Earlier text: Can the Old Testament Be Trusted?Christ’s Glorious Second Advent
Is THIS the way Jesus will appear when he comes? "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him." Rev. 1:7. "And they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory." Matt. 24:30. "He shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26. How great will be that glory? "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously." Isa. 24:23. Therefore according to Peter's words, these things are proof positive that when they saw the Lord Jesus transfigured—when they saw him standing on the mount with the glittering glory of God about him—they were then "eyewitnesses of his majesty" as he shall appear in his second advent to this world. Elijah and the Translated Saints
But what will occur when Jesus comes in his glory? "For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is plain, then, that when Jesus appears in glory, as Peter, James, and John saw him on the holy mount, the righteous living will be "changed," "caught up," translated, as was Elijah, and therefore when Elijah stood in glory, with his glorified Lord, in the picture of the coming of the Lord, which Peter, James, and John saw, he stood there as the representative of those who shall be translated at the coming of the Lord, as he was in the days of old. A. T. J
By Alonzo T. Jones
The question may arise, Why was Moses there? It is foreign from the lesson, yet so intimately connected with the line of Scripture which we have pursued, that it might be well to explain this point. The answer to the question is that Moses was there as the representative of the righteous dead, as Elijah was the representative of the righteous living. For we have seen that when Jesus comes the righteous dead are raised, as well as the righteous living translated. Now as the Scriptures make absolutely no provision for reaching life beyond this world, except by a resurrection from the dead, or a translation, as were Enoch and Elijah; and as Moses had died, it follows that as he, a man, stood in glory, on the Mount of Transfiguration, he was there by virtue of a resurrection from the dead. There is Scripture that shows this, Jude, in the ninth verse, says: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses." Now Paul says that the devil had the power of death, Heb. 2:14. He says, also, as we have quoted above, that it is at the voice of the archangel that the dead arise (1 Thess. 4:16); and we read in John 5:25 that it is the voice of the Son of God that will raise the dead; therefore the archangel of Jude 9 is the Son of God; as it is he alone who raises the dead; and as when one dies he goes into the power of the devil who has the power of death; when the Son of God went to raise Moses, the devil disputed his right. Mark, this is a dispute between the devil and the Son of God, about the "body of Moses." And as the body of Moses stood in glory on the Mount with the Son of God, we know that when he said to the devil, "The Lord rebuke thee," he took the body of Moses, in spite of the devil's dispute. And thus Moses stood on the Mount of Transfiguration, the representative of the righteous dead, as Elijah stood there the representative of the righteous living; and the Lord Jesus above all, as the one whose voice shall call both dead and living from this world to himself in glory, when he comes in his glory. The Teacher Should Know More
THERE is a vast deal more in every lesson than you can hope to teach your scholars; or than you ought to try to teach them. It is right for you to know more than you attempt to cause your scholars to know. Goethe, indeed says: "Nothing is worse, than a teacher who knows only as much as he has to make known to the scholar."—Sel. The Majority Is Not Always Right
The poorest reason that can be offered for doing a thing is, that "everybody does it." In the first place, that reason is never given when it is the truth. There are very few things in this world that everybody does do; and none of these are likely to be included in an excuse for doing a thing that has been called in question. But even if it is only the great majority that is intended by "everybody," the probability is—the presumption fairly may be—that that majority is in the wrong; for the highest standard of doing is rarely with the majority. In order to do right, one must be willing to be in a minority; unless, indeed, he counts himself in the majority by being all alone with God, on the side of God's choice.—S. S. Times. THE ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH
By Editor
IN our examination of the subject of "the church," we have considered it as an organization, also the method of organizing a church, which is very simple. The church is not a complex system, and simplicity in its organization is to be expected. We have considered the ordination of officers, their qualifications, and the extent of their authority and jurisdiction. Also church government, the reception of members, etc.; the necessity of discipline, and its administration. We come now to a consideration of THE ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH.
