ORIGIN
THEIR NUMEROUS EVILS AND ABSURDITIES.
OF all the follies ever enacted or exhibited under the sun, and of all
the ignorance of history, science, and human nature ever displayed in
the history of the human race, that which stands out in bold relief,
as pre-eminent, is the fashionable custom of conversion, or "getting
religion." When the evidence lies all around us as thick as the fallen
leaves of autumn, clustering on the pages of history, and proclaimed
by every principle of mental science, that what is called conversion
is nothing but a mental and temperamental or nervous phenomenon--a
psychological process--how can we rank those amongst intelligent people
who still claim it to be "the power of God operating upon the soul of
the sinner"? Ignorance is the only plea that can acquit them of the
charge of imbecility. The number who daily fall victims to this priestly
delusion in various parts of the country may be reckoned by thousands.
We propose in this chapter to exhibit some of the evils and absurdities
of this widespread delusion and religious mono-mania. To do so the more
effectually, we will arrange the presentation of the subject under four
separate heads. We will attempt to show,--
1. Its historical errors.
2. Its logical errors.
3. Its philosophical or scientific errors.
4. Its moral evils.
1st. _Its Historical Errors_.--Can we conceive it possible that the
thousands of priests who are now employed in "converting souls to
God" are so ignorant of history as not to know that it is an old pagan
custom? that it was prevalent in heathen countries long before a single
soul was converted to Christianity, and is carried on to some extent
now, both among pagans and Mahomedans? From such facts it would
appear (viewing the matter from the Christian stand-point) that God
is indifferent as to what kind of religion, or what sort of religious
nonsense, people are converted to, or whether it is truth or error they
embrace, or whether it is a true religion or a false one they imbibe,
so he gets them converted. According to Mr. Higgins, the practice of
converting people from one sect to another by the popular priesthood
was prevalent under the ancient Persian system, and was carried on there
quite extensively more than three thousand years ago; and the process
was essentially the same as that now in vogue amongst modem Methodists,
and the effect the same. At their large revival meetings the whole
congregation would sometimes become so affected under the eloquent
ministrations of the officiating priest, as to cry, and shout, and
prostrate themselves upon the ground, which was afterward found to be
drenched with their tears; and on these occasions they would confess
their sins to each other, and to their priests; and yet those very sins
they condemned were, perhaps, amongst the best acts of their lives,
while their real crimes were overlooked and justified, instead of being
condemned, thus showing that an honest, just, and sensible God could
have had nothing to do with it. And we have reports of similar scenes
witnessed more recently among the Mahomedans. Major Denham furnishes us
an account of some "revival meetings" he attended a few years since in
Arabia, carried on by one of the Mahomedan sects. On one occasion the
effect of the discourse of the preacher upon the audience in the way of
"converting souls to God" was so powerful, that he could only convince
himself that he was not in a Methodist revival meeting by a knowledge
of his geographical position. The preacher's name was Malem Chadily, and
here is a specimen of some of his language. "Turn, turn, sinner, unto
God; confess he is good, and that Mahomet is his prophet; wash, and
become clean of your sins, and paradise is open before you: without
this nothing can save you from eternal fire." During this earnest appeal
(says the major), tears flowed plentifully, and everybody appeared to be
affected. One of his hearers, becoming converted, shouted, "Your words
pierce my soul," and fell upon the floor. Now let it be borne in mind,
that Mahomet is stigmatized and condemned by the Christian churches as
"a false prophet," and his religion denounced as "a system of fraud,"
"a false religion," &c. Of course, then, Christians will not argue, nor
admit, that conversion, and "getting religion," in this case, is the
work of God. A just God would have nothing to do in converting people
to "a false religion." What explanation shall we adopt for it then?
