noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." Rev. xx. 11: "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." All this at the coming of Christ. 2 Thess. i. 7-10: "And to you, who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day." Will this new heaven and new earth be burat up? Pray tell us how these things can be. Yours in the gospel faith, WILLIAM MIILER. Low Hampton, January, 1842. MILLER'S PROPHETIC DATES. The number of the Beast 666. Mr. Miller regards the beast, whose mysterious number is 666, not as the Papal, but Pagan beast. This idolatrous and Pagan beast be gan 158 years before Christ, and ended A. D. 503—making in all six hundred threescore and six. The number, with him, is the sum of the years of his existence, and not the mystery of his name. The 1260 days, or the 42 months; or the Time, Times, and the dividing of Time This period, according to him, terminated in 1798, beginning in A. D. 538. Daniel and John, under various symbols and imagery, allude to these times. The reason for his dating them in 538 is, that Justinian, Emperor of Constantinople, in that same year constituted the bishop ef Rome head over all bishops in the East and West of the Empire. In that year the Two Witnesses began to prophesy in sackcloth and ashes, and the Two Testaments lost their wonted dignity and power in the church. According to Mr. M. they were slain about 1793, and between 1797 and 1798 were exalted to heaven or recovered their ormer ascendency-i. e. after the indignities done to the Bible by the French Atheists from '93 to '97-they suddenly rose to greater veneration and homage than ever; so that in 1800 the Bible Society, for sending them to all the world, commenced. Mr. Miller here seems to make no account of a few years in the filling up the times of their prophecy. For if they commenced in 538, and were killed in 1793, they only prophesied 1255 years, or, at most, 1256. The forty-two months in which the holy city was to be trodden under foot of the nations, and during which period the ten-horned beast continued in power; and "the time, times, and the dividing of time," in which the woman was nourished in the wilderness; and Daniel's "time, times and a half," during which the saints were in custody of the "little horn," and during which time the angel swore the power of the holy people shall be scattered, or the Mahommedan imposture should reign in the East, are indisputably the same interval placed in different attitudes and aspects. These wonders were to occupy 1260 years, from A. D. 538 to 1798. The 2300 days. Daniel's vision of the morning, 8th chapter, gives 2300 days, or years, for the consummation of all its details, ending with the cleansing of the sanctuary. Mr. Miller dates these 2300 years from the 7th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, before Christ 457. Because, regarding the 490 days, or seventy weeks of the ninth chapter, as alluding to the first part of the times determined by the 2300 years; and they being by common consent, and indeed by the words of the prophecy itself, numbered from that date, he feels himself compelled to date them that same year. They therefore terminate in the year of our Lord 1843. The 1335 and 1290 days of Daniel. Christ was crucified at the end of 490 years from the giving forth of the decree before Christ 457 years. This was 1810 years before the end of the 2300 days. This leaves an interval of 550 years unappropriated to any thing: for 1260 subtracted from 1810 leaves 550 years. Now in taking 1335 from 1810, the time from the crucifixion to the cleansing of the sanctuary, 475 years are left for Paganism to be in the ascendant. The difference between the 1290 and 1335 being 45 years, shows that the civil power would lose its supremacy 45 years before the end of those 1810 years; and that again makes 1798 the downfall of the political power of the Papacy, when BonaThis leaves but 30 parte conquered Italy and captivated the Pope. years of a transition state from 508 to 538-from the downfall of the simple Pagan power and the rise of the Papal. Years. The whole times are then as follows:-Seventy weeks, 490 tion, 475 From taking away the abomination of desolation, 30 From the rise of the Papal power to its fall in the civil branch, 1260 From the taking away of the civil power to the coming of the Lord, 45 2300 Mr. M. dates his 1335 and his 1290 from the downfall of Paganism 508, and thus makes the 1290 terminate in 1798, and 1335 in 1843. I think I have given them just as he writes them. Comments hereafter. A C. From the Religious Herald. A. BROADDUS TO HIS BRETHREN AND FRIENDS-Greeting. IN presenting this communication to your attention, long as it may prove to be, I shall hope that all who may feel an interest in the subject will give it a perusal. The nature of the subject, or the object of the writer, shall now forthwith be stated. Understanding from some of my friends, that a question has arisen, whether I am or am not a favorer of what is termed "Campbellism;"some persons maintaining one side of the question, and others, the other side; I have deemed it expedient, under these circumstances, to "define my position:" it is surely not presumptuous to think I can do this more correctly than others can do it for me. Most earnestly do I hope that in taking this step I shall not incur the imputation of vanity.