Experimental Investigation of the Spirit Manifestations / Demonstrating the existence of spirits and their communion with mortals. Doctrine of the spirit world respecting heaven, hell, morality, and God. Also, the influence of Scripture on the morals of Christians.

by Robert Hare

THE MORALITY OF CHRISTENDOM BEING IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT, CANNOT BE ITS LEGITIMATE OFFSPRING.

Inspiration can have no higher authority, than the human testimony on which its existence is arrogated.

1086. Is it not a mistake to suppose that any doctrine gains any validity by claiming inspiration as its source, when there is nothing but human testimony to advance in support of that claim? For if in the instance of Spiritualism, human testimony is deemed to be unavailable, how comes it to avail when adduced in support of this arrogant claim of inspiration? As well might a man expect to cure the defect of a marshy foundation by substituting columns of iron for wooden posts, or that, while resting on wood, the support could be made firmer by introducing iron into the superstructure.

1087. As the introduction of the iron would diminish the competency of the foundation in proportion to the augmentation of weight, so the claim to inspiration lessens the competency of the testimony upon which it is advanced, proportionally as the incredibility is increased.

1088. But as respects the ancient witnesses, their own statements make them out unworthy of confidence. Facts or circumstances are stated which are manifestly blasphemous, inconsistent, and absurd, if not impossible. Thus a want of veracity or of discretion being demonstrated in some points, is sufficient to destroy validity in all.

1089. Revelation assumes God to be omnipotent, omniscient, prescient, and all good, yet represents him as under the necessity of subjecting his creatures to probation, to find out what, by the premises, he must foresee. It represents him while wishing his creatures to know him and his attributes, as not teaching them that which he wishes them to learn, yet punishing them and their posterity for ignorance arising from his own omission.

1090. It does not suffice to allege that the Old Testament taught God’s will to the Jews; since it is to me incredible that our Heavenly Father would give instruction of vital importance to a few of his children, leaving all the rest uninstructed, and yet afflict them for this result. But, admitting this possible, it appears that the instruction given the Jews in the book of Moses failed in those particulars, which are of paramount importance.

1091. In the Bible, God is represented as susceptible of jealousy, of wrath, of authorizing the butchery of three thousand Israelites for worshipping a golden calf; sanctioning the massacre of the whole nation of the Midianites, with the reservation of the virgins for violation by the bloody murderers of their kindred; the outrageous deception and fraud on the part of Jacob; swindling the Egyptians by borrowing their ornaments with intention of purloining them; hardening the heart of Pharaoh, yet afflicting his subjects for the obduracy thus produced; instructing Saul to surprise and massacre the Amalekites, even to each “suckling babe”, for a wrong done by their ancestors some hundred years before, as authorizing the hewing down with a sword the regal prisoner Agag in cold blood,[21] and sanctioning the destruction of whole pagan communities by David.[22]

1092. The following is the account given of this favourite of Jehovah: “And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul shall despair of me, to seek me any more in any coast of Israel; so shall I escape out of his hand. And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that were with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath. And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, even David with his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal’s wife. And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath: and he sought no more again for him. And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them give me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there: for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee? Then Achish gave him Ziglag that day: wherefore Ziglag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day. And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full year and four months. And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites: for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt. And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and returned, and came to Achish. And Achish said, Whither have ye made a road to-day? And David said, Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites. And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, saying, Lest they should tell on us, saying, So did David, and so will be his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the Philistines. And Achish believed David, saying, He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant forever.”

1093. Here is massacre, spoliation, base lying to Achish, his truly noble-hearted friend, whom he deceives into a belief that he had made the people of Israel abhor him, when it was his intention to become king of Judea, and of course the enemy of his too-confiding protector, whenever an opportunity offered.

1094. Praise be to God that he has sent us a new way to religious light, not associated with this detestable immorality!

1095. Jehovah is made to arrest the sun, in order that Joshua may slaughter his flying foes. He is described as authorizing the Jews to extirpate their neighbours and seize their territory. I do most conscientiously declare that the portrait of Jehovah by the Bible appears to me more suitable for Satan than for our heavenly Father, who is represented by the spirits as perfectly impartial and equally loving to all his creatures.

1096. The example set in the Bible of slandering and persecuting those who did not believe in its doctrines, has ever been followed out by scriptural devotees, who would presumptuously represent that it is only from the Scriptures, which they recognise as the word of God, that a correct knowledge of the divine attributes can be obtained. But this is the converse of the truth. As described by Seneca, the Roman Sage, the God of the ancient theist was to the Jehovah of the Bible as Hyperion to Satyr. (See Seneca’s opinions of God, 1224)

1097. It appears to me a striking proof how far men can be demented by educational bigotry, that it should be supposed that their omnipotent God can require human missionaries’ aid to promulgate or carry out his will.

Did God a special creed require,

Each soul would he not with that creed inspire?

1098. The Old Testament does not impart a knowledge of immortality, without which religion were worthless. The notions derived from the gospel are vague, disgusting, inaccurate, and difficult to believe. The Pentateuch did not give the Jews an idea of immortality, nor were those Jews distinguished for morality, who from other sources than the Pentateuch embraced a belief in immortality. It has already been pointed out that the most enlightened sect among the children of Israel, the Sadducees, did not believe in a future state, while the Pharisees, who professed to believe therein, appear to have been so immoral as to be pre-eminently the objects of Christ’s denunciation.

1099. As respects the precepts of Christ, those on which he laid most stress are not only neglected, but grossly violated, by the opposite course being sanctioned by the overruling sentiment of society. Nothing would subject a man to more contempt in Christendom than a tame submission to blows, or being so poor as to wear patched or ragged clothes. There are few, if any, in Christendom, who would not rather have any deficiency in attire attributed to accident or taste, than to poverty.

1100. I have shown that the idea which the Pharisees entertained of heaven, as portrayed by Josephus, representing the wicked like the rich man within sight of the good, would be a hell to a good-hearted angel. This representation is sanctioned by Christ in his story of the rich man and Lazarus. The only reward promised to his apostles was worldly preeminence in the form of judgeships. Hence it were hardly reasonable for those who are subordinate in merit to the disciples to expect any better remuneration. Hell is as absurdly as horridly typified by eternal exposure to interminable fire.

1101. Thus neither among the Jews, nor among Christians, has the Bible furnished any adequate account of a future state, nor has it been productive of higher morality; since the only morality which does exist, is coupled not only with the neglect, but with the violation of those precepts which the gospel inculcates.

1102. Diogenes took a lantern to see if he could find an honest man in Greece. Were any one to employ a lime-light, he would not in Christendom find a Christian who carries out in practice the precepts of his divine Master. If those who know their Master’s will, yet do it not, are to be beaten with many stripes, while the ignorant pagan is to bear but few, were it not better to be a pagan than such a Christian as those are, for the most part, who exist in Christendom? Unless our missionaries can make better Christians, is it not inhumane to add to the number?

1103. On calling on a bigoted, self-styled disciple of Christ to show me anyone who put the precepts of Christ into practice, the reply was, “We rely on his merits.” “That is all you do,” said I. “In common with others of your tenets, you make the blood of Christ a fund on which every sinner may draw in proportion as he has confidence in its detersive influence.”

1104. I am supported in some of the views above presented, by a communication from a believer in revelation, under the signature of Bosanquet, to the Baltimore Church Times, for June 15, 1848. I will quote a portion of this communication, which is as follows:

1105. “But the want of faith is more open and direct than this, and it is the more obvious and pointed upon religious subjects. The Bible is boldly and practically denied in every particular. No class or body of men believe and obey it, and strange as it may seem, it is by no nation, or people, or churches, or sects of men, less implicitly believed and followed than by those very people and sections of the church who talk so much about it. There are no persons less obedient to the plain sense and mandates of the written word of God, than those who most speak of and uphold it as the sole authority and standard, and reject all assistance from the history of the church and what is spoken against as tradition. Every class of persons reject some portion or other of the sacred Scriptures. If you talk to some of temporal honour and rewards, and the observance of a day of rest, and the patriarchs, they will say, Oh! that is the Old Testament, and is abrogated. If you speak to others of good works, they will say, Oh! that is only in the Gospels, and the Epistles carry us much beyond that, and are superior to it. Unitarians, again, receive a Bible of their own; that is, just so many passages are excluded as will suit their own belief and purpose. Others, of numerous sects, dwell each upon some half dozen chapters, or passages, or phrases, or words of Scripture, of the Epistles especially, and dwell upon them idolatrously and devotedly, to the exclusion of all the rest, so far as the authority of Scripture is concerned, from belief and practice.

1106. This is even in the religious world—the thinking and reasoning world. Let us now turn our observation to the world itself; to the working and practical.

1107. The Bible is denied in every particular. Men do not believe that we are really to be Christians; that we are to imitate our Lord. They do not believe that the world could possibly go on if all men were to act upon pure Christian motives, and up to a perfect Christian rule: if they were to forgive and forget injuries; if they were not to resent an affront; if they were to give to people because they asked them: if they were to lend money without looking for interest; if we were all to give up luxuries, and style, and costly furniture and equipage; if we, our cattle and servants, were strictly to observe the day of rest. How many are there among us who believe that ‘the tree of knowledge’ is not an absolute good? or that we ought to receive the gospel with the simplicity of little children. Who believes that we ought to honour our father and mother, and our sovereign? Who is there that acts up to the precept that we ought not to judge others in their character? How many are there who appear to believe that it is not right to be anxious about the future; that riches are not a good thing; that the entrance into heaven is easier to the poor man; that we ought to return a tenth to God; that we would bring a blessing to give freely and largely to the poor; that children are a blessing and a gift from the Lord, and that the man is happy who has his quiver full of them? It is evident that in all these points the Bible is disbelieved and is practically denied, and does not control or guide us in our habits and principles of life and society.

1108. Still less do we believe that the public measures, the laws, and government of the state, and the intercourse with other nations, ought to be, or can be, carried on and conducted upon Christian principles. What number or classes of persons believe that righteousness exalteth a nation? that we are punished according to the national sins of the people, and for the sins of the rulers? and that if wicked and irreligious men preside over our councils, we shall as a nation suffer the penalties of it? or that the conscience of the government is the conscience of the people, and that our rulers are bound to take the first care for the pure religion and morals of the country; and that, if they do so, their righteousness will bring down a blessing upon the nation?

1109. To come again to more direct practice, and to our own habits of life. Who is there who thinks first what is right, and according to the pattern of Christ, and after the will of God, in what he is about to do, and not what is wise and expedient? Who seeks first the kingdom of God, and God’s rule of righteousness, and trusts that all temporal good consequences will follow upon it? Who is there who thinks and abides only by the rule of what is right and commanded? We may almost answer in the words of Scripture, ‘There is none righteous, no, not one!’ Who believes in and trusts to the assistance and suggestions of the Spirit in his designs and undertakings, and believes, and acts, and writes, and thinks, as believing that the most useful and important and influential suggestions of our thoughts and invention come to our mind by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, more than by our own cleverness, and exertion, and memory, and prays for divine help upon commencing every task, or writing, or undertaking accordingly? Who forbears strictly and endeavours to expel at once all thought and every suggestion of the mind in worldly matters on a Sunday, with confidence and faith that the same and more useful thought will be supplied on the succeeding week-days, and that the unqualified dedication and sanctification of the Lord’s day will make the labour of the six days more effectual and fruitful than would be that of the seven? Who would believe now that a sabbatical year would not necessarily be impracticable and ruinous, or that a populous country could exist under such a rule, or that it would not produce a debasing and demoralizing idleness?”

1110. Let not the reader infer that these admissions come from a free-thinker. The following remarks will prove the writer one of the faithful, in the sense in which this epithet argues a mind chained down by abject enthralment, to put any constructions on facts but that which is subversive of educational prejudice: “All the evils of which the existence is admitted are due to our narrowing down our reception of truths and facts to the limits of reason—of our own more or less shallow individual reason.”

1111. Now to me it seems that the nominal profession of a faith in facts which are absurd and contradictory, and professed reverence for precepts which are as utterly impracticable as unwise in the abstract, induces this monstrous incompatibility of the actual morality of Christendom with the professions of Christians and doctrines of Christianity.

1112. Our submission to scriptural authority is not to be governed by our own reason, but by that of persons who lived many ages ago, originally assumed to be inspired by God, upon human testimony; which in the case of Spiritualism, or any other than the one in point, is treated as mere chaff.

1113. It strikes me, from the considerations presented under the head of Mundane Wealth, that the precepts of Christ were fundamentally erroneous, so far as they discredit and discourage efforts for the honest acquisition of wealth. ([908].)

1114. God has given the fowls of the air feathers as a natural clothing, and thus any effort to procure clothing on their part is rendered unnecessary; he has not given them hands nor intellectual ingenuity to spin and weave. On the other side, with little exception, man is naturally devoid of clothing, and requires clothes to protect him from the scorching solar rays or freezing blasts of winter, but has been furnished with the hands and the ingenuity to spin and weave. Under these circumstances, was it reasonable to allege that man should be governed by the example of the feathered creation? Was it reasonable to infer that there should be no spinning or weaving by men, because there neither was nor could be any performed by fowls?

1115. Again, the lily, like all other vegetables, not only comes into existence naked, but remains so, since it neither can nor will clothe itself, and would perish if by any artificial clothing it were shut out from the influence of the solar rays, and from the absorption of carbonic acid, which furnishes the vegetable creation with the carbon requisite for the fibres essential to stability. Hence the allegation that Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like the lily, is irreconcilable with the nature and actual state of this beautiful flower, which is destitute of clothing by nature, and which would perish if it were clothed. The skin of vegetable leaves, to a certain extent, performs for them what mouths do for animals. How unreasonable, then, to argue from one to the other, that man should imitate the vegetable; or to compare a plant, naturally and of necessity naked, with a king gorgeously clothed?

