p. 102 | Review and Herald, Vol. 44, No. 13. (9/15/1874)

Protestant and Catholic Commandment Arguments

By Dudley Marvin Canright

THE PROTESTANT ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT, COMPARED WITH THE CATHOLIC ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SECOND COMMANDMENT.

It is a well-known fact that Roman Catholics, the world over, do make images and likenesses of God, of Christ, and of the saints; that they put these in all of their places of devotion, and that they do bow down before them, make prayers to them, and regard them with great veneration. To us Protestants it seems astonishing that they can do this with the Bible before them, which they profess to believe. Does not the Bible everywhere condemn images and image worship? Does not the second commandment of the decalogue especially prohibit these?

How, then, do the Catholics get over this? Very easily indeed. This is their answer: The second commandment was an old Jewish law which belonged only to that age of bondage. It was abolished on the cross, and hence is not binding upon us Christians! The liberty of the gospel now allows us to use images, provided we do not do it superstitiously! Those who go back to the old law and condemn this pious custom are Judaizers and have denied Christ, and they ought to be circumcised and offer sacrifices! Mr. Bower, in his “History of the Popes,” vol. ii. pp. 157–8, thus states the Catholic argument on this point. Of the council held at Nice, in A. D. 787, the historian says:—

“They closed the session with a peal of anathemas against all in general who did not salute, honor, worship, and adore, the holy and venerable images, and against the Emperor Leo in particular, his son Copronymus, and the impious assembly of Judaizing bishops, convened by the latter for the destruction of images, and the exaltation of the kingdom of Satan. The fifth session, held on the 4th of October, was opened by Tarasius with a declamation, or rather invective, wherein the Iconoclasts were compared to the Jews, Samaritans, Pagans, Mahometans, Manichees, etc. When he had done they were declared by the whole assembly worse than Jews, Samaritans, or Mahometans, because they destroyed images ignorantly, being strangers to Christianity.”

“When the second commandment was alleged, and other passages out of the Scripture, forbidding the worship of images, they were angry that words spoken long ago to the Jews should be applied to the Christians, as if the precepts of the decalogue were not binding with respect to the Christians, and our Saviour had come to destroy the law, and not to fulfill it.”

Again, in a note on page 195, Mr. Bower says: “But by God himself,” replied the Emperor, “we are expressly forbidden to make any graven images, to bow down to them, or to worship them. The Jews were forbidden,” answered Theodore; “but the law given to them is not binding with respect to us Christians, else why should we not be circumcised as well as the Jews?” where he ignorantly confounds the ceremonial law with the decalogue. But he had, it seems, perused the acts of the second council of Nice, and read there of a learned bishop wondering at the ignorance of the Iconoclast heretics, in alleging against the Christians words spoken so long ago to the Jews. (See p. 158.) The Emperor maintained that the law given to Moses was binding with respect to the Christians as well as the Jews, our Saviour having declared that he came not to destroy but to fulfill the law; and, consequently, if it was idolatry in a Jew to bow down to images and worship them, it was likewise idolatry in a Christian. In answer to this was urged by Theodore the example of our Saviour himself, who had sent his picture to Abgarus, king of Edessa (see p. 29); the example of St. Luke (see p. 30); and many others who had painted him in the earliest times, and whose pictures were still to be seen, and still were worshiped by the faithful; the many advantages attending the use as well as the worship of images, and the uninterrupted use of the church from the times of Christ and his apostles to the present.”

This language is so like that which we Sabbath-keepers daily hear from our opponents, in their arguments against the fourth commandment that it sounds very familiar. Because we obey the fourth commandment of God's holy law, which says that the seventh day is the Sabbath, we are stigmatized as Judaizers, as being strangers to Christianity, as going back to the old law which was given only to the Jews. And it is urged that to be consistent we ought to offer sacrifices, etc. Now, if these arguments are valid against the seventh-day Sabbath, then the Catholic argument against the second commandment is equally sound. But the truth is, that these arguments, both Catholic and Protestant, are a bold perversion of the word of God, subverting his holy law. Alex. Campbell, in his celebrated debate with Bishop Purcell, pp. 214, 215, says:—

“The single fact that the four archbishops of Ireland and the Roman Catholic college of Maynooth should have impiously dared to strike one commandment from the ten, which God wrote on two tables with his own finger, and should have changed and divided the tenth into two, speaks volumes in proof of my allegation against the Romanist rule of faith.”

