The Visions---Objections Answered.
OBJ. 14. Her view of the saints fleeing out of the cities and villages in the time of trouble, Ex. & Views, p. 17, is contrary to Luke xvii, 34, 35, which speaks of two men being in one bed, two women grinding at the mill, and one being taken and the other left. We have only to say to the objector here, that we do not take his interpretation of any scripture in opposition to a vision; neither do we believe, to say nothing of the vision, that his view of the passage referred to is anywhere near correct; for we do not believe that that scripture has its application at the time of the coming of Christ, but at a time previous to that event when the division between the righteous and the wicked takes place. To the same time verses 31-33 evidently apply. "In that day he which shall be upon the house top and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away, and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life, shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it." It would be difficult to apply such language as this to the time when the Son of man actually appears; for at that time no one would think of coming down to take his goods out of his house; nor of returning to his house, if he was in the field. It must apply to a time prior to the Advent. And in that night two men shall be in one bed, two women grinding together, and two men in the field, and one shall be taken and the other left; or as some translations read, and it is a translation which the original well sustains, "one shall be siezed and the other escape." The disciples then ask where this shall be, where these separations shall take place; and he answers and says that it is where the body, or carcass, Matt. xxiv, 28, is; for there will the eagles be gathered together. The idea has always seemed to us rather revolting than otherwise, to let the carcass represent the Saviour, and the eagles which go to rend and devour their prey, represent the saints which are caught up to meet him in the air. Rather we say, let the carcass represent the wicked, who are doomed to death, and the eagles, the judgments of God, the seven last plagues, which will pounce upon them like eagles scenting their prey from afar. Then one, the wicked, shall be siezed, the other, the righteous, shall escape. And this is before the time that the saints flee from the cities and villages to avoid the wrath of the wicked as represented in the vision. The objector has here created all the trouble there is, by his own erroneous view of the passage. OBJ. 15. She says the magicians' rods did become serpents, and that they did not really become serpents; which last declaration contradicts Ex. vii, 12, which says they did become serpents. Test. No. 7, p. 51; Gifts, Vol. iii, p. 205. To make an objection of this, the objector has to overlook the language of appearances, which is essential to an understanding of a great portion of the Bible. Thus the Bible says the sun rises, sets, &c. Does it mean that it really rises? The objector might here take his stand with the infidel in his foolish cavils against the Bible. If the Bible designed to be anywhere astronomically correct on these points, we should doubtless somewhere read, The sun does not really rise; but the revolution of the earth causes it so to appear. But says the objector, "this contradicts Ex. vii, 12, which says they did become serpents." In answer to this, we introduce the following extract from Bush's notes on Ex. vii, 11. After stating that the magicians wrought no such miracle in reality as was performed through Moses and Aaron, he says: "We proceed, therefore, to state the grounds of this interpretation, and in doing it we regret that, from its depending so entirely upon the idiomatic structure of the Hebrew, the mere English reader will not perhaps be able fully to appreciate its force. We will endeavor to make it, however, if not demonstrable, at least intelligible.—It is a canon of interpretation of frequent use in the exposition of the sacred writings, that verbs of action sometimes signify merely the will and endeavor to do the action in question. Thus Ps. xxiv, 13, 'I have purified thee, and thou wast not purged;' i. e., I have endeavored, used means, been at pains, to purify thee. John v, 44, 'How can ye believe which receive honor one of another;' i. e., endeavor to receive. Rom. ii, 4, 'The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance;' i. e., endeavors or tends to lead thee. Amos ix, 3, 'Though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea;' i. e., though they aim to be hid. 1 Cor. x, 33, 'I please all men;' i. e., endeavor to please. Gal. v, 4, 'Whosoever of you are justified by the law;' i. e., seek and endeavor to be justified. Ps. lxix, 4, 'They that destroy me are mighty;' i. e., that endeavor to destroy me. Eng. 'That would destroy me.' Acts vii, 26, 'And set them at one again;' i. e., wished and endeavored. Eng. 'would have set them.' The passage before us we consider as exhibiting a usage en- tirely analogous. 