A recent writer says:—

"There is no one particular wherein spiritualism is proving itself a curse to the age and to the race more than in 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 spiritists 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 endorsed 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 fraternises 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."—"Nature and tendency of Modern Spiritualism," p. 137.

The writer of the foregoing is an American; he has had abundant opportunities of seeing and learning of the effects of this terrible system in its social aspects. In England and her colonies, the true fruits of spiritism have not yet fully developed themselves. I freely confess that there are many advocates of spiritism who, I believe, would start back with horror at the bare idea that they would ever adopt the views now under consideration. They are like Hazael, who, when told by the weeping prophet of the horrible things he would do to the Israelites when he became king of Syria, said, "But what! is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?" and yet, when he became king, he did the very things which previously he considered would bring him to the very level of a dog. In like manner, judging by the voluminous testimony upon the matter as to the effects of this system upon its mediums, there is no person who indulges in this intercourse who is free from this terrible danger of retrogression. Dr. Talmage, living in the midst of its votaries and having abundant opportunity of seeing its terrible effects, says:— page 91

"I indict spiritualism also, because it is a social and marital curse. The worst deeds of licentiousness, and the worst orgies of obscenity, have been enacted under its patronage. The story is too vile for me to tell. I will not pollute my tongue nor your ears with the recital. Sometimes the civil law has been evoked to stop the outrage. Families innumerable have been broken up by it. It has pushed off hundreds of voting women into a life of profligacy. It talks about 'elective affinities,' and 'affinital relation,' and 'spiritual matches,' and adopts the whole vocabulary of free-lovism. In one of its public journals, it declares 'marriage is the monster curse of civilization." It is a source of debauchery and intemperance' If spiritualism could have its full swing it would turn this world into a pandemonium of carnality. It is an unclean, adulterous, damnable religion, and the sooner it drops into the hell from which it rose, the better both for earth and heaven. For the sake of man's honour and woman's purity I say let the last vestige of it perish for ever. I wish I could gather up all the raps it has ever heard from spirits blest or damned, and gather them all on its own head in one thundering rap of annihilation."—Sermon, "The Religion of Ghosts."

This language, though strong, is not one whit too forcible to describe the fruits of this system, where they have had time to develope. As a system, I believe it to be begotten of hell; to be the devil's grand, and probably, final effort, to overturn the God-given, and purifying, but self-denying religion of Jesus. Spiritism deifies man, overturns human law as well as Divine, makes man his own sole judge in regard to the varied actions of his life, denying any accountability to any higher power, and thus opens the doors to the gratification of all the lower propensities of his nature. That what has been said is in harmony with the facts in the case, the following testimonies will fully prove. The following statement is from Dr. Potter, an earnest advocate of spiritism, but one who sought to correct its abuses, not seeing that they were its natural outgrowth. He 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 and honoured correspondents.

page 92

"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 that 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 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, where-ever we go, we find this tendency in spiritualism."—"Spiritualism as it is," pp. 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."—Ibid. p. 20.

Mrs. Emma Hardinge-Britten, in a lecture delivered by her in Boston, in 1873, and reported in the Melbourne "Harbinger of Light," for October of that year, said:—

"I wish now to speak of that popular doctrine which is identifying itself with spiritualism over the length and breadth of the land, which proposes to reform all the evils of our social system by the abrogation of the marriage tie. It has been too publicly bruited, too universally admitted that the spiritualists are the only sect, and the only class of persons who largely and openly maintain this doctrine, for us to shrink or evade the responsibility of speaking of it. . . . I have nothing to say against those who say that the social evils can be eradicated by the abrogation of the marriage tie; but what I have asked of them, what I have pleaded for, and that for which I protested against them to high Heaven is, that they should not affirm that spiritualism, and their doctrine, are one and the same thing. ... I cannot consent to have my holy religion identified with this wild and insane attempt at reform, which I consider to be the darkest blot that has ever rested upon the hemisphere of social life. I cannot; I will not."

In "Holy Truth," by H. J. Browne, we have the following statements:—

"Untold numbers there are, victims of that ceremonial law designated marriage, which pompously unites man and wife 'until death doth part them,' who have lifted their voices against that principle which binds flesh to flesh, but which never could bind mind to mind, which never could cement soul to soul, which could never weld the chain of affinity and true love, whose links none can sever."—p. 171.

"Let us examine how we can alter this state of things, or, at any rate, our ideas of altering it. When once you have thoroughly realised a knowledge of the laws which govern your being, when you become capable of controlling those manifold passions which are too apt to agitate you—when these can be restrained by the inherent force of the mind—then they need no law, you need no ritual to bind two hearts in one, for an all powerful attraction will suffice to draw them together, and indelibly cement that union which harmony is destined to perpetuate beyond the shades of death."—p. 172.

