Chapter XXIV: Part 24

2009. “15. And though such was the idolatrous adulation paid to the authority of Origen, that emendations of the text which were but suggested by him were taken in as part of the New Testament; though he himself acknowledged that they were supported by the authority of no manuscript whatever.—_Marsh, in loco._

2010. “16. And though, even so late as the period of the Reformation, we have whole passages which have been thrust into the text, and thrust out, just as it served the turn which the Protestant tricksters had to serve.

2011. “17. And though we have on record the most indubitable historical evidence of a general censure and correction of the Gospels having been made at Constantinople, in the year 506, by order of the Emperor Anastasius.[52]

2012. “18. And though we have like unquestionable historical evidence of measureless and inappreciable alterations of the same having been made by our own Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, for the avowed purpose of _accommodating them to the faith of the orthodox_.”[53]

_Evidence of Josephus and Gibbon_ vs. _Mr. Mahan_.

2013. The silence of Josephus respecting Christ induced some Christians to concoct the pious fraud of interpolating in his history a notice of the career and crucifixion of Christ, but subsequent Christian writers have detected and exposed the interpolation; so that the history alluded to, written soon after Christ’s death by the distinguished Hebrew, contains no notice of those events; and, from the following passage in Gibbon, it appears that it did not awaken much attention among the Romans. Yet Mahan, assuming the opposite to be true, urges it as evidence of the evangelical account, that the phenomena drew universal attention.

2014. “How shall we excuse,” says Gibbon, “the supine inattention of the pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? This miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of nature—earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses—which his indefatigable curiosity could collect; both one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe.” (Gibbon, vol. ii. chap. xv. p. 379.)

_The Worshippers of the Golden Calf more righteous than their
Assassins._

2015. The example is set in the Old Testament of attributing the worst motives to every one who does not concur with the accusers in religious opinions. I conscientiously believe that the Israelites who made the golden calf were at least as righteous in their worship as those who treacherously and cruelly massacred them in obedience to an order strangely represented as sanctioned by Jehovah: “_Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out of the camp, and slay every man his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbour; and the children of Levi did according to the words of Moses, and there fell of the people on that day about three thousand men._”

2016. Obviously, the only way in which those who, with Mr. Mahan, can find any pretence for ascribing this horrible sanguinary order to the inspiration of God, is by treating idolatry as so wicked as to be punished, not only in the immediate transgressor, but in his offspring to the third and fourth generation. Is it not a fairer way of viewing this affair to infer that Moses and his partisans were covetous, unprincipled men, who did not hesitate at _swindling_, _lying_, _massacre_, or any measures requisite to give him and them ascendency? Was there ever a greater analogy between the measures of any two evil-doers than those of Mohammed and Moses, both professing communion with God, which we now know could not have taken place, and both pleading his commands to exercise the most horrible intolerance at home, as well as cruel rapacity abroad?

2017. Mohammed appears to have been more successful than Moses in convincing his followers of his mission. There seems to have been a great distrust of Moses, which he artfully always ascribes to the impiety of the unbelievers; like all other religious impostors, identifying his word with that of God. Nothing but his inability to convince the skeptics of the divine origin of his mission could have induced them to worship idols in opposition to his remonstrance; and the fact that Aaron assisted them in casting the golden calf, can only be explained by his participation in the heresy. Does not this alleged conduct on the part of Aaron render the whole affair so absurd as to throw doubt over the whole history? Moses, while killing the malcontents, could hardly avoid punishing their ringleader. Moreover, how could one who would assist in idolatrous worship, be fit to hold the office of high-priest, into which he was soon afterward installed with great pomp?

2018. It is perfectly clear, to my mind, that a pagan who sincerely worships any thing as his God, really worships God. He stands in the same relation to his God that a debtor stands to his real creditor when paying a forged draft.

2019. Wicked priests have raised a cry against idolaters, as the real thief strives, by calling after some innocent person within view, to divert the hue and cry from himself. As an exemplification of this species of wickedness, I quote here a speech made to the Emperor Constantius by Julius Firmicius Maternus, (Taylor’s Diagesis, page 144:)

2020. (Addressing the Emperor Constantius.) “Take away, take away, in perfect security,” exclaims this self-called Christian priest, “O most holy emperor, take away all the ornaments of their temples. Let the fire of the mint or the flames of the mines melt down their gods. Seize upon all their wealthy endowments, and turn them to your own use and property. And, O most sacred emperor, it is absolutely necessary for you to revenge and punish this evil. You are commanded by the law of the Most High God to persecute all sorts of idolatry with the utmost severity; hear and commend to your own sacred understanding what God himself commands. He commands you not to spare your son or your brother; he bids you plunge the avenging knife even into the heart of your wife that sleeps in your bosom; to persecute your dearest friend with a sublime severity; and to arm your whole people against these sacrilegious pagans, and tear them limb from limb. Yea, even whole cities, if you should find this guilt in them, must be cut off. O most holy emperor, God promises you the rewards of his mercy, upon condition of your thus acting. Do, therefore, what he commands, complete what he prescribes.”

