WILLIAM L.GLEMENTS
LIPRARY OF
AMERICAN HISTORY
UNIVERSITY'ſ MICHIGAN
KL.”
O Cº.
G|...-a,
EEZ
W|
ſ|
am
W
N
W
W.
i







(Z.
\a EXPRESSION &4, 2%
OF .
3}
FAITH.
& DiscuſsivK LETTER,
BY H. L. EADES,
SOUTH UAVIO/W, K Y.,
OCTOBER, 1875.
“BE YE READY ALways To Give AN ANswer To EveRY MAN THAT
ASKETH YOU A reason FOR THE HOPE THAT IS IN YOU.”—Paul.
PRINTED For THE AUTHoR AT THE
Chronicle Book & job Printing Office,
ORANGE, N. J.
I875.


Apologetic,
A-_-_º- A- A—AE-A A. A. zº- zº- zºº. … *.
vºmy
The advance in knowledge and the fluctuating state
of the world, with its art, intrigue and its “many signs,
wonders” and lying inventions, having affected in a
measure the minds of some of the household of believ-
ers with a gravitating tendency to the external, has
caused the writer of the following letter to revise and
extend it for the benefit of younger minds, and to set
forth his faith upon a few agitated subjects and give his
reasons therefor, which a life of nearly seventy years in
this work has implanted. It is by no means a mere pas-
time or pleasure with him, who is now looking beyond
the shining river, but it is prompted by an internal de-
sire to do good. He now with some diffidence puts it in
solid form, and submits it to the careful and candid peru-
sal of all ; asking pardon for his boldness and an exten-
sion of charity for any part which may seem out of place,
or may be offensive, •
If it, or any part thereof, shall, in time to come, be
proven to be incorrect or untrue, he will cheerfully
accept the mortification which such knowledge with
unfolding time may inflict. So saying, he greets one .*
and all of Mother's household in the purest of a bro- .
- ther's love.
My DEAR ELDER FREDERICK:
I have been in receipt of your kind favor for some
days past, for which you have my sincere thanks. I
thank you for its unvarnished plainness, its perfect free-
dom from disguise and flattery, particularly so, as it in-
vites the same freedom on my part, you and I having
traveled beyond receiving offense at any well-intended
expression of a brother working in the same harness and
endeavoring to support the same cause. I unite with
you most cordially (notwithstanding you consider me to
be your “theological antipode ") in the expression of
love, and even admiration of you, “as a brother,” even
though in your much zeal a little knowledge may still
be wanting on your part, as it is in the present case re-
specting myself. ". ( ).
As your letter abounds in important questions as well
as some mistakes, I must ask you to clothe yourself with
a little patience, whilst I endeavor, in part at least, to
answer the former and correct the latter, and trust you
will excuse me, if I should see fit to extend my remarks
‘beyond what your letter demands, that others with your-
self may see me as I am. You speak of my brother,
J. R. EADES,
Differing from myself, in that he was a spiritual-minded
man, whilst “H. L. Eades is more natural than a mate-
rialist, more literal than an Adventist, and quite as dog-
matic as a Romanist,” &c., and that to him “the order
of ministry is as inquisitor-general of the Gospel, and
draws his ideas of Divine things from the anti-Christian
Bible,” &c. e
6.
Is it not a mistake to aver that I am your antipode
theologically, simply because I doubt and even oppose
some of your propositions that are unsupported by rea-
son P Aristotle says; “Philosophy does not consist in
the art of doubting, as some affirm, but in the art of
doubting well.” Propositions which are unsupported by
reason, all are at liberty to doubt. If you claim super-
natural light, or even direct inspiration, this does not re-
lieve them, for Locke truly says: “All inspirations must
be judged by something extrinsic to themselves, or con-
tradictory inspirations would deprive us of all truth.”
The French writer Dupuis very truly remarked, in
his “Origin of All Religious Worship,” that “one proof
is of far more value than the openzons of ten thousand.
men.” So, my dear brother, just put in your proofs, and
you will find no easier convert than you humble corres-
pondent. But your article seems to be wonderfully defi-
cient, in this particular. & -
First—If, to declare, as I have done, to S. R, Wells,
Dr. McCosh, Tyndall and others, which you have read,
and I haye nowhere disputed, that “matter and spirit
are contradictory and distinct—can not come in contact.
by touch,” and quoted a number of the best philosophers
with which our world has been blessed in evidence, and
have stated also that matter can not be spiritualized nor
spirit materialized,”—if this be materialism, then I am a
materialist.
Second—If to declare that spiritual-mindedness alone .
can bring happiness, life and peace, is to be more literal,
than Adventists, then this charge is true. 49 ſº
Third--If boldly, yet not arrogantly, to assert doc-
trines with logical accuracy, and give, or agree to give
proof, be dogmatism, then I am a dogmatist. wº
But dogmatist —As I have viewed it, my brother, has,
for the past two decades or more, advanced and advo-
cated doctrines, apparently with but little thought, for
the support of which no reasons were or could be given.
7 Q
Whilst this writer, for the same length of time, has en-
tertained and adhered to, but suppressed doctrines for
union's sake, which prominent brethren, especially C.
and F., consider to be heretical; the contrary of which
were published some time subsequently in our book en-
titled, “Christ's First and Second Appearing.” Since
then some of them have been accepted as true, which, if
I am correctly informed, you now endorse, viz: The
denial of the miraculous conception of Jesus, and the
truth of the doctrine that He arose by accepting the
mission of, and confession to, John the Baptist, as Ann
Lee did to James and Jane Wardley. Truth only wants
time to assert her supremacy in the honest heart, as I
believe yours to be ; and, as we are a unit in the essen-
tials of the Christ life, and truth the aim of us all, we
shall doubtless keep nearing each other in the non-es-
sentials. This much I say to soften, but not to wholly
deny the charge of dogmatist. I will here name some
of the doctrines to which I have reference.