As a general thing but two ordinances of the church are recognized, namely, baptism and the Lord's Supper. It will be understood that this remark refers only to Protestant churches, for the Catholics have a number of sacraments which are not generally recognized as such by Protestants; and these are rejected with good reason for they are not derived from the Scriptures. Amongst these are confirmation, penance, marriage, and extreme unction. Marriage is not a church institution; it is not peculiar to Christianity; it does not belong specially to any class or nation. Both the Sabbath and marriage antedate Christianity, being instituted before the fall; and therefore they belong to mankind as the posterity of Adam. Giving marriage exclusively to one class (as the Catholics claim that it belongs to the church), is on a level with the common practice of giving the Sabbath exclusively to the Jews. There is just as much reason for one as for the other, which is, in fact, none at all. A few Protestant denominations accept three church ordinances, namely, baptism, the washing of feet, and the Lord's Supper. Among these denominations are the Seventh-day Adventists. The Free-will Baptists formerly held to the washing of feet; but quite recently they have lost their faith and practice in this respect. They may not all have discarded it; but we know that many have; and representative men among them are using their influence against it. Of these rites we will speak in order. It is quite uniformly believed that baptism is an initiatory rite; that is, that it is the rite by which we are inducted into the church. This view we accept. We do not hold that any person can be received into full fellowship, or can be fully a member of the church, until he is baptized. We do not know that there is any church which does not hold to this view except the Friend or Quaker, and the Universalist, which, however, we do not consider an "evangelical" church, as they reject the ordinances entirely as well as the very fundamentals of Christianity. And with these we might class certain "holiness bands" which are opposed to all organization and to all existing organizations, and which, also, entirely reject the ordinances of the church of Christ. We do not feel any very strong assurance that a body is entitled to the name of "a church of Christ" which so far ignores the authority of the Head of the church as to reject the ordinances which he instituted and commanded. As we do not purpose in these articles to give even an outline or synopsis of our faith, or any dissertation on doctrines, we shall make no extended comments on the subject of baptism. We shall give only a brief statement of the most material points; those who wish to examine at length our faith on this subject, we refer to our work on "Christian Baptism." 1. Baptism is the anglicized form of the Greek word which signifies "immersion." Almost all words may be used in a secondary sense; some have meanings quite remote from the primitive; but remote shades of meaning are not admissible in precepts or rules of obligation. Baptism, however, has not a variety of significations. It is used in figures or illustrations, but not so as to change the original meaning; indeed, if the original meaning be lost, or the word be given a new or unusual signification, then the force of the figure is entirely lost. Dr. Moses Stuart, of Andover (Presbyterian), has abundantly proved in his work on baptism, that its signification is immersion. We object to the use of the phrase, "a mode of baptism," as if there were different modes. There is a Greek word which signifies "to sprinkle," and it is never translated otherwise. It is never used in the Scriptures in reference to the ordinance of baptism. The saying that "sprinkling is a mode of baptism" is, in our estimation, equivalent to saying that "sprinkling is a mode of immersing!" Immersion only is baptism; sprinkling is not baptism at all. The figure used in regard to baptism is that of a burial and resurrection. This will show the correctness of our remark that the force of the figure is destroyed if the signification of the word be changed. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom. 6:4. Immersion will meet the idea of this text perfectly; pouring and sprinkling will not. Again: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him," etc. Col. 2:12. The same may be said of planting. "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Rom. 6:5. The instances of baptism verify our statement. (1) Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan. (2) "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water," etc. Acts 8:38, 39. The question as to the proper subjects of baptism is easily settled if we confine ourselves to the plain reading of the Scriptures, without forcing unnecessary inferences upon them. 1. The Saviour said to his apostles, in the commission which he gave to them: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16. There is no hint of baptizing any who do not believe. 2. "Then they that gladly received the word were baptized." Acts 2:41. This is in harmony with the preceding text. 3. "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. . . . And rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Acts 16:32-34. Repentance is closely associated with faith. Repentance is a turning, or reformation of life, and without faith there can be no reformation, for without Christ we can do nothing. John 15:5. Without faith it is not possible to please God. Heb. 11:6. And without an amendment of life there is no genuine faith, for faith without works is dead. James 2:17, 20. And as faith, so repentance precedes baptism. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Acts 2:38. And this conforms to the order laid down by John the Baptist in his ministry, which Mark sets forth as "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." Mark 1:1. John said: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance." And the record says they "were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Matt. 3:6, 11. It would certainly be contrary to the Scriptures to baptize any one who refused to repent, and who had no faith; it would be a solemn mockery. We believe that it is also outside of all Scripture warrant, and only a mockery to baptize any who have never sinned, and who have not capacity to either repent or to believe. As baptism is a requirement, a rite commanded in the Scriptures, it is a nullity if administered to one who does not or cannot recognize the requirement, or the obligation to obey. And now, inasmuch as they who believe in and practice what they designate the baptism of infants, also believe that it is not allowed to repeat the ordinance, we believe that it is doubly wrong to baptize infants. For, (1) It is outside of the Scripture requirement, and therefore unauthorized, or will worship. (2) It deprives the person to whom it has been administered of the privilege of obeying the commandment to be baptized when it becomes of sufficient age to repent and believe. In baptism, an infant does not obey the precept of the Saviour; and that must be wrong, and offensive to the Head of the church, which renders it impossible for an individual to obey the Saviour's commandment, when he learns and feels the obligation. These, in brief, are the reasons why we believe that penitent believers, and they only, are proper subjects of baptism. Some have styled it an ordinance for "adult believers," but incorrectly, as age has nothing to do with the proper administration of the ordinance. Children who are old enough to know and to feel that they are sinners, and that they need a Saviour, and who trust his love and his grace, may and should be baptized. And no one can determine at what age this is possible. It may be at a quite early age, and each individual case must be determined by and for itself. Having presented baptism as the subject of a divine commandment, as all must admit that it is, but little more need be said as to its importance; for who or what can add to the importance of a commandment of the Lord? The commission of the Saviour includes it; the first sermon under that commission, specially inspired for the occasion, enjoins it; and all reference to it by the apostles shows their high regard for this part of the gospel. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Here is a precious promise—a large assurance—to the faithfully obedient. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you." This places it entirely outside of optional matters. It is not a question of education, or convenience, or preference, or feeling. It is a matter of law and of obedience only. But further: "If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Another blessed assurance, based upon obedience to the divine requirement. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal. 3:27. We have no time at present to comment on this text. But every word of it conveys an idea of the importance of this subject. It has been suggested that a larger number may be gathered into the church if each one be allowed to act according to his own preference and feelings in such matters. We do not doubt it. There will be no difficulty in raising a large church if each be allowed to come in on the basis of feeling or personal preferences, without strict regard to the teachings of the word of God. But he who comes in on his own way or by his own method, will insist on having his own way after he comes in! The church then may be large, but it is sure to be weak, selfish, and disorderly. Human Ignorance vs. Divine Knowledge.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LAST week, in the article entitled "The Sabbath in Eden," we showed that Gen. 2:3 is an explicit declaration that the seventh day was sanctified immediately following God's rest upon it at the close of creation, and that to sanctify means to set apart, to appoint; so that we have the inspired record that, in Eden, God decreed that man should observe the seventh day as the Sabbath. We cannot be so sure that George Washington commanded the American army during the war of the Revolution, as we are that in Eden God appointed the seventh day to be kept by all mankind. For the knowledge of that, we are dependent on human evidence, while this fact is made known to us "by inspiration of God." "To make the passage of any value as proof in this matter, it must be assumed that Genesis was an historic book, coming down from patriarchal times."
It makes no difference when the book of Genesis was written, so far as this case is concerned. The Doctor might as well have said that we cannot know that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, because Moses was not there to see it done, and to make the record on the spot. The reader must remember that Gen. 2:3 is not the commandment for Sabbath observance, but is simply the inspired record that such a commandment had been made. The patriarchs were not dependent on the record in Genesis, for their knowledge of the Sabbath, any more than the early colonists were dependent on "Ridpath's History of the United States," for their knowledge of the wars with the Indians or with Great Britain. We do not need a history to inform us of that in which we are actors. The lives of three men—Adam, Methusaleh, and Shem—reach from the creation to Isaac. Methusaleh was two hundred and forty-three years old when Adam died, Shem was ninety-seven years old when Methusaleh died, and Isaac was fifty years old when Shem died. There certainly was opportunity enough for the patriarchs to know of the appointment of the Sabbath in Eden, even though no records were kept. Dr. Cunningham Geikie, in his "Hours with the Bible," vol. 1, chap. 20, paragraph 9, speaking of the call of Abraham, says:— "No details are given of the creed of Abraham, but, in addition to his confession of the one only living God, it must have included all that was true in the popular beliefs of Chaldea. This would imply his knowledge of the Sabbath; for the seventh day, by a tradition handed down from Eden, was 'holy,' in his Eastern native land, and was honored by the cessation of all work on it."
