_The Hymeneal Tie in the Spirit World grows out of the necessity of
the Connubial Union in the Mundane Sphere. “Free love” imputation
refuted._[19]
1075. Some peculiar views respecting marriage, which are not consistent
with the ideas of female delicacy and chastity heretofore entertained,
have been designated by the name of “_Free Love_,” and have been
commented on as proceeding from the spirit world. I am happy to say
that, agreeably to the impressions which I have derived from my spirit
friends, any doctrine, having a tendency of the kind thus described,
would be at least as much censured in the spirit world as in this. As
the best mode of removing this groundless imputation on Spiritualism, I
will state the impressions which I entertain on the subject of marriage.
1076. Among the sources of happiness in the spirit world much insisted
on is that resulting from a combined union of those really created for
each other. The marriage contracted in this world, loses its binding
power in the spirit world, yet may endure if mutually desired. If a
husband has had several wives, or a wife several husbands, the tie
endures only between the most congenial pair.[20]
1077. Sexual association is the means throughout nature by which
the perpetuation of species is effected. But that this association
may exist among human beings without degradation, it is manifestly
necessary that it should not be indiscriminate. Not only delicacy,
modesty, and the cultivation of congenial affection, but likewise the
interests of offspring, require that the parents and children should
form one family. The welfare of children, their equal duty to both
parents, and natural affections between the parents and their children,
must make a separation painful to all parties, however affection may
have declined between the husband and wife, on the part of either or
both.
1078. Hence, in the mundane sphere, the perpetuation of the human
race consistently with decorum, and the welfare of offspring, and
the happiness of the parties, especially the mother and wife, seems
to be the great object of matrimony. In the spheres it is difficult
to perceive how any motives of equally high importance can exist. It
must be that connubial union in the spirit world rather grows out of
marriage in this world, in order to fill up the void in the heart which
might otherwise arise from our mundane habits. It would seem as if it
were a benevolent indemnification for celibacy, or for the miseries so
often resulting from the connubial state in this world, consequent,
like the sufferings of child-bearing, to the perpetuation of mankind.
1079. It seems to me an error to suppose that the terrestrial marriage
can be a secondary object with God, when the important part which it
performs is taken into view.
1080. Incapacity to maintain a family often renders it impossible for
those who would marry to come together, and worldly motives induce
marriages, even when disgust or indifference may exist on the part of
one, if not on that of both the parties.
1081. It seems, moreover, even where marriage actually results from the
passion of love, that it is more or less the consequence of a species
of hallucination, through which lovers deck an object with all that
they would wish to exist in the way of merit, and feel toward them an
affection proportionate to their own capacity to love, rather than of
the degree of power in the object, reasonably to excite such intense
partiality. It is thus that the love of the mother to the child she
believes to be her own, will be powerful in proportion to her own
capacity for maternal love, rather than of the child to excite love;
since though it be a monster, and not _really her own child_, but
_fraudulently substituted_ therefor, it will cause no diminution of her
maternal devotion.
1082. It is the impression on the mind that determines the object to
which the passion is directed; the character of the being actuated by
the passion, which determines its strength.
1083. But where to all those qualifications which would create
friendship between persons of the same sex, the peculiar emotions
which take place between those of different sexes are superadded,
those who come together in this world under the hymeneal tie, may find
it something more than a mere civil contract, and not terminated by
death. Moreover, independently of the original passion, there arises an
affection which is justly distinguished as conjugal, and which differs
from the other in this highly important particular, that it is founded
on a thorough reciprocal knowledge, instead of that ignorance which too
often accompanies attachments produced by the arrows of the blind god,
as Cupid is sometimes designated with figurative consistency.
1084. Having always supposed that independently of the emotions
peculiar to the sexes, there could only be friendship between a man and
woman like that which would exist between a brother and sister, I am at
a loss to understand what it can be which, in the spiritual state of
existence, can induce indissoluble marriage.
1085. On submitting the suggestions comprised in the preceding
statement to the spirit to whom I owe much information, herein quoted,
and to the spirit of a most intimate male friend, by both it was
alleged that peculiar emotions were attendant on sexual affection in
the spheres, as well as on earth, so far as consistent with the absence
of that which exists in common with brutes.
THE MORALITY OF CHRISTENDOM BEING IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE NEW
TESTAMENT, CANNOT BE ITS LEGITIMATE OFFSPRING.
_Inspiration can have no higher authority, than the human testimony on
which its existence is arrogated._
1086. Is it not a mistake to suppose that any doctrine gains any
validity by claiming inspiration as its source, when there is nothing
but human testimony to advance in support of that claim? For if in the
instance of Spiritualism, human testimony is deemed to be unavailable,
how comes it to avail when adduced in support of this arrogant claim of
inspiration? As well might a man expect to cure the defect of a marshy
foundation by substituting columns of iron for wooden posts, or that,
while resting on wood, the support could be made firmer by introducing
iron into the superstructure.
1087. As the introduction of the iron would diminish the competency
of the foundation in proportion to the augmentation of weight, so the
claim to inspiration lessens the competency of the testimony upon which
it is advanced, proportionally as the incredibility is increased.
1088. But as respects the ancient witnesses, their own statements make
them out unworthy of confidence. Facts or circumstances are stated
which are manifestly blasphemous, inconsistent, and absurd, if not
impossible. Thus a want of veracity or of discretion being demonstrated
in some points, is sufficient to destroy validity in all.
1089. Revelation assumes God to be omnipotent, omniscient, prescient,
and all good, yet represents him as under the necessity of subjecting
his creatures to probation, to find out what, by the premises, he must
foresee. It represents him while wishing his creatures to know him and
his attributes, as _not teaching_ them that which he wishes them to
learn, yet punishing them and their posterity for ignorance arising
from his own omission.
1090. It does not suffice to allege that the Old Testament taught God’s
will to the Jews; since it is to me incredible that our Heavenly Father
would give instruction of vital importance to a few of his children,
leaving all the rest uninstructed, and yet afflict them for this
result. But, admitting this possible, it appears that the instruction
given the Jews in the book of Moses failed in those particulars, which
are of paramount importance.
1091. In the Bible, God is represented as susceptible of _jealousy_, of
_wrath_, of authorizing the butchery of three thousand Israelites for
worshipping a golden calf; sanctioning the massacre of the whole nation
of the Midianites, with the reservation of the virgins for violation
by the bloody murderers of their kindred; the outrageous deception and
fraud on the part of Jacob; swindling the Egyptians by borrowing their
ornaments with intention of purloining them; hardening the heart of
Pharaoh, yet afflicting his subjects for the obduracy thus produced;
instructing Saul to surprise and massacre the Amalekites, even to each
“_suckling babe_”, for a wrong done by their ancestors some hundred
years before, as authorizing the hewing down with a sword the regal
prisoner Agag in cold blood,[21] and sanctioning the destruction of
whole pagan communities by David.[22]
1092. The following is the account given of this favourite of Jehovah:
“And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand
of Saul: there is nothing better for me than that I should speedily
escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul shall despair of me,
to seek me any more in any coast of Israel; so shall I escape out of
his hand. And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men
that were with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath. And
David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his
household, even David with his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess,
and Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal’s wife. And it was told Saul that
David was fled to Gath: and he sought no more again for him. And David
said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them
give me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there:
for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee? Then
Achish gave him Ziglag that day: wherefore Ziglag pertaineth unto the
kings of Judah unto this day. And the time that David dwelt in the
country of the Philistines was a full year and four months. And David
and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and
the Amalekites: for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the
land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt. And David
smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the
sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel,
and returned, and came to Achish. And Achish said, Whither have ye
made a road to-day? And David said, Against the south of Judah, and
against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the
Kenites. And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings
to Gath, saying, Lest they should tell on us, saying, So did David, and
so will be his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the
Philistines. And Achish believed David, saying, He hath made his people
Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant forever.”
1093. Here is massacre, spoliation, base lying to Achish, his truly
noble-hearted friend, whom he deceives into a belief that he had made
the people of Israel abhor him, when it was his intention to become
king of Judea, and of course the enemy of his too-confiding protector,
whenever an opportunity offered.
1094. Praise be to God that he has sent us a new way to religious
light, not associated with this _detestable_ immorality!
1095. Jehovah is made to arrest the sun, in order that Joshua may
slaughter his flying foes. He is described as authorizing the Jews
to extirpate their neighbours and seize their territory. I do most
conscientiously declare that the portrait of Jehovah by the Bible
appears to me more suitable for Satan than for our heavenly Father,
who is represented by the spirits as perfectly impartial and equally
loving to all his creatures.
1096. The example set in the Bible of slandering and persecuting those
who did not believe in its doctrines, has ever been followed out by
scriptural devotees, who would presumptuously represent that it is only
from the Scriptures, which _they_ recognise as the word of God, that a
correct knowledge of the divine attributes can be obtained. But this is
the converse of the truth. As described by Seneca, the Roman Sage, the
God of the ancient theist was to the Jehovah of the Bible as Hyperion
to Satyr. (See Seneca’s opinions of God, 1224)
1097. It appears to me a striking proof how far men can be demented by
educational bigotry, that it should be supposed that their omnipotent
God can require human missionaries’ aid to promulgate or carry out his
will.
Did God a special creed require,
Each soul would he not with that creed inspire?
1098. The _Old Testament does not impart a knowledge of immortality,
without which religion were worthless. The notions derived from the
gospel are vague, disgusting, inaccurate, and difficult to believe._
The Pentateuch did not give the Jews an idea of immortality, nor were
those Jews distinguished for morality, who from other sources than
the Pentateuch embraced a belief in immortality. It has already been
pointed out that the most enlightened sect among the children of
Israel, the Sadducees, did not believe in a future state, while the
Pharisees, who professed to believe therein, appear to have been so
immoral as to be pre-eminently the objects of Christ’s denunciation.
1099. As respects the precepts of Christ, those on which he laid most
stress are not only neglected, but grossly violated, by the opposite
course being sanctioned by the overruling sentiment of society. Nothing
would subject a man to more contempt in Christendom than a tame
submission to blows, or being so poor as to wear patched or ragged
clothes. There are few, if any, in Christendom, who would not rather
have any deficiency in attire attributed to accident or taste, than to
poverty.