'They also did in like manner with their enchantments,' i. e., they endeavored to do in like manner; just as in chap. viii, 18, it is said, 'And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not;' the words being precisely the same in both instances. Adopting this construction, we suppose that the former clause of verse 12 should be rendered, 'For they cast down every man his rod, that they might become serpents;' which the Hebrew reader will perceive to be a rendering precisely parallel to that which occurs chap. vi, 11, 'Speak unto Pharaoh that he let the children of Israel go;' Heb. 'And he shall let go.' So also chap. vii, 2, 'Shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send;' Heb. 'And he shall send.' The magicians cast down their rods that they might undergo a similar transmutation with that of Moses', but it is not expressly said that were so changed, and we therefore incline to place their discomfiture in the loss of their rods, those instruments with which they had vainly hoped to compete with Moses. If it be contended that there was some kind of change produced on the magicians' rods, but that it was effected by feats of juggling, or legerdemain, and amounted in fact merely to an optical illusion, we do not particularly object to this construction, inasmuch as it admits our main position, that there was no real miracle wrought by or through the magicians. Perhaps on the whole it may be considered as the most probable hypothesis; especially as the narrative does not require us to understand all these various incidents as having occurred at one and the same interview. OBJ. 16. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. iii, p. 68, says that the animals were for seven days coming into the ark, and that the family of Noah were seven days in the ark before the rain began to descend; and this is claimed as a contradiction of Gen. vii, 11-16. "In the selfsame day entered Noah, &c., into the ark. 'The cattle after their kind,' &c." To make an objection here, the objector would carry the impression that in the very day that Noah entered into the ark, the animals came in too, and on the same day the flood came. We can only inquire if the objector has ever read the first part of Gen. vii, in which it is shown that Noah was first summoned to go into the ark, that the animals came unto him, into the ark, which shows that he was in there, of course arranging them as they entered, and that after seven days the flood of waters came up on the earth. There is not the least contradiction between this and the vision. OBJ. 17. "Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark." Gifts, Vol. iii, p. 15. "There was a very large class of animals which perished at the flood." Gifts, Vol. iv, p. 121. Then, says the objector, "Either God did not create these large animals, or here is a contradiction." But if he had just read the very next sentence following the first quotation given above, his contradiction would have at once vanished: "The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood." Vol. iii, p. 15. OBJ. 18. "At the close of the thousand years, Jesus and the angels and all the saints with him leave the holy city, and while he is descending to the earth with them, the wicked dead are raised."34Ex. & Views, p. 34. As a contradiction to this, a quotation is made from Gifts, Vol. i, as follows: "At the end of the one thousand years, Jesus left the city, and a train of the angelic host followed him. Jesus descended upon a great and mighty mountain, which as soon as he first touched it, parted asunder and became a mighty plain. Then we looked up and saw the great and beautiful city. And it came down in all its splendor and dazzling glory, and settled in the plain. Then Jesus and all the holy retinue of angels and all the redeemed saints left the city. Then Jesus in terrible, fearful majesty called forth the wicked dead." Gifts, Vol. i, p. 215. The objector then asks the question, "When did Jesus raise them? While he was descending as first stated, or after the city come [!] down as last stated?" It will be difficult for the reader to understand the dishonest work that has been made in garbling and perverting this testimony, unless he has the books and can refer to them himself. From the manner in which the quotation is given, he would think it was all one connected paragraph, on the same page, and referring to the same subject, instead of a part of it being on another page, and under a new chapter, and on a new subject, as is actually the case! In one instance in the quotation as the objector gives it, there is nearly a line omitted with nothing at all to indicate it. Next three and a half lines are omitted, signified by the insertion of three stars. But where the leaf turns and a new chapter and new subject are introduced, the change is indicated by only two stars! The commencement and close of the quotation is simply the rehearsal of the same facts applied to two different subjects. The subject of chap. xxxix, of Gifts, Vol. i, is "The Earth Desolated;" and in that chapter we are taken down through the period of its desolation to the time when the city is located upon it. The point in the quotation where this chapter ends is this: "And it came down in all its splendor and dazzling glory, and settled in the [mighty] plain [which God had prepared for it]." Then opens chapter xi, and the subject of that chapter is, "The Second Resurrection;" and in the opening