“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. “Of Professors Stuart and Bush the New York Evangelist said: ‘The tendency of these views is to destroy the Scripture evidence of the doctrine of any real end of the world, any day of final judgment, or general resurrection of the body. The style of interpretation, we assert, tends fearfully to _Universalism_. This tendency we are prepared to prove.’