1100. I have shown that the idea which the Pharisees entertained of
heaven, as portrayed by Josephus, representing the wicked like the rich
man within sight of the good, would be a hell to a good-hearted angel.
This representation is sanctioned by Christ in his story of the rich
man and Lazarus. The only reward promised to his apostles was worldly
preeminence in the form of judgeships. Hence it were hardly reasonable
for those who are subordinate in merit to the disciples to expect
any better remuneration. Hell is as absurdly as horridly typified by
eternal exposure to interminable fire.
1101. Thus neither among the Jews, nor among Christians, has the Bible
furnished any adequate account of a future state, nor has it been
productive of higher morality; since the only morality which does
exist, _is coupled not only with the neglect, but with the violation
of those precepts which the gospel inculcates_.
1102. Diogenes took a lantern to see if he could find an honest man
in Greece. Were any one to employ a lime-light, he would not in
Christendom find a Christian who carries out in practice the precepts
of his divine Master. If those who know their Master’s will, yet do it
not, are to be beaten with many stripes, while the ignorant pagan is to
bear but few, were it not better to be a pagan than such a Christian
as those are, for the most part, who exist in Christendom? Unless our
missionaries can make better Christians, is it not inhumane to add to
the number?
1103. On calling on a bigoted, self-styled disciple of Christ to show
me anyone who put the precepts of Christ into practice, the reply was,
“_We rely on his merits._” “That is _all_ you do,” said I. “In
common with others of your tenets, you make the blood of Christ a fund
on which every sinner may draw in proportion as he has confidence in
its detersive influence.”
1104. I am supported in some of the views above presented, by a
communication from a believer in revelation, under the signature of
_Bosanquet_, to the Baltimore Church Times, for June 15, 1848. I will
quote a portion of this communication, which is as follows:
1105. “But the want of faith is more open and direct than this, and
it is the more obvious and pointed upon religious subjects. The Bible
is boldly and practically denied in every particular. No class or
body of men believe and obey it, and strange as it may seem, it is by
no nation, or people, or churches, or sects of men, less implicitly
believed and followed than by those very people and sections of the
church who talk so much about it. There are no persons less obedient
to the plain sense and mandates of the written word of God, than those
who most speak of and uphold it as the sole authority and standard,
and reject all assistance from the history of the church and what
is spoken against as tradition. Every class of persons reject some
portion or other of the sacred Scriptures. If you talk to some of
temporal honour and rewards, and the observance of a day of rest,
and the patriarchs, they will say, Oh! that is the Old Testament,
and is abrogated. If you speak to others of good works, they will
say, Oh! that is only in the Gospels, and the Epistles carry us much
beyond that, and are superior to it. Unitarians, again, receive a
Bible of their own; that is, just so many passages are excluded as
will suit their own belief and purpose. Others, of numerous sects,
dwell each upon some half dozen chapters, or passages, or phrases, or
words of Scripture, of the Epistles especially, and dwell upon them
idolatrously and devotedly, to the exclusion of all the rest, so far
as the authority of Scripture is concerned, from belief and practice.
1106. This is even in the religious world—the thinking and reasoning
world. Let us now turn our observation to the world itself; to the
working and practical.
1107. The Bible is denied in every particular. Men do not believe that
we are really to be Christians; that we are to imitate our Lord. They
do not believe that the world could possibly go on if all men were to
act upon pure Christian motives, and up to a perfect Christian rule:
if they were to forgive and forget injuries; if they were not to
resent an affront; if they were to give to people because they asked
them: if they were to lend money without looking for interest; if we
were all to give up luxuries, and style, and costly furniture and
equipage; if we, our cattle and servants, were strictly to observe the
day of rest. How many are there among us who believe that ‘the tree
of knowledge’ is not an absolute good? or that we ought to receive
the gospel with the simplicity of little children. Who believes that
we ought to honour our father and mother, and our sovereign? Who is
there that acts up to the precept that we ought not to judge others in
their character? How many are there who appear to believe that it is
not right to be anxious about the future; that riches are not a good
thing; that the entrance into heaven is easier to the poor man; that
we ought to return a tenth to God; that we would bring a blessing to
give freely and largely to the poor; that children are a blessing and
a gift from the Lord, and that the man is happy who has his quiver
full of them? It is evident that in all these points the Bible is
disbelieved and is practically denied, and does not control or guide
us in our habits and principles of life and society.
1108. Still less do we believe that the public measures, the laws,
and government of the state, and the intercourse with other
nations, ought to be, or can be, carried on and conducted upon
Christian principles. What number or classes of persons believe that
righteousness exalteth a nation? that we are punished according to the
national sins of the people, and for the sins of the rulers? and that
if wicked and irreligious men preside over our councils, we shall as
a nation suffer the penalties of it? or that the conscience of the
government is the conscience of the people, and that our rulers are
bound to take the first care for the pure religion and morals of the
country; and that, if they do so, their righteousness will bring down
a blessing upon the nation?
1109. To come again to more direct practice, and to our own habits of
life. Who is there who thinks _first_ what is right, and according
to the pattern of Christ, and after the will of God, in what he is
about to do, and not what is wise and expedient? Who seeks first the
kingdom of God, and God’s rule of righteousness, and trusts that all
temporal good consequences will follow upon it? Who is there who
thinks and abides _only_ by the rule of what is right and commanded?
We may almost answer in the words of Scripture, ‘There is none
righteous, no, not one!’ Who believes in and trusts to the assistance
and suggestions of the Spirit in his designs and undertakings, and
believes, and acts, and writes, and thinks, as believing that the most
useful and important and influential suggestions of our thoughts and
invention come to our mind by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, more
than by our own cleverness, and exertion, and memory, and prays for
divine help upon commencing every task, or writing, or undertaking
accordingly? Who forbears strictly and endeavours to expel at once
all thought and every suggestion of the mind in worldly matters on
a Sunday, with confidence and faith that the same and more useful
thought will be supplied on the succeeding week-days, and that the
unqualified dedication and sanctification of the Lord’s day will make
the labour of the six days more effectual and fruitful than would be
that of the seven? Who would believe now that a sabbatical year would
not necessarily be impracticable and ruinous, or that a populous
country could exist under such a rule, or that it would not produce a
debasing and demoralizing idleness?”
1110. Let not the reader infer that these admissions come from a
free-thinker. The following remarks will prove the writer one of the
_faithful_, in the sense in which this epithet argues a mind chained
down by abject enthralment, to put any constructions on facts but that
which is subversive of educational prejudice: “_All the evils of which
the existence is admitted are due to our narrowing down our reception
of truths and facts to the limits of reason—of our own more or less
shallow individual reason._”
1111. Now to me it seems that the nominal profession of a faith in
facts which are absurd and contradictory, and professed reverence
for precepts which are as utterly impracticable as unwise in the
abstract, induces this monstrous incompatibility of the actual morality
of Christendom with the professions of Christians and doctrines of
Christianity.
1112. Our submission to scriptural authority is not to be governed
by our own reason, but by that of persons who lived many ages ago,
originally assumed to be inspired by God, upon human testimony; which
in the case of Spiritualism, or any other than the one in point, is
treated as mere chaff.
1113. It strikes me, from the considerations presented under the head
of Mundane Wealth, that the precepts of Christ were fundamentally
erroneous, so far as they discredit and discourage efforts for the
honest acquisition of wealth. (908.)
1114. God has given the fowls of the air feathers as a natural
clothing, and thus any effort to procure clothing on their part is
rendered unnecessary; he has not given them hands nor intellectual
ingenuity to _spin_ and _weave_. On the other side, with little
exception, man is naturally devoid of clothing, and requires clothes
to protect him from the scorching solar rays or freezing blasts of
winter, but _has_ been furnished with the _hands_ and the _ingenuity_
to _spin_ and _weave_. Under these circumstances, was it reasonable
to allege that man should be governed by the example of the feathered
creation? Was it reasonable to infer that there should be no spinning
or weaving by men, because there neither was nor could be any performed
by fowls?
1115. Again, the lily, like all other vegetables, not only comes into
existence naked, but remains so, since it neither can nor will clothe
itself, and would perish if by any artificial clothing it were shut
out from the influence of the solar rays, and from the absorption of
carbonic acid, which furnishes the vegetable creation with the carbon
requisite for the fibres essential to stability. Hence the allegation
that Solomon in all his glory was not _clothed_ like the lily, is
irreconcilable with the nature and actual state of this beautiful
flower, which is destitute of clothing by nature, and which would
perish if it were clothed. The skin of vegetable leaves, to a certain
extent, performs for them what mouths do for animals. How unreasonable,
then, to argue from one to the other, that man should imitate the
vegetable; or to compare a plant, naturally and of necessity naked,
with a king gorgeously clothed?
1116. The degrading a rich man, whether honest or not, to the level
of a felon or murderer, as respects accessibility to heaven, and of
course favour in the sight of God, is so erroneous, that there never
was a precept which was less respected in practice, by the votaries of
its author. As I have heretofore remarked, the conduct of Christians
is not merely negative in respect to this precept—they do not merely
neglect it; their course is the _converse_ of any obedience to its
dictates. Yet _professed_ Christians while violating their divine
Master’s behests in a way which makes their performance the inverse of
the results which their professions involve, for the most part treat
any person who does not profess devotion for Christ’s doctrines, as
actually more culpable than themselves, and more liable to retribution
after death. This is about as just as for a man, who after marrying
a woman and calling her his wife, should act the inverse of the
obligations imposed by the connubial contract, and then consider an
individual who had never entered into any obligation with her of any
kind, as guilty of sinful neglect in not acknowledging as a wife, one
whom he never married. The question is, who treats the woman most ill,
he who acknowledges but neglects, or he who does not display a hymeneal
devotion which he never led her to expect?
1117. Again, the precept to return good for evil, would, if acted
up to, encourage evil. Were a man to submit quietly to be robbed,
whipped, and cheated, he would encourage robbing, flagellation, and
fraud. Far wiser is the precept of Confucius, “Return good for good;
for evil, justice.” The impracticable precept of Christ is so far from
being carried out by professing Christians, that in their conduct to
the aborigines of Africa, India, and America, they have always been
aggressive, always rewarding the hospitality of the natives with fraud
and violence, and their conduct toward each other is the inverse of the
ultra precept of Christ—“Return good for evil.” They not unfrequently
return evil for good.
