INTUITIVE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SPIRITS. (continued 7)

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:

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, 764764.) 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.