First—That God is an organization.
Second—That the Infinite is two organizations or
persons.
Third—That the God of the universe was not the
God of the Jews. t
Fourth—That the God of the universe departed from
the children of Israel.
Fifth–That God had no sons and daughters on
earth.
Sixth-That the God of the Jews was a medium of
powers above Hzm. [. &
Seventh—That the annointed man Jesus was not the
Chrzsz. ( .
Eighth—That the Christ was imported from some
foreign world of ready-made Christs, and sent to this
world, and took up his abode in Jesus.
This doctrine, more than a thousand years old, is not
only chimerical but too external. I see no effect its ad-
8
mission can have, only to weaken the force of the coun-
sel of God in the -
& VISIBLE ORDER,
And cause us to look outward for assistance in working
out our redemption which we will never receive. It is
at least first cousin to the “Atoning blood" doctrine.
The one to have a foreign Christ to do at least a part of
the work. The other to do it all—one about as consis-
tent as the other. It is written of Christ Jesus, that
“his own arm brought salvation unto him.” Schleir-
macher puts it in handsome language:– “In Jesus the .
higher consciousness was only gradually developed along
with the lower, yet the relative strength of each always
preserved the same proportion, insomuch that the higher
maintained an invariable preponderance and thus con-
trolled the lower without wavering and without aberra-
tion.” “In all of us,” says Strauss, “there is an inces-
Sant warfare between the higher and lower conscious-
ness, the promptings of reason and sense. Believers
would say between flesh and spirit. The former we must
crucify in order to live in the latter. Jesus had this warfare
and came off victorious and cheers us with these words:
“Little children be of good cheer, I have overcome the
world,” and, “the prince of this world cometh and find-
eth nothing in me,” with which to affiliate.
Now, my brother, if you are posted in the
FOREIGN CHRIST THEORY
You must have discovered that it was this very doctrine
that split in twain the first Christian church, and drove
the true Christians and adherents of the good apostle
John out of Jerusalem. All of these, and many more
similar, it is no strain of truth to class as Chimera.
You speak very truly when you say that “H. L. Eades
considers the Ministerial order to be the Inguzsztor-Gene-
ral of the Gospel set for the correction (not the punish-
ment) of heretics.” And then you make the following
important inquiry: “Is it not best that we, with clear
9
consciences, labor for and with the spirit of truth, trust-
ing that it will lead us [instead of a visible lead] into all
truth?” Why, my brother, where is your faith? What
you ask is just what all reformers, spiritualists and every
libertine in the world contends for. They all, want in-
stead of a visable lead, to be directed by some hidden
spirit of truth, of which, however, they must be the
judges. They want no personal God-man nor personal
God-woman to intervene, mediate nor judge of what
that hidden spirit reveals to them. Let this be admitted
in Zion, where would it land us P
It would then be “Every man to his tent, O, Israel !”
I am willing, and do very freely acknowledge, that, in
merely external matters—scientific, physical, mechanical,
historical, lingual or even intellectual—the Ministry may
not be qualified to lead. Yet, most assuredly, the order
of first Ministry is anquisitor for all Zion, just as Elder F.
is for the North and Canaan families. An inquisitor is
a person whose official duty is to inquire what is going
on in the church or family over which they are appoint-
ed to preside. What would my brother think of an Elder
under him advocating doctrines that he felt certain
would injure or ruin his family, and who would deny
his right as inquisitor, and refuse to withhold said
doctrines P Would it not be duty to release such person
as soon as the fact was ascertained P What is the El-
der's duty to the family is the Ministry's duty to Zion.
But here is the point I am aiming at. The order of first
MŽnzstry is an appointment either Devºne or human—
either it is God-made or man-made. If the latter, it re-
ceives its power from man, and man can take it away. It
would deserve respect only in so far as it equalized, ad-
justed and adapted external things for the comfort of
external humanity, as other Communities do, which is •
with them the all-important matter and chief Concern—
“things for which the Gentiles seek.” Whilst with us,
these things are secondary, incidental—things which, in
}
Io
*
a certain sense, we are to “take no thought about,” but
which are added, after “first seeking the kingdom of
God and his righteousness;” are of unimportant con-
sideration with the faithful, when compared with the
real object of our institution, which is for the soul and
not the body. /" We are e
NOT OF THIS world,” &
Neither are we one more of the communities of this world;
nor are we of the reformers of this world; inasmuch as
we clasp hands with them and give our substance to as-
sist them in their reforms, just in this ratio do we de-
tract from our spiritual life and weaken our own cause.
It is thought by some that the time is come for the flow-
ing numbers of the prophet (Micah 4. 2.) to be fulfilled:
“The law shall go forth of Zion. Shall rebuke strong
nations afar off, &c.” This may be true, but it is a mis-
conception to suppose this has reference to the external
law. The inspired law of Moses cannot well be improved
for the natural man, with its sabbaths of weeks and years
and equalizations, where the bondage, oppression and
greed of every fifty years are destroyed, (Levit. c. 25.) no
more than can the spiritual law and life of Christ be im-
proved for the spiritual man, with its entire consecra-
tion of body, soul and property. It is the -
e SPIRITUAL LAW .
that is to go forth and rebuke the nations; and it is for
us to see that the prophet's further inspirations are not
fulfilled : “They shall also look upon Zion and say let
her be defiled.” It is for the Daughter of Zion and her
offspring to “arise and thresh,” and so beat them in
pieces that they will come and “Consecrate their gain
unto the Lord.” If we would not be defiled let us not
descend from the higher, and trail our skirts in the mire
of the lower law. Let us not give our spiritual substance
in moulding and manipulating laws that rudimental man
may live more happily and enjoy better the generative
condition. Let us not become common and unclean by
I I
blending with them and voting in their assemblies. If
we should, their ends will be accomplished and our de-
filement certain. The lower law could not emanate from
Zion, even if half the inhabitants resided therein. What
is meant by the new earth is not an improvement in
the conditions of the natural order. It is the new con-
ditions of holding, possessing and enjoying the earth.
