Modern Spiritualism. THE SPIRITS CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED. (Continued.)
By Editor
IN the Spiritual Telegraph of July 11, 1857, the leading editorial is entitled, "On the Identification of Spirits." The following is the commencement of the article:—
"The question is continually being asked, especially by novitiates in spiritual investigations, How shall we know that the spirits who communicate with us are really the ones whom they purport to be? and for want of a satisfactory answer many minds are thrown into perplexity, and even doubt as to whether the so-called spiritual manifestations are really such. In giving the results of our own experience and observation upon this subject, we would premise that spirits unquestionably can, and often do, personate other spirits, and that, too, often with such perfection as, for the time being, to defy every effort to detect the deception. Not only can they represent the leading personal characteristics of the spirits whom they purport to be, but they can relate such facts in the history of said spirits, as may be known to the inquirer, or to some one else with whom the communicating spirit is or has been en rapport. And this, in our opinion, is done so often as to very materially diminish the value of any specific tests that may be designedly instituted by the inquirer for the purpose of proving identity; and that if direct tests are demanded at all, we would recommend that they be asked for the purpose of proving that the manifesting influence is that of a spirit, rather than to prove what particular spirit is the agent of its production."
So it appears that all their talk about "tests" and "test mediums" is entitled to no credit whatever. The "experience and observation" of the editor of the Telegraph entitles his testimony to as much credit as that of any Spiritualist in the country. According to his view, we can only assure ourselves "that the manifesting influence is that of a spirit," which we would not deny, but we cannot ascertain "what particular spirit" is communicating, as they "personate with such perfection as to defy every effort to detect the deception." This is all that we have ever claimed or could claim, in regard to this great system of falsehood. The following from the same article is equally expressive of their characters and actions:—
"From much experience and observation, however, we are satisfied that if, after having received in all good faith, such messages directly from the spirit friend whom it purports to be, we proceed to inquiries about matters of theological faith or speculative philosophy, or even about such practical concerns of human life as may involve the ambition, conceits, or prejudices of other spirits than the one with whom up to that moment we have been talking, then other spirits who may be more nearly related to, or who may have more perfect control over, the mediums, will most probably assume instantly the name and position of our friend, pushing the latter aside, and will set forth his own theories, fancies, and probably falsities, using the name of our friend and all the confidence we may have gained in the latter's identity, by way of enforcing what he would have us believe. And we receive the communication perhaps with the utmost surprise that our friend, in passing into the spirit world, should have so soon changed his opinion on that particular subject!"
What a confession is this! How completely are all their tests of identity and claims for reliability swept away!
Mr. Tiffany has also given pointed evidence on this subject:—
"When communications are received through public mediums, the probabilities are that the communicators belong to a very low plane of development, and that the communications cannot be relied upon, whatever may be the professions of the communicator. There is almost always an influence which belongs peculiarly to each medium—an influence which seems to be a presiding spirit, which that medium will usually recognize, answering to the name of 'Jim' or 'John.' It is generally the case that this spirit will be found on hand first, and is the one to do whatever is to be done, and he becomes the father, mother, brother, sister, or friend of everybody. . . The circumstances of a public circle are exceedingly unfavorable to getting communications from spirits of a high degree of refinement. The most that can be obtained under such conditions is some external evidence of spiritual existence. The point to which I wish to call your attention is the almost universal fact that mediums devoted to external manifestations, while under the influence of this presiding spirit, are under an influence to deceive, to cheat, which is almost irresistible. It does not matter particularly how good manifestations they get. I have seen this deceptive disposition manifested in mediums who could get very remarkable manifestations, such as the movement, in the open light, of a table with several men standing upon it."—Lect., pages 122-3.
According to this high spiritualistic authority, all the mediums advertised to give public seances are deceivers and cheats, and subject to a deceptive influence; as the Scriptures say of this class, "Deceiving and being deceived;" and those who consult them are mere dupes. Mr. Tiffany has spoken our mind exactly.
