THE following notice of a sentiment expressed at Ravenna, Ohio, on the 4th of July, at a Spiritual meeting, I took from a Lockport, N. Y., paper; but as it contained no credit, it was impossible to tell its origin, or to determine its reliability. But as further evidence has come to light on the point, I would now call attention to the statement.
"A BIG HEARTED WOMAN.—On the 4th and 5th of the present month the Spiritualists of Ohio held a convention at Ravenna. Much was said, and, it may be, more was done among them. During the discussion a Mrs. Lewis, of Cleveland, evidently a warm spirited woman, delivered herself by saying, that she was in favor of universal freedom, and that loving whosoever she chose was a part of that freedom, and to confine her love to one man, was an abridgment of her rights. She said that '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.' She said also, 'What business is it to the world whether one man is the father of my children, or ten are? I have the right to say who shall be the father of my offspring.'"
A correspondent of the Spiritual Age, S. B. Brittan's new paper, writing from Cleveland, Ohio, July 22d, 1857, says:
'On the 4th of July, at Ravenna, over five thousand men and women, with intelligence beaming upon their countenances, gathered together under the broad canopy of heaven to listen to the words of life. Many speakers from abroad were there, and many new truths were elicited. On last Sunday, at Hudson, some forty miles from this city, two thousand were present, but the meeting was disturbed by the introduction of sentiments utterly revolting to refined minds. Still the meeting was, on many accounts a pleasant one. We do not think such conventions the proper place to broach the free love and free lust notions, and we do not think it is exactly right to attempt to fasten the stain of such views upon the believer in Spiritualism. We do not deny that some Spiritualists are free lovers, and some of them, too, practice their free love notions; still, Spiritualists are not to be held responsible, any more than should the entire Baptist denomination for the course of its Kalloch.'
'We do not think such conventions the proper place to broach the free love and free lust notions.' And pray, why not, Mr. Spiritualist? Are not such conventions designed for the promulgation of 'progressive principles?' I have heard them proclaimed by Spiritualists in public and in private, and read them in their publications; and it is altogether useless to deny that free-love, as it is called, is a concomitant of Spiritualism. Mr. Hobart, of this State, with whom I discussed the subject of Spiritualism in the tent at Colon, and who claims to have been the first Spiritualist in Michigan, advocated free love in his exposition of Spiritualism, and claimed that he knew what Spiritualism is as well as any one. It is a fact, and no one can deny, that free-loveism is more or less advocated in every community where there are Spiritualists. From Maine to California it is the same, and I do not know of any Spiritual paper in the country that has not contained more or less of it in their editorials or in their correspondence. Some numbers of the Truth Seeker, published in Indiana, have been nearly filled with it. It has been advocated by learned men in the "investigating class" of Spiritualists in the city of New York. Spiritualists who deny this feature of their doctrine, are either dishonestly covering up their position for the sake of expediency, or else they are behind the times.
Many of the sentiments expressed by Spiritualists are too abominable to be reiterated even for the sake of exposing them, but it is an evil of such a monstrous nature, and growing with such alarming rapidity, that duty compels us to raise the cry of warning. Evidences are pressing upon us that in the last days it will be as it was in the days when Lot went out of Sodom in more senses than we have generally realized.