Dr. Geikie says that even the heathen had at that time preserved the tradition of the Sabbath from Eden; but whether they did or not, it is beyond controversy that the patriarchs knew all about the sanctification of the Sabbath in Eden. But even if it were possible that they did not, their ignorance would not in the least affect the fact, for we have the word of the Lord for it, that the seventh-day Sabbath was set apart in Eden. Our relation to the Sabbath of the Lord must be regulated by his commandment concerning it, and not by somebody else's knowledge or lack of knowledge, nor by the time its institution was recorded. Again we quote from Dr. Dobbs:— "Just here it may be well to state that the Jewish Talmud, so scholars tell us, knows nothing of any ante-Mosaic Sabbath. Their doctors universally date the Sabbath from the Mosaic legislation, generally referring its commencement to Ex. 15:25: 'There he made a statute,' etc."
We have never read the Talmud, so we, with Dr. Dobbs, must depend for a knowledge of its contents, on what "scholars tell us." Grant that the Talmud knows nothing of an ante-Mosaic Sabbath, and what does it prove? Nothing. Whether the Talmud knows anything about the Sabbath either before or after Moses, or whether it does not, matters not one whit. The Bible knows all about it, and it tells us in unmistakable language. We derive our knowledge of our duty to God, not from the Talmud, but from the Bible. If one honest man bears witness on a given point, the fact that a dozen other men know nothing about it does not overthrow his evidence. In other words, one man's knowledge of a fact, cannot be made of no effect by another one's ignorance. If all the man-made books in the world ignored the Sabbath, or knew nothing about its institution, it would make no difference; God's book remains unchanged. But what of the statement that "their doctors universally date the Sabbath from the Mosaic legislation, generally referring its commencement to Ex. 15:25: 'There he made a statute,' etc." The preceding paragraph answers this statement also. If it were true that "their doctors" referred the institution of the Sabbath to the time when the Israelites were at Marah, that would not make it true, when the inspired record plainly tells us that it was instituted at creation. It is not an unheard-of thing for "doctors" to be mistaken. We have known doctors to say, in the face of the statement in Gen. 2:3, that God never blessed the seventh day; and we were presumptuous enough to believe the Bible in preference to the doctors. Whatever the Talmud may or may not say concerning an ante-Mosaic Sabbath, Josephus says:— "Accordingly Moses says that in just six days the world and all that is therein was made; and that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations;—whence it is that we celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath."—"Antiquities," Book 1, chap. 1, section 1.
It is a matter for curiosity, how a man who can see no proof whatever for Sabbath observance, in Gen. 2:3, which speaks directly on the point, can find in Ex. 15:25 evidence of its institution, when the latter text makes no hint of the Sabbath. But the human mind, when controlled by prejudice, is not subject to laws. We have space in this article for just one more quotation:— "It is worthy of remark also that no Christian 'Father,' among the writings which have come down to us from the first three centuries, ever based the observance of the Lord's day [by this term the Doctor means Sunday] upon either the fourth commandment or a primeval and patriarchal Sabbath law."
And it is also worthy of remark that that indicates the good sense of the "Fathers," more than anything which they did write. They did well not to base Sunday observance upon the fourth commandment, nor upon any other commandment found in the Bible. It would be well if some of their successors in the Christian church would be as discreet. It is true that the "Fathers" did not base the observance of Sunday on the fourth commandment, but that need not hinder us from basing the observance of the seventh day, Saturday—the true Lord's day—upon that commandment. The reader will notice that thus far all of Dr. Dobbs's argument against the Sabbath has been negative—consisting of what certain ones do not know about the Sabbath. In our next we shall examine what he claims to know about it. Was Not Dr. Whedon a Spiritualist?
By A. T. J.
