the Signs of the Times declared, in refutation of a widely circulated charge that the Millerites had set on a certain day in April:
“The fact is, that the believers of the second advent in 1843, have fixed NO TIME in the year for the event. And Brethren Miller, Himes, Litch, Hale, Fitch, Hawley, and other prominent lecturers, most decidedly protest against . . . fixing the day or hour of the event. This we have done over and over again, in our paper.” (Signs of the Times, Jan. 4, 1843, p. 121. See also issue of Jan. 18, 1843, p. 141, in which George Storrs, another Millerite minister, protests against the fixing of any day; also issue of April 5,1843, pp. 33-35, 37.)
It is true that individual preachers or limited groups here and there sought to find a Scriptural analogy or by a certain reading of the prophecy a warrant for predicting the advent on some particular day during the year.19
The fact that Miller had specified an interval of time, namely, March 21, 1843, to March 21, 1844, rather than a single day, tended to be temporarily overlooked by many followers. Two predictions of specific days had some currency although it is impossible to be sure how widely they were believed. Some Millerites expected the Advent to occur on April 23, 1843, although the leaders never endorsed this date. Those who had given credence to the April date reacted to its passing in the following way:
At first there was evidence of surprise and disappointment among the Millerites, but it quickly gave way to renewed confidence. “After all,” they reminded one another, “there is a whole year in which to look for the Coming; —we looked for it too soon, that was all.” —and the singing and exhorting took on a new fervor.20
Here once again we note the appearance of increased enthusiasm and conviction after a disconfirmation.
In spite of the official position of the leaders, that the end of the period in which the Second Coming was expected was March 21, 1844, many Millerites placed their hopes on the end of 1843. The leaders took note of this specific expectation and, early in 1844, issued statements concerning it. For example, the opening paragraph of a New Year’s address by Miller goes as follows:
“Brethren, The Roman [year] 1843 is past [the Jewish sacred year would end in the spring of 1844] and our hopes are not realized. Shall we give up the ship? No, no . . . We do not yet believe our reckoning has run out. It takes all of 457 and 1843 to make 2300, and must of course run as far into ‘44 as it began in the year 457 before Christ.”21
The situation generally at the beginning of 1844 is described by Sears:
. . . Then a fluttering of doubt and hesitation became apparent in certain communities, but soon those were dispelled when it was recalled that as far back as 1839 Prophet Miller had stated on some occasion, which had been forgotten in the general excitement, that he was not positive that the event would take place during the Christian year from 1843 to 1844, and that he would claim the whole Jewish year which would carry the prophecy over to the 21st of March, 1844. An announcement to this effect was sent broadcast, and by this time the delusion had taken such a firm hold upon the imaginations of his followers that any simple explanation, however crude, seemed sufficient to quiet all doubts and questionings.
Having accepted this lengthening of the allotted time, the brethren who had assumed the responsibility of sounding the alarm entered into their work with renewed energy and outdid themselves in their efforts to terrify the army of unbelievers into a realization of the horrors that awaited them and to strengthen the faith of those already in he ranks.22
Again fervor increased; Millerite conferences in New York and Philadelphia were thronged, and, in Washington, there had to be a last-minute change to a larger hall. Popular interest greatly exceeded even the leaders’ expectations.
But March 21, 1844, also came and went with no sign of the Second Coming. The reaction of the non-Millerites was strong and unequivocal:
The world made merry over the old Prophet’s predicament. The taunts and jeers of the “scoffers” were well-nigh unbearable. If any of Miller’s followers walked abroad, they ran the gauntlet of merciless ridicule.
“What!—not gone up yet?—We thought you’d gone up! Aren’t you going up soon? — Wife didn’t go up and leave you behind to burn, did she?”
The rowdy element in the community would not leave them alone.23
There was strong and severe disappointment among the believers, but this was of brief duration and soon the energy and enthusiasm were back to where they had been before and even greater:
. . . The year of the end of the world had ended, but Millerism had not. . . . Though some who had been only lukewarm in the movement fell away from it, many maintained both their faith and their fervor. They were ready to attribute the disappointment to some minor error in calculating chronology.24
But in spite of the failure of the prophecy the fires of fanaticism increased. The flames of such emotions cannot be quenched at will; like all great conflagrations they must burn themselves out. And so it was in 1844. Instead of decreasing, the failure seemed to excite even greater exhibitions of loyalty to the expectation of the impending Judgment Day.25
By the middle of July things were at a new fever pitch and the energy expended to convert more and more people was greater than ever. Miller and Himes traveled as far as Ohio to make converts, something that had never before been done. Himes described the general attitude of followers toward the Advent: “I have never witnessed a stronger, or more active faith. Indeed, the faith and confidence of the brethren in the prophetic word was never stronger. I find few, if any, who ever believed on Bible evidence,that are at all shaken in the faith; while others are embracing our views.”26 Following a visit to Philadelphia Himes, still very much aware of the disconfirmation in March, showed his elation at the revival of belief: “The trying crisis is past, and the cause is on the rise in this city. The calls for lectures in the vicinity were never more pressing than now. The minister in charge of the Ebenezer station, Kensington, (Protestant Methodist) has just come out on the doctrine in full.” 27
As Nichol puts it:
From Cleveland, Himes wrote early in August of his plan to go to England in October, “if time be prolonged,” for the purpose of quickening the interest already present there. Literature had been sent out. Various ministers in other lands had taken up the cry, “Behold, the Bridegroom cometh.” But Himes thought that now he and others with him from America should go forth to strengthen the endeavors abroad. Said he:
“If time be continued for a few months, we shall send the glad tidings out in a number of different languages, among Protestant and Catholic nations. . . .
“A press shall be established at London, and lecturers will go out in every direction, and we trust the Word of the Lord shall have a free course and be glorified. What we shall accomplish we can not tell. But we wish to do our duty.”(The Advent Herald, Aug. 21, 1844, p. 20)
Thus even as Himes and Miller moved westward expanding the work, they envisioned a still greater work overseas.28
About this time more and more Millerites were accepting a new prediction first promulgated by one of their number, the Reverend Samuel S. Snow, who believed that the date of the Second Coming would be October 22, 1844. Although it might not seem possible for the enthusiasm and fervor to exceed what had already been shown in the first few months of 1844, that is just what happened. The two partial disconfirmations (April 23, 1843, and the end of the calendar