1118. There is, as I think, nothing more injurious than the habitual
violation of acknowledged professions. If the violator be aware of
his inconsistency, it involves the incessant perpetration of manifest
wickedness; and if his mind be so cramped by education that he commits
such violations unconsciously, it must degrade the all-important power
of distinguishing good from evil. Thus, in the garb of truth,
Dark error leads
With best intent
To evil deeds,
The bigot to ensnare.
1119. It is this nominal devotion to the doctrines of Christ, with
a demeanour diametrically in teeth of them, which causes that
anti-Christian morality which Bosanquet portrays.
1120. But I am conscientiously of opinion that the respect paid
to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David, &c., by which one five
hundred-millionth of the blood of Abraham is made an honour to Jesus
Christ, is among the reasons of the low state of morality among those
who consider the Bible as the Word of God, and are thus led to view
with indulgence, prostitution, murder, massacre, rape, cheating, and
fraud. Agreeably to the opinion of a champion of Christianity, already
quoted, “The worshipper is assimilated to the imaginary deity whom he
worships.”
1121. With the exchange of two words for two other words, the
verses which Pope ascribes to Eloisa, might well be uttered by
many self-called Christians, who in defending the gospel from any
conscientious attack, hesitate not at any intemperance of language, and
yet think that the marriage _ceremony_ is all that is called for.
1122. “Ah! wretch, believed the spouse of God in vain,
Confessed within the slave of love and man.”
1123. Although the substitution of the words _wealth_ and _power_
for love and man would spoil the rhythm, it would not lessen the
applicability to the great mass of those who call themselves
Christians, while not only neglecting, but positively violating the
precepts of Him by whose blood they still hope, by a due degree of
_faith_, to wash away their transgressions.
1124. The universe, as it is presented to my mind, induces a belief
that it must have a presiding deity of commensurate power. As there
are millions of suns, each having its planets; as the space which
it occupies appears to us little short of infinity; as it must have
endured from eternity, and must endure eternally,—the power and glory
of this presiding deity must be commensurate with his realm, as to
extent and magnificence. Yet evil exists; which can only exist from
choice on his part, or because it cannot be avoided. There must be
a want of will or power to prevent or remove evil. Such is the God
which my reason obliges me to acknowledge. Where impressions are the
offspring of reason, they cannot destroy their parent. But those who
owe their opinions of their deity to tradition, have a deity which, not
having originated from reason, may always be made the means of setting
its dictates aside.
1125. The bigot’s god is a dangerous idol, although he be not
represented by an image; and no less dangerous is any book which owes
authority to hereditary, intolerant dictation and servile devotion.
1126. The fear of public opinion, or a desire to do what is _deemed_
right among men, seems to be the principal motive for religious
professions and church-going in the great mass of society. The
prevailing morality being, as already noticed, not only neglectful
of Christ’s precepts, but absolutely the inverse of them—not only
_permitting_, but _calling_ for a course diametrically opposite, as
respects the acquisition of wealth and submission to wrongs—shows that
it is not generally founded on a desire to cultivate the good will of
Christ, but to square with sectarian opinion. I hold that one cause of
this is, that the conviction of a future state, in which happiness is
in proportion to our deportment here, is not so deep as that which I
now have. Under the conviction which I have, nothing could tempt me to
act in such way as to produce a retrograde influence on my pretensions
as a spirit.
1127. It seems to me, as urged by me before, that no one believing the
language of Abraham, as narrated and sanctioned by Christ, to have come
authenticated direct from the Son of God, and consequently expecting it
to be verified, would render himself liable to the punishment of Dives
for the sake of enjoying the _good things_ of this world.
1128. The idea that souls are to remain in the grave till the “_last
day_,” the procrastination of that day and geological knowledge being
inconsistent with the belief that any such day will arrive, makes the
sinner less fearful, the good less hopeful, and diminishes the number
of those who are actually, in their worldly conduct, influenced by
their hopes or fear of future rewards or punishments.
1129. The expectation of washing away sin through the merit of a
bigoted belief in Christ, co-operating with the vague, contradictory,
and irrational idea of heaven and hell recorded in Scripture, seems to
be the reason why Christians act so inconsistently with the precepts of
Him whom they professedly adore.
1130. Nothing can be more inconsistent with the religion inculcated by
my spirit friends, than the idea of atonement for sin by faith in any
religion, true or false.
1131. Had there ever been any available light let in from the spirit
world, this error had been denounced, and having been thus stamped
as erroneous from on high, could not have acquired or retained its
mischievous hold of so many millions of human beings, by substituting
blind faith for genuine virtue.
_Injurious Influence of unreasonable Restriction._
1132. Another reason why, throughout Christendom, the vices most
deprecated by Christ are those pre-eminently prevalent, is that his
precepts were absolutely impracticable, unless explained away in the
style of Lord Peter in the “_Tale of a Tub_.”
1133. Some of the excellent Society of Friends may, as respects war,
have been obedient to the precepts of Christ, and probably in other
respects deviate from them less than most other sects; but as to
wealth their course is the inverse of giving away their money. They
are rationally among the most active and successful in the honest
acquisition of money. In this they would act morally, excepting the
violation of their recognised obligation to obey the precepts of Christ.
1134. Does not experience show that nothing is more injurious to morals
than unreasonable restraint? This has been seen in the profligacy of
the children of puritanical sectarians. To disobey an unreasonable
restriction always appears comparatively a trivial offence. Going to
a play, in the opinion of the mass of the world, is not sinful; but
for a minor to go to a play in disobedience of parental authority,
by stealth, deception, or lying, becomes sinful delinquency, and
introduces a habit which may lead to crime as wicked as that of the
conduct of Jacob to Esau. Lying and deceiving for venial purposes will
soon induce the habit. The restriction from eating pork or drinking
wine has no doubt induced much deception and falsehood among the
followers of Mohammed, and thus made a crime where none would have
existed. In like manner, the putting a rich man on a footing with a
felon, as respects access to heaven, forbidding the resistance to blows
or spoliation, makes almost every professed Christian practically
unfaithful to his professions, and of course an infidel of the worst
kind. More or less of this infidelity is involved in various ways, as
above admitted by “Bosanquet.”
1135. If the history of Christianity, so called, be reviewed, it will
be found that the deviations from the precepts of Christ during the
present age are quite venial, compared with those which took place
during the thousand years or more in which Romanism had the ascendency.
1136. A painful picture of the morals of the clergy during that period
may be found in a recent work by Bishop Hopkins of Vermont. It would
seem as if the crimes and indecency displayed during the Middle Ages,
exceed even those of Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and David, and Samuel, the
cruel, despotic pope of Judea. The deposition of Saul for not killing
Agag, and his hewing his royal prisoner down with a sword in cold
blood, may have been looked to as a justification of pontifical cruelty
and despotism.
_No one would believe that a capable farmer would make such a mistake
as to sow garlic instead of wheat. Yet God, while represented as
having intended to sow Protestantism, is considered as having caused,
throughout Christendom, a crop of Catholicism, in the Roman or Grecian
form, for more than a thousand years; those weeds still occupying more
than half of the whole soil._
1137. The immense importance attached by mankind to correct religious
impressions is demonstrated, in the first place, by the enormous
expenditure throughout this world in sustaining those who are conceived
by their constituents to be the true expounders of religion;[23] and,
in the second place, by the blood and treasure which have been expended
either in missions or in wars, for the extension or defence of the
impressions believed by various sectarians to be the most accordant
with truth.
1138. Yet it must be plain that in no case has there been any higher
evidence than that of an _alleged_ human communication, direct or
indirect, with some recognised deity, if not the true God. If the will
of God has ever been revealed, the number who have actually pretended
to an interview with him, or with any immortal subordinate spirit
are very few. The Old Testament depends upon the testimony of Moses
and a few Hebrew prophets, whose inspiration rests upon their own
allegations, respecting themselves or each other.
1139. As regards the basis of Christianity, there are two
irreconcilable opinions: one held by the Protestants, the other by the
Roman Catholics; since although there is a great diversity of opinion
between Protestants, there is between all Protestants and Papists
this difference: The latter relying on their own church as the sole
depository of all the evidence of Christianity, do not allow any direct
recourse to Scripture for a rule of faith. The former reject the claims
of the church of Rome, and resort to the gospel for their rule of
faith.[24]
1140. But wherefore should such implicit confidence be placed in
language alleged to have been held by Moses or any other ancient
author? or should they be credited, even when they allege God to have
used such words as these, “_Let me wax hot in my wrath that I may
consume them._” The motive for this imputation against God, was that
Moses might take credit for _moderation_ in slaughtering only three
thousand of God’s chosen people in one day, for worshipping a golden
calf, made by his own brother, afterward made high-priest. Thus the
ringleader, being the brother of Moses, was loaded with honours, while
those whom he led astray were to be massacred in cold blood. Yet it
is on such witnesses as this blood-thirsty, blasphemous bigot, that
orthodoxy relies for assuming the Pentateuch to be the word of God,
censuring, if not persecuting, all who do not concur with it.
1141. The intercourse with the angel Gabriel rests upon the evidence
of Mary alone, who was interested immensely to make her child a god,
instead of being her illegitimate offspring. Of the dream of Joseph
there can be no witness besides himself. But would a dream be now
admitted as testimony in any court of justice.
1142. The diversity of opinion existing between Romanists and
Protestants, are briefly exhibited in the subjoined quotations from the
controversy between Archbishop Hughes and the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge.
They have already been cited by me in a pamphlet on the better
employment of the first day of the week. Here are the opinions of two
men highly qualified to judge. In one, we have an eminent champion of
Romanism; in the other, a no less able champion of Calvinism. To the
latter belongs the distinction of having persecuted the Quakers and
witches, and of having roasted Servetus; to the former, putting some
hundreds of thousands to death or torture by the sword, the rack, or
the fagot.