1116. The degrading a rich man, whether honest or not, to the level of a felon or murderer, as respects accessibility to heaven, and of course favour in the sight of God, is so erroneous, that there never was a precept which was less respected in practice, by the votaries of its author. As I have heretofore remarked, the conduct of Christians is not merely negative in respect to this precept—they do not merely neglect it; their course is the converse of any obedience to its dictates. Yet professed Christians while violating their divine Master’s behests in a way which makes their performance the inverse of the results which their professions involve, for the most part treat any person who does not profess devotion for Christ’s doctrines, as actually more culpable than themselves, and more liable to retribution after death. This is about as just as for a man, who after marrying a woman and calling her his wife, should act the inverse of the obligations imposed by the connubial contract, and then consider an individual who had never entered into any obligation with her of any kind, as guilty of sinful neglect in not acknowledging as a wife, one whom he never married. The question is, who treats the woman most ill, he who acknowledges but neglects, or he who does not display a hymeneal devotion which he never led her to expect?

1117. Again, the precept to return good for evil, would, if acted up to, encourage evil. Were a man to submit quietly to be robbed, whipped, and cheated, he would encourage robbing, flagellation, and fraud. Far wiser is the precept of Confucius, “Return good for good; for evil, justice.” The impracticable precept of Christ is so far from being carried out by professing Christians, that in their conduct to the aborigines of Africa, India, and America, they have always been aggressive, always rewarding the hospitality of the natives with fraud and violence, and their conduct toward each other is the inverse of the ultra precept of Christ—“Return good for evil.” They not unfrequently return evil for good.

1118. There is, as I think, nothing more injurious than the habitual violation of acknowledged professions. If the violator be aware of his inconsistency, it involves the incessant perpetration of manifest wickedness; and if his mind be so cramped by education that he commits such violations unconsciously, it must degrade the all-important power of distinguishing good from evil. Thus, in the garb of truth,

Dark error leads

With best intent

To evil deeds,

The bigot to ensnare.

1119. It is this nominal devotion to the doctrines of Christ, with a demeanour diametrically in teeth of them, which causes that anti-Christian morality which Bosanquet portrays.

1120. But I am conscientiously of opinion that the respect paid to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David, &c., by which one five hundred-millionth of the blood of Abraham is made an honour to Jesus Christ, is among the reasons of the low state of morality among those who consider the Bible as the Word of God, and are thus led to view with indulgence, prostitution, murder, massacre, rape, cheating, and fraud. Agreeably to the opinion of a champion of Christianity, already quoted, “The worshipper is assimilated to the imaginary deity whom he worships.”

1121. With the exchange of two words for two other words, the verses which Pope ascribes to Eloisa, might well be uttered by many self-called Christians, who in defending the gospel from any conscientious attack, hesitate not at any intemperance of language, and yet think that the marriage ceremony is all that is called for.

1122. “Ah! wretch, believed the spouse of God in vain,

Confessed within the slave of love and man.”

1123. Although the substitution of the words wealth and power for love and man would spoil the rhythm, it would not lessen the applicability to the great mass of those who call themselves Christians, while not only neglecting, but positively violating the precepts of Him by whose blood they still hope, by a due degree of faith, to wash away their transgressions.

1124. The universe, as it is presented to my mind, induces a belief that it must have a presiding deity of commensurate power. As there are millions of suns, each having its planets; as the space which it occupies appears to us little short of infinity; as it must have endured from eternity, and must endure eternally,—the power and glory of this presiding deity must be commensurate with his realm, as to extent and magnificence. Yet evil exists; which can only exist from choice on his part, or because it cannot be avoided. There must be a want of will or power to prevent or remove evil. Such is the God which my reason obliges me to acknowledge. Where impressions are the offspring of reason, they cannot destroy their parent. But those who owe their opinions of their deity to tradition, have a deity which, not having originated from reason, may always be made the means of setting its dictates aside.

1125. The bigot’s god is a dangerous idol, although he be not represented by an image; and no less dangerous is any book which owes authority to hereditary, intolerant dictation and servile devotion.

1126. The fear of public opinion, or a desire to do what is deemed right among men, seems to be the principal motive for religious professions and church-going in the great mass of society. The prevailing morality being, as already noticed, not only neglectful of Christ’s precepts, but absolutely the inverse of them—not only permitting, but calling for a course diametrically opposite, as respects the acquisition of wealth and submission to wrongs—shows that it is not generally founded on a desire to cultivate the good will of Christ, but to square with sectarian opinion. I hold that one cause of this is, that the conviction of a future state, in which happiness is in proportion to our deportment here, is not so deep as that which I now have. Under the conviction which I have, nothing could tempt me to act in such way as to produce a retrograde influence on my pretensions as a spirit.

1127. It seems to me, as urged by me before, that no one believing the language of Abraham, as narrated and sanctioned by Christ, to have come authenticated direct from the Son of God, and consequently expecting it to be verified, would render himself liable to the punishment of Dives for the sake of enjoying the good things of this world.

1128. The idea that souls are to remain in the grave till the “last day,” the procrastination of that day and geological knowledge being inconsistent with the belief that any such day will arrive, makes the sinner less fearful, the good less hopeful, and diminishes the number of those who are actually, in their worldly conduct, influenced by their hopes or fear of future rewards or punishments.

1129. The expectation of washing away sin through the merit of a bigoted belief in Christ, co-operating with the vague, contradictory, and irrational idea of heaven and hell recorded in Scripture, seems to be the reason why Christians act so inconsistently with the precepts of Him whom they professedly adore.

1130. Nothing can be more inconsistent with the religion inculcated by my spirit friends, than the idea of atonement for sin by faith in any religion, true or false.

1131. Had there ever been any available light let in from the spirit world, this error had been denounced, and having been thus stamped as erroneous from on high, could not have acquired or retained its mischievous hold of so many millions of human beings, by substituting blind faith for genuine virtue.

Injurious Influence of unreasonable Restriction.

1132. Another reason why, throughout Christendom, the vices most deprecated by Christ are those pre-eminently prevalent, is that his precepts were absolutely impracticable, unless explained away in the style of Lord Peter in the “Tale of a Tub.”

1133. Some of the excellent Society of Friends may, as respects war, have been obedient to the precepts of Christ, and probably in other respects deviate from them less than most other sects; but as to wealth their course is the inverse of giving away their money. They are rationally among the most active and successful in the honest acquisition of money. In this they would act morally, excepting the violation of their recognised obligation to obey the precepts of Christ.

1134. Does not experience show that nothing is more injurious to morals than unreasonable restraint? This has been seen in the profligacy of the children of puritanical sectarians. To disobey an unreasonable restriction always appears comparatively a trivial offence. Going to a play, in the opinion of the mass of the world, is not sinful; but for a minor to go to a play in disobedience of parental authority, by stealth, deception, or lying, becomes sinful delinquency, and introduces a habit which may lead to crime as wicked as that of the conduct of Jacob to Esau. Lying and deceiving for venial purposes will soon induce the habit. The restriction from eating pork or drinking wine has no doubt induced much deception and falsehood among the followers of Mohammed, and thus made a crime where none would have existed. In like manner, the putting a rich man on a footing with a felon, as respects access to heaven, forbidding the resistance to blows or spoliation, makes almost every professed Christian practically unfaithful to his professions, and of course an infidel of the worst kind. More or less of this infidelity is involved in various ways, as above admitted by “Bosanquet.”

1135. If the history of Christianity, so called, be reviewed, it will be found that the deviations from the precepts of Christ during the present age are quite venial, compared with those which took place during the thousand years or more in which Romanism had the ascendency.

1136. A painful picture of the morals of the clergy during that period may be found in a recent work by Bishop Hopkins of Vermont. It would seem as if the crimes and indecency displayed during the Middle Ages, exceed even those of Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and David, and Samuel, the cruel, despotic pope of Judea. The deposition of Saul for not killing Agag, and his hewing his royal prisoner down with a sword in cold blood, may have been looked to as a justification of pontifical cruelty and despotism.

No one would believe that a capable farmer would make such a mistake as to sow garlic instead of wheat. Yet God, while represented as having intended to sow Protestantism, is considered as having caused, throughout Christendom, a crop of Catholicism, in the Roman or Grecian form, for more than a thousand years; those weeds still occupying more than half of the whole soil.

1137. The immense importance attached by mankind to correct religious impressions is demonstrated, in the first place, by the enormous expenditure throughout this world in sustaining those who are conceived by their constituents to be the true expounders of religion;[23] and, in the second place, by the blood and treasure which have been expended either in missions or in wars, for the extension or defence of the impressions believed by various sectarians to be the most accordant with truth.

1138. Yet it must be plain that in no case has there been any higher evidence than that of an alleged human communication, direct or indirect, with some recognised deity, if not the true God. If the will of God has ever been revealed, the number who have actually pretended to an interview with him, or with any immortal subordinate spirit are very few. The Old Testament depends upon the testimony of Moses and a few Hebrew prophets, whose inspiration rests upon their own allegations, respecting themselves or each other.

1139. As regards the basis of Christianity, there are two irreconcilable opinions: one held by the Protestants, the other by the Roman Catholics; since although there is a great diversity of opinion between Protestants, there is between all Protestants and Papists this difference: The latter relying on their own church as the sole depository of all the evidence of Christianity, do not allow any direct recourse to Scripture for a rule of faith. The former reject the claims of the church of Rome, and resort to the gospel for their rule of faith.[24]

1140. But wherefore should such implicit confidence be placed in language alleged to have been held by Moses or any other ancient author? or should they be credited, even when they allege God to have used such words as these, “Let me wax hot in my wrath that I may consume them.” The motive for this imputation against God, was that Moses might take credit for moderation in slaughtering only three thousand of God’s chosen people in one day, for worshipping a golden calf, made by his own brother, afterward made high-priest. Thus the ringleader, being the brother of Moses, was loaded with honours, while those whom he led astray were to be massacred in cold blood. Yet it is on such witnesses as this blood-thirsty, blasphemous bigot, that orthodoxy relies for assuming the Pentateuch to be the word of God, censuring, if not persecuting, all who do not concur with it.

1141. The intercourse with the angel Gabriel rests upon the evidence of Mary alone, who was interested immensely to make her child a god, instead of being her illegitimate offspring. Of the dream of Joseph there can be no witness besides himself. But would a dream be now admitted as testimony in any court of justice.

1142. The diversity of opinion existing between Romanists and Protestants, are briefly exhibited in the subjoined quotations from the controversy between Archbishop Hughes and the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge. They have already been cited by me in a pamphlet on the better employment of the first day of the week. Here are the opinions of two men highly qualified to judge. In one, we have an eminent champion of Romanism; in the other, a no less able champion of Calvinism. To the latter belongs the distinction of having persecuted the Quakers and witches, and of having roasted Servetus; to the former, putting some hundreds of thousands to death or torture by the sword, the rack, or the fagot.

1143. Agreeing with each of the parties that the other is in the wrong, I, of course, assume that they are both in error. Taken together, they may be considered as proving that there is no evidence in favour of Christianity, which I have not the authority of eminent Christians for rejecting. In the 29th page of the controversy between himself and Breckinridge, Bishop Hughes speaks as follows:

1144. “My fourth argument was, that the Protestant rule of faith actually undermines the authority of the Scriptures, by extinguishing the proofs of their authenticity and inspiration, and consequently terminates in moral suicide. Just imagine to yourself an ordinary will or testament, written but twenty years ago, purporting to be the last will and testament of a wealthy deceased relative, and designating you as heir, but without either signature or probate, and ask yourself what it would be worth? Could such a document establish its own authenticity? And yet this is precisely the situation to which the Protestant rule of faith reduced the Scriptures, by which, and by which alone, their authenticity could have been established. St. Augustine, of whom Presbyterians are sometimes wont to speak with respect, declared that it was the testimony of the church which moved him to believe in the Scriptures. But now the order of belief is ‘reformed.’ Men pick up (pardon the phrase) the sacred volume, as they find it floating on the sea of two thousand years, and by one great but gratuitous act of belief, which flings all intermediate church authority and tradition to the winds, they say ‘the Bible is the Bible, and we are its interpreters, every man for himself.'”

1145. It seems not to have occurred to the right reverend champion of the Catholic creed, that it is not more true that a testament without witnesses is of no validity, than it is true that the testimony of witnesses claiming under the will, cannot be admitted. A document written after the death of the testator would not be considered in a court of justice as entitled to the name of a testament. But were persons to write a will after a man’s death, and bring it forward, claiming under it supremacy, would their claim produce any result beside derision?

1146. The distinguished prelate justly treats the gospel as resting on the traditionary evidence of the church; since, as he truly urges, the church existed before the gospel, having been instituted at the time when his instructions were given to the apostles by Christ.

1147. But how much value is to be attached to the testimony of the church, may be learned from the following opinion of the learned clergyman to whom I have alluded as the other party in the controversy, (pages 35, 36:)

1148. “The unwarrantable liberties of your church with the word of God show her fallible to a deplorable degree.

1149. Your rule, if observed, requires implicit faith in the decretals and interpretations of fallible men, which is subversive of the very nature and end of religion in the soul. Faith supposes knowledge, conviction on evidence, and trust in God, founded on a belief of divine truth; but your rule requires unconditional submission to the dicta of the church in the lump. The ‘Carbonaria fides,’ or faith of the collier, is the very faith required. It is as follows: When asked, ‘What do you believe?’ he answered, ‘I believe what the church believes.’ ‘What does the church believe?’ Ans. ‘What I believe.’ ‘Then what do you and the church together believe?’ Ans. ‘We both believe the same thing.’ This is the grand catholicon for believing every thing, without knowing any thing. In this soil grew the maxim that ‘ignorance is the mother of devotion.’ It is believing by proxy, or rather not believing at all, in the true sense. Here is the secret of the unity of your church.”

1150. To conclude, I agree with the right reverend able and learned archbishop, that Christianity has no witnesses but those disciples of Christ whom he calls the church; but I also concur with his able, learned, and reverend opponent, that the said church is neither competent as a witness, nor reliable as a foundation for Christianity.

1151. Breckinridge does not perceive that the gospel on which he relies, and the recorded traditions which ascribe that work to inspiration, have no better foundation than the testimony of fallible men.

1152. Manifestly, however, the authority of the church of Rome cannot be overset without oversetting the authenticity of the Christian religion.

