“D” Entries

Daniel, Book of, Authenticity of.—With the exception of the neo-Platonist Porphyry, a Greek non-Christian philosopher of the third century a. d., the genuineness of the book of Daniel was denied by no one until the rise of the deistic movement in the seventeenth century.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James L. Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. II, p. 784, art. “Daniel, Book of,” subdivision, “Genuineness.” Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915.SBBS 129.6

The authenticity of the book [of Daniel] has been attacked in modern times, and its composition ascribed to the times of the Maccabees: but in doctrine the book is closely connected with the writings of the exile, and forms a last step in the development of the ideas of Messiah (7:13, etc.), of the resurrection (12:2, 3), of the ministry of angels (8:16; 12:1, etc.), of personal devotion (6:10, 11; 1:8), which formed the basis of later speculations, but received no essential addition in the interval before the coming of our Lord. Generally it may be said that while the book presents in many respects a startling and exceptional character, yet it is far more difficult to explain its composition in the Maccabean period than to connect the peculiarities which it exhibits with the exigencies of the return.—“A Dictionary of the Bible,” edited by William Smith, LL. D., art. “Daniel, The Book of,” p. 132. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.SBBS 129.7

Daniel, Book of, Christ’s Testimony Concerning.—Can we believe that Christ would have appealed to the writings of the prophets, and particularly to those of Daniel, had they not been authentic? Was the book of Daniel a forgery? And was Christ deceived thereby? If so, then Christ himself must have been an impostor!-“The Master of the Magicians,” Lumen, pp. 6, 7. London: Elliot Stock, 1906.SBBS 129.8

Daniel, Book of, Date of.—There is one other theory to consider; it is, that Daniel is indeed a divine book, rightly used as an authority in the New Testament; but that it was given forth, not to a prophet in Babylon, but to an inspired prophet in the days of the Maccabees....SBBS 129.9

Every point already proved, which shows that Daniel was used and known in and before Maccabean times, meets this theory as fully as that of the rejecters of Daniel altogether. The question, whether it was worthy of God to do any particular thing, calls for another inquiry; namely, whether he has so seen fit or not to do it. Thus, on grounds already stated, we may say that God did not see fit to give forth this portion of Scripture in Maccabean times.SBBS 129.10

But we have further proof in refutation of this theory. If we admit the book to possess any authority at all, then the writer was a prophet; as a prophet the Jews have ever owned him, and by the name of prophet does our Lord designate him. On this theory, then (which professes to admit the authority of Scripture), a prophet he certainly was. But in the Maccabean days there was no prophet at all. When Judas Maccabeus purged the temple from the pollutions of Antiochus (b. c. 165), and removed the idol which had been erected on the altar, “they took counsel concerning the altar of burnt offering which had been polluted, what they should do with it. And they determined, with good counsel, to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach unto them, because the Gentiles had defiled it: and they pulled down the altar, and laid up the stones in the mountain of the house, in a fitting place, until there should be a prophet to answer the question concerning them.” 1 Mac. 4: 44-46. Twenty-two years later (b. c. 143), when Simon, the last survivor of the sons of Mattathias, was the chief of the Jewish people, “it pleased the Jews, and the priests, that Simon should be leader and high priest forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet.” 1 Mac. 14: 41. Thus certain it is that the Maccabean age knew of no prophet. Nor had there been one for a long time: “There was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not from the time that no prophet appeared amongst them.” 1 Mac. 9: 27.—“Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel,” S. P. Tregelles, LL. D., pp. 268-270. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1883.SBBS 129.11

It is certain that at the Christian era the book of Daniel was commonly received by the Jews as the prophecy of a servant of God in Babylon, written about five centuries and a half before. Of this the New Testament and Josephus are sufficient proofs. How fully the rulers of the Jews received it, is shown by their charge of blasphemy against our Lord for applying its terms to himself. Had this book been one of doubtful authority or obscure origin, they could not have thus regarded the use which he made of its contents.—Id., p. 224.SBBS 130.1

Daniel, Book of, Date of, Proved by Its Aramaic.—The modern opponents of the book of Daniel have been constrained to admit that the Chaldee of Daniel is nearly identical with that of Ezra, and is as distinct as his from that of the earliest Targums. The Aramaic of Ezra consists chiefly of documents from 536 b. c., the first year of Cyrus, to the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, b. c. 458. The documents are, a decree of Cyrus embodied in one of Darius Hystaspes; two letters of Persian officials to the kings; rescripts of pseudo-Smerdis, Darius Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes.... This Aramaic then is anyhow the Aramaic of the first half of the fifth century before our Lord; most of it probably is original Aramaic of persons not Jews. Some of Daniel’s Aramaic is stated in his book to have been written in the first year of Belshazzar, about 542 b. c, six years before the earliest of the documents in Ezra, and some sixty-four years before the latest. The great similarity between the Aramaic of these writings is such as one should expect from their nearness; at the same time there is variation enough utterly to exclude any theory that the Chaldee of Daniel could have been copied from that of Ezra.—“Daniel the Prophet,” Rev. E. B. Pusey, D. D., pp. 40, 41. London: Rivington, 1868.SBBS 130.2

Daniel, Book of, Date of, Proved by Its Hebrew.—In fine, then, the Hebrew of Daniel is exactly that which you would expect in a writer of his age and under his circumstances. It has not one single idiom unsuited to that time. The few Aryan or Syriac words remarkably belong to it. The Chaldee marks itself out as such, as could not have been written at the time when, if it had not been a divine and prophetic book, it must have been written.SBBS 130.3

No opponent has ever ventured to look steadily at the facts of the correspondence of the language of Daniel and Ezra, and their difference from the language of the earliest Targums.SBBS 131.1