2021. It should be recollected that this diabolical address was made to the Christian son and successor of Constantine. Can there be a more shocking picture of the mischievous consequences of the example and doctrines of Moses as respects idolaters? Certainly, Constantius was not any better for his Christianity, when he could listen, without indignation, to such wicked suggestions!

2022. It is alleged that in the city of Thessalonica the Emperor Theodosius put to death all the pagans that breathed, in obedience to Christianized Mosaic intolerance, which in modern times was carried out in the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day, and the Inquisition. Such were the effects of the propagation of Christianity, with the appendage of the Pentateuch to the swordlike attributes with which Christ endowed himself: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I come not to send peace, but a sword!” Matt. x. 34.

2023. Shakspeare truly makes one of his characters say that whosoever takes away the good name of another commits a more wicked theft than one who takes a purse. But in this portrait of the effect of calumny there is one important feature omitted, which is sometimes the most injurious: I allude to the pain of mind created by a false accusation. If, as I have before urged, it be wrong to hurt the flesh by a blow, is it not wrong to hurt the soul by calumny? The sting of the fangs of the viper, no less than the paw of the lion, may give a mortal infliction; but no less painful may be the effect of a false human tongue. Is it not as great a wrong to wound a man’s soul as his flesh? Yet there never has been any hesitation on the part of sectarians to express any painful opinion as to heretics or idolaters. The word _infidel_, so much more deserved by themselves for their violation of the precepts they profess, is used as a matter of course, and, coupling with an error in worship a heinous sinfulness, the idolater is always in the wrong. But reasonably, upon the grounds which have been advanced in the preceding portion of this work, (1245,) idolatry may be an imputation against the intellectual pretension, but not against the integrity, of the worshipper; and for one I consider the propensity to the worship of idols displayed throughout the whole of the Jewish history, and even by Solomon the “_Wise_,” as a strong proof that there never was sufficient evidence presented to the Jews of the divine origin of the books of Moses, or any others represented as conveying God’s holy word.

2024. It is not doing as we would be done by to accuse any worshipper of bad motives, for the reasons which I have above given; and when it is considered how unwilling people are to part with their property, the fact that the Israelites gave their gold ornaments to enable Aaron to cast a golden calf, shows that they sincerely believed that their worship would be acceptable to some deity who had the best claim to their acknowledgment. If they mistook the object, it must have been an error of the understanding, which it would have been evidently more reasonable to have corrected by reasoning and evidence, than by punishment.

2025. While such eminent men as Mahan, and the learned Goliah of my mundane guardian spirit, will hold up this, to my mind, barbarous and preposterous Pentateuch as the word of God, I am obliged to meet them upon the ground thus stated; but there are other highly respectable clergymen, who concur in questioning that the Pentateuch existed until after the return of the Jews from their captivity; and there is evidence, agreeably to the quotations I have made, that this alleged work of divine inspiration, or _word of God_, as stated in the Second Book of Chronicles, and 22d chapter of the Second Book of Kings, has no better foundation than the word of the priest Hilkiah and his accomplices.

2026. The Rev. Mr. Norton, in a laborious investigation, shows that, according to internal evidence, almost all the important facts stated in Genesis and Exodus are inconsistent with each other or the circumstances under which they are alleged to have happened.

2027. Mr. Mahan conceives that the willingness of the believers in the gospel to sacrifice their lives in testimony of the sincerity of their conviction proves the truth of revelation. Wherefore, then, does not their exposure to the slaughtering sword of the partisans of Moses prove the sincerity of the Israelites in their worship of their idol? No wise knave would do any thing so absurd. History shows that many of those who have been most willing to make sacrifices for their belief have been great fanatics. Their willingness to suffer only proves the intensity of their belief, not the truth of the miracles which they believe.

2028. Having first assumed, contrary to the fact, that the mission of Christ was generally accredited in the contemporaneous pagan communities, Mr. Mahan claims this to be evidence of the facts stated by the evangelists.

2029. But if the belief in a mission by contemporaries is evidence in its favour, is not the disbelief of contemporaries evidence on the other side? Is not the fact that Moses could only expel idolatry from the Hebrews by the sword, a proof that he was unable to convince them by any adequate evidence of his claims to inspiration?

2030. This surmise, respecting the inadequacy of the facts and reasoning which Moses had to advance in favour of his pretensions as a missionary of Jehovah, appears to be fully justified in the history given by Josephus. From the following language, which this distinguished Jewish historian alleges to have been held by one of the Israelites, it is evident that Moses was then viewed as no better than Mohammed or any of the usurping popes of Christendom. While Protestants sanction such religious despots as Moses and Samuel, they ought not to complain of the papal despots of Christendom, (note to 1091.)

