Earlier text: General ArticlesModern Spiritualism.
By Editor
THERE is no one particular wherein Spiritualism is proving itself a curse to the age and to the race more than this. "Free Love" is a common phrase with a certain class of "reformers," who wish to abolish not only the Bible, but all its institutions. Some Spiritualists deny being Free Lovers; but this denial cannot screen the system from the charge of upholding the abomination; for 1. We have never known a Free Lover who was not a Spiritualist, and if Spiritualism and Free Lovism are not identical, they at least have a wonderful "affinity" for each other! 2. It is well known that a large proportion of Spiritualists are Free Lovers, both theoretically and practically; and they go, not only unrebuked, but indorsed as Spiritualist laborers, in lecturing and writing. It avails nothing for an individual to deny the charge as applying to himself, as long as he associates and fraternizes with, and upholds, those who are openly committed to it. He gives it all the aid of his influence and association, which is sometimes much stronger than that of practice. Our main inquiry is, What are the practical tendencies of Spiritualism? We care nothing for individuals only as they represent the system. Let the reader consider the testimony of Randolph, Whitney, Hatch, Harris, and Potter, which we have given, and decide for himself. But we propose to give further evidence on this point, that all may be aware of the designs of this class of reformers, as well as of the general tendencies of their teachings. Dr. Potter further says:—
"So strong has been the Free-Love tendency, and so numerous and influential, media, speakers, and Spiritualists, of Free-Love proclivities and practice, that we do not know of a single Spiritualist paper that has paid expenses, that has not had their assistance and promulgated their doctrines." "One of the oldest if not the most influential paper has several noted Free Lovers and libertines as special, honored correspondents." "Parting husbands and wives is one of the notorious tendencies of Spiritualism. The oldest and most influential teacher of Spiritualism has had two wives, each of whom he encouraged to get divorced before he married them. When one of the most eloquent trance speakers left her husband, he came out and stated he knew sixty cases of media leaving companions. We heard one of the most popular impressional speakers say, to a large audience, that she was compelled by the spirits to secede from a husband with whom she was living very happily. We lately heard a very intellectual, eloquent, and popular normal speaker say, in an eloquent address to a large convention of Spiritualists, that 'he would to God that it had parted twenty where it had parted one.' In short, wherever we go, we find this tendency in Spiritualism."—Spiritualism as it Is, pages 10, 11. "After years of careful investigation, we are compelled, much against our inclinations, to admit that more than one-half of our travelling media, speakers, and prominent Spiritualists, are guilty of immoral and licentious practices that have justly provoked the abhorrence of all right thinking people."—Id., page 20. It would seem to be some relief to the dark outline if their teachings were better than their practices; but they are not. A Spiritualist paper published in Indiana, called the Kingdom of Heaven, June, 1865, in a platform of principles "adopted at Huntsville, Madison Co., Indiana," says:—
"It is resolved that it is conceded by all good and wise mortals and angels, that all men and women are born free and equal, so far as natural rights are concerned; that these natural rights are unalienable in the broadest, and widest, and fullest acceptation of that term; that amongst these is the right to self, in any and every sense, under all circumstances, at all times and in all places; that as this right is unalienable it cannot be given up, nor justly restrained, with or without the consent of the individual; but that all men and women are endowed with the natural right (and hence unalienable) to pursue happiness in the way and manner they may choose, amenable and accountable to no power but the God who conferred it." This, with more to the same intent, is sanctioned, according to that paper, by the following spirits; the accompanying note will show what respect they have for "the authority of the God who conferred it":—
"Approving spirits or disembodied minds present: Jesus Christ, Emanuel Swedenborg, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Clay, and legions of others."