It is plainly cumulative evidence, when both portions so written are united in one book. Over and above, the fact [is] that the book is written in both languages, suits the times of Daniel, and is inexplicable by those who would have it written in the time of the Maccabees. No other book, or portion of a book, of the canon, approximates to that date. The last book, Nehemiah, was finished two and one-half centuries before, viz., about b. c. 410.SBBS 131.2

The theory of Maccabee Psalms lived too long, but is now numbered with the dead. Only one or two, here and there, who believe little besides, believe in this phantom of a past century. But, even if such Hebrew, and (which is utterly inconceivable) such Aramaic, could have been written in the times of the Maccabees, it would still have been inexplicable that both should be written.SBBS 131.3

If the object of the writer be supposed to have been to write as should be most readily understood, this would account for the Aramaic; but then one who wrote with that object would not have written in Hebrew what was of most interest to the people, what was most especially written for those times. If his object had been (as was that of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) to write in the language of the ancient prophets, then he would not have written in Aramaic at all. The prophecies in the Chaldee portion of Daniel are even more comprehensive for the most part than those of the Hebrew. Had such been the object, one should have rather expected that, with the exception of the prophecy of the seventy weeks, the languages should have been reversed. For the Aramaic portions confessedly speak most of the kingdom of the Messiah.SBBS 131.4

The use then of the two languages, and the mode in which the prophet writes in both, correspond perfectly with his real date; they are, severally and together, utterly inexplicable according to the theory which would make the book a product of Maccabee times. The language then is one mark of genuineness, set by God on the book. Rationalism must rebel, as it has rebelled; but it dare not now, with any moderate honesty, abuse philology to cover its rebellion.—Id., pp. 57-59.SBBS 131.5

Daniel, Book of, Reliability of Dates in.—Daniel 1:1 reads: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it.” The German rationalists denounce this statement as a blunder. Their humble disciples, the English skeptics, accept their conclusion and blindly reproduce their arguments. Dr. Driver (more suo) takes a middle course and brands it as “doubtful” (“Daniel,” pp. xlviii and 2). I propose to show that the statement is historically accurate, and that its accuracy is established by the strict test of chronology.SBBS 131.6

A reference to Rawlinson’s “Five Great Monarchies” (Vol. III, 488-494), and to Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” will show how thoroughly consistent the sacred history of this period appears to the mind of a historian or a chronologer, and how completely it harmonizes with the history of Berosus. Jerusalem was first taken by the Chaldeans in the third year of Jehoiakim. His fourth year was current with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1). This accords with the statement of Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition took place before his actual accession (Josephus, Apion, i. 19).... What Berosus says is that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father’s death, “he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and the Phonicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends ... while he went in haste over the desert to Babylon.” Will the critics tell us how he could have had Jewish captives if he had not invaded Judea; how he could have reached Egypt without marching through Palestine; how he could have returned to Babylon over the desert if he had set out from Carchemish on the Euphrates! ...SBBS 131.7

According to the Canon of Ptolemy, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar dates from b. c. 604; i. e., his accession was in the year beginning the 1st Thoth (which fell in January), b. c. 604. But the captivity began in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth year (cf. Ezekiel 1:2, and 2 Kings 24:12); and in the thirty-seventh year of the captivity Nebuchadnezzar’s successor was on the throne (2 Kings 25:27). This, however, gives Nebuchadnezzar a reign of at least forty-four years, whereas according to the canon (and Berosus confirms it) he reigned only forty-three years. It follows, therefore, that Scripture antedates his reign and computes it from b. c. 605. (Clinton, F. H., Vol. I, p. 367.) This might be explained by the fact that the Jews acknowledged him as suzerain from that date. But it has been overlooked that it is accounted for by the Mishna rule of computing regnal years from Nisan to Nisan. In b. c. 604, the first Nisan fell on the 1st April, and according to the Mishna rule the king’s second year would begin on that day, no matter how recently he had ascended the throne. Therefore the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1) was the year beginning Nisan b. c. 605; and the third year of Jehoiakim, in which Jerusalem was taken and the servitude began, was the year beginning Nisan b. c. 606.SBBS 132.1

This result is confirmed by Clinton, who fixes the summer of b. c. 606 as the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition. And it is strikingly confirmed also by a statement in Daniel which is the basis of one of the quibbles of the critics: Daniel was kept three years in training before he was admitted to the king’s presence, and yet he interpreted the king’s dream in his second year (Daniel 1:5, 18; 2:1). The explanation is simple. While the Jews in Palestine computed Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in their own way, Daniel, a citizen of Babylon and a courtier, of course accepted the reckoning in use around him. But as the prophet was exiled in b. c. 606, his three years’ probation ended in b. c. 603, whereas the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, reckoned from his actual accession, extended to the early months of b. c. 602.SBBS 132.2

Again: the accession of Evil-Merodach was in b. c. 561, and the thirty-seventh year of the captivity was then current (2 Kings 25:27). Therefore the captivity dated from the year Nisan 598 to Nisan 597. But this was (according to Jewish reckoning) the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12). His reign, therefore, dated from the year Nisan 605 to Nisan 604. And the first siege of Jerusalem and the beginning of the servitude was in the preceding year, 606-605.—“Daniel in the Critics’ Den,” Sir Robert Anderson, K. C. B., LL. D., pp. 153-157. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1902.SBBS 132.3

Daniel, Book of, Vindicated.—The book of Daniel ... supplies the most startling evidences of fulfilled prophecy. No other book has been so much attacked as this great book. For about two thousand years wicked men, heathen philosophers, and infidels have tried to break down its authority. It has proven to be the anvil upon which the critics’ hammers have been broken to pieces. The book of Daniel has survived all attacks. It has been denied that Daniel wrote the book during the Babylonian captivity. The critics claim that it was written during the time of the Maccabees. Kuenen, Wellhausen, Canon Farrar, Driver, and others but repeat the statements of the assailant of Christianity of the third century, the heathen Porphyry, who contended that the book of Daniel was a forgery. Such is the company in which the higher critics are found.SBBS 132.4