_Just denunciation of the religious imposture and usurpation of Moses,
by noble-minded Israelites._[54]

2031. “Corah, an Hebrew of great wealth and influence, and famous for his eloquence, becoming jealous of the dignity to which Moses had attained, raised a clamour against him among the Levites who were of the same tribe, by suggesting to them, in an occasional harangue, ‘That it redounded to their dishonour thus tamely to suffer Moses, under pretence of the divine command, to retain unlimited authority, vest the priesthood in his brother Aaron without their suffrages, and bestow places of honour and profit at pleasure.’ He added, ‘that these measures were the more oppressive and grievous as founded on the arts of sophistry and insinuation; that those who are conscious of deserving posts of dignity endeavour to obtain them not by force, but mild persuasion; that it was the interest of a state to check the ambition of such aspiring individuals, before they acquired an influence that might prove destructive.’ He demanded by what authority Moses had conferred the priesthood on Aaron and his sons, enforcing his own title as superior to theirs, both by descent and property.”

2032. In consequence of this, Moses addresses the following prayer, which certainly is as remote from the sentiments which the precepts of Christ would call for, as any which can be imagined:

2033. “Testify thy wonted kindness to the Hebrews by inflicting condign punishment on Dathan and Abiram, for suggesting that thy purposes are opposed by my arts. Visit these detractors from thy glory with exemplary vengeance. Let the earth on which they tread swallow them up, _with their families_ and substance, to the manifestation of thy power, and as an example to posterity not to think unworthily of the Majesty of heaven.”

2034. Mr. Mahan urges that those who sacrificed their lives for a cause must have had good reason for their course. What are we, then, to think of Zimri the Hebrew, who used the following language to Moses, and was, as well as those who concurred with him in opinion, murdered in consequence, not after trial, but by Lynch law, as will appear from the sequel?[55]

2035. “‘Moses, you are at liberty to contend for the use and observance of your own laws, which have obtained a sanction and authority by long custom alone, or you would have been brought to merited disgrace and punishment, and found, to your cost, that the Hebrews were not to be deluded by your arts. I will never subject myself to your tyrannical decrees, assured that, under a pretext of regard to religion and law, you seek to enslave us, and establish a supreme authority over us, by denying us those liberties to which all free-born men have an undoubted right. Was there a more grievous oppression during the whole course of an Egyptian bondage than the power you usurped of punishing every man by laws of your own formation? You particularly deserve punishment for abrogating and annulling those customs, laws, and privileges which are authorized and established by the common consent of nations, and preferring the suggestions of your fancy to rules so generally followed and rationally founded. Conscious that I have done nothing wrong, I now frankly declare, in this assembly, that I have married a strange woman. This I confess with an honest boldness, and would do the same in the face of the world. I also worship the gods whom thou hast forbidden to be worshipped, as I do not hold myself bound to submit to your arbitrary sway either in matters of law or religion, but must assert the liberty of investigating the truth for myself, and directing my own personal concerns.’

2036. “Zimri, in this speech, delivered the general sentiment of the whole faction, while the multitude silently waited the issue of his presumptuous conduct, for they apprehended much confusion would ensue.”

2037. But one of Moses’s partisans did not allow this noble asserter of the rights of human nature to survive this bold stand long, as will appear from the rest of the narrative, which thus proceeds:

2038. “His contumacy and flagrantly insolent behaviour to Moses raised the resentment of one Phineas to the highest degree. He was a youth eminent for the dignity of his family, his singular prowess, and his personal virtues. Eleazar the high-priest being his father, he was nearly allied to the great lawgiver. Sensible that to suffer such indignity to pass with impunity would bring both the religion and the laws of the Hebrews into contempt, he determined to make an example of the ringleader of the faction, as his exalted rank would cause that example to have a greater influence on the minds of the people. His resolution being equal to his zeal, he repaired, without delay, to the tent of Zimri, and at one stroke slew both him and Cobi his wife. This resolute act excited an emulation among those of his contemporaries who still maintained a regard for the honour of their country, to avenge themselves on those who had done it violation; inasmuch that they fell most furiously upon the faction, and put great numbers of them to the sword.”

2039. Where is the true-hearted son of Columbia who would not have been among those who fell with Zimri, for the right of choosing his wife and his religion according to his own judgment?

_Remarkable observance of the Golden Rule by Moses, in his last advice
to the Israelites._[56]

2040. “‘Wherefore, to avoid this danger of apostasy from the worship of the God of your fathers, suffer not any of your enemies to live after you have conquered them; but esteem it highly conducive to your interest to destroy them all, lest, if you permit them to live, you become infected by their manners, and thereby corrupt your own institutions. I do further exhort you to overthrow their altars, temples, groves, and indeed to exterminate their nations with fire and sword. By these means alone the permanency of your happy constitution can be secured to you.’”

2041. Let these sentiments of Moses be compared with those of the great Cyrus, in which he justly adverts to the immortality of the soul. Moses was always worldly, and, as respects the lives of neighbouring pagans, so called, displayed no better morality than Thuggism on a great scale.