of that chapter we are carried right back to the holy city, and to the exit of Christ and his people therefrom before it comes down. The reader could have seen this if the objector had not dishonestly concealed the fact that a new chapter was opened, and then had given two lines and a half which he for some reason omitted. Chapter xi opens thus: "Then Jesus and all the holy retinue of angels and all the redeemed saints, left the city. The holy angels surrounded Jesus and escorted him on his way, and the train of redeemed saints followed. Then Jesus in terrible, fearful majesty called forth the wicked dead, &c." "The angels escorted him on his way." On his way where? we ask, if the city and the heavenly company had already descended. It is on the authority of such garbled quotations as this, that we are asked to discard the visions. We beg to be excused. Perhaps some may refer to Vol. iii, pp. 83, 84, where the same facts are stated undivided by a chapter; but the same principle will hold good here as in the former case. It is a principle common to all writings, not only the Bible, but to every book in which there are different series of events narrated which synchronize in the time of their fulfillment. We are carried down through one series, and when that is completed, we are taken back to the commencement of another. And unless it is so in this case we have Jesus leave the city twice, having entered it only once. OBJ. 19. Gifts, Vol. iii, p. 84, states that those who lived before the flood were more than twice as tall as men now living; that the generations after the flood were less in stature; and that there has been a continual decrease to the present time; and this, it is claimed, contradicts—what? Some other vision? No; the Bible? No; but "facts." What facts? Oh, a writer in the American Tract Society's Bible Dictionary, conjectures from mummies and some other things that the race of mankind never exceeded in the average, their present stature! O weakness! where are thy swaddling hands! Somebody conjectures that the human race never could have been larger than at present; therefore the vision must be false! But it is a notorious fact, that evidence has come forth upon this point, amply sufficient to sustain the testimony of the vision. Much of it has appeared in late volumes of the Review; and it is now almost daily coming up fresh from the bosom of the earth—evidence from the discovery of organic remains, sufficient to show beyond a sane doubt, that at some period in the past, there existed on this earth a class of gigantic men and animals, in comparison with which the present species are but pigmies. Before such facts as these, the objection vanishes like chaff before the whirlwind. OBJ. 20. "I saw an angel flying swiftly to me. He carried me from the earth to the holy city. In the city I saw a temple, which I entered." Ex. & Views, p. 16. This says the objector contradicts Rev. xxi, 22: "And I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God and the Lamb are the temple of it." To this objection we reply: Sister White saw the city as it exists at the present time; John in Rev. xxi, 22, saw it after it had come down to the earth at the end of the 1000 years. The two views are over a thousand years apart, and in different dispensations; that is all the difference! But John in another part of his vision, viewing things in the city in this dispensation, says that he did see a temple therein. "And the temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament." &c. Rev. xi, 19. Now why did not the objector turn his infidel weapons against the Bible and say that here is a contradiction between Rev. xi, 19, and Rev. xxi, 22? The temple of God as it now exists in Heaven, is the sanctuary; and sister W. so describes it. So also says the Revelation; for in it was seen the ark of his testament. And to deny that there is now a temple in Heaven, as the objector would have us do, is to deny the plain Bible truth that there is now a sanctuary in Heaven; and all this for the sake of getting something against the visions. We have only to say that we do not feel disposed to deny the Bible, for the sake of denying the visions. The reason why there is no temple in the city after it has come down to earth, is evidently because the plan of salvation being finished, there is no longer occasion for the sanctuary work. What disposition is made of this temple, the Bible does not inform us. Possibly it is removed from the city, and becomes the temple described in Experience and Views p. 14, as existing outside of the city: or it may be put to such a different use as to cease to be the temple of God. OBJ. 21. "The Father's person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered him. I asked Jesus if his Father had a form like himself. He said he had, but I could not behold it; for, said he, if you should once behold the glory of his person, you would cease to exist." A few words further on, the objector fancies he finds a contradiction as follows: "And I saw the Father rise from the throne and in a fleeting chariot go into the Holy of Holies, and did sit." Ex. & Views, p. 43. How any person could bring forward as a contradiction, testimony which so evidently explains itself, we are