Indiana American, Volume 11, Number 15, Brookville, Franklin County, 7 April 1843 — Page 1

CAM 1 1 o OCR COUNTRY OPR COOKTBY's tNTERESTS AND OCR COUNTRY'S FRIENDS. BY C. F. CliARKSOX. BROOKVILLE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, INDIANA, APRIL 7, 1843. VOL. XI. NO. 15.

MIMAWA AM:

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. " SERMON.

Y BEY. E. H. CHAPIN, CHARLESTOWN, MASS.

Overcome evil with good.' Rom. xii. 21.

The advocate of Capital Punishment will say

hat if not necessary as an act of absolute self-

orotection, this penalty is ouirgent expediency Is preventing crime. That it not only temov-

the dangerous muraerrer irom society, dui

it restrains him who has murder in his heart, fmm committing the overt act. Thus it is not

onlv an executioner, but a guardian an un

sheathed sword placed before the awful sancti-

tv of human life whose edge not only falls up

on the transgressor, but that frightens liim who ipproach.es for crime, by its dazzling and ter

rible keenness. o Capital runishment

ixpeiient which is but another term here for

vctsry since it is aDsoiuieiy essential to me

security oflife. For, if you break down this barrier, you give looser reins to crime, and the

Ventious thirst for blood has not the awlul se

verity o f death to check it.

It is this argumeut, the argument from expe

diency, in favor of Capital Punishment, that

tropose to notice in this discourse. I have no

l.iubt that it weighs heavily with many, lhis

is the main argument in their minds that

Capital Punishment was abolished, murder, and

other capital crimes, would be committed with

jreater impunity. Could they be assured that

individual and society would be as secure in

fise of some other penalty that crime would

h nn mora freauent: thev would, doubtless,

willingly vote for the abolition of Capital Pun

iAment. But, say they, it is an expedient to!

which we are driven by necessity.'

I would remark upon this argument, in the

first place, that to me there is no expediency ia this matter save that which may be dictated br necessity. I cannot consent that human

hfe may be violated by a mere policy, that seu.te thU nenaltvas a blood v terror to frighten

- - - ' - - - f J o

men. without any deeper consideration. If

society can be as secure, if life and that kind of honor that is dearer than life, can be preserved

is well by other penalties, then the question of expediency is, with me, at an end. 1 hold that there is no right to take life in self-defence tht which is not right is not lawful, that which

i? unlawful is inexpedient. If a midnight bur

glar attempts jour life, and you prevent him, or if he takes the life of one of your family,

and you secure him to deliver him up to justice I hold that you have no right to slay him upon an after-consideration, that his death may pre

vent like attacks in future. It must be clearly demonstrated both in this case, and in the case

f Capital Punishment by society, that crime

is actually prevented, that the death of the crim

inal is positively necessary to restrain others

whose hands are ready to repeat the bloody

ict. I cannot support the hold ing np of anything as a mere bugbear, or holding upon terror

withoutbeing assured that it accomplishes some

'od end. Least of all, can I consent that life shall be the sacrifice to the irrational and impotent experiment.

Again; I would remark upon this idea that

many seem to have concerning the efficacy

of Capital Punishment as a preventive of crime,

that it it is founded upon the eroneous notion that "a punishmeut is efficacious in proportion as it is severe.' 1 would reply to this, that it is

not the severity but the certainty of punishment that consfitutes its efficacy. No man would

break open a store or pillage it. if he knew, if

he was morally certain, that upon re-crossing tia threshold he would be crushed to death.

But he depends upon chances, he calculates to escape with impunity. So with any crime.

The criminal calculates to escape with impuni

ty. He has no intention of suffering the penal

ty at all, therefore its severity or its mildness

weighs nothing in the scale. I am arguing

now upon the general fphilosophy of punishmen, shewing the motives that operate upon

fte mind, of the criminal. The ground which

1 am combatting, assumes that the more severe

'.he punishment, the more will the criminal be

deterred. I maintain, that the more certain

she punishment, the more will the criminal be-

aeterred. Of course a punishment must be

recognized, and that one penalty would con

found all such degrees, when I say affix Cap

ital Punishment to the worst crimes. I can conceive of a worse crime than murder under

some circumstances. Take the death-blow that is dealt under a sense of the keenest wrong

the blow that is dealt to the murderer of do

mestic peace is this as bad as the vile seduc

tion that lures innocence to its embrace and

leaves it to die, while it goes unchecked and and even applauded? Is it as bad as the smooth

fraud, that cheats the weak man, goes clad in silk and broadcloth? You would make some distinction between degrees of crime you say

