Chapter XIV: Part 14

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.

1249. Since our missions are all intended to induce pagans and others to think freely as respects the tenets in which they have been educated, how can it be otherwise than proper for every person to think without fear of denunciation upon the tenets of his ancestry. Are we to deny ourselves the liberty of thought, which we claim for all who differ from us as to their creeds?

1250. A sectarian who is a Christian only as to _observances_, and is therefore really a _practical_ infidel, accuses a man of infidelity who is _practically_ a Christian, so far as Christianity and virtue are associated, because that man does not arrive at his morality by the route which his denunciator points out, but never follows to any good purpose.

1251. While missionaries, who _ought_ to know all that can be learned, _do not agree among themselves_, wherefore do they attempt to instruct the ignorant? How is the unlettered pagan to judge between the Catholic, Calvinist, Unitarian, or Deist?

_Additional Remarks respecting the Observance of the Sabbath, so
called._

1252. It is believed that a great majority of the people of the United States, while favourable to the observance of Sunday as a day of worship, of innocent recreation, and of moral and intellectual improvement, are adverse to the legal enforcement of restrictions introduced into Christianity by puritanism. They do not consider the _first_ day of the week as liable to the commandment given to the Jews for the observance of _the seventh_ day; still less that the _innocent recreation allowed to the Jews under that commandment_ is to be denied to Christians on that day of rest. The commandment _forbids work_, but does not _prohibit recreation_. That it was thus viewed by the Hebrews, is asserted upon the authority of a learned Jew.

1253. It is conceived that the enforcement of any observance on sectarian ground, is inconsistent with the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

1254. If God intended the Sabbath to be kept so strictly, wherefore is it not kept holy by him? why do not the rivers stop flowing, vegetables growing, and the wind stop blowing on the day selected for the Sabbath, especially if a sparrow does not fall without his cognizance.

1255. _Precepts may lead, but example will draw._ Aware of this, is it conceivable that God would enjoin man to keep any day holy, and yet fail to keep it holy himself? Regulating the blowing of the winds, as well as the _falling of sparrows_, when creating a storm, would he not be responsible for forcing the breach of the Sabbath upon the mariner?

1256. Ought the farmer to lose his crops in order to avoid working on Sunday? The Romans took advantage of the Hebrew Sabbath to make their advances upon Jerusalem, the tenets of the Jews restricting them from resistance; yet there was no divine interference to shield this chosen people against the heathen conqueror, or to assist them in the observance of the commandment.

1257. The plea on which the commandment was founded is manifestly groundless—_that an omnipotent God could be so weary as to require rest_. But it has been suggested by enlightened Christians, that the six days were periods of immense duration, and of course the seventh day being like the rest could not be a day of twenty-four hours, like the Jewish Sabbath so called, but, on the contrary, an era comprising many ages.

_If Creatures be not so created as to love their Neighbours as themselves, precepts can no more alter them in this respect, than change the Colour of their Hair, or the Number of Cubits in their Stature._

1258. In the spheres, agreeably to the communication received from spirits, great importance is attached to the friendship, the affection, and the ardent love, which may subsist between congenial minds or souls; they seem to recognise love as something which cannot be felt by all to all; so that while benevolence, charity, and sympathy may be sentiments entertained to mankind generally, there are other sentiments which require concentration, in order to have any efficacy. Of this nature are parental, filial, and conjugal affection, as well as other intimate friendships.

1259. Sympathy between the parent and child, between husband and wife, and likewise occasionally between brothers and sisters, or such friends as Pylades and Orestes, may be so strong as to induce the risk, if not the loss of life, but this sympathy cannot be self-induced. Where, from principle, a person may determine to make the sacrifice, not from impulse, he cannot endow himself with the sensitiveness which would make him feel for the sufferer as for himself. A being may admire such a sentiment, and have an ambition to be so actuated, but that would not create the sensibility to which its existence is due. It has been alleged that Napoleon’s mother said of him, as I remember to have read somewhere: “He wished to have a good heart.” The most that can be done is to act as if we did love, and consequently sympathize, so as to feel the pains and privations of another as if they were our own. But it were inconsistent to entertain a love so powerful and peculiar, and not give our time, thought, services, or attention to the object of our affection. It were inconsistent so to love and keep at a distance, and behave toward the object as if we were indifferent. But were the sentiment to be felt universally, or even generally, there would be such a cutting up of our time, service, or attention, that, as respects any individual in particular, it would be nugatory, and might as well not exist. There would likewise be such a multiplicity and perplexity of yearnings that it would distract the heart, perhaps place it in a less happy condition than if it were devoid of any affection whatever.

