“‘It will be seen that in speaking of the curtailment of the reign of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, from eight to five years, and the introduction of eleven years of interregnum between the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah, he has censured Mr. Miller in too unmeasured terms. These particulars he is bound to explain.“‘It would have been easier, and perhaps more advantageous to the author, to have made the alterations silently, and omitted the censure. But would it have been equally honest?“‘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, andhis 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.’
“‘It will be seen that in speaking of the curtailment of the reign of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, from eight to five years, and the introduction of eleven years of interregnum between the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah, he has censured Mr. Miller in too unmeasured terms. These particulars he is bound to explain.
“‘It would have been easier, and perhaps more advantageous to the author, to have made the alterations silently, and omitted the censure. But would it have been equally honest?
“‘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, andhis 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.’