The new Heavens are the new spiritual conditions of
the denizens of this new earth. It is the new kind of
happiness and bliss enjoyed distinct from that which the
old earth and heavens gave them. It is an entire mis-
take to suppose that God can have a new earth accom-
panied by any of the old generative conditions. The
mind is in darkness and needs light that rests upon any
such hypothesis. It must ever continue to be the
old earth, how muchsoever modified and improved,
whilst the generative earthly conditions remain.
We, whilst in the body, have entered the
SOUL world, *
where our work and interest lie. Our life is not in this
world, but another,” hid with Christ in God.” If here
we have houses added, well ; if not, well. Our business
is not to assist in building up the best reforms the world
may inaugurate, but to reap reformers and others from
this world when they become sick of it all. Reformers
are called to labor in the old earth and heavens; while
we are called to the new—why then should we still dab-
ble in the old conditions, when so much is needed to be
done in the new P If duty calls us there, it is not to talk
of homestead laws—how to circumvent the wealthy and
relieve physical oppression, and devise some proper and
decent mode of generation—but to unfurl the banner
of Christ and Mother, with the two-edged sword that
cuts within, in one hand, and an olive branch in the

O.
sº I R = • * ^ = => a . a wºrs-- ~ y | . . " " ' ". . . . . . ºn A. - . . . º.º. * * * * * º [Ts
Other. } † Fºº F.E.3 FEG-Eº [T]," Tº º A 2 r) C C.
( ( )
º º A.Y. O Laº a º a ſº () a Gº º ſº & 2^ (AY O º º sº º ... ºn v
cºlº@C s ºº:: tº Sººº...I.TIKºłº C.
I would just add here, that reformers are doing noth-
e-
I?
ing towards their souls' 'redemption, "more thaff other
worldlings: Many worldly communistic reformérs, as
well as Catholics and others, have lived, and may live
CELIBATE LIVES, . -
But except they find God's order and there become in-
grafted into the vine—enter the furnace and become pu-
rified by its fire—they will never reflect the image of the
refiner, but will still remain with and be one of the
world unsaved. Any respectable worldling can realize
more happiness in the aggregate, by living the life of
external celibacy than the opposite ; but internal celi-
bacy is a different thing—for which the proper term is
continence. Those who really live continent lives and
keep all the lusts of their lower nature under the control
of the higher impulses, have found a new country—en-
tered into a world of bliss and enjoy a felicity of which
those who do not are in total ignorance and to which
they are entire strangers. The external may be lived,
while the heart is corrupt. But even continence alone,
although indispensable to the e
( . CHRIST LIFE,
Will save no one. Much besides this is requisite. Per-
sons may thus live and still retain so much of their an-
tagonizing natures, that half a dozen cannot domicile
together in peace; whilst they may be beset with ©
tº “DIVERs LUSTs,” * - t
Which wholly disqualify them from being “heirs and
joint heirs" with and of our heavenly parents. At the
same time such feel themselves to be on a higher plane
than the world, when the difference between them is
this ; the latter trim off the outer branches and cultivate
the main stem, while the former cut down the trunk but
permit rank suckers to grow up from the roots, such as
First.—Self-will and self-importance, which sprouts,
some say, are harder to conquer than the main stem.
Second.—Disobedience and judging the order before
them, saying: “Shall I blindly submit to an order that is
I3
imperfect, be a machine, and lose my identity and indi-
viduality ? What did God give us reason and judgment
and faculties for, if we are not to use them P I can't be
a mule for any body.” All such have need to be in-
formed that G
ABSOLUTE PERFECTION
Is no where only in Diety, and in his kingdom it is for
the less perfect to submit to the more perfect—the less
spiritual to the more spiritual—the less capable to the
more capable—all in childlike simplicity to their appoint-
ed lead, otherwise harmony cannot be had in our Moth-
er's household. They should further learn that they
can be identified as well in obedience as out of it and
employ all their faculties, judgment, reason, art, ingenu-
ity and skill, as fully in doing what some one lays out
, for them as in what they lay out for themselves—their
individuality being left intact, though cemented in the
body. No excuse whatever for disobedience. It is only
the obedient that have the right to eat the göod of the
land. º 6
Third.—Importunate lust. Herein we have the paradox
of being obedient and disobedient at the same time. We
want our own will but dare not assert it, but by inces-
sant importunity it is reluctantly granted, or by press-
ing demand it may be granted; then, it not working
well, as it seldom does, the importuner very innocently
says: “I did it in obedience.” This is a hateful lust. .
Fourth.-Partzal lust. Whoever does a kind office or
gives a present from partial motives to the individual
over others equally needy and worthy, and such person
receives it in the same partial spirit, who can say they
have not gratified their lusts together—their partial
lusts? which if continued will work irreparable mis--
chief.
Fifth.-Worldly Ain. The lust of holding to wordly
kin, or blood kin, within the household, is like */

wife looking back to Sodom, it will petrify the soul.
I4
Sixth.-Complazning, grumbling, taunting, fault-find-
ing, Censorious, teasing, revengeful, selfish, unthankful,
uncharitable, unforgiving, jealous, gluttonous and many
others unsubdued. All or any of them habitually in-
dulged in unfit the possessors for the Master's use.