Dr. Potter says:—
"Not one per cent of the manifestations have had a higher origin than the first and second spheres. These spheres being full of low, ignorant, deceptive, mischievous, selfish, egotistical spirits, fond of controlling media, they have, by reading the minds of mortals, and picking up old poetry, essays, and the floating notions of the times, with a few facts obtained from higher spheres, passed themselves off for our friends and relatives, and the great and good of all ages."—Spiritualism as it Is, page 16.
Dr. Randolph says:—
"The fact is, good spirits do not appear one-tenth as often as imagined; the majority of spiritual appearances are but out-creations—subjective images of the seer objectified—else are psychological projections of other minds—images impressed upon the susceptible person's brain."—Dealings with the Dead, page 255.
A. J. Davis, in "Present Age and Inner Life," says:—
"A medium may obtain thoughts from a person sitting in the circle, or from a mind even in some distant portion of the globe, and still be wholly deceived as to the source of them. Because, so far as all the primary interior sensations and personal evidences are concerned, such impressions do appear and feel, to the receptive vessels of the medium, precisely identical with those which emanate from a mind beyond the dominion of the tomb."
So, according to the great seer, all the phenomena of test-mediumship may be produced without any spirit influence at all!
Jacob Harshman, a medium, writes:—
"Under these influences, they become impatient with the spirits, who do our work by immutable laws. And under such a state of excitement, they respond to their own questions, by a law which they do not understand, and consequently mistake it for a spiritual operation."—Love and Wisdom, page 28.
Judge Edmonds makes a statement bearing directly against the reliability of the communications. He says:—
"Occasionally there are instances where it would seem as if the medium was giving the precise words of the spirit. But this is rare, because it involves a state of things in the medium, both physically and mentally, that is very difficult to attain, namely, an exclusion of the medium's self-hood—a suspension of his own will, and spirit control, that is very unnatural, very difficult, and very dangerous, and, therefore, necessarily very rare."
The Judge saw that their discord and contradictions needed some apology, and this was his plea in their behalf. Being questioned in relation to the disagreement between himself and Dr. Hare, both under the instruction of the spirits, he answers as follows:—
"Thus Dr. Hare has all his life long been an honest, sincere, but inveterate disbeliever in the Christian religion. Late in life, Spiritualism comes to him, and in a short time works in his mind the conviction of the existence of a God, and his own immortality. So far his spirit teachers have already gone with him. But he still denies Revelation. He is as sturdy and sincere now in that denial as he ever was. Will it be just to conclude, because his spirit teachers have not yet brought him up to that point, that, therefore, there is not and never has been a Revelation?"—Spir. Tract, No. 5, page 12.
Such an evasion as the above goes very far toward destroying our confidence in the honesty and sincerity of Judge Edmonds. Yet we would not consider it worth while to notice it here did he not do Revelation the injustice to connect it with Spiritualism. That it is nothing better than an evasion is evident, for
1. He knew—he could not be ignorant of the fact—that thousands have been led to renounce Revelation under the influence of Spiritualism.
2. Spiritualists, including Judge Edmonds himself, deny a Revelation "of authority," without which the Bible is not only a nullity, but a falsehood, for it claims authority to the fullest extent.
3. He must have been aware of Dr. Weisse's statement that spirits and mediums do not contradict his views of the Bible (which coincide with those of Dr. Hare), that it is only a transcript of heathen fables.
4. He very well knew that A. J. Davis, who is the great apostle of Spiritualism, has ever been unsparing of his denunciations of the Bible.
5. He well knew that Dr. Hare not only continued to deny Revelation, but that his teachings were sanctioned and approved by the highest spirits! It is stated by Dr. H., in his preface to the fifth edition of his work, that his infidel strictures on the New Testament were indorsed by Christ himself! in the presence of Washington, Franklin, and others. If Judge Edmonds had not been a Judge—not acquainted with the laws of evidence—his statement might be considered more excusable. We have seen the claim put forth by a Spiritualist, in a boastful manner, that Dr. Hare has done more to destroy faith in the Bible than any other man of this age; yet his teachings come to us more strongly attested by spirits than those of any other Spiritualist. He received ministerial credentials (which he published), as a teacher of truth to the world; these credentials were given under the sanction of an assembly of spirits, and "obtained under test conditions." The assembly said that they accredited him as their minister to earth's inhabitants, and that he was battling fearlessly against error. In this assembly were "Geo. Washington, J. Q. Adams, Dr. Chalmers, Oberlin, W. E. Channing, and others." Can the Judge show any better indorsement than this?