_Straining at Spiritual Gnats, while swallowing Scriptural Camels._

2042. The question is put, Wherefore can spirits cause tappings on or tilting of tables, only when a medium is present? To those who believe in the Old Testament as the word of God, it may be in point to inquire, Wherefore the mere elevation of the hands of Moses, on a hill remote from the field of battle, enabled the Israelites to overcome their enemies, when the opposite result ensued when the hands of the veracious prophet were lowered, as agreeably to verses 11 and 12, chapter xvii. of Exodus?

2043. “And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’s hands were heavy, and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat thereon, and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.”

2044. It follows from the verses in question that the skill, strength, or courage of every Jewish combatant varied with the elevation or depression of the arms of Moses above or below a mean horizontal plane.

2045. Surely, the peculiar influences thus exercised by the author of the Pentateuch is at least as incredible as that by which the presence of a medium enables spirits to move ponderable bodies, when otherwise they could not move them. The influence ascribed to Moses is alleged to have been witnessed only on one occasion, whereas that attributed to media has been seen in a multiplicity of instances by living witnesses of good character, who will attest to the facts, as well as the media themselves.

2046. But, independently of the incredibility of this Mosaic miracle as an isolated fact discordant with the laws of nature and human experience, is it not incredible on account of its inconsistency with the just and humane idea of God which the truly pious entertain, that he should give this assistance to the Jews in their unchristian warfare? This reasoning is at least as applicable to the alleged arrestation of the sun, (involving that of the rotary motion of the earth,) in order that Joshua might make a further slaughter of the vanquished Canaanites. For this slaughter the prominent excuse seems to have been that Moses, wishing to possess the territory of the Canaanites, professed to have the authority of God for extirpating them as idolaters, agreeably to the following language, which is represented by Mr. Mahan and others as the word of God, (Deut. viii. 16, 20, 22:)

2047. “And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee. Moreover, the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed. And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little; thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.”

_The Evidence which is insufficient to establish the Iniquity of a
Sinner cannot be sufficient to establish the Divine Authority of a
Book._

2048. “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or any sin: at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall the matter be established,” (Deut. xix. 15.)

2049. Agreeably to the preceding quotation from Scripture, one witness is not sufficient to convict a man of any iniquity. Two witnesses, at least, are necessary to establish guilt. But if a single witness be insufficient to establish the iniquity of a man, how is it to be established, on the evidence of the priest Hilkiah alone, that the manuscript, which, as he represented, he had found in the temple, was the inspired code of Moses, or, as Mahan and others would have it, the word of God?

2050. Should the righteousness of a religious code be established by evidence insufficient to establish the iniquity of an individual? _A fortiori_, when, by proving the righteousness of a code, a whole generation was to be convicted of iniquity, was the evidence of one individual sufficient, especially when the iniquity thus to be adjudged was to draw down the unquenchable wrath of God, agreeably to Huldah the prophetess?

_Word of God, impiously so called, or the Golden Rule inverted by God’s
alleged Commands._

2051. “When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself: and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee,” (Deut. xx. 10-17.)

PAGAN FEARLESSNESS OF DEATH.

_Opinion of Mr. Huc, a Christian Priest, that it is their religion
which makes Christians more fearful of death than the Chinese_, (746.)

2052. PARSON BERG and Bishop McIlvaine unjustly represent the doctrines of futurity, held by Christians, as causing those who believe in eternal punishment—in the horrible hell described by Josephus, and sanctioned by the gospel, with the precarious notions of heaven derived from the same authority—to have less fear of death than deists, by them called _infidels_. But I have known many deists die, and certainly I have never seen any believer in Christianity meet death with more firmness than those who did not believe. Some of the last-mentioned class have died of painful complaints with the most admirable equanimity. But to illustrate the injustice of these reverend gentlemen in their undue assumption of the superior fearlessness of death of those persons who believe in the gospel over those who do not so believe, I will here quote a passage from the travels of a Christian missionary, which describes the equanimity with which the Chinese meet death. From the work of the French missionary, Mr. Huc, it will be seen that _death_ is contemplated with far less fearful apprehension in China than in Christendom.

_Observations of the Missionary, Mr. Huc, to whom reference has just
been made._

2053. “In no other country than China, perhaps, could men be heard exchanging compliments on the subject of a coffin. People (in Christendom) are most shy of mentioning the lugubrious objects destined to contain the mortal remains of a relation or friend; and when death does enter the house, the coffin is got in in secresy and silence, in order to spare the feelings of the mourning family. But it is quite otherwise in China; there a coffin is simply an article of the first necessity to the dead, and of luxury and fancy to the living. In the great towns you see them displayed in the shops with all sorts of tasteful decorations, painted, and varnished, and polished, and trimmed up to attract the eyes of passengers, and give them the fancy to buy themselves one.