1143. Agreeing with each of the parties that the other is in the wrong,
I, of course, assume that they are both in error. Taken together, they
may be considered as proving that there is no evidence in favour of
Christianity, which I have not the authority of eminent Christians for
rejecting. In the 29th page of the controversy between himself and
Breckinridge, Bishop Hughes speaks as follows:
1144. “My fourth argument was, that the Protestant rule of faith
actually undermines the authority of the Scriptures, by extinguishing
the proofs of their _authenticity_ and _inspiration_, and consequently
terminates in moral suicide. Just imagine to yourself an ordinary will
or testament, written but twenty years ago, purporting to be the last
will and testament of a wealthy deceased relative, and designating
you as _heir_, but without either signature or probate, and ask
yourself what it would be worth? Could such a document establish its
own authenticity? And yet this is precisely the situation to which
the Protestant rule of faith reduced the Scriptures, by which, and
_by which alone_, their authenticity could have been established. St.
Augustine, of whom Presbyterians are sometimes wont to speak with
respect, declared that it was the testimony of the church which moved
him to believe in the Scriptures. But _now_ the order of belief is
‘reformed.’ Men pick up (pardon the phrase) the sacred volume, as they
find it floating on the sea of two thousand years, and by one great
but _gratuitous_ act of belief, which flings all intermediate church
authority and tradition to the winds, they say ‘the Bible is the Bible,
and we are its interpreters, every man for himself.'”
1145. It seems not to have occurred to the right reverend champion of
the Catholic creed, that it is not more true that a testament without
witnesses is of no validity, than it is true that the testimony of
witnesses claiming under the will, cannot be admitted. A document
written after the death of the testator would not be considered in
a court of justice as entitled to the name of a testament. But were
persons to write a will after a man’s death, and bring it forward,
claiming under it supremacy, would their claim produce any result
beside derision?
1146. The distinguished prelate justly treats the gospel as resting on
the traditionary evidence of the church; since, as he truly urges, the
church existed before the gospel, having been instituted at the time
when his instructions were given to the apostles by Christ.
1147. But how much value is to be attached to the testimony of the
church, may be learned from the following opinion of the learned
clergyman to whom I have alluded as the other party in the controversy,
(pages 35, 36:)
1148. “_The unwarrantable liberties of your church with the word of God
show her fallible to a deplorable degree._
1149. _Your rule, if observed, requires implicit faith in the decretals
and interpretations of fallible men, which is subversive of the very
nature and end of religion in the soul._ Faith supposes knowledge,
conviction on evidence, and trust in God, founded on a belief of
divine truth; but your rule requires unconditional submission to the
dicta of the church in the lump. The ‘_Carbonaria fides_,’ or faith
of the collier, is the very faith required. It is as follows: When
asked, ‘What do you believe?’ he answered, ‘I believe what the church
believes.’ ‘What does the church believe?’ _Ans._ ‘What I believe.’
‘Then what do you and the church together believe?’ _Ans._ ‘We both
believe the same thing.’ This is the grand catholicon for believing
every thing, without knowing any thing. In this soil grew the maxim
that ‘ignorance is the mother of devotion.’ It is believing by proxy,
or rather not believing at all, in the true sense. Here is the secret
of the unity of your church.”
1150. To conclude, I agree with the right reverend able and learned
archbishop, that Christianity has no witnesses but those disciples
of Christ whom he calls the church; but I also concur with his able,
learned, and reverend opponent, that the said church is neither
competent as a witness, nor reliable as a foundation for Christianity.
1151. Breckinridge does not perceive that the gospel on which he
relies, and the recorded traditions which ascribe that work to
inspiration, have no better foundation than the testimony of _fallible_
men.
1152. Manifestly, however, the authority of the church of Rome cannot
be overset without oversetting the authenticity of the Christian
religion.
1153. Could any one believe that an experienced farmer would sow a
field with garlic when intending to have a crop of wheat? Would not
the conclusion be that if a field upon his farm were occupied by that
objectionable weed, it must have been the spontaneous production of
the soil, not of a mistake so gross on his part? Yet our prescient God
is represented as so much inferior in foresight to an ordinary farmer,
that while the religious soil of Christendom was for ages occupied with
crops of Catholicism, in the Grecian or Roman modification, the seed of
Protestantism was sown by God through his son and vicegerent, Christ,
intending to have the soil occupied by Protestantism. Manifestly,
either it was intended that Catholicism should prevail, as above
described, or an omnipotent, omniscient, and prescient God did not
preside over the seeding.
1154. Yet notwithstanding this diversity as to the true import of
Christianity between the most distinguished Christian sectarians,
each sect conceives itself justified in propagating its own peculiar
opinions among ignorant pagans. The principle being thus sanctioned,
that those who _believe_ themselves to have become acquainted with
religious truth, are justified in propagating a knowledge of it,
wherefore should not that privilege be exercised by a spiritualist as
well as a Christian?
1155. Humility is one of the virtues inculcated by Christ; but if
his disciples assume to themselves a peculiar capacity to know what
is true, and an exclusive right to teach what they thus assume to be
truth, there will be no humility in their practice, however it may be
blazoned among their professions.
1156. The view which I have presented in the preceding pages is
corroborated by a personage of no less authority than William Pitt,
afterward the Earl of Chatham, and prime minister of England. His
opinions, alleged to have been originally published in the London
Journal for 1733, are as follows:
_Letter of William Pitt._
“_Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to
visit the Fatherless and Widows in their afflictions, and to keep one’s
self unspotted from the World._”
1157. “_Gentlemen_: Whoever takes a view of the world, will find,
that what the greatest part of mankind have agreed to call religion,
has been only some outward exercise esteemed sufficient to work a
reconciliation with God. It has moved them to build temples, flay
victims, offer up sacrifices, to fast and feast, to petition and
thank, to laugh and cry, to sing and sigh by turns; but it has not
yet been found sufficient to induce them to break off an amour, to
make a restitution of ill-gotten wealth, or to bring the passions
and appetites to a reasonable subjection. Differ as much as they
may in opinion concerning what they ought to believe, or after what
manner they are to serve God, as they call it, yet they all agree in
gratifying their appetites. The same passions reign eternally in all
countries and in all ages, Jew and Mohammedan, the Christian and the
Pagan, the Tartar and the Indian, all kinds of men who differ in almost
every thing else, universally agree with regard to their passions.
If there be any difference among them, it is this; that the more
superstitious, the more vicious they always are, and the more they
believe, the less they practise. This is a melancholy consideration
to a good mind; it is a truth, and certainly above all things, worth
our while to inquire into. We will, therefore, probe the wound, and
search to the bottom; we will lay the axe to the root of the tree, and
show you the true reason why men go on in sinning and repenting, and
sinning again through the whole course of their lives; and the reason
is, because they have been taught, most wickedly taught, that religion
and virtue are two things absolutely distinct; that the deficiency
of the one might be supplied by the sufficiency of the other; and
that what you want in virtue, you must make up in religion. But this
religion, so dishonourable to God, and so pernicious to men, is worse
than Atheism, for Atheism, though it takes away one great motive to
support virtue in distress, yet it furnishes no man with arguments to
be vicious; but superstition, or what the world means by religion, is
the greatest possible encouragement to vice, by setting up something
as religion which shall atone and commute for the want of virtue. This
is establishing iniquity by a law, the highest law; by authority, the
highest authority; that of God himself. We complain of the vices of the
world, and of the wickedness of men, without searching into the true
cause. It is not because they are wicked by nature, for that is both
false and impious, but because to serve the purposes of their pretended
soul-savers, they have been carefully taught that they are wicked by
nature, and cannot help continuing so. It would have been impossible
for men to have been both religious and vicious, had religion been made
to consist wherein alone it does consist; and had they been always
taught that true religion is the practice of virtue in obedience to the
will of God, who presides over all things, and will finally make every
man happy who does his duty.
1158. This single opinion in religion, that all things are so well
made by the Deity, that virtue is its own reward, and that happiness
will ever arise from acting according to the reason of things, or that
God, ever wise and good, will provide some extraordinary happiness for
those who suffer for virtue’s sake, is enough to support a man under
all difficulties, to keep him steady to his duty, and to enable him
to stand as firm as a rock, amid all the charms of applause, profit,
and honour. But this religion of reason, which all men are capable
of, has been neglected and condemned, and another set up, the natural
consequences of which have puzzled men’s understandings, and debauched
their morals, more than all the lewd poets and atheistical philosophers
that ever infested the world; for instead of being taught that religion
consists in action, or obedience to the eternal moral law of God, we
have been most gravely and venerably told that it consists in the
belief of certain opinions which we could form no idea of, or which
were contrary to the clear perceptions of our minds, or which had no
tendency to make us either wiser or better, or, which is much worse,
had a manifest tendency to make us wicked and immoral. And this belief,
this impious belief, arising from imposition on one side, and from want
of examination on the other, has been called by the sacred name of
religion, whereas real and genuine religion consists in knowledge and
obedience. We know there is a God, and know his will, which is, that we
should do all the good we can; and we are assured from his perfections,
that we shall find our own good in so doing.
1159. And what would we have more? are we, after such inquiry, and in
an age full of liberty, children still? and cannot we be quiet unless
we have holy romances, sacred fables, and traditionary tales to amuse
us in an idle hour, and to give rest to our souls, when our follies and
vices will not suffer us to rest?
1160. You have been taught, indeed, that right belief, or orthodoxy,
will, like charity, cover a multitude of sins; but be not deceived;
belief of, or mere assent to the truth of propositions upon evidence,
is not a virtue, nor unbelief a vice; faith is not a voluntary act,
does not depend upon the will; every man must believe or disbelieve,
whether he will or not, according as the evidence appears to him. If,
therefore, men, however dignified or distinguished, command us to
believe, they are guilty of the highest folly and absurdity, because
it is out of our power; but if they command us to believe, and annex
rewards to belief, and severe penalties to unbelief, then they are most
wicked and immoral, because they annex rewards and punishments to what
is involuntary, and, therefore, neither rewardable nor punishable.
It appears, then, very plainly unreasonable and unjust to command
us to believe any doctrine, good or bad, wise or unwise; but, when
men command us to believe opinions which have no tendency to promote
virtue, but which are allowed to commute or atone for the want of it,
then they are arrived at the utmost pitch of impiety, then is their
iniquity full; then have they finished the misery, and completed
the destruction of poor mortal man; by betraying the interest of
virtue, they have undermined and sapped the foundation of all human
happiness; and how treacherously and dreadfully have they betrayed it!
