IT is a historical fact that two hundred and eighty-two years before Christ, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek, at Alexandria in Egypt, and it there consisted of the same books that compose the Old Testament of to-day. “Whence it is evident that we still have those identical books which the most ancient Jews attested to be genuine.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.1

We shall not take up separately each book of the Old Testament, as that would extend this article further than would be proper, but only some of the leading ones, and as the writings of the whole Old Testament are so intimately connected, if we establish a portion of it, we confirm the validity of the whole.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.2

First we will notice the book of Daniel, and, as an introduction, offer a few lines from an editorial in the New York Independent:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.3

“A few years ago the critics with one voice refused to see anything in it [the book of Daniel] more than an apocalyptic composition of the date of Antiochus Epiphanes. Eichorn, Bertholdt, Gesenius, De Wette, Lengerke, Ewald, and Hitzig, with the more moderate as well as the rationalistic critics, agreed in its late date, some being so precise as to fix it at 167 B.C. ‘There never was any Belshazzar,’ they exclaimed, and we could bring nothing to corroborate our written record. The replies made to them were feeble and unsatisfactory. But the monuments of the kings of Babylon began to be read a few years ago.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.4

The critics could assert with a great deal of assurance, that “there never was any Belshazzar,” because, aside from the Bible, in none of the authorities on the subject, was there any Belshazzar named. Therefore, as the historians failed to mention him, “there never weas any” such king. But the Babylonian inscriptions make all plain, and exactly confirm the Bible account. They declare that Nabu-Nahid (Nabonadius) with an army took the field against Cyrus, and left Belshazzar, his eldest son, in command of the city. Nabu-Nahid, being defeated by Cyrus, was compelled to take refuge in Borsippa, and Cyrus went on against Babylon and Belshazzar, and the city, with Belshazzar, was taken, as recorded in Daniel 5.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.5

And this condition of affairs in Babylon is the only one that will agree with the record in Daniel; for Daniel was certainly made prime minister of the kingdom, the chain of gold being the insignia of that office. Yet for all his being prime minister, he is spoken of as the third ruler in the kingdom. Daniel 5:7, 16, 29. How can this be? Thus: Nabu-Nahid, the first ruler, Belshazzar his son, yet the third ruler. And in no other possible way can the records of Daniel be met; for his office was really the second in the kingdom. But how fully this illustrates the perfect accuracy of the Scriptures. Here is an important point in the history of Babylon, wholly passed over by the historians; yet Daniel records it exactly as it is, and after more than two thousand years the inscriptions of that king of Babylon declare that Daniel is correct.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.6

This also fixes the date of the book of Daniel to the time that has been claimed for it, because there is no other time in the world’s history when these points in Daniel could have been written. For shortly after, Babylon fell into decay and these inscriptions were buried out of sight, and the historians made no mention of any of them; consequently they never could have been learned afterward; therefore they were learned in Babylon at the time when they occurred, and thus the claims of the book of Daniel are correctly placed, and absolutely fixed, at the date 538 B.C. (For proofs as to Belshazzar, see “Encyclopedia Britannica,” ninth edition, article “Babylonia;” Rawlinson’s “Seven Great Monarchies,” Fourth Monarchy, chap. 8, par. 50.) The list of instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5, 7. 15, is another proof; for this “very list is true to the time of Daniel, and would never have been thought of three centuries later.” In short, “every historical or social allusion in Daniel is borne out by the facts discovered.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.7

The book of Ezekiel gives another instance of the exactness of the Bible writers, and of being true to the times in which it was written. In chap. 23:14, 15, we read: “For when she saw men portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea.” Of this also we may say that is it true to the time of Ezekiel in the captivity in Babylon; and would never have been thought of later, nor in any other country. In Egypt, in Assyria, in Persia, and in Greece, their art was displayed in sculpture. From the gems upon which the carving was so minute as to suggest the employment of a magnifying-glass, to the colossal bulls that guarded the palace of Nineveh from the entrance of evil spirits, all, all was sculpture. But in Babylonia it was far different.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.8

“While the Assyrians had stone in abundance, the Babylonians were obliged to import it from a distance. Brick-clay, on the contrary, lay read at hand. Where the Assyrians employed sculptured alabaster to ornament their buildings, the Babylonians contented themselves with enameled bricks, and painted plaster. Sculpture was naturally developed by the one; just as painting was by the other; and ornamentation, which could be lavished on the exterior in Assyria, had to be confined to the interior in Babylon.” (Compare Ezekiel 8:8-10 with the text quoted above.) “The few bas-reliefs of Babylon that exist are small and inferior in execution; but brilliant coloring and a lavish use of the metals, made up for this want. The walls were covered with the most costly materials, and ‘images portrayed with vermilion’ excited the admiration of the stranger. The love of bright colors, in contrast with the sober hues of the Assyrian palaces, led also to the cultivation of gardens; and the hanging gardens of Babylon, raised upon tiers of arches, were one of the wonders of the world.”—Enc. Brit., art. Babylonia.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.9