Why not make it here and imprison the insulted murderer in the one case, and hang up

the seducer and the villain in the other? The fact is, the philosophy of criminal jurisprudence is out of joint here. It would have

there are some it is quite probable, who view the attempt to abolish Capital punishment as an effort of ill-judging mercy. They call it a weak philanthropy, or a morbid feeling. I think that this is a false charge. The attempt to

abolish Capital Punishment :s not an effort of

.weak pity, but a dictate of sound policy, and a

regard to the true welfare of community. e would have a penalty so reasonable that all minds must approve of it, and not so severe that it shall defeat its very objects. And why would we have all reasonable minds approve of it? Not alone because the criminal shall thereby suffer a less severe punishment but because he

will be more likely to suffer some punishment.

Not because a morbid sympathy is excited in his behalf, but because his penalty being clearly seen to be just and humane, no room will be

, given for the existence of any morbid sympathy

punishment severe, because severity is effica-j Now I find Capital Punishment to be an uncer

ciuos; and then, when pressed to theconclusion;tain penalty. Juries have a great reluctance to

that it is the certainty not the severity of punish- convict aman of a capital crime. They will

ment that ensures itsefficacy.it would have, hang upon the least thread of evidence in his

Capital Punishment because it may be made. behalf and willacquit him by it. Once acquit

certain; and when urged that other and milder i ted, he goes clear, no punishment is inflicted

penalties may be equally certain, it returns to although to every one it is plain that he deser

the severity of the punishment as more safe-ves some retribution. Now it may be replied

than milder penalties; and when asked to beothis, thatthe Jury is, perhaps a packed one,

consistent, and affix the severest punishment selected by the prisoner himself, after many

to all crimes, it urges the confusion of degrees challenges, and is likely to have some friend to

of guilt that would take place thereby; and , the criminal in its number who will hold out

when pressed to affix the severest penalty to against all evidence, and thus proenre his disthe blackest sins, it throws itself upon the charge. But certainly, this is throwing a grave customs of society, and remains silent. j charge up many men, and why is it, moreover, Now, I undertake to say, in the language of that this reluctance is not confined to Jurors?

Montesquieu, that 'If we enquire into the cause The Judge manifests it in discharging his heavofall human corruptions, we shall find they y duty. And why such a shudder at the sight proceed from the impunity of crimes, and not 'of an executioner? Why is he, the agent of a

the moderation of punishment.' Impunity just law, as would term it. why is he, theexethat, is the motive with the offender. He rea-, cutioner, held in such universal abhorrence? sons not upon what his punishment is to be, but ' An insolated being a blood-spotted leper,

the expression, 'morbid feelingV It is plainty

an effort of reason and humanity, pleading against a punishment that is vnreasonable and

inhuman it does not flow from a dislike of

laws and penalties. It is a proof that 'penal laws are to check the arm of the wickedness, not to wage war with the natural sentiments

of the heart. Men with the consciousness of

perfect security cannot do in cool blood what the murderer did in a passion take life. It is a dreadful extremity, and if there is anything

morbid in connexion with the subject it issues

irom mat iaci. wapuai punishment, then, is

uncertain, because it excites a sympathy in be

half of the criminal that procures his pardon

from all punishment. Concluded next iceefr.

From the Second Adtenl Report, Xo.l.

t,.iu.3jor oeutving me second coming of Christ in Eighteen hundred and forty-

three, Jrom the Chronology of Prophecy. By William Mi ller.

The following article is given in this cheap

form for general distribution. l3rltead and

circulate.

hen we read in divine inspiration a class

of texts like the following, Acts iii, 21, "And

he snail send Jesus Christ which before was

preached unto you, whom the heaven must re

ceive until the times of restitution of all things

which God hath spoke n by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." 2 1th verse, "Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days ' again, Acts xvii. 16, "And hath made of one

blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the

rimes before appointed, and the bounds of their

inspiration. For here we find no sample.

Here is no time given, that has not been liter

ally fulfilled according to the true intent and

meaning of the prophecy. Why not, then settle this one point forever, among believers

1:1 the divine authority of the Scriptures, that the chronology of prophecy is to be received with an equal faith with the chronology of

history? Why not believe the declarations of God concerning the future, as we do con

cerning the past? w ho denies that God crea

ted the heavens and the earth, and all that are

in them in six days? None but the Infidel,

say you. v hat better is he, who denies that

God will accomplish what he has said h

would perform in a given period? Well may the Infidel charge home upon us hypocrisy,

wnen we refuse to believe the latter as well as

the former.