A gift, well applied, the chattering of some unintelligible sounds
called creeds; an unfeigned assent and consent to whatever the church
enjoins, religious worship and consecrated feasts; repenting on a
death-bed; pardons rightly sued out; and absolution authoritatively
given, have done more toward making and continuing men vicious, than
all the natural passions and infidelity put together. For infidelity
can only take away the supernatural rewards of virtue; but these
superstitious opinions and practices have not only turned the scene,
and made men lose sight of the natural rewards of it, but have induced
them to think, that were there no hereafter, vice would be preferable
to virtue, and that they increase in happiness as they increase in
wickedness; and this they have been taught in several religious
discourses and sermons, delivered by men whose authority was never
doubted, particularly by a late Rev. prelate, I mean Bishop Atterbury,
in his sermon on these words: ‘If in this life only be hope, then we
are of all men the most miserable,’ where vice and faith ride most
lovingly and triumphantly together. But these doctrines of the natural
excellency of vice, the efficacy of a right belief, the dignity of
atonements and propitiations have, beside depriving us of the native
beauty and charms of honesty, and thus cruelly stabbing virtue to the
heart, raised and diffused among men a certain unnatural passion,
which we shall call a religious hatred—a hatred constant, deep-rooted,
and immortal. All other passions rise and fall, die and revive again;
but this of religious and pious hatred rises and grows every day
stronger upon the mind as we grow more religious, because we hate for
God’s sake, and for the sake of those poor souls, too, who have the
misfortune not to believe as we do; and can we in so good a cause hate
too much? the more thoroughly we hate the better we are; and the more
mischief we do to the bodies and states of these infidels and heretics,
the more do we show our love to God. This is religious zeal, and this
has been called divinity; but remember, the only true divinity is
humanity. W. PITT.”
_Offer of Guidance by a Mundane Spirit._
1161. The Rev. Allen Putnam, whose narrative of his conversion to
Spiritualism, has been submitted, gave a very sensible and interesting
lecture on this new doctrine, at the Melodeon, in Boston, last October.
One of his remarks struck me as being very well warranted by my own
observation and experience. He said that we are wont to express
indignation at the absurd, cruel, and unnatural Chinese custom of
cramping the female foot; but to him it appeared that in Christendom
a much worse practice existed, that of cramping the minds of females
by bringing them up zealous sectarians, their opinions, in general,
being determined by their parentage. Thus Miss A. is a Romanist; Miss
B. an Episcopalian; Miss C. a Calvinist; Miss D. a Methodist; Miss E. a
Jewess; all most excellent creatures in any other respect excepting the
effects of educational sectarianism, which had been interchanged, had
their parentage been commuted. (259.)
1162. One of the blessings of Spiritualism, according to my view,
is, that this cramped state of the mind, which attaches importance
to various phases of analogous educational error, will be removed by
receiving their opinions from the same source. But it seems that one
of the most amiable and interesting among those angelic devotees, has
been actuated by the same anxiety for my salvation from hell, that I
have felt for her emancipation from the educational ligatures imposed
upon her otherwise excellent understanding. The following letter is the
fruit of her zeal in my favour:
August 1, 1855.
1163. _My dear Sir_: You have too much kindness yourself, not to
receive in kindness what is so intended; and you have too much
politeness not to grant as much as you ask of a friend. I, therefore,
with all confidence, send you the enclosed letter, written by one
of the first intellects in the country. Now, if when you send your
pamphlets and the papers you wish me to read, you will state that you
have read this letter, (_with_ the _care_ you wish me to read yours,)
not to refute but to comprehend the mind of the writer, I will do the
same. But, as what I send to you requires higher power than any power
in _created_ man, I will continue to pray to this higher power, this
Creator of all things, that you may so read under his blessing and
guidance, (before whom you and the very world upon which you tread, are
but a molecule or mite,) that _you_, I say, may find that salvation for
your immortal soul, which you seem so much to desire. If you believe
that your father and sister exist, and consequently, that you _have_
a soul that cannot die, you must feel a deep anxiety with us all for
the future welfare of this soul, and will not treat with indifference
the attempt to offer you that which is a complete satisfaction to your
friend!
1164. I would avoid argument, as two persons at opposite points
can never see the objects in the same light; but I send simply the
Christian’s plan of salvation, to which I only ask you to attend as
carefully as I attended to the statement of your theory. When I return
to New York permanently, I will inform you. As I am anxious to retain
these papers, and life is uncertain, please so arrange them that they
may easily be found, should any thing happen.”
1165. The following lines, which are subjoined in the title page of my
pamphlet, addressed to the Episcopal clergy, would have forewarned any
but an enthusiast, that there was an outwork to be conquered before any
impression could be made:
1166. If God can creatures make to suit his will,
Foresee, if they can, his design fulfill,
Wherefore those creatures to trial expose,
Traits to find out, which he thus foreknows?
1167. Persons who should differ about axioms could never agree in
mathematical demonstrations, nor is it possible for A and B to agree in
theology, when A assumes what to B appears to comprise a contradiction
within its premises and conclusions. Having for years held the opinion
conveyed in the above lines, to be self-evident truth, it is of course
useless to debate with those who take an opposite view, especially
just at this time, when I believe that opinion to be sanctioned by my
spirit friends. This opinion was urged in my letter to the Episcopal
clergy; yet this kind adviser has not seen, or has not taken pains to
understand, its all-important bearing.
1168. The letter of this charming woman commences with begging the
question. It is assumed that the arguments of her clerical friend
_require for comprehension a higher power than any power created in
man_. But this to me appears fanatical presumption, just as much as
it would be in any other sectarian. The excellent authoress of the
epistle puts herself in a class of females whom it has been my object
to emancipate from the restraint imposed upon their minds, no less
cramping than that to which the feet of Chinese ladies are subjected.
1169. It must be evident, that unless there was a successful precursory
effort by facts and reasoning, to make me believe that what appears
to me _below_ good sense, is actually above it, her inference that
discussion would be useless is quite evident. But this amounts to an
admission that the opinions which it is her object to impart, are not
founded in reason.
1170. Her clerical friend falls into the same error, as will appear
from the following quotation. The last postulate in the world which
he could induce me to admit, would be that any thing which owes its
existence entirely to barbarous, wicked, ignorant, covetous, and
blood-thirsty men, can be God’s word, and, therefore, paramount to
human reason.
1171. How would he enable an idiot to believe in the Bible, or in any
thing? Is not our capacity to believe correctly, greater as our reason
is better by nature? It is only through his own intellectual faculties
that he has received his opinions and can defend them. It is through my
reason that my head and heart repel the Old Testament as, for the most
part, the work of a set of unprincipled bigots, comprising allegations
which the present state of astronomy and geology demonstrate to be
fallacious, and which, independently of that cramping of the intellect
by education, which it is my ardent desire to remove, would be
denounced replete with indecency, immorality, and misrepresentation of
God.
1172. It is striking that this kind lady, in referring to my sister and
other spirit friends, should suppose that I would slight the _direct
heartfelt evidence received from them_, in obedience to _impressions
felt by her in common with every other devotee to any religion
whatever_. They could, with just as much consistency, appeal to their
tenets, and assume their “Koran,” their “Shasters,” or “Zendavesta”
to be above my reason.
1173. But the whole tenor of this application shows that the
authoress expects to set aside the results of nearly twenty months’
investigation, creating in me a firm devout conviction that I have a
correct knowledge of the spirit world, received through my relatives,
friends, and high spirits, in deference to those of a set of people
of whom I know nothing but ill. May God do that for her which she
has so benevolently implored for me, and remove from her brain the
influence of educational narrowness. I would utter the same aspiration
for the divine whom she has brought in as her advocate, who I
hope as _sincerely_ believes what he alleges, as I believe in the
communications of my guardian spirits.
1174. But this superior intellect, it will be shown, falls into one of
the most inexcusable errors, into which a tyro in reasoning can fall,
that of founding his arguments on premises which are emphatically
denied by the other party—a gross begging of the question, that the
Bible is the word of God, and paramount to human reason.
1175. In a subsequent part of this letter, Hume’s excellent rule is
set aside: that we must weigh the probability of the evidence against
the improbability of the miracle. Rochefoucault alleges, ‘Tis better
to tell a probable lie, than an extremely improbable truth. By what
evidence can any record be proved true, when it is vastly more probable
it should be false, than the facts recorded by it should be true.
1176. Manifestly, there are but these two ways in which any record can
command credence: either there must be external evidence sufficient to
weigh against the improbability of the facts which it has recorded;
or those facts must be of a nature to create belief from their
probability, from what is called internal evidence. As to external
evidence, clearly any amount of that, may be adduced without creating a
belief in spiritual manifestations. Human evidence is wholly inadequate
to prove any thing which sectarianism does not wish to admit.
Considering the external evidence of Scripture as vastly inferior to
that on which Spiritualism is founded, and the miracles recorded, and
the doctrines taught, as carrying no evidence of their truth, but the
contrary, I do not understand upon what reasonable ground they are to
be identified with the word of God.
1177. This fascinating lady supposes that she gave ear to my exposition
of my views; but I am under the impression that she is quite deaf
to any thing that does not concur with her fanatical impressions,
otherwise she would never have looked upon me as one to be converted
from the opinions which I entertain by the reasoning of her clerical
friend, beginning with a begging of the question: assuming that
revelation is God’s word, in order to prove it to be God’s word.
1178. So the Bible is true because of the miracles which it records;
and these are true because the Bible records them!
1179. If she can so confine her mind as to become master of the
pyramid of facts which I have raised in favour of Spiritualism, she
will perceive that all other evidence of immortality sinks into
insignificance as compared with it. Now all this may be nominally
abrogated by denying the truth of it. But if I do not rely on my own
senses, is it likely I shall rely on those of other persons, in whom I
have no more confidence than her clerical adviser and herself have in
Mohammed and his disciples.
1180. I subjoin a portion of the letter of the clerical champion,
whose reasoning this interesting devotee deems so conclusive. I have
gone over the whole of it, and have ascertained that by substituting
Allah for God, Mohammed for Christ, Prophet for Redeemer, Mediator
for Saviour, it has a qualification which would be deemed a merit
elsewhere, if not in Christendom: it would serve just as well to uphold
the religion of Mohammed, as that of Christ.
1181. The letter is so long that it would occupy too many pages to
give the whole; but I will give a portion, sufficient to show how the
reasoning, on which many sectarians rely, may be just as good for any
other creed, founded on an arrogation of premises, as that for which
they contend.