"Note.—We would have our readers understand that we have no more reverence for Jesus Christ, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln, than we have for Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, or J. Wilkes Booth. We neither worship nor praise the former, nor condemn the latter. All were but instruments of Omnipotent power; neither of whom were any better than you or I." If any are in doubt as to the intent of the above platform, the following remark by the editor of that paper will make it all clear:—
"Yet we are neither a Shaker nor a Mormon; nor are we to be bound by the popular marriage laws and customs of society as now organized; but we would that man and woman should make love only by nature's law of attraction, with as little outward law and ceremony as do the little birds in the groves." The editor of the World's Crisis, copying this, makes the following very truthful comment:—
"Persons holding such principles, are the ones who claim that a religion based on the Bible is 'demoralizing.' This is very much like a drunkard and rum-seller who should speak of the demoralizing effects of temperance societies, because he had less company and patronage; or a seducer who should call virtue demoralizing because it deprived him of his victims." At a Spiritualist Convention held in Ravenna, Ohio, July 4 and 5, 1858, a Mrs. Lewis said:—
"To confine her to love one man was an abridgment of her rights. Although she had one husband in Cleveland, she considered herself married to the whole human race. All men were her husbands, and she had an undying love for them. What business is it to the world whether one man is the father of my children, or ten men are? I have a right to say who shall be the father of my offspring." A Spiritualist paper, in reporting this, very modestly said they did not think public conventions the proper places to introduce such subjects! but did not offer a word of condemnation of the sentiment. At a convention held in Rutland, Vt., in June, 1858, the following resolution was presented and defended:—
"Resolved, That the only true and natural marriage is an exclusive conjugal love between one man and one woman; and the only true home is the isolated home based on this love." People have formerly thought that love led to marriage, but according to the above, love is marriage; so whenever they love, they are married—naturally married! and of course when they cease to love, this relation ceases; they are no longer married—naturally divorced. And of course this may be repeated as often as love finds a new "attraction." Mrs. Julia Branch, of New York, as reported in the Banner of Light, in defending the above resolution used the following words:—
"I am aware that I have chosen almost a forbidden subject; forbidden from the fact that any one who can or dare look the marriage question in the face, candidly and openly denouncing the institution as the sole cause of woman's degradation and misery, are objects of suspicion, of scorn, and opprobrious epithets."
"The slavery and degradation of woman proceeds from the institution of marriage; by the marriage contract, she loses the control of her name, her person, her property, her labor, her affection, her children, her freedom. Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Rose, and others go back to the mother's influence. I go back further and say that it is the marriage institution that is at fault; which is the binding ceremony which keeps woman degraded in mental freedom; she must demand her right to receive the equal wages of man in payment for her labor; her right to have children when she will and by whom." Similar to the above resolution is the following from the Pilgrimage of Thomas Paine, page 15:—
"I had mourned her death as the severest of all possible calamities. We were united. Nothing but the form of marriage was wanting to make one in the sight of the world. We were married. I loved her as I never loved another." At a Spiritualist Convention in Kiantone Valley, Chautauqua Co., New York, Sept., 1858, Mr. Codding was reported to have spoken as follows under spirit influence:—
"Marriage is slavery, and should be abolished. Those groaning beneath the galling fetters of matrimony should be freed at once, and left to bestow their affections when and where they please." It is worth observing how complacently Spiritualist conventions sit and listen to such vile expressions. No one feels aggrieved—no one demurs. They are taken rather as a matter of course, which all Spiritualists seem to well understand. Could such sentiments find acceptance in any other meetings than those of Spiritualists? Never. This sign is unmistakable. We have quoted several authorities showing that Spiritualism has separated husbands and wives, and mediums are generally regardless of obligation in this respect. As a sequel to Dr. Hatch's evidence on this point, we here notice the report of a meeting in Clinton Hall, New York, where Cora Scott (the late Mrs. Hatch) lectured, as usual, under the spirit influence. At the close of her lecture a discussion arose, and while an elderly man was speaking, a young man interrupted him. The latter part of the scene we give as found in a Boston paper. The young man said:—
"I have come here to shame that old man. He is my father. He left his wife and children, and is now living with Cora Hatch, in East Broadway."
"A voice.—Well, go home, and do not come here to settle your private troubles."
"Young man.—You may think I am doing wrong; but if you knew all the facts of the case you would think I am doing right."
"Several voices.—Go on. Let us hear the story. Take the stand,' etc.