Again, Warren Chase was one of the very earliest advocates of Spiritualism. He has been most persistent and untiring in his efforts to advance its interests. Perhaps no one has delivered more lectures, or cast a wider influence in its favor, than he. An infidel at the beginning of his course, what has Spiritualism done to correct his infidelity? At this time he stands a most defiant infidel, or more nearly an atheist, everywhere indorsed as a faithful exponent of Spiritualism. And so of Ambler, Harshman, Hoar, Denton, Wadsworth, Hull, Carter, etc. In fact, we can scarcely find an exception. Without being able to identify a single spirit, they yet follow them blindly, willingly, into the lowest sinks of Pantheism.
Recently a case has been reported in the Medium and Daybreak of England which is offered as evidence of identity, but is really a strong proof against their claims. It was the "materialization" of the spirit of a Mr. Thomas Ronalds, who revealed as follows:—
"I have to inform you that my last life on earth was a reincarnation. In a former existence I was a Persian prince, and lived upon the earth some hundreds of years before Christ. In that life I was possessed of a quantity of beautiful and valuable jewels. Strange to say, you become aware of the existence of those jewels in this very city of London. They are diamonds of the purest water and brilliancy, and, moreover, they are charmed stones, and would therefore be inestimable value to their possessor. I wish you, my dear brother, to become the purchaser of those stones."
Here is a revival of two heathen pagan notions: the transmigration of souls, and the possession of charmed objects to preserve from harm. We lately heard some of this class object to the Bible on the ground that it was merely a transcript of pagan dogmas.
Yet they are ever ready to adopt the most absurd dogmas of paganism contrary to the teachings of the Bible. If they really believe that the Bible is of pagan origin, they are singularly inconsistent in rejecting it, for they take to pagan notions as a duck takes to water.
But in this instance the doctrine was turned to practical account, as the following will show. It is an extract from the instruction of the spirit for the disposal of the ring in which were set the charmed jewels:—
"This ring, my dear brother, I wish you to present to our medium, Arthur Colman, as a testimonial of my gratitude to him for his services in enabling me to materialize for you. . . It will be a talisman to protect him; it will increase his power as a medium; and with that ring he can never want a friend; indeed, he will bear a species of charmed life."
The unbeliever may be so uncharitable as to suppose that the medium had something to do with the direction, but Spiritualists, who profess to be guided only by reason! cannot see it. The spirit gave very explicit directions as to where the stones might be found, and how obtained, and the brother was stimulated to activity in the matter by the information that another party was intending to purchase the ring the following day. This is a dodge often played by speculators in this world and we are led to suspect that the spirit which dictated the direction was not far removed from the plane of earthly interests.
But the point on the question of identity is this: At a certain "seance" this spirit appeared in both forms at once, as a Persian prince and an English gentleman. Now as no individual can exist in two forms at the same time, it follows that one of these appearances was manufactured for the occasion if we even allow that the identical spirit was present. And if one was certainly got up for the occasion it is proof that both might have been produced in like manner. So, instead of being evidence of personal identity, it is destructive of their claims for tests of identity. We think, as A. J. Davis says, the parties were "psychologized to see them" in the form desired, and that Mr. Ronalds was not there either as English gentleman or Persian prince. It is all a work of deception by Satan, the prince of deceivers.