2054. “People in easy circumstances, who have money to spare for their pleasures, scarcely ever fail to provide themselves beforehand with a coffin to suit their own taste, and which they consider becoming; and, until the moment arrives for lying down in it, it is kept in the house; not as an article of immediate necessity, but as one that cannot fail to be consoling and pleasant to the eye in a nicely-furnished apartment.

2055. “For well-brought up children, it is a favourite method of expressing the fervour of their filial piety toward the authors of their being, a sweet and tender consolation for the heart of a son, to be able to purchase a beautiful coffin for an aged father or mother, and come in state to present the gift at the moment when they least expect such an agreeable surprise. If one is not sufficiently favoured by fortune to be able to afford the purchase of a coffin in advance, care is always taken before ‘_saluting the world_,’ as the Chinese say, a sick person shall at least have the satisfaction of casting a glance at his last abode; and if he is surrounded by at all affectionate relations, they never fail to buy him a coffin and place it by the side of his bed.

2056. “In the country, this is not always so easy, for coffins are not kept quite ready, and, besides, peasants have not such luxurious habits as townspeople. The only way, then, is to send for the carpenter of the place, who takes the measure of the sick person, not forgetting to observe to him that it must be made a little longer than would seem necessary, because one always stretches out a little when dead. A bargain is then made concerning the length and breadth, and especially the cost; wood is brought, and the workmen set about their task in the yard, close to the chamber of the dying person, who is entertained with the music of the saw and the other tools, while death is at work with him, preparing him to occupy the snug abode when it is ready.

2057. “All this is done with the most perfect coolness, and without the slightest emotion, real or affected. We have ourselves witnessed such scenes more than once, and it has always been one of the things that most surprised us in the manners of this extraordinary country. A short time after our arrival in the mission of the north, we were walking one day in the country with a Chinese seminarist, who had the patience to reply to all our long and tedious questions about the men and things of the Celestial Empire. While we were keeping up the dialogue as well as we could, in a mixture of Latin and Chinese, using a word of one or the other as we found occasion, we saw coming toward us a rather numerous crowd, who advanced in an orderly manner along a narrow path. It might have been called a procession.

2058. “Our first impulse was to turn aside, and get into some safe corner behind a large hill; for, not having as yet much experience in the manners and customs of the Chinese, we had some hesitation in producing ourselves, for fear of being recognised and thrown into prison; possibly even condemned and strangled. The crowd had now come up with us, and we stood aside to let it pass. It was composed of a great number of villagers, who looked at us with smiling faces, and had the appearance of being uncommonly pleased. After them came a litter, on which was borne an empty coffin, and then another litter, upon which lay extended a dying man, wrapped in blankets. His face was haggard and livid, and his expiring eyes were fixed upon the coffin that preceded him. When every one had passed, we hastened to ask the meaning of this strange procession. ‘It is some sick man,’ said the seminarist, ‘who has been taken ill in a neighbouring village, and whom they are bringing home to his family. The Chinese do not like to die away from their own house.’ ‘That is very natural; but what is the coffin for?’ ‘For the sick man, who probably has not many days to live. They seem to have made every thing ready for his funeral.’ I remarked by the side of the coffin a piece of white linen. ‘That, they mean to use for the mourning.’

2059. “These words threw us in the most profound astonishment, and we saw then that we had come into a new world—into the midst of a people whose ideas and feelings differed widely from those of Europeans. These men quietly setting about to prepare for the funeral of a still living friend and relation—this coffin placed purposely under the eyes of the dying man, doubtless with the purpose of doing what was agreeable to him; all this plunged us into a strange reverie, and the walk was continued in silence. The astonishing calmness with which the Chinese see the approach of death does not fail when the last moment arrives. They expire with the most incomparable tranquillity, without any of the emotions, the agitations, the agonies that usually render the moment of death so terrific.”

2060. It is remarkable that Mr. Huc cites an “_entire want of religious feeling, as among the causes of this indifference to death_.”[57] But it may be inquired whether that can be a proper kind of religious feeling which interferes with equanimity at the prospect of our spiritual birth. I can easily believe Mr. Huc to be correct, if his entire want of religious feeling means the absence of all fear of an eternal broiling, like that of Dives.

2061. It is the absence of that _sort_ of religion which this _sectarian would teach_; that which consigns the great majority of mankind to perpetual misery on account of their disbelief in Romanism.

2062. Widely different is the effect of the religion I have espoused. It has made a prodigious change in my feelings. I look forward to death with hope, rather than fear. (See page 32 (108) of this work for the different effect of Romanism on my mind.)

_Conclusion of Strictures on Mr. Mahan’s Religious Errors._

2063. It will be observed that under the general head of Mr. Mahan’s errors, I have treated of not only those which he has advocated, but such as he sanctions by his general endorsement of Scripture. However, I here take my leave of Mr. Mahan and his errors.

CONCLUSION.

2064. In a work by the English bishop Warburton, is to be found the following allegation:

“The doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments is not to be found in, nor did it make part of, the Mosaic dispensation.”