The book of Daniel has been completely vindicated. The prophet wrote the book and its magnificent prophecies in Babylon. All doubt as to that has been forever removed, and men who still repeat the infidel oppositions against the book, oppositions of a past generation, must be branded as ignorant, or considered the wilful enemies of the Bible.—Arno C. Gaebelein, editor of Our Hope, New York City, in “The Fundamentals,” Vol. XI, pp. 71, 72. Chicago: Testimony Publishing Company.SBBS 133.1

Daniel, Book of, Shown to Alexander.—There is a narration in Josephus (Ant. Jud. 11:8) in which the book of Daniel is mentioned, the historic accuracy of which has been impugned by many, not on positive grounds, but simply on those of doubt and difficulty. He states that Alexander the Great paid a remarkable visit to Jerusalem, with the intention of severely punishing the people for adhering to their oath of fidelity to the last Darius; that Jaddua, the high priest, met him at the head of a procession; that the conqueror’s wrath was averted; and that on his visit to the holy city the prophecy of Daniel was shown him, which said that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia.—“Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel,” S. P. Tregelles, LL. D., p. 242. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1883.SBBS 133.2

Daniel, Book of, Porphyry’s Position Answered.—Until a comparatively recent period, with some slight exceptions, the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel have been regarded as settled, and its canonical authority was as little doubted as that of any other portion of the Bible. The ancient Hebrews never called its genuineness or authenticity in question....SBBS 133.3

The first open and avowed adversary to the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel, was Porphyry, a learned adversary of the Christian faith in the third century. He wrote fifteen books against Christianity, all of which are lost, except some fragments preserved by Eusebius, Jerome, and others. His objections against Daniel were made in his twelfth book, and all that we have of these objections has been preserved by Jerome in his commentary on the book of Daniel. A full account of Porphyry, and of his objections against the Christians and the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, so far as can now be known, may be seen in Lardner, “Jewish and Heathen Testimonies,” Vol. VII, pp. 390-470 of his works, ed. London, 1829. In regard to the book of Daniel, he maintained, according to Jerome (Pr. and Explan. in Daniel), “that the book was not written by him whose name it bears, but by another who lived in Judea in the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes; and that the book of Daniel does not foretell things to come, but relates what had already happened. In a word, whatever it contains to the time of Antiochus is true history; if there is anything relating to aftertimes it is falsehood; forasmuch as the writer could not see things future, but at the most only could make some conjectures about them. To him several of our authors have given answers of great labor and diligence, in particular Eusebius, bishop of Casarea, in three volumes, the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th. Apollinarius, also, in one large book, that is the 26th, and before them, in part, Methodius. As it is not my design,” says Jerome, “to confute the objections of the adversary, which would require a long discourse, but only to explain the prophet to our own people, that is, Christians, I shall just observe that none of the prophets have spoken so clearly of Christ as Daniel, for he not only foretells his coming, as do others likewise, but he also teaches the time when he will come, and mentions in order the princes of the intermediate space, and the number of the years, and the signs of his appearance. And because Porphyry saw all these things to have been fulfilled, and could not deny that they had actually come to pass, he was compelled to say as he did; and because of some similitude of circumstances, he asserted that the things foretold as to be fulfilled in Antichrist at the end of the world, happened in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Which kind of opposition is a testimony of truth; for such is the plain interpretation of the words, that to incredulous men the prophet seems not to foretell things to come, but to relate things already past.”-“Notes, Critical, Illustrative, and Practical, on the Book of Daniel,” Albert Barnes, Introduction, pp. xi, xii. New York: Leavitt and Allen, 1859.SBBS 133.4

Daniel, Book of, Its Relation to the Book of Revelation.—He who would enter the temple of truth must be content to do so by the divinely given door. The Old Testament is certainly the entrance to the New, and in a special manner the book of Daniel in the Old Testament is the porch or passage leading to the Apocalypse. In his “Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.” Sir Isaac Newton says: “Among the old prophecies Daniel is most distinct in order of time and easiest to be understood, and therefore in those things which relate to the last times he must be made the key to the rest.” On the connection of Daniel and Revelation he says: “The Apocalypse of John is written in the same style and language with the prophecies of Daniel, and hath the same relation to them which they have to one another, so that all of them together make but one complete prophecy.” The Apocalypse should thus be regarded as the New Testament sequel to the book of Daniel. The books of Daniel and Revelation may be considered as parts one and two of a single prophecy-a prophecy relating to the same subject, and presenting that subject in the same symbolic form. They unfold earlier and later portions of the same great story.—“Key to the Apocalypse,” H. Grattan Guinness, D. D., pp. 17-19. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899.SBBS 134.1

Daniel.—See French Revolution, 173, 174; Increase of Knowledge, 221, 223; Little Horn; Mass, 300; Papacy, 327, 328; Revelation; Rome, 431, 432, 436; Seventy Weeks.SBBS 134.2

Dark Day (1780), Described in a Current Newspaper.—The observations from the first coming on of the darkness, to four o’clock p. m., were made by several gentlemen of liberal education at the house of the Rev. Mr. Cutler, of Ipswich Hamlet [Massachusetts]. There are some things worth noticing before and after this time.SBBS 134.3

The hemisphere for several days had been greatly obscured with smoke and vapor, so that the sun and moon appeared unusually red. On Thursday afternoon and in the evening, a thick cloud lay along at the south and southwest, the wind small. Friday morning early the sun appeared red, as it had done for several days before, the wind about southwest, a light breeze, and the clouds from the southwest came over between eight and nine o’clock. The sun was quite shut in and it began to shower, the clouds continuing to rise from the southwest and thicken. From the thickness of the clouds, and the confusion which attended their motions, we expected a violent gust of wind or rain; the wind, however, near the earth continued but small, and it rained but little.SBBS 134.4

