IMMORTALITY PROVED
BY THE
TESTIMONY OF SENSE:
IN WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED
THE DOCTRINE OF SPECTRES,
AND THE
EXISTENCE OF A PARTICULAR SPECTRE.
ADDRESSED TO THE CANDOR
OF THIS
ENLIGHTENED AGE.
[Illustration: decorated line]
BY ABRAHAM CUMMINGS.
[Illustration: decorated line]
PORTLAND:
PUBLISHED BY J. L. LOVELL.
N. A. Foster, Printer, No. 58 Exchange Street.
1859.
IMMORTALITY PROVED,
By phenomena that were witnessed by hundreds, in the town of Sullivan,
Maine, in the year 1800. Published by an eye-witness, the REV. ABRAHAM
CUMMINGS, a man eminent in learning and piety--a graduate of Harvard
University.
Republished, _verbatim et literatum_, by J. L. LOVELL, Yarmouth, Me.
IMMORTALITY PROVED
BY THE
TESTIMONY OF SENSE.
[Illustration: decorated line]
SECTION I.
_The arguments considered which oppose the doctrine of Spectres._
Among the opinions of the present day, which render it neither clear
nor dark, is that of materialism, which maintains the position that
all exercises of the mind are the exercises of matter more or less
refined and organized: Therefore, when this material organization
ceases, all cogitation must cease: Body and soul, life and intelligence
die together. Thought, and the capacity of thought have no existence
between death and the last day. Now if this position and inference
be true, the doctrine of Spectres is overthrown at once. Sure we may
be that what never exists can never really appear, however I may be
deluded by my own imagination, or the artifice of others. This position
therefore, before we proceed, demands particular discussion.
If thought be the entire effect of material form, and excellent thought
of excellent form, as these philosophers seem to suppose, it follows
that the more excellent the body is the more excellent will be the
mind. But facts shew the contrary. The goose, which sometimes appears
in elegant human form, we despise; while we admire the fables of Æsop
and the sublime verse of that poet, who was told what is the mark of
interrogation. “But although the externals of body may be deformed,
yet the internals of it may be well organized and refined.” What says
the anatomist respecting the ourang outang? “Not only the externals,
but the internals of his body resemble those of man, particularly
the tongue and the brain. There appears no difference between them;
yet the animal is dumb and has not so much sagacity even to provide
for herself as the elephant or the beaver.” However certain laws
and dispensations of Divine Providence, accommodated to the rude
apprehensions of mankind in early ages, punished the posterity of
sinners; yet it is one of the first dictates of reason as well as
of a better covenant, that justice does not require any person to
be rewarded or punished for the virtues or vices of another.[1] If
soul and body die together; if all intelligence and cogitation cease
from that moment to the last day, what becomes of personal identity
and accountability? The essence of personality is intelligence.
Every intelligent being is a person, and every person an intelligent
being.[2] Therefore the uninterrupted continuation of any particular
intelligence, necessarily implies his personal identity; whatever body,
or whatever garment he may, or may not, happen to wear. Therefore,
premising deference, personal identity does not necessarily comprise
the whole man, soul and body, as Dr. Watts supposes, nor is it the mere
consciousness of my past and present experience compared, as Mr. Locke
supposes; for this my very consciousness presupposes that existence
of which I am conscious. I may have committed faults and performed
virtuous actions in time past, which now I do not remember, and
therefore not conscious of them; still those actions were mine, whether
I am conscious of them or not, and so far as any one can prove them to
be mine, so far he can prove me to be the same person that I was in
the time when those actions were performed. For more instruction, the
reader may consult that excellent dissertation of Bishop Butler, on
this topic; from which I extract a few lines: “As upon two triangles
being compared or viewed together, there arises to the mind the idea
of similitude; or upon twice two and four, the idea of equality--so
likewise upon comparing the consciousness of one’s self in any two
moments, there immediately arises to the mind the idea of personal
identity. And as the two former comparisons not only give us the ideas
of similitude and equality, but also shew us that two triangles are
alike, and twice two and four are equal--so the latter comparison not
only gives us the idea of personal identity, but also shows us the
identity of ourselves in those two moments, that is, the present and
that immediately past; or the present and that of a month, a year, or
twenty years past. Or in other words, by reflecting upon that which
is myself now, and that which was myself twenty years ago, I discern
they are not two, but one and the same self. But the consciousness of
what is past, does thus ascertain our personal identity to ourselves,
yet to say that it _makes_ personal identity, is to say that a person
has not existed a single moment, nor done one action but what he
can remember, and none but what he reflects upon. And one should
really think it self evident that consciousness of personal identity
presupposes, and therefore cannot _constitute_ personal identity, any
more than knowledge in any other case can constitute the truth which it
presupposes.”