1153. Could any one believe that an experienced farmer would sow a field with garlic when intending to have a crop of wheat? Would not the conclusion be that if a field upon his farm were occupied by that objectionable weed, it must have been the spontaneous production of the soil, not of a mistake so gross on his part? Yet our prescient God is represented as so much inferior in foresight to an ordinary farmer, that while the religious soil of Christendom was for ages occupied with crops of Catholicism, in the Grecian or Roman modification, the seed of Protestantism was sown by God through his son and vicegerent, Christ, intending to have the soil occupied by Protestantism. Manifestly, either it was intended that Catholicism should prevail, as above described, or an omnipotent, omniscient, and prescient God did not preside over the seeding.

1154. Yet notwithstanding this diversity as to the true import of Christianity between the most distinguished Christian sectarians, each sect conceives itself justified in propagating its own peculiar opinions among ignorant pagans. The principle being thus sanctioned, that those who believe themselves to have become acquainted with religious truth, are justified in propagating a knowledge of it, wherefore should not that privilege be exercised by a spiritualist as well as a Christian?

1155. Humility is one of the virtues inculcated by Christ; but if his disciples assume to themselves a peculiar capacity to know what is true, and an exclusive right to teach what they thus assume to be truth, there will be no humility in their practice, however it may be blazoned among their professions.

1156. The view which I have presented in the preceding pages is corroborated by a personage of no less authority than William Pitt, afterward the Earl of Chatham, and prime minister of England. His opinions, alleged to have been originally published in the London Journal for 1733, are as follows:

Letter of William Pitt.

“Pure Religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the Fatherless and Widows in their afflictions, and to keep one’s self unspotted from the World.”

1157. “Gentlemen: Whoever takes a view of the world, will find, that what the greatest part of mankind have agreed to call religion, has been only some outward exercise esteemed sufficient to work a reconciliation with God. It has moved them to build temples, flay victims, offer up sacrifices, to fast and feast, to petition and thank, to laugh and cry, to sing and sigh by turns; but it has not yet been found sufficient to induce them to break off an amour, to make a restitution of ill-gotten wealth, or to bring the passions and appetites to a reasonable subjection. Differ as much as they may in opinion concerning what they ought to believe, or after what manner they are to serve God, as they call it, yet they all agree in gratifying their appetites. The same passions reign eternally in all countries and in all ages, Jew and Mohammedan, the Christian and the Pagan, the Tartar and the Indian, all kinds of men who differ in almost every thing else, universally agree with regard to their passions. If there be any difference among them, it is this; that the more superstitious, the more vicious they always are, and the more they believe, the less they practise. This is a melancholy consideration to a good mind; it is a truth, and certainly above all things, worth our while to inquire into. We will, therefore, probe the wound, and search to the bottom; we will lay the axe to the root of the tree, and show you the true reason why men go on in sinning and repenting, and sinning again through the whole course of their lives; and the reason is, because they have been taught, most wickedly taught, that religion and virtue are two things absolutely distinct; that the deficiency of the one might be supplied by the sufficiency of the other; and that what you want in virtue, you must make up in religion. But this religion, so dishonourable to God, and so pernicious to men, is worse than Atheism, for Atheism, though it takes away one great motive to support virtue in distress, yet it furnishes no man with arguments to be vicious; but superstition, or what the world means by religion, is the greatest possible encouragement to vice, by setting up something as religion which shall atone and commute for the want of virtue. This is establishing iniquity by a law, the highest law; by authority, the highest authority; that of God himself. We complain of the vices of the world, and of the wickedness of men, without searching into the true cause. It is not because they are wicked by nature, for that is both false and impious, but because to serve the purposes of their pretended soul-savers, they have been carefully taught that they are wicked by nature, and cannot help continuing so. It would have been impossible for men to have been both religious and vicious, had religion been made to consist wherein alone it does consist; and had they been always taught that true religion is the practice of virtue in obedience to the will of God, who presides over all things, and will finally make every man happy who does his duty.

1158. This single opinion in religion, that all things are so well made by the Deity, that virtue is its own reward, and that happiness will ever arise from acting according to the reason of things, or that God, ever wise and good, will provide some extraordinary happiness for those who suffer for virtue’s sake, is enough to support a man under all difficulties, to keep him steady to his duty, and to enable him to stand as firm as a rock, amid all the charms of applause, profit, and honour. But this religion of reason, which all men are capable of, has been neglected and condemned, and another set up, the natural consequences of which have puzzled men’s understandings, and debauched their morals, more than all the lewd poets and atheistical philosophers that ever infested the world; for instead of being taught that religion consists in action, or obedience to the eternal moral law of God, we have been most gravely and venerably told that it consists in the belief of certain opinions which we could form no idea of, or which were contrary to the clear perceptions of our minds, or which had no tendency to make us either wiser or better, or, which is much worse, had a manifest tendency to make us wicked and immoral. And this belief, this impious belief, arising from imposition on one side, and from want of examination on the other, has been called by the sacred name of religion, whereas real and genuine religion consists in knowledge and obedience. We know there is a God, and know his will, which is, that we should do all the good we can; and we are assured from his perfections, that we shall find our own good in so doing.

1159. And what would we have more? are we, after such inquiry, and in an age full of liberty, children still? and cannot we be quiet unless we have holy romances, sacred fables, and traditionary tales to amuse us in an idle hour, and to give rest to our souls, when our follies and vices will not suffer us to rest?

1160. You have been taught, indeed, that right belief, or orthodoxy, will, like charity, cover a multitude of sins; but be not deceived; belief of, or mere assent to the truth of propositions upon evidence, is not a virtue, nor unbelief a vice; faith is not a voluntary act, does not depend upon the will; every man must believe or disbelieve, whether he will or not, according as the evidence appears to him. If, therefore, men, however dignified or distinguished, command us to believe, they are guilty of the highest folly and absurdity, because it is out of our power; but if they command us to believe, and annex rewards to belief, and severe penalties to unbelief, then they are most wicked and immoral, because they annex rewards and punishments to what is involuntary, and, therefore, neither rewardable nor punishable. It appears, then, very plainly unreasonable and unjust to command us to believe any doctrine, good or bad, wise or unwise; but, when men command us to believe opinions which have no tendency to promote virtue, but which are allowed to commute or atone for the want of it, then they are arrived at the utmost pitch of impiety, then is their iniquity full; then have they finished the misery, and completed the destruction of poor mortal man; by betraying the interest of virtue, they have undermined and sapped the foundation of all human happiness; and how treacherously and dreadfully have they betrayed it! A gift, well applied, the chattering of some unintelligible sounds called creeds; an unfeigned assent and consent to whatever the church enjoins, religious worship and consecrated feasts; repenting on a death-bed; pardons rightly sued out; and absolution authoritatively given, have done more toward making and continuing men vicious, than all the natural passions and infidelity put together. For infidelity can only take away the supernatural rewards of virtue; but these superstitious opinions and practices have not only turned the scene, and made men lose sight of the natural rewards of it, but have induced them to think, that were there no hereafter, vice would be preferable to virtue, and that they increase in happiness as they increase in wickedness; and this they have been taught in several religious discourses and sermons, delivered by men whose authority was never doubted, particularly by a late Rev. prelate, I mean Bishop Atterbury, in his sermon on these words: ‘If in this life only be hope, then we are of all men the most miserable,’ where vice and faith ride most lovingly and triumphantly together. But these doctrines of the natural excellency of vice, the efficacy of a right belief, the dignity of atonements and propitiations have, beside depriving us of the native beauty and charms of honesty, and thus cruelly stabbing virtue to the heart, raised and diffused among men a certain unnatural passion, which we shall call a religious hatred—a hatred constant, deep-rooted, and immortal. All other passions rise and fall, die and revive again; but this of religious and pious hatred rises and grows every day stronger upon the mind as we grow more religious, because we hate for God’s sake, and for the sake of those poor souls, too, who have the misfortune not to believe as we do; and can we in so good a cause hate too much? the more thoroughly we hate the better we are; and the more mischief we do to the bodies and states of these infidels and heretics, the more do we show our love to God. This is religious zeal, and this has been called divinity; but remember, the only true divinity is humanity.

W. Pitt.”

Offer of Guidance by a Mundane Spirit.

1161. The Rev. Allen Putnam, whose narrative of his conversion to Spiritualism, has been submitted, gave a very sensible and interesting lecture on this new doctrine, at the Melodeon, in Boston, last October. One of his remarks struck me as being very well warranted by my own observation and experience. He said that we are wont to express indignation at the absurd, cruel, and unnatural Chinese custom of cramping the female foot; but to him it appeared that in Christendom a much worse practice existed, that of cramping the minds of females by bringing them up zealous sectarians, their opinions, in general, being determined by their parentage. Thus Miss A. is a Romanist; Miss B. an Episcopalian; Miss C. a Calvinist; Miss D. a Methodist; Miss E. a Jewess; all most excellent creatures in any other respect excepting the effects of educational sectarianism, which had been interchanged, had their parentage been commuted. ([259].)

1162. One of the blessings of Spiritualism, according to my view, is, that this cramped state of the mind, which attaches importance to various phases of analogous educational error, will be removed by receiving their opinions from the same source. But it seems that one of the most amiable and interesting among those angelic devotees, has been actuated by the same anxiety for my salvation from hell, that I have felt for her emancipation from the educational ligatures imposed upon her otherwise excellent understanding. The following letter is the fruit of her zeal in my favour:

August 1, 1855.

1163. My dear Sir: You have too much kindness yourself, not to receive in kindness what is so intended; and you have too much politeness not to grant as much as you ask of a friend. I, therefore, with all confidence, send you the enclosed letter, written by one of the first intellects in the country. Now, if when you send your pamphlets and the papers you wish me to read, you will state that you have read this letter, (with the care you wish me to read yours,) not to refute but to comprehend the mind of the writer, I will do the same. But, as what I send to you requires higher power than any power in created man, I will continue to pray to this higher power, this Creator of all things, that you may so read under his blessing and guidance, (before whom you and the very world upon which you tread, are but a molecule or mite,) that you, I say, may find that salvation for your immortal soul, which you seem so much to desire. If you believe that your father and sister exist, and consequently, that you have a soul that cannot die, you must feel a deep anxiety with us all for the future welfare of this soul, and will not treat with indifference the attempt to offer you that which is a complete satisfaction to your friend!

1164. I would avoid argument, as two persons at opposite points can never see the objects in the same light; but I send simply the Christian’s plan of salvation, to which I only ask you to attend as carefully as I attended to the statement of your theory. When I return to New York permanently, I will inform you. As I am anxious to retain these papers, and life is uncertain, please so arrange them that they may easily be found, should any thing happen.”

1165. The following lines, which are subjoined in the title page of my pamphlet, addressed to the Episcopal clergy, would have forewarned any but an enthusiast, that there was an outwork to be conquered before any impression could be made:

1166. If God can creatures make to suit his will,

Foresee, if they can, his design fulfill,

Wherefore those creatures to trial expose,

Traits to find out, which he thus foreknows?

1167. Persons who should differ about axioms could never agree in mathematical demonstrations, nor is it possible for A and B to agree in theology, when A assumes what to B appears to comprise a contradiction within its premises and conclusions. Having for years held the opinion conveyed in the above lines, to be self-evident truth, it is of course useless to debate with those who take an opposite view, especially just at this time, when I believe that opinion to be sanctioned by my spirit friends. This opinion was urged in my letter to the Episcopal clergy; yet this kind adviser has not seen, or has not taken pains to understand, its all-important bearing.

1168. The letter of this charming woman commences with begging the question. It is assumed that the arguments of her clerical friend require for comprehension a higher power than any power created in man. But this to me appears fanatical presumption, just as much as it would be in any other sectarian. The excellent authoress of the epistle puts herself in a class of females whom it has been my object to emancipate from the restraint imposed upon their minds, no less cramping than that to which the feet of Chinese ladies are subjected.

1169. It must be evident, that unless there was a successful precursory effort by facts and reasoning, to make me believe that what appears to me below good sense, is actually above it, her inference that discussion would be useless is quite evident. But this amounts to an admission that the opinions which it is her object to impart, are not founded in reason.

1170. Her clerical friend falls into the same error, as will appear from the following quotation. The last postulate in the world which he could induce me to admit, would be that any thing which owes its existence entirely to barbarous, wicked, ignorant, covetous, and blood-thirsty men, can be God’s word, and, therefore, paramount to human reason.

1171. How would he enable an idiot to believe in the Bible, or in any thing? Is not our capacity to believe correctly, greater as our reason is better by nature? It is only through his own intellectual faculties that he has received his opinions and can defend them. It is through my reason that my head and heart repel the Old Testament as, for the most part, the work of a set of unprincipled bigots, comprising allegations which the present state of astronomy and geology demonstrate to be fallacious, and which, independently of that cramping of the intellect by education, which it is my ardent desire to remove, would be denounced replete with indecency, immorality, and misrepresentation of God.

1172. It is striking that this kind lady, in referring to my sister and other spirit friends, should suppose that I would slight the direct heartfelt evidence received from them, in obedience to impressions felt by her in common with every other devotee to any religion whatever. They could, with just as much consistency, appeal to their tenets, and assume their “Koran,” their “Shasters,” or “Zendavesta” to be above my reason.

1173. But the whole tenor of this application shows that the authoress expects to set aside the results of nearly twenty months’ investigation, creating in me a firm devout conviction that I have a correct knowledge of the spirit world, received through my relatives, friends, and high spirits, in deference to those of a set of people of whom I know nothing but ill. May God do that for her which she has so benevolently implored for me, and remove from her brain the influence of educational narrowness. I would utter the same aspiration for the divine whom she has brought in as her advocate, who I hope as sincerely believes what he alleges, as I believe in the communications of my guardian spirits.

1174. But this superior intellect, it will be shown, falls into one of the most inexcusable errors, into which a tyro in reasoning can fall, that of founding his arguments on premises which are emphatically denied by the other party—a gross begging of the question, that the Bible is the word of God, and paramount to human reason.