About eleven o’clock the darkness was such as to demand our attention, and put us upon making observations. At half past eleven, in a room with three windows, twenty-four panes each, all open toward the southeast and south, large print could not be read by persons of good eyes.SBBS 134.5

About twelve o’clock, the windows being still open, a candle cast a shade so well defined on the wall, as that profiles were taken with as much ease as they could have been in the night.SBBS 135.1

About one o’clock, a glint of light which had continued to this time in the east, shut in, and the darkness was greater than it had been for any time before.SBBS 135.2

Between one and two o’clock the wind from the west freshened a little, and a glint appeared in that quarter. We dined about two, the windows all open, and two candles burning on the table.SBBS 135.3

In the time of the greatest darkness some of the dunghill fowls went to their roost. Cocks crowed in answer to one another as they commonly do in the night. Woodcocks, which are night birds, whistled as they do only in the dark. Frogs peeped. In short, there was the appearance of midnight at noonday.SBBS 135.4

About three o’clock the light in the west increased, the motion of the clouds more quick, their color higher and more brassy than at any time before. There appeared to be quick flashes or coruscations, not unlike the Aurora Borealis.SBBS 135.5

Between three and four o’clock we were out and perceived a strong, sooty smell, some of the company were confident a chimney in the neighborhood must be burning, others conjectured that the smell was more like that of burnt leaves.SBBS 135.6

About half-past four our company which had passed an unexpected night very cheerfully together, broke up.SBBS 135.7

I will now give you what I noticed afterwards.SBBS 135.8

I found the people at the tavern near by very much agitated; among other things that gave them surprise, they mentioned the strange appearance and smell of the rain water, which they had saved in tubs. Upon examining the water, I found a light scum over it, which rubbing between my thumb and finger, I found to be nothing but the black ashes of burnt leaves. The water gave the same strong sooty smell which we had observed in the air; and confirmed me in my opinion that the smell mentioned above was occasioned by the smoke, or very small particles of burnt leaves, which had obscured the hemisphere for several days past, and were now brought down by the rain.SBBS 135.9

The appearance last mentioned served to corroborate the hypothesis on which we had endeavored to account for the unusual darkness. The vast body of smoke from the woods, which had been burning for many days, mixing with the common exhalations from the earth and water, and condensed by the action of winds from opposite points, may perhaps be sufficient causes to produce the surprising darkness.SBBS 135.10

The wind in the evening passed round further north where a black cloud lay, and gave us reason to expect a sudden gust from that quarter. The wind brought that body of smoke and vapor over us in the evening (at Salem) and perhaps it never was darker since the children of Israel left the house of bondage. This gross darkness held till about one o’clock, although the moon had fulled but the day before.SBBS 135.11

Between one and two the wind freshened up at northeast and drove the smoke and clouds away which had given distress to thousands, and alarmed the brute creation.—Letter from “Viator,” dated May 22, in the Boston Gazette and Country Journal, May 29, 1780.SBBS 135.12

Dark Day, as Observed by a Harvard Professor.—The time of this extraordinary darkness was May 19, 1780. It came on between the hours of ten and eleven a. m., and continued until the middle of the next night, but with different appearance at different places.SBBS 135.13

As to the manner of its approach, it seemed to appear first of all in the southwest. The wind came from that quarter, and the darkness appeared to come on with the clouds that came in that direction.SBBS 136.1

The degree to which the darkness arose was different in different places. In most parts of the country it was so great that people were unable to read common print, determine the time of day by their clocks or watches, dine, or manage their domestic business, without the light of candles. In some places the darkness was so great that persons could not see to read common print in the open air, for several hours together; but I believe this was not generally the case.SBBS 136.2

The extent of this darkness was very remarkable. Our intelligence in this respect is not so particular as I could wish; but from the accounts that have been received, it seems to have extended all over the New England States. It was observed as far east as Falmouth [Portland, Maine]. To the westward we hear of its reaching to the furthest parts of Connecticut, and Albany. To the southward it was observed all along the seacoasts, and to the north as far as our settlements extend. It is probable it extended much beyond these limits in some directions, but the exact boundaries cannot be ascertained by any observations that I have been able to collect.SBBS 136.3

With regard to its duration, it continued in this place at least fourteen hours; but it is probable this was not exactly the same in different parts of the country.SBBS 136.4

The appearance and effects were such as tended to make the prospect extremely dull and gloomy. Candles were lighted up in the houses; the birds, having sung their evening songs, disappeared, and became silent; the fowls retired to roost; the cocks were crowing all around, as at break of day; objects could not be distinguished but at a very little distance; and everything bore the appearance and gloom of night.—Samuel Williams, A. M., Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy in the University of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in “Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,” to the end of the year 1783, Vol. I, pp. 234, 235. Boston: Adams and Nourse, [Original illegible]. (See also “Our First Century,” R. M. Devens, pp. 90-92.)SBBS 136.5

Dark Day, Unprecedented for Its Great Darkness.—The 19th of May, 1780, was unprecedented in New England for its great darkness.... The darkness extended over several thousand square miles, though differing much in intensity in different places. Nowhere, perhaps, was it greater than in this vicinity. The day was appropriately called and is still known as The Dark Day.—“History of the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire,” Joseph Dorr, Salem, Mass., Vol. I, p. 217. Salem Press and Printing Co., 1893. (Boston Public Library.)SBBS 136.6

‘Twas on a May day of the far old year
Seventeen hundred eighty, that there fell
Over the bloom and sweet life of the spring,
Over the fresh earth and the heaven of noon,
A horror of great darkness....SBBS 136.7

Men prayed, and women wept; all ears grew sharp
To hear the doom blast of the trumpet shatter
The black sky, that the dreadful face of Christ
Might look from the rent clouds, not as he looked
A loving guest at Bethany, but stern
As Justice and inexorable as Law. —J. G. Whittier’s Poems, “Abraham Davenport.”SBBS 136.8