All these cases which I have brought forward as proof of prophetic chronology, were once prophecies, and would it have been right in Noah, the patriarchs and prophets, to have rejected the time given, any more than the manner? I answer, it could not have been faith to have rejected either. Thee let us have faith to believe the chronology of the future, as well as of the past. The seventy weeks were evidently fulfilled in the year A. D. 33, beginning 467 years B. C. at the going forth of the commandment to Ezra, to restore the law and the people to Jerusalem. See Ezta vii. 1013. I need not stop toargue this point, as very few can be found who have the hardihood to deny the seventy weeks as being a definite time. One reason, out of the many, maybe here presented. Why should the man Gabriel be so particular In de

fining the beginning and the end of the seventy weeks, if indefinite time only is meant? And why did he name the events so particu

larly as to divide the seventy into three very

. ' 1 . 1 : . . . i oi . i.r, i i .

how he is to evade it. And. in cases of murder , among men; of whom men can say no more de- i ' . ,,;w.. A.,u-.;t.. nnim .i,:! .1 i, ; ,r.. r. J appointed a day in which he will judge the

penalty have an influence? Most murders are man. Is all" this the product morbid feeling?-1 .W0,r'J " I"1 eous,,e. tnal man whom he . unequal parts, and yet in all three parts inJ .... . w . ' liUn firil:imfrl u-hprpnf lis lint It mv-n nccn. .1.. i . .1. j 1

coiTitnitted, it is probable, in hot blood. 1 hey Does it spring from a desire that crime should j n ' . . : . ensue iu a quarrel or from the passionate die- go unpunished? Are men so heedless of their int al nen, in that he hath raised him 1 ' . . ' .... . from the dead:". 4inn lit. 7. 'Snrplv ihp T-nnt

iiioc rf mi'dn rro or na epniritv from fleteclion . nan coonritv n tn u-ieh nil nmrilprpa tree' I . . ' . . '

r.' r.,r;. . : f -- : ' :;...u! God w.u do nothm

in a lesser crime, aim an glimpses ui me pcnai- Ao u is noi a imiruiu htiiii'z, uui a pMiiiiiujr

but he revealeth his secret

Mt nf umo lls sorvants the prophets,r I say no man

a 1 I - V -v f f ! iff lid miirliir u n rfkSI I t- ma milinn Tlirt canfim

IV arc H'Sl. Slim- Vl. vi , u hhj mm ui a to vrvi i tatcu im 1 1 n- m-Mi. lie line pviiiiiuv u "i j . i.t it r it.l and calculated crime, then everything else is' justice in men's bosoms has been over-strained can read the.e texts, and the ike of which the , . . i , a , u , ...i .i.:- ;. ,,,! Scriptures abound, without being convinced

rest. Now I do candidly believe that this pen-, result. 'If men feel so,' some will say, 'it is alty of death hinders no man, or at least very! evidently a diseased feeling let them get rid few men if so disposed, from the commission of it.' I say remove the cause of it. Your of murder. Else, why do we see murders com-J punishment is too severe. Men do not wish mitted right under the shadow of the gallows, i to give impunity to crime, but they shudder at and amid the very excitement of an execution? i violating the shrine of human life, and taking

Why, in the year 1822, one Lechler, was ex- that boon which God alone can give. And this

1 know

ecuted in Lancaster. Penn.. for murder. An

immense number of people witnessed the event. Among them was one Wilson, who in the evening met one Burns, with whom he was at variance, and stabbed him mortally. He was committed to jail, says a writer, 'and had the same irons put on him which had scarcely been

lain off long enough by Lechler to get cold.'

An execution took place at Paisley, in Scotland in 1837, which was followed by many murders, in a district where this crime was rare. 'Very

lately, in the state of Ohio," says Mr. Rantoul

in his Report in 1836, 'on the day in which a man was executed for the murder of his wife, I under circumstances of peculiar cruelty, another man, near the place of execution, murdered his wife in the same manner.'