“It is a poor apology for this expurgation of the decalogue, that it is not so done in the Douay Bible; for when these catechisms were introduced, and even yet in most Catholic countries, not one layman in a thousand ever read that Bible; the catechism, intended for universal consumption, contained all this knowledge of God's law. What myriads, then, through this fraud, must have lived and died in the belief that the second commandment was no part of God's law!”

“It is clearly proved that the pastors of the church have struck out one of God's ten words, which not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality. They have also made a ninth commandment out of the tenth, and their ninth, in that independent position, becomes identical with the seventh commandment, and makes God use tautology in the only instrument in the universe that he wrote with his own hand! But why this annulling of the second commandment? Because it is a positive prohibition of the practice of bowing down to images, and doing them homage; a custom dearer to the Romish Church than both the second and seventh commandments! It is, however, gross idolatry.”

This language is none too severe. Mr. Campbell strikes at the root of the matter, when he declares that the reason why Catholics have set aside the second commandment is because they held a custom forbidden by that commandment, a custom dearer to them than the law of Jehovah. The same is true of Sunday-keepers. The fourth commandment requiring the observance of the seventh day is plain enough. Its obligation upon the Christian is clear enough from the New Testament Scriptures. But Sunday-keepers find themselves observing the first day of the week and violating God's Sabbath. This practice has become so dear to them that, rather than give this up and yield to the authority of Jehovah, they will invent every argument to stigmatize that law and set it aside as Jewish.

It is astonishing to see what shifts and turns the Catholics have taken to evade the force of the second commandment. Mr. Bower thus states another of their arguments:—

“I know that the popish writers, to clear their church from that imputation, distinguish here between supreme and inferior worship, absolute and relative, direct and reductive, worship by itself and worship by accident, worship of Latria and worship of Dulia, Hyperdulia, etc. ‘The heretics,’ says Arriaga, ‘allege many passages from the Scriptures, the fathers, and the councils, where it is said that God only is to be worshiped. But to all the passages that have been, or can be, alleged, we answer, in one word, that they are to be understood of the worship of Latria or supreme worship, which must be given to God alone; and would become idolaters if given to any but to God.’ Vol. ii., p. 36.”

What a bold heresy this is! What a manifest evasion of the direct command of God! The Lord says that we shall not worship an image. Oh, yes, reply the Catholics, we are not to worship them with supreme worship, but a secondary worship, the worship of Dulia, Hyperdulia, etc. Then here is another evasion, as stated by the historian, page 34.

“The popish writers, to evade the testimony of the fathers thus condemning the worship, the use, and even the making of images, would have us to understand them as speaking only of the images of the heathens, or of the worship of images as practised by the heathens, who, they say, either worshiped the images themselves as gods, or worshiped false gods through them; and were, on that account, condemned by the fathers, and deservedly condemned, as guilty of idolatry; but that, they say, does not at all affect the worship which they give to images, since they neither worship them as gods, nor worship false gods through them, but the true God, or his saints and holy angels; for on them the worship terminates that is given to their images.”

To a Protestant, all these arguments are worse than none. They are simply an evasion—a perversion of the word of God. But these forcibly remind us of the shifts which are resorted to by Sunday-keepers to evade the plain requirement of the fourth commandment. They argue that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day; next, that the fourth commandment was an old Jewish law and never applied to Christians; next, that any one-seventh part of time is all that the commandment requires; then, that you cannot tell when the seventh day does come any way; then, again, that all days are alike. And thus they go on turning, and shifting, and twisting, in every shape to evade the fourth commandment, the same as the old mother of harlots has to get around the second commandment.—D. M. CANRIGHT, in Signs of Times.