1175. In a subsequent part of this letter, Hume’s excellent rule is set aside: that we must weigh the probability of the evidence against the improbability of the miracle. Rochefoucault alleges, ‘Tis better to tell a probable lie, than an extremely improbable truth. By what evidence can any record be proved true, when it is vastly more probable it should be false, than the facts recorded by it should be true.

1176. Manifestly, there are but these two ways in which any record can command credence: either there must be external evidence sufficient to weigh against the improbability of the facts which it has recorded; or those facts must be of a nature to create belief from their probability, from what is called internal evidence. As to external evidence, clearly any amount of that, may be adduced without creating a belief in spiritual manifestations. Human evidence is wholly inadequate to prove any thing which sectarianism does not wish to admit. Considering the external evidence of Scripture as vastly inferior to that on which Spiritualism is founded, and the miracles recorded, and the doctrines taught, as carrying no evidence of their truth, but the contrary, I do not understand upon what reasonable ground they are to be identified with the word of God.

1177. This fascinating lady supposes that she gave ear to my exposition of my views; but I am under the impression that she is quite deaf to any thing that does not concur with her fanatical impressions, otherwise she would never have looked upon me as one to be converted from the opinions which I entertain by the reasoning of her clerical friend, beginning with a begging of the question: assuming that revelation is God’s word, in order to prove it to be God’s word.

1178. So the Bible is true because of the miracles which it records; and these are true because the Bible records them!

1179. If she can so confine her mind as to become master of the pyramid of facts which I have raised in favour of Spiritualism, she will perceive that all other evidence of immortality sinks into insignificance as compared with it. Now all this may be nominally abrogated by denying the truth of it. But if I do not rely on my own senses, is it likely I shall rely on those of other persons, in whom I have no more confidence than her clerical adviser and herself have in Mohammed and his disciples.

1180. I subjoin a portion of the letter of the clerical champion, whose reasoning this interesting devotee deems so conclusive. I have gone over the whole of it, and have ascertained that by substituting Allah for God, Mohammed for Christ, Prophet for Redeemer, Mediator for Saviour, it has a qualification which would be deemed a merit elsewhere, if not in Christendom: it would serve just as well to uphold the religion of Mohammed, as that of Christ.

1181. The letter is so long that it would occupy too many pages to give the whole; but I will give a portion, sufficient to show how the reasoning, on which many sectarians rely, may be just as good for any other creed, founded on an arrogation of premises, as that for which they contend.

1182. “Allah forbid that I should depreciate the value of reason in any of its offices. Reason is Allah’s gift to man, and must be used as Allah designs. But so is the Koran Allah’s gift to man, and must be used as Allah designs. Two gifts from the same perfect being cannot conflict with each other. The Koran in its teachings and revealings may go beyond or rise above the comprehension of our reason, because reason in man is a finite and imperfect gift, while the Koran from Allah opens the mind of an infinite and perfect being. But the Koran does not and cannot in any thing contradict reason, because Allah does not and cannot contradict himself. Unless, therefore, you are prepared to say that the Koran is not Allah’s gift to man—if you are a believer in its true divine inspiration—you must see and admit that when the Koran, as Allah’s mouth, reveals any thing which our reason cannot as yet comprehend, because beyond or above, though not against, that reason, then Faith must submissively receive the revelation addressed to it, and Reason stop her speculation and shut her mouth at the limit which Allah has set. Reason has to do with the evidences which show the Koran to be Allah’s gift; with the grammatical and intended sense of what Allah taught and revealed in the Koran, and with the use of what in the Koran is clear to the comprehension of man. But here Reason’s province ends. When the Koran goes beyond or rises above this point, Reason must pause and adore, and Faith must go forward and receive. I do not hold, as you intimate, that the right exercise of reason ‘is impious,’ or that Reason is to be discarded and Faith substituted, if by this be implied any thing incompatible between the proper offices of Reason and Faith; but I mean that our finite reason is to stop at the limit assigned her by her author, and let Faith as a higher power go forward and receive what Allah teaches or reveals to her acceptance. Faith can now receive more than Reason can as yet comprehend. She does so in the province of nature; she must do so in the province of revelation. This cannot be denied without taking at once the ground of the infidel—a ground from which, I doubt not, you would shrink back as from the border of an open pit of destruction.

1183. I am thus brought to your remark, that ‘The Mohammedan system, as generally received, is not difficult to understand.’ If this be strictly true, it must be because that system, ‘as generally received,’ is not the true system; for, in this sense, or as truly and rightly received, the Mohammedan system contains various things which it is difficult to understand, if by understanding be meant comprehending. We may, indeed, understand that a fact or a truth exists or is revealed, while that fact or that truth itself is, for the present, utterly beyond or above our comprehension. And this is precisely the case with the Mohammedan system rightly viewed. It contains various facts and truths which our reason cannot yet fathom. Natural reason loves to separate and set aside these great and high things from the Koran as non-essentials, and then to busy itself with those parts of the Koran which are level with its own height; pleased with the dream that it has grasped enough, has grasped all that can be of any real value. Believe me when reason does this, for one who has the Koran in his hands, she plays at a perilous game.

1184. The main position which I have thus far taken is, however, virtually conceded in another part of your letter. Alluding to what I had urged as to the importance of acknowledging Mohammed as your mediator, and relying on his mediation only for justification as all-sufficient, reconciling all difficulties, and removing all embarrassment from the consideration of the union of justice and mercy in the deity, you say: ‘But does it remove all embarrassment? Is not Allah himself the author of the plan of salvation? Was not Mohammed himself Allah, and also his vicegerent?’ The impossibility of answering these questions satisfactorily to the plainest reason, teaches me to recoil from the impiety of inquiring how my Maker will save me or reconcile his own attributes? I know full well that the great mass of human minds are totally incapable of considering such a subject with any approximation to a solution of it, and therefore do I feel that the eternal salvation or condemnation of mankind does not depend on such theological questions. Here you directly admit the inability of reason in most minds satisfactorily to comprehend some of the great and high points of the Mohammedan system, and the consequent impiety of her attempting such a comprehension. You might as well explicitly admit her inability for this comprehension in all minds; for no mind in its present state can by reason alone grasp all that Allah has revealed in the Koran. These great and high things are not proposed to reason alone, but to reason so far as their evidence is concerned, and to faith so far as their substance is to be received. Reason may satisfy herself that they are revealed. Faith alone can take in the substance which they contain. When they are proposed to it, faith must receive them, or salvation cannot come, whether the reason of the individual addressed be the ‘plainest’ or otherwise.

1185. Your argument in the above extract does not satisfy me so well as your admission. From the inability of the great mass of minds satisfactorily to comprehend the high mysteries of the Koran, you infer that the ‘eternal salvation or condemnation of mankind does not depend on such theological questions.’ Certainly, the salvation of mankind in the mass does not depend on these or any other theological questions; if by this be meant depending on the ability to comprehend such questions, because the points involved in these questions, so far as they are mysteries, are proposed not to reason as comprehending, but to faith as receiving. But do you mean to be understood as saying, that when the Koran is put into any man’s hand, and when Allah through the Koran opens to that man his revealed way of salvation, the individual thus approached may accept what is level with his reason, but reject what is proposed to his faith and above his reason, and that yet notwithstanding such rejection he may reasonably hope to be saved? If so, I ask you by what right you argue thus? Who is Allah, and what is man? When he tells you the way in which he will save you, not the mass of mankind or the heathen to whom the Koran has never come, but you yourself, what right have you to say that your salvation does not depend on your faith’s reception of those very things which are above your reason’s comprehension? How do you know but that the whole efficacy of the plan proposed to you, depends on your receiving the great facts and truths propounded to your faith? ‘Faith itself, I admit,’ you may contend, ‘does not save any man; it is the Mediator that saves.’ But you have no right to say, or think, or hope that he will or can save you with the Koran in your hand, in any other way than that which in the Koran he proposes to your faith. And if when he demands your faith in what surpasses your reason, you withhold that faith, and plead the sufficiency of what he has incidentally made level with your reason, do you not thereby show that you have not the spirit which he requires, and that you are yet none of his? In the Koran he has not only revealed to you his mission and sanctification, but also proposed to you his mediation as a propitiation for your sin; and he has told you that ‘you must be born again,’ not only of water, but also ‘of the spirit;’ that except you be converted and become as a ‘little child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ and that ‘he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned:’ ‘believeth’ not a part only, but the whole of the Koran then intrusted to its Ulemas. Here he explicitly demands your faith in the whole Koran. But suppose it had been otherwise, suppose he had simply opened to you a way by which he could certainly save you, without saying any thing about faith, as the one great and necessary receiver of the facts and truths involved in that way; I ask, would not a rejection of a part of those involved facts and truths be equivalent to a rejection of the whole? Would it not display the same spirit as a rejection of the whole? Would it not show that you were not walking in his way, but in some other which you supposed might possibly be found? Nay, would it not show that in your heart you had no confidence in him as a mediator; that you even rebelled against his right to prescribe to you the terms on which he would save you?”

1186. To conclude, with respect to this guardian angel of my soul, to whom this digression owes its existence; it may comfort her to know that I conceive myself so securely protected and guided already, and so sure of the result of that guidance and protection, that I would advise her, in my turn, to consider well whether she ought not to pray to God to give her a little more light respecting her own destiny, than is afforded by the book which is vaunted as being above reason, and as being the word of God. Does she conceive the subterranean cave with the “lake of unquenchable fire,” in which Dives is roasting in sight of the blessed, to be so satisfactory as to be unwilling to hear of a preferable abode in the azure sky? Does she aspire to some official position commensurate with that of the judgships which Christ promised his disciples? If it is to procure me a place in the heaven described in Scripture, I beg leave to decline, being pre-engaged; and therefore give her an invitation to meet me hereafter in the glorious abode to which I confidently aspire, and where I shall feel myself especially called upon to render her my assistance to rise from the inferior though happy sphere to which, with her present opinions, she is destined.

1187. I would recommend to her, and to others in the same predicament, the perusal of the influence of the conversion to Spiritualism on my friends, as presented in this volume. I would also recommend her to study the comparison made between the heaven and hell of Scripture and that of Spiritualism, as herein presented.

1188. I hope my would-be mundane guide to salvation will find in the verse and prose addressed to me by one more nearly allied ([215], [250], [538]) a sufficient apology for declining her kindly-tendered guidance, especially as the path through which she would lead me is known to this excellent relative, who has frequently passed and repassed it during her residence of more than two years in the spirit world, while to my mundane friend it is as yet unknown, and, as I believe, misapprehended. But although my mind has not been converted to her view of the service tendered, my heart will never cease to be gratefully inclined toward one who, while actually in want of guidance herself, thought so much of the supposed deficiency from which it is imagined I suffer.

Improper use of the epithet Infidel, as used in the parodied quotation from the Clergyman’s Letter.

1189. If a man cannot be guilty of infidelity to another man’s wife, how can he be guilty of infidelity to another man’s religion? The Mohammedan wrongfully calls the Christian “infidel,” because he does not believe in Mohammed; and as wrongfully is the epithet retorted, because the Mohammedan does not believe in Christ. The epithet can only be truly applicable to those who, while professing a religion, do not act up to their professions. In this sense, Christendom, so called, teems with infidels to Christianity.

On Atonement.

1190. Since my spirit sister’s translation to the spheres, she has risen from the fifth to the sixth sphere. It has been alleged by her that her ascent was retarded by her belief in the atonement. I subjoin some reasoning on that subject:

1191. As respects free-will, Dr. Johnson shrewdly said that all practice is in its favour, all theory against it; but whatever view may be taken on this subject, no one can deny that so far as it is possible for sin to be avoided, it must be within the power of God to make men virtuous. The fact that they are not sinless, must arise either from his not wishing to make them more virtuous, or from his inability to make them so. That he does not make them free from sin implies either a want of will or a want of power.

1192. But whatever may in this respect be true, his omniscience must have enabled him to perceive the result beforehand, and of course it is inconceivable that he would, consistently with his goodness, have created them, foreknowing that they would be so wicked as to deserve eternal punishment.

1193. All this it was in his power to obviate by not creating men, or by making their temptations less, or their power of resistance greater. But foreseeing their wickedness, and imposing fetters on his omnipotent power, so as to render a certain amount of suffering inevitable, he is said to have determined that a portion of the godhead should expiate in the flesh, by the pains of crucifixion, the punishment due to the sinful creatures which he has been supposed to have wilfully created, foreseeing this result.

1194. But in order to make men better, instead of using that almighty power with which he is said to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh, to soften the human heart and enlighten the human mind universally, he is made to resort to a method which, however cruel and manifestly unjust in making an innocent being suffer for the guilty, has proved utterly inefficient, since only a small minority of mankind profess Christianity, and of that minority only an imperceptible portion, if any, comply with its requisitions, as before observed; hence the greater part are liable “to be beaten with many stripes,” while those to whom the mission of Christ has been unknown are to “be beaten with but few stripes.”

1195. Human lawgivers may enact constitutions which result in practical failure, because they do not foresee the issue. Such failures are ascribed to their deficiency in practical wisdom. But the failure of measures for the production of any result proving it unwise, must demonstrate that it did not originate with an all-wise author; in other words, with the Almighty.

1196. It is manifestly absurd to ascribe to that Being any measures which have failed to effect the ends for which they have been specially devised. Knowing that Mohammed would have more followers than Christ, that the largest portion of mankind would remain pagans, that even in Christendom the Christian religion would be a source of bloody contention and theological hatred, making scarcely any real Christians,—how could it originate with a wise and prescient Deity?

1197. “By their fruits ye shall know them?” It being premised that God is omniscient, all-wise, and omnipotent, can any fruit proceed from that high source which has not proved to answer well the purpose for which it was intended?

1198. The actual morality of Christendom being the inverse of that excessive and impracticable restraint, which Christ enjoined as the object of his mission, must prove that his doctrine could not have originated with a being by whom its failure must have been foreseen.