What kind of adornment could such be to our Mother's
spirit home, even though they had lived strict celibates
during their whole earth life P Troublesome and pesti-
ferous here, they would be the same there: hence will
doubtless be excluded. -
Dear Brother, would it not be better, instead of look-
ing to the outer world for a forward movement, to look
within and see how many of these and other lusts, if any,
we live in the gratification of P Although we may be
Celibates, are these not enough to prevent an increase
and exclude God’s blessing of fruitage in his Zion ? Are
all of us clear of these things P Finally, can God bless
Zion while living in these worldly lusts? If we are
parents, we should not be barren, but multiply and re-
plenish the kingdom. If we are children, let us be
obedient in all things. If we are rightful heirs, let our
Consecration be complete, of body, limbs, spirit and fac-
ulties, in order to justify the pretension. Nothing short
of this will do it. Q
I will add in this connection, I have known some to
come under loss by wrongly construing the words of
Christ, John, x, 16: “Other sheep have I which are not
of this fold, them also must I bring : they shall hear my
voice.” Such would say: “I prefer to be an outside sheep.
I can do as well and be saved as easily outside as inside,”
and “rush headlong down the precipice and perish in
the sea" of humanity, just as those two-legged swine
did in Jesus' day. It will be seen that the sheep spoken
of by the Saviour, were prospective sheep, to be gathered
into the fold, hear His voice, in his appointed leaders,
obey and be saved. No other plan will do. But, after
all, there is in our { \,
15
( ) MOTHER's HOUSE,
Where there are no counterfeits, an awe-inspiring
world's wonder; a standing miracle of the age; persons
with soul and body consecrated to God, filled with quiet,
unpretending goodness and unselfish love, a divine con-
tentment resting on each countenance ; an inward peace
that nothing can destroy ; an indescribable, ineffable
sweetness pervading them, exhibiting a heaven-born
greatness and grandeur, which the world of science can
neither comprehend nor imitate. Ah why should it
be wasted “on the desert air” by seeking worldly asso-
ciation, worldly knowledge or applause, or be spent in a
strife to comprehend their mysteries P'-Butter-the-ſetter.
If the first ministerial appointment, before noticed, is
divine, which it certainly is, and not of men, it then be-
comes to us God's kingdom which we have sought and
entered—not God’s Democracy—but it is His judgment
seat for all earth's inhabitants who desire to pe saved—
for the great purpose of spirit resurrection, and as said,
other things being incidental. This then being God's
appointment from this seat of judgment there can be no
higher appeal either in earth or heaven; because it is
the operation of the ever present Infinite Spirit in His
own order. It is either this, or it is earthly, and soon to
be over-reached. This Ministerial order then, is •

GOD PERSONIFIED
To judge the world. It being the head of God’s living
body among men, it is not only their business, but their
indispensable duty to know the conditions of all the
branches and members thereof, and to judge what spirit-
ual food is best to give or withhold from them. No
member, Sub-minister, nor Elder, can possibly know
this so well as they, and all counsel or 2nstruction of a
spiritual bearing coming through this channel, which is
uninfluenced by the passional nature, is the counsel of
God, sealed in earth and heaven : If it is not this, it is
nothing but human reliance, and this you know. is a
I6
broken reed. We are then, to all intents and purposes,
a theocrasy; the government of God, by his appointed
order among men. It is therefore sheerest presump-
tion in any member of this body, to try to assume their
prerogative, and to seek for spiritual truth and light,
around, independendent of, and not in union with this
order. For God having an order, must of necessity work
in, through and by that order; if not, then His orderºbe-
comes a useless excresence, and the whole, pretension
aă înéto null. Christ says: “You have not chosen me,
but I have chosen you.” He then, Christ Jesus, was the
visible head. His appointees are His . . . .
* v1CEGERENTs, *- .
Not Christ's. His present vicegerents have chosen us
and appointed us as watchmen and guardians under them
in certain branches. We, therefore, can only be profit-
able so long as we are in perfect accord with the ap-
pointing gift. “As my Father hath sent me, even so
send I you.” tº: idea that some believers have that
every appointed Sub-minister, or Elder, is a Christ, is
very erroneous. They quote, “Saviours shall come up
on Mount Zion,” &c. But Saviours and Christs are not
synonyms. I will not trouble you now on this)
My dear Brother, if there is a God-appointéd head, it
is wrong to entertain a feelºng to go counter to that
head; and, to carry such feeling out in word or action,
with the knowledge, or even the supposition that, it is
contrary to the leading gift, it becomes a crime to be
confessed and repented of; because, to admit it to be
right in one case, we may in Ioo or 1,000, or, as a princi-
ple, which would utterly destroy that which we are la-
boring to uphold, so w
- THIS IS A LICENSE
That no Sub-minister, nor Elder, nor any member should
ever allow themselves to indulge in, for if they do, it
will prove fatal to such one's prosperity. A simple
r?
knowledge of the feelings of the leading gift should be
sufficient without a direct word. . *
Ernest Renan tells one truth in his Christian criti-
cism where he says: “Experience has demonstrated
that the simple faith of a people is not sufficient to pre-
serve a religion, if a constituted hierarchy and spiritual
chief do not keep watch and ward over it.” -
You further inquire: “Shall we change our theologi-
cal views every time there is a change in the Ministry or
Elders ?” Not at all. We are never required to change our
theological views. We are only required to keep them in
order—hold them in abeyance—not spread them abroad,
where it is thought by the lead they would do more harm
than good. There is no real safety for ourselves and
the body at large, only to be guided in these things by
the head. When Brother F. restricted the spread of my
theological views, which I thought were, and still be-
lieve are, true, did I complain P. Not at all; believing it
was done in union with the lead, and that what he pub-
lished was in the same union, was consequently the best
for the time being. But the lead never at any time re-
quired me to change my theological views. So we need
never change them until we can perceive the evidence of
their falsity, then we can not help changing them.