To assume it to be the work of the devil (the dernier resort for all
religious difficulties), and conversions among Christians the work of
God, when both are so clearly and obviously alike, is to insult common
sense. To assume that two things, exactly alike in character, can be
exactly and diametrically unlike in origin, is a scientific paradox
which no person of common intelligence can swallow, or accept for a
moment. Both, then, we must admit, have the same origin. This train of
argument leads us to speak of--
2d. _The Logical Absurdities of the Doctrine of Conversion_.--There
are several circumstances which point, unmistakably as the needle to the
pole, to the mundane origin of the phenomenon of conversion.
The character of many of the priestly conductors who "run the battery,"
is sufficient of itself to preclude the hypothesis of any divine agency
in the matter. The most powerful revivalist we ever knew, the priest who
could convert an audience the quickest, and bring down sinners to the
mourners' bench faster than any other clergyman we ever heard "dealing
out damnation" to the people, was a broad-shouldered, muscular,
stentorian-voiced circuit rider of the "Buckeye State," who, as was
afterward learned, was guilty of perpetrating some of the blackest
crimes that ever blotted the page of human history, at the very time of
his most successful career in the way of "convicting souls of sin, and
converting them to God." He was apprehended by the officers of the law
in the midst of one of his most flourishing revivals, under the twofold
charge, i. Of being the father of an illegitimate child, the young
mother of which was a member of his church; 2. Of defrauding one of his
neighbors in a trade, to the amount of nearly a thousand dollars--both
of which charges he was convicted of. A similar case, but possessing
some worse features, occurred a few years since in the county in which
the author now resides. A preacher, who had had criminal connection with
a young woman of his church, in order to conceal his guilt resorted to
the damnable expedient of administering poison to his victim shortly
before his illicit intercourse with her would have been made manifest
by the birth of a child, thus committing a double murder. He was
apprehended for the crime while carrying on "a most glorious revival,"
as it was styled by some of the deluded congregation. Now to ascribe the
irresistible power which these two preachers exerted over their audience
(in the way of "converting them to God") to a divine source, as they
claimed for it, would be to trifle with common sense, common decency,
and all honorable conceptions of a God. These reverend scamps often
instituted the high claim of being "called of God" to their ministerial
labors. But if we concede the claim, we should have to conclude that God
knew but little about them, for he certainly would not knowingly employ
such moral outlaws upon such an important mission.
Having thus briefly spoken of the character of some of the actors and
agents in the work of conversion, we will now glance at the character of
some of the religions and religious ideas, and moral course of conduct,
to which the sinner is converted. It is evident that if an All-wise God
had anything to do in the process of converting people to any system
of religion, he would also convert them to correct moral habits. But in
many cases, after conversion they are no nearer right in this respect,
and in some cases further from it than before being thus sanctified.
In some cases their religion becomes worse, their religious ideas less
sensible, and their moral conduct more objectionable, by "the change of
heart" in "getting religion." Mr. Spencer informs us that the Vewas, a
sect or tribe of the Feegees, often cry for hours under conviction for
sin. And what is that sin? Why, the neglect to offer sacrifices to their
God. And those sacrifices consist in human beings, sometimes their own
children. And their conviction, conversion, and repentance only make
them more diligent in practicing this crime. It is evident, then, that
their religion is at war with their humanity, and the former always
triumphs in the contest. They are addicted to cannibalism, infanticide,
and polygamy. But as the process of "getting religion" never makes
anybody more intelligent, the "change of heart," with the Vewas, never
changes their views, or opens their eyes to see the enormity of their
crimes. In "getting religion" people get neither sense, knowledge, nor
morality. They get neither a larger stock, nor an improved quality, of
either. Their moral conduct is not often sensibly improved, materially
or permanently.
3d. _Scientific Errors, and Scientific Explanations of Conversion_.--The
phenomena of conversion and "getting religion" are so easily explained
in the light of science and philosophy, and that explanation is
susceptible of so many proofs and demonstrations, that it seems
remarkably strange that any persons claiming to be intelligent, and
situated in the focal, scientific light of the nineteenth century,
should still be hampered with the delusion that such phenomena are the
direct display of the power of God. It requires but little investigation
and reflection to convince any person that what is called conversion,
and "repentance for sin," is nothing but the revival of early
educational impressions resuscitated by the influence of mind on mind.