1199. Arguments such as I have used are met often by referring to the evils, to which all animated nature is subjected, in the way of misery, mutilation, disease, or death. But when the government of the universe is attributed to general laws, it may be inferred that evil results from a want of power to render those laws free from bad consequences. Nothing but such limitation of power, or an indisposition to prevent those evils, can account for their occurrence. But this is widely different from assuming, in the first place, with self-called orthodoxy, that God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise, and all-good, and then representing him as resorting to measures for the accomplishment of his ends which are utterly inefficacious. This is accusing the Almighty of acting like an idiot. Can any thing be more preposterous, than that an all-wise, all-good, all-powerful, and all-foreseeing Deity should require the services of human missionaries to carry out his will? Would he not at least require that such messengers of his word should first agree as to what that word ought to be? A pagan might remain during his whole life a pagan, should he, before adopting any creed, require that professed Christians, in general, should agree as to the tenets which he should espouse.

1200. Agreeably to the attributes assigned to the Deity by orthodoxy, the state of things which exists in the universe cannot be otherwise than as God wishes it to be, to the falling of a sparrow; so that any change sought by man, beyond the immediate sphere of his necessities, must be an officious interference with God’s providence.

1201. Yet if a man be considered as an instrument in attaining certain beneficent ends, without which those ends could not be accomplished, then human exertion is reasonable, in whatever way it can be productive of good.

1202. How can any being who contemplates the wonderful power displayed in the creation, hesitate to perceive that if the divine Architect desired that all men should coincide in their modes of worship, he would have furnished them sufficient evidence of his will, and disposed their minds to receive the desired impression?

1203. Nevertheless, his measures are represented as the inverse of these. It is represented that a creed which he wished all men to embrace was promulgated in an obscure part of an obscure country, under the yoke of heathen despotism, in a language unknown to any other people. It was so promulgated that the great majority of mankind were entirely out of the reach of its influence, and have remained so for nearly two thousand years. Moreover, those who have been made acquainted with Christianity are unable to agree in what it consists.

1204. As I have already urged, if we were to judge of the extention of Christianity by the number of Christians who do not in practice violate the precepts of Christ, it might be a question whether the name of Christendom is applicable to any part of the world.

On the massacre at Sinope, as a probable consequence of Religious Fanaticism and Intolerance.

1205. As in consideration of the idolatry of the Amalekites the Israelites were, according to the Bible, authorized to extirpate that nation, for a wrong done to Israel some hundred years before, may not the Russians imagine themselves justified for the massacre of Sinope? (1 Sam. xv.)

1206. The Turks have done vastly more harm to the Greek Christians, when, with fire and sword, they subdued the Greek empire, and obliged each man to pay annually for wearing his head, than the tribe of Amalek did to the Hebrews. In the one case there does not appear to have been for centuries any repetition of the wrong; but in the other the wrongs were reiterated, and of an enduring nature. It is true that the Mohammedan sovereigns were in Turkey more tolerant of their Christian subjects than Christian sovereigns were of Mohammedans; or even of the Albigenses, Lollards, Wicliffites, Lutherans, or Calvinists. The Turks never introduced an inquisitorial tribunal to burn or torture unbelievers. On this account they may think themselves less open to the charge of cruel intolerance than some of the self-called disciples of Christ; and no doubt the discordancy between the conduct of those disciples and the precepts of their teacher, may have contributed to their contemptuous opinions of those whom they improperly call infidels to Mohammed, not perceiving that people who have not professed a religion, can no more be infidels thereto than one man can be guilty of infidelity to another man’s wife. This argument, however, would be answered by the fact that Christians call Mohammedans infidels, not in consequence of any violation of their faith in Mohammed, but because they have never had any faith in Christ.

1207. Such skeptical Mohammedans as Lady Mary Wortley Montague made mention of in her letters from Constantinople, will no doubt consider the term infidel applicable only to such as break their professed faith, whatever it may be.

1208. Agreeably to this definition, every fighting or wealth-seeking Christian is an infidel to the religion which he professes; every Mohammedan who indulges in wine is an infidel.

1209. The religion taught by Mohammed, like that of Moses, authorized the most cruel wars, the extermination of nations for erroneous belief, while the religion of Christ directs us to love our neighbours as ourselves; to return good for evil; to give our coat when our cloak is taken; to submit passively to blows, and that the possession of wealth interferes with access to heaven. Christianity is, moreover, unfavourable to polygamy or concubinage.

1210. It follows that the precepts of Jesus call for restraint upon the predominant passions of human nature, while those of Mohammed, in justifying warfare, excessive indulgence in women, and in the spoliation and massacre of unbelievers, coincide with the most predominating propensities of human nature. It is, therefore, far easier to be faithful to the precepts of Mohammed than those of Christ.

1211. Nevertheless, as both Christ and Mohammed treated the Old Testament as authentic, it is to be feared that the Turks and Russians may look to it for justification of their intolerant cruelty.

1212. None of the ancient Pagans were as hostile to the Hebrews, as the disciples of Mohammed have been to the Greek Christians. But not even the Mohammedans have been so intolerant to those whom they call infidels, as Christian sectarians have been, to such persons as they have dogmatically adjudged to be heretics.

1213. It should be well considered whether any authority dependent on human records can justify the inference that God, anywhere, or in any age, ever authorized such cruelty as that exhibited at Sinope.

1214. Whenever men adopt the idea entertained by the Jews and Mohammedans, and certain sects of Christians, that a peculiar creed is necessary to salvation, it is deemed humane to inflict any temporal evil in order to eradicate any other belief which will subject souls to eternal punishment. When to the Catholics in the reign of Queen Mary it was urged that burning heretics alive would not change their creed, the reply was, that although the victims should not be converted, the souls of their progeny would be saved from damnation by the extirpation of the heresy with the heretics. Admitting the premises, the conclusion was correct, and the auto-da-fé and the tortures of the inquisition were even more excusable than a painful chirurgical operation, when it preserves the temporal life of the patient.

1215. If the Czar is of opinion, that for every Christian who may replace a Turk, a soul will be saved from damnation, he may conceive himself as well authorized to extirpate the Turks, as were Moses and Joshua to extirpate any heathen nation.

1216. Moreover, by some Christians, Jesus is considered as having sanctioned the retention of that characteristic of the Hebrew portraiture of Jehovah, which makes it right to exterminate unbelievers in the orthodox creed. This must be a source of discord wherever it is recognised, as it induces persecution from conscientious regard to the salvation of the victims upon whom it acts, while in them it naturally creates bitter resentment instead of gratitude.

1217. Having submitted the representations of Jehovah, given in the Old Testament, I will subjoin those of the great modern philosopher Newton, and those of Seneca, one of the most distinguished sages of antiquity. The reader may, from these data, judge how far piety or morality would suffer, were that ancient record to give way to the direct evidence of Spiritualism.

Opinions of God held by Sir Isaac Newton.—Enfield’s Philosophy, Page 638.

1218. “God has no need of organs; he being everywhere present to the things themselves.

1219. “It appears from phenomena, that there is a being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who, in infinite space, as it were in his sensory, sees the things themselves, intimately and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly by their immediate presence to himself.

1220. “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only arise from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being; and if the fixed stars be centres of similar systems, these, being all formed by like wisdom, must be subject to the dominion of one; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun; and all systems mutually give and receive light.

1221. “God governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as the Lord of the universe. The Supreme Deity is an eternal, infinite, and absolutely perfect being, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration extends from eternity to eternity, and his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things which exist, or can be known. He is not eternity or infinity; but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space; but he endures and is present; he endures forever and is present everywhere. Since every portion of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never or nowhere. God is omnipresent, not virtually only, but substantially; for power cannot subsist without substance. In him all things are contained and move, but without reciprocal affection. God is not affected by the motion of bodies, nor do bodies suffer resistance from the omnipresence of God.

1222. “It is universally allowed that God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and everywhere. Whence he is throughout similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power of perceiving, understanding, and acting; but in a manner not at all human, not at all corporeal; in a manner to us altogether unknown. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so we have no idea of the manner in which the most wise God perceives and understands all things. He is entirely without body, and bodily form, and therefore can neither be seen, nor heard, nor touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under any corporeal representation. We have ideas of his attributes, but what the substance of any thing is, we are wholly ignorant. We see only the figures and colours of bodies; we hear only sounds; we touch only external superficies; we smell only odours; we taste only savours; of their internal substance we have no knowledge by any sense, or by any reflex act of the mind; much less have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his properties and attributes, by the most wise and excellent structure of things, and by final causes; and we reverence and worship him on account of his dominion. A God without dominion, providence, and design, is nothing else but fate and nature.”

1223. The language above quoted does not involve the idea that Newton owed his idea of God to the Bible, or that he considered him as having any person, much less that he consisted of three persons. He makes no allusion to Christ or to the Scriptures. His opinions are quite reconcilable with Theism, but incompatible with the existence of the Trinity.

On God and his Attributes, by Seneca.

1224. “Great respect is due to universal opinion. We consider common assent an evidence of truth. That there are Gods, we are convinced, among other proofs, from the fact that the belief in their existence is natural to man. No nation has been found so brutal as to be entirely without religion.

1225. “We begin to know God from his works. What is God? All that you see, and all that you do not see. In what does the nature of God and man differ? The best part of man is his mind; in God there is nothing but mind. He is pure spirit. Many names are applicable to him. Do you call him Fate? You do not err. He it is upon whom every thing depends. The cause of causes. Do you call him Providence? You are right. It is by his appointment that this world is so arranged that it performs without confusion the part assigned to it. Do you call him Nature? You do not sin. It is he from whom all things are produced.

1226. “You may properly apply to God any name expressive of celestial power. All his benefits may give rise to distinctive appellations. Thus he is called Father, Hercules, Mercury, &c. Father, because he is truly the Father of all; Hercules, because he is omnipotent; Mercury, because he is pure Reason, the principle of science, of order, and of harmony.

1227. “Justice, Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, are all names of one God, expressive of his various attributes, and are qualities of the one mind; whichever of them you love, you love God. Known unto God are all his works.

1228. “Whatever is to happen is present with him. What to us is sudden and unexpected, has by him been foreseen and provided for.

1229. “A wise man does not change his opinion, how much less God! As a river does not flow back, or stop in its course, so the order of nature is governed by fixed laws, which are nothing less than divine decrees.

1230. “Who is so wretched, so neglected, who born to so cruel a destiny, as not to have received any benefits from the gods? Look at those who complain of their lot, you will find that they are not deprived of all comforts. Is the gift of life nothing? Are there no objects pleasant to the eye, to the ear, or to the mind? God’s kindness does not only supply us with what is necessary to existence, he provides also for our pleasure. Witness the variety of fruits, differing in flavour; the many healthful vegetables, so great a variety of food for different seasons of the year, some produced from the earth without culture, even for the idle; animals of all kinds abounding in the earth, the sea, and the air, as if all things in nature were tributary to our enjoyment. Consider the rivers flowing gracefully through the fields which they fertilize; others, whose deep beds in their vast and navigable courses, afford the means of a profitable commerce, or by overflowing their banks during the drought and heat of summer, water the parched earth and cause it to bring forth abundantly. You deny that you have received any favours, and yet are unwilling to part with what you possess. There are some philosophers who do not appreciate the divine gifts. They complain that we are not endowed with perfect health, incorruptible virtue, and foreknowledge. They scarcely refrain from impudently despising nature, that she has made us less than gods. How much better would it be to return thanks to the gods for the many benefits we have received, and for placing us in this beautiful world, and subjecting it to our rule, as their vicegerents.

1231. “The Deity has thought of us from the beginning; and this world has been so arranged as to make his care of us manifest. We admit our obligation to love our parents, as those from whom we derive our existence. They were, however, certainly not the authors of our existence, but were utterly ignorant of the mysteries of nature.

1232. “That we are indebted for our existence to an intelligent cause, is evident from the provisions made for our support long before our birth.

1233. “The strong instinct of a mother, making her willing to endure any privation for the helpless stranger; the sacred fountain which, at the moment it is wanted, flows from the mother’s breast; the air adapted to the lungs, the light to the eye: what more shall I say?—a present God is revealed!

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]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.”

1308. It is believed that there was no such wickedness among the pagan priesthood as to have become a cause of complaint, although far less power existed to silence accusation. Throughout Christendom even monarchs were made to suffer severely for their remonstrances against papal tyranny, and had to make concessions after having been ill-treated. By way of exemplifying his disrespect for those precepts of Christ which enjoin humility, meekness, and poorness of spirit as the means of reaching heaven, Pope Celestin kicked the crown from the head of the emperor, Henry VII., as this potentate knelt before him. Could any sane man have done this while believing that Christ’s allegations were to be verified, agreeably to which the “poor in spirit” are to have heaven, the meek to inherit the earth? (See Hopkins.)

1309. According to Taylor’s Diegesis, Constantine inquired of Sopater, the pagan priest, if he could absolve him from his sins, among which was that of scalding one of his wives to death, and executing unjustly one of his sons. Sopater informed him that it went beyond his power to obtain pardon for such sins. The Christian priests having agreed to procure the desired absolution, is supposed to have been one of the principal motives which induced Constantine to embrace Christianity. Yet it was under this wicked despot that the Council of Nice was held, which decided in favour of the divinity of Christ.

1310. It is difficult to imagine that persons who actually believed in a future state of rewards and punishments, and who of course must have been impressed with the comparative insignificance of any worldly enjoyments, would, for any earthly objects, have acted so much in a way to doom their souls to perpetual torture. It may therefore be inferred that the clerical papists who acted so wickedly were religious hypocrites, like the Jewish Pharisees. I am strongly under the impression that the imperfection of the proof of the truth of Scriptures, in the first place, and the inadequate and disgusting representations respecting the future world which they present, has always been productive of secret unbelief, and consequent recklessness respecting the dictates of religion or morality.

1311. Of the manner in which the clergy of the present day reason themselves into a belief, and expect to induce others to concur with them, the parodied quotation from the clerical Goliah of my would-be guide to heaven is an exemplification. It is only by frowning down objections, or begging the question, that they can get on. ([1182].)

