The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 4

VII. Positions of Opponents Flayed by Non-Millerite Scholars

Professor Moses Stuart, scholarly professor of Andover Seminary, and John Bowling, popular New York pastor, were perhaps the outstanding opponents of the Millerite positions. Yet their own positions were mercilessly attacked by learned and influential clerics in the most respected non-Millerite circles. For record and reference some of these criticisms were quoted in the Address in the footnotes in the Supplement. Thus DR. ROBERT J. BRECKIXRIDGE, ²⁸ lawyer and legislator, then Presbyterian pastor, editor, college president, and seminary professor, flays Dowling’s book in these scathing words: PFF4 868.3

“As for this disquisition of Mr. Dowling, we may confidently say that it is hardly to be conceived that any thing could be printed by Mr. Miller or Mr. any body else, more shallow, absurd and worthless. There is hardly a point he touches, on which he has not managed to adopt the very idlest conjectures of past writers on the prophecies; and this so entirely without regard to any coherent system, that the only clear conviction a man of sense or reflection could draw from his pamphlet, if such a man could be supposed capable of believing it, would be that the prophecies themselves are a jumble of nonsense. Such answers as his can have no effect, we would suppose, except to bring the whole subject into ridicule, or to promote the cause he attacks.” ²⁹ PFF4 868.4

More than that, Isaac T. Hinton, Baptist pastor of St. Louis, already noted in Part I, goes so far as actually to say, ironically, of Dr. Stuart and his famous Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy: PFF4 869.1

“We regret that, in the midst of the great moral conflict with Antichrist which is now carrying on, those into whose hands ‘the saints’ were so long ‘given’ should find so able a coadjutor. Without, of course, for one moment, intimating any such ambitious design, we are clearly of opinion that the worthy Doctor of Andover has already earned a Cardinal’s hat; and if his forthcoming work should be equally ingenious in behalf of Romanism, the pontificate itself would be only an adequate reward!—We have, however, no fears that Christians of sound common sense, and capable of independent thought, will, after a candid consideration of the scheme which excludes papacy from the page of prophecy, and that which traces in the prophetic symbols a faithful portraiture of its abominations, make a wrong decision. Since we have read the work of the learned Stuart, we have rejoiced the more that our humble abilities have been directed to the defence of the ‘old paths.’” ³⁰ PFF4 869.2

And finally The Universalist (Hartford) exultantly claims: PFF4 869.3

“Certain we are that Professor Stuart, in this work, comes nearer to Universalists, in their views of the topics discussed, than any other writer of his school in this country, and that he has taken out of the hands of the opposers of our faith, many of the props with which they are endeavoring to keep up the old castle which they are living in. PFF4 869.4

“He puts an uncompromising veto upon the popular interpretations of Daniel and Revelation, and unites with Universalists, in contending that the most of their contents had special reference to, and their fulfilment in, scenes and events which transpired but a few years after those books were written.” ³¹ PFF4 869.5