I might, donbtless, find many more instances

of this kind. I do not say at this stage of mv

argument, that Capital Punishment suggested these crimes, but I do say that their occurences

refutes the idea of its efficacy. I ask its advo

cates, to show us where is its efficacy. It cer

tainly does not lie in its sererity. And if it

does not lie in its seventy, then so severe a

puni-hment is not required. It has no more

efficacy, then, than milder penalties. But all that canjfor one moment prop the administration of a punishment that takes life, is the fact of its

necessity, as being a penalty of greater efficacy than any other. It isnot so. Then society is

no safer because of it. Let it be abolished.

then. Let us not continue a punishment that takes one life for another with no practical benefit let us not continue a punishment that con

tradicts what Eden, a celebrated writer, Penal

Law styles 'The unwritten law of God imprin

ted on the heart of man; that natural sympathy

better felt than expressed, which forbids us to

give unnecessary pain to each other; or, in

fuller words to extend the severity of punishments beyond what is essentially necessary to to the preservation and morality of society.'

Let us remember, in the language of the same

writer, that nothins but the evident hand of

necessity can authorize the destruction of man

kind by the hand of man

I have thus examined the idea which seems

to lie at the foundation of that tenacity with

which men cling to Capital Punishment. Because it is a severe punishment it is not there

fore efficacious, and there is no danger in milder nenaltv from the mere fact that it

mild; since the efficacy of a punishment con

sists not in its degree of severity but its degree of certainty. It is true, at this state of our argument, we may admit that other penalties are no more certain than Capital Punishment, but

they have equal claims as safe guards of society

is

severe enough to be felt fas a punish

ment, hut u so, its csrtatntu not its sever

ity will be the motive in the mind of the criminal. Now, if the objector says; 'Very well,

voa must acknowledge that if you make Capi ;al Punishment certain, it will be efficacious;'

I answer, that, in that point of view, there is no neccessity for Capital Punishment, because

here are other penalties equally certain; and if

you would have Capital Punishment only because of its certainty, you abandon the chief

fround on which it rests, namely, its severity. If you grant that punishment is efficacious in

proportion to its certainty, I contend that Capital Punishment has no distinction in its favor Vwe many other penalties, which are equally

fertain. But it is not practically felt that Capi-

t-U Punishment is peculiarly severe, and men

v.ng to it under the idea that its severity con

sututes it3 efficacy which, I say, is not the

Motive that operates upon the mind of the

criminal. If the severity of a punishment con Kitutes its efficacy, why not affix Capital Pun

ishment to all offences? It should, upon this

ffound. check them at once. If the severity of

Capital Punishment constitutes itsefficacy, then

sue English code, dripping all over with blood,

a indeed a wise one. Under that code, he

ho sets fire to a stack of hay, out in a field

ith neither life nor house ir. danser, has been

convicted of murder and executed. It was all ' ment is positively inexpedient. This I now

fight according to this princifle. That execu-; propose to do, from several reasons, which I

n might prevent men from setting fire to mut present briefly. I have not room in one

acks of hay in future though some wary discourse to bring up every argument, or to en-

tl1?ue might calculate that such a punishment ter into any statistical detail. My object is to

a$ too abhorrent to the better feellinjrs of our ! excite thought upon the subject, rather than to

nature to secure many executioners under it, ! impart complete information, and if I do this

"d that stacks of hay might be set on flre with and present some of the leading arguments for

if they are as certain, and greater claims as being more humane, more, beneficial, and more certain which we intend to show.

But thus far I have been showing why other penal. ies are as expedient as Capital Punsish-

ment, without showing that Capital Punish

"lore impunity than if the penalty were impris

"nment, or a fine, which would be more likely 10 be enforced. If the severity of punishment institutes its efficacy, be consistent, and affix

piiai runishment to all crimes. If it is angered to this, ther? must be degrees of crime

the abolition of Capital Punishment on the

ground of expediency, I shall be satisfied. 1 In the first place, then, let me remark that

Capital Punishment is inexpedient "because of

the uncertainty of its infliction, and therefore

is whv Juries so often acquit men

that it is possible that at times there may be packed Juries. But I cannot make this so sweeping a charge as to call it a general rule. Juries do have this reluctance to convict. In the year 1831, the Duke of Sussex, presented in the House of Lords, a petition of upwards of eleven hundred, who had either served or were liable to serve as Jurors, praying that the House would abolish 'the penalty of death in all cases in which the legislative power cannot

justify, in the eyes of God and man, that last

and dreadful alternative 'the extermination ol the offender.' lWhen,'said the Duke, in introducing this petition, 'when we see ninety-one

names, on tne first skin of the petition, of merchants and others, whose annual returns in trade amount to no less a sum than ten million.

stetlmg, I think I have stated to your Lordships sufficient to convince you that this petition is

entitled to creat consideration and respect.