Dark Day, Described by London Visitor.—This day [May 19, 1780] has been rendered very remarkable by an extraordinary phenomenon, which demands a particular relation. An unusual darkness came on between the hours of ten and eleven in the morning, and continued to increase. Your friend, having been accustomed to dark days in London, and frequently observed from his study the bright shining sun gradually, and at length totally, eclipsed, as it descended behind the thick vapor which hung over the city, regarded it with no special attention till called to do it by his neighbors who were much alarmed. He dined by candlelight about one. After that it grew much lighter, and he walked about five o’clock to a tavern, a mile distant, on the road to Boston, to meet a select committee of Roxbury, on special business. When they had finished, about eight at night, he set out for home, not suspecting but that, being fully acquainted with every foot of the road, he should easily return, notwithstanding its being extremely dark.SBBS 137.1

There were houses all the way, though at a considerable distance from each other. He marked the candlelight of one, and with that in his eye went forward till he got up to it; but remarked that the appearance of the place was so different from what was usual, that he could not believe it to be what it was, had it not been from his certain knowledge of its situation. He caught the light of a second house, which he also reached; and thus on. At length, the light being removed from the last he had gained a sight of, ere he was up with it, he found himself in such profound darkness as to be incapable of proceeding, and therefore returned to the house he had passed, and procured a lantern. Several of the company, having farther to go, were on horseback. The horses could not see to direct themselves; and by the manner in which they took up and put down their feet on plain ground, appeared to be involved in total darkness, and to be afraid lest the next step should plunge them into an abyss.SBBS 137.2

The gentlemen soon stopped at another tavern, and waited for the benefit of the moon; but after a while, finding that the air received no accession of light from it, when they were certain it was risen, they had recourse to candles to assist them in getting home. In some instances horses felt the forcible operation of the darkness so strongly that they could not be compelled by their masters to quit the stable at night, when wanted for a particular service. The shifting of the wind put an end to it, and at midnight it was succeeded by a bright moon and starlight.SBBS 137.3

The degree to which it arose was different in different places. In most parts of the country it was so great in the daytime, that the people could not tell the hour by either watch or clock, nor dine, nor manage their domestic business, without the light of candles. The birds, having sung their evening songs, disappeared and were silent; pigeons and fowls retired to roost; the cocks crew as at daybreak; objects could not be distinguished but at a very little distance; and everything bore the appearance and gloom of night.SBBS 137.4

The extent of the darkness was extraordinary. It was observed as far east as Falmouth. To the westward it reached to the farthest part of Connecticut, and to Albany. To the southward it was observed along the seacoasts; and to the north as far as the American settlements extend. We are told that a vessel at sea found herself inclosed for a while in a cloud of this darkness, and as she sailed, passed instantly from the verge of it into a clear light.—“The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the United States of America” (3 vol. ed.), William R. Gordon, D. D., Vol, III, pp. 56, 57. New York, 1801. (Lenox Library, New York.)SBBS 137.5

Dark Day, in the Connecticut Legislature.—It is related that the Connecticut legislature was in session at this time, and that so great was the darkness, the members became terrified, and thought that the day of judgment had come; a motion was consequently made to adjourn. At this, Mr. Davenport arose and said: “Mr. Speaker, it is either the day of judgment or it is not. If it is not, there is no need of adjourning. If it is, I desire to be found doing my duty. I move that candles be brought, and that we proceed to business.”-“Our First Century.” R. M. Devens, chap. 4. “The Wonderful Dark Day-1780,” p. 90. Springfield, Mass.: C. A. Nichols & Co., 1876.SBBS 138.1

Meanwhile in the old Statehouse, dim as ghosts,
Sat the lawgivers of Connecticut,
Trembling beneath their legislative robes.
“It is the Lord’s great day! Let us adjourn,“
Some said; and then, as if with one accord,
All eyes were turned to Abraham Davenport.
He rose, slow cleaving with his steady voice
The intolerable hush. “This well may be
The day of judgment which the world awaits;
But be it so or not, I only know
My present duty, and my I ord’s command
To occupy till he come. So at the post
Where he hath set me in his providence
I choose. for one, to meet him face to face,-
No faithless servant frightened from my task,
But ready when the Lord of the harvest calls;
And therefore, with all reverence, I would say,
Let God do his work, we will see to ours.
Bring in the candles.” —J. G. Whittier’s Poems, “Abraham Davenport.”SBBS 138.2

Dark Day, Verbatim Account from a Diary.—May 19th, 1780 Was a Thunder shower in the morning and was followed by an uncommon darkness such as is not remembered it was so dark That one could not known a man but at a small distance, and Were obliged to keep a light in the chimney to see to go about and the night was Extraordinary dark until one oClock, that a person could not see their hand when held up nor even a white sheet of paper the day and night was cloudy the clouds in the day did not seem thick and was of a lightening up couler our almanack makers have given no account of the matter the cause unknown The works of the Lord are great and marvellous past finding out untill he Graciously pleases to Reveal them.—“The Diary of Matthew Patten, of Bedford,” New Hampshire, from 1754 to 1788, p. 414 (verbatim et literatim). Published by the town, Concord. N. H.: The Rumford Printing Company, 1903. (New Hampshire State Library.)SBBS 138.3

Dark Day of 1780, As Seen at Sea.—I have also seen a very sensible captain of a vessel, who was that morning about forty leagues southeast of Boston. He says the cloud which appeared at the west was the blackest he ever saw. About eleven o’clock there was a little rain, and it grew dark. Between one and two he was obliged to light a large candle to steer by.SBBS 138.4

There had been to this time a gleam, or glint, as he called it, in the east. It was now wholly shut in, and the greatest obscuration was between two and three. He further observes that the air was uncommonly thick, and afforded an unusual smell. Between nine and ten at night, he ordered his men to take in some of the sails, but it was so dark they could not find the way from one mast to the other.SBBS 138.5