If this account of personal identity be just, then, by the doctrine
here opposed, death puts an end to it. Affection, thought,
intelligence, consciousness, all are no more, and therefore the person
is no more. And as he is no more, nothing can be his. Now existence is
entitled to no reward, deserves no punishment: is guilty of nothing
and accountable for nothing. In a future day something may be raised
up just like him in body and natural faculties of mind. But for this
something, creation, not resurrection, is the appropriate term. Now can
we conceive that the person struck entirely out of existence a thousand
years ago, and this person newly created in his likeness, should be
one and the same? No, we can as well conceive that two small houses
built a thousand miles apart, and entirely resembling each other, are
one and the same house. These new persons, if they reason, as some of
us do, will think it somewhat strange that they should be accountable
for crimes said to have been committed by them long before they were
created. This doctrine, however, affords comfort and encouragement to
all distinction of sinners in this world. Our punishment in a future
state, say they, will not be inflicted upon _us_, (for after death we
shall exist no more) but upon our representatives who shall bear our
names, and be made to think that they were we. Let us then eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die. Let us imitate those noble animals around
us, which innocently deceive, kill and take possession; for to-morrow
we shall exist no longer. What a foul reproach then does this doctrine
exhibit against the wisdom and equity of the righteous Governor of
the world? We now attend to the language of scripture respecting this
opinion. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is grounded on the
hypothesis that some persons are happy or miserable in the separate
state, while others are living in the present world. The text, “Absent
from the body and present with the Lord,” by the subtle philosophy
of this enlightened age, signifies that after we, as persons, have
been annihilated for some ages, a number of new persons, just then
created, who shall be our very selves, will be present with the Lord.
But in view of the simple christian, who knows but little, the plain
meaning of the text is, that in the very same hour and minute, while
we are absent from this corruptible body, we are present with the
Lord. Such an ignorant christian is not able to conceive how a person,
and a similar person residing on the two opposite shores of the vast
duration of nihility, can be one and the same person, any more than to
conceive how a person and a similar person, residing at the same time
on the opposite shores of the vast Atlantic, can be one and the same
person. Our Lord said to the penitent thief, “This day shalt thou be
with me in paradise;” that is, before the close of this natural day
thou shalt be with me in heaven. So the penitent thief in his state
of ignorance would naturally understand it. But Priestlian subtilty
requires this paraphrase, “This day shalt thou die, soul and body,
and remain personally annihilated about two thousand years.” Then
a person entirely new shall begin to exist, and shall erroneously
imagine that within a few months he had committed a theft, that within
a few hours he had been crucified, and obtained a promise which was
now completely fulfilled. All this deception will take place, because
he will be you. However, by intercourse with others, he and you will
discover these chronological errors, and that those things which you
had done, suffered and enjoyed, took place about two thousand years
before you, that is, before the second you, existed. It was well
for the thief that he knew not, and believed not, this paraphrase;
otherwise that promise would have been a poor, cold consolation to
him. The Sadducees denied the resurrection, and the existence of angel
and spirit, and their denial of the former was grounded on their
denial of the latter. They seemed to admit, that, if spirits existed
in a separate state, they might assume bodies. But as there _were_ no
such spirits in their view, the inference was certain, that no such
transition could take place. Therefore the argument of our Saviour
attacked the very foundation of their theory, by shewing that the
patriarchs, though dead for many years, and their bodies not raised,
were still alive, while Moses stood at the burning bush.[3] Our Lord
cited these words, addressed to Moses at that time, “I am the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;” and then says,
“God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto
him.” That is to say, they do not live unto man. In his natural view,
they are dead in every respect. They see no life in his body, nor any
where else; still they live unto God. In his view they have life,
thought, affection and intelligence. Therefore those dead patriarchs
were alive at the time when Moses beheld the burning bush. “Fear not
them which kill the body, saith our Lord, but are not able to kill the
soul.”[4] But why? What is the reason they are not able to kill the
soul? If soul and body die together--if death destroys the essential
properties of the soul as well as of the body, certainly they, who are
able to kill the body, are able to kill the soul. But the words now
cited were uttered by him who could not err; and for the writer it is
impossible to conceive how words could be framed to make a proposition
more plain and intelligible. But in this age of light and darkness,
many, who believe in immortality and the separate state, utterly deny
that any departed soul ever returns or becomes visible to our bodily
eyes. Of this persuasion are the authors of the American Cyclopedia.