DUTIES OF CHURCH MEMBERS TOWARD THEIR OFFICERS

By George I. Butler

Thoughts on Church Government.—No. 6.

DUTIES OF CHURCH MEMBERS TOWARD THEIR OFFICERS.

(Continued.)

OBLIGATIONS are mutual; and while we have tried to set forth the duties of officers to the church, we would not forget that members have duties devolving upon them of great importance toward those who occupy the position of shepherd over them. If it is an elder's duty to take the oversight of the members, to watch for their spiritual well-being, to lead them as the shepherd leads his flock, to encourage, admonish, and reprove, it is the duty of members to submit their will to such oversight and correction just so far as it is consistent with God's word. More than this, it is the duty of members to sustain the authority of those thus called to act, and make their burdens as light as possible, to encourage their hearts by a cheerful reception of their suggestions, unless contrary to right principles.

In this age, and in this land, especially where there is so little deference paid to position and authority, the tendency is strongly toward laxity and disorder. Every man does what seemeth to him right in his own eyes. We are a nation of lords. To place a man in authority is but to make him the subject of criticism, of abuse, and of every kind of wicked innuendo. “Speaking evil of dignities” is thought to be rather a virtue than a vice, as an evidence of the liberty of the citizen or the press, until scarcely a man can be found whose character and integrity will shield him from every kind of evil insinuation, when placed in positions of responsibility in our civil government.

The same influences are at work in the religious world. Doubtless the conduct of many corrupt rulers has increased this tendency. But the result is greatly to be deplored. It is a sad thing when those in high positions cannot be spoken of but with irreverence and disrespect. This is contrary to the teachings of Holy Writ.

Authority is really delegated from God, and as such, in itself alone considered, should be held in respect. When persons abuse it, they are greatly blameworthy, as casting reproach upon that which is derived from God.

The whole spirit of the age tends to break down all reverence for authority. God's people must guard against this tendency, if they wish to be in harmony with the Bible. Even in reference to an office no higher than an elder holds, in the local church, God has given instruction bearing on this very point. Paul says, “And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you, in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly, in love, for their work's sake.” 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13. Doubtless this includes ministers as well as elders of churches, but it certainly includes the latter. The members are to “acknowledge” such, as the Diaglott renders it. They are to be esteemed very highly for their work's sake. They need to feel that they have the sympathy and love of the church for whom they labor. They cannot accomplish very much without it. Paul says again, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor; especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.” “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” 1 Tim. 5: 17, 19. This testimony still further shows that God would have his people respect those in the position of elder. The last clause of this text doubtless refers, primarily, to ministers listening to accusations from members against the elder, seeing the epistle was written to Timothy, a minister. It is not right for ministers, or those in higher positions than the local elder, to listen to every complaint, idly made by discontented parties, and decide in his mind against them carelessly. So the apostle gives this rule to guard the reputation of elders. If that be broken down, his influence will be gone and he can accomplish little good. If real grievances exist, they will be likely to be known by more than one person. If he has abused his office, generally a large number will know it.

An elder's influence and reputation are precious in the sight of God. Ministers should do nothing to break them down, and should not lend themselves to the thoughtless or fault finding. If it is the duty of ministers to be thus careful, most certainly it is the duty of those over whom the elder is placed to have the same care. How often members will throw out insinuations against their leaders, thoughtless, perhaps, many times, yet absolutely sinful. They ought to help them and cheer them by their ready assistance, and carefully guard their reputation.

The elder represents the whole church. He is the one chosen by their vote to act the leading part in their work, to speak for them. When his position, therefore, is broken down, the whole influence of the church is affected. We ought ever to realize that our own interest and that of the body itself are bound up in those we choose to represent us.

Paul continues, “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow;” and, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you.” Heb. 13: 7, 17.