These respectable persons slate to you Lord

ships their own private feelings, the situation to which they are frequently reduced in fulfilling

their painful duties.' The following in an extract from the petition, in which, although they

speak of the penalty of death as crimes against

property, we may see the natural struggle that

rises in any human bosom that is the arbiter of

life and death, and that will account for the ma

nv acquittals that are made in the face of strong

evidence, without referring that result to pack

ed Juries, or to criminal confederates. In the

present state of the law, says the petition

'Juries, feel extremely reluctant to convict

where the nenal consequences of the offence

excite a conscientious horror on their minu

lest the rigorous performance of their outy as Jurors should make them accessory to judicial

murder. Hence in courts of Justice a most un

necessary and painful struggle is occasioned

by the conflict of the feelings of a just humani

tv with the sense of the obligation of an oath.

Men even in he Jury-box and under the sancti

ty of an oath, cannot be indifferent to the senti

ments of humanity, unless, in the words of

Lord Byron, 'we have twelve Butchers for a

Jury, and a Jeffries for a Judge.

How often, too, is insanity rendered as a plea

for murder! seldom hear of it in other crimes

True, murder is more congenial to insanity

than many other crimes. Yet, if the penalty

of murder were not death, but impiisonment

more would be convicted who plead insanity

nee even in that case the security and discip

line of a well ordered prison would be bette

than perfect freedom and impunity, Capital

Punishment is uncertain, then, because Jurors

are reluctant to convict.

But. after the conviction has been secured

then come applications for pardon or at leas

for commutation, ana even the latter proves that the sober dictate of reason and humanity is more for imprisonment than for death but the petition is often for pardon. Now I know

that there is, frequently, some ground for th

charge of morbid sympathy here. Men pity the murderer, but not the murdered they pity

that man whose hands are stained with crime,

but not the unprotected family of him who was

called, suddenly, and in violence from their bo-

som. i his is unaue ana unjust, ana snouia oe corrected. But what is the the cause of it? The severity of the penalty: If imprisonment was the punishment, there would be none, or but little of this. And say what you will of the

feeling, and grant that it goes too far it comes

that God has set bounds, determined times,

and revealed unto his prophets the events long

before they were accomplished, and having thus revealed himself, has never failed in time and manner to fulfil all things which, by his

prophets have been spoken or written. He

has in his word revealed the times in different ways, sometimes in plain language, by telling the exact number of years, or at other times,

by types, as the year of release, the jubilee,

nd the sabbaths, in other places by figurative

anguage, by calling a year a day, or a thou

sand years a day, again, by analogy, as in He

brews iv. 10, showing, that as God created the heavens and earth, and all that are in them in six days, and rested on the seventh, so Christ would be six thousand years creating the new heavens and earth, and wou,d rest on the seventh millennium. I will now pre

sent a few cases where time has been revealed in the above manner, and fulfilled so far as

present time will allow

1. IN PLAIN LANCUACE, BY YEAB3, MONTHS,

OR DAYS, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

1, Seven days before the flood began, and

the forty days the rain continued, were prophecied of, and literally fulfilled. See Gen. vii. 4.

'For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain

upon the earth forty days and forty nights." These days were literal days, and 60 fulfilled.

10th and 12th verses; "And it came to psss af

ter the seventh day that the waters of the

flood were upon the earth." "And the rain

was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

2. Abraham was informed by God that his

seed should be afflicted in a strange land four

hundred years, which including his sojourn,

would make 430 years, Gen. xv. 13. This was literally accomplished. See Exodus xii. 40, 41.

3. The butler's and baker's dreams were

interpreted to mean three days by Joseph, and

were exactly fulfilled. See Genesis xi. 12

20.

4. The dream of Pharaoh, as explained by

Joseph, meaning seven years' plenty, and seven years' famine, was literally completed. See

Gen.xli. 28-54. 5. The forty years in the wilderness were prophesied and fulfilled literally. See Numb, xiv. 34. Joshua v. G; 6. Three years and a half Elijah prophe

sied that there would be no rain, and there was none until the time was finished. ) Kings

xvii. 1; James v. 17.