Their arguments, which demand attention, are the following: The first
argument contemplates the ignorance and vulgarity associated with the
opinion which maintains the existence of Spectres. “It is true there
were many Christians in former times, who gave full credit to such
narratives; these were times of great ignorance and superstition. But
since philosophy and christianity have walked hand in hand, the faith
of ghosts has been more and more renounced, invariably.” So it seems
that if a pious man has learning enough, he is perfectly secure from
all such delusions. But is this representation entirely consonant with
facts? That christian literature has invariably renounced this opinion
is by no means correct. Not only was the faith of Spectres supported
by some of the most learned and eminent characters of antiquity, but
moderns, illustrious both in theology and philosophy, even since the
Protestant Reformation, have given their decided opinion in favor
of this doctrine. Among others, are Doctor Lightfoot, Mr. Flavel,
Mr. Hervy, Mr. Addison, Doctor Samuel Johnson, and the excellent Mr.
Swedenbourg. Will it be proved that all these modern names are entirely
ignorant either of theology or philosophy?
“What more frequent in times of popery than apparitions? Says President
Mather, it would fill a volume to rehearse them; yet we may not run
into the other extreme, that all such reports have no reality.” But
what do philosophers know respecting this affair more than other
people? What lesson in the whole circle of science has ever determined
the question, whether sounds or forms were ever produced by unembodied
spirits? What ancient Sadducee or modern materialist has ever yet
proved that the human thoughts have not a separate existence by
vehicle, or in some other way?
Had our authors told us that the belief of Spectres has been rejected
invariably wherever philosophy and modern infidelity have gone hand in
hand, the sentence would have been perfectly accurate. The christian
world affords no infidel who would not ridicule the following letters.
We see an age of light and darkness--of improvement and misimprovement.
Ignorance is supported, when we believe too much, or when we believe
too little. And a wise mariner will stand aloof both from Scylla and
Charybdis--from the prejudice of superstition and the prejudice of
modernism.
The foundation of theology is the Sacred Scriptures, and there we find
the doctrine of apparitions. Samuel appeared to Saul when he applied
for advice to the witch of Endor.[5] There is however no proof that his
appearance was the effect of her own power. Two things terrified her:
one was the discovery of Saul; the other was, Aliem, a god, rising out
of the earth. How could she be terrified merely by the expected effect
of her own invention? It is most reasonable to suppose that the event
exceeded her expectation--that Samuel really appeared--not to flatter
Saul by a sentence of double meaning, like the heathen oracles; but to
speak like himself--to reprove Saul for coming there, and to denounce
that terrible sentence upon him and his house, which might naturally be
expected from that faithful prophet.
When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea, they were troubled,
saying, it is a spirit, and they cried out for fear; but his answer
was, “Be of good cheer, it is I; be not afraid.” Here we see the
disciples believed the existence of Spectres, and here was a fair
opportunity for our Lord to teach them the contrary. But he did not
thus improve it: for after his resurrection they discovered the same
opinion. He asked one of them to handle him; not to disprove their
opinion, but to prove his resurrection. Some time after this, Peter,
miraculously delivered from prison, knocked at the house of Mary, where
many were gathered for prayer. The damsel Rhoda, constantly affirmed to
them that she heard Peter’s voice. Then said they, “It is his angel.”
Thus their opinion continued the same through the fairest opportunities
of their being taught otherwise by unerring wisdom. But they had never
read Voltaire, nor Hume’s observation on the Sprights of the British
Fathers.
ARG. 2. “When the Scriptures were written and published, and the
christian religion fully established, revelation ceased, and miracles
and heavenly messages were no longer requisite.”