1260. Although temporal life may at times be sacrificed by one being to save that of another, it is manifestly because the being who makes the sacrifice is constituted so nobly as to endure less pain under the circumstances in question in making than avoiding self-immolation. But can any one who has not been so organized and educated as to make such a sacrifice, be sufficiently changed by preaching, or monition, to undergo self-immolation to save a fellow-creature?

1261. Is it reasonable to order, direct, or advise people to love, especially on the part of any one who by his acknowledged omnipotency could so constitute them as to sympathize to any required extent? I admit, that it may be consistent to urge them to act toward others, as far as possible, as if they were _loved_.[25]

1262. Should not the great object of cultivation be sympathy and benevolence, which are general in their nature? We may deeply sympathize with a sufferer, even with a brute, whom we do not love. Benevolence should we not also cultivate, by endeavouring habitually to take the most favourable view of those around us which our observation and reason can permit? Does it not argue a want of discrimination to treat love as a sentiment, to be entertained toward all other mortals by mere volition? Is it reasonable that Christ, or any other teacher, assuming to be missionaries of the Creator, should enjoin us to love, when the capacity for that sentiment manifestly varies through organization and education, derived from that Creator by various human beings, as much nearly, as the opposite propensities of the wolf and dog? Behold the difference between the elephant and rhinoceros: the former capable of a canine fidelity and affection, the latter irretrievably hostile; and again between a wild elephant and one tamed by education.

1263. Were his organization and education dependent on himself, it might be reasonable to say to a human being, Love your neighbour as yourself, love your enemies; but how can that Deity who determines man’s race and his parentage, and of course whether he be a savage or a civilized man, whether a Thug or a _real_ Christian, if such a thing can be,—how can that Deity require a being to do that which is irreconcilable with his passions, opinions, and habits, derived from nature and education, as well as the examples set by those around him?

1264. The inutility of precepts in controlling human passions, may be seen in the history of Christendom, in which, as already urged, the morals and conduct of mankind, with very few exceptions, have been diametrically opposite to that of their divine Master, so called. Who have been more aggressive than the great majority of professed Christians? Who have been more actuated by cupidity? Yet these votaries have been, for the most part, vociferous in their professions of devotedness to Christ, making him the Son of God as well as their teacher, and too often cruelly maltreating those who have denied his divinity.

1265. Both on the part of the ancient Jews, or on that of modern Christians, religion has been made an excuse or a plea for despoiling unbelievers of their patrimony. In the contention respecting the right to Oregon, the great question, on which judgment was to turn, was, which of all of the Christian potentates claiming it, was the first to lay his longing eyes upon the object of contention? It has been shown that the massacre of whole nations involved no criminality, provided they were pagans. David put to the sword the pagan communities, man, woman, and child, during which time Jehovah was with him. The pagans being mere vermin in the estimation of the Jewish deity, the wrongs done to them were not cited as among David’s misdoings. No Nathan came to call him to account for his flagitious conduct to them, or to Achish, (1 Sam. xxvii. 8 to 12.)

1266. In his correspondence with the British minister, respecting territorial rights granted to the English by the Mosquito king, Mr. Clayton urged that the aborigines never had been admitted to have any rights to their own lands, which could interfere with Christian claimants.

_Attacks upon the authenticity of Scripture cannot endanger the prevalent morality, which, while it is superior to that of the Old Testament, indicates a recklessness of the precepts of Christ, excepting so far as they make faith a counterpoise for sin._

1267. In the preceding pages, I have endeavoured to show that the existing morality of Christendom does not owe its existence to Christianity. My object has been to do away the apprehension that this morality would be deprived of its foundation were Spiritualism or any other innovation to be accredited which would be inconsistent with revelation. But I hope I have shown that whatever merit may be possessed by the existing state of morals, it cannot be ascribed to any influence exercised by those precepts of Christ which are not only neglected, but acted in diametric opposition to.

1268. Another cause of alarm has been that it would weaken that belief in a future state of rewards and punishments which is so essential to encourage virtue and repress vice. But it has been pointed out that the authority of Moses is against the existence of a future state, not merely negatively, but positively, so far as any authority is given to him as inspired by God. For what stronger argument need there be that there is no state of existence beyond the grave, than the fact that the being who of all mankind solely had immediate converse with the Deity, should not have learned from him the all-important fact? If, as now held generally among Christians, an unbeliever in a future state is culpable in the sight of God, as well as theirs, and disqualified from testifying in courts of justice, can it be conceived that God would have failed to communicate a knowledge of immortal existence to his favourite lawgiver; or how could that lawgiver have been so devoid of that desire for immortality as to have been satisfied to remain ignorant?