1312. Said one among the most amiable of my clerical friends to me, when I adverted to the improbability that the Deity of this almost infinite universe would select a few human animalcules in Judea as his especial favourites: “Dr. Hare, you must not expect me to sit by patiently, and see the pillars of my profession assailed.” I am sorry, said I, if I have said any thing to give you pain. “How would you like the pillars of your science to be attacked?” I would defend them, not endeavour to silence the assailant! But all criticisms which lead to the cure of errors only benefit a science founded on truth.

1313. The skepticism produced by reading the Bible is alleged, by Archbishop Hughes, as the motive of his church for forbidding the reading of it to the faithful. It was the reading of the Bible, when a minor, which led to my unbelief in its authenticity. Bible societies may, without intending it, do much to prepare the reasoning portion of mankind for the adoption of a more moral, consistent, and rational gospel.

1314. That one pope at least was a materialist, the following quotation from Bishop Hopkins’s work will prove.

1315. “The year 1308 was marked by the resolution of Pope Clement V. to take up his residence at Avignon. Two years afterward, he appointed three cardinals to examine the witnesses against the former pope, Boniface VIII., and Cardinal Cajetan; and the testimony taken on the occasion proved them both to have been downright atheists. It was in substance as follows:

1316. “Nicholas, a priest and canon of the cathedral, &c., on oath, said, that being at Naples, under the pontificate of Celestin V., viz. A. D. 1274, in the house of Marin Sichinulfe, where Cardinal Benedict Cajetan dwelt, he entered the chamber of the cardinal in the suite of the Bishop of Fricenti, and found there a clerk disputing with him, in presence of several persons, upon the questions, which was the best law or religion, that of the Christians, of the Jews, or of the Saracens? and who those were that best observed their own? Then the cardinal said, What are all these religions? They are the inventions of men. We need not put ourselves to any trouble, except for this world, since there is no other life but the present. He said also, on the same occasion, that this world has had no beginning, and would not have an end. Nicholas, Abbot of St. Benedict, &c., deposed to the same fact, adding that the Cardinal Cajetan had said that the bread was not changed in the sacrament of the altar, and that it was false that it was the body of Jesus Christ; that there is no resurrection; that the soul dies with the body; that this was his opinion and that of all men of letters, but that the simple and ignorant thought otherwise. The witness being asked if the cardinal did not thus speak jestingly, replied that he said these things seriously and in good faith.

1317. “Manfred, a lay citizen of Lucca, said, that in the year 1300, before Christmas, being in the chamber of Pope Boniface, in presence of the ambassadors of Florence, of Boulogne, and of Lucca, and many other persons, a man, who appeared to be the Pope’s chaplain, told his holiness of the death of a certain knight who had been a wicked man, and therefore it was necessary to pray for him, that Jesus Christ might have pity on his soul. Upon which Boniface treated him as if he were a fool; and after having spoken injuriously of Jesus Christ, he added: This knight has already received all the good and evil he can have, and there is no other life than this, nor any other paradise or hell than what is in this world. The witness testified to another discourse of Boniface, which modesty does not allow of our reporting; and another witness recited a story about him still more impious than the foregoing.

1318. “‘What remains of this information,’ says Fleury, ‘comprehends the depositions of thirteen witnesses, all to a similar effect. Another information which appeared the following year contained the evidence of twenty-three witnesses to the same facts, with others equally scandalous. But as the affair was never brought to judgment, it is superfluous to enter into any further details.’

1319. “Now here is a very extraordinary and powerful evidence to prove that at least one pope, and he a very distinguished one, Boniface VIII., and one cardinal, of high reputation, were not only infidels themselves, but claimed to be of the same class with ‘all men of letters.’ That the testimony was satisfactory seems incontrovertible; because the witnesses were thirty-six in number, unimpeached in character, and thought sufficient by Philip the Fair, King of France, and all his leading nobility. He proposed that Boniface should be arraigned, though dead, for heresy, and that his bones should be disinterred and burned, according to the modern fashion established by the Roman Church. It may seem strange, however, that even if Boniface and Cajetan had held such sentiments, they should have been so foolish as to utter them in the presence of so many. To this two answers may be given. First, that the influence of the philosophy which we have already noted in the University of Paris was so prevalent, that the clergy and the upper ranks of the laity were generally infected with it, and religion was looked upon, by nearly all, as a thing of policy, necessary to keep the vulgar in order, but only professed by the higher classes, as it was in heathen Rome, ‘for the sake of appearances.’ Unhappily, there are many proofs too strong to be doubted that this infidel philosophy was rife among the priesthood; and perhaps there is no other way of accounting for the manifest fact that the church, like the state, was governed for so many ages by the machinery of force and fear, as if there was no inward conscience to appeal to, except among a few pious souls, here and there—enough to perpetuate the church, according to the promise of Christ, but not enough to affect the general sentiment.”

Any religion, like that of Moses, which does not make Immortality a primary consideration, must be chiefly confined to worldly objects, and of course unworthy of consideration or respect.

1320. While the silence of the Pentateuch respecting immortality throws the authority of the “word of God,” so called, against the endowment of the human soul with that all-important attribute, the language of the decalogue is inconsistent with the unity of the divine power. The words, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” implies that there were other gods who might be acknowledged; since if there were none other, the proper words would be—Thou canst have no other God but me, or—There is no other God but me.

1321. Again, when Jehovah alleges himself to be jealous, of whom could he be jealous, if there was no other God to excite the sentiment of jealousy? Can any one conceive God to be jealous of an idol, when he must perceive that whatever worship may be bestowed on idols, is actually intended for the true God? ([1245], 1246.) Could Adam have been jealous when there was no other man in existence to be jealous of?

1322. In the Introduction the ends to be answered by religion were stated, (page 18.) Several of the foregoing pages have been designed to show that Scripture does not fulfil these objects, being almost silent as respects immortality, using doubtful language respecting the unity of the divine power. Moreover, Jehovah is described as wrathful, jealous, and vindictive; as sanctioning the massacre, spoliation, and extirpation of neighbouring nations.[26] The fruits of the religion of Moses were two sects, of whom one did not believe in a future state of rewards and punishments; the other, although professing such a belief, (according to the barbarous idea of Josephus,) were not as moral as the unbelievers, ([750], [1098].) Moreover, as respects the New Testament, the precepts on which it laid the most stress, those against pecuniary cupidity and resistance of wrong, have been not only neglected, but acted upon inversely; so that rapacity and aggression have been the predominant features of the conduct of Christians, unworthily so called, toward each other, but especially toward those who have been of a different religious belief. In one trait, however, the words of Christ, already cited, have been fully carried out: “I come as a sword.”[27]

1323. It may be seen from the passages quoted, that prior to the promulgation of Christianity, people of various religious sects were willing to live in harmony; but that after its promulgation there was much discord, and that those who should have been especially influenced by Christianity (the priesthood) were the foremost in vice!

1324. It is conceived that either on the one side the evidence of Christianity could not have gone home to the soul of those who so grossly violated its monitions, or that the rewards held out by it had not been presented under an aspect sufficiently inviting to counteract the fleeting allurements of this temporal world. It is conceived that Scripture is from beginning to end, from the Pentateuch to the Gospel of John, too worldly, as first exhibited in the promise of lands to the Jews, and lastly of judgeships to the apostles. The Old Testament, of necessity, can treat of nothing but worldliness, since there is throughout scarcely any reference to heaven; and some of the Psalms would accord better with the curses of a devil, than with the prayers of a sincere Christian. The cix. Psalm contains this language:

1325. “When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath, and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. Because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil unto his bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil against my soul.”

1326. Under these circumstances, wherefore should there be any alarm for the consequences of replacing belief in Scripture by belief in Spiritualism, if the evidence of this be, as we think, vastly more reliable, and the morality far more consistent with that followed in practice by great and good men of ancient and modern times.

1327. Moreover, the basis of probation, upon which the morality of Scripture is built, is manifestly a castle in the air, since it involves this contradiction, that an omnipotent, omniscient, and prescient Deity, who can make his creatures what he wishes them to be, and must know what they are, has to resort to trial to learn that which he knows before the process is undertaken, as well as he can possibly after its accomplishment. This demonstration alone overturns the whole probationary superstructure existing in the minds of sectarians.

1328. Meanwhile, the communications which I have submitted involve the idea of progression, and convey infinitely more knowledge of futurity than the Old and New Testaments taken together.

People profess Christianity more from a desire to do right, than they do right in consequence of their professions.

1329. I am aware how much it is a part of the existing system of education to imbue a confident faith in whatever tenets may be taught, and how little it is possible, in consequence, to have any arguments fairly considered which bear against the educational impressions. It may be seen in the instance of the interesting lady to whom I owe the kind letter, ([1163],) how much more anxious such persons are to teach than to listen. She had, as she supposed, listened to an exposition of my views, of which the foundation had already been described in a published letter, with an effort to compare the heaven and hell of Scripture with those of Spiritualism; yet in all confidence of victory, this excellent creature brings me a letter written by one whom she considers to have a first-rate intellect, and who begins by assuming what I most emphatically deny, and of which the argument is just as good for Mohammedanism as for Christianity, provided the Koran be assumed as the word of God in lieu of the Bible, and Mohammed as the vicegerent of God instead of Christ. This may be considered as the argument of an eminent Episcopalian in favour of the truth of Christianity, while in those cited from Hughes and Breckinridge we have the arguments of an eminent Romanist on one side, and an eminent Calvinist on the other. The one objects to the basis of “fallible” men as the rule of faith; the other, to any inference derived from a gospel by “fallible” men. Breckinridge does not recollect that there is nothing more fallible than the traditions, compilations, and translations of fallible men, nor how skeptical all those who sustain the truth of Scripture on this evidence, are of any other evidence of the same kind which conflicts with Scripture.

1330. If the reader will look at the letters of Amasa Holcomb and my replies, ([690],) he will see an exemplification of the difficulty in which many were placed, who had no other evidence of a future state beside that afforded by Scripture. Let him apply to the human evidence of antiquity no less skepticism than is now applied to the human evidence of Spiritualists, and then estimate the weight of testimony in favour of the Scriptures. Let him fairly consider the internal evidence against Scripture, as briefly sketched in this work or elsewhere, and then say whether he can conscientiously condemn Mr. Holcomb or myself for conscientiously disbelieving Scripture.

1331. Let it be considered whether belief in Christianity is not at the present time a consequence of morality, rather than its cause; whether it is not, with ninety-nine in a hundred, the consequence of early impressions, which have associated the Christian religion and morals inseparably on the conscience; without, however, inducing in any one of the individuals thus influenced any idea that the precepts of Christ are to be carried out in practice. It would be manifestly preposterous to look for this where the clergy, who were the teachers, did not practically obey the precepts, but went ahead in the race of iniquity, whichever way the current might lead, and almost everywhere as desirous of wealth, and power, and worldly distinction as other men. The imperfection of the evidence of scriptural truth, on which the belief in it rests, or that false moral sense derived from education, which makes the person affected just as tenacious of one creed as of another, whether it be Judaic, Christian, or Mohammedan, causes the faith thus arising to yield whenever the moral sense is impaired on which it rests. Not being supported by reason, as soon as the educational conscientiousness on which it was founded is blunted, any faith built upon it forms no barrier. The individual perceives that his opinions were not formed by himself, but imparted, and would have been different, had he been born of different parents. Thus faith rests upon morality, not morality upon faith; and when morality goes, faith ceases to be a barrier. But meanwhile those who abandon morality, find in their educational impressions one which is a salvo to them, however sinful. They find that Christ died for those who believe in his divinity or in his divine mission, and of course, that by closing their ears and eyes to all evidence or argument impeaching Christianity, and continuing to cherish the early impressions made by their teachers, they may be redeemed from future punishment; whereas, as Dr. Berg alleged in his debate with Barker, “A sinner cannot be saved out of Christ.”

1332. But one consequence of this interested, bigoted belief is, that animosity which, it was foretold by Christ, would cause such horrible discord, and would make his advent equivalent to a severing of all the dearest ties between relatives and friends, the superior and his subordinates. As at this time any idea of a religion would be scouted with indignation which should not make a future state of rewards and punishments the primary object, it is inconceivable to me wherefore the Old Testament should be an object of veneration to those whose thoughts are heavenward. How could there be any thing but worldliness where nothing but the things of the world were objects of desire—no heaven beyond.

1333. From what has been urged, is it not manifest that, in the first place, it is of great importance that the evidence of a future state should be placed on a firmer footing than on recorded and translated traditions, or on the decretals of a most profligate priesthood? Would it not be one of the greatest imaginable blessings that those who have not the consolation of believing in immortality, should have that consolation, and those who already believe in a future state of existence, should have a better knowledge of that state, than that given by Josephus, sanctioned by Christ, even as collated by the pious and learned clergyman, Dr. Harbaugh? ([750].)

1334. If Christ had nothing but the vicinity of the fire prepared for the devil and his angels, agreeably to Josephus, and his story of Dives and Lazarus, or imaginary worldly appointments, or lying in the grave till the last day,—if these are all the grounds that Christians have had to build upon as respects future happiness, is it to be wondered at that the priesthood of the Middle Ages, who best knew the defect of gospel evidence, how little they themselves were to be trusted, and how illusory was the promise made to the apostles of judgeships, ([743],) should, of all others in society, be the least restrained by fear of future punishment?

It is a calumny against human nature to represent men as wilfully ignorant of the true religion.