How do they know? How _can_ they know these matters, unless by the
Scriptures? And where do they say, that after the establishment of
christianity, miracles and heavenly messages should be no longer
requisite? It is believed that no such passage can be found.
It was the full persuasion of Mr. Addison, that the power of working
miracles continued in the church many years after the Apostolic age. He
informs us that learned christians of those times, “Confidently assert
this miraculous power; nay, tell us that they themselves had been eye
witnesses of it at several times and in several instances. Nay, appeal
to the heathen themselves for the truth of several facts they relate;
nay, challenge them to be present at their assemblies, and satisfy
themselves, if they doubt it; nay, we find that pagan authors have in
some instances confessed this miraculous power.”[6]
Doubtless the Scriptures contain rules sufficient for salvation. And
every opposite rule, though preached by an angel, must be rejected; and
the same was true of the Old Testament before the New was revealed.
But it will by no means follow that no succeeding age of the world
can afford an occasion for any miracle or heavenly message which is
_consistent_ with the Scriptures. That “the whole will of God is
revealed in the Scriptures,” as it respects our general conduct, is
doubtless true; and the same was true of the law of Moses, as it
respected the general conduct of Israel in the days of the Judges. He
was pronounced cursed, who took away or added thereunto. But hence it
did not follow that an angel could not appear to Manoah and his wife,
promise them a child, and give directions concerning his education. To
say that the whole will of God is so revealed in the Scriptures, that
no case whatever can require any extraordinary exhibition of his will,
is to say what is never said in that sacred volume, and is no better
than begging the question.
There may be miracles and heavenly messages without innovation of
Scripture doctrine or worship. “To say that God does not send his
angels to any of his saints to communicate his mind unto them, as to
some particulars of their own duty _according to his word_, seems in my
judgment, says the great Doctor Owen, to limit unwarrantably the Holy
One of Israel.”
ARG. 3. “Can we suppose that the all-wise Governor of the world would
permit his angels to render themselves visible to the eye of man, for a
purpose which might have been equally well accomplished without their
interposition?”
This question is very easy. Another might appear more difficult. Have
our authors such perfect knowledge of the universal system, that they
can certainly tell us what purposes can be equally well accomplished
without the interposition of angels, as with it?
The hairs of the head and the smallest animalculæ are numbered; so are
all events. Small events by connection are frequently great events. If
therefore, the purposes for which a spirit is said to appear, are as
small and trivial as can be conceived of, it would by no means follow
that the message did not come from the invisible state. That which
appears very trivial in our view, may appear vastly important in the
view of those seven eyes which survey the whole system of Providence,
and destroy the wisdom of the wise.
ARG. 4. “Death is as great a change as that of our birth. And is it
not as improbable that a man should visibly return after death, as
that he should return from a state of manhood, to that which preceded
his birth?” That is to say; Is it not as improbable that a species
of miracle should take place, the existence of which has been taught
and believed in all ages and nations, and is the manifest lesson of
the Scriptures; as that a species of miracle should take place, which
nobody ever believed or heard of?
_Is it not as improbable that a man should rise from the dead at the
last day, as that he should return from a state of manhood to that
which preceded his birth._
This question of the infidel demands some attention, as well as the
question in view.
ARG. 5. “There is a strong objection against the probability of
Spectres, which is sufficient to prove that they are not intelligent
creatures; or at least, that they possess so small a degree of
intelligence, that they are unqualified to act with prudence, to
propose any end to themselves, or use the proper means to accomplish
that end. Ghosts often appear in order to discover some crime; but
they never appear to a magistrate, or person in authority, but to some
illiterate clown, who happens to live near the place where the crime
was perpetrated: to some person who has no connection with the affair
at all, and who, in general, is the most improper in the world for
making the discovery.”
In Glanville’s Saducismus Triumphatus, we have the following story:--
“James Haddock, a farmer, was married to Eleanor Welsh, by whom he had
a son. After the death of Haddock, his wife married one Davis, and both
agreed to defraud the son by the former marriage, of a lease bequeathed
to him by his father. Upon this the ghost of Haddock appeared to one
Francis Tavernor, the servant of Lord Chichester, and desired him to
go to Eleanor Welsh and inform her that it was the will of her former
husband that the son should enjoy the lease. Tavernor did not at
first execute this commission, but he was continually haunted by the
apparition in the most hideous shapes, which even threatened to tear
him in pieces, till at last he delivered the message. Now had this
Spectre the least common sense, it would have appeared first to Eleanor
Welsh and her husband, Davis, and frightened them into compliance at
once, and not have kept poor Tavernor in such constant disquietude, who
had no concern in the matter.”