7. Isaiah prophesied that within sixty-five

years Ephraim should be broken, so that they

should not be a people; Is. vii. 8; and in the sixty-five years they were broken and carried away by Esarhaddon, king of Babylon, B. C. 742677. 8. The seventy years' captivity, prophesied of by Jeremiah, Jer. xxv. 11, were fulfiled between B. C. 596 and 526. 9. Nebuchadnezzar's seven times were foretold by Daniel, and fulfilled in seven years. See Dan. iv. 25, and Josephus. 10. The seventy weeks which Gabriel informed Daniel would ''finish transgression, to make an end of sin, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness to seal up the vision and prophecy," which Daniel had before oft. e four kingdoms of the earth, that should finally be destroyed by the

kingdom of the "stone cut out without hands," and "to anoint the Most Holy." Who can read

this prophecy of the seventy weeks, and the

u:-u- c uae me wnoie sureiv. no mortal ran nr.

count for this agreement of numbers, and yet call it indefinite. There was much more ambiguity in the prophecy to Abraham, concerning his seed sojourning in a strange land four hundred years, (see Gen. xv. 13, 14,) than in this of the seventy weeks. Yet that was exactly accomplished on the self same day predicted. Exod. xii. 41. And in n.e it would be the very height of folly, to believe otherwise concerning these seventy weeks of years,than as an exact fulfillment, on the self same day.

boa has not changed, that he will not be as particular now as in the days of Abraham.

He surely will, and when men through cow

ardice or unbelief, charge God with thus tam

pering with his word, they must sooner or later, find it to their cost to make such a solemn charge.

11. I WILL NOW BRING FORWARD SOME PROPHECIES WHICH REMAIN TO BE FULFILLED, OR WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BSEN ACCOMPLrSHED. The seven Times. 1st. Moses' prophecy of the scattering of the people of God among all nations "seven

times." See Leviu xxvi. 14 4G. It is evi

dent, that these "seven times" were a succession of years, for their land was to lie desolate ns long as they were in their enemies' land. And the people of God have been scattered. and are now a scattered and a peeled people. These "seven times are not yet accomplished, for Daniel says, "When he shall have accomplished to scatter the power or the holy people all these things shall be finished." The resurrection and judgment will take place. Dan. xii. C, 7; '-And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by him that liveth forever that it shall be for a time, times and a half, and when he shall have accom

plished to scatter the power of the holy people all these things shall be finished."

What did the angel mean by time, times,

and a half? I answer, he meant three years and a half prophetic, or forty-two months, as in

Rev. xi.2, and xm.5; or 12G0 prophetic days, as in Rev. xi 8, and xxi. 6 and 14. He meant

the one half of "seven times." Daniel caw the same thing as Moses; only to Daniel the time was divided. He was informed that the little horn would "speak great words against lhe Most High, and shall wear out the saints tof the Most High, and think to change times and laws, and they shall be given into his hand until a time, times, and the divid ing of time." This makes Moses' 6even times, for twice three and a half are seven, and twice 1200 are 2520 common years. But you may enquire, are not these two things the same in Daniel ? I answer, no. For their work is different, and their time of existence is at different periods.

The one scatters the holy people, the other wears out the saints. The one means the kingdoms which Daniel and John saw, the other means Tapacj, which is called the little horn, which had not come up when the people of God were scattered by Babylon and the Romans. The first means literal Babylon, or the kings of the earth; the other means mystical Babylon, or Papacy. And both together would scatter the holy people and wear out the saints "seven times," or 2520 years. Moses tells ns the cause of their being scattered. Levit, xxvi. 21. "And if he walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me." Jeremiah tells when this time commenced, Jer. xv. 47- "And I will cause them to be removed (scattered) into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.

For thou hast forsaken me saitn tne voia, muu

from a legitimate source in the human heart. ! ty, these seventy weeks are indefinite? Where

the chance of impunity to the criminal. Nowjlt will not do to dismiss it contemptuosly, with j are their proofs? Not on thejecords of divine

history of Ezra, Nehemiah, the Jews, Romans,, art gone backward; therefore will Wretch out j .71 v. . ,ona utrainst thee and destroy thee. I am

juiiu biiu jesus mribi, aim nui DC cuimuwu iuj , ... . lVprrr

weary wim repenun. with a fan in the gates of theland; I wifl bereave them of children; I wiU destroy my people, since they return not from th'ir ways." We have the same cans assffnedby Jeremiah as was given by-Moses, and the same judgments denounced against his people, and the time Is

of its exact fulfilment in 490 years? And I

would ask, how can it be possible that men who believe the Bible, and who have seen the exact fulfilment of all prophetic chronology thus far, can say with any degree of proprie-