At no time in the world’s history later than this, could such a thing as Ezekiel describes be said of the Babylonians. For only a little while afterward the kingdom of Babylon was overthrown by the Medes and Persians, who took possession of it, and these Babylonish peculiarities were lost to the world. But how plainly these words of Ezekiel bring before us the Babylon of his day, when Nebuchadnezzar reigned, whose utmost endeavors were put forth in the building, and decoration of his capital city, when all the skill of his splendid artists was employed in blending the brilliant colors that ornamented the walls of his pleasant palaces, and Babylon sat as mistress of the world in that pitch of pride and grandeur, “the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency! And by all this we know of surety that the book of Ezekiel is exactly placed at B.C. 604-561.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.10

Now we turn to the books of Kings and Isaiah. In Isaiah 36:1 and 2 Kings 18:13, we read: “Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah did Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.” This is placed in our Bibles at the date 713 B.C., which does not exactly correspond with the Assyrian inscriptions, but is only twelve years out of the way, being that much too early. The native monuments state that Sennacherib ascended the throne the 12th of Ab (part of July and August), 705 B.C., and place his invasion of Judah in 701 B.C.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.11

In verse 14 of this same chapter in 2 Kings, we read:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.12

“And Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Judah, three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.13

This is the only record that the Bible makes of this point, and so far as the Bible goes we do not know wherein he had “offended,” nor why he should confess so readily, and offer to bear whatever Sennacherib should put upon him. Sennacherib, however, tells the whole story. The trouble arose as follows:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.14

The Philistine city of Ekron revolted from Assyrian rule, but Padi, their king, still retained his friendship for the king of Assyria, and so opposed the rebellion. Thereupon the Ekronites entered into negotiations with Ethiopia and Egypt and obtained promise of their help, and also seized Padi, made him prisoner, and sent him to Hezekiah for safe keeping. By thus accepting this charge, Hezekiah made himself a partner in the Ekronite rebellion. So after Sennacherib had defeated the Egyptians, recovered Ekron, and punished the leaders in the rebellion, he went up against Hezekiah, not only to compel him to release Padi, but to punish him for his offense. Then it was, and this is why it was, that Hezekiah confessed to Sennacherib, “I have offended.” A number of points could be given from Sennacherib’s narrative, every one confirming that in the Bible, but this one will confirming that in the Bible, but this one will suffice to show the perfect veracity of the Scripture account. For the full account see “Rawlinson’s Seven Great Monarchies,” Second Monarchy, chap. 9, par. 164-168; Geikie’s “Hours with the Bible,” vol. 4, chap. 17, par. 4-21.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.15

Again, in Isaiah 37:37, 38 and 2 Kings 19:36, 37, it is said: “So Sennacherib, king of Assyria, departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezar his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.” The inscriptions declare that Sennacherib was “building a palace for himself at Nineveh on a grander scale than had ever been attempted before. His works were interrupted by his murder, in 681, by his two sons, who, however, soon found themselves confronted by the veteran army of Esarhaddon, their fathers youngest and favorite son, who, in January, 680, defeated them at Khanirabbat, and was proclaimed king.”—Enc. Brit., art. Babylonia; Seven Great Monarchies, Second Monarchy, chap. 9, par. 193; Ancient Empires of the East, chap. 2, par. 36.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.16

Here, then, is the confirmation of every point in these Scriptures, and in this single instance the slight difference in the dates will bear nothing against the truthfulness of the narrative, nor against the general correctness of the time in which the books were written. Indeed, the Scripture narrative would seem to demand more time than is there given for these occurrences. The invasion, return, and dwelling, of Sennacherib, are all placed by the dates, within 710-9 B.C., which is hardly time enough, especially as it is said that he “returned and dwelt at Nineveh;” and this short period would hardly justify the statement that he dwelt there. But the native monuments remove all difficulty, by showing that he did actually dwell at Nineveh after his return, being employed in building a palace in honor of his god. In this, therefore, is proof that Isaiah and this part of Kings were written as far back as the former half of the seventh century B.C.SITI July 23, 1885, page 436.17

A. T. J.

(To be concluded next week.)

“Notes on the International Lesson. 1 Kings 17:1-16. Elijah the Tishbite” The Signs of the Times 11, 28, pp. 438, 439.