Here we find several propositions with regard to Spectres in general,
which demand credit only for one short story, the truth of which
might be as consistently disputed by the apparitionists, as by the
Encyclopedia. It does not appear that this apparition was seen or heard
by any one except Tavernor. What evidence then have we that Tavernor
was not the dupe of one who personated Haddock out of pity to the
orphan son?
Could our authors imagine that Mr. Addison, Doctor Johnson, or even Mr.
Glanville himself, built the faith of Spectres, only on such feeble
evidence as this story affords?
Will that mode of conduct adopted by Tavernor’s Spectre, teach us what
is the conduct of Spectres in general, till we, who believe the reality
of Spectres, can be satisfied whether Tavernor ever saw a Spectre or
not?
Circumstances unknown to us, however, might be so attached to that
affair, as to render it credible to Davis and his wife, if not to
others.
Therefore, admitting the supposition of our believing it a reality, how
have our authors proved that this very Spectre conducted imprudently,
proposed no end to himself, or used no proper means to accomplish that
end? “Because, say they, he did not first appear to Eleanor Welsh and
her husband, and frighten them into compliance at once.” But how does
it appear that this summary method, all things considered, would have
been the most eligible. Doubtless some infidels are bold enough to
say that the angel, who sent Moses to Pharaoh from Horeb, would have
conducted much more prudently and rationally, if he had first appeared
to Pharaoh, and frightened him into compliance at once, than to have
kept Moses in such disquietude, who had less concern in the matter
than any man in Egypt, for he was now married and peaceably settled
in another land. The end proposed by the ghost appearing to Tavernor
was, that the son of Haddock should enjoy the lease, and this end was
subordinate and absolutely necessary to other ends of far greater
magnitude, for any thing which the Cyclopedia has shewn to the contrary.
We find in the Scriptures such a connection of means and ends as the
wisdom of some moderns would never dictate: as that of Ezek. 4: 15, and
the marriage of Hosea transacted, either in reality or in vision. These
means, doubtless, would not have appeared the most decent and eligible
to some of those who seem capable of dictating for apparitions, the
proper mode of their procedure.
But suppose Tavernor’s ghost had first appeared to Eleanor Welsh and
her husband, and frighted them into compliance at once, would the
existence of Spectres be any more believed than it is at present?
Would not the objection have been that Eleanor Welsh had the maternal
affection for her son? Had never really consented to the crime--that
her own fear was feigned, and that the ghost was some friend employed
by her to frighten and deceive her husband?
Or if the ghost had first appeared to a magistrate: should we not have
been told how much more probable it was that a magistrate should bear
a part in some artifice which afforded him profit, than that a miracle
had happened equal to the transition from a state of manhood to that
which preceded our birth? It is no dishonor to the most illustrious
of mankind that they frequently entertain the same opinion as that
of their inferiors. On the mode of conduct proper for a Spectre, our
authors agree in sentiment with that Heroine of a famous English
ballad,[7] who with the habiliments there described, frightened
a person into compliance at once. She gave him no opportunity to
deliberate or to authenticate her mission. Compliance, or immediate
ruin were his only alternative. Her name was honored by three queens,
and the favor of Henry the eighth.
Spectres from heaven are rational creatures, and come down from the
fountain of reason, and will therefore deal reasonably with us, by
allowing us a fair opportunity to ascertain the reality of their
mission. But for this examination, the mind is incapable when terrified
by a sudden surprise.
Eleanor Welsh being the mother of the injured, must have been
interested, and therefore, if the Spectre had first appeared to her and
her husband, there certainly would have been less evidence of reality
(coct. par) than there was by its first appearing to Tavernor, who, by
the very supposition of our author, was a disinterested person, and
“had no concern in the matter.”