1182. “Allah forbid that I should depreciate the value of reason in
any of its offices. Reason is Allah’s gift to man, and must be used as
Allah designs. But so is the Koran Allah’s gift to man, and must be
used as Allah designs. Two gifts from the same perfect being cannot
conflict with each other. The Koran in its teachings and revealings may
go beyond or rise above the comprehension of our reason, because reason
in man is a finite and imperfect gift, while the Koran from Allah
opens the mind of an infinite and perfect being. But the Koran does
not and cannot in any thing contradict reason, because Allah does not
and cannot contradict himself. Unless, therefore, you are prepared to
say that the Koran is _not_ Allah’s gift to man—if you are a believer
in its true divine inspiration—you must see and admit that when the
Koran, as Allah’s mouth, reveals any thing which _our_ reason cannot
as yet comprehend, because beyond or above, though not against, that
reason, then _Faith_ must submissively receive the revelation addressed
to it, and _Reason_ stop her speculation and shut her mouth at the
limit which Allah has set. Reason has to do with the _evidences_ which
show the Koran _to be_ Allah’s gift; with the grammatical and intended
_sense_ of what Allah taught and revealed in the Koran, and with the
_use_ of what in the Koran is clear to the comprehension of man. But
here Reason’s province ends. When the Koran goes beyond or rises above
this point, _Reason must_ pause and adore, and Faith must go forward
and receive. I do not hold, as you intimate, that the right exercise
of reason ‘is impious,’ or that Reason is to be _discarded_ and Faith
_substituted_, if by this be implied any thing _incompatible_ between
the proper offices of Reason and Faith; but I mean that _our_ finite
reason is to _stop_ at the limit assigned her by her _author_, and let
_Faith_ as a _higher_ power go forward and receive what Allah teaches
or reveals to her acceptance. Faith can now receive more than Reason
can as yet comprehend. She _does_ so in the province of _nature_; she
must do so in the province of _revelation_. This cannot be denied
without taking at once the ground of the infidel—a ground from which, I
doubt not, you would shrink back as from the border of an open pit of
destruction.
1183. I am thus brought to your remark, that ‘The Mohammedan system,
as generally received, is not difficult to understand.’ If this be
strictly true, it must be because that system, ‘as generally received,’
is not the _true_ system; for, in this sense, or as _truly_ and
_rightly_ received, the Mohammedan system contains various things
which it is difficult to understand, if by understanding be meant
_comprehending_. We may, indeed, _understand_ that a fact or a truth
_exists_ or is _revealed_, while that fact or that truth _itself_ is,
for the present, utterly beyond or above our _comprehension_. And this
is precisely the case with the Mohammedan system _rightly_ viewed. It
contains various facts and truths which _our_ reason cannot yet fathom.
Natural reason loves to _separate_ and set aside these great and high
things from the Koran as _non-essentials_, and then to busy itself with
those parts of the Koran which are level with its own height; pleased
with the dream that it has grasped _enough_, has grasped _all_ that can
be of any real value. Believe me when reason does this, for one who has
the Koran in his hands, she plays at a perilous game.
1184. The main position which I have thus far taken is, however,
virtually conceded in another part of your letter. Alluding to
what I had urged as to the importance of acknowledging Mohammed as
your mediator, and relying on his mediation only for justification
as all-sufficient, reconciling all difficulties, and removing all
embarrassment from the consideration of the union of justice and
mercy in the deity, you say: ‘But _does_ it remove all embarrassment?
Is not Allah himself the author of the plan of salvation? Was not
Mohammed himself Allah, and also his vicegerent?’ The _impossibility_
of answering these questions satisfactorily to the plainest reason,
teaches me to recoil from the impiety of inquiring _how_ my Maker will
save me or reconcile his own attributes? I know full well that the
great mass of human minds are totally incapable of considering such
a subject with any approximation to a solution of it, and therefore
do I feel that the eternal salvation or condemnation of mankind does
not depend on such theological questions. Here you directly admit the
inability of reason in most minds satisfactorily to comprehend some of
the great and high points of the Mohammedan system, and the consequent
impiety of her _attempting_ such a comprehension. You might as well
explicitly admit her inability for this comprehension in _all_ minds;
for _no_ mind in its present state can by _reason alone_ grasp all that
Allah has revealed in the Koran. These great and high things are not
proposed to reason _alone_, but to reason so far as their _evidence_ is
concerned, and to _faith_ so far as their substance is to be received.
Reason may satisfy herself that they _are_ revealed. _Faith alone_ can
take in the substance which they contain. When they _are_ proposed to
it, faith _must_ receive them, or salvation cannot come, whether the
reason of the individual addressed be the ‘plainest’ or otherwise.
1185. Your _argument_ in the above extract does not satisfy me so well
as your _admission_. From the inability of the great mass of minds
satisfactorily to comprehend the high mysteries of the Koran, you infer
that the ‘eternal salvation or condemnation of mankind does not depend
on such theological questions.’ Certainly, the salvation of mankind in
the mass does not depend on these or any other theological questions;
if by this be meant depending on the ability to _comprehend_ such
questions, because the points involved in these questions, so far as
they are mysteries, are proposed not to _reason_ as _comprehending_,
but to _faith_ as _receiving_. But do you mean to be understood as
saying, that when the Koran is put into any man’s hand, and when Allah
through the Koran opens to that man his _revealed_ way of salvation,
the individual thus approached may accept what is level with his
_reason_, but reject what is proposed to his _faith_ and _above_ his
reason, and that yet notwithstanding such rejection he may reasonably
hope to be saved? If so, I ask you by what right you argue thus? Who
is Allah, and what is man? When he tells you the way in which he will
save you, not the mass of mankind or the heathen to whom the Koran has
never come, but _you yourself_, what right have you to say that _your_
salvation does not depend on your faith’s reception of those very
things which are above your reason’s comprehension? How do you know
but that the whole efficacy of the plan _proposed to you_, depends on
your receiving the great facts and truths propounded to your _faith_?
‘Faith _itself_, I admit,’ you may contend, ‘does not save any man; it
is the Mediator that saves.’ But you have no right to say, or think,
or hope that he will or can save _you_ with the Koran in your hand,
in any other way than that which in the Koran he proposes to your
_faith_. And if when he demands your _faith_ in what surpasses your
reason, you withhold that faith, and plead the sufficiency of what he
has incidentally made level with your _reason_, do you not thereby
show that you have not the spirit which he requires, and that you are
yet none of his? In the Koran he has not only revealed to you his
mission and sanctification, but also proposed to you his mediation as a
propitiation for your sin; and he has told you that ‘you must be _born
again_,’ not only of water, but also ‘of the spirit;’ that except you
be converted and become as a ‘little child, you shall not enter into
the kingdom of heaven;’ and that ‘he that _believeth_ and is baptized
shall be saved, but he that _believeth not_ shall be _damned_:’
‘_believeth_’ not a _part_ only, but the _whole_ of the Koran then
intrusted to its Ulemas. Here he explicitly demands your faith in the
whole Koran. But suppose it had been otherwise, suppose he had simply
opened to you _a_ way by which he could _certainly_ save _you_, without
saying any thing about _faith_, as the one great and necessary receiver
of the facts and truths involved in that way; I ask, would not a
rejection of a _part_ of those involved facts and truths be equivalent
to a rejection of the whole? Would it not display the same spirit as a
rejection of the whole? Would it not show that you were not walking in
_his_ way, but in some _other_ which you supposed _might possibly_ be
found? Nay, would it not show that in your heart you had no confidence
in him as a mediator; that you even rebelled against his right to
prescribe to you the terms on which he would save you?”
1186. To conclude, with respect to this guardian angel of my soul, to
whom this digression owes its existence; it may comfort her to know
that I conceive myself so securely protected and guided already, and
so sure of the result of that guidance and protection, that I would
advise her, in my turn, to consider well whether she ought not to pray
to God to give her a little more light respecting her own destiny,
than is afforded by the book which is vaunted as being above reason,
and as being the word of God. Does she conceive the subterranean cave
with the “_lake of unquenchable fire_,” in which Dives is roasting
in sight of the blessed, to be so satisfactory as to be unwilling to
hear of a preferable abode in the azure sky? Does she aspire to some
official position commensurate with that of the judgships which Christ
promised his disciples? If it is to procure me a place in the heaven
described in Scripture, I beg leave to decline, being pre-engaged; and
therefore give her an invitation to meet me hereafter in the glorious
abode to which I confidently aspire, and where I shall feel myself
especially called upon to render her my assistance to rise from the
inferior though happy sphere to which, with her present opinions, she
is destined.
1187. I would recommend to her, and to others in the same predicament,
the perusal of the influence of the conversion to Spiritualism on my
friends, as presented in this volume. I would also recommend her to
study the comparison made between the heaven and hell of Scripture and
that of Spiritualism, as herein presented.
1188. I hope my would-be mundane guide to salvation will find in the
verse and prose addressed to me by one more nearly allied (215, 250,
538) a sufficient apology for declining her kindly-tendered guidance,
especially as the path through which she would lead me is known to this
excellent relative, who has frequently passed and repassed it during
her residence of more than two years in the spirit world, while to my
mundane friend it is as yet unknown, and, as I believe, misapprehended.
But although my mind has not been converted to her view of the service
tendered, my heart will never cease to be gratefully inclined toward
one who, while actually in want of guidance herself, thought so much of
the supposed deficiency from which it is imagined I suffer.
_Improper use of the epithet Infidel, as used in the parodied quotation
from the Clergyman’s Letter._
1189. If a man cannot be guilty of infidelity to another man’s wife,
how can he be guilty of infidelity to another man’s religion? The
Mohammedan wrongfully calls the Christian “infidel,” because he does
not believe in Mohammed; and as wrongfully is the epithet retorted,
because the Mohammedan does not believe in Christ. The epithet can only
be truly applicable to those who, while professing a religion, do not
act up to their professions. In this sense, Christendom, so called,
teems with infidels to Christianity.
_On Atonement._
1190. Since my spirit sister’s translation to the spheres, she has
risen from the fifth to the sixth sphere. It has been alleged by her
that her ascent was retarded by her belief in the atonement. I subjoin
some reasoning on that subject:
1191. As respects free-will, Dr. Johnson shrewdly said that all
practice is in its favour, all theory against it; but whatever view
may be taken on this subject, no one can deny that _so far as it is
possible for sin to be avoided_, it must be within the power of God
to make men virtuous. The fact that they are not sinless, must arise
either from his not wishing to make them more virtuous, or from his
inability to make them so. That he does not make them free from sin
implies either a want of will or a want of power.