Obedience and submission are here commanded by the great apostle to those placed under the watchcare of the elder. He is said to “have the rule over them.” This of course is to be taken in a limited and reasonable sense. Yet this scripture does plainly imply a degree of authority on the part of an elder, and a spirit of submission on the part of the church, altogether greater than is generally admitted in this land of freedom. But of course we are only to follow leaders as they follow Christ, and none are authorized to expect obedience inconsistent with God's word.

But great condemnation will fall upon any church member who strikes against the authority of the elder, when he is in the path of duty, far more than most people realize. The great danger is in rebellion, and a stiff-necked, unsubdued spirit. We have our passions and wills, which are very apt to be found in conflict with God's will. “Submit yourselves therefore to God,” is a scripture very difficult to obey, and yet very important to be obeyed. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry,” the prophet Samuel declares to King Saul. Those principles which the Bible upholds as of special excellence are humility, meekness, gentleness, longsuffering, patience, resignation to God's will, and such like. If we have these, we are stamped with the principles of Heaven. We belong to Heaven. We therefore need to cultivate these especially.

We are all very apt to possess a set, unsubdued spirit whenever anything goes contrary to our wishes. God has therefore instructed us to submit to just and proper authority in the church. This lesson of submission should be taught to all our children, and would be, if family government was properly carried out. In that case, there would be far less difficulty in the world and church when children grow up. Order and decorum would prevail. The lack of this makes it difficult to properly carry out church government among men as we find them.

But men and women who are converted, or who take upon themselves the obligations of the Christian religion and unite in church fellowship, must learn this lesson of submission to just authority if they would obey the divine injunction, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” Not to do this will be found very “unprofitable” at last. That is, such will make a very bad bargain. We say of a man who gives that which is very valuable for a mere song, as Esau did his birthright for a mess of pottage, that it is an unprofitable trade. So that person will find out at last who gives away the eternal reward for the sake of having his own way. We must learn submission, in order to be meet for Heaven. In conclusion then upon this point, we say, the Scriptures require from members love, respect, and obedience, toward those whom they have chosen as overseers, when they give evidence of faithfulness on their part, just so far as not to conflict with the word of God. Members should try to assist the elder in bearing his burdens. They should give him such information as will help him correctly to understand the real condition of things, and should back up his testimony and rally around him, in every good work. Thus they may be true helpers in bearing the burdens of the church.

GEO. I. BUTLER.

Religion of Jesus Christ Is Practical

By Augustus Hare

THE religion of Jesus Christ is altogether a practical thing. Just consider how we are taught anything else that is practical. It is not by hearing or reading about making shoes that a man becomes a shoemaker, but by trying to make them. —Augustus Hare.

The Cause at Kankakee, Ill.

By D. T. Bourdeau

The cause is steadily advancing in this city and vicinity. Twelve have taken their stand in favor of the Bible Sabbath. Many more are under deep conviction. Among the converts to the Sabbath are three French, who say they have heard our views on the coming of Christ preached in France, and feel persuaded that many of their friends in France would embrace the Sabbath if they could hear on the subject. Sister Hobbs, a French sister from Serena, Ill., who was with us with her companion last Sabbath, informs us that she has sent several of our French tracts to her acquaintances in France. We have been highly pleased to receive a re-inforcement of brethren and sisters from St. Anne, and other places, for the last three Sabbaths. Their testimonies have added to the interest of our social meetings.

Eld. Phillips, the Episcopalian preacher in this city, spoke on the Sabbath question a week ago last Sunday. Bro. R. F. Andrews reviewed his discourse the Monday evening following, with good liberty. Last evening Eld. Paradis, the French Presbyterian preacher with whom we held our first discussion at St. Anne, delivered the first of a series of three discourses against the ancient Sabbath. We give our first reply to-morrow evening.

The responsibilities connected with this great work seem overwhelming at times. How many ways there are in which we can mar the work of God. What wisdom we need at every point. How important to walk with God and to work with him, to not be too fast or too slow to bear the responsibilities God would have us bear, and yet not move faster than his opening providence. I do believe it is our privilege to be where the yoke of Christ will be easy and his burden light, even under the most trying circumstances. This is where I long to be. Pray that I may gain this great object, and that my strength fail not; for it is sweet to labor in so glorious a cause.