JULY 26—1 Kings 17:1-16

THE life of Elijah, up to the time of his translation, is the subject of the greater part of the lessons during the remaining part of the present quarter. It is well; for Elijah and his times form one of the most interesting subjects that can be studied by the people of the present day.SITI July 23, 1885, page 438.1

The very last words of the Old Testament are a prophecy concerning Elijah: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” Malachi 4:5, 6.SITI July 23, 1885, page 438.2

As they came down from the Mount of Transfiguration the disciples asked Jesus about this prophecy, as follows: “And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” Matthew 17:9-13.SITI July 23, 1885, page 438.3

According to these words of Christ, therefore, this prophecy referred to John the Baptist, and Luke gives a fuller view of its application to him. “But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Luke 1:13-17.SITI July 23, 1885, page 438.4

But this is not all that Elijah has to do with the work of the Lord Jesus. As this prophecy, fulfilled by John the Baptist referred to the times just preceding the first advent of the Saviour, so the times of Elijah, and Elijah himself, bear an important part in relation to the times just preceding the second advent of the Saviour and in connection with that advent itself.SITI July 23, 1885, page 438.5

In Matthew 17:1-5, Luke 9:28-35, and Mark 9:2-7, we have the account of the Saviour’s transfiguration, and all three agree in recording the fact that Elias (Elijah) and Moses were there talking with him. Nor were they simply the spirits of these two men. Luke says plainly, “There talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias [Elijah]; who appeared in glory,” etc. They were two glorified men therefore.SITI July 23, 1885, page 438.6

Now if we can learn what the transfiguration meant, then we can learn also what was the meaning of the appearance there of these two men. We turn to 2 Peter 1:16-18, and read: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 439.1

Here the apostle is writing of the coming of the Lord in his everlasting kingdom (verse 11), and says, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables” when they made known “the power and coming” of the Lord. Why have they not followed fables, that is, “made-up stories”? Because they “were eye-witnesses of his majesty,” as he shall then appear. When were they eyewitnesses of his majesty? Answer, “When we were with him in the holy mount.” When the voice came from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” What did they see there? Jesus “was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.” Matthew 17:2. “And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.” Mark 9:3. “Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them.” Matthew 17:5.SITI July 23, 1885, page 439.2

Is this the way Jesus will appear when he comes? “Behold he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him.” Revelation 1:7. “And they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of Heaven with power and great glory.” Matthew 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.” Isaiah 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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 439.3

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 Thessalonians 4:16, 17. It is plain, then, that when Jesus 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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 439.4

But this is not all, the experience through which Elijah passed just before his translation was also representative. His experience then is, in many points, an exact representation of that through which those will have to pass who shall be translated as he was. This experience will be the subject of several of the following lessons, and therein we shall endeavor to make the subject plain. Again we say the life of Elijah is one of the most important studies in which the people of the present day can be engaged.SITI July 23, 1885, page 439.5

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. Hebrews 2:14. He says, also, as we have quoted above, that it is at the voice of the archangel that the dead arise (1 Thessalonians 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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 439.6

A. T. J.

“Was Not Dr. Whedon a Spiritualist?” The Signs of the Times 11, 28, pp. 441, 442.

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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.1

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:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.2

“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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.3

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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.4

Next he tells us what death is, both in the brute and in man—both in the “temporality” and in the “perpetuity:“—SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.5

“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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.6

“With man it is the emergence of the human spirit from the body into the region of spirits.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.7

That is, in plain words, the death of a man is an emergence of the perpetuity.SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.8

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?SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.9

Next he tells us how the emergence of the perpetuity is performed. He says:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.10

“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 formation-conservative power loses its grasp upon the organism, and leaves it to disintegration.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.11

And that is exactly how it is done!SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.12

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:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.13

“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 paradissic 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 may thus pervades 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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 441.14

If that is anything else than sheep Spiritualism, we should like for some one to point it out.SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.1

Again:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.2

“Within the turbulence of our earthly atmosphere this celestial ether is a pure tranquility... No pestilence 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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.3

Swimming in a sea of solid ice, reposing in a bed of living lava, and that is “ethereal loveliness”!! O-h-h-h!!!SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.4

Another name that he gives this “specter,” this “perpetuity,” is as follows:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.5

“Among the angels they are angeloids.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.6

And—SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.7

“The angels wait upon the angeloids.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.8

As to whether this “specter” has a form, we are treated to the following sublime piece of “ethereal” wisdom:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.9

“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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.10

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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.11

That the perfect likeness between this and outright Spiritualism may be clearly seen we here subjoin three extracts from the Spiritualistic record of creation:—SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.12

“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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.13

“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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.14

“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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.15

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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.16

We repeat, it is nothing but downright Spiritualism. And this is the last heritage that this eminent “door 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,—SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.17

“It has been promptly seized upon by several of the professional mediums, and in some of this weeks’ [the first week in July] seances, forms, in semblance comporting with the conditions of his angeloids, have been shown to astounded disciples.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.18

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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.19

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 this church stand fully committed to the support of Spiritualism?SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.20

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 DeQuincey’s figure—is only “one of those ambitious fellows 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.”SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.21

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.SITI July 23, 1885, page 442.22

A. T. J.

July 16, 1885

July 30, 1885