unable to perceive. It illustrates the statement made in the commencement of this work, that the objector in order to make his objections appear respectable as to numbers, will sieze upon the least point where he thinks he can palm off upon the inattentive reader his misrepresentations. If a cloud of glorious light enveloped the Father, and she knew that it was the Father who was thus veiled from her sight in his unapproachable glory, when that cloud passed into the holy of holies would she not know that it was the Father who moved? Could she not properly say that she saw the Father rise up from the throne and go into the most holy place? Who would think of questioning this but he who was under a desperate pressure to make out his case? But the objector may say further, the Bible declares that no man hath seen God, and no one can see him and live. John i, 18; Ex. xxxiii, 20. Very true; but yet the prophet Daniel saw the Ancient of days, and has given us a description of his hair and his garments, and the appearance of his throne. Dan. vii, 9, 10. But there is no contradiction here; for seeing God in vision is not seeing him in our natural con- condition and with our natural eyes. It may be proper to add that the Lord is represented as clothed with majesty and light as with a garment. Ps. civ, 1, 2. This cloud of light, then, if we may so speak, was his clothing. A person may be clothed so as to conceal the form; but we have no difficulty, nevertheless, in telling when they move. It is with just such cavils as this that infidelity attacks the Bible. OBJ. 22. Her vision of the Battle of Manasses is contradictory, says the objector. How? It is represented that Southern men felt the battle, and would in a little have been driven further back; but that the North, if they had pushed on, would eventually have found themselves in the midst of a greater struggle, and greater destruction. And this could all have been so. There is no contradiction about it. OBJ. 23. "Her view of the tree of life is much more fanciful than true." Indeed! Our fancy is to judge of the truthfulness of these things! Why does not the objector say the same thing of Ezekiel's vision of the living creatures, and living wheels; Ezekiel's vision of the stone with seven eyes, and the flying roll; John's view of the four beasts, a city of gold transparent like glass! &c. &c. He asks if the idea of a gold tree is altogether reasonable. Why don't he ask if it is altogether reasonable to talk about gold being transparent like glass, as John does? Who ever saw any transparent gold? In regard to there being but one tree, with a trunk on each side of the river, we have a most striking illustration of how this can be, in the banyan tree of India, the branches of which take root and become new trunks sending out other branches; till the tree comes to be supported by hundreds of trunks, covering, perhaps, acres of ground, yet all the trunks being connected together in the wide-spreading top, and forming but one tree. See Webster's Dictionary, and Am. Encyclopedia. OBJ. 24. "Many things in her older visions are now suppressed, no doubt on account of their appearance of fanaticism and wild imagination." Yes, "no doubt!" Concerning the charge of suppression we shall speak in due time. We just wish the reader to note here that these are urged as strong points against the visions, and to mark how they resolve themselves into the single and solitary "no doubt" of the objector—very weighty unquestionably in his own mind. OBJ. 25. "She has taught," it is further urged, "in a suppressed vision that to speak against her visions is to sin against the Holy Ghost." This statement is a misrepresentation; for it is only a particular class, under particular circumstances, that are referred to. What the objector says about their ignoring the right of private judgment, correcting the erring, and uniting the people of God, is all met by Eph. iv, 1—13, unless he can show from other indubitable evidence that the visions are not among the means there specified as set in the church to bring us to the unity of the faith. But what will not the opposer sieze upon as an objection to the visions? It is usually considered a characteristic of false prophets that they prophesy peace, and speak smooth things; and the Bible so represents. But lo! the visions are denounced as false because they do not do this very thing. They denounce sin, they expose evil, they warn the church of its dangers, point out its wrongs and reveal its failings. Then says the objector, this people are not God's people, or they would not be guilty of being in such a condition as to merit these reproofs; but the visions say they are God's people; hence the visions are false. According to this objection no people can be God's people who are guilty of any wrong whatever; or if they are, they must never be reproved for it; and moreover, they can never get right and regain God's favor, and be saved at last. A more stultified and unscriptural process of reasoning, than is involved in this objection, is rarely to be met with. It does away with the Bible, and with every Christian people who have ever lived. It is requiring altogether too much to ask us to give up the visions for such reasons as this.