Although Spiritualism does not furnish any test of identity, nor any means of detecting the tricks of mediums or the falsehoods of spirits, we feel assured that there is a test which will "detect the deception." It is "the law and the testimony" of God's word. "If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." We have shown that they do not speak according to this word, and that, even by their own admissions, there is neither light nor truth to be expected from them. Every test by which Spiritualists profess to be convinced of its truthfulness is proved fallacious by the evidence quoted from Partridge, Davis, and others; and we give not a tithe of the testimony that might be collated on this point. Professing to be led by "the most enlightened reason," they daily receive and credit what is most unreasonable. They would overthrow the word of God, and introduce as substitute the caprices and fancies of unknown evil spirits. They would dethrone God, "the Judge of all," and arrogate to themselves the prerogatives of his office. They would bring the Saviour from the Father's throne, where he sits a priest to intercede for man, and be their own redeemers—their own saviours. They destroy all distinctions of right and wrong. They cast off moral restraint in the name of freedom, and make no difference between liberty and licentiousness. EDITOR.
"A MAN OF SORROWS."
By Mrs. E. A. B. Mitchell
WHILE such a record shall remain,
Whate'er our grief, whate'er our pain,
How can we murmur or complain!
"A man of sorrows," who may know
What bitter depths of human woe
Our Saviour suffered here below!
What days of toil, what nights of prayer!
In pitying love He came to share
Our every burden, our every care.
Think of the heavy cross He bore,
The piercing crown of thorns He wore,
Think of the nails, the spear, the gore!
And with such memories as these,
Oh, who could ask a life of ease,
Or live one hour but self to please?
Since Jesus suffered, pain is sweet,
It brings me lower at his feet;
In closer sympathy we meet.
Ah, grief and anguish, what are ye,
But fragrance floating back to me,
From thy dear bowers, Gethsemane!
Low at the cross my heart I bring,
And there a song of triumph sing,
Yet glory but in suffering.
--Mrs. E. A. B. Mitchell.
REMARKABLE FULFILLMENT OF A DREAM.
Two young men, both living at Norridgewock, in Maine, met one morning years ago, and one said to the other: "Charles, I dreamed last night that you were a Judge of the Supreme Court of Maine, that I was a minister, and that you called on me to open your court with prayer." Just thirty years after this the Rev. Dr. Charles F. Allen, late President of the State College, happened to step into the Supreme Court room in Augusta. Judge Charles Danforth beckoned to him, and asked him to open his court with prayer; and the dream of thirty years before was verified.
A Perfect Church
By Editor
"Well, madam," said John Newton to one who was complaining of the imperfections of others, "if there were a perfect church on earth, it would cease being so the moment you and I entered it." And that remark still has a pertinent application for those who we fear won't apply it.
Slander, Hate, and Indifference
It is good to be deaf when the slanderer begins to talk.
Love drifts into hate more easily than indifference into animosity.
Reasoning Against Reason.
By Uriah Smith
PAUL’S words in Rom. 4:18, commendatory of Abraham’s trust, are often rendered, “hoping against hope.” While we accept this we cannot accept the custom, quite too common among theologians, of reasoning against reason. If the following is not an instance of this we know not what to call it.
In the Sunday-school Lesson, published in the New York Independent of August 28, on 1 Thess. 4:13–18, are the following words:—
“If Jesus rose after he had died, then there is such a thing as life after death. Then the soul survives death. Then we too may live after death. We do not make so much of the resurrection as the early disciples did, simply because we have come to look at the future life as a matter of course, and to imagine that the resurrection of Christ was merely a proof of the resurrection of these mortal bodies. That was not the view of the early disciples. It was a proof of the resurrection of the soul, the spiritual body, that they wanted in those days, when there was no general belief in the immortality of the soul.”
“It is hard for us to understand how those converts could have imagined that it was peculiarly unfortunate to die before Christ’s second coming. It was because they imagined, and Paul too, perhaps, that Christ was to come soon, in the lifetime of some of them, and that his coming was physical, not spiritual, and they did not understand the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.”
