Chapter XII: Part 12

1065. Your injunction of cheerfulness, as an efficient means of securing a healthful equilibrium of the vital organism, I can fully appreciate, and shall endeavour to profit by your welcome brotherly and excellent advice, as far as circumstances will permit. It is true, my dear John, that a longer sojourn here harmonizes with my desire to effect some objects, the accomplishment of which would probably add to my happiness here, and my claim for congenial association. The object to which I allude is the amelioration of the condition of the poor and wretched of my fellow-creatures, making them through my agency the recipients of some active benevolence.

1066. I have imbibed the opinion that the only acceptable offering at the throne of the great God, is the actual performance of those duties which are incumbent on us as individuals and social beings; beginning with the establishment of our own personal physical and moral character, and those of our own household and immediate social circle of relatives and friends; and then, to the accomplishment of this, to cultivate the sentiment of benevolence in aiding to promote the individual welfare of mankind in the use of what talent and other means may have fallen to our lot. I am prone, in my relations with the great Omnipotent Ruler of the universe, to apply the time-honoured maxim, “Actions speak louder than words.”

1067. Your invitation, my dear brother, to increase my intercourse with my spirit friends, finds in my heart and mind a very ready compliance. You propose a daily appropriation of time to this object. If you will do me the favour to appoint the time most agreeable to them and most desirable for myself, it shall be, to the fullest extent of my power, sacredly devoted to a duty and pleasure that are nearest to my heart.

1068. I feel the assurance that the good earth-character and intelligence of my spirit family, and the extent of our mutual love and affinity, afford me a more than ordinary opportunity for receiving information of that bright world which has become a delightful prospective inheritance to me and to thousands of doubting, fearful, and despairing minds.

1069. Your inspiring cheerfulness, my dear John, has already verified your sensible prognostic of the great influence on disease of a cheerful mind. I have learnt to entertain a high opinion of the bright intelligence and clairvoyance of the more elevated denizens of the spirit world; and shall always, therefore, regard any advice that may be offered me for the better government of my body and soul as a welcome and precious offering from those I love. I will close for the present with the assurance of my unaltered affection. WILLIAM.

1070. _My dear Brother_: With heartfelt love and affection I respond to your letter in reply to a message which I delivered through the instrumentality of our devoted friend, Mrs. Gourlay. During our happy interchange of thought, it will be my endeavour to suggest such ideas to your mind as may serve to elevate it and develope its capabilities. To the mind that is ignorant and prejudiced, this mode of communion with the invisible world may seem to be a direct violation and infringement of nature’s laws; but it is, on the contrary, not only natural, but perfectly legitimate to the age in which you now live. It is not a new revelation, but simply the discovery of hidden truths peculiarly adapted to the present advanced state of the race. It is old material in a new form. The material and spiritual elements are contributing, as _never before_, to the elevation and happiness of mankind, and already is established a spiritual telegraph on which I am at this moment successfully operating—sending a message of love to you, my brother.

1071. You say my words of cheer have wrought a change for the better in your system. This is a result which naturally follows a strict adherence to my prescription—cheerfulness.

1072. You desire to know what time would be most advisable for you to sit for spiritual communion. I would say, early in the morning, before the mind becomes taxed with the cares of the day, make a record of your impressions.

1073. You observe that it gives you great pleasure to receive messages from those in the spirit world who are bound to you by the ties of relationship. Let me assure you, my dear brother, that the feeling is mutual; and while time lasts with you, it will be our endeavour to gladden your heart with tokens of our increasing and untiring love. Your cup of happiness shall be filled to the brim, if it depends on us.

1074. Brother, may you meet with friends true and kind; may the labours of the cheerful morn render each day a happier one to you; and when night steals upon a slumbering world, may you close your outward eyes in peace with all mankind! Keep the mind’s sunshine bright! You have a soul to feel for others’ woes, and this is the true stamp of divinity. JOHN.

MARRIAGE ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN.

_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._”