1269. Materialists who have become converts to Spiritualism, all represent themselves as having entertained a great anxiety to believe in immortality prior to the blessed, cherished truth having been made evident to their thirsting souls.

1270. Converts from Materialism to Spiritualism, who have shown much zeal in the investigation of the subject, and eagerness in believing in immortality as soon as evidence was obtained, were, by certain sectarians, doomed to hell for their heresy. Yet this Hebrew materialist, who made no use of his transcendent opportunities of acquiring correct knowledge of futurity from the Deity, is made an object of veneration, and the book which he wrote, while devoid of this pre-eminently important information, is worshipped as an idol.

1271. His allegations that God authorized the Israelites to _borrow_ in order to _purloin_, or that he authorized the murder of the people misled by Aaron to worship the golden calf, are manifestly as false as blasphemous. Then why imagine that mankind can suffer by the substitution of a belief in a future state associated with the purest principles of morality, for the books of Moses, which sanction crimes and discredit immortality?

1272. As respects any subsequent alleged inspirations to which Pharisees, the papists of Judea, owed their _professed_ belief in a future state, in the first place, we have the authority of Christ for viewing them as hypocrites: externally, like whited sepulchres, internally, as no less corrupt than dead men’s bones. Of course there is reason, on this account, to doubt whether they acquired a sincere belief in a future state from any part of Scripture. But evidently it did not make them moral. Their immorality, on the contrary, was made more hideous by the cloak of false religion. Nothing is more detestable than to see religion in men’s mouths, with cupidity and unprincipled ambition at their hearts. Yet this much may be said for the Pharisees, that they had not _professed_ themselves _Christians_, and thus subject to those precepts of Jesus which place the acquisition of wealth on a level with felony as respects the accessibility to heaven. The Pharisees of Christendom, even those who assumed to be exclusively the depositories of revelation and sole expounders of God’s word, have been _absolutely_ as wicked as the Pharisees, and _relatively_ more wicked by the monstrous discordancy of their course with their professed devotion to the ultra precepts of the alleged Son of their God.

1273. It has been shown, moreover, that although Christ occasionally referred to hell, yet he gave inconsistent views of it, (738, 764.) At one time it is fire, into which any one is to be doomed for alleging his brother a fool, whether this allegation be true or not; at another, it is utter _darkness_, with weeping and gnashing of teeth; and of course there could be no fire. Then the disgusting description given by Josephus is sanctioned, agreeably to which, like the Elysium and Erebus of the heathen, both hell and heaven are subterranean localities, but separated by a lake of unquenchable fire, across which Abraham and Dives converse. At another time, heaven is above; he ascends to heaven in sight of his apostles, yet the penitent thief is to be with him in paradise, which, agreeably to Genesis and Josephus, is upon the earth on the river Tigris, near the Persian Gulf. But wherever the Elysium and Erebus of the gospel may be, all souls, according to it, are to remain in their graves till the “_last_ day,” and then, like Samuel, being called up from their tombs, are to be sorted into two squadrons, of which one is to go to an _undescribed_ heaven, the other to the “hell fire prepared for the devil and his angels from the beginning of the world.” The injustice which would follow from a judgment of this kind, by which two souls differing from each other only by a shade would meet a fate so different that one would have to go to heaven, the other to hell to remain eternally, is so manifest, that, like the ultraism of the same record, it loses its effect altogether upon people in general.

1274. It must be clear that the great mass of professed Christians are very little restrained by their fears of such an eternity of punishment. Had Christ any specific knowledge of the kingdom of heaven to which he occasionally alluded, wherefore did he not convey that knowledge to his disciples? But they seem to have learned no more from Jesus than Moses did from Jehovah, and hence their querulous inquiry as to what would be their reward. But the promise of judgeships, (743 to 745,) of worldly preeminence, was a satire upon them. It argues that he considered them as worldly-minded. Had he known the world to be looked upon by the apostles as beneath consideration in comparison with immortal life, he would hardly have insulted them by the offer. But their tone has a great deal too much of the Swiss in it. Had they been so very dull, or Christ so reserved, that the idea was not conveyed to them that in acting the part of pious, virtuous men, they would have the reward promised to the righteous in the other world.