"Young man.—I have done everything to get that man to do right by his family, but I have not been able to do so. I am his son, and am here to shame him in public. His name is William McKinley, and he keeps a store at the corner of Chatham and Pearl streets. He has beaten my mother and treated her most shamefully, and he has abandoned her to live with Cora Hatch." But such facts as these do not interfere with her "angelic ministrations," as Warren Chase calls them, nor detract one whit from her popularity as a trance-speaker among Spiritualists. And why should they? have they not declared in their National Convention that immorality is no bar to fellowship? Dr. Gridley was instructed that there are six circles or degrees in which both men and spirits dwell; in the first are savages, barbarians, and the very refuse of civilized society; in the second, the lowest class of civilized society, including the ordinary church members, exhorters, etc.; in third are the best and true-hearted in the churches, and no person can belong to any higher degree than this; the fourth degree is called the day of Judgment or resurrection, and most of the reformers are in this degree—some have passed through it to the fifth—and it usually takes about eleven years to pass through it. By this synopsis of their teachings the reader will be able to understand the references in the following extract from remarks on "Celestial Marriage," by spirits professing to be in the fifth degree:—
"They affirm that any positive spirit has free access to any negative spirit where there is affinity—that though the male may have a female companion who is constitutionally adapted to be him a better help-meet on the whole than any other, and so generally accompanies him, yet the latter has no jealousy and knows no exclusiveness, that she is glad to have the life of God increased in any way, and anywhere—that the same liberty will ere long be given to men on earth, 'who are found worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead,' done without putting off the body."—Astounding Facts from the Spirit World, page 172. Evil-minded spirits in all the degrees are represented as given to licentiousness. But the point to which we call especial attention is the license for promiscuous intercourse which is soon to be given to men on earth. Note that the license will extend to all above the fourth degree—that the true reformers are all in that degree, except a few who have passed through it—and that it usually takes about eleven years to pass through what a flood of iniquity these demons intend soon to pour upon the world! A Pillar in the Temple.
By Wayside
AMONG the rich and varied words of promise in the book of Revelation to "him that overcometh," I have been struck with one expression to the beloved church at Philadelphia: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God." We may have been accustomed to think of this as a promise of Heaven, and rightly too, yet may it not have an application to the kingdom on earth, which is "the image of the heavenly"? If so, what is the import of this promise? A pillar is often a thing of beauty, with symmetrical base, fluted shaft, and carved capital, harmoniously combined to please the eye and gratify the taste. But this artistic finish is an addition: it is not essential to the original design. A pillar may be rough and uncomely, and yet fulfill its object; but it must be strong to sustain the weight of the building that rests upon it. Have you ever listened to a soldier’s story of his experience in the war? What is the memory that kindles his enthusiasm and rouses his tongue to eloquence? Is it the long months when he lay, full fed and with nothing to do, merely treading the round of formal duties within the shelter of a fortified camp? No, his mind goes back to the laborious march and the fearful battle, the days of toil and danger, the nights of weariness and watching, perhaps of hunger and thirst, followed at length by the hard-won triumph for his country and his flag. An army chaplain once remarked that he could see a plain difference in the spirits of men in hospital who were disabled by wounds, and those who were brought there by sickness. The former were apt to be cheerful and hopeful, encouraging each other with the idea that they would yet have another chance at the enemy, and help to finish up the work they had come out to do. The latter very often wore a gloomy and despairing look, as of men who feel that they have failed in the work they have undertaken. May not a parallel to this be found in the spiritual warfare? The man who is earnest and zealous in pushing the battle against the powers of evil will indeed be likely to receive wounds, deep and painful, and sometimes from those to whom he had looked for help and sympathy; but hard as these may be to bear, are they not preferable to the dry-rot that eats away the soul of the spiritual sluggard? Few churches, perhaps, are without representatives of both these classes. Brother A is always expected to be in his place at the social meeting, in the Sabbath school, at the business meeting, and in all work of the church. Sister B, too, may always be depended upon, and nobody expects her to shirk any duty that may be required of her. Brother C, on the other hand, contents himself with