No person has ever been known to get or embrace a religion he was not
biased in favor of prior to the time of his conversion, unless we except
a few weak-minded persons negative to any influence, and convertible
to any religion the priest may urge upon their attention. A very strong
proof of this statement is furnished by the history of the Christian
missionary enterprise. The reports of travelers and sojourners in India
show, that with two hundred years' labor, and two hundred missionaries
in the field during a part of that period, the churches have not
succeeded in converting one in ten thousand of the Hindoos to the
Christian religion--unless we except those who, while children, were
sent to Christian schools instituted by the missionaries for the special
purpose of converting and warping the young mind, and welding it to the
Christian faith before It should receive an unchangeable and unyielding
bias in favor of another religion. So fruitless has been the effort
to convert to Christianity those who were already established in the
religion of the country, that, according to the estimate of Colonel Dow,
each convert, on an average, has cost the missionary enterprise not
less than ten thousand dollars. An intelligent Hindoo, while lecturing
recently in London, made the remarkable statement, that conversions
which are made to the Christian religion are not amongst the intelligent
or learned classes, but are confined to the low, ignorant, and
superstitious classes, "who have not sense or intelligence enough to
perceive the difference between the _religion they are converted to,
and that which they are converted from._" And the effort to convert the
Mahomedans, Chinese, Persians, and the disciples of other religions has
been attended with the same fruitless results--all seeming to warrant
the conclusion that God can do but little toward converting any nation
to Christianity which has always been biased in favor of another
religion. The reason why people are so easily converted from one sect to
another in Christian countries is owing to the fact that their religious
convictions are unsettled. The members of the different Christian sects
are all mixed up together in the various settlements throughout the
country, and are brought in daily contact with each other in the busy
scenes of life.
Hence the children have the seeds of Methodism, Presbyterianism,
Baptistism, Quakerism, and various other isms implanted in their minds
in very early life. And which one of these will ultimately predominate
depends upon what priest they fall victims to first. Having thus the
germs of so many religious isms implanted in their minds, they are
easily shifted about, and converted from one sect to another. And this
shuttlecock process is called "getting religion," while, if they had
lived in a country where only one form of religion exists, they would be
as hard to convert as Mahomedans and Hindoos.
_Repentance_.--Much importance is attached by the orthodox churches
to the act of getting religion in the dying hour,--called "death-bed
repentance,"--as if the person were better capable of discriminating
between right and wrong when his brain is deranged with fever, and his
whole system racked with disease and pain, than when in health. Such
repentance can do nothing more than prove the honesty of the dying man
or woman. For very often their doctrines, or religious belief, will be
found no nearer right, and sometimes more erroneous after repentance
than before, as repentance merely consists in the return to early
impressions--the revival of former convictions, which may be either
right or wrong, and are about as likely to be the latter as the former.
No instance can be found of a person condemning a wrong act, or a wrong
course of life, in his dying moments, unless he had previously believed
it to be wrong, or if he had always believed it to be right. How much,
then, does repentance do toward deciding what is right and what is
wrong? Mahomedanism we know to be deeply fraught with error, but we
never read nor heard of an instance of the many millions who had been
educated to believe it is right, condemning it on their death-beds, or
repenting for not having embraced Christianity, and led the life of
a Christian, or for adoring Mahomet instead of Jesus Christ. On the
contrary we have a well-authenticated instance of a Mahomedan (a Mr.
