This is a favorite comparison with them,—that the difference between God and the best of men is so much greater than the extremes of character among men,—the most upright and the most wicked,—that the latter is a mere atom, and not accounted of in God's sight. That there is an infinite difference between God and the best of men, is all true; for God is infinite in all his attributes, and man is very imperfect at the best. But to argue from this that [pg 097] God is inferior to man, so that he cannot discern difference in character here, even as man can plainly discern it, seems but mad-house reasoning. What would we think of the man who had the same regard for the thief as for the honest man, for the murderer as for the philanthropist? To ignore such distinctions as even men are able to discern would destroy the stability of all human governments; what then would be the effect on the divine government? God has given his law—holy, just, and good—to men, and commanded obedience. He has attached the penalty to disobedience: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” “The wages of sin is death.” Eze. 18:20; Rom. 6:23. And in the judgment, the distinction God makes in character will be plainly declared; for he will set the righteous on his right hand, but the wicked on the left. Matt. 25:32, 33.
This view of the failure of law, and the absence of all human accountability, naturally leads to a bold denial of sin and the existence of crime. The “Healing of the Nations,” p. 169, says: “Unto God there is no error; all is comparatively good.” The same work says that God views error as “undeveloped good.” A. J. Davis (“Nature of Divine Revelation,” p. 521) says: “Sin, indeed, in the common acceptation of that term, does not really exist.”
A discourse from J. S. Loveland, once a minister, reported in the Banner of Light, contained this paragraph:—
“With God there is no crime; with man there is. Crime does not displease God, but it does man. God is in the darkest crime, as in the highest possible holiness. He is equally pleased in either case. Both harmonize equally with his attributes—they are only different sides of the same Deity.”
In “Automatic Writing” (1896), p. 139, a question was asked concerning evil, meaning sin and crimes among men. The spirit answered that these were conditions of progress, and were so necessary to elevation that they were to be welcomed, not hated. The questions and answers are as follows:—
“Ques.—Can you give us any information in regard to the so-called Devil—once so firmly believed in?
“Ans.—Devil is a word used to conjure with.
“Q.—Well, then, as the word itself doubtless arose from the word ‘evil,’ which means to us unhappiness, can you give us an explanation of the existence of evil?
“A.—Evil—as you who are the greatest sufferers from it, name one of the conditions of progress—is as necessary, aye, more so, than what you call good, to your and our elevation to higher spheres. It is not to be hated, but welcomed. It is the winnowing of the grain from the chaff. Children of truth, don't worry over what to you seems evil; soon you will be of us and will understand, and be rejoiced that what you call evil persists and works as leaven in the great work of mind versus matter.
“Q.—But it seems to us impossible that brutal crimes like murder, assassinations, or great catastrophes, by which the innocent are made to suffer at the hands of malicious and cruel persons, should work for ultimate good?