But he did not see this work nor feel its importance; and why should he? He had done his work faithfully and well, and was soon to sleep in Jesus. It is proper here to state that Mr. Miller did not view the second message as we do. Neither did he change his views upon the immortality and Sabbath questions. Having finished his mission in giving the first message, and having reached the point in respect to age and debility, from his extremely arduous labors as a lecturer for thirteen years, with no periods of cessation, only when compelled by sickness, the candid reader can see the love and wisdom of God in not impressing his mind with those subjects which he could not investigate and vindicate before the people. Having done, and well done, the great work given him to do, the probation of public labor with him successfully past according to the will of God, he could say in the language of Paul, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” 2 Tim. 4:7, 8. It is just what might be expected, that those who understandingly embrace the principles of the third message, would first inquire relative to the second and first messages, and would feel the deepest interest in the man whom God raised up to lead off in the opening work of giving the great threefold warning to the world. Those who have been continually publishing a new time upon the heels of a failure, have been, not only disgusting the public, but, at each effort, have been virtually condemning the position of Mr. Miller on the time question, and losing regard for his valuable labors. These can have but little, if any, interest in his life and views. And on the other hand, those who stood with him on the time question in 1844, and have confessed to the world that they were in error, and have given up their past second-advent experience, virtually condemn his position and work, and can take, comparatively, but little interest in the history of his life, views, and labors. Both of these classes have departed from the position of Mr. Miller, and have denied, or, at least, hold very lightly their past second-advent experience, and have left the field to Seventh-day Adventists, who stand upon the “original advent faith.” And while occupying the position we do relative to the past movement, the public have reason to expect that, while we hold that Mr. Miller moved in the providence of God in his work, we should publish the facts as they existed in his life, views, and labors, in explanation and defense, so far as such facts constitute a defense, of our position.