We find in the next place several naked assertions, and then the
inference that, “The evidence of Spectres is destroyed.” They tell us
that Spectres appear only to one person at a time--that they are seen
only in the night, and visible only to the illiterate and credulous. “A
man must be prejudiced in favor of this opinion beforehand, say they,
or he will never see a ghost.”
I must not offend the reader by needless detention. He may easily
find instances to disprove these assertions. As to the last, besides
Doctor Scott, several persons of distinguished abilities, probity and
literature, who have seen ghosts, have declared to the writer, that
instead of previously believing their existence, their minds had been
strongly prejudiced against it.
Our authors desire to know why Spectres should appear in the night,
and “why they could not deliver their messages with as much ease and
more success in the day time.” And doubtless Bolingbroke had a similar
enquiry respecting the angel who appeared to the shepherds in the night.
“To render the testimony of any person credible, say these writers,
he must not only be a man of veracity, but of sufficient ability to
judge of the subject to which he is to bear witness. It is not on the
evidence of an ignorant, illiterate person, who has more fancy and fear
than judgment, that we are to rest our belief of what is supernatural.”
Here again their weapon is from the arsenal of those who oppose our
Saviour’s resurrection, known first to some of “the timorous and
pious sex,” as Hume has termed them, and then to illiterate, ignorant
fishermen, who, say the deists, had more fancy and fear than judgment.
The truth is, some ignorant men have no more fancy nor fear than the
learned, and a much better judgment than many of the latter. The
corporeal senses of the illiterate are as infallible as those of the
learned. The former can see and hear a ghost or an angel as distinctly
as the latter, and can attempt to handle a ghost with as much composure
of mind, and so are capable of knowing whether they can feel a
substance or not, as a Locke or a Newton.
On the whole, it appears that the reason why mankind in this
enlightened age, must believe that apparitions are a mere fiction,
is not because this negative thesis was ever established by any
solid demonstration, but because the unanimity of modern names, the
substitute of argument, has given it popularity.
Doubtless the counterfeit apparitions which duped the popish ages, were
numerous; but counterfeits will never prove that there is nothing to be
counterfeited.
Among the greatest impositions of this nature, where shall we find one,
which will compare with the late events of Sullivan, in the county
of Hancock, Maine. In that place has never been found any theatrical
representation, or magic glass, or lantern, or ventriloquist, or
speaking automaton, or Phantasmagoria, or Statue of Kircher: and
were all these means of imposition found there, they would afford no
rational explanation of the subsequent phenomena. How easy of solution
was that fraud in the city of Bern, mentioned by Mosheim,[8] as imposed
upon one Jetzer, by four Dominicans, to confirm their doctrine of
original sin. The apparition was indeed terrific, and exhibited false
miracles, but never offered to appear in the day time, nor predict any
event, which could not be foreknown by other means, nor was there any
address to the sense of feeling to satisfy Jetzer that the Spectre was
a Phantom.
The Encyclopedia have related a wonderful artifice from Doctor
Plot, performed undoubtedly by a number of persons at Woodstock, in
England, soon after the death of king Charles the first, while certain
commissioners appointed to survey his property there, were engaged to
accomplish their business. But in all that marvelous story, we find
no comparison with the events we are about to contemplate. The only
apparition seen there, was that of a dog! none of them observed the
manner of his being introduced among them. They saw no changes of shape
or magnitude, nor does it appear that any of them saw him vanish.
They heard no articulate voice, much less any declaration of truth,
unattainable by other means.
As to the Cocklane ghost, which produced so much noise and credit in
London; there was neither articulate voice, nor any kind of apparition.
All these artifices, and a thousand more which history commemorates,
are swallowed up by the subsequent phenomena, as Aaron’s rod swallowed
up the rods of the magicians.
Pause then, reader, and consider a few moments what evidence would
convince you of the existence of a Spectre. Before you stands a
creature encircled with radiance resembling the sun. Through the rays
you behold a personal form as plainly as possible. This form speaks to
you. The same is seen and heard by thirty others at the same time and
in the same manner, so that your experience and theirs are uniform;
while two or three other persons with the same ocular advantages, and
looking in the same direction, hear the voice, but see nothing, having
been previously told by the Spectre that they should only hear and not
see.