1275. Thank God, no spiritualist who reads with attention the communications given in this work, will ever inquire as to the extent of selfish reward which he is to enjoy! He would be impressed by his general knowledge with the idea that the less any being is actuated by selfish aspiration, the greater his capacity for happiness and his pretensions to the means of felicity.

_The Doctrine of a peculiar Belief being necessary to Salvation, and a counterpoise for Sin, a source of discord originally confined to Judea, expanded with Christianity and Islamism; verifying Christ’s allegation, that he came “as a Sword, not as a Messenger of Peace.”—Superior Morality, and far more unquestionable Certainty of the Communications from the Spirit World._

1276. It were in vain, I think, to find in the apple of discord, in the mischiefs let loose from Pandora’s box, or any other figurative exemplification, any idea adequate to convey my conception of the mischief done to the world by introducing the dogma, that belief could be the means of salvation; so that if God had so constituted or so situated a people, that they could not believe what was communicated to them by certain itinerant preachers, it should be worse for them in the day of judgment than for Sodom and Gomorrah; two cities which God had destroyed because he had not so organized them, and circumstanced them, as to make them as virtuous as he, subsequently to their creation, desired.

1277. Christ fully justified this opinion, when he alleged himself to have come as a _sword, not as a messenger of peace_, and to set father and son, mother and daughter, &c., at variance with each other, making the people of a man’s own household his foes. It may be said that he identified himself with piety and rectitude; so that it was for the virtue of which he, as the Son or missionary of God, was the representative, that he plead; but this pious devotion has much more of self in it than people imagine. They identify God or Christ with the welfare of their souls and bodies. It is through the hope of benefit to these that they take such a deep interest in God.

1278. But is it not strange that the Christian religion should be treated as a harbinger of peace and harmony, when, with its entrance into the world, came the intolerance, before confined to Judea, and when by its founder it is represented as a sword, to sever the dearest ties by introducing the poisoning idea that belief could be a virtue or a sin? It seems to have been the cause of a peculiar animosity which has always accompanied its progress, if not its endurance, and which set the example to Mohammed of attaching the same fanatical idea to another basis, comporting with his individual aggrandizement, at the expense of much human misery.

1279. The language of Christ held to his apostles, showing that he considered them as thirsting for temporal honours, and his aspiration for the _throne_ of his _glory_, situated, of course, in the same mundane region, may warrant the surmise that his views did not differ from those of Mohammed as to the ultimate object, however much he may have found it necessary, under the Roman despotism, to fight with the tongue instead of the sword.

1280. But how can this sentiment be justified in which he makes devotion to himself irreconcilable with the holy ties between the child and his parents, or the parents and their children? The God of Spiritualism would view parental and filial love as the truest piety. He asks only that love. He has not constituted us to have that sort of love for him. Had he wished it, he would have made us so, as to be thus actuated.

1281. “He that believeth in me shall have eternal life.” “Thy faith hath made thee whole.” These allegations produced a change in the world at large. That bigotry and animosity which led the Jews to consider that all who did not agree with them in creed, were objects of spoliation, massacre, rape, enslavement, were now extended to other parts of the world.

1282. No doubt the success of this exclusive notion, on the part of Christ, led to its adoption by Mohammed, and thus some hundred millions have been actuated by this mischievous impression, which is now at work on the Russian territory. It has been already suggested that this idea always begets persecution to the extent of the power to exercise it. While seeing the horrid consequences of this error in the persecution of the French Calvinists, Calvin could not avoid the diabolic impulse in the instance of Servetus. It cannot be necessary to recall to our readers the many bloody persecutions and religious wars which have disgraced Christendom far more than any other part of the globe, nor to allude to the tyranny reciprocally employed by any sect having complete ascendancy. Yet with these consequences before the mind—the facts which I have adduced to prove that the morality of Christendom is not due to Scripture—the tocsin is sounded wherever any effort is made to get rid of the crimes and indecencies of the Old Testament, or the error of making bigoted belief, under the name of faith, a primary consideration on the part of the New Testament. People are taught that every thing good is due to Scripture; that thence alone can we get any correct notions of morality, any knowledge of a future state. The idea is entertained that Christianity made a great change for the better as soon as it prevailed, and that without it we should sink into a state of demoralization.