1335. A prevalent calumny against human nature has been, that men remain wilfully reckless as respects religious truth; or that they remain in error designedly, and not because they mistake it for truth. But it is notorious, that as respects the laws of man, those who make it their business to violate them take great care to make themselves acquainted with the laws which it is their object to break. None but an idiot would expect the law to be less severe in proportion as he should keep himself ignorant of its provisions. No banditti in the Russian empire would expect the less to go to Siberia because they should deny the reigning czar to be the sovereign. They would not expect to escape his power by enthroning a pretended czar, and paying him honour. Such conduct would be too absurd, even for fools to pursue; yet it is upon such erroneous views that three thousand Israelites were surprised and assassinated for worshipping the golden calf; and that eminent clergymen do not consider it as blasphemy against the paternal God, described by Seneca ([1224]) to represent him as sanctioning this horrible butchery.[28]

1336. The truth is, the selfishness of the worst men makes it quite as much an object with them, as with good men, to know to what punishments they may become liable, or what advantages they will be entitled to hereafter. Self-interest makes every man anxious to know that which deeply affects his future existence. Is there any one who would not wish to learn whether his soul is to rot in the coffin with its fleshy integuments, or to have another and eternal existence, happy or wretched according to his deportment in this world?[29]

1337. Those who really wish to serve the cause of true religion, and human welfare here and hereafter, should not expect that harsh words or measures will promote these objects. If, from want of due consideration, they uphold that which is repulsive to the human heart and understanding, and turn a deaf ear to facts and reasoning, which would produce a more beneficial issue, they will really be amenable to the blame which they so unjustly lavish upon those whom they calumniate as “Infidels,” while they themselves are really infidels to their professed principles. The Bible itself made me an unbeliever in its authenticity, and makes unbelievers of many who read it attentively and fearlessly, after their reason is matured.

1338. Nothing could serve the cause of true religion and true morality more than a belief in a future state of reward and punishment, without having that book made an appendage to the instruction.

To appreciate the Jewish representation of the Deity, a reader should first form an idea of this planet and its inhabitants, comparatively with the hundred millions of solar systems, and the inconceivable extent of the space which encompasses them, which fall within the domain of one common Deity.

1339. In order to form an idea of the Deity, we must consider the extent of the universe over which he rules, and the magnificence and multiplicity of the bodies which it comprises. Alpha Centauri, a star of the Centaur, a constellation in the southern hemisphere, is the nearest of the fixed stars; it nevertheless is nearly twenty thousand million of miles from the earth. Light, flying at the rate of two hundred thousand miles in a second, to come from that star, would take three years and three months to reach the earth.

1340. A star in the constellation of the Swan, known as “61 Cygni,” is another among the few whose distance is sufficiently small to allow it to be measured. This is nearly three times as far as Alpha Centauri; so that it would take light nine years to come from “61 Cygni” to the earth. This star appears single to the naked eye, but, seen through a telescope, appears like two stars, which according to Mitchell, are six thousand millions of miles apart.

1341. But the stars which enter into the nebula of Orion are so remote, that light, to come from one of them, would require ninety-two thousand years. Suppose an imaginary right line to be extended from a star in Orion so as to pass through the centre of this planet, and to reach a star on the other side as remote as that first mentioned; of course, the distance being doubled, it would require light twice the time to perceive it, or one hundred and eighty-four thousand years. Suppose a spherical space of which that line forms a diameter, or we may suppose a larger sphere, including all the nebula visible by the Rosse telescope. It is estimated that there are in all not less than one hundred millions of stars visible with the aid of that magnificent instrument, each of which is a sun with its planets; so that we have reason to suppose that there are an hundred millions of solar systems. Some of the suns are, like Sirius, estimated to give sixty-three times as much light as our sun emits. Our planet is to Jupiter as one to twelve hundred; to Saturn, as one to one thousand; to the sun, as one to one million four hundred thousand. It is hardly to be seen by the naked eye from Jupiter, and would be invisible to any human eye situated upon any planet more remote than Jupiter. To the whole of the sidereal creation, it is as a globule of water in the ocean, and the inhabitants are as animalcules in that globule.

1342. Having thus prepared his mind with a proper conception of the vastness of the attributes of the Deity, and the degree of the comparative importance of the human race in the divine mind, as it surveys the whole creation, let the reader take up the book of Genesis, and compare the impressions which that alleged word of God would convey with those which the preceding facts and considerations would induce. It may be expedient that the reader, while under the sublime impression of the majesty and magnificence of the Deity, as displayed in his works, should consider what evidence there is of any entity having the relation to him of a female; and if it be irrational to suppose a commensurate being of the other sex, let the reader consider how this Supreme Deity could have a son? The existence of a son requiring both a father and mother, it may be well to think how a male without a female god could have a son. He may take into view the opinions of Newton, that God cannot be presumed to have organs. Doubtless it will be perceived that this all-pervading, magnificent being cannot require eyes to see, ears to hear, a nose to smell, a tongue to speak, or a mouth to eat, legs with which to walk, or arms with which to strike. Of course he will not consider him as having a person made of those organs, as in the instance of his creature, man. He will agree with Newton, that it were absurd to ascribe even one person to God, and would be still more so to ascribe three persons. Again, if three persons be essential to God, he being eternal, the three persons must be eternal, and of course neither can bear the relation of a son to the other; nor can the coeval Holy Ghost proceed from two of the trio, forming the third person, who, by the premises, existed before he came into his subsequent existence, as alleged by the contradictory conclusion. If the individuals composing the Godhead have any distinct will or reason, the admission of the trinity amounts to polytheism; and if they have not severally independent natures and reason, then the association of the idea of three persons is useless. Is it not idolatrous thus to associate with the Deity effete masses of spiritual matter, under the name of persons, and worship the imaginary monster thus created as the true God? Still more, is it not monstrous to represent that those who cannot adore this imaginary idol, are wilfully incredulous?

1343. I have said that the account of the creation, given in the Pentateuch, is inconsistent with geological facts. Much sophistry has been employed to escape from this truth. Thus eminent geologists have striven to reconcile the alleged creation of the world in six days, to mean actually six eras, each of immense duration; yet Scripture representing that the day succeeding those so employed, should be kept holy as a Sabbath, and this being viewed in the Decalogue as a period of twenty-four hours, precludes the assignment of any longer duration to each of the six days, actually occupied by the Creator in performing his great work.

1344. To enable the reader to judge how far the facts ascertained by geological investigation, can be reconciled with the scriptural account, I shall here quote them, as stated by Professor Hitchcock, in his work entitled “Religion of Geology,” page 19. It should be known to the reader that this author is among those who assume the Bible to be the word of God upon the same grounds as the clergyman, ([1182].)

1345. “Under these circumstances, all that I can do, is to state definitely what I apprehend to be the established principles of the science that have a bearing upon religious truth, and refer my hearers to standard works on the subject for the proof that they are true. If any will not take the trouble to examine the proofs, I trust they will have candour and impartiality enough not to deny my positions.

1346. “The first important conclusion to which every careful observer will come is, that the rocks of all sorts which compose the present crust of the globe, so far as it has been explored, at least to the depth of several miles, appear to have been the result of second causes; that is, they are now in a different state from that in which they were originally created.

1347. “It is, indeed, a favourite idea with some, that all the rocks and their contents were created, just as we now meet them, in a moment of time; that the supposed remains of animals and plants, which many of them contain, and which occur in all states, from an animal or plant little changed, to a complete conversion into stone, were never real animals and plants, but only resemblances; and that the marks of fusion and of the wearing of water, exhibited by the rocks, are not to be taken as evidences that they have undergone such processes, but only that it has pleased God to give them that appearance; and that, in fact, it was as easy for God to create them just as they now are as in any other form.

1348. “It is a presumption against such a supposition, that no men, who have carefully examined rocks and organic remains, are its advocates. Not that they doubt the power of God to produce such effects, but they deny the probability that he has exerted it in this manner; for throughout nature, wherever they have an opportunity to witness her operations, they find that when substances appear to have undergone changes, by means of secondary agencies, they have in fact undergone them; and, therefore, the whole analogy of nature goes to prove that the rocks have experienced great changes since their deposition. If rocks are an exception to the rest of nature,—that is, if they are the effect of miraculous agency,—there is no proof of it; and to admit it without proof is to destroy all grounds of analogical reasoning in natural operations; in other words, it is to remove the entire basis of reasoning in physical science. Every reasonable man, therefore, who has examined rocks, will admit that they have undergone important changes since their original formation.

1349. “In the second place, the same general laws appear to have always prevailed on the globe, and to have controlled the changes which have taken place upon and within it. We come to no spot, in the history of the rocks, in which a system different from that which now prevails appears to have existed. Great peculiarities in the structure of animals and plants do indeed occur, as well as changes on a scale of magnitude unknown at present; but this was only a wise adaptation to peculiar circumstances, and not an infringement of the general laws.

1350. “In the third place, the geological changes which the earth has undergone, and is now undergoing, appear to have been the result of the same agencies—viz. heat and water.

1351. “Fourthly. It is demonstrated that the present continents of the globe, with perhaps the exception of some of their highest mountains, have for a long period constituted the bottom of the ocean, and have been subsequently either elevated into their present position, or the waters have been drained off from their surface. This is probably the most important principle in geology; and though regarded with much skepticism by many, it is as satisfactorily proved as any principle of physical science not resting on mathematical demonstration.

1352. “Fifthly. The internal parts of the earth are found to possess a very high temperature; nor can it be doubted that at least oceans of melted matter exist beneath the crust, and perhaps even all the deep-seated interior is in a state of fusion.

1353. “Sixthly. The fossiliferous rocks, or such as contain animals and plants, are not less than six or seven miles in perpendicular thickness, and are composed of hundreds of alternating layers of different kinds, all of which appear to have been deposited, just as rocks are now forming, at the bottom of lakes and seas; and hence their deposition must have occupied an immense period of time. Even if we admit that this deposition went on in particular places much faster than at present, a variety of facts forbid the supposition that this was the general mode of their formation.

1354. “Seventhly. The remains of animals and plants found in the earth are not mingled confusedly together, but are found arranged, for the most part, in as much order as the drawers of a well-regulated cabinet. In general, they appear to have lived and died on or near the spots where they are now found; and as countless millions of these remains are often found piled together, so as to form almost entire mountains, the periods requisite for their formation must have been immensely long, as was taught in the preceding proposition.

1355. “Eighthly. Still further confirmation of the same important principle is found in the well-established fact, that there have been upon the globe, previous to the existing races, not less than five distinct periods of organized existence; that is, five great groups of animals and plants, so completely independent that no species whatever is found in more than one of them, have lived and successively passed away before the creation of the races that now occupy the surface. Other standard writers make the number of these periods of existence as many as twelve. Comparative anatomy testifies that so unlike in structure were these different groups, that they could not have coexisted in the same climate and other external circumstances.

1356. “Ninthly. In the earliest times in which animals and plants lived, the climate over the whole globe appears to have been as warm as, or even warmer than, it is now between the tropics. And the slow change from warmer to colder appears to have been the chief cause of the successive destruction of the different races; and new ones were created, better adapted to the altered condition of the globe; and yet each group seems to have occupied the globe through a period of great length; so that we have here another evidence of the vast cycles of duration that must have rolled away even since the earth became a habitable globe.

1357. “Tenthly. There is no small reason to suppose that the globe underwent numerous changes previous to the time when animals were placed upon it; that, in fact, the time was when the whole matter of the earth was in a melted state, and not improbably also even in a gaseous state. These points, indeed, are not as well established as the others that have been mentioned; but, if admitted, they give to the globe an incalculable antiquity.

1358. “Eleventhly. It appears that the present condition of the earth’s crust and surface was of comparatively recent commencement; otherwise the steep flanks of mountains would have ceased to crumble down, and wide oceans would have been filled with alluvial deposits.

1359. “Twelfthly. Among the thirty thousand species of animals and plants found in the rocks,[30] very few living species have been detected; and even these few occur in the most recent rocks, while in the secondary group, not less than six miles thick, not a single species now on the globe has been discovered. Hence the present races did not exist till after those in the secondary rocks had died. No human remains have been found below those alluvial deposits which are now forming by rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Hence geology infers that man was one of the latest animals that was placed on the globe.

1360. “Thirteenthly. The surface of the earth has undergone an enormous amount of erosion by the action of the ocean, the rivers, and the atmosphere. The ocean has worn away the solid rock, in some parts of the world, not less than ten thousand feet in depth, and rivers have cut channels through the hardest strata, hundreds of feet deep and several miles long; both of which effects demand periods inconceivably long.

1361. “Fourteenthly. At a comparatively recent date, northern and southern regions have been swept over and worn down by the joint action of ice and water, the force in general having been directed toward the equator. This is called the drift period.

1362. “Fifteenthly. Since the drift period, the ocean has stood some thousands of feet above its present level in many countries.

1363. “Sixteenthly. There is evidence, in regard to some parts of the world, that the continents are now experiencing slow vertical movements—some places sinking, and others rising. And hence a presumption is derived that, in early times, such changes may have been often repeated, and on a great scale.

1364. “Seventeenthly. Every successive change of importance on the earth’s surface appears to have been an improvement of its condition, adapting it to beings of a higher organization, and to man at last, the most perfect of all.

1365. “Finally. The present races of animals and plants on the globe are for the most part disposed in groups, occupying particular districts, beyond whose limits the species peculiar to those provinces usually droop and die. The same is true, to some extent, as to the animals and plants found in the rocks; though the much greater uniformity of climate that prevailed in early times permitted organized beings to take a much wider range than at present; so that the zoological and botanical districts were then probably much wider. But the general conclusion, in respect to living and extinct animals is, that there must have been several centres of creation, from which they emigrated as far as their natures would allow them to range.

1366. “It would be easy to state more principles of geology of considerable importance; but I have now named the principal ones that bear upon the subject of religion. A brief statement of the leading truths of theology, whether natural or revealed, which these principles affect, and on which they cast light, will give an idea of the subjects which I propose to discuss in these lectures.

1367. “The first point relates to the age of the world. For while it has been the usual interpretation of the Mosaic account that the world was brought into existence nearly at the same time with man and the other existing animals, geology throws back its creation to a period indefinitely but immeasurably remote. The question is, not whether man has existed on the globe longer than the common interpretation of Genesis requires,—for here geology and the Bible speak the same language,—but whether the globe itself did not exist long before his creation; that is, long before the six days’ work, so definitely described in the Mosaic account? In other words, is not this a case in which the discoveries of science enable us more accurately to understand the Scriptures?

1368. “The introduction of death into the world, and the specific character of that death described in Scripture as the consequence of sin, are the next points where geology touches the subject of religion. Here, too, the general interpretation of Scripture is at variance with the facts of geology, which distinctly testify to the occurrence of death among animals long before the existence of man. Shall geology here, also, be permitted to modify our exposition of the Bible?

