“‘In preparing the introductory volume of his “Ecclesiastical History,” he had carefully avoided reading modern writers on chronology, for fear of being biased by their systems. For this reason he had never read the learned work of Dr. Hales; and though familiar with Petavius, Usher, and Marsham, a good while had elapsed since he had consulted them on the parts of history connected with the prophecies. But these great writers being entirely silent as to any interregnum in the kingdom of Judah, the existence of such an interregnum was entirely a new idea to him. Mr. Miller quoted 2 Kings, 14, 15, without mentioning the verses from which he drew the inference; and it was not till the author had read Dr. Hales’ “Analysis” that he saw the correctness of that inference. If this admission gives Mr. Miller an advantage, he is fairly entitled to it. We cannot, for one moment, suppose that he knew anything about Dr. Hales or his work. As a plain, unlettered man, his perspicuity in reading his Bible, and _his Bible only_, is much to his credit; and we ought to consider it as giving additional force to the reasons assigned by Dr. Hales, that an ignorant man, as Mr. Miller confessedly is, should, from the mere examination of the Bible, have arrived at the same conclusion. The censure, however, in the sermon, holds good with regard to the reign of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings, 8:17; 2 Chron. 21:5); but, being equally applicable to Archbishop Usher, should not have been laid particularly at Mr. Miller’s door.’ CHAPTER XII. HIS TREATMENT OF OPPONENTS—SPECIMENS OF HIS PREACHING—COLLOQUIAL, EXPOSTULATORY, EXPOSITORY, ETC. “Mr. Miller did not consider that his reviewers always treated him and his arguments with the utmost fairness; and, in speaking of them, he sometimes retorted in terms of great severity. Considering his treatment, by the religious and secular press, and the contumely which was incessantly heaped on him, that he should, at times, manifest a degree of impatience, was more an occasion of regret than of surprise. Few men have been called to endure so great an amount of reproach as fell to his lot; and few could have endured it as he did. He was human, and shared in all the weaknesses common to humanity; but, whenever he failed to endure the smart of undeserved wounds with all the sweetness of gospel charity, no one more sincerely regretted it than he did; and his liability to err in this respect was with him a subject of many prayers and tears. “His severity, however, was often richly merited; and he knew how to be severe, without being uncourteous. Those who used their learning to fritter away the plain meaning of Scripture, and to make it teach something which the common reader would never have perceived in it, merely for the purpose of opposing his conclusions—he had little inclination to spare.