2064. In a work by the English bishop Warburton, is to be found the
following allegation:
“The doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments is not to
be found in, nor did it make part of, the Mosaic dispensation.”
_The Pentateuch inconsistently represented as the basis of belief
in human immortality, as will appear by the prefixed quotation, as
well as the inability of any of its devotees to point out any part
which conflicts with the right reverend author’s opinion, above
mentioned.—Injustice of representing disbelievers in the Bible as not
having as good grounds for belief in immortality as those who rest
their belief on a work which, by its silence, tends to discountenance
the hope of a future life.—Those who uphold the Bible against
Spiritualism, the real antagonists of the only satisfactory evidence
ever given to man of a future habitation in the spirit world._
2065. Religious people all very justly insist on the immense importance
of a belief in a future state of existence, in which we are to enjoy a
degree of happiness in proportion to our good conduct in this life, or
of misery in proportion as we do evil.
2066. Throughout Christendom I believe such a belief is necessary to
render a person competent as a witness, or to hold any office. As it
is assumed generally by Christians that there is no other proof of
immortality than that alleged to be afforded by Scripture, unbelievers
in Scripture are assumed to be unbelievers in a future state, and
the most unfavourable insinuations are made respecting such persons,
(1310.) Bishop McIlvaine, in his “Evidences,” has _charitably_
represented that, as a class, such men are peculiarly vicious, and in
their domestic relations immoral; _not recollecting how far Christian
prelates have been found wanting in the present, as well as in past
times_. But notwithstanding that the disbelief in a future state is
held to be so universally pernicious in its influence, self-called
orthodox Christians deem it impious not to bow before the Bible as
the holy word of God, or to be wanting in respect for his inspired
missionary, Moses. But admitting that the books found by Hilkiah (1940)
were written, under divine inspiration, by Moses, how does it happen
that those books and their author stand in such high estimation,
_when they actually give no evidence of immortality, but rather tend
to prove that God, in communicating his will to Moses, thought it
more important to give to the Jews directions for the decoration of a
tabernacle, than to impart to them the invaluable knowledge of their
eternal existence? Moreover, God is represented as holding in especial
favour, those who did not think it of as much importance to inquire
into the truth of immortality, as to obtain decorations for pharisaical
worship._ Why is Moses, _a materialist_, to be venerated, who so
grossly trifled with his opportunities? There is either a flagitious
misrepresentation, or he, of all men, had the best opportunity of
learning this _all-important_ truth; and therefore, dying ignorant of
it, is proportionally more culpable. Wherefore is the uncandid and
unfounded pretence resorted to, that attacking the Old Testament is
attacking the basis of the hope of heaven, when, on the contrary, that
record has really the opposite tendency—that of enfeebling the evidence
of immortality?
2067. We see the _heathen_ Cyrus, on his death-bed, (1980,) striving
to impress upon his children a belief in immortality, while Moses,
dying a worldly-minded, blood-thirsty materialist, employs his last
moments in giving _inhuman_ directions for the _merciless massacre_ of
every conquered pagan. Yet, while Bishop McIlvaine, as respects his
contemporaries, represents materialism as irreconcilable with virtue,
Moses is to be venerated and the books attributed to his authorship
idolatrously worshipped as the word of God! But if the advocacy of any
thing which tends to lessen the hope of immortality be culpable, is
it not culpable, against the truths of Spiritualism to hold up a book
which authorizes disbelief in immortality, and that, too, upon such
questionable authority as an obscure priest and fanatical and barbarous
autocrat? (1937.) As respects the gospel, it has, I hope, been shown
that, with all the exertions of the good parson Harbaugh to exhibit
the heaven of Scripture in its most favorable aspect, (777 to 805,)
Spiritualism has immensely the advantage in the description given of
the spirit world, (409 to 469,) sanctioned by the replies given to my
queries under test conditions, (552).
2068. Another ground of pre-eminence is the perfect immunity from any
association with such a priesthood as that described by the Right Rev.
Bishop Hopkins. Media, replacing the priests, will owe their office to
nature, not to any aristocracy, monarch, or theocrat, (1307).
2069. Private disinterested Media will always outnumber and control any
of the same class who may attempt to acquire unfair ascendancy, even
if, in the nature of the case, it were possible that such a wrong could
be contemplated.
2070. I trust I have shown that the actual morals of Christendom are
irreconcilable with the precepts of the gospel, which denounce wealth
and enjoin submission to wrong, these morals being also inconsistent
with the materialism of the books of Moses. Under these circumstances,
let the reader turn to the evidence which has converted me from a
prepossessed skeptic to a devout believer in spiritual communication.
Let that glorious portraiture of the spirit-world be considered which
has been opened to the view of mortals through the high spirits who
have accredited me as one of their servants. I will not go over the
evidence, nor recapitulate the arguments which I have already so fully
urged upon the attention of my readers. I implore them to read with
candour, and think earnestly of the facts and reasoning submitted in
this volume.
_P. S.—Explanation respecting Jesus Christ._
My spirit sister alleges that Christ never uttered the language
recorded as his, and upon which I have commented. This being admitted,
I wish that nothing which I have said may be considered as bearing
personally on a Being who is so much the object of devotion with
many of my dearest connections, relations, and friends. I wish that
it should be considered that it is only upon the doctrines imputed
to Christ, that I have intended to animadvert, not on Jesus himself.
Surely I am justified as treating that language as coming from Jesus
Christ, which is ascribed to him in the only history of his teachings
which has come down to us, and which, under the name of the holy
canonical gospel, is considered by more than three-fourths of all the
Christians in existence as inspired by God!