attending the preaching services and making a scanty contribution of his money. Sister D is unmistakably in earnest on the subject of feathers and flounces, but it is difficult to discover the labor and energy she gives to the interests of the church. There may be pressing need for new and more earnest efforts for Christ, but long experience has taught all parties that nothing is to be expected of these honorary members. Unless new forces can be enlisted, the new burdens must be laid on the same shoulders which are already bearing the old. These things ought not so to be; yet the loss and damage are not so great to the worker as to the drone. Not only is it true that the Master will come and reckon with his servants; it is true also that even now the active Christian finds his labors sweetened by an enjoyment to which the slothful servant is a stranger. So true is this that it is a severe test of Christian character to be laid aside from active duty, even by the unavoidable infirmities of sickness or age. Many a man has found the need, under such circumstances, of greater grace than was required in all the toils of his active life. And if this is true when his inactivity is his misfortune and not his fault, how much greater is the difference when he voluntarily leaves to his fellow the whole burden which he ought to share! Brother, upon whom the burdens of the church rest heavily, do not repine at God’s appointments, but rejoice that you are counted worthy to be one of the supports of his church below. Bear cheerfully the burden and heat of the day, and God will bring you, in his good time, to his glorious temple in the skies, where you shall abide in the house of the Lord forever. And you, my brother, to whom also God has said, "Go work to day in my vineyard," will you always linger at the gate, engaging heartily in no work for the Master? Where, then, will your reward when the laborers shall return with rejoicing to receive their Lord’s "Well done"? Come, claim your privilege, and take cheerfully your share of labors and responsibilities, counting it not a grievous burden, but one of the Lord’s rich blessings, that you may be one of the pillars of his earthly temple. — Wayside. A GENTLE WORD IS NEVER LOST.
A GENTLE word is never lost,
Oh! never then refuse one;
It cheers the heart when tempest-tossed,
And lulls the cares that bruise one;
It scatters sunshine o'er the way,
And turns our thorns to roses;
It changes weary night to day,
And love and hope discloses. A gentle word is never lost:—
Thy fallen brothers need it;
How easy and how small the cost—
With peace and comfort speed it;
Then drive the shadow from thy cheek,
A smile can well replace it:
Our voice is music when we speak
With gentle words to grace it. NOTHING is more amiable than true modesty, and nothing is more contemptible than the false. The one guards virtue, the other betrays it. Making Too Much of the Sabbath!
By Editor
THOSE who keep the seventh-day are often accused of making too much of the Sabbath—of being too tenacious of the matter of the fourth commandment. But frequently the thoughtful among our opposers rise up and vindicate our position, though they have no sympathy with us in the observance of the seventh day. Mr. Noble, of the Plymouth Congregational Church, San Francisco, is giving a series of Sunday night lectures on Sunday amusements. Of the importance of the Sabbath he speaks as follows:— "Abolish the Sabbath and the social sanity it fosters, and in less than a century the conflict between labor and capital will issue here in petroleum and fire bottles. Give America, from sea to sea, the Parisian Sunday, and in two hundred years all our greatest cities will be politically under the heels of the leatherheads, the roughs, the sneaks, and the money-gripers. God, no longer brought before the minds of our people by the public services of the sanctuary, with our heterogeneous population and with the antagonistic forces already in existence working themselves out with no let or hindrance, what will there be to prevent the awful scenes witnessed in ungodly Paris in 1870 from finding a repetition in this metropolis of the Pacific Coast? What will there be to keep the hand upon the dial-plate of our civilization from turning ceaselessly backward, till at last it shall be written of us, as of the doomed Roman nation, that even as we did not like to retain God in our knowledge, He gave us over to a reprobate mind, 'to worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever, amen.' My fellow countrymen, if we love our God, and would have our people 'happy and prosperous in Jehovah,' let us remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy unto the Lord." This picture is not overdrawn. All paganism is the result of the nations not liking to retain God in their knowledge. Because of this they cease to worship the Creator, and blindly bow down to the creature. In the same scripture to which reference is here made, Paul says the eternal power and Godhead of the Deity are "understood by the things that are made." Rom. 1:20. Or, as the psalmist says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork." Ps 19:1. God provided a safeguard against paganism and heathenism, so that his "wonderful works" may "be remembered." Ps. 111:4. This safeguard is the memorial of the