Gentlemen from Connecticut tell me the smell which they observed was like that of burnt leaves or old stubble.SBBS 139.1

Coasters from the eastward say the darkness was very inconsiderable farther than Cape Elizabeth....SBBS 139.2

Various have been the sentiments of people concerning the designs of Providence in spreading the unusual darkness over us. Some suppose it portentous of the last scene. I wish it may have some good effect on the minds of the wicked, and that they may be excited to prepare for that solemn day. Some suppose it emblematical of the moral darkness which has spread over these ends of the earth. But however bad we are, I cannot suppose we are so much worse than the rest of the world.—Letter in the Boston Independent Chronicle, June 15, 1780.SBBS 139.3

Dark Day, Followed by Night of Darkness.—During the whole time a sickly, melancholy gloom overcast the face of nature. Nor was the darkness of the night less uncommon and terrifying than that of the day; notwithstanding there was almost a full moon, no object was discernible, but by the help of some artificial light, which when seen from the neighboring houses and other places at a distance, appeared through a kind of Egyptian darkness, which seemed almost impervious to the rays.SBBS 139.4

This unusual phenomenon excited the fears and apprehensions of many people. Some considered it as a portentous omen of the wrath of Heaven in vengeance denounced against the land, others as the immediate harbinger of the last day, when “the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light.”-Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy; cited in the Boston Independent Chronicle, June 8, 1780.SBBS 139.5

The darkness of the following evening was probably as gross as ever has been observed since the Almighty fiat gave birth to light. It wanted only palpability to render it as extraordinary as that which overspread the land of Egypt in the days of Moses. And as darkness is not substantial, but a mere privation, the palpability ascribed to that by the sacred historian must have arisen from some peculiar affection of the atmosphere, perhaps an exceeding thick vapor, that accompanied it. I could not help conceiving at the time, that if every luminous body in the universe had been shrouded in impenetrable shades, or struck out of existence, the darkness could not have been more complete. A sheet of white paper held within a few inches of the eyes was equally invisible with the blackest velvet. Considering the small quantity of light that was transmitted by the clouds, by day, it is not surprising that by night a sufficient quantity of rays should not be able to penetrate the same strata, brought back by the shifting of the winds, to afford the most obscure prospect even of the best reflecting bodies.—Letter of Dr. Samuel Tenney, dated Exeter, N. H., December, 1785; cited in “Collections of Massachusetts Historical Society,” Vol. I, 1792.SBBS 139.6

The darkness of the following night was so intense that many who were but a little way from home, on well-known roads, could not, without extreme difficulty, retrace the way to their own dwellings.—“Sketches of the History of New Hampshire,” John W. Whiton, p. 144, 1834. (New Hampshire State Library.)SBBS 139.7

Dark Day, “True Cause ... Not Known.”—The Dark Day, May 19, 1780-so called on account of a remarkable darkness on that day extending over all New England. In some places, persons could not see to read common print in the open air for several hours together. Birds sang their evening songs, disappeared, and became silent; fowls went to roost; cattle sought the barnyard; and candles were lighted in the houses. The obscuration began about ten o’clock in the morning, and continued till the middle of the next night, but with differences of degree and duration in different places. For several days previous, the wind had been variable, but chiefly from the southwest and the northeast. The true cause of this remarkable phenomenon is not known.—Noah Webster’s Dictionary (edition 1869), under Explanatory and Pronouncing Vocabulary of Noted Names of Fiction, etc.SBBS 140.1

Dark Day, Cause Unknown.—On the 19th of May, 1780, an uncommon darkness took place all over New England, and extended to Canada. It continued about fourteen hours, or from ten o’clock in the morning till midnight. The darkness was so great that people were unable to read common print, or tell the time of the day by their watches, or to dine, or transact their ordinary business without the light of candles. They became dull and gloomy, and some were excessively frightened. The fowls retired to their roosts. Objects could not be distinguished but at a very little distance, and everything bore the appearance and gloom of night.SBBS 140.2

The causes of these phenomena are unknown. They certainly were not the result of eclipses.—“The Guide to Knowledge, or Repertory of Facts,” edited by Robert Sears, p. 428. New York: 1845. (Astor Library.)SBBS 140.3

Dark Day, Not Caused by an Eclipse.—That this darkness was not caused by an eclipse, is manifest by the various positions of the planetary bodies at that time; for the moon was more than one hundred and fifty degrees from the sun all that day, and, according to the accurate calculations made by the most celebrated astronomers, there could not, in the order of nature, be any transit of the planet Venus or Mercury upon the disc of the sun that year; nor could it be a blazing star-much less a mountain-that darkened the atmosphere, for this would still leave unexplained the deep darkness of the following night. Nor would such excessive nocturnal darkness follow an eclipse of the sun; and as to the moon, she was at that time more than forty hours’ motion past her opposition.—“Our First Century,” 1776-1876, R. M. Devens, chap. 4, “The Wonderful Dark Day-1780,” p. 95. Springfield, Mass.: C. A. Nichols & Co., 1876.SBBS 140.4

Dark Day of 1780, Dr. Samuel Stearns on Cause of.—That the darkness was not caused by an eclipse is manifest by the various positions of the planets of our system at that time; for the moon was more than one hundred fifty degrees from the sun all that day.... The heat of the sun causeth an ascension of numerous particles, which consist of different qualities, such as aqueous, sulphurous, bituminous, salinous, vitreous, etc.... Fat combustible, oily matter, from the various kinds of earths, the juice of trees, plants, and herbs ... are exhaled into the regions of the air....SBBS 140.5

It was undoubtedly a vast collection of such particles that caused the late uncommon darkness. [Some process of wind currents, he suggests, condensing them.] ...SBBS 140.6