1369. “The subject of deluges, and especially that of Noah, will next claim our attention. For though it is now generally agreed that geology cannot detect traces of such a deluge as the Scriptures describe, yet upon some other bearings of that subject it does cast light; and so remarkable is the history of opinions concerning the Noachian deluge, that it could not on that account alone be properly passed in silence.”

Our actions dependent, under God, on organization, education, and the extent to which we are tempted extraneously.

1370. “Are not the hairs of your head all numbered?—Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?” Luke xii. 7, 25.

1371. May it not be consistently inquired, who, without God’s assistance, can make his passions less ardent? his counteracting reason or conscientiousness more competent to restrain them? Who, prior to his sublunary existence, had the option, whether he should be born a Jew, a Gentile, or a Christian; whether in the Roman, Grecian, Episcopalian, or dissenting churches; whether his progenitors should be Chinese, Hindoos, Europeans, negroes, or savages? Who has, through his own previous choice, been brought up, on the one hand, by ignorant and vicious, or on the other, by virtuous and well-educated, parents? Can any soul be alleged to be responsible for entering the body of an infant begotten by idolaters, and thus subjected to the curse of the commandment? Or can a soul be deemed to have any merit because it came into the world as the progeny of parents orthodox in their own estimation, and happy in the belief that while myriads are to suffer to eternity in another world, for errors or crimes arising from causes beyond their control, a few are to be made eternally happy, notwithstanding their admitted sinfulness, by virtue of a bigoted confidence in the pre-eminent ability of their parents, their priests, or of themselves to learn tenets of which the great majority of mankind are ignorant? Humility in profession is associated with a towering and overbearing presumption in practice toward all who differ with them in creed: hence an effort to instruct others at the expense of millions spent in missions, while they have no better evidence of the accuracy of their own knowledge than a fallible human conviction.

1372. If two persons, A. and B., were organized exactly alike, educated precisely in the same way, and subjected to the same temptations or incentives, would they not act alike? Would not their acting differently prove that they were not alike in all respects?

1373. It may be said that they are free agents, being endowed with free-will; but if they be perfectly alike and similarly situated, (agreeably to the premises,) their free-will must be perfectly similar; and if not, let it be allowed to be, through God’s will, perfectly similar. Is it in their power to alter the nature of their will, any more than “the colour of their hair.”

1374. If any other being act differently from these, does it not follow that he is differently organized, educated, or situated from them; and that the diversity in one or all of these respects must be proportionable to the degree in which his actions and morals differ from those of A. and B.

1375. But it may be inquired, where is the merit of virtue, or the demerit of vice, if they be the consequences of causes over which we have no control? The reply is, that virtue is an endowment due to the will of Deity, just as the difference between the different races of mankind and the various genera of animals, or between individuals of the same species, must be due to that volition. An analogous idea of the necessity of God’s help to virtue is insisted upon by some of our most respectable and numerous Christian sects. It places virtue in man, so far as it may exist, upon the same basis as in God. It has always been held by all Christians that God can do no wrong; that vice is inconsistent with his nature. The more, then, a man is by nature and education incapable of being vicious, the greater his natural aptitude for virtue, the more he approaches its most perfect exemplification.

1376. But how can the punishment of the wicked be justified under this view of their case? I answer, that it can only be justified in self-defence, for the reformation of the offender, or to prevent the repetition of injury where no other means can be employed, just as killing wild beasts, noxious insects, or our enemies in warfare is justified.

1377. Punishment, unless with a view to prevention or reformation, seems to me diabolic. It seems irreconcilable with the injunction to return good for evil, that the Deity from whom it proceeds should return evil for evil, in excess; that he should, for finite and transient sins, award eternal punishment.

1378. The inference that omniscience and omnipotence could create myriads of beings, foreseeing that they must be subjected to extreme misery for an unlimited time, is irreconcilable with all goodness and omniscience. But it may be demanded, does not the fear of future punishment make mankind more virtuous? The man who avoids a felony solely through fear of future punishment is not the less wicked; he is only a more prudent, or a more cowardly villain. That piety to God and philanthropy are virtues, is most evident; but then these incentives must be disinterested. If Abraham could believe that shedding his son’s blood upon the altar would gratify the Deity, in order to make it a pious or virtuous act, it should have been unaccompanied by any expectation of benefit to himself. He must have had a conception of the Deity fully as bad as that of any heathen, to suppose that the sacrifice would be agreeable to him.

1379. There is, moreover, much reason to infer that a man who could pass his wife as his sister, and send her to a palace in order to gain influence with a king, did not lose sight of himself when he contemplated killing his son to propitiate the King of kings. But no human testimony should induce us to credit such imputations against Jehovah. Nothing is more probable than that priests should invent this absurd fable, and nothing more improbable than that an omniscient God, who could read Abraham’s inmost thoughts, should have found it necessary to ask such a barbarous sacrifice, in order to determine the extent and sincerity of that devotion of which he must have already known the precise limits.

On Probation.

1380. I have already made objections to the idea that we can be placed in this world for the purpose of probation. I will here make use of additional arguments in support of those objections. Spiritualism assumes that we are placed here for progression. It has, in this aspect, a self-evident ascendency over the scriptural doctrine.

1381. A finite being has need to subject his works to trial, in order to learn whether they have the requisite perfection; but how can an omnipotent and omniscient Deity be under any necessity of trying his works? In the first place, they must be precisely what he has designed; in the next place, foreseeing the result of any experiment he may make, he has no motive for the trial. Thus, before placing Adam and Eve in Paradise, God must have known that Adam would be incompetent to resist his wife, his wife the serpent, and that the apple would be eaten. How useless then was the experiment! How can it be reconciled with omniscience and omnipotence? The crime would not have taken place had God made woman less inquisitive; her husband strong enough morally to resist temptation and his wife’s seductive influence; or had not the serpent or Satan, under the form of this reptile, been allowed to tempt Eve. And yet in consequence of that act, not only the soul of the first man, but that of all his posterity, are considered by orthodoxy as having fallen, as being doomed to eternal punishment, unless by being morally regenerated, principally by a blind belief in the allegation of certain priests, who do not agree among themselves as to what we are to believe.

1382. But what had souls unborn to do with the acts of Adam and Eve? Is it conceivable that the soul of the child is begotten by the souls of its parents, or to be inferred that it is a spiritual being, created by God for the body, which the progenitors beget in their corporeal capacity? (See Seneca’s opinion, 1230.) How could a dumb snake, belonging to the class of reptiles, very low comparatively in intellectual capacity, acquire power of speech and reason without a special miracle on the part of God, either directly or indirectly through Satan, acting with the cognizance of his divine master. This reptile, previously created without feet, because the devil merely assumed his form, is doomed as a punishment to crawl on his belly, in the only way in which he could move consistently with his organization, independently of the sentence!!! Would it be any greater punishment to cause snakes to creep on their bellies than quadrupeds to go on their feet? Since none of the genera of serpents are endowed with reason or speech, how could they be responsible for the acts of an animal which, being endowed with those attributes, would not belong to their order? It must have been a peculiar reptile, in the form of a snake, created for the special purpose of tempting Eve. If, with Milton, it be assumed that it was Satan, in the form of a serpent, who tempted her? how could serpents be responsible for the crime?

World least moral when the Christian church had most sway.—Honour and mercantile credit more trusted than religion.—Virtue due more to the heart than to sectarianism.—Bigotry acts like an evil spirit.

1383. It will be perceived, that when the church had the world most completely under its sway, there was the least morality; but as the arts and sciences grew up, in despite of religious intolerance, morality improved. Thus a system has been established, which while violating, more especially the most emphatic monitions of Christ, tends to enforce those rules of conduct which are necessary to the welfare of society. But an auxiliary principle—honour—has come into operation, which often restrains those who are not influenced by religion, nor by pure morality. Honour, like the fear of hell, may make a man act more nobly, or more honestly, without improving his religious principles or his heart. Hence the saying, “Honour among thieves,” and likewise among unprincipled gamblers.

1384. Mercantile honour, under the name of mercantile credit, is another important substitute for real heartfelt integrity. The ill consequences of a loss of worldly consideration, or of those advantages which result from the ability to borrow, or to postpone payment with consent of the creditor, is a motive for punctual payment, when a debt equally due, in honesty, would be neglected. This goes much farther as an element of the prevailing morality in securing punctual payment, than religion.

1385. That religion has actually very little to do with mercantile morals, must be evident, since it is never, on change, an object of inquiry. When men are about to trust large sums, they do not inquire how often the other party goes to church, nor to what church he goes. It has never been my lot to know any one whom I thought better for his religion. I have known many whom I thought better through native goodness of heart than they would have been if left to the influence of their bigoted opinions alone. I heard a clergyman, distinguished for his amiability and liberality in social intercourse, speak from the pulpit of infidelity as “the work of the devil.”

1386. There are allegations of this kind made from the pulpit which to me appear to be absolutely calumnious, though those who make them do not conceive themselves to be calumniators. It is, in truth, their false religion which speaks; they are possessed as if by an evil spirit, yet the goodness of their hearts prevents them from realizing any such calumnies in their personal intercourse with society. Dr. Berg said it was not he (Dr. Berg) that spoke when he used ill language to Barker, but the Bible. There is a want of Christian moderation in the language of Christ, and John the Baptist, and in some of the Psalms, which seems inconsistent with Christ’s precepts. John, addressing the Pharisees as “vipers fleeing from the wrath to come,” representing them as poisonous reptiles, and God as enraged against them. The language of Christ respecting some of the same sect, to which allusion has been made, is even more abusive.

1387. But among the calumnies to which I have alluded, are those which represent the human heart as innately wicked, and only to be corrected by religious regeneration. All the souls created since Adam ate the apple, must be born anew, thus drawing a marked distinction between those who have gone through this second birth, and such as myself, who have not undergone this recuperative process. But what man of common sense draws a line between those who are thought to have been born over again, and those who have not? The great majority of those who call themselves Christians, do not put any more trust in one who has gone through this second birth, than in one who is not deemed to have been thus regenerated.

Progress of Literature and Science in Arabia under the Mohammedan Pontiffs, called Caliphs.

1388. While the science and literature of the Roman Empire sank under the influence of the Christian pontiff (pope) into ignorance, superstition, and vice, the Arabians, under the influence of their Mohammedan pontiffs, (caliphs,) arose from barbarism to a comparatively superior state of intellectual acquirement, as the following quotation, from “Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” will show:

1389. “After their civil and domestic wars, the subjects of the Abbassides, awakening from this mental lethargy, found leisure and felt curiosity for the acquisition of profane science. This spirit was first encouraged by the Caliph Almansor, who, besides his knowledge of the Mohammedan law, had applied himself with success to the study of astronomy, but when the sceptre devolved to Almamon, the seventh of the Abbassides, he completed the designs of his grandfather, and invited the muses from their ancient seats. His ambassadors at Constantinople, his agents in Armenia, Syria, and Egypt, collected the volumes of Grecian science: at his command they were translated by the most skilful interpreters into the Arabic language; his subjects were exhorted assiduously to peruse these instructive writings; and the successor of Mohammed assisted with pleasure and modesty at the assemblies and disputations of the learned. ‘He was not ignorant,’ says Abulpharagius, ‘that they are the elect of God, his best and most useful servants, whose lives are devoted to the improvement of their rational faculties. The mean ambition of the Chinese or the Turk may glory in the industry of their hands, or the indulgence of their brutal appetites. Yet these dexterous artists must view, with hopeless emulation, the hexagons and pyramids of the cells of a bee-hive: these fortitudinous heroes are awed by the superior fierceness of the lions and tigers; and in their amorous enjoyments, they are much inferior to the vigour of the grossest and most sordid quadrupeds. The teachers of wisdom are the true luminaries and legislators of a world, which, without their aid, would again sink in ignorance and barbarism.’ The zeal and curiosity of Almamon were imitated by succeeding princes of the line of Abbas: their rivals, the Fatimites of Africa and the Ommiades of Spain, were the patrons of the learned, as well as the commanders of the faithful: the same royal prerogative was claimed by their independent emirs of the provinces; and their emulation diffused the taste and the rewards of science from Samarcand and Bochara to Fez and Cordova. The vizir of a sultan consecrated a sum of two hundred thousand pieces of gold to the foundation of a college at Bagdad, which he endowed with an annual revenue of fifteen thousand dinars. The fruits of instruction were communicated, perhaps at different times, to six thousand disciples of every degree, from the son of the noble to that of the mechanic: a sufficient allowance was provided for the indigent scholars; and the merit or industry of the professors was repaid with adequate stipends. In every city the productions of Arabic literature were copied and collected by the curiosity of the studious and the vanity of the rich. A private doctor refused the invitation of the sultan of Bochara, because the carriage of his books would have required four hundred camels. The royal library of the Fatimites consisted of one hundred thousand manuscripts, elegantly transcribed and splendidly bound, which were lent, without jealousy or avarice, to the students of Cairo. Yet this collection must appear moderate, if we can believe that the Ommiades of Spain had formed a library of six hundred thousand volumes, forty-four of which were employed in the mere catalogue. Their capital, Cordova, with the adjacent towns of Malaga, Almeria, and Murcia, had given birth to more than three hundred writers, and above seventy public libraries were opened in the cities of the Andalusian kingdom. The age of Arabian learning continued about five hundred years, till the great eruption of the Moguls, and was coeval with the darkest and most slothful period of European annals; but since the sun of science has arisen in the West, it should seem that the Oriental studies have languished and declined.”

1390. I here close my remarks upon the Influence of Scripture on the Morals of Christians. They have proceeded from a desire to promulgate what I deem to be truth, and to expose the errors by which I conceive it to be environed. It is inconsistent with my nature to state less than the truth when treating on any subject. I shall be sorry for any pain which I may give to those whose hearts are so associated with their opinions, that whatever conflicts with the one is painful to the other; yet I wish any persons so wounded to reflect how little denunciation has been spared, not only as respects opinions, but as respects motives, where “infidels,” unjustly so called, have been held up to view. I have not assailed the motives of any one; even as respects opinions, I have withheld or modified sarcasms which, as I think, might have been justly employed, or used without modification.

---