_The Pentateuch inconsistently represented as the basis of belief in human immortality, as will appear by the prefixed quotation, as well as the inability of any of its devotees to point out any part which conflicts with the right reverend author’s opinion, above mentioned.—Injustice of representing disbelievers in the Bible as not having as good grounds for belief in immortality as those who rest their belief on a work which, by its silence, tends to discountenance the hope of a future life.—Those who uphold the Bible against Spiritualism, the real antagonists of the only satisfactory evidence ever given to man of a future habitation in the spirit world._

2065. Religious people all very justly insist on the immense importance of a belief in a future state of existence, in which we are to enjoy a degree of happiness in proportion to our good conduct in this life, or of misery in proportion as we do evil.

2066. Throughout Christendom I believe such a belief is necessary to render a person competent as a witness, or to hold any office. As it is assumed generally by Christians that there is no other proof of immortality than that alleged to be afforded by Scripture, unbelievers in Scripture are assumed to be unbelievers in a future state, and the most unfavourable insinuations are made respecting such persons, (1310.) Bishop McIlvaine, in his “Evidences,” has _charitably_ represented that, as a class, such men are peculiarly vicious, and in their domestic relations immoral; _not recollecting how far Christian prelates have been found wanting in the present, as well as in past times_. But notwithstanding that the disbelief in a future state is held to be so universally pernicious in its influence, self-called orthodox Christians deem it impious not to bow before the Bible as the holy word of God, or to be wanting in respect for his inspired missionary, Moses. But admitting that the books found by Hilkiah (1940) were written, under divine inspiration, by Moses, how does it happen that those books and their author stand in such high estimation, _when they actually give no evidence of immortality, but rather tend to prove that God, in communicating his will to Moses, thought it more important to give to the Jews directions for the decoration of a tabernacle, than to impart to them the invaluable knowledge of their eternal existence? Moreover, God is represented as holding in especial favour, those who did not think it of as much importance to inquire into the truth of immortality, as to obtain decorations for pharisaical worship._ Why is Moses, _a materialist_, to be venerated, who so grossly trifled with his opportunities? There is either a flagitious misrepresentation, or he, of all men, had the best opportunity of learning this _all-important_ truth; and therefore, dying ignorant of it, is proportionally more culpable. Wherefore is the uncandid and unfounded pretence resorted to, that attacking the Old Testament is attacking the basis of the hope of heaven, when, on the contrary, that record has really the opposite tendency—that of enfeebling the evidence of immortality?

2067. We see the _heathen_ Cyrus, on his death-bed, (1980,) striving to impress upon his children a belief in immortality, while Moses, dying a worldly-minded, blood-thirsty materialist, employs his last moments in giving _inhuman_ directions for the _merciless massacre_ of every conquered pagan. Yet, while Bishop McIlvaine, as respects his contemporaries, represents materialism as irreconcilable with virtue, Moses is to be venerated and the books attributed to his authorship idolatrously worshipped as the word of God! But if the advocacy of any thing which tends to lessen the hope of immortality be culpable, is it not culpable, against the truths of Spiritualism to hold up a book which authorizes disbelief in immortality, and that, too, upon such questionable authority as an obscure priest and fanatical and barbarous autocrat? (1937.) As respects the gospel, it has, I hope, been shown that, with all the exertions of the good parson Harbaugh to exhibit the heaven of Scripture in its most favorable aspect, (777 to 805,) Spiritualism has immensely the advantage in the description given of the spirit world, (409 to 469,) sanctioned by the replies given to my queries under test conditions, (552).

2068. Another ground of pre-eminence is the perfect immunity from any association with such a priesthood as that described by the Right Rev. Bishop Hopkins. Media, replacing the priests, will owe their office to nature, not to any aristocracy, monarch, or theocrat, (1307).

2069. Private disinterested Media will always outnumber and control any of the same class who may attempt to acquire unfair ascendancy, even if, in the nature of the case, it were possible that such a wrong could be contemplated.

2070. I trust I have shown that the actual morals of Christendom are irreconcilable with the precepts of the gospel, which denounce wealth and enjoin submission to wrong, these morals being also inconsistent with the materialism of the books of Moses. Under these circumstances, let the reader turn to the evidence which has converted me from a prepossessed skeptic to a devout believer in spiritual communication. Let that glorious portraiture of the spirit-world be considered which has been opened to the view of mortals through the high spirits who have accredited me as one of their servants. I will not go over the evidence, nor recapitulate the arguments which I have already so fully urged upon the attention of my readers. I implore them to read with candour, and think earnestly of the facts and reasoning submitted in this volume.