D. T. BOURDEAU.

Kankakee, Ill., Sept. 7, 1874.

South-western Missouri and Kansas.

By J. G. Wood

Thinking the brethren and sisters would like to hear how the cause is prospering in this part of the field, I write. After returning home from our excellent camp-meeting, June 2, I labored with the church at Nashville, and on June 27, three were baptized, four united with the church. July 3 and 4, visited a little company of eleven members in the south-western part of Vernon Co., who had just commenced to keep the Sabbath, but were not yet firmly established in the truth. I have now made them the third visit, preached, in all, twelve discourses. They all now seem firm in the truth as far as they have heard, and are doing all they can for the good of others. May the Lord confirm them more and more.

July 31, I visited a brother near Mulberry Grove, Crawford Co., Kan. This is a place where a Christian preacher, by the name of Addis, organized a church last winter, but his mind being called to the subject of the second advent and kingdom by a discussion between one of his brethren and a first-day Adventist preacher, he began at once to give to his brethren the best light he had, and desired help. I have now just returned home, having made them the second visit, remaining eight days. Preached, in all, seventeen discourses. The interest was good to the close of the meetings. Seventeen covenanted together to keep all God's commandments. Others are interested, and we expect will join with them soon. I expect to commence meetings with them again the 16th. May they grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth is my prayer.

J. G. Wood.

Nashville, Mo., Sept. 1, 1874.

SECOND SESSION

By Stephen N. Haskell; M. Wood

Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the N. E. Conf. of S. D. Adventists.

CONFERENCE convened according to appointment upon the camp-ground in South Lancaster, Mass., Aug. 27, 1874. The President, S. N. Haskell, in the chair. Prayer by Eld. R. M. Kilgore.

Voted, That Elders J. N. Andrews and R. M. Kilgore, also all members in good standing, be invited to participate in the deliberations of the Conference. The President, after making some remarks relative to the work in which we are engaged, requested the delegates to present their credentials. The call was promptly responded to by nineteen delegates; Washington, N. H., church, and South Lancaster, Mass., church, each being represented by two delegates. A company of Sabbath-keepers at Woodstock or Crampton village, N. H., being represented by Bro. M. E. Smith, was admitted into the N. E. Conference. Minutes of the business of this Conference of the preceding year was read and approved.

Voted, That the Chair appoint the following committee: Auditing Committee, Bro. C. W. Comings, D. R. Leighton, W. E. London, C. Sweet, G. H. Murphy, and J. Ashley; Committee on Credentials, H. B. Stratton C. Sweet, C. Davis; Nominating Committee, J. R. Webber, J. R. Israel, and D. R. Leighton; Committee on Resolutions, Elders J. N. Andrews, R. M. Kilgore, and Bro. C. K. Farnsworth. After soul-stirring remarks by Elders Andrews and Haskell upon the practicability of the work of the third angel's message, and the need of consecrated hearts to enter more earnestly upon this sacred mission, the meeting adjourned to call of the Chair.

SECOND SESSION.

Meeting opened in due form. Prayer by Eld. J. N. Andrews. The Chairmen of the several committees being called upon, presented their reports as follows: Committee on Nominations reported as officers of the New England Conference for the ensuing year: For President, Eld. Stephen N. Haskell; Secretary, M. Wood; Treasurer, C. K. Farnsworth; Executive Committee, Henry B. Stratton, A. W. Smith. Report accepted and the nominees elected by a unanimous vote.

Committee on Credentials and Licenses reported that the credentials of Elders S. N. Haskell and P. C. Rodman be renewed; and to grant licenses to L. W. Hastings, Joel Crandall, D. A. Robinson, and W. C. Gage, all of which were unanimously accepted.

At this point in the meeting a letter was read from the company of Sabbath-keepers in New York, which was presented by their delegate (Bro. Kellogg), requesting to be taken under the watchcare of the New England Conference. After appropriate remarks upon the subject by Elders Andrews, Haskell, and Butler, it was

Voted, That the N. E. Conference pledge their aid to those scattered brethren in New York, and to unite them to the N. E. T. & M. Society, providing the New York Conference will consent to such an action.