1283. Consistently with my experience of the effect of a confident belief in a future state of existence on my own mind, as already suggested, I was always under the impression, prior to my conversion, that those who believed in a future state must be happier; and if that belief were not associated with mischievous error, that it should not be assailed. The idea that what I considered as bigotry, should be a counterpoise for sin, I did consider a mischievous error, tending to substitute devotion for good works, and as I saw, too, made nations selfish. The love of hoarding was very commonly coupled with this selfishness, which operated at once to produce efforts to lay up treasure on earth by close dealing, and in heaven by strict sectarianism, bigotry, and intolerance. But, nevertheless, I was restrained from any effort to cure these errors, from the conviction that religion, unaccompanied by the expectation of a future state, can never take hold of the human heart.

1284. In a dialogue between the spirit of Wm. Penn and that of Thos. Paine, the former points out this error: “You strove to take from your readers one of their greatest comforts under the afflictions of mortal life.” _Foreseeing this_ would have prevented me from writing the Age of Reason. Any set of skeptics who should only coincide in disbelieving, could never adhere together nor make many converts. The prospect of future life must be promised confidently, or there would be few proselytes.

1285. But the spiritual manifestations, and the intellectual, the heartfelt intercommunion with my relatives, friends, and the immortal, great, and good Washington, now enable me to assert that there is not, nor can be upon any record of the past, any evidence so complete, as that presented to my senses, concurrently with a multitude of observers. I now, therefore, feel myself warranted to speak out what my reason justifies and my conscience dictates; and have not hesitated to express the opinions which are spread out upon the pages immediately preceding that which contains this exposition.

1286. With a view to show how much more happy was the state of reciprocal sectarian feeling in the world before this idea of making belief an object of vital importance, I will quote here, first a passage from Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., and will subjoin some pages from “Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire;” following these up with quotations from Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont:

_Quotation from Mosheim._

1287. “Each nation suffered its neighbours to follow their own method of worship, to adore their own gods, to enjoy their own rites and ceremonies, and discovered no displeasure at their diversity of sentiments in religious matters. They all looked upon the world as one great empire, divided into various provinces, over every one of which a certain order of divinities presided, and that, therefore, none could behold with contempt the gods of other nations, or force strangers to pay homage to theirs.

1288. “The Romans exercised this toleration in the amplest manner. As the sources from which all men’s ideas are derived are the same, namely, from their senses, there being no other inlet to the mind but thereby, there is nothing wonderful in the general prevalence of a sameness of the ideas of human beings in all regions and all ages of the world. The affections of fear, grief, pain, hope, pleasure, gratitude, &c., are as common to man as his nature as a man, and could not fail to produce a corresponding similarity in the objects of his superstitious veneration. To have nothing in common with the already established notions of mankind, to bear no features of resemblance to their hallucinations and follies, to be nothing like them, to be to nothing so unlike, should be the essential predications and _necessary_ credentials of the ‘wisdom which is from above.’

1289. “It has, however, been alleged by learned men, with convincing arguments of probability, ‘that the principal deities of all the Gentile nations resembled each other extremely, in their essential characters; and if so, their receiving the same names could not introduce much confusion into mythology, since they were probably derived from one common source. If the _Thor_ of the ancient Celts was the same in dignity, character, and attributes with the _Jupiter_ of the Greeks and Romans, where was the impropriety of giving him the same name? _Dies Jovis_ is still the Latin form for our Thor’s day. When the Greeks found in other countries deities that resembled their own, they persuaded the worshippers of those foreign gods that their deities were the same that were honoured in Greece, and were, indeed, themselves convinced that this was the case. In consequence of this, the Greeks gave the names of their gods to those of other nations, and the Romans in this followed their example. Hence we find the names of Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus, &c. frequently mentioned in the more recent monuments and inscriptions which have been found among the Gauls and Germans, though the ancient inhabitants of those countries had worshipped no gods under such denominations.”

_Quotation from Gibbon._

1290. “The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced, not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.