"Can they not conceive a time arriving in the history of the world, when conjugal felicity will obtain thereon regardless of the futile trammels of a ceremonious ritual, without being bound by any fixed rules, other than those of affinity and love?"—pp. 173, 174.

"The sooner you cultivate and respect these laws of affinity and love, and repeal the absurd customs of your day, the better will it be for the world in which you are so journing."—p. 175.

The writer, who sends forth these sentiments, I know personally, and believe him to be an upright and honorable man; but the principles here enunciated, and it is these we have just now to do with, would destroy the very foundations of social life and happiness. To repeal what are called our "absurd customs" as to marriage, and leave every one to do just as they pleased, being guided simply by what is here called "affinity and love," would be to reduce page 95 man to the level of the beast of the field; for if the language means anything at all, it means that when the "affinity and love" have passed away—in other words, when a greater attraction presents itself, there shall be perfect liberty to lay aside the first and follow the second, and so on ad libitum. That this is not an exaggeration the following quotation, from a paper called the Kingdom of Heaven, will clearly show. In the number for June, 1865, in a platform of principles adopted at Huntsville, Madison Co., Indiana, is a resolution which was passed, declaring it to be a fundamental principle that each man and woman had a perfect right to do just whatever they pleased, and were bound by no law but their own will. What the object of the resolution was, the following remark by the editor of the paper will show:—

"We are neither a Shaker nor a Mormon; nor are we to be bound by the popular marriage laws and customs of society as are now organised; but we would that man and woman should mate only by nature's law of attraction, with as little outward law and ceremony as the little birds in the groves

The filthy and demoralising tendency of spirit teachings is here fully apparent. Human beings "should mate with as little 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 'demoralising.' This is very much like a drunkard and rum-seller, who should speak of the demoralising effects of temperance societies, because he had less company and patronage; or a seducer, who should call virtue demoralising because it deprived him of his victims."

In a work called "Light from the Spirit-World," p. 186, a writer, in speaking of marriages which are not "soul genial," says:—

"They are without the union which constitutes real marriage in the sight of God [let the reader remember that this 'God' is simply man], and the connections formed upon such conditions are no better than those by a more wretched name. ... It has no sanction in nature—its binding force is repudiated by the wisdom of eternity.

In his work, "Love and Marriage," p. 11, Moses Hull says:—Where the spirits are truly united there is mar- page 96 riage—nowhere else." The probabilities in favour of obtaining this "union of spirits," "soul-union," &c., which alone is worthy of being designated by the term marriage, may be gathered from the following, which is from the pen of W. F. Jamieson, editor of the Spiritual Rostrum. In the October number of Vol. I., he says:—

"Moses Hull, in "A few thoughts on Love and Marriage," says:—'There is a remedy against false marriage. Educate yourselves; know yourselves and what you want, then know the person you make your companion.' Ah! there's the rub. Here is a case, a sample of many, a young man, full of promise, marries a blooming miss. She is all the world to him. They live twenty years together happily, each convinced that the other is the true soul-mate. They rear a family of noble sons and charming daughters. Suddenly there comes into view a mere cloud-speck athwart their matrimonial sky, in the form of some peculiarity of disposition, which had lain dormant all those years. The horizon is soon overcast, the light of love is shut out, the waters of hate and bitterness take the place of the sunshine of love; all is enveloped in darkness; and two once-loving souls, 'with but a single thought,' become estranged, separate, and nothing is left but the smouldering embers of a once happy marriage. This is not an overdrawn picture; it is taken from real life. Are there, then, no true soul-unions that shall survive the ravages of time and circumstances? We believe there are, but do not think that our author or any one else has discovered a rule, or a series of rules, by which man or woman can determine with mathematical certainty, what one among a hundred thousand million is the soul's true mate. Approximation to marriage does not constitute marriage."

Mr. T. L. Harris, an intelligent Swedenborgian minister, who became a spiritualist and lectured in London, said, as reported in the "London Advertiser ":—

"The marriage vow imposes no obligations, in the view of Spiritualists. Husbands, who had for years been so devotedly attached to their wives that they have said that nothing in the world but death itself could part them, have abandoned their wives and formed criminal connections with other females, because the spirits have told them that there was a greater spiritual affinity between these husbands and certain other women than between them and page 97 their lawful wives. Wives, too, the most devoted and loving and true to their husbands that had ever contracted the marriage obligation had left their husbands and children and lived in open immorality with other men, because the spirits had told them that they ought to do so, on the ground of there being a greater spiritual sympathy between them and these men than between them and their husbands."—Quoted from "Spiritualism Unveiled," p. 30.

At a "Spiritualist Convention" in Rutland, Vermont held 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."