work of his hands, which is the holy Sabbath. Jehovah said, concerning the keeping of the Sabbath, "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever, in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Ex. 31:17. The design and importance of this sign is fully set forth in the following scripture:—"Hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you that ye may know that I am the Lord your God." Eze. 20:20. Yes, as the apostle said, the eternal power and Godhead of Jehovah are understood by the things that are made; his works declare his power and glory. But man has neglected the memorial of his work, and therefore has forgotten God. Can the importance of the Sabbath be over-estimated? Now after all their finding fault with us for over-estimating the Sabbath, they will accept our estimate, and grant all that the Scriptures teach of the importance of the Sabbath if we will let it all apply to Sunday. But the fatal difficulty in their way is this: It will not apply to Sunday! Sunday is not the sanctified rest day of the Lord, and the Lord never consecrated it to commemorate anything whatever. Certainly it does not prove the power of God in creating the heavens and the earth. "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." When Paul taught the Athenians who is the true God, he gave the same evidence: "God that made the world, and all things therein." Acts 17:24. Mr. Noble took Isa. 58:13, 14, for his text, and said, of the Sabbath, it is "an institution that runs back to the very morning of the past;" which is true of the Lord's holy Sabbath, but is not true of Sunday. The institution which God honored by himself resting upon it, by blessing it, and sanctifying it as his rest-day,—the Edenic Sabbath, which runs back to that hour when "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy," rejoicing in the work of his hands,—is the seventh day, and not Sunday. We see no connection between "Sunday amusements" and Sabbath desecration. But why so tenacious of the seventh day? is still asked. Our answer is given in the very words of Jehovah; it is because "the seventh day is the Sabbath." While we value the Sabbath we must value the seventh day. They are inseparable; they are identical; "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it;" not an institution separable from the seventh day, but the seventh day itself is the thing sanctified. In setting at naught the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, both the right and the authority of the Creator are disregarded. God says of the seventh day, it "is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," "My holy day," "the holy of the Lord." When he gave to man six days whereon to labor and do all his work, He reserved the seventh day to himself, for his own glory. Who dare dispute his right? And with a voice that shook the very earth, he commanded us to keep it holy. Who shall question his authority, or the reasonableness of the obligation and the requirement? "Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil." Isa. 56:2. A Needless Criticism.
By Editor
SEVERAL times we have received complaints because the name of Jesus is omitted from the reports of labor of our ministers. And it is intimated, if not directly expressed in all instances, that it is because we value something more highly than the Saviour. We think this criticism is not only needless, but quite unjust. We know that our ministers value Christ as highly as any class of people in the world, if not more. The high estimate we put upon the holy law of God, is a reason for our highly valuing the Redeemer. Because the law is holy, and just, and good, none but the exalted Son of God can meet its demands in our behalf, and cleanse us from its violation. If the law were not holy, its claims could be easily met, or its demands might be set aside. So much for the intimation. Now let us briefly compare the writings of our brethren with those of others, and the contents of our paper with those of other religious works. Remember, the fault is every time found only in respect to reports of labor. The Princeton Review will be accepted as Christian and orthodox. We open the number for September, 1879, and find the opening article by a D. D. whose orthodoxy is unquestioned—Philip Schaff. The subject is suggestive, too—"Christianity in America." It occupies over 43 pages, and yet the name Jesus Christ, occurs but once, and that of Christ, twice more. This, we think, is the sum total. We do not consider the omission a defect, even though "the Chinese" are mentioned many more times! Another article on "Christianity and Morality,"—an excellent theme for the mention of the name of Jesus if it were necessary—by another D. D., 26 pages, and the name of Jesus appears once (quotation, Rom. 3:26), and that of Confucius once! Does that prove that he valued the name of Confucius as highly as that of Jesus? We take up a large religious weekly, a page of which contains more than a page of our paper, and examine the leading articles, most of them by Doctors of Divinity, and a lengthy one on the subject of foreign missions, and we think the name of Jesus or of Christ does not occur in eight entire pages. We examine two other papers, not only Christian in profession, but carrying the term "Christian" as a part of their