These we may retain and still be brothers and a unit in
living the Christ life. At the same time I repeat, it would
be unwise, and even wrong, to publish them as food for
society without the certainty of the union of the lead in
So doing.....
You inform me, to my astonishment, that I am “one ~


of a type of old believers who came out of Egypt, but
(i. ve not yet passed _º -
_ _-, * * T
_–m *T
------- - - - OVER JORBA-N-4”---
This is sadly wanting in proof. We old Shakers of this
type, in coming out of the wilderness of sin, being duly
baptized, we passed over a certain creek which we took
to be Jordan, and entered into a land, we suppose to be
18.
the promised land. . “We drave-out our enemies; and,
God gave us lands for our possessions.” . His temples.
were built, priesthood established, yearly and other sac-
rifices, and offerings duly made, covenants established,
&c. All before Brother F, even knew, a Jordan had to be ~
passed; and, now; after all his kind information, we still:
believe we are enjoying the “promised land, which the
Lord our God hath, given us.” Please don't undeceive
us, brother.' * \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is this class, if I understand you rightly, who now
in “all, our societies, in a greater or less degree, are shut-
ting, out the very men and women who, alone can con-
tinue the work of human redemption.” We should not
forget that the “little child spirit” has to lead in this work; .
We old Shakers referred to certainly shut out none, only ,
such as can’t be made to see God in his order to be obeyed,
and it is too plain for dispute that any one, either in or
or out of Zion, that can not be made to see
GOD IN HIS ORDER, •
They can not build up that ſorder, and must fail of re-
ceiving the blessing it affords. I think this is plain.
Next, my Brother turns scriptorian and gives me some
four or five texts for consideration. Suffice, it to say, I
would explain them all differently from my brother. Will
notice only the last one,—that of the “Sons of God going
into Earth's daughters and producing a race of giants.”
I have no faith whatever in the possibility of flesh and
spirit contact; of angel disembodied spirits cohabiting | |
with women to beget either giants or saints. I never:
did believe the statement: in the last edition of our book, “ . .
entitled “Christ's Second Appearing,” that the Angel
“Gabriel infused into Mary the germinal seed, which she
conceived in the begetting of. Jesus.” Nay, the sons of
God who begat those giants were men. The good Shak-3
ers are now the sons of God; and were they to go into
earth's daughters, it would be a repetition of what took
place in the days of yore, when the sons of God left his ;
19. fº
order and went into the daughters of men. No mystery
about this. ºf , . .
Allow me now to say a word about the
, * SHAKER AND SHAKERESS
beforeturning to the physical part of your letter. You
asked me in a card what I thought of it. When two .
things, presented themselves, neither of which I found
myself able to do; I could neither lie nor tell the truth.
Had I told you I was pleased with it, I should some day
have to confessoffalsifying. Had I told you I was hurt
and displeased, it might have wounded'you. I could not
take hold of either horn of this dilemma. I therefore,
in a very “hurried manner, spun out my thoughts to a
third party—the Ministry—whose wisdom directed them
to hand it to you. I presume it is for the best, as it has
given us the opportunity of more fully understanding
each other. º t -
Now to be candid, I think the Shaker and Shakeress
is deficient in particulars as follow : .
First–In this that it points neither believers nor the
world to any pole-star. *
Second—It leaves us in the estimation of mankind at
large as simply one or more of the communitzes thereof.
Third—The manner in which it is conducted is such
as to make the world believe that Brother F. is the head of
the institution, and all he says is orthodox Shakerism.
Fourth—It ignores the idea of a God-appointed agent
before him, to whom he is amenable, and jesus the Christ
before this order as their patterm.
Fifth–It denies the easily proved truth that the
annointed and God-appointed man jesus was the Christ
or Messiah of the resurrection order. X- *
Sixth--It ignores the fact that Christ Jesus is the
head of this order in the spzrat world, and that his vice-
gerents are the head of this order on earth. te
Seventh—It makes Jesus, the Christ, only an exter-
nal reformer like Confucius, Socrates, Plato and others ;
\
[. 2O
when he is not of this class of beings at all. But a God.
sent man for spiritual purposes solely, whilst all others
were but social reformers. He being God personified to
the world then, as his vicegerents are now, who have but
little or no business with the reformatory measures that
agitate the world of externalities.
Eighth—It panders to Spiritualists in such a manner
that they can see nothing among us only that which
attaches to other communities, except, as they say, a
“false idea of celibacy, which the Shakers will soon
outgrow.” Thus are mankind misled. * G
Nothing pleases editors of the Spiritual papers better
than to quote from us that Jesus was only an enlighten-
ed Jewish reformer. In some respects in the dark—be-
lieved in war, and the resurrection of the body; and
that the old Shakers were in some respects behind the
Jews, and would have to go to them for light—that the
gospel and Jewish ritual complemented each other;
were interlocked and would have to go together, and
much more of the same order. Now if any of us sup-
pose we have out-stripped our heavenly Parents in
spiritual progression and the crucifixion of our lusts, it
would be generous in us, when we get our little fox-fire
kingdom in running order, to invite them to fall into
line. But, º O
Ninth—To my extreme mortification, it advocates
the doctrine of
SPIRIT MATERIALIZATION,
And of de-materzalizatzon, both of which are impos-
sible, unless a thing can be what it is and something
else at the same time. No reason whatever is ap-
pealed to, to sustain the theory. Its devotees seem to
rise on the wings of the wind and by imagination, and a
love of the marvelous, are carried away to the super-
sensuous and still find no solid resting place.