Love is here represented as equivalent to marriage. When persons love each other they are married—"naturally married," and, as a matter of course, when they cease to love, the marriage relation ceases—they become at once divorced. As carrying out this idea, at a convention held in Ravenna, Ohio, July 4th and 5th, 1858, a Mrs. Lewis said:—

"To confine her love to one man was an abridgement 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 nndying love for them. What business is it to the world whether one man is the father of my children, or ten are? I have a right to say who shall be the father of my offspring."

Of a similar character is the statement of Mrs. Julia Branch, of New York, as reported in the "Banner of Light." In defending the resolution previously quoted as proposed in the convention at Rutland, she 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: it is the binding marriage ceremony which keeps woman degraded in mental blight page 98 —negro slavery. She must demand her freedom; 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."

In the "Universe" for July 3, 1869, Francis Barry says:—

"Twenty-three years ago, I pronounced popular marriage a system of legalized adultery and prostitution. Since then I have done what little I could to oppose and hold up to public contempt the corruption and tyranny of the accursed system. And here and now, I pledge him (Kent) and all true lovers of freedom, that henceforth and till the heaven accursed, man-destroying, woman-torturing child-murdering system of marriage shall be consigned to its eternal grave, I will be in the thickest of the fight."

No ambiguous language this. War against marriage, eternal war, is declared! T. S. Harris says, in the "New York Tribune":—

"The marriage vow imposes no obligation in the view of the spiritualists. . . Many of them go so far as to claim this licentiousness for the spirit world." Again he says :—"Spirits declare there is no marriage as a natural law, but that polygamy or bigamy is as orderly as the monogamic tie. A new attraction becomes the lawful husband or the lawful wife."—"Spiritualism condemned," p. 29.

In his debate with Isaac Irrett, Joel Tiffany, on page 139, says:—

"Lusts, however, are desires after gratification; they have their origin in the spirit, and use the body as a means of gratification. Lust does not leave the spirit when the spirit leaves the body and goes into the spirit world. Has it left behind the character it had here? No, it takes it with it, and seeks as earnestly for its gratification. If there is any principle of philosophy by which it can make use of another's body for the purpose of securing its gratification, it will do so."

At a lecture delivered in Utica, New York, John M. Spear delivered himself of the following anathema:—

"Cursed be the marriage institution; cursed be the relation of husband and wife; cursed be all who would sustain legal marriage! What if there are a few hearts broken? They only go to build up a great principle, and all great truths have their martyrs."

In a small work on "Spiritualism Unveiled," by Miles Grant, is the following:—

"The Detroit Free Press gives an account of a young married lady of that city, who, through the influence of a female relative, acting under the inspiration of the 'harmonial philosophy,' was induced to abandon her husband and go with her to the free love community, Berlin Heights, Ohio. Her husband did not ascertain for several weeks whither she had fled. When he learned where she had gone, he was greatly distressed; but went at once for her and found her perfectly willing to go home. She had seen quite enough of free love.

"When there, she found the marvellous 'love cure' but another name for all that is degrading and loathsome to a virtuous and high-minded woman. Low-bred familiarities with vulgar, fanatical men; companionship with women who deemed themselves elevated above humanity in becoming the victims of their own and their companions' lusts; and a close familiarity with a brutish, criminal enjoyment, which was the highest sphere aimed at in this delectable community, were what she was obliged to submit to."

Mrs. Annie Hunter, whose husband founded the institution at Berlin Heights, writes from Jefferson, Ashtabula County, Ohio, June 5, 1858, as follows:—

"Mr. Editor,—I saw an article in the Ashtabula Telegraph, a few days since, taken from your paper, giving an account of the rescue of a young and lovely woman by her husband from the den of infamy at Berlin I do not know the name of this lady or her husband; but my earnest prayer to God is, that she may never be led into such a temptation again, or be brought to know the depths of sorrow and degradation which that same infamous creed has brought upon me Let her thank a kind Providence that she is restored to the arms of a loving and kind-hearted husband, and is not this moment, as I am, a deserted and heart-stricken wife and mother, dependent upon my daily labor for the pittance which supports my little ones, and keeps starvation from our door.

"My husband was the founder of the Berlin Free-love Institution He has been a believer in that free-love doctrine for about three years. A year ago, or more, he left home, ostensibly upon business; but he only roamed around in search of free-love companions; having found a small number of which, he took them to Berlin and founded the infamous den of lust which now exists there. He left me with three little children to provide for, and nothing to do it with but my hands. I have stood for four days in the week over the wash-tub, laboring until my strength has given way entirely, for the sake of a little money with which to feed my children."

A lecture was delivered in the Clinton Hall, New York, by Mrs. Cora Scott (late the wife of Dr. Hatch) under 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 was thus given 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,' &c.

"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."—"Nature and Tendency of Modern Spiritualism," p. 142.

In a book by Dr. A. B. Child, who is one of the most popular spiritualist authors, occurs the following:—

"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."—"Christ and 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 uncer- page 101 tain outside standard of rectitude, upon no dogma of another, no purity of earthly, 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."—Ibid. pp. 28, 29.