D. D. WHEDON, D. D., was one of the foremost men of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. He was an authoritative commentator, and an editor of leading Methodist periodicals. He died lately, and left to the world a heritage of which we think the Methodist Church can by no means be proud. We refer to his theory of the soul—the specter as he called it—which is as bald Spiritualism as anything that we have ever seen outside of the ranks of downright Spiritualism itself. In fact it is recognized, and has been taken up, by Spiritualists, as embodying the very views which they have all along maintained, on the nature of spirits. We propose to lay before our readers some of Dr. Whedon's expressions. We have no expectation that anybody can understand them, any more than they can understand the frog-like mutterings of the spirits, but we give them, all the same, for in this peculiarity is one of the most striking likenesses to Spiritualism. Yet we shall do our best to explain. Some time ago he contributed to the New York Independent an article on "The Specter in the Brain," and now since his death another article from him, entitled "The Vanishing Specter," appeared in the Independent of June 25, which he introduces thus:— "In our late article, entitled "The Specter in the Brain," we inferred from analysis of the combined properties of the brute body and soul, compared with those of the human body and spirit, that the former were a united temporality, derived immediately from the earthly, and the latter a perpetuity derived immediately from God." So the brute "body and soul" are a "united temporality," and the human body and spirit are "a perpetuity." But he does not tell us whether the latter are a united perpetuity or a divided perpetuity, and that is the very thing about which we are anxiously concerned. Next he tells us what death is, both in the brute and in man—both in the "temporality" and in the "perpetuity":— "With the brute, death is a vanishing of the specter, an evaporation of the terrene soul, and its return to the world-soul whence it originated." "With man it is the emergence of the human spirit from the body into the region of spirits." That is, in plain words, the death of a man is an emergence of the perpetuity. We have no doubt that it is absolutely essential that this distinction between the death of brutes and men should always be kept clearly defined. For, now that Dr. Whedon has experienced an emergence of the perpetuity, who should ever be able to tell us what dire disaster might follow if this distinction should become confused in the minds of men, and they should speak of the death of a man as, The evaporation of the perpetuity, or, The emergence of the temporality? Next he tells us how the emergence of the perpetuity is performed. He says:— "The process of death with the redeemed man is a struggle of the spirit with the body to make its divine ascent. As it recedes, the formative-conservative power loses its grasp upon the organism, and leaves it to disintegration." And that is exactly how it is done! Now he goes on to tell us what becomes of the "perpetuity" after its emergence—what becomes of the "formative-conservative power" after it has left the "organism" to "disintegration." He says:— "Emerging from the body, the spirit awakes into the pure ether of the region of bodiless spirits. This blessed atmosphere, we conceive, is, as it were, within the atmosphere of our outside troublous worlds. For there are worlds within worlds, enfolding and pervading each other without impeding, just as light can, without obstruction, pervade our earthly atmosphere. This paradisate ether is an effluence from the divine essence, and the emancipated spirit bathes and swims and lives therein as his own native and genial element. Paradise may442 thus pervade our air above and around us, and, at death, the spirit enters thereinto as through a veil. Within that veil is the true world, of which our outside world is the coarse, hard shell, the crude repulsive bark." If that is anything else than sheer Spiritualism, we should like for some one to point it out. "Within the turbulences of our earthly atmosphere this celestial ether is a pure tranquility. . . . No pestilences infect, no darkness obscures, no Arctic icebergs can freeze, no volcanic fires can consume, even if the spirit nature were susceptible of such evils. But so transcendent is his substance that he can swim in the glacier without chill, and repose in the lava bed and suffer no heat. . . . By a blessed concord of the infinite and finite wills is this ethereal loveliness created." Swimming in a sea of solid ice, reposing in a bed of living lava, and that is "ethereal loveliness"!! O-h-h-h!!! Another name that he gives this "specter," this "perpetuity," is as follows:— "Among the angels they are angeloids." "The angels wait upon the angeloids." As to whether this "specter" has a form, we are treated to the following sublime piece of "ethereal" wisdom:— "Of all definite existences, there must be limitations. There certainly is a localization within us of the mental essence. It has a presence where it is; and it has an absence where it is not. And between the two, its being and not being, there must be a boundary line or separating