There are some singular statements embodied in the above remarks:—
1. The truth, that in the days of the apostles they did not understand the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; neither was there any general belief in that doctrine. This is contrary to the present general belief, but we think that we have given evidence in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, especially in the articles on the history of the doctrine of immortality, that there was no such belief general in that age of the world. And a careful reading of the New Testament must convince any one that the apostles knew nothing of the immortality of the soul; or if they knew it they carefully concealed that knowledge from their readers. We are glad that a paper so influential as the Independent has made this fact prominent in this manner.
2. The early Christians more highly prized the doctrine of the resurrection than do Christians of the present day, because they did not understand the immortality of the soul, and, of course, knew of no future life except by a resurrection. Such was exactly the teaching of the apostles. Dr. Clarke says that Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 15:32, contain the legitimate conclusion from the idea that there is no resurrection of the dead. The Doctor, who also says the early Christians thought the resurrection of much more consequence than it is now considered, remarks:—“For if there be no resurrection, then there can be no Judgment,—no future state of rewards and punishments; why, therefore, should we bear crosses and keep ourselves under continual discipline? Let us eat and drink and take all the pleasure we can, for to-morrow we die, and there is an end of us forever.”
All of which is true if there be no resurrection; but it is not true if the soul is immortal! For, if there is “a never dying soul to save,” as the hymn-book tells, then there is a reward to Christian effort, even if the dead never rise. Then the Lord does not bring his reward to his saints at his coming; Rev. 22:12; then we do not wait for his appearing to receive a crown of glory; 1 Pet. 5:4; then we shall not be recompensed at the resurrection of the just; Luke 14:14; but at the day of death.
This truth stated by the Independent is one for which we have contended for years, namely, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul obscures the doctrine of the resurrection. Also that the apostles and early Christians highly prized the resurrection of the dead, but did not recognize the immortality of the soul. We would rather be in their company than in the company of modern innovators. We ask for “the old paths,” and inquire for “the good way” taught by the inspired servants of the Lord.
3. If Jesus rose from the dead, then the soul survives death! Now if anybody can show any necessary connection between these two ideas, we shall be glad to consider the method whereby it is shown. The statements of the Independent already considered prove that the apostles and early Christians did not consider the second as a consequent to the first. They knew that Jesus rose from the dead:—they did not know that the soul survives death. If the writers of the Bible did not know it, where have modern theologians learned it? The statement is contrary to all just reasoning. So far from the connection being necessary or true, the Independent itself declares that they highly prized one because they did not understand the other. And yet that paper says the one proves the other. We know not how to account for this inconsistency in a journal so able, except by the well-known truth that the advocacy of error tends to blindness.
4. The appearing of Jesus, after his death, proves the resurrection of the soul! This, in its strangeness, exceeds all the rest. When he appeared he said to his astonished disciples, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see.” If this proved “the resurrection of the soul,” it was a soul possessed of physical proportions; that had hands and feet; that feasted on broiled fish and honey comb. And what is the nature of a soul which is resurrected from death? It is not an immortal one. Death and resurrection are not predicated of immortal beings. We should decide that the Independent’s idea of an immortal soul is not exactly “orthodox,” but in the present confused state of popular theology we are at a loss to decide what orthodoxy is.
5. The early Christians, and perhaps Paul too, thought the coming of Christ was to be “physical, not spiritual.” Paul no doubt thought so, for he so taught, and when he wrote to his brethren that “the Lord himself shall descend with a shout,” he said it was “by the word of the Lord.” It was “this same Jesus,” and not an intangibility, or a principle, which shall come again. This method of mysticising the Scriptures is what has rendered null all the promises of Jesus' glorious return, and dissipated the glory of the resurrection, and for it substituted a principle of immortality of which the apostles and early Christians were ignorant. Unwittingly the Independent has set forth a sweeping indictment against modern orthodox theology. The inspired apostles, and the churches which enjoyed their instruction, did not have the clear and correct views of the coming of Christ and a future life which the church of the present day enjoys! Had Paul been taught “hermeneutics” under Prof. Stuart, and had the Thessalonians had the advantages to be derived from “International Sunday-school Lessons,” their views would have been different, no doubt, provided they had been willing to turn away from that which came “by the word of the Lord,” unto the words which man's wisdom teaches.