The moral and social anarchy which would ensue upon the general adoption of spiritualism as a religion and theory of life, may be judged of by the following, from the same work:—

"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 of 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."—Ibid. p. 175.

"He who wars with sin, leaves nothing lovely in his track."—p. 191. Quoted from "Nature and Tendency of Modern Spiritualism," p. 146.

In a previous quotation, we have shown that among spiritualists no action is worthy of either praise or blame; that the worst acts of the Spanish Inquisitor were equally worthy of commendation as were those of Penn, or Howard, or any other of the benevolent or philanthropical of earth. A. J. Davis has been especially cited upon this point, and it was seen that he considered that to blame any one for any act, however reprehensible the act might be considered by men, was "a sort of Atheism" of which he declared he would not be guilty. John M. Spear, a noted medium, an inditer of many popular spirit books, and a practical spiritualist, became the father of an illegitimate child. In harmony with the above principles, he found abundance of defenders. A Mr. Stearling published two articles in the "Spiritual Telegraph," in his vindication, and that of his affinity, Miss H. The following is an extract from this defence:—

"Suppose, then, Miss H. has become a mother. Does that fact warrant you in calling Mr. Spear a libertine or a debauchee? page 102 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."

Miss H., however, speaks in her own defence, and loudly asserts her rights. She says :—

"I will exercise that dearest of all rights, the holiest and most sacred of all 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 from me the realization of that purest of all inspirations inherent in every true woman, the right to re-beget myself when, and by whom, and under such circumstances, as to me seem fit and best"

It is difficult to conceive language such as this emanating from a female. Yet such is the case. It shows to what lengths human infatuation and shamelessness may be carried. Miss H. simply acted in accordance with spirit teaching, and probably spirit prompting; but oh! what a horrid scene of carnality and prostitution would our world become were its inhabitants left wholly to the guidance of beings whose teachings produce fruits such as these. What strikes the mind with surprise in these effusions is the mingling together of a mock reverence for God with a total disregard for his authority. There is a claiming to do these things under His sanction, when their only sanction is that of their own hellish passions, and the suggestion of the dark fiends of the lowest abyss. As further showing the daring impiety of these persons, and page 103 how they will do the most wicked things and claim religious sanctions to their acts, the following may be given from Miles Grant's little work on Spiritualism. He says of his own experience:—

"We are personally acquainted with one who claims to be Christ's medium, and a medium for the higher order of spirits, as the Apostles and other holy men; and yet we heard a prominent spiritualist say, in Concert Hall, Philadelphia, during the National Convention of Spiritualists, held there in Oct. 1865. that this very medium was a 'vile wretch!' and that he held dark circles with persons in their nude state. This same medium has so abused two wives that they cannot live with him. He says he is to have seven wives. In connection with all this, we have rarely found a man who would talk purer morals than this person. After hearing him speak of Jesus and the "Christ principle," one might suppose him to be a true follower of our Saviour; but, when the test is applied, the whole is found to be only Satan's counterfeit. Instead of 'Christianism' being synonymous with 'Spiritualism,' as claimed by the spirits and spiritualists, they are as unlike in their moral influence as are Christ and Belial."—p. 40.

Satan is transformed as an angel of Light, and his ministers as the ministers of righteousness. Were it not for this pretence of purity, by which vast numbers are imposed upon, the horns, tail, and cloven foot of the reputed chief of the demons would be so apparent that none could possibly doubt the Satanic origin of this fearful system. I present one more extract before closing this chapter. It is from Moses Hull, formerly a Christian teacher, who loved and venerated the Bible, but who, having embraced spiritism, was landed in the abyss to which it leads all its devoted votaries. In a work entitled "A few Thoughts on Love and Marriage," and which work is highly commended by the "Banner of Light" as "a very worthy pamphlet," he says :—

"Now, with no other ken than that of human sagacity, we look, not a score of years into the future, and see a rebellion, a war, before which the commotion through which our nation has just passed sinks into insignificance. Not a war of flesh and blood. No; blood is not pure and precious enough to purchase the results of the coining war; an element as much purer than blood as spirit is finer than matter will be the price with which redemption from marital slavery will be bought. Think not, dear reader, that we are overdrawing the picture—it cannot be done. Whoever sees the opening of the twentieth century will say that the picture was not half drawn. It is said that 'Conceit is as good for a fool as an page 104 emetic! So it is for any one. 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 a revolution—of anarchy—of an opposite extreme, even to the total annulling of the marital tie, will be the result. Then it will be that the Conservatives, on the one hand, and the Radicals on the other will become rational, and men and women will not dare to enter the marriage relation without first having investigated the 'Whys' and the 'Wherefores.' Then will all be prepared to use the language of Robert Burns :—