Resolved, That we rejoice to learn of the prosperity of the cause of truth on the Pacific Coast, and that we are in full sympathy with the action of our late General Conference in extending aid to the work on that Coast.

Resolved, That we express our continued and increasing confidence in the sacred work which God has committed to our trust, and we here dedicate ourselves unreservedly to its faithful prosecution. Adopted by a unanimous vote.

Voted, That the tent now used by Bro. W. C. Gage as a lecturing tent be purchased by the N. E. Conference.

Voted, That the N. E. Conference donate to the General Conference the five hundred dollars previously loaned. After some solemn, stirring remarks by Eld. Butler upon the magnitude of the work and the need of consecrated hearts to enter thereupon, the meeting adjourned sine die.

S. N. HASKELL, Pres.

M. WOOD, Sec.

Spiritualism.—No. 7.

By John H. Waggoner

The quotations given from the writings of spiritualists show conclusively that their doctrines are truly the “doctrines of devils.” And these, together with those on the dangers of mediumship, are sufficient proof that the tendency of spiritualism is to evil and to evil only. If iniquity did not abound under the influence of such teachings and such spirit possessions we should have reason to be disappointed.

Dr. Randolph, a medium, testified that under spirit control, the tendency was strongest toward licentiousness, as five could be made to err in that direction where one could in any other. This will account for the wondrous growth of “free love” sentiments since the rise of spiritualism. It has presented a fruitful field of licentious theories and practices. And it has grown so bold and outspoken in this direction that the President of the National Association of Spiritualists has publicly declared that the especial mission of spiritualism is to free the world from the bondage of marriage; that it has dealt in mere theories long enough, and it is now time to put in practice, openly, the theories which they have been proclaiming.

But the long-established journals of spiritualism, the Banner of Light of Boston, and the Religio-Philosophical Journal of Chicago, profess to repudiate the doctrines advocated by Mrs. Woodhull, Moses Hull, and others. In this we easily convict them of deception. They evidently fear that public sentiment is not yet prepared for such open advocacy of licentiousness; but they have for years been laying the foundation for it, and substantially advocated the same thing. We will prove this assertion by showing first the position now occupied by the boldest advocates of “free love,” and then that the almost unanimous sentiment of spiritualists has been in that direction, and that the body of spiritualists have occupied that ground for the last fifteen years or more.

Less than a year ago a large meeting of spiritualists was held in Vineland, N. J., at which Mrs. Woodhull was the chief speaker. Of her leading speech in that Convention the Boston Daily Globe said:—

“After having blasphemed religion, laughed at the decencies of social life, scoffed at marriage, and advocated universal prostitution, this notorious woman concluded by stating that it was the sublime mission of spiritualism to free the human race from the thralldom of matrimony and to establish sexual emancipation. There was not one word of dissent from her listeners. On the contrary, the filthy theories and the disgusting arguments were applauded to the echo. No woman was shocked and no man offended by the upholding of a theory that would reduce humanity to the level of beasts.”

Of the extent to which these doctrines have been taught for years past, and are now received, the same paper said:—

“We would not dwell upon this revolting subject were it not for the fact that the sentiments so boldly uttered by Mrs. Woodhull were fully indorsed by a large body of spiritualists. We do not intend to enter upon the question of the truthfulness or falsity of spiritualism. We simply take its teachings as here exemplified for the past fifteen years. What the few timid hangers-on to the skirts of this great delusion may do or believe is nothing to the point, while it is indubitable that the leaders give their support to the vilest and most destructive of doctrines.”

At this meeting in Vineland, a Dr. Fairfield said:—

“The Jews needed a Moses to lead them out of Egyptian bondage; so we need a Victoria C. Woodhull to lead society from the bondage of the marriage relations.”

