Your ShelfYour Projects

Modern Spiritualism

2%

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Nov 13, 1879

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 5, No. 43.

Read the full edition

Modern Spiritualism.

By Editor

THEY OPPOSE MARRIAGE.

(Continued.)
DR. A. B. CHILD is one of the most popular Spiritualist authors. He fully confirms the above. He is the author of a work entitled, "Christ and the People," recently published at the office of the Banner of Light, which is thus highly recommended in Hull's Monthly Clarion for May, 1866:--
"Everybody knows that Dr. Child never speaks without saying something worth hearing. In this book he has thrown out some of his best thoughts."
In the Banner of Light's office advertisement of the book is the following very 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 description 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."
The following extracts show the tendency of its teachings:--
"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." page 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." Pages 28, 29.
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." Pages 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." Page 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." Page 175.
"He who wars with sin leaves nothing lovely in his tracks." Page 191.
These extracts will serve to show the character of the book. Doubtless the Banner of Light is correct—"It is born of Spiritualism;" it could have had no other origin! and yet the Banner of Light affects to repudiate free-lovism and to plead for morality. Such morality, of course, as it recommends in Dr. Child's book!
John M. Spear is a noted medium through whom popular spirit works have been indited; but, like a practical Spiritualist that he is, he became the father of an illegitimate child. Some even among Spiritualists, were so infected with what A. J. Davis calls a "sort of Atheism" as to blame him for this fact! But he was safe among his friends—he found plenty of defenders. A Mr. Stearling wrote two articles, which were published in the Spiritual Telegraph, in vindication of Mr. Spear, and Miss H., his affinity. The following is an extract from this defense:--
"Suppose, then, Miss H. has become a mother. Does that fact warrant you in calling Mr. Spear a libertine or a debauchee? May he not, after all, have acted in this affair in perfect consistency with all his past life, a pure, good man? Again, does this fact of Miss H.'s maternity necessarily imply wrong or corruption in the movement? She desired to be the mother of a child; but she was not willing to become a legal wife, in which relation she might be compelled not only to give birth to unwelcome children, but also to yield her body to the gratification of unhallowed passion. Now, sir, will you, believing this, condemn such conduct? I cannot—will not! I deem it a matter with her own soul, and the one she loved, and her God, with whom she is at peace. The smiles of Heaven have been upon her: her religious nature has been greatly blessed; her spiritual vision has been unfolded, and her prospects of health and happiness, and especially of usefulness to her race, greatly augmented, and she feels to bless God that strength and courage have been given her to walk thus calmly, deliberately, and peacefully, in a path ignored by a corrupt and unappreciative world."
Such a defense of crime—such a mingling together of mock reverence for God with a total disregard of his authority, and insult to the purity of his government, cannot be found outside of Spiritualism.
But Miss H. has also spoken—she asserts her rights as follows:--
"I will exercise that dearest of all rights, the holiest and most sacred of all of Heaven's gifts—the right of maternity—in the way which to me seemeth right; and no man, nor set of men, no church, no State, shall withhold me from the realization of that purest of all inspirations inherent in every true woman, the right to beget myself when, and by whom, and under such circumstances, as to me seems fit and best."
One would think by the above that woman's most sacred rights were being invaded by both church and State; but it is enough to astonish Heaven and earth that a woman should rise up in this enlightened age and covet the honor of martyrdom for the cause of prostitution!
Adin Ballou, though a Spiritualist author, has not progressed beyond the common decencies of life. He has pointed out exactly what is developed in the above action and defense; he says:--
"They will receive revelations from high-pretending spirits, cautiously instructing them that the sexual communion of congenials will greatly sanctify them for the reception of angelic ministrations. Wives and husbands will be rendered miserable, alienated, parted, and their families broken up. There will be Spiritual matches, carnal degradations, and all the ultimate wretchedness thence inevitably resulting."
Warren Chase describes Mr. Spear as
"Highly eccentric, and devotedly honest and philanthropic of all mediums. The Lone One was greatly pleased with and strongly attracted to this man, and received through him the singular title of the 'Elementizer,' and a commission to do great things if he could, mentally and experimentally, with the elements."—Life-Line, page 213.
But of Mr. Ballou, who seems to grieve over the licentiousness of Spiritualists, he speaks in tones of pity, as follows:--
"He goes as far as the creed he has set up will allow, but dare not step one point over. He is not like a convict, with ball and chain, but like a martyr, tied to a stake, from which he cannot escape."—Life-Line, page 217.
Those who are acquainted with the course of Warren Chase (self-styled the Lone One) will not be astonished that he is much more strongly attracted to the libertine and fornicator than he is to a man who yet retains respect for the Bible and for purity of life!