-that no one exercising candor, will consider me as prompted by a conceit that my views and opinions must have great weight. Let it suffice to say, I consider it due to truth that any erroneous impression should be corrected; and let me be excused for the egotism in which a communication of this sort must necessarily involve me. "After all that you have written in the way of controversy with Mr. Campbell," (says some good friend,) "you are thought by many of the Reformers to favor his views: and a few even among the Baptists seem to have some question as to this point." Well, I suppose that I do favor, most heartily, some-nay, many, of Mr. Campbell's religious views: many things which he has written 1 approve and admire. "Ay, but his peculiar views;-such as have been repudiated by the great body of the Baptists, and opposed as unsound and dangerous by the evangeli cal and the orthodox in general." This now is another matter: and if Mr. C.'s views in regard to some points, are now such as they once too obviously appeared to be, I certainly could not say that I do most heartily favor them; but rather, that I do most heartily oppose them. Some things insisted on with peculiar earnestness by Mr. C., but which indeed are not peculiarities, deserve, no doubt, more attention than has generally been given to them. And there are some modifications of certain views and customs prevalent amongst us, which would, in my estimation, contribute materially to an improvement in the state of things. Matters of this sort will receive a passing notice in the course of these remarks. Let us not oppose a reform, wherever it may be needed, merely from the fear of innovation; nor vainly imagine that we have attained to the full light of gospel truth. But my attention is called at present to those peculiarities attributed to Mr. C., which are considered to be of a seriously objectionable and dangerous character. They have respect, I think, to the following articles: Repentance, Faith, Baptism, and the Influence of the Holy Spirit. In noticing these points I shall, by consequence, be doing something towards "defining my own position." This, at present, is my particular object: of course it will not be expected that I should attempt any thing like elaborate argument on this occasion. 1. Repentance. If Mr. Campbell holds that genuine repentance consists merely in reformation of conduct, (with which he has been charged,) then, be it understood, that on this point I stand in full opposition to him:-considering, as I do, that genuine repentance consists in a change of heart; of which reformation of conduct is the fruit. At the same time, however, it is but the part of cander for me to say, that for myself, I do acquit Mr. C. of this charge. Evidence sufficient for such acquittal appears to me to have been given, in various parts of his writings; though he might have expressed himself in a more full and satisfactory manner. The adoption of Dr. George Campbell's translation of the Greek term, (reform, instead of repent,) along with some other things, too unsparingly dealt out, appears to have given rise to this imputation on Mr. Č. And here I take occasion to say, with all due deference to the gigantic talents and learning of Dr. George Campbell, that I must think the term he has chosen, (reform, for repent ) not a happy one. The current acceptation of that term tends, when thus applied, to produce an erroneous impression. And notwithstanding the fact that there are two distinct Greek words-one signifying mere remorse of conscience, the other expressing a real change of disposition-both rendered in the common version by the term repentance-I prefer the use of this one term in English; and then let us explain the difference between mere remorse and a genuine change;-between distress from the fear of punishment, which has been termed attrition, and godly sorrow for sin, termed contrition. Let me here remark, that in my humble opinion, the state of feeling called attrition has often been urged in an injudicious manner;-in a manner which has induced an impression that the deeper and the longer the anguish of spirit, under the fearful apprehension of divine wrath, so much the better is the sinner prepared for delivering grace; and, indeed, that long continued distress has something in it deserving of pardoning mercy. 