1291. “The superstition of the people was not imbittered by any mixture of theological rancour; nor was it confined by the chains of any speculative system. The devout polytheist, though fondly attached to his national rites, admitted with implicit faith the different religions of the earth. Fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a dream or an omen, a singular disorder, or a distant journey, perpetually disposed him to multiply the articles of his belief, and to enlarge the list of his protectors. The thin texture of the pagan mythology was interwoven with various, but not discordant, materials. As soon as it was allowed that sages and heroes, who had lived, or who had died, for the benefit of their country, were exalted to a state of power and immortality, it was universally confessed that they deserved, if not the adoration, at least the reverence, of all mankind. The deities of a thousand groves and a thousand streams possessed, in peace, their local and respected influence; nor could the Roman, who deprecated the wrath of the Tiber, deride the Egyptian who presented his offering to the beneficent genius of the Nile. The visible powers of nature, the planets, and the elements, were the same throughout the universe The invisible governors of the moral world were inevitably cast in a similar mould of fiction and allegory. Every virtue, and even vice, acquired its divine representative; every art and profession its patron, whose attributes, in the most distant ages and countries, were uniformly derived from the character of their peculiar votaries. A republic of gods of such opposite tempers and interests required, in every system, the moderating hand of a supreme magistrate, who, by the progress of knowledge and flattery, was gradually invested with the sublime perfections of an Eternal Parent, and an omnipotent Monarch. Such was the mild spirit of antiquity, that the nations were less attentive to the difference than to the resemblance of their religious worship. The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they met before their respective altars, easily persuaded themselves that under various names, and with various ceremonies, they adored the same deities. The elegant mythology of Homer gave a beautiful and almost regular form to the polytheism of the ancient world.

1292. “The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature of man rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, on the Divine Nature as a very curious and important speculation, and in the profound inquiry they displayed the strength and weakness of the human understanding. Of the four most celebrated schools, the Stoics and the Platonists endeavoured to reconcile the jarring interests of reason and piety. They have left us the most sublime proofs of the existence and perfections of the first cause, but as it was impossible for them to conceive the creation of matter, the workmen in the Stoic philosophy was not sufficiently distinguished from the work, while, on the contrary, the spiritual God of Plato and his disciples resembled an idea rather than a substance. The opinions of the Academics and Epicureans were of a less religious cast; but while the modest science of the former induced them to doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny the providence of a Supreme Ruler. The spirit of inquiry, prompted by emulation and supported by freedom, has divided the public teachers of philosophy into a variety of contending sects; but the ingenuous youth who, from every part, resorted to Athens and the other seats of learning in the Roman empire, were alike instructed in every school to reject and to despise the religion of the multitude. How, indeed, was it possible that a philosopher should accept, as divine truths, the idle tales of the poets, and the incoherent traditions of antiquity, or that he should adore as gods those imperfect beings whom he must have despised as men! Against such unworthy adversaries Cicero condescended to employ the arms of reason and eloquence, but the satire of Lucian was a much more adequate as well as more efficacious weapon. We may be well assured that a writer conversant with the world would never have ventured to expose the gods of his country to public ridicule, had they not already been the objects of secret contempt among the polished and enlightened orders of society.

1293. “Notwithstanding the fashionable irreligion which prevailed in the age of the Antonines, both the interest of the priests and the credulity of the people were sufficiently respected. In their writings and conversation, the philosophers of antiquity asserted the independent dignity of reason, but they resigned their actions to the commands of law and of custom. Viewing, with a smile of pity and indulgence, the various errors of the vulgar, they diligently practised the ceremonies of their fathers, devoutly frequented the temples of the gods, and sometimes condescending to act a part on the theatre of superstition, they concealed the sentiments of an atheist under the sacerdotal robes. Reasoners of such a temper were scarcely inclined to wrangle about their respective modes of faith or of worship. It was indifferent to them what shape the folly of the multitude might choose to assume; and they approached with the same inward contempt, and the same external reverence, the altars of the Lybian, the Olympian, or the Capitoline Jupiter.

1294. “It is not easy to conceive from what motives a spirit of persecution could induce itself into the Roman councils. The magistrates could not be actuated by a blind though honest bigotry, since the magistrates were themselves philosophers, and the schools of Athens had given laws to the senate. They could not be impelled by ambition or avarice, as the temporal and ecclesiastical powers were united in the same hands. The pontiffs were chosen among the most illustrious of the senators, and the office of Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of religion, as it is connected with civil government. They encouraged the public festivals which humanize the manners of the people. They managed the arts of divination, as a convenient instrument of policy, and they respected as the firmest bond of society the useful persuasion that, either in this or a future life, the crime of perjury is most assuredly punished by the avenging gods? But while they acknowledged the general advantages of religion, they were convinced that the various modes of worship contributed alike to the same salutary purposes, and that, in every country, the form of superstition which had received the sanction of time and experience was the best adapted to the climate and to its inhabitants. Avarice and taste very frequently despoiled the vanquished nations of the elegant statues of their gods and the rich ornaments of their temples, but in the exercise of the religion which they derived from their ancestors, they uniformly experienced the indulgence, and even protection, of the Roman conquerors. The province of Gaul seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal toleration. Under the specious pretext of abolishing human sacrifices, the Emperors Tiberius and Claudius suppressed the dangerous power of the Druids; but the priests themselves, their gods and their altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final destruction of paganism.