1192. But whatever may in this respect be true, his omniscience must
have enabled him to perceive the result beforehand, and of course it
is inconceivable that he would, consistently with his goodness, have
created them, foreknowing that they would be so wicked as to deserve
eternal punishment.
1193. All this it was in his power to obviate by not creating men, or
by making their temptations less, or their power of resistance greater.
But foreseeing their wickedness, and imposing fetters on his omnipotent
power, so as to render _a certain amount of suffering inevitable_, he
is said to have determined that a portion of the godhead should expiate
in the flesh, by the pains of crucifixion, the punishment due to the
sinful creatures which he has been supposed to have wilfully created,
foreseeing this result.
1194. But in order to make men better, instead of using that almighty
power with which he is said to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh,
to soften the human heart and enlighten the human mind universally,
he is made to resort to a method which, however cruel and manifestly
unjust in making an innocent being suffer for the guilty, has proved
utterly inefficient, since only a small minority of mankind profess
Christianity, and of that minority only an imperceptible portion,
if any, comply with its requisitions, as before observed; hence the
greater part are liable “_to be beaten with many stripes_,” while
those to whom the mission of Christ has been unknown are to “_be
beaten with but few stripes_.”
1195. Human lawgivers may enact constitutions which result in practical
failure, because they do not foresee the issue. Such failures are
ascribed to their deficiency in practical wisdom. But the failure of
measures for the production of any result proving it unwise, must
demonstrate that it did not originate with an all-wise author; in other
words, with the Almighty.
1196. It is manifestly absurd to ascribe to that Being any measures
which have failed to effect the ends for which they have been
specially devised. Knowing that Mohammed would have more followers
than Christ, that the largest portion of mankind would remain pagans,
that even in Christendom the Christian religion would be a source of
bloody contention and theological hatred, making scarcely any real
Christians,—how could it originate with a wise and prescient Deity?
1197. “By their fruits ye shall know them?” It being premised that God
is omniscient, all-wise, and omnipotent, can any fruit proceed from
that high source which has not proved to answer well the purpose for
which it was intended?
1198. The actual morality of Christendom being the inverse of that
excessive and impracticable restraint, which Christ enjoined as the
object of his mission, must prove that his doctrine could not have
originated with a being by whom its failure must have been foreseen.
1199. Arguments such as I have used are met often by referring to
the evils, to which all animated nature is subjected, in the way
of misery, mutilation, disease, or death. But when the government
of the universe is attributed to general laws, it may be inferred
that evil results from a want of power to render those laws free
from bad consequences. Nothing but such limitation of power, or an
indisposition to prevent those evils, can account for their occurrence.
But this is widely different from assuming, in the first place, with
self-called orthodoxy, that God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise,
and all-good, and then representing him as resorting to measures for
the accomplishment of his ends which are utterly inefficacious. This
is accusing the Almighty of acting like an idiot. Can any thing be
more preposterous, than that an all-wise, all-good, all-powerful, and
all-foreseeing Deity should require the services of human missionaries
to carry out his will? Would he not at least require that such
messengers of his word should first agree as to what that word ought
to be? A pagan might remain during his whole life a pagan, should
he, before adopting any creed, require that professed Christians, in
general, should agree as to the tenets which he should espouse.
1200. Agreeably to the attributes assigned to the Deity by orthodoxy,
the state of things which exists in the universe cannot be otherwise
than as God wishes it to be, to the falling of a sparrow; so that any
change sought by man, beyond the immediate sphere of his necessities,
must be an officious interference with God’s providence.
1201. Yet if a man be considered as an instrument in attaining certain
beneficent ends, without which those ends could not be accomplished,
then human exertion is reasonable, in whatever way it can be productive
of good.
1202. How can any being who contemplates the wonderful power displayed
in the creation, hesitate to perceive that if the divine Architect
desired that all men should coincide in their modes of worship, he
would have furnished them sufficient evidence of his will, and disposed
their minds to receive the desired impression?
1203. Nevertheless, his measures are represented as the inverse of
these. It is represented that a creed which he wished all men to
embrace was promulgated in an obscure part of an obscure country,
under the yoke of heathen despotism, in a language unknown to any
other people. It was so promulgated that the great majority of mankind
were entirely out of the reach of its influence, and have remained
so for nearly two thousand years. Moreover, those who have been made
acquainted with Christianity are unable to agree in what it consists.
1204. As I have already urged, if we were to judge of the extention of
Christianity by the number of Christians who do not in practice violate
the precepts of Christ, it might be a question whether the name of
Christendom is applicable to any part of the world.
_On the massacre at Sinope, as a probable consequence of Religious
Fanaticism and Intolerance._
1205. As in consideration of the idolatry of the Amalekites the
Israelites were, according to the Bible, authorized to extirpate that
nation, for a wrong done to Israel some hundred years before, may not
the Russians imagine themselves justified for the massacre of Sinope?
(1 Sam. xv.)
1206. The Turks have done vastly more harm to the Greek Christians,
when, with fire and sword, they subdued the Greek empire, and obliged
each man to pay annually for wearing his head, than the tribe of Amalek
did to the Hebrews. In the one case there does not appear to have
been for centuries any repetition of the wrong; but in the other the
wrongs were reiterated, and of an enduring nature. It is true that the
Mohammedan sovereigns were in Turkey more tolerant of their Christian
subjects than Christian sovereigns were of Mohammedans; or even of
the Albigenses, Lollards, Wicliffites, Lutherans, or Calvinists. The
Turks never introduced an inquisitorial tribunal to burn or torture
unbelievers. On this account they may think themselves less open to
the charge of cruel intolerance than some of the self-called disciples
of Christ; and no doubt the discordancy between the conduct of those
disciples and the precepts of their teacher, may have contributed to
their contemptuous opinions of those whom they improperly call infidels
to Mohammed, not perceiving that people who have not professed a
religion, can no more be infidels thereto than one man can be guilty
of infidelity to another man’s wife. This argument, however, would be
answered by the fact that Christians call Mohammedans infidels, not in
consequence of any violation of _their_ faith in Mohammed, but because
they have never had any faith in Christ.
1207. Such skeptical Mohammedans as Lady Mary Wortley Montague made
mention of in her letters from Constantinople, will no doubt consider
the term infidel applicable only to such as break their professed
faith, whatever it may be.
1208. Agreeably to this definition, every fighting or wealth-seeking
Christian is an infidel to the religion which he professes; every
Mohammedan who indulges in wine is an infidel.
1209. The religion taught by Mohammed, like that of Moses, authorized
the most cruel wars, the extermination of nations for erroneous
belief, while the religion of Christ directs us to love our neighbours
as ourselves; to return good for evil; to give our coat when our cloak
is taken; to submit passively to blows, and that the possession of
wealth interferes with access to heaven. Christianity is, moreover,
unfavourable to polygamy or concubinage.
1210. It follows that the precepts of Jesus call for restraint upon
the predominant passions of human nature, while those of Mohammed,
in justifying warfare, excessive indulgence in women, and in the
spoliation and massacre of unbelievers, coincide with the most
predominating propensities of human nature. It is, therefore, far
easier to be faithful to the precepts of Mohammed than those of Christ.
1211. Nevertheless, as both Christ and Mohammed treated the Old
Testament as authentic, it is to be feared that the Turks and Russians
may look to it for justification of their intolerant cruelty.
1212. None of the ancient Pagans were as hostile to the Hebrews, as
the disciples of Mohammed have been to the Greek Christians. But not
even the Mohammedans have been so intolerant to those whom they call
infidels, as Christian sectarians have been, to such persons as they
have dogmatically adjudged to be heretics.
1213. It should be well considered whether any authority dependent on
human records can justify the inference that God, anywhere, or in any
age, ever authorized such cruelty as that exhibited at Sinope.
1214. Whenever men adopt the idea entertained by the Jews and
Mohammedans, and certain sects of Christians, that a peculiar creed is
necessary to salvation, it is deemed humane to inflict any temporal
evil in order to eradicate any other belief which will subject souls to
eternal punishment. When to the Catholics in the reign of Queen Mary
it was urged that burning heretics alive would not change their creed,
the reply was, that although the victims should not be converted, the
souls of their progeny would be saved from damnation by the extirpation
of the heresy with the heretics. Admitting the premises, the conclusion
was correct, and the auto-da-fé and the tortures of the inquisition
were even more excusable than a painful chirurgical operation, when it
preserves the temporal life of the patient.
1215. If the Czar is of opinion, that for every Christian who may
replace a Turk, a soul will be saved from damnation, he may conceive
himself as well authorized to extirpate the Turks, as were Moses and
Joshua to extirpate any heathen nation.
1216. Moreover, by some Christians, Jesus is considered as having
sanctioned the retention of that characteristic of the Hebrew
portraiture of Jehovah, which makes it right to exterminate unbelievers
in the orthodox creed. This must be a source of discord wherever it is
recognised, as it induces persecution from conscientious regard to the
salvation of the victims upon whom it acts, while in them it naturally
creates bitter resentment instead of gratitude.
1217. Having submitted the representations of Jehovah, given in the Old
Testament, I will subjoin those of the great modern philosopher Newton,
and those of Seneca, one of the most distinguished sages of antiquity.
The reader may, from these data, judge how far piety or morality would
suffer, were that ancient record to give way to the direct evidence of
Spiritualism.
_Opinions of God held by Sir Isaac Newton.—Enfield’s Philosophy, Page
638._
1218. “God has no need of organs; he being everywhere present to the
things themselves.
1219. “It appears from phenomena, that there is a being incorporeal,
living, intelligent, omnipresent, who, in infinite space, as it were
in his sensory, sees the things themselves, intimately and thoroughly
perceives them, and comprehends them wholly by their immediate presence
to himself.
1220. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets
could only arise from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and
powerful being; and if the fixed stars be centres of similar systems,
these, being all formed by like wisdom, must be subject to the dominion
of one; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same
nature with the light of the sun; and all systems mutually give and
receive light.