titles, and we examine page after page of leading articles, by Christian ministers, in which the sacred name of the Son of God does not occur. We are far from finding fault with these writers because they do not constantly repeat the name of Jesus when it is not necessary in order to make themselves understood. We approve their judgment and their practice. If they omitted it because they wished to ignore it, or because they did not respect it, we should look upon it in quite another light. We are willing that all should understand our position in approving the action of our ministers in their reports, because we consider it unnecessary to often repeat the name of the Supreme being in such connection, and, to speak the name of the Deity unnecessarily, we hold to be decidedly wrong. Some consider it a mark of respect to God and his Son, to keep up a constant repetition of their names, but we consider it an act of irreverence. We have often been shocked by hearing ministers in the pulpit make use of the name as given in Rev. 11:17, when it was not at all necessary to make themselves understood. This we look upon as a violation of the third commandment. It is using the sacred name without a reason—it is taking it in vain. We have also been pained to hear people needlessly and, we think, irreverently, repeat the name of the Father or the Son in their prayers often and habitually. It becomes a habit with some, even to weaving the name, more than once, into each sentence. We do not believe it is pleasing to God to repeat so constantly and unnecessarily the "glorious and fearful name" which should be used only with great reverence and circumspection. We respect the intention and the feelings of those who thus find fault with us, but we think they have a zeal not according to correct knowledge. In a ministry of over a quarter of a century we have never spoken the title of Deity as expressed in Rev. 11:17, and a few other places, except in directly reading or quoting the texts themselves; and we do not regret the fact. We hope our correspondents will feel relieved; and if they have at any time thought they could honor the Saviour by frequent repetition of his name without obeying the commandments of his Father, whom he came into the world to honor, we recommend to them a careful study of Matt. 7:21-23. He Made a Mistake.
By Editor
IN some remarks made at the Fresno camp-meeting we said, in reference to the supposed medicinal effects of narcotics and stimulants, as tobacco and whisky, that, if the theory were correct; if such medicinal powers really existed in them, the effect would be lost by continual usage. In this we only stated a well-known truth. A given amount of cathartic may produce a certain effect on the system; but if the same amount be taken daily for three months, the same effect will not follow. The system, by long-continued abuse, fails to recognize the intruder. It may be that the powers of the organs become partially paralyzed, and so cannot respond when a call is made. But whatever the cause may be the fact remains beyond question. On this a friend reasons and concludes thus: If a narcotic ceases to have effect on the system by long-continued usage, then tobacco can have no effect on my system, as I have used it many years! That is not what we said; and no one at all acquainted with the subject would arrive at such a conclusion. It does not have the same effect on the system that it had at the commencement of use. This every one knows. And, if it had any medicinal effect at first, it ceases to have, after long use. A given amount of brandy does not have the same effect on a man after he has used it daily for ten years, that it had when he commenced to use it. Is it right thence to conclude that it is no longer injurious to that man to drink it? If the aim was to produce a certain effect at first, that effect does not follow after using it for years. But it has an effect; it is certainly injurious, and is gradually undermining the whole system. And so with all stimulants and narcotics. We knew a lady who, for a certain ailment, was given regularly for months minute doses of strychnia. After a time the same quantity ceased to have any apparent effect, and, so far from fearing any injury from the use, she craved it, and felt that it was necessary to her system. Was it therefore innocent? By no means. After a time it manifested its baneful power; her nervous system gave way, and was shattered beyond all hope of recovery. If that person who reasons as above, thinks that tobacco has no effect on his system, let him stop using it for forty-eight hours, and mark the result. If he does not become convinced that it holds him in slavery more abject than any of which he ever dreamed, we shall confess ourselves mistaken. Many who are convinced that it is injurious and wrong to use it dare not attempt to reform, as they both dread the trial and fear a failure. They realize something of its power. A man in Stockton, Cal., once said to us: “A man is not half a man who uses tobacco.” “Why, then,” we queried, “do you not abstain from its use?” “That is the very reason,” he replied; “I have not manhood enough left to stop it!” A sad experience with the vile narcotic, years ago, enables us to appreciate his answer. Let the apologist for tobacco ponder it well.