_P. S.—Explanation respecting Jesus Christ._

My spirit sister alleges that Christ never uttered the language recorded as his, and upon which I have commented. This being admitted, I wish that nothing which I have said may be considered as bearing personally on a Being who is so much the object of devotion with many of my dearest connections, relations, and friends. I wish that it should be considered that it is only upon the doctrines imputed to Christ, that I have intended to animadvert, not on Jesus himself. Surely I am justified as treating that language as coming from Jesus Christ, which is ascribed to him in the only history of his teachings which has come down to us, and which, under the name of the holy canonical gospel, is considered by more than three-fourths of all the Christians in existence as inspired by God!

APPENDIX.

Under this head I place some articles which could not be embodied in this work; but which it may nevertheless be expedient to place within the reach of certain readers. Among the articles referred to is the theory of electricity, which I first published in 1848, and which has been approved by the spirit of Franklin, and, in obedience to his advice, inserted in this volume. Unfortunately, there are but few persons sufficiently acquainted with the phenomena which form its basis, and the technical language employed by professed electricians, to find it agreeable to study the subject in question; but they may qualify themselves to do so by studying the elementary works on this branch of science.

LETTER TO THE EPISCOPAL CLERGY.

Although the subjoined letter has been published in various channels, as well as in a separate pamphlet, I deem it proper to record it in this work, as, otherwise, many who may see the one might not see the other. It will be perceived that the substance of my second letter has been already incorporated in the preceding pages, (714 to 776.) Of course it is to the first letter that I now allude, and which I intend to record here.

_Letter from Dr. Hare to the Clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church, offering to lay before them the New Evidence of Immortality._ (_Submitted to the late Convention, Philadelphia, May 15, 1855._)

REVEREND AND DEAR SIRS: Having, from my youth, been on friendly terms with the clergy of the Episcopal Church, within the pale of which I was born and christened; having, in fact, had among the clergy of that church some excellent friends and relatives,—it has been a source of regret that I have not been able to see doctrines deeply affecting the happiness of mankind in the same light. I am, however, fully sensible of the kindness and courtesy with which I have been treated by clergymen in general, and especially by those of the church above designated. I have always been under the belief that in no part of the globe, nor at any period of human history, has a priesthood existed as moral, as sincere, and truly pious as those of my country; and among that priesthood, I believe, none have stood higher in these qualifications than such as are of the Episcopal Church.

It is happy for me that of late I have, in one respect, found myself more in accordance with the Christian clergy: I allude here to the awakening of perfect confidence in the immortality of the soul. There was on this subject, heretofore, this difference between my sentiments and those of my clerical friends, that while I hoped for a future state, I was no less skeptical respecting the evidence of witnesses who lived some thousand years ago than of those who have, in modern times, alleged themselves to have witnessed supernatural manifestations. I required in the former case, no less than in the latter, intuitive proof; or the consistent testimony of independent observers having sufficient sense, knowledge, and integrity to make reliable witnesses.

Happily, in the case of Spiritualism, both of these tests have been afforded to me, so that I now believe in a future state no less firmly than the orthodox Christian.

Like St. Paul, in the case of Christianity, I entered upon the investigation of Spiritualism with a view to refutation; but the very instruments which I contrived to accomplish that object produced the opposite effect.

If human testimony is not to be taken when advanced by contemporaries known to be conscientious, truthful, and well informed, how is it to be relied on with respect to those of whom we know nothing available beside what their own writings mention?

I am prepared to submit a communication respecting the spirit world from my father, sanctioned by a convocation of spirits, whose approbation was manifested by means which no mortal could pervert.

The practical influence on my mind has been to make me far more happy, to remove all fear of death, and to render me more watchful as to my deportment in life. I know that my sainted parents, and other relatives and friends, my children who died in infancy, are around me, witnessing every act and exercising a limited power over my safety and my health.

Mourning for the dead now seems to be groundless, and at all events can be indulged only upon selfish considerations. But who would grieve deeply at a transient separation, even for years, from friends made happier by the change, when sure of a happy reunion ultimately?

No evidence of any important truth in science can be shown to be more unexceptionable than that which I have received of this glorious fact, that heaven is really “at hand,” and that our relatives, friends, and acquaintances who are worthy of happiness, while describing themselves as ineffably happy, are still progressing to higher felicity; and while hovering aloft in our midst, are taking interest in our welfare with an augmented zeal or affection, so that, by these means, they may be a solace to us, in despite of death.

As the reverend clergy of the Episcopal Church are about to meet in Philadelphia, I deem it my duty to afford them an opportunity of hearing the evidence on which I rely; and which, with _due effort_, they can have subjected to their own intuition.

Should the clergy deem it expedient to listen to my exposition, I shall be ready to answer any queries which may be made.

I am aware that there may be considerations which may justify the clergy in declining to hear me. I have never, in my own case, deemed it wise to seek abstract right at the expense of practical evil. I would not urge persons in certain official stations to become converts to Spiritualism, lest it should, by consequent unpopularity, interfere with their usefulness, as in the case of Judge Edmonds; and a like objection must arise as to the conversion of clergymen, so far as to bring their convictions in competition with their professional vocation. Orthodox Christians are generally educated to believe not only that the revelation on which they rely is true, but that no other can be justifiable. Hence they are evidently displeased that spiritualists should allege themselves to have come by other means to that belief in immortality which is admitted on all sides to be the greatest comfort under the afflictions to which temporal life is liable.