1295. “Rome, the capital of a great monarchy, was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favourite superstitions of their native country. Every city in the empire was justified in maintaining the purity of its ancient ceremonies; and the Roman senate, using the common privilege, sometimes interposed to check this inundation of foreign rites. The Egyptian superstition, of all the most contemptible and abject, was frequently prohibited; the temples of Serapis and Isis demolished, and their worshippers banished from Rome and Italy. But the zeal of fanaticism prevailed over the cold and feeble efforts of policy. The exiles returned, the proselytes multiplied, the temples were restored with increasing splendour, and Isis and Serapis at length assumed their place among the Roman deities. Nor was this indulgence a departure from the old maxims of government. In the purest ages of the commonwealth, Cybele and Æsculapius had been invited by solemn embassies, and it was customary to tempt the protectors of besieged cities by the promise of more distinguished honours than they possessed in their native country. Rome gradually became the common temple of her subjects, and the freedom of the city was bestowed on all the gods of mankind.”

_For more than a thousand years the Grecian or Roman Catholic Clergy were the sole depositories of the word of God, so called, and Regulators of Religious morals; yet during that time the Clergy were for the most part pre-eminent in vice, as compared with the rest of the community; whence it is inferred that, like Pope Boniface, the wicked Clergy in general were really unbelievers in the truth of the Gospel. If the morals of the modern Clergy are better, it is neither from the barbarous example furnished them in the Old Testament, nor the ultra precepts of the Gospel; being too much enlightened to be governed in practice by either._

1296. “ORIGEN complains of the neglect and inattention of his day, through the increase of worldliness. Cyprian about the same time mourns over the progress of degeneracy, and Eusebius, toward the close of the third century, laments the corruption of the primitive morality in strong terms of censure.

1297. “But yet superstition was rapidly advancing, and the complaints of priestly corruption and general licentiousness were on the increase. The election of Pope Damasus was the occasion of a public riot, in which his partisans besieged the church where the friends of the other candidate were assembled, broke down the doors, and uncovered the roof; and in the shameful battle that ensued, one hundred and thirty-seven persons were slain, of both sexes. The splendour of the Roman bishops had grown so rapidly, that the heathen historian Ammianus Marcellinus pronounced the episcopal style of living to be superior to that of a king. Toward the close of the fourth century, Chrysostom defended the new system of monkery, on the ground that Christians had become so corrupt, especially in the large cities. Jerome before him had bitterly complained of the prevailing degeneracy, and became a monk in order to escape from it. St. Augustine lamented that many Christians in his day (about A. D. 389) were superstitious, that they adored the sepulchres and pictures of the saints, and ate and drank to excess at funerals, under the excuse that it was an act of religion.

1298. “The fifth century was not likely to improve the state of the church, but on the contrary it witnessed a rapid deterioration. The testimony of Salvian is set forth by Fleury, proving that among the Roman Christians there was much heathen idolatry remaining; that the greater part were only Christians in name, and worse than the barbarians in life and conversation.

1299. In the sixth century, toward the close, we see Pope Gregory the Great attributing all the public calamities to the ambition of the bishops, who concealed the teeth of wolves under the face of sheep.

1300. “The seventh century. We begin to see the fruits of clerical celibacy in the rule established by the council of Toledo, that the illegitimate children of the clergy, from the bishop down to the sub-deacon, should be slaves in the church where their fathers served. It is to be presumed that this canon was intended to discourage and amend the incontinence of the clergy, but the adoption of such an extraordinary law proves plainly the prevalence of the evil. So general had the worldliness of the clergy become, that in the latter part of this century the most eminent bishops of France took great part in political matters, and in time of war marched at the head of their troops, like the lay barons.

1301. “One of the most important events of the eighth century was the forgery of the Decretals, by which all the primitive bishops of Rome, from Clement to Sylvester, were made to utter the most extravagant doctrines concerning the power of the pope, the supremacy of Rome, and the authority to judge the other bishops, while the pope himself could be judged by none. Yet such was the ignorance of the times, that this forgery was successful throughout the whole Latin Church, and remained unquestioned for eight hundred years together. Another strong proof of this prevailing ignorance is found in the course of the bishops at the second council of Nice, where pretended miracles performed by images were cited from false documents without any suspicion of mistake.