We give one more quotation from the Independent which does not need any comment:—
“Christ’s second coming will be very glorious. Just what and how and when it will be we do not know. We must not speculate. Christ did not know when on earth. Perhaps we are even now living (who knows?) in the beginning of his glorious coming. There are even now most magnificent evidences of his spiritual presence and sovereignty. The progress of a Christian civilization, the overthrow of false religions, the extension of missions, the suppression of slavery—what are these but shouts, voices, and trumps?”
Were not the Independent a paper of staid and sober deportment, we should think it meant to be “hugely facetious” in giving such a list of evidences of the already coming of Christ, and prefacing it with the words—“we must not speculate!” We are determined never to be surprised hereafter. U. S.
Can This be True?
By Editor
ON the camp ground in Fresno county we heard a story which may seem to be "sensational," and, if it is true, it will produce a profound sensation with a large class of people in the United States. It is so strangely horrible that we would not give it to the public, were it not that we think the public is entitled to the knowledge, and that there is a possibility and some probability of its being true. This is it:
A gentleman in Fresno county had a Chinaman in his service to whom he offered a cup of tea. The Chinaman refused to drink it. He insisted, and the other as persistently refused. Knowing the fondness of the Chinese for tea, he asked a reason for the refusal; and the other refused to tell. Becoming vexed at the obstinacy of the "heathen," he threatened; but it was of no avail—he would neither drink the tea nor give his reason for refusing.
His curiosity was thoroughly aroused, having heard strange stories about the preparation of tea for market, and he determined to ascertain the reason of the strange conduct of the Chinaman. His threats became so demonstrative that "Ah Sin" began to fear for his life, and agreed to tell if his questioner would promise not to tell the Chinamen, as they would surely kill him if it became known that he told it. He then made this statement: that it was the custom of the Chinese to send home—to China—the bodies of deceased friends; for safe transit and preservation the bodies were packed in tea; that this tea was dried, and prepared, and returned to the American market; that private marks were put upon the chests, and that Chinamen never drank tea in this country unless they knew how it was marked, or unless it was specially imported for their own use.
We give the following reasons for saying this is possibly true:—
1. It is a well-known fact that the Chinese send the bodies of their friends back to China; when they bury, it is only for a time, as the bones are exhumed and sent to the land of their nativity.
2. According to an analysis given in Chambers' Cyclopædia, tea contains 26 per cent. of tannin, and is therefore a suitable medium in which to convey animal remains.
3. We have not the least reason to doubt the sincerity and veracity of our informants.
4. It is well known that the Chinese are very careful in the use of tea, and that they use, mostly if not entirely, that which is put up and imported for their own especial use. Their best tea, if put on the market, would not sell here because of its great price.
We have now done only our duty in the matter. We cannot say that there is any truth in the statement, but we think there may be. And while it is barely possible that this may be so, it seems unnecessary to urge our readers to abstain from its use until they can at least be assured that they can use it with safety. They who understand the danger of taking into their systems exhalations from a cadaver will be slow to run any risk in this matter. If it be true, no one can tell or even imagine what diseases may have been engendered by the use of tea thus rendered poisonous.
When people refused to yield to arguments and facts concerning the use of the unclean carcass of the swine, science discovered the existence of trichina, and many were induced to refuse to eat the vile flesh because of the manifest danger. If, by placing this statement before our readers, they are induced to abstain from the use of tea, we shall have done them no injury, as its influence on the nervous system is such that its use can be of no possible benefit, but is a real detriment.
We have drank very little tea since the Chinese have dwelt in any considerable numbers in California. And for that little we shall continue to beg pardon of our stomach until this statement of the Chinaman is satisfactorily shown to be untrue.
Since writing the above we have received further information, and find that we have spoken very modestly where others speak confidently. Many Americans are firmly convinced that the tea in which dead bodies are carried to Asia is returned and put upon the American market. The bare idea is so horribly disgusting that we felt slow to give it credence. The finer instincts of the system must be stifled, and the appetite grossly abused, in any one who will run the risk of tasting of this filthiness, after learning of the danger.
