitly such assumptions? It does not become rational beings to take upon trust, from men, what they cannot comprehend. Whatever comes from God, whether we can comprehend it or not, is not to be questioned; but our fellow-mortals have no claim to our trust, unless they address and reach our understandings; and he does violence to his reason, and debases and disgraces his intellectual nature, who receives and adopts as his own the opinions of any human teacher, without being able to render a good and sufficient reason for so doing. There is no infidelity—no scepticism in this. The author of the theory now under consideration does not, I believe, pretend to come to us with a revelation, requiring the exercise of faith; but with facts and figures, undertaking to make out an arithmetical calculation. The important question, then, is, as to his authority for his data. In fixing on these, he has, it appears to me, jumbled and blended together in confusion literal and figurative language, just as suited his purpose. There is no need of stopping to specify. All who have had the patience to follow him, must have discovered his begging of the question all the way. His presumption and rashness in venturing upon the credulity of his readers, is only equalled by his comporting practices in his oral teachings. Of the latter, as of the former, a single instance may suffice: He told the people in Orwell, some months ago, that they had enjoyed their last revival—that there would be no more ingathering of souls there, before the final appearance of the Savior and destruction of the wicked. Now if some of his positions in his writings have been taken with more consideration, or with more respect to the common sense and common intellectual endowments of his readers, I have greatly misapprehended. It may be a relief to some to know that a good work is now in progress in Orwell—some twenty or more already having been hopefully born into the kingdom. What are such predictions but rank imposture? And yet they discover less of temerity and rashness than a large portion of his handling of the Word of God.
I did contemplate remarking to some extent, but from unforeseen and unavoidable hindrances, have commenced at so late an hour, and have been broken in upon so frequently, that I find the present paper about full, while I have but just begun. But it may be just as well, and perhaps better, to stop here. Unless I greatly misjudge, he has abundantly overthrown himself. The spirit which he manifests throughout is totally unbecoming any follower of Christ—more especially of one who professes to be instantly waiting for his coming. His personal attacks on the motives and christian character of his opponent, are such as ought not to be indulged in, under such circumstances, by any Christian—I will say, by any civilized man. His occasional vulgarity is below criticism. His work is without centre or circumference, beginning, middle or end.
Is this saying too much? Be assured it is not said wantonly, or from any ill feeling; but because it is owed to the reputation of the Telegraph for common decency, to speak frankly my opinion of such performances. They cannot, and must not, be suffered to go unrebuked.
P. S.—Since the former part of the foregoing was written, a communication has been received from brother Angier, addressed to the public, which shall appear next week.
Vermont Telegraph. April 11, 1838, Page 115
WILLIAM MILLER has published a work on the Second coming of Christ, the reading of which has left quite an impression on many minds. We very much regret that a controversy which has been carried on in the Vermont Telegraph between him and brother Angier, could not have appeared as an appendix to the same work, that its readers might have had an opportunity to learn something of the feelings, and perhaps character, of their author. He has certainly, in this controversy, manifested a spirit, if not a character, unbecoming a disciple of Jesus Christ.— N.H. Baptist Register.