1221. “God governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as
the Lord of the universe. The Supreme Deity is an eternal, infinite,
and absolutely perfect being, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his
duration extends from eternity to eternity, and his presence from
infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things
which exist, or can be known. He is not eternity or infinity; but
eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space; but he endures and
is present; he endures forever and is present everywhere. Since every
portion of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration
is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be
_never_ or _nowhere_. God is omnipresent, not virtually only, but
substantially; for power cannot subsist without substance. In him all
things are contained and move, but without reciprocal affection. God is
not affected by the motion of bodies, nor do bodies suffer resistance
from the omnipresence of God.
1222. “It is universally allowed that God exists necessarily; and
by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence he is
throughout similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power
of perceiving, understanding, and acting; but in a manner not at all
human, not at all corporeal; in a manner to us altogether unknown. As
a blind man has no idea of colours, so we have no idea of the manner
in which the most wise God perceives and understands all things. He is
entirely without body, and bodily form, and therefore can neither be
seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under any
corporeal representation. We have ideas of his attributes, but what
the _substance_ of _any_ thing is, we are wholly ignorant. We see only
the figures and colours of bodies; we hear only sounds; we touch only
external superficies; we smell only odours; we taste only savours; of
their internal substance we have no knowledge by any sense, or by any
reflex act of the mind; much less have we any idea of the substance of
God. We know him only by his properties and attributes, by the most
wise and excellent structure of things, and by final causes; and we
reverence and worship him on account of his dominion. A God without
dominion, providence, and design, is nothing else but fate and nature.”
1223. The language above quoted does not involve the idea that Newton
owed his idea of God to the Bible, or that he considered him as having
any person, much less that he consisted of three persons. He makes
no allusion to Christ or to the Scriptures. His opinions are quite
reconcilable with Theism, but incompatible with the existence of the
Trinity.
_On God and his Attributes, by Seneca._
1224. “Great respect is due to universal opinion. We consider common
assent an evidence of truth. That there are Gods, we are convinced,
among other proofs, from the fact that the belief in their existence is
natural to man. No nation has been found so brutal as to be entirely
without religion.
1225. “We begin to know God from his works. What is God? All that you
see, and all that you do not see. In what does the nature of God and
man differ? The best part of man is his mind; in God there is nothing
but mind. He is pure spirit. Many names are applicable to him. Do you
call him Fate? You do not err. He it is upon whom every thing depends.
The cause of causes. Do you call him Providence? You are right. It is
by his appointment that this world is so arranged that it performs
without confusion the part assigned to it. Do you call him Nature? You
do not sin. It is he from whom all things are produced.
1226. “You may properly apply to God any name expressive of celestial
power. All his benefits may give rise to distinctive appellations. Thus
he is called Father, Hercules, Mercury, &c. Father, because he is truly
the Father of all; Hercules, because he is omnipotent; Mercury, because
he is pure Reason, the principle of science, of order, and of harmony.
1227. “Justice, Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, are all names of _one_
God, expressive of his various attributes, and are qualities of the one
mind; _whichever of them you love, you love God_. Known unto God are
all his works.
1228. “Whatever is to happen is present with him. What to us is sudden
and unexpected, has by him been foreseen and _provided_ for.
1229. “A wise man does not change his opinion, how much less God! As
a river does not flow back, or stop in its course, _so the order of
nature is governed by fixed laws, which are nothing less than divine
decrees_.
1230. “Who is so wretched, so neglected, who born to so cruel a
destiny, as not to have received any benefits from the gods? Look
at those who complain of their lot, you will find that they are not
deprived of all comforts. Is the gift of life nothing? Are there
no objects pleasant to the eye, to the ear, or to the mind? God’s
kindness does not only supply us with what is necessary to existence,
he provides also for our pleasure. Witness the variety of fruits,
differing in flavour; the many healthful vegetables, so great a variety
of food for different seasons of the year, some produced from the earth
without culture, _even for the idle_; animals of all kinds abounding
in the earth, the sea, and the air, as if all things in nature were
tributary to our enjoyment. Consider the rivers flowing gracefully
through the fields which they fertilize; others, whose deep beds in
their vast and navigable courses, afford the means of a profitable
commerce, or by overflowing their banks during the drought and heat of
summer, water the parched earth and cause it to bring forth abundantly.
You deny that you have received any favours, and yet are unwilling to
part with what you possess. There are some philosophers who do not
appreciate the divine gifts. They complain that we are not endowed with
perfect health, incorruptible virtue, and foreknowledge. They scarcely
refrain from impudently despising nature, that she has made us less
than gods. How much better would it be to return thanks to the gods
for the many benefits we have received, and for placing us in this
beautiful world, and subjecting it to our rule, as their vicegerents.
1231. “The Deity has thought of us from the beginning; and this world
has been so arranged as to make his care of us manifest. We admit
our obligation to love our parents, as those from whom we derive
our existence. They were, however, certainly not the authors of our
existence, but were utterly ignorant of the mysteries of nature.
1232. “That we are indebted for our existence to an _intelligent
cause_, is evident from the provisions made for our support long before
our birth.
1233. “The strong instinct of a mother, making her willing to endure
any privation for the helpless stranger; the sacred fountain which,
at the moment it is wanted, flows from the mother’s breast; the air
adapted to the lungs, the light to the eye: what more shall I say?—_a
present God is revealed!_
1234. “Our kind Father begins to bestow benefits on us before we
are capable of perceiving our obligations to him, and continues them
even when we are ungrateful. Some accuse him of forgetting them; some
of injuring them; others believe him to be regardless of his works;
nevertheless, like a good parent, who _smiles_ at the follies of his
children, God does not cease _to confer his benefits on those who deny
his existence, but with an equal eye regards all nations, and uses
his power only to bless_. He sprinkles the earth with soft showers; he
moves the sea by his breath; tempers the severity of winter and the
heat of summer, and is _placable to the errors of imperfect mortals_.”
_On the Better Employment of the First Day of the Week._
1235. The subjoined essay, as above designated, was written nearly
ten years ago, before the author had any hope that any knowledge of a
future state would be mercifully afforded through himself, as well as
many others, which would supply the only deficiency in the elements
requisite to the proposed innovation. Fortunately the doctrines, since
taught by the spirits, entirely corroborate the suggestions of this
essay; so that Spiritualism, natural religion, and literature, may
hereafter go hand in hand on Sunday.
1236. This now gloomy day, may, through the happy united
instrumentality suggested, become a day of real intellectual
improvement, as well as of every species of variety of innocent
recreation. Yet every species of selfish sensual pleasure will be
avoided and condemned by every conscientious believer in spiritual
manifestations.
1237. It is suggested that persons opposed to sabbatarianism,
inconsistent with the early and long-continued practice of
Christianity, and with the freedom of conscience guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States, should unite to render
Sunday (erroneously called the Sabbath) a day of moral, literary,
and scientific instruction, for those who, dissatisfied with the
sectarianism of the existing places of worship, pass the day without
edifying occupation.
1238. The object of this association would be to contemplate the Deity,
agreeably to the opinions entertained by the first and one of the best
of philosophers, Sir Isaac Newton; the sentiments of morality comprised
in the precepts ascribed to Confucius, as well as to Christ, “Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.”
1239. As respects the object of devotion, the idea of the Deity
entertained by Newton, and this sentiment of Pope’s universal prayer,
might be adopted:
1240. “Father of all, in every age,
In every clime adored,
By saint, by savage, and by sage,
Jehovah, Jove, or Lord.”
1241. As regards ceremonial, that sanctioned by Christ, agreeably to
which the brief appeal of the humble, contrite publican, was deemed
preferable to that of the self-complacent, multiloquent, pompous
Pharisee.
1242. The opinions of the Deity given by Newton, are quoted to show
that there is nothing therein to justify intolerant sectarianism, nor
to indicate the distinguished author to have been indebted for them to
Revelation.
1243. As favouring toleration, the sentiments expressed by Seneca, the
Roman sage, should be cherished. The sentiments of this sage prove that
among the heathens a more pious idea of God existed than that given by
the Bible, which represents him as jealous, and as punishing not only
the individual, but his posterity, for an involuntary ignorance, which
by a mere fiat, omnipotency could correct.
1244. God is quite tolerant, according to Seneca, as respects any
misapprehension of his pretensions, while, according to Moses, he is
extremely intolerant.
1245. Instead of teaching people to dislike and disesteem those who may
differ from them, as to the designation, form, or name under which the
Deity is to be worshipped, it should be held that no person of sound
mind would waste his time and his energies in worshipping that which
he does not conscientiously believe to be entitled to adoration, any
more than a man will _knowingly_ pay a debt to or court the favour of
one to whom he owes nothing, and from whom he cannot expect any thing
in return. It might be argued as reasonably, that a person in paying by
_mistake_ a forged draft, is less honest than in paying one which is
genuine, as that a virtuous pagan is to have less favour with God than
any other man, however orthodox his creed. (See Theological Axioms,
page 34.)
1246. Were a lessee to pay a forged order for rent due to his landlord,
would the latter strive to punish him for the mistake, especially if so
wealthy as not to feel the want of the money? But what would be said
of the landlord who, knowing that his lessee had received an erroneous
impression as to the owner of his tenement, should allow him to pay
year after year without any effort to prevent him from being cheated?
Would not this deprive him of moral if not of legal claim to the rent?
God is represented as omniscient, and consequently as cognizant of the
misapprehension which leads the pagan to kneel before his idol, and yet
without either influencing his mind, or placing before him any evidence
of his error, punishing him for his mistake.
1247. It should, moreover, be an object to prove the greatness and
goodness of God, by making men acquainted with the wondrous miracles
of that universe of which a nook has been assigned to the inhabitants
of this planet, which, in comparison with the totality, is as minute
as any grain of sand which contributes to form our terrestrial globe
is to the whole mass of which it constitutes a part—so insignificant.
It should be an object to show how that “_honesty is the best
policy_,”—the bad never being happy.
1248. Those well-educated sectarians of different creeds should be held
wanting in humility, who severally considered themselves free from
that error in belief to which they deem all other men liable. It is
conceived, also, that individuals are answerable for their opinions to
God only, and that for one man to condemn another for not thinking as
he himself thinks, is to violate the precept, “judge not, lest ye be
judged,” and the golden rule of acting toward other men as you would
have them act toward you.