Seventh Part of Time, or One Day in Seven.
Dr. JUSTIN EDWARDS, in the "Sabbath Manual," says the idea of the words six and seven, as used in the fourth commandment, is that of proportion; and this is the position of Mr. Preble and of all who claim that the Sabbath is merely the seventh part of time, and not the seventh day. But the word "seven" is not in the commandment, nor in any other passage of Scripture which speaks of the Sabbath. "Seventh" is always used, and this is an ordinal and not a proportional term. The words "sixth day" and "seventh day", are both used in Ex. 16; and if the assertion of Dr. Edwards will hold good in relation to "the seventh day" of Ex. 20, it will also in relation to the "the
sixth day" of Ex. 16. Indeed, his statement embraces both terms, and he asserts that they are both proportional.
There is a short method of testing the accuracy of the Dr.'s statement, as follows: If the seventh day means the seventh part of time or one day in seven merely, and not the order of its occurrence in the week, then the sixth day means the sixth part of time or one day in six, but does not indicate its position in the week. This is certainly true, if that theory is right, for it makes them both proportional.
We will now suppose we are in the wilderness. This is the sixth day. Moses says, To-morrow is the Sabbath of the Lord, or the seventh day. See verse 29. We take the first week of the falling of manna for our starting point, when, according to the statement of this chapter, the sixth day and the seventh stood together; the latter immediately following the former. Now let us follow out this "proportional" system. As each day has a cycle of its own, we must count the cycle of each from each. Of course the cycle of the sixth day commences this sixth day, while the cycle of the seventh day commences to-morrow. Then the second sixth part of time would come in six days from this, while the next seventh part of time would come in seven days from to-morrow, with one full day between them. On that intervening day the manna which they had gathered the day before would corrupt, because it was not the seventh day; neither could they gather a double portion on that day, for that was to be done only on the sixth day. Of course on that Sabbath they could have no food. The third sixth day would be followed by an interval of two days between that and the Sabbath; the fourth day, by an interval of three days, and so on to the sixth sixth day or sixth part of time, which would fall on the fifth seventh part of time. As this would be both sixth and seventh day, the cycles meeting here, one commandment would require them to gather a double portion of manna on that day, while the other would forbid their so doing! Nor could they have gathered any on the previous day for this anomalous sixth-seventh part of time, for that previous day was not a day on which they were permitted to do so. That this would be the case will be better seen by the following diagram:
The result would be the same in one more round, if the cycles were started on the same day. This surely traces this "proportional" idea to an absurd conclusion. But this is the legitimate conclusion of this seventh-part-of-time theory.
But there is another and still shorter method of showing the absurdity of this statement of Dr. Edwards, which is now followed by so many in their efforts to evade the truth on the Sabbath question.
If the terms sixth day and seventh day only mark proportions, then, also, the terms fifth day, fourth day, etc., only mark proportions. Who can deny this? Hence, as the seventh days means, not the seventh in order in the week, but the seventh part of time without regard to its place in the week, so the sixth day means the sixth part of time without regard to its position in the week. And, of course, the fifth day means simply the fifth part of time, coming regularly in five days; the fourth day means the fourth part of time; the third day, the third part of time; the second day is the second part of time, or every other day! while the first day is every day!!
With this argument from their premises, no fault can be found, and the conclusion is just and unavoidable.
But, answers our learned Dr., or whoever he may be that takes that position, this is a perversion; it destroys the week entirely, and subverts every calculation of time. Certainly; that is all very true; and you knew it when you started out on your false theory of proportional days.
Paul's Vision of the Third Heaven.
PAUL, in 2 Cor. 11, enumerates some of the labors and sufferings incident to his ministry. He speaks with modesty, but yet with distinctness, that himself was the man who endured this heavy burden of labor and suffering. But when he passes to his visions and revelations of the Lord, observe how guardedly he speaks. “I knew a man in Christ,” “such an one caught up to the third Heaven.” “I knew such a