Merton) who had embraced Christianity, and lived the life of a Christian
for many years, renouncing it all, and returning to his primitive faith,
when he was taken sick and became apprehensive he was going to die:
his early religious impressions, returning involuntarily, wiped out
his Christianity, and he died glorying in Mahomedanism. And we have an
equally well authenticated case of an Indian of the Choctaw tribe, who
had been taught to believe from early life that the white man was his
natural enemy, and that it was his right and duty to kill him, repenting
on his death-bed for having a short time previously neglected, when the
opportunity presented, to despatch a "pale face" he met in his travels.
Instead of killing him, he yielded for the moment to the impulse of his
better feelings, and passed him by. But on reviewing his past life
at the approach of death, he came to the conclusion he had sinned in
omitting to kill this man, and he grieved and lamented sorely over
this dereliction of apprehended duty. Here we have a case of repentance
sanctioning murder. Must we, therefore, conclude that murder is morally
right, or a righteous act? Certainly, according to orthodox logic.
Their religious tracts assume that repentance is always for the right,
and is _prima facie_ evidence of being right. If not, what does it
prove, or what moral value is it? According to orthodox teaching, being
"a murderer at heart," he was as consignable to perdition as if he had
committed the act. There is no escaping the conclusion, therefore, that
his repentance landed him in hell, or else proves murder to be right
according to orthodox logic.
We have known Quakers to leave their dying testimony against water
baptism; and Baptists, with their last breath, declare it is right, and
a sin to neglect it. Which is right? Who can tell? We have also known
Quakers to condemn dancing in their dying hours, but Shakers never;
because one had been taught that it is wrong, and the other that it
is right. And which testimony must we accept? Mahomedans often, when
approaching the confines of time, repent (sometimes in tears) for not
having lived out more rigidly the injunctions of the Koran, but never
regret not having been Christians. They often call upon Mohamet to aid
them through the gates of death: but not one of the million who die
every year ever calls upon Jesus Christ. What, then, does such a
conflicting jargon of death-bed repentance prove? What good can grow
out of it, or what moral value can possibly attach to it? It establishes
simply two principles,--
1st. That repentance grows out of education.
2d. That it depends entirely upon previous convictions as to what it may
sanction, and what it may condemn.
No Christian ever repents in favor of Mahomedan-ism; and no Mahomedan
ever lifts up his dying voice in favor of Christianity as being superior
to his own religion; and no Hindoo has ever been known to indulge
in death-bed lamentation for not having previously embraced either
Christianity or Mahomedanism; because their earlier education never
turned their minds in that direction. The mind has to be educated over
again before it can embrace a new religion, or even condemn a wrong act,
which, up to that period, it had always believed to be right.
Hence it is evident repentance may lead a person to condemn what is
right and sanction what is wrong. How profoundly ignorant of religious
history and mental science must those persons therefore be who attach
any importance to those diseased and often incoherent utterances, called
"death-bed recantations," or who believe a thing the sooner because
sanctioned by a dying man or woman, or that they do anything toward
proving what is right or what is wrong with respect to either our belief
or our moral conduct! And yet we find the orthodox churches printing
every year, through their tract societies, stories of death-bed
repentance in tract form, and scattering them over the country by the
million. As they prove nothing but the honesty of the dying man or
woman, they are not worth the paper on which they are printed.
The phenomenon of repentance is simply the operation of a natural law,
by which the last impressions made upon the mind are generally cancelled
from the memory first, by the progress of fever and disease, thus
leaving the earlier impressions to rule the judgment. The person is then
virtually a child, controlled by his early youthful convictions, with
which, if his late belief and conduct disagree, it causes a mental
conflict, called repentance. Thus, instead of being the visitation
of God, as Christians claim, repentance is shown to be the product of
natural causes. The conclusion is thus established beyond disproof,
that the mental processes called conversion, repentance, and "getting
religion" are simply natural psychological operations, depending
upon education, organization, and intelligence. They depend also upon
intellect and scientific knowledge. For persons of large intellectual
brains, or extensive scientific culture, never fall victims to these
mental derangements. Hence those priests who claim God as their author
are either deplorably and inexcusably ignorant, or lacking in moral
honesty.