The primary cause must be imputed to Him that walketh through the circuit of heaven, who stretcheth out the heaven like a curtain, who maketh the clouds his chariot, who walketh upon the wings of the wind. It was he, at whose voice the stormy winds are obedient, that commanded these exhalations to be collected and condensed together, that with them he might darken both the day and the night; which darkness was, perhaps, not only a token of his indignation against the crying iniquities and abominations of the people, but an omen of some future destruction.—Letter from Dr. Samuel Stearns, in Independent Chronicle, Boston, June 22, 1780.SBBS 140.7

Dark Day, Not Caused by Forest Fires.—That the smoke of burning forests cannot be the cause may be rendered very certain.... Had the woods from the 40th degree of latitude in America to the 50th been all consumed in a day, the smoke would not have been sufficient to cloud the sun over the territory covered by the darkness on the 19th of May (1780). Any person can judge of this who has seen large tracts of forest fire. That thirty or forty miles of burning forest should cover five hundred miles with impenetrable darkness, is too absurd to deserve a serious refutation.—“A Brief History of Epidemic and Pestilential Diseases; with the Principal Phenomena of the Physical World, Which Precede and Accompany Them,” Noah Webster, (2 vol. ed.) Vol. II, pp. 91-93. Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799. (Lenox Library, New York.)SBBS 141.1

Note.—There was no agreement among the current writers as to the cause of this unparalleled darkness, but entire agreement as to the extraordinary character of it. Any suggestion of a natural cause or causes for the darkness can in no wise militate against the significance of the event. Sixteen and a half centuries before it occurred, the Saviour had definitely foretold this twofold sign, saying, “In those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light.” Mark 13:24. These signs occurred exactly as predicted, and at the time indicated so long before their occurrence. It is this fact, and not the cause of the darkness, that is significant in this connection. When the Lord would open a path for his people through the sea, he did it by “a strong east wind.” Exodus 14:21. Was it for this reason any less miraculous? When the bitter waters were made sweet (Exodus 15:23-25), was the divine interposition any less real because certain natural means were used having apparently some part, under divine direction, in rendering the water fit for drinking? In like manner even though it were possible for science to account for the remarkable darkness of May 19, 1780, instead of merely speculating concerning it, the event would not be discredited thereby as a merciful sign of the approaching end of probationary time.—Eds.SBBS 141.2

Dark Day, Fears of Judgment Day Awakened.—This strange darkness increased until by noon the people had to light candles to eat their dinners by! Lights were seen in every window, and out of doors, people carried torches to light their steps. Everything took a different color from what it had by sunlight, and consequently the strange reflections of the torchlights were in keeping with the marvelous and changed appearance of everything.SBBS 141.3

Hosts of people believed the end of the world had begun to come; men dropped to their knees to pray in the field; many ran to their neighbors to confess wrongs and ask forgiveness; multitudes rushed into the meetinghouses in towns where they had such, where pious and aged ministers, pleading repentance, interceded with God in their behalf; and everywhere throughout this day of wonder and alarm, the once careless thought of their sins and their Maker!SBBS 141.4

At this time the legislature of Connecticut was in session, and when the growing darkness became so deep that at midday they could not see each other, most of them were so alarmed as to be unfit for service. At this juncture, Mr. Davenport arose and said:SBBS 141.5

“Mr. Speaker, it is either the day of judgment or it is not. If it is not, there is no need of adjourning. If it is, I desire to be found doing my duty. I move that candles be brought and that we proceed to business.”SBBS 141.6

The darkness somewhat increased all day, and before time of sunset, was so intense that no object whatever could be distinguished. Anxiously and tremblingly, people waited for the full moon to rise at nine o’clock, and even little children with strained eyes, sat silently watching for its beautiful beams to appear. But they were disappointed, the darkness being unaffected by the moon. The most feeling prayers ever prayed in Antrim were at the family altars that night. Children never had more tender blessing than these mothers gave them that night. They slept soundly for the most part, but the parents chiefly sat up all night to wait and see if the glorious sun would rise again. Never dawned a lovelier morning than that 20th of May! Never were hearts more thankful on the earth! Even thoughtless people praised God!SBBS 142.1

So much were the whole population affected by this event, that, at the succeeding March meeting, the town voted, March 9, 1781, to keep the next 19th of May as a day of fasting and prayer.—“History of the Town of Antrim, New Hampshire,” Rev. W. R. Cochrane, pp. 58, 59. Published by the town, Manchester, N. H.: Mirrow Steam Printing Press, 1880. (New Hampshire Library.)SBBS 142.2

Dark Day, Men Filled with Awe and Alarm.—Dark Day: refers especially to May 19, 1780, which was very dark in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, causing great alarm.—The Universal Cyclopedia, art. “Dark Day.” New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1900.SBBS 142.3

“The dark day of New England,” so familiar to old and young, came May 19, 1780.... Near eleven o’clock, it began to grow dark, as if night were coming. Men ceased their work; the lowing cattle came to the barns, the bleating sheep huddled by the fences, the wild birds screamed and flew to their nests, the fowls went to their roosts....SBBS 142.4

Men, ordinarily cool, were filled with awe and alarm. Excitable people believed the end of the world had come; some ran about saying the day of judgment was at hand; the wicked hurried to their neighbors to confess wrongs and ask forgiveness; the superstitious dropped on their knees to pray in the fields, or rushed into meetinghouses to call on God to preserve them....SBBS 142.5

At night it was so inky dark that a person could not see his hand when held up, nor even a white sheet of paper.—“History of Weare, New Hampshire,” 1735-1888, Wm. Little, Lowell, Mass., p. 276. Printed by S. W. Huse & Co., 1888. (Boston Public Library.)SBBS 142.6

Dark Day, “Men Prayed and Women Wept.”—Friday, May 19, 1780, will go down in history as “the dark day.” ... Fear, anxiety, and awe gradually filled the minds of the people. Women stood at the door looking out upon the dark landscape; men returned from their labor in the fields; the carpenter left his tools, the blacksmith his forge, the tradesman his counter. Schools were dismissed, and tremblingly the children fled homeward. Travelers put up at the nearest farmhouse. “What is coming?” queried every lip and heart. It seemed as if a hurricane was about to dash across the land, or as if it was the day of the consummation of all things....SBBS 142.7