That there is more than one substance, and not
more than two in existence, I think, is self-evident. .
21
These are matter and El spºrtt, and that one of
these cannot become the other is also evident, but as
others think differently I propose to offer some reasons
on the subject: * g
First—If there are two distinct substances, they can-
not be alike in any particular, else they would be but
partially distinct—a mixture which would prove them to
be the same. - - * b.
Second—If they are not alike in any particular, they
are contradictory. If they are contradictory, it is im-
possible for them to affiliate, or for one to become the
other. O nay, beloved; this must be set down among
the things which are impossible. Two substances that
are in no respects similar, are neither interchangeable
nor interblendable. The conditioned cannot become the
unconditioned; nor the extended the unextended, nor
vice versa. To admit this would be equal to asserting
that a thing could be made to exist, and not exist at the
same time, which, with bowed head, I must say is impos-
sible with God. Thus we cannot fail to perceive the
impossibility of spirit materialization; but if one can be-
come the other, the one substance theory is proven to
be true. Let this be granted, see what follows: 0.
First—Sumption... . . . . . . . There is but one substance.
Sub-sumption. . . . . . But God is one substance.
Ergo. . . . . . . . . . . . . .The one substance is God.
Second–Sumption.... . . . . . ..The one substance is matter or nature.
Sub-sumption ...... But God is one substance.
Ergo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . God is matter or nature.
Hence we have no God but nature, and to nature only
are we accountable. Shall we become Atheists P
The foregoing conclusion cannot be avoided admit-
ting the one substance doctrine. And this admission is
all that can make spirit materialization possible.
LOC KE
Reasons thus: “If matter were the external first cogi-
tative being, there would not be one infinite cogitative
being, but an infinite number of cogitative beings of
22
limited force and distinct thoughts, independent of each
other, &c. But unthinking particles of matter, however
put together, can have nothing thereby added to them
but a new relation of position, which it is impossible
should give thought and knowledge to them.” Thus
the two substances are proved to exist, which at the
same time proves also the impossibility of spirit mate-
rialization. What then do we have from the foregoing
corollary? . . . . . . .

First—Sumption. . . . . . . . . . Matter cannot think.
Sub-sumption...... ºut there is a substance that thinks.
Ergo..............This substance is not matter. te
... Second–Sumption..........god is either matter or spirit.
Sub-sumption......But God is not matter.
Ergo.............. God is spirit.
Third–Sumption.... . . . . . . The spirit of man is either of the substance o
God or matter. w
Sub-sumption......But the spirit of man is of God.
Ergo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The spirit of man is not matter.
And I think the impossibility for it to become so is
proved to a demonstration. -
- BROTHER PEEBLES . . .
Seems to have still a different theory—three substances
instead of one or two. He says: “There are three sub-
stances: essential spirit, spiritual substance and physi-
cal matter. These three are factors that constitute ac-
tual being.” This theory, though erroneous, is prefer-
rable to the one substance. If these three factors con-
stitute all being, they constitute God. But the Brother
does not inform us what the spiritual substance is, only
that it is a microcosmal entity. It would seem to be
Bearing-Gould's axle that connects the antinomies of
matter and spirit. But this axle must be either spirit or
matter, and hence stand itself in need of a medium to
connect with spirit. Brother P. says: “Essential spirit is
as indefinable as it is indestructible, and that the soul is
allied to the over-soul;” but as his spirit substance is a
microcosmal entity, this would seem to make the over-
23.
soul a microcosnal entity also: a God of matter! Thus
the three substance doctrine seems to defeat itself.
| | * PROF, MAPES º
Speaking by the organs of Cora L. V. Tappan of Lon-
don, confirms the two substance theory. He says: “I
now retract all my former theory on this subject. I find
spirit to be in itself an essence, which, by no possibility
of combination in matter, can either be material or
created. In my reasoning I shall take the basis of
the non-spirituality of atoms.” And of spirit forms
He says: “Do not mistake these forms for the actual
spirit forms of your friends, &c. They are neither com-
posed of the same substance nor in any way constructed
as the spirit body in the spirit land, &c.” Here, by one
of the first minds and most reliable instruments now
living, the possibility of spirit materialization is flatly
denied, and also the real appearance of spirit
friends to the normal eye. This is undoubtedly true.
Then I would say let not the elect be deceived by
the wièrd, phosphorescent, moonshine ghosts and
hob-goblins, manufactured by spirit tricksters and
jugglers in both worlds to make money and deceive the
race. Just take all the money away from this spirit Cir-
cus, and it would die in a fortnight. I am asked if I
would not believe were I to see them myself? I answer,
not at all. It would be impossible for me to believe, un-
til I should be first convinced of the truth of the One
substance theory, and that God and the thinking prin-
ciple within me was were matter and that I was not
possessed of a spirit substance distinct from matter.
Prof. Mapes says the senses are unreliable.
In order to make spirit materialization possible its
advocates are driven to the point of denying spirit ex-
istence altogether, hence leaving no spirit to material-
1ze () and thus knock out their own underpinning, they
make it only the disappearance and reappearance of mat-
ter, as that of water and vapor, and seem too obtuse to
know they have stultified themselves. When we take a
rational view we know matter is unintelligent—we look
into nature and find it not—but continue our mental vis-
ion up “through nature to nature's God.” We behold
the two substances in bold relief, and are compelled to
exclaim, in spite of every effort at unbelief: “Spirit, ex-
ists distinct from, and with power over matter.”