margin, and so an approach to form. . . . Our human bodies are bounded or, as we may say, surfaced, by a skin. But the spirit is surfaced, and its individuality and continuity of self-hood are secured, by its own volitions." There, with that, we shall stop; there is plenty more of the same kind, but this is certainly enough. We do not wonder that he died—that there was an emergence of his perpetuity—shortly after writing that article. Such "absolute sweetness," such "ethereal loveliness," is too utterly transcendent for this world. That the perfect likeness between this and outright Spiritualism may be clearly seen we here subjoin three extracts from the Spiritualistic record of creation:— "And God said, Let Mechanical Procedure be! and movement, rhythmical, harmonical, melodial, unfolded from the firmament. And the movement thereof in the moving creation was time." "And God said, Let there be space! and the firmament was separated from the emanation, and the firmament, unmoved, appeared, and the emanation unfolded within the procedure. And the firmament is manifest Infinitude, and the emanation, separated, is encompassed space." "And God said, Let there be light! and the Divine Procedure unfolded a luminary unto the ethereal which divided the emanation from the firmament. And the intelligence was light." Now if there is anybody that can detect any difference between Dr. Whedon's "divine volitional effluence," and the Spiritualist's "divine procedure;" between Dr. Whedon's "evaporation of the terrene soul," and the Spiritualist's "emanation unfolded within the procedure;" or between Dr. Whedon's spirit whose "individuality and continuity of self-hood are secured by its own volitions," and the Spiritualist's "movement, rhythmical, harmonical, melodial" which "unfolded from the firmament," we should like to have them do it. We repeat, it is nothing but downright Spiritualism. And this is the last heritage that this eminent "doctor of divinity" has left to the world. And Spiritualism, its natural heir, has not delayed to claim it. Every Spiritualist paper that we have seen since Dr. Whedon's article was published, has welcomed it, and the New York Dispatch says that,— "It has been promptly seized upon by several of the professional mediums, and in some of this week's [the first week in July] seances, forms, in semblance comporting with the conditions of his angeloids, have been shown to astounded disciples." Just here another question arises. The Spiritualists seize upon this as the embodiment of their views of the death of all men. Dr. Whedon, it seems, uses it in reference only to "redeemed men," yet even this is a question. On the supposition, however, that it has reference solely to the "emergence of the perpetuity" of redeemed men, what is the process in the case of an unredeemed man. If the spirit of a redeemed man, "emerging from the body, awakes into the pure ether of the region of bodiless spirits," "into this paradisaic ether which is an effluence of the divine essence," then into what does the spirit of an unredeemed man awake, when it emerges from the body? Dr. Whedon says nothing about this side of the question. Therefore if the Spiritualists are not justified in applying Dr. Whedon's theory in the death of all men, will some of Dr. Whedon's associates show where and how the line should be drawn between the "emergence of the perpetuity" of a redeemed man, and that of an unredeemed man? And if such line cannot be drawn, then does not Dr. Whedon, does not this representative man of the Methodist Church, in his very latest testimony to the world, stand committed to the veritable support of Spiritualism? But will the Methodist Church allow that, in this, Dr. Whedon is a representative man? If it will not, it surely is strictly in order for it to say so, and that with no faltering voice. But if the Methodist Church does allow that in this Dr. Whedon is a representative man, then does not that church stand fully committed to the support of Spiritualism? And yet all this scheme of Dr. Whedon's is simply the logical outcome of the immortal-soul theory. And the wave which he has raised—to borrow Dr. Quincy's figure—is only "one of those ambitious billows which sometimes run far ahead of their fellows in a tide steadily gaining ground, marking only the strength of that tendency which sooner or later is destined to fill the whole capacity of the shore." As for us we take the Bible and its great doctrine of immortality through Christ alone; and this, not by the vanishing of a specter, but by the resurrection of the dead. Catholic Support for Woman Suffrage
By Editor
THE Brooklyn Catholic Examiner quotes with the highest approval an article in the North American Review, from Bishop Spalding, advocating Woman Suffrage. It says: "The smart men of the press may laugh at the idea of woman suffrage, but we are not sure that it is a thing to be laughed at. . . . The world moves. The end is not yet, and he is a rash prophet who would say that women will not some time have a voice in the Government of the land for which they bear and educate rulers." Without a doubt the thing will eventually be accomplished; and when it is, if the Catholic Examiner is consistent, it will advocate the appointment of women as bishops, etc.