And the same speaker, professing to be “inspired” by the spirit of Lorenzo Dow, dismissed the meeting with the following “benediction:”—

“And now may the life and power, the wisdom, love, and mercy, of Victoria C. Woodhull save us from all our married curses, and bring us into individual and universal freedom, with love and good-will for all. Amen.”

The Michigan State Convention of Spiritualists, held after the Vineland meeting, indorsed Mrs. Woodhull and her doctrines.

The National Convention, held in Chicago last fall, not only indorsed her by adopting a radical free-love platform, but she was elected President of their National Association by a large majority. The following brief extracts from the report in the Chicago Times will give some idea of the spirit of the Convention:—

“Mrs. Woodhull contended that the issue was before them clearly. They had to vote whether they were in favor of free sexual relations, unrestricted by law, or whether they were in favor of tyranny.”

“The speech was received throughout with cheers from the thronged galleries, and the delegates in the body of the hall.”

And accordingly they adopted the Woodhull platform by a very large majority. In her lecture she said:—

“She defined freedom to be in general terms, that each and every individual has the right in his or her own proper person to make use of all his or her powers and capacities as he or she may elect to do.”

“It is simply none of your business what other people do, nor any of the business of society what any of its members do, unless they interfere with somebody else without his or her consent.”

“What does it matter whether the child or any one knows who is the father? Is he, or is society, any the better for the knowledge?”

“If it cannot be determined what will become of the children, that fact should not be held as an obstacle to freedom, if it be proved that freedom itself is right.”

“Relationship in the future will be based upon kindredness of spirit, rather than upon ties of blood; while family clanship, like all similar cliquishness, the remnants of barbarisms, will be forever banished from the earth.”

“They say I have come to break up the family. I say, Amen, to that with all my heart. I hope I may break up every family in the world that exists by virtue of sexual slavery.”

“Mrs. Loomis, of Battle Creek, wanted to read a poem on ‘progression.’ She did so, and at its close announced that copies could be had for 25 cents each. There was an immediate rush to get copies. The poem was rather blasphemous.”

“Mr. B. Todd, of Michigan, also was moved by the spirit. His address was devoted chiefly to proving that no law prevented the free use of his eyes, his hands, and his feet; that it was wrong altogether to impose any restrictions upon the use of his sexual organs.”

“Laura Cuppy Smith ascended the platform and delivered a thrilling address, in which she defied all the elements of society, religion, politics, &c.”

A delegate charged Mrs. Woodhull with resorting to prostitution to advance the cause she was advocating. To this, Mrs. Woodhull replied in terms which we do not wish to publish, that it was nobody’s business what she had done; and she was not ashamed of anything she had done.

This will suffice for Mrs. Woodhull and the National Convention. We now turn to the case of Moses Hull, who has been very prominent before spiritualists and the world for some time past. In a chapter of his “Personal Experience,” published last summer in Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly, he said Mrs. Woodhull had “somewhere intimated that she believed promiscuity in the social relation to be abominable.” Mrs. Woodhull denied the statement. But Mr. Hull continued:—

“It may be, and is in certain cases, abominable, yet I can mention many things which are to me more so, one of which, in many instances, is the entire confinement of one man to one woman, and one woman to one man, in the sexual relation.”

Of his experience he said:—

“I lived years in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity, especially the bond that said: ‘Forsaking all others I will cleave unto thee.’”

But he is now free from those bonds, and the reasons he urges in justification of his course are sickening and sometimes blasphemous. For what is it but blasphemy to denominate the depraved lusts of the flesh, “the law of God written in the heart”? See the following as an instance:—

“Several years have elapsed since the first choice between the law of God and the law of man, and I have never regretted the step, but have continued to repeat the offense against man-made institutions whenever God’s law in me commanded.”

Of his home relations, he says:—

“My wife, so far as I am concerned, has had the same privileges I had taken. Whether she used them or not is not for me to say.”

But his wife is not willing that he and the public should remain ignorant on this point. In a letter on the subject, dated Aug. 20, 1873, published in Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly, she says:—

“I am a firm believer in the doctrine, and my friends who know me best will say that I will not preach what I dare not practice.”