The highest phase of spirit action from the spirit
world in this sphere, is that of their using the material
organs of living human beings to convey their thoughts
to us. This was mercifully bestowed upon believers in
every branch of Zion long before their thumping began.
at Rochester, N. Y. They can never improve on what
was given to us. This thing of the
ExUDATION of MoLECULES *
Of matter from the pores of a groaning medium, being
ſSpiritualized and becoming the spirit form of one's de-
Ceased brother, sister, wife or child, is one of the sheer-
est humbugs and grandest impositions on human credu-
lity with which the gullible can be gulled. It is far worse
\tiºn the Keeley motor deception, which it is said proposes
to run a train of cars across the continent with a half-
pint of water | And this latter is more possible than the
former. And, strange to say, there are many in the sim-
plicity of their innocent natures that believe in the pos-
sibility of both. Every one, or every thousand, who see,
hear, feel, taste or smell departed spirits, are abnormal and
conditioned for the purpose. No person while in their
normal condition ever saw a spirit, or ever will. Spirit
seeth spirit—matter seeth matter. We may become ab-
normal, and be so conditioned by spirit power as to see,
hear, converse with, feel and handle them ; but on re-
turning to our normal condition they disappear, and we
know not whither they have fled. Spirit cannot reflect
the sun's rays to the pupil of the normal eye, neither can
they speak a word as we speak it, so as to be carried on
the atmospheric wave to the drum of the normal ear,

25
only through and by the medium of the organs of a ma-
terial being which for the moment they can control.
This they can do, and they frequently avail themselves
of this auxiliary. The famous seer, 0.
. A. J. DAVIS,
Has given the clew to this mystery. When on a certain
occasion while he and Swedenborg were walking to-
gether, Swedenborg disappeared. On their next meet-
ing, the seer asked Swedenborg why he left him at a cer-
tain point?’ Swedenborg replied, “I did not leave you;
you left me; your condition changed, and you knew not
that I accompanied you home.” Some are more easily
conditioned than others, not that they are more worthy.
Spirits choose those organs that are most easily condition-
ed. Not content with this the highest phase and most re-
liable spirit action, some in their great anxiety for the
marvelous, visit worldly cabinets in the shades of even
and pay their money to be deceived, and get what they go
for. Brother H. in his ecstatic fervor, believes, like the
unbelieving Thomas, without putting his finger in the pie,
says: “Thoughtful people are gazing heavenward with
wonder-struck eyes.” If he had used the term thought-
less, would it not have been more to the point P He hails
materialization and scouts materialism, without realizing
the fact, that the latter is the parent of the former—an-
ticipates the skeptic's sneer, but thinks any of us would
believe our eyes enough to get out of the way of
& A MAD BULL. *
So we would; because we should feel a strong suspicion
that he was matter; and when matter meets matter the
weaker must give way, but we should not get out of
the way of a mad ghost. It is the ghosts that do all the
running and hiding now-a-days. They seem to be re-
markably careful to keep out of the clutches of skeptics,
though they do not always succeed. Brother H., just
bring on your ghost; we should be glad to lock horns
with him. * * * We seeth to be madly floating away
526
at sea. When we return to the New Testament, with
CHRIST JESUS AND MOTHER ANN LEE
For our pole-star. Leave the world’s reformers to work
out their own problems, and “We preach Christ crucifted
to the world,” with no dodging around this order, to
find a male and female God half as big as the moon, be-
hind and above them, to whom we expect to appeal;
then we will again have struck the rock foundation on
which we can safely stand and build, and against which
all the storms “ and gates of hell can never prevail.”
These we can easily defend against all religionists, dog-
matists, scientists, spiritualists, materialists or infidels,
with no fears of suffering a single defeat. Thus is my
mind freely spoken on these important matters; sub-
mitted, however, in the fullest manner, and in every par
ticular to the head of the body. &
Feeling some releasement, I now turn to the physical
part of your letter. Though not so important, it has its
truths. No one could reasonably object to the appear-
ance of hygienic and other kindred topics as side issues
in the S. and S., were they treated in a scientific manner.
For instance, in treating of foods, either solid or liquid,
if you would tell us what their qualities and properties
were. How much they contained of caseine, gelatine,
glutin, albumen, chondrine, starch, lime, iron, Sugar,
salt, sulphur, etc. Or what goes to form bone, muscle,
nerve, brain, cartilege, etc. How much carbon, hydro-
gen, nitrogen and oxygen they contained. In fine,
what, in moderate quantities, affords the most nutriment
with the least wear and tear of the digestive machinery;
we would withdraw our minds from the spiritual, and
listen to and read you with pleasure; but here, as else-
where, appeal seems to be made, not to reason, but to
the feelings—the effeminate and sentimental part of our
nature. The same kind of appeal would cause many to
loathe the most savory dish. To speak of corpses,
27
*R- g THROAT, CUTTING,
Blood, pain and death, is imparting no essential informa-
tion, which, if the scientist read at all, he simply smiles
and passes on. Such appeals are mortifying. The food
most proper to be eaten, is that which best sustains and
re-supplies the waste of the body, whether animal, vege-
table or mineral. *
In Nova-Zembla you would probably find a little
whale blubber, seal's oil, and two or three moulded tal-
low candles to be good and necessary foods. In that re-
gion you could not get rice sufficient into the stomach
for heat, and to furnish the necessary nitrogen. You
are doubtless aware that, in tropical climates there are
hundreds of millions that live mostly on rice, but even
there, they have to eat enormous quantities to obtain
sufficient nitrogen for muscle formation. Of mashed
wheat, it can be obtained far more easily, but nearly 8o
per cent. of certain kinds of rice is pure starch, with
only about 6 per cent. of nitrogen. You speak of poi-
Sons. Any thing in one sense, that injures, or brings on
disease is poisonous; but if taken in quantities suffi-
ciently diluted in God's universal solvent it is harmless :
quantzłzes do all the mischief. It is gourmandž22ng and
gluttony that is killing the world to-day. You say,
“animal food involves war, killing, etc.”