There is, moreover, this discordancy in doctrine: Agreeably to Scripture, man is placed here for probation, and is liable to be _eternally_ punished if he prove delinquent. According to Spiritualism, man is placed here for progression, and when he goes to the next world, still will have the opportunity to progress, however wicked he may be when he departs this life.

It is conceived by spiritualists that if, as the orthodox allege, God be omnipotent, he can make his creatures to suit his will; if he be omniscient, he must know what they are when made; and if he be prescient, he can foresee what they will be, and consequently cannot have the smallest conceivable motive for exposing them to probation.

I foresee that it may not be deemed expedient to take any notice of this letter; but whatever may be the result in this way, does not interfere with the propriety of my putting it in your power to avail yourselves of my offer; since I have a sanction from a higher source, the spirit of the immortal Washington, the proofs of whose communion with me I am prepared to submit to any respectable inquirers.

I am aware that this language would, a few years ago, have made me attach the idea of insanity to the author; but this cannot, nevertheless, in the slightest degree, be deducible from it now, from the notorious fact that the same monomania is never entertained by any two persons, and in _my hallucination_, if it _be such_, there are a multitude of participators. That is to say, there are a multitude of persons of every grade who believe that they have communicated with their spirit friends, as I have with mine; and who, like me, have believed themselves to have held communion with the spirits of some of the most distinguished men who have departed this life. A faith in the miracles of the New Testament may as well be adduced as insanity as belief in spiritual manifestations under these circumstances.

The fact that manifestations have been made and truthfully described has been admitted by the Catholic Church, but are ascribed to Satanic agency.

Let the doctrines of Spiritualism, and those of the church in question, be compared, in order to determine which owes most to Satan.

The existence of a devil being admitted, was there ever a more fertile source of diabolical intolerance than the idea that a peculiar belief being necessary to save men’s souls from hell fire, any temporal evil to which mortals might be subjected to coerce belief, would be as justifiable as the forcible extirpation of an incipient cancer from the body of a child unwilling to submit to the operation? If ever there was a devil’s agency, it may be seen in the auto-da-fé, the Inquisition, and the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s day.

Of the same devilish character was the execution of Servetus by Calvin, or the persecution of the Quakers and witches by the Puritans.

Respectfully, your well-wisher, ROBERT HARE.

A LETTER FROM DR. HARE.

_Addressed to the President of the Association for the Advancement of Science, at their meeting, August 18, 1855._

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

Having addressed the subjoined letter to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the standing committee resolved that the subject did not fall sufficiently within the objects of the Association to allow even of its being read to the meeting. In the instance of my letter to the Episcopal clergy, it was stated that its acknowledgment by them was not expected; and after this impression was verified, I admitted that, in their not replying, the interest of the church was best consulted. In the present case I admit that the harmony of the Association was perhaps best consulted in not recognising that the objects of the Association involved the duty of allowing certain facts to be stated before it, which are at war with the received doctrines of science, no less than with those of revelation.

During the Dark Ages, the so-called word of God (but really the words of ignorant propagandists) had taken such hold of the proper domain of science, that it was heresy to assert the rotundity of this planet, or that the sun did not revolve about it diurnally. But at this time science has established itself upon the domain claimed for religious truth, so that between the positive science of the atheist Comte and the dogmatic opinions of the orthodox savan, there is no room for the germ of Spiritualism to shoot up.

It seems to me that, in due courtesy and liberality, the standing committee might have had my letter read to the meeting, and have let the members judge whether it should be acknowledged. But I place it on record in this volume, and leave the propriety of their having neglected to acknowledge it to be estimated hereafter in this world, as it has already been in the world of spirits, as respects its influence on the estimation of the parties.

I am aware, however, that every man in society is more or less a _peon_, and that there is no small analogy between the situation of many holding worldly pre-eminence and that of the poor apothecary of Shakspeare. Conscience and reason are ever under the control of expediency. Those who live in society must be governed by the hearts and heads of others as well as their own: unless they are quite sure that the cause of truth will suffer by their silence, they should not speak to give others umbrage. I always considered it my duty not to do any thing which would injure the institution of which I was a member for nearly thirty years. Doubtless, the sachems of the Association did what they thought best, as probably I should have done, had I been situated as they were, and holding their opinions.

In the letter as actually sent to the Association, I introduced the arguments founded on Dr. Bell’s observations, (111, 287, 864,) also the facts and reasoning submitted in the Supplemental Preface. I shall, of course, leave the reader to recur to those passages, and introduce here only the other portions of my letter:

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE:

_Dear Sir_: Being engaged in putting a work to press, I am sorry to be unable to be present at the meeting of the Association on the 15th inst.