With a voice distinct from that of the living, so that none of you
can perceive the least manifestation of breathing, this personal form
tells you not to be afraid--that nothing will hurt you--to stand as
near as you please, and handle him that you may know whether or not he
is flesh and bones. You comply with the request, and find no material
substance. Now what would be your conclusion? Would you feel sure
that these matters were all the effect of your own fancy and that of
others? Can you produce a single instance out of all history, in which
so many persons were thus impressed, while in reality they saw and
heard nothing? But suppose further, that this Spectre informs you of
events which you cannot possibly know by other means, what then would
be the inference? “I make a distinction, says Doctor Johnson, between
what a man may experience by the mere strength of his imagination,
and what imagination cannot possibly produce.” Thus, suppose I should
think I saw a form and heard a voice cry, “Johnson, you are very
wicked--and unless you repent, you will certainly be punished;” my own
unworthiness is so deeply impressed on my mind, that I might imagine I
thus saw and heard, and therefore I should not believe that an external
communication had been made to me. But if a form should appear and a
voice should tell me that a particular man had died at a particular
hour--a fact which I had no apprehension of, nor any means of knowing,
and this fact, with all its circumstances, should afterwards be
unquestionably proved; I should in that case be persuaded that I had
supernatural intelligence imparted to me. By this it appears, that had
Doctor Johnson been an eye and ear witness of only a small part of what
is now to be related, he would have believed that he had seen the form
and heard the language of a Spectre. “He had a very philosophical mind,
says Mr. Boswell, and such a rational respect for testimony, as to make
him submit his understanding to what was authentically proved, though
he could not comprehend why it was so.”[9] And the same will be the
disposition of every pious and reasonable mind. But if you reject the
evidence of experience, the evidence of substantial testimony and the
evidence of predictions, where are you? On the billows of scepticism,
without a helm, and your lee shore is infidelity.
It is frequently asserted, and that by multitudes, that the true origin
of the following letters is a gross artifice. ASSERTED I say: for that
is all. Twenty-six years’ time they have had to look round, search and
prove that they are not mistaken. And for this purpose, means and pains
have not been wanting. Nothing however has yet transpired to make good
the assertion; but remarkable events have disproved it.
It is well known that some of the witnesses have been prosecuted for
mountebanks; but nothing even to form an indictment could be found
against them. Do I misrepresent? Do I mislead the credulous? Then let
me be convinced? yea, let me be exposed. Let the cause be fully and
fairly tried by friendly discussion; not in a future century, when we
shall dwell in silence, but now, while the means of evidence are at
hand--while the witnesses and their opponents are yet living.
If we love our neighbors, we prize their characters, and forbear
needless censure, especially in a case like this. “Judge not that ye be
not judged.”
For our conclusion, the words of the celebrated Mr. Addison and of
Mr. Hartly are not impertinent: “I think a person who is terrified
with the imagination of ghosts and Spectres, much more reasonable
than one, who, contrary to the report of all historians, sacred and
profane, ancient and modern, and to the traditions of all nations,
thinks the appearance of Spirits fabulous and groundless. Could not I
give myself up to this general testimony, I should to the relations of
particular persons, who are now living, and whom I could not distrust
in other matters of fact.”[10] “Certain it is, says Mr. Hartly, that
Spirits can become visible and converse with us, as man with man; and
so innumerable are the instances hereof, as also of their discoveries,
warnings, predictions, &c., that I may venture to affirm with an appeal
to the public for the truth of it, that there are few ancient families
in any county of Great Britain, who are not possessed of records or
traditions of the same in their own houses, however the prevailing
Sadducism of these times, may have sunk the credit of them.”--_Preface
to Swedenborg’s treatise of heaven and hell, p. 18._
His whole discussion of this topic demands our peculiar attention.
As the glorious descent of New Jerusalem is at hand, and perhaps
already begun, it is not improbable that henceforth these phenomena
will exceedingly multiply, and then destroy the wisdom of the wise. New
Jerusalem will descend, i. e. the saints will descend from heaven and
make visible their spiritual bodies. While those heavenly doctrines are
inculcated, which establish a church new and glorious; so that the old
christian church has no glory by reason of the glory which excelleth.
Then Universalism, Socinianism, Arianism, and the grossly absurd
doctrine of Divine tri-personality will deceive the nations no more for
a thousand years.[11]
[Illustration: decorated line]