1302. “The parliament of Worms presented to the emperor a request from all the people that the bishops should no longer go out at the head of their troops, but should stay in their dioceses and assist the army by their prayers; and Charlemagne willingly granted the petition. But it is remarkable that this application came not from the clergy, but from the laity; and it was so little regarded afterward, that we shall find some warlike bishops even among the popes themselves. This same emperor endeavoured with great zeal to purify the morals of the clergy; and his reproofs of their worldliness, their avarice, and their prostitution of sacred things for the sake of gain, are remarkable monuments of his own good sense and of the corruption which infested the church in the ninth century. After his death, which occurred in A. D. 814, some churches invoked him as a saint, notwithstanding he had four wives and five concubines.

1303. “The year 844 was signalized by the introduction of false relics at Dijon in France, by which, nevertheless, several remarkable cures were supposed to have been effected, until the fraud was discovered; but the proceedings show that such impostures were common. In A. D. 850 a poor presbyter named Gotheschalk, who had adopted high views on predestination, was not only deposed from the priesthood, but afterward publicly whipped, as an incorrigible heretic, and cast into prison, where he died after eighteen years’ confinement. Yet his doctrine was defended by other bishops of high reputation, and his punishment was denounced as cruel and unjust.

1304. “In A. D. 864, a violent outrage took place at Rome, in which Gonthier, the Archbishop of Cologne, protesting against the judgment of Pope Nicholas, told his brother Hildwin, who was a priest, to place his protestation on the tomb of Saint Peter: that is, upon the altar of the church. Accordingly, Hildwin entered into the church with several followers, all armed, and as the keepers opposed him, he repulsed them with blows, and killed one of them upon the spot. He then accomplished his purpose, and retreated sword in hand. The anecdote is only of importance as a proof of the spirit of the age. The first instance of a partial interdict occurs in A. D. 871. The ordeals of boiling water, cold water, and red-hot iron were employed in this age, to determine questions of justice under the auspices of the priests; and even kings employed them, with all faith and confidence. The Duke of Naples had formed an alliance with the Saracens, which the pope disproved; and as he refused to break it on the order of the pontiff, he was excommunicated. The Bishop Athanasius, who was the duke’s own brother, took him and put out his eyes, sent him as prisoner to Rome, and caused himself to be proclaimed Duke of Naples in his place. The pope approved this conduct highly, and praised the bishop for loving God more than his brother, and putting out the right eye which had offended, according to Scripture. This pontiff was John VIII., and the time was A. D. 877.

_Reasons for not proceeding farther with Quotation of Details._

1305. It would occupy too much space, and make too wide a digression, were I to proceed in quoting the details of the evidence showing the state of morals in Christendom during the Middle Ages to have been much below that which the heathen displayed during the period immediately succeeding the advent of Christ, according to Mosheim and Gibbon. But although the reader should not be enabled to form an opinion directly, by a perusal of the details, fortunately I am enabled to submit that of the right reverend prelate by whom they have been compiled.

1306. The fact deserves attention, that for more than a thousand years, of all the upper classes of society the Christian clergy were pre-eminently wicked, frequent complaints having been made against them by the laity, notwithstanding the cruel persecution to which complainants were liable. The popes were generally as prominent in wickedness as high in official distinction. The summing up of Bishop Hopkins, which I subjoin, fully confirms the impression which I have endeavoured to convey:

1307. “I have now gone over the history of your church, with the single aim of proving, from your own records, the rise, progress, and terrible extent of its corruption, up to the close of the sixteenth century. Here we see that for a period of seven centuries together there had been a constant outcry for reformation; that the popes and priesthood were the objects of continual complaint on the part of the laity; that by their own acknowledgment, although the church was never destitute of true Christians, yet holiness was the exception, and iniquity the rule, since the great body of the clergy were steeped in licentiousness, avarice, simony, cruelty, violence, falsehood, and blood; that the University of Paris, one of your most famous nurseries of theological education, was infested with an infidel philosophy, and with habits of libertine sacrilege; that the boasts of absolute atheism were heard from the lips of pontiffs and cardinals; that the reliance of your church was in the terrors of the inquisition, in the rack, the dungeon, and the stake; that war, and treachery, and assassination, were patronized in the service of religion; that bishops, and cardinals, and popes, were ready to lead their troops to battle; that there were constant revolts and rebellions against the tyranny of the priestly power; that there were many schisms in the papal kingdom, in which two or three pretenders to infallibility cursed each other at the same time, in the name of God and his apostles; and that every effort to banish these horrible iniquities proved utterly abortive, until the success of the Protestant reformation compelled them to respect public opinion, by fear for their very being if they continued to brave it any longer.”