2. Faith. If Mr. C. considers evangelical faith to be no more than simple credence as to the facts of the gospel. (of which, however, I do not accuse him,) then am I on this point directly at issue with him. I have said that I do not accuse him of this: but I must be allowed to remark, that some of his sayings might be construed to favor such an idea; and that he has not, as to this matter, been so full and explicit as might be wished. The faith of the gospel does, in my view, necessarily involve the yielding of the heart to Christ, and a hearty trust in him alone for salvation. and from this I would hope that Mr. C, would not dissent, whatever may be his definition of the term. To do so would appear to be utterly at variance with what, in many instances, may be found in his own published essays. On the much-hackneyed subject of faith, I shall here take occasion to offer some farther remarks. Faith in divine objects-considered as an act of the mind, appears, in my apprehension, to be of the same nature with faith in natural objects. In both cases it is an exercise of the same natural faculty in man: for, as depravity has taken away from us no natural faculty, grace creates no new one. In order to its being operative, faith, in both cases, must be realizing; and in both cases also must we feel an interest in the object of faith; and in proportion as we realize the object, and feel an interest in it, will our faith be strong and setive Bef while faith, as an act of the mind, is in both cases he can, me l'a mature, there is an etser fal differ ence as to the result. Faith in spiritual objects has a ballowing influence on the soul; which faith in natural objects cannot produce. Faith in Jesus Christ, when it amounts to reliance, or involves trust in him, "re ceives of his fulness, and grace for grace:" but faith in Mahommed, (or in any mere creature,) receives nothing; for Mahommed has no grace to give. In the one case it is the letting down of the bucket into a dry well, which returns empty: in the other, the bucket plunges into "the fountain of living waters," and brings up a blessed supply. The great difference, therefore, in the two cases, appears to regard the object, and not the nature of the act. "But how is it that there should be any thing virtuous or good in the exercise of faith; or any criminality in unbelief? If the evidence produced be sufficient to establish the fact, shall we not of course believe? and if not sufficient, how can we be blamed for not believing?" To obviate this objection it is proper to observe, that there is often something more concerned in the production of faith than the mere intellect or understanding. Our faith in a report (or in a person) may depend on the state of the heart; the prejudices and wrong bias of which, may produce a disinclination to examine the evidence with which the case is sustained; yea, and may warp the judgment to the rejection of such evidence: and herein lies the turpitude, the guilt of unbelief. Now, it is "with the heart that man believeth unto righteousness:" and if the heart, in our present natural state, were in the exercise of all due candor and love of the truth, we should find no difficulty in believing and cordially receiving God's revelation of his will,-yielding ourselves up to all its claims. But, unhappily for our depraved state, this is not our case: we are not so dis posed: and if with the heart we have believed unto righteousness, we surely ought to acknowledge that we have "believed through grace." Or have we indeed never found occasion to exclaim, (with him of old,) "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief?" Evangelical faith may be misrepresented by being reduced within its proper dimensions;-stripped to the bones;-a naked skeleton being exhibited: in other words, reduced to mere abstract credence, or a bare belief of the truth of gospel facts. In such a faith the heart is not interested: it lacks the stamp of trust and consent, to give it character; it lacks the accompaniment of love, to render it vigorous:—its fruits are apples stuck on a dead tree. On the other hand, as it cannot be denied that evangelical faith may be misrepresented by encumbering it with trappings which belong not to its nature, I will just state what appears to me to be a proper and scriptural view of its character;-namely, "such a belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Saviour of sinners, as involves the consent of the heart to his claims, and the reliance of the soul on him alone for salvation." The sick man believes truly in his physician; when he comes to confide in his skill, and yields himself implicitly to his prescriptions. Once more: Faith is considered by some, as not possessing an evangelical character until the subject shall have a sense of pardoning mercy, and a persuasion of his actual acceptance. But such a state of mind is the result of faith-not of faith itself; and the idea just noticed involves an absurd. ity. It supposes that a person is not in a state of acceptance until he be lieves that he really is so: and thus he must believe that he is accepted, in order to make it so! Now I am persuaded that the holding forth of this view-that a penitent believer is not possessed of true faith until he bas received some assurance that his sins are pardoned, does often prove an impediment to his enjoyment of that "peace in believing" to which he is entitled. With such an impression, he is kept lingering around the |