Man could not exist on this planet without killing.
Do we not see how wisely God has arranged checks and
balances in the animal world P. If the insect-devouring
class alone were entirely destroyed man could not live;
on the other hand, if some were permitted to propagate
unchecked, the same result would accrue. It matters
not at what period an animal's life is taken, it is neither
conscious of life nor death, as regards time, any more
than a plant. We kill one class for the benefits we re-
ceive from them ; we kill another class for the supposed
injury their life imposes on us; and why we should
28
.” FEEL COMPUNCTION & ſº
For “blood letting and throat cutting” in the one case
more than the other, does not seem clear. Why not al-
low reason to resume her throne and do away with that
sickly sentimentality that appeals only to a fainting, fe-
minine squeamishness? Between the mercy of procur-
ing an unconscious death by killing, and that of allow-
ing disease, old age and starvation to take them off, there
can scarce be a comparison. Then to refuse the flesh
because the animal was killed, would be of a piece with
refusing to wear leather boots for the same reason. Let
us converse pleasantly and sensibly about it. As far as
taking life is concerned, we can't avoid it if we would.
The dock rat's life is as precious as that of the “cow
with crumpled horns.” Now, if we allow the house fly
and mosquito to go with their lives, we still tread on,
and eat and drink living creatures every day. So I see
no way to avoid killing, only to kill ourselves. But
to return to the cow. When you say you eat no animal
food, you should say no dead animal food. Now, please
tell me the difference between eating a dead and a ſºve
animal P You get the very same properties in both
cases, only a little more condensed and concentrated in
the live animal. Those who use the butter, cheese, milk,
and if fowls, the eggs, they eat the living animal, or whole
cow, hoof, hide and tail two or three times over; and
the flesh eater only once. Were you and I sitting
at table together, and I should hold up my dish and say:
“A little more dead cow, if you please,” and you should
hold up yours and say: “A little more lºve cow, if you
please,” I would get a bit of steak and you some butter,
cheese or milk. Would it not be g
Nº. * VERY LUDICRO US ... •
for either of us to condemn the other, unless we took too
much P The difference being, that one was eating “old
Brindle" in the stable, and the other in the cellar. Now,
look at the sufferings produced whilst eating the living
-29
cow. It is an hundred fold more than she suffers at
...gleath. If she object to your proceedings, you tie her
iegs and compel her to surrender her treasure. She begs
and pleads in vain; the calf bawls, but the little thing's
tears are disregarded. You take it to its mother and
make them both believe you intend to be generous.
The calf is allowed a taste. The mother lets down the
treasure in confidence, only to be betrayed. You drag
the calf away by the neck, and steal the treasure.
And this you repeat daily, with a heart as cold and hard
as iron, and then tremble and grow exceedingly tender-
hearted when a ball reaches her brain, producing uncon-
scious death, and ends her misery ! Then you refuse to
eat the sweet meat from which the milk came. Now, in
reality, the flesh-eater uses the unbolted bread, whilst
the cream-eater uses, the fine flour.
But God's kingdom does not consist in meats and
drinks. It is not that which goeth into a man that de-
fileth the soul. These are externals, and should cut but
a small figure when compared with the harmony, love
and union that should exist among God's people.
Of foods, I would further say: Pure unadulterated
truth is, or should be, the prime object of all, let it
lead whithersoever it will; and this, it seems to me, may
be arived at on - -
* e THE QUESTION OF FOODS.
Philosophically speaking, it is a simple one. This teach-
es us that there are basic facts underlying every propo-
sition, which, having been discovered, true results may be
reached by reasoning a priori. But no right conclusion can
be had from a wrong beginning. The starting point here
is to know that, for humanity, there are three and only
three kinds of foods, viz: material, 2ntellectual and sp?r-
itual, each having a distinct and separate office to per-
form. That of the first is to supply the wastes of and
to strengthen and support the material or physical body,
When this is done its office is fulfilled. It

AFFECTETH NOT THE SPIRIT. . .
That of the second is to support and strengthen the in-
tellect. This food is obtainéd from, life experiences—
from books and teachers. It, though not a substance
nor entity, differing from the spirit, may be affected by
the combinations of material food which enter the sys-
tem. It is the connecting.link between the material and
immaterial being, and its powers fluctuate with the con-
ditions of the organic structure. But the spirit may be
equally | . . . . . . . . . . . .
t PURE, HOLY AND GOOD,
º
i .
In a weakly and ill-supported body, as it can be in the
most robust, though not so effective in its powers of dis-
tribution. The office of the third is to nourish, strength-
en and support the spiritual, immaterial being, or soul of
man. Its food is received from three sources: First—
From God the Infinite Spirit (who is not an intellectual
being), in the mind. Second—From the teachings of his
finite intellècto-spiritual appointed agents, who are fur-
ther progressed in spiritual things than ourselves, and
exemple gratia. Third—From the invisible departed.
The soul that avails not itself of these sources of food
must die or grope in darkness forever. Neglect of, and
- DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD ſo
In his divine order is the starving process of the human
soul. Under the law it was “Come let us reason to-
gether.” In the Gospel it is “Come receive the child
spirit and obey.” The wholly spiritual mind reaches rea-
son without reasoning. Such was Christ. Hence, he
did not ask his disciples to reason with him, but de-
manded their obedience. But that which is unreason-
able is not of God. God-spoken words, by any me-
dium, is reason without reasoning. We who are not
wholly led by the spirit of the Father as was Christ,
must reason for our facts, and also for the benefit of
others. The reasoner can readily detect the falsity of
the pretended
31
L. SPIRITUAL DECLAIMER,
Whose utterances are not God-given. A man cannot
bestow that which he hath not. Whilst