"LAW-OBSERVING, VISION-LOVING."
By E. Goodrich
THE above expressions are found (as the readers of the Review are aware) in the notice of a work (Fifty Unanswerable Arguments) lately published against the claims of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Now the object of acting is acting for an object. And undoubtedly the author of the above expressions had an object in using them. He meant something, and he meant to hit somebody. But what does he mean? Whom does he wish to hit? It cannot be that we are to understand him according to the natural import of the language used. Such a view would extend too far: it would convict too many; for it would strike backward as well as forward. "Law-observing." But what does the writer mean? Does he mean that men should not observe law, holy, just, and good law, moral law? He certainly cannot mean so absurd a thing as this. To what law then does he refer? Does he mean some obsolete and abolished law, which by the unanimous consent of christendom has long since ceased to be of binding force? If so, where are the guilty parties? But why ask questions by some mysterious insinuation, an insinuation better calculated to calumnate the innocent than to reform the erring. If a man is wrong, or in error, it is right, it is honorable, it is Christ-like, to reprove the wrong, and if possible right the error. If the wrong is private, let it be privately reproved; but if public, let it be publicly rebuked, that others may fear. But whenever a charge is preferred, whether it be of crime, heresy, or indebtedness, the case should be plainly stated, and the reasons given, so that the persons against whom the charge is made may have a chance of vindicating their own innocency, or at least the honesty of their motives. But to insinuate what we will not, or dare not, openly declare or plainly point out, is a very blind, dishonorable, and uncertain way of attempting to right the wrongs, real or imaginary, that may exist in others. Indeed, insinuations are seldom, if ever, used, unless it be for the purpose of serving an object that cannot be accomplished in a straightforward, upright way. "Vision-loving." From the circumstances connected with the origin of this expression, there can be no reasonable doubt that it is used (like the one above noticed) as a contempt against somebody; but as the author has given us neither key nor rule of interpretation, we are left to conjecture both its import and application. We can neither determine the crime nor the guilty parties; and even if we should be fortunate enough to guess who are meant, he has furnished us with no precedent with or by which to determine either the nature of the crime, or the kind of punishment to be inflicted on the convicted parties. Such a way is anything but a prompt way of reproving or reforming wrongs. But what does the writer mean? Does he mean that all visions are false? that all who have them are impostors? and all who sympathize with, or follow, them are deluded? Or does he wish us to understand that some visions are good, and to be relied upon, while others are to be contemned? Or does he believe, as did the Jews in their day, that while the prophets of other ages are to be embalmed and entombed, and their sepulchres beautified, the prophets of our day who reprove present wrongs are to be execrated and martyred? If the first view is the correct one, what are we to do with the visions of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which constitute a great proportion of the revealed will of God to man? There are the visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Peter, John, and Paul the apostle to the Gentiles, whose preaching consisted principally of visions and revelations of the Lord, and which are believed in by the Christian world. It cannot reasonably be supposed that the writer wishes us to apply to these and their followers the derisive terms, "visionites," "vision-loving," and the like. And yet he has given no rule by which we may understand him. If he wishes us to understand him according to the second or third view, why has he not said so? Why has he made no distinction between the reliable and the unreliable? Why has he given us no criterion by which to judge between the innocent and the guilty? But after all I may be too fast. I may be borrowing unnecessary trouble, for there may have been an understanding between the writer and those addressed, or those whom he expected to address, that rendered an explanation of what he meant unnecessary. But whatever may have been the design, the motives, or meaning of the writer, does not particularly matter. One thing is very certain; viz., that the Scriptures present us with many examples of "heavenly visions," and the fact that the remnant church (who should be keeping the commandments of God and having the faith of Jesus) should possess the gift of prophecy is as much a matter of Bible prophecy as that the sun should be darkened, or that the stars should fall from heaven, so that the least we may say upon the subject of visions is that it is a subject that is at least deserving of a candid consideration. True there are false prophets as well as true prophets of the Lord, and we need not greedily swallow down everything that comes in our way. But neither in writing nor in speaking should we so express ourselves as to confound the innocent with the guilty. We ought always to make a distinction, to lay down general rules so that those who are in error may not only see where they are standing, but the way of escape. If there are those who love visions, if it is a sin to love visions, let the whole thing be plainly stated, and the remedy made known. But away with blind insinuations which only merit the contempt of the honest seeker after truth.