No one, perhaps, in the whole clan of disorganizers, has done more to lower the standard of right and purity, and to destroy respect for the institution of marriage, than Warren Chase. As a representative, he stands prominent. He is not as boldly outspoken as some; he is too crafty for that; but he will do tenfold more harm by his smooth, insinuating manner than the more open advocates of lewdness, though they are laboring for the same end. And, as claimed by a Wisconsin paper some years since, he has prepared the way, in many communities, for the theory and practice of licentiousness in its most repulsive form. He is a very popular lecturer, his popularity proving that his views are indorsed by that people. He never lets slip an opportunity to speak disparagingly of the marriage institution, and to revile the Bible and all that pertains to Bible religion. In his autobiography, or "Life-Line," speaking of his own marriage, he says:--
"The priest said God put two beings together so that no man should dare to put them asunder. If God did do it, then the priest surely did not; and if God did not, then the priest surely did not; and hence his act was useless either way, except as a license to society to call them man and wife." Page 67.
But if the marriage rite is useless, it is evident that men and women may, as he quotes approvingly, "trust their attractions" without any restraint to protect society. And to carry out the idea of the uselessness of the marriage rite, he publicly and privately advises to disregard its obligations where it has already been solemnized. Thus with the present wife of A. J. Davis-- if it be proper to call her his wife-- he was the first, according to his own showing, to advise her and her husband to separate, though living peacefully together, but as he says, only legally married-- not otherwise! It is doubtful whether he ever stopped in his wild career to reflect that by that act he was instrumental in bringing grief to more than one Christian household of sorrowing relatives. He seems to pride himself on his expertness in discovering family difficulties (which he does by denouncing marriage and thus enlisting the favor of the restless and reckless), and his forwardness in advising separation. And he is not only quick to discover, but he, too, has done somewhat to create such difficulties, if we are permitted to judge by reports and circumstances combined. True, he pleads innocent, and lauds his own purity of life and motive to the last degree of egotism; and so do all of that class. But what does purity of life mean among anti-marriage or free-love people? Read the defense of Mr. Spear for an answer. That he has given occasion for these reports he cannot deny. But he is too shrewd and discerning not to know that to abolish legal marriage, in the present and prospective state of society, would be to bring upon our sinful race the greatest possible calamity; that without the restraints of law over the vicious, society, as such in any civilized sense could not exist. What, then, are his motives for persistently opposing the legal relation of marriage? What substitute will he offer? The law of attraction, or the "religion of desire," as Dr. Child has it?
But there is one name we must mention in this connection, and we do it with especial regret. It is that of Moses Hull. Having associated with him on fraternal terms, having loved him as a brother, and esteemed him as a Christian, we can but lament the course he has pursued and the position he occupies. Eccentric and impulsive, he needs the restraining influence of Christianity to be useful to society. We have intimately known him when he believed the Bible, and loved and defended its truth; then he highly honored and appreciated the institution of marriage. But he embraced Spiritualism, and where is he now? Let his own words answer. He has written and published a pamphlet entitled, "A Few Thoughts on Love and Marriage," which the Banner of Light recommends as "a very worthy pamphlet." In it, he says:--
"Whether there are wrongs in the marriage relation or not, people are very generally getting the idea that it is so. The idea is proving contagious, and when the American mind gets started, who can tell where it will stop? Nothing short of revolution—of anarchy—of an opposite extreme, even to the total annulling of the marital tie, will be the result."
"When we look at the commotions ahead merely as a revolution, we pray, 'O God, stay the elements;' but when we look at it as being the work of disintegration, the preparatory work for the soul union, the true marriage that shall follow we say, 'Let the battle rage, and if necessary put us in the front.' The result will be cheap enough."
"Enough of this. If we continue, our readers will say, 'He has turned prophet.' Not so; we only judge of 'coming events' by the 'shadows cast before,' and where are there no shadows? where are there not evidences of dissatisfaction in the marriage bonds? One only has to pick up the daily papers to find the history of infidelity of husbands to wives and wives to husbands. Read the record of the suits for divorce, the elopements, prostitution, lewdness, and almost every other imaginable crime, which can be traced directly to the inharmonies of the matrimonial relations of the parties. Such things can do no less than result in a conflagration. Let its fires purify the institution, nay, let it consume the institution, and give us the true marriage in its stead."—Love and Marriage, pages 4, 5.
If these were the sentiments of some lone fanatic, they might be passed by as unworthy of notice; but when we reflect that there are thousands upon thousands, and their numbers fast increasing, who are all pressing to the "front" in this horrid warfare, it is enough to make the heart sick. He may well call it a "rebellion," tending to "anarchy;" it is a rebellion as much worse than that against our nation, as Heaven is higher than earth; a rebellion against the authority of God, who created man, male and female; who instituted marriage, and ordained that the "woman is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth."
More recently, in a paper called the Crucible, Mr. Hull informs us what he thinks is the true marriage:--
"We believe that true marriage is the union of two souls, the blending of two natures; that where this soul-blending does not obtain, no priest can make men and women husbands and wives; that where it does obtain, no priests are needed to make men and women husbands and wives; the marriage lasts while the blending lasts, and no longer; when the blending ceases, the law of divorce steps in and does its work without the aid of judges or jury."