These short extracts are sufficient to show where the parties stand on this question.

But in this position they have been assailed by the spiritualist papers in Boston and Chicago. The Banner of Light, without any regard for facts or for its own consistency, said:—

“If such ideas are an integral part of the church to which he some time since belonged, he had better go back to it again. Spiritualism has no affinity with such grossness.”

To which Mr. Hull replies:—

“Why does Luther make a dash at the church of which we were once a member? More than ten years since, we renounced that for spiritualism, where we found just what we preach, write, and practice.”

If the Banner of Light knows of any church which ever recommended or tolerated “such grossness,” let it speak out and inform us when and where it existed. This slur shows its utter disregard for truth and justice. It very well knows that just such grossness has, for years, been the leading sentiment of the majority of spiritualist authors and speakers, and of publications emanating from its own office. Let the following facts be well weighed.

Dr. A. B. Child is a popular spiritualist author. He wrote a book with the title of “Christ and the People,” which was published at the office of the Banner of Light. The following extracts are copied from that book:

“The present laws of marriage, that now give birth to regrets and sorrows unnumbered, to prostitution, with its long train of curses and agonies, will be abandoned for a holier, purer, diviner revelation that will ere long be given to the people.—P. 27.

“A religion more spiritual will be discovered and acknowledged, . . . a religion without written laws, without commandments, without creeds,—a religion too sacred to be spoken, too pure to be defiled, too generous to be judged, resting upon no uncertain outside standard of rectitude, upon no dogma of another, no purity of earthly life, no glory of earthly perfection,—a religion that every soul possesses by natural endowment, not one more than another.

“This religion is simply desire. . . .

“With every one desire is spontaneous and sincere, pure and holy; no matter what the desire is, whether it be called good or bad, it is the natural God-given religion of the soul.”

He occupies a chapter in deriding justice; he scoffs at holiness, and exalts sin, as the following brief extracts show:—

“Ere long, man will come to see that all sin is for his spiritual good. . . . To see that holiness lays up treasures on earth. . . . Sin destroys earthly treasures, and causes them to be laid up in Heaven.”—Pp. 32, 33.

“There is no criminal act that is not an experience of usefulness. The tracks of vice and crime are only the tracks of human progress. . . . There has been no deed in the catalogue of crime that has not been a valuable experience to the inner being of the man who committed it.”—P. 137.

“Man has yet to learn and yet to admit that all sins which are committed are innocent, for all are in the inevitable rulings of God.”—P. 175.

“He who wars with sin leaves nothing lovely in his tracks.”—P. 191.

Here we find in full the very doctrines which Mr. Hull now preaches and which he openly says he practices. And this book predicted that such sentiments were soon to prevail as the “religion” for the age. And this book, with its licentious sentiments, was published at the office of the Banner of Light, and received from that paper the following strong indorsement:—

“This book should find its way to every family. . . . Its liberality reaches the very shores of infinity. It is born of spiritualism and reaches for the manhood of Christ. It is the most fearless presentation of the folly of the present moral and religious systems of the land of any book yet written. It is free from fault-finding; but its truthful descriptions of self-conceived goodness everywhere, in morals and religion, are withering. Through sacrifice and sin it shows the open gate of Heaven for every human being.”

Thus we leave it to the reader, and would appeal to the Banner itself, if it has shown any regard for truth and consistency, that that paper has published and indorsed just what Mr. Hull now practices.

J. H. WAGGONER.

Marlow, N. H.

By D. A. Robinson

HAVE been at this place nearly seven weeks. Forty-five discourses have been given. Many are convinced of the Sabbath truth, and about twenty are keeping it. There are others who we hope will obey. Took down the tent the 23d ult., and came to camp-meeting. Bro. Kilgore returns to Marlow, and I go from here to Rhode Island. May we all be imbued with the true spirit of this work and act as though we believed it.

D. A. ROBINSON.

South Lancaster, Mass., Sept. 3, 1874.

Continue reading: Michigan