Dr. Nathanael Whittaker, pastor of the Tabernacle church in Salem, held religious services in the meetinghouse, and preached a sermon in which he maintained that the darkness was supernatural. Congregations came together in many other places. The texts for the extemporaneous sermons were invariably those that seemed to indicate that the darkness was consonant with Scriptural prophecy. Such texts as these were used: Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7, 8; Joel 2:31; Matthew 24:29, 30; Revelation 6:12.SBBS 142.8

Devout fathers gathered their families around them in their homes, and conducted religious services; and for a few hours Christians were stirred to activity, and non-professors earnestly sought for salvation, expecting “to hear the thunder of the wrath of God break from the hollow trumpet of the cloud.”-“The Essex Antiquarian,” Vol. III, No. 4, pp. 53, 54; Salem, Mass., April, 1899. (Boston Public Library.)SBBS 143.1

Day, the Bible.—See Calendar, 95-97.SBBS 143.2

Decretal Letters, Origin of.—Another practice commenced by Syricius, the immediate successor of Damasus, contributed greatly to augment the influence of the Roman See. This was the writing of letters purporting to be expositions of church law. The first of these documents, known as the Decretal Epistles, was promulgated by Syricius in the very beginning of his episcopate. A letter had reached Rome from Himerius, a Spanish bishop, soliciting instruction on various points of ecclesiastical discipline. Damasus, to whom it was addressed, was now dead; but his successor submitted the communication to a meeting of his colleagues assembled, probably, on the occasion of his ordination; and, in a long reply, dictated with an air of authority, Syricius gave specific directions in reference to the several questions suggested by this Spanish correspondent. One of the inquiries of Himerius related to the propriety of clerical celibacy; and it is somewhat remarkable that the earliest decretal letter contains an injunction “forbidding to marry.”-“The Old Catholic Church,” W. D. Killen, D. D., p. 342. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871.SBBS 143.3

Decretals.—See Isidorian Decretals; Oaths.SBBS 143.4

Demonism.—See Spiritualism.SBBS 143.5

Diets, Origin of.—The origin of the diet, or deliberative assembly, of the Holy Roman Empire must be sought in the placitum of the Frankish empire.... The imperial diet (Reichstag) of the Middle Ages might sometimes contain representatives of Italy, the regnum Italicum; but it was practically always confined to the magnates of Germany, the regnum Teutonicum. Upon occasion a summons to the diet might be sent even to the knights, but the regular members were the princes (Fürsten), both lay and ecclesiastical.... The powers of the medieval diet extended to matters like legislation, the decision upon expeditions (especially the expeditio Romana), taxation, and changes in the constitution of the principalities or the empire. The election of the king, which was originally regarded as one of the powers of the diet, had passed to the electors by the middle of the thirteenth century.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. VIII, art. “Diet,” pp. 211, 212, 11th edition.SBBS 143.6

Diets, Nature of.—Great political affairs were settled at the diets. These constituted the center of legislation and general administration. Here was the imperial tribunal, and here the ban of the empire was pronounced, which latter was the political counterpart of ecclesiastical excommunication. Thus the imperial constitution was, to quote from Ranke, “a mixture of monarchy and confederation, the latter element, however, manifestly predominating.” One evidence that such was the fact is furnished by the great importance of the imperial cities: these, like the princes, sent their envoys to the diets, and, conjointly with the former, opposed a compact corporation to the power of the emperor.—“History of the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland Chiefly,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. I, p. 31. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878.SBBS 143.7

Diets of Worms.—Worms, Diets of, were meetings of the representatives of the old German Empire which met at Worms. In 1495 the emperor asked for the aid of the empire for an expedition to Italy, and agreed to allow the proclamation of a perpetual public peace in consideration of the establishment of a tax, called the common penny, upon all property, and of a poll tax. The diet also recognized the Imperial Cameral Court, which was to have supreme jurisdiction in cases between the states of the empire, and power to pronounce the ban of the empire.SBBS 144.1

In 1521 a still more famous diet met here. It had to consider: (1) Measures to stop private war; (2) the appointment of a government during the emperor’s (Charles V) absence in Spain; (3) the attitude to be adopted toward Luther; (4) the French war; (5) the succession to the hereditary dominions of the Hapsburg house in Germany. The Edict of Worms was issued by the diet which met in 1521. The Pope had issued a bull against Luther, who came to Worms under a safe-conduct, but refused to recant. On April 19, 1521, Charles V declared him a heretic, and in May the diet condemned him and his party.—Nelson’s Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. “Worms,” pp. 641, 642. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1907.SBBS 144.2

Diet of Worms, Luther’s Famous Statement.—The famous Diet of Worms was summoned to meet on Jan. 21, 1521.... There was a vast gathering-princes, prelates, barons, knights, representatives from all the free cities of Germany. A papal legate attended, with an array of theologians behind him, Aleander to prosecute and the divines to argue. Once more Caietano protested against the hearing of a condemned heretic. The precedent of Constance was brought up, and the opinion of that council, that in such cases safe-conducts need not be observed, was again alleged in all seriousness, as if it was nothing to be ashamed of. The Elector of Saxony said peremptorily that he would allow no violence to one of his own subjects. Faith given should not be broken a second time, even to please the Pope. Luther himself expected the worst. He was advised to fly. He refused. He would go to Worms, he said, in words that have never been forgotten, “if there were as many devils there as there were tiles upon the housetops.”-“Lectures on the Council of Trent,” James Anthony Froude, pp. 45, 46. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1896.SBBS 144.3

Dositheus, a False Christ.—See Jerusalem.SBBS 144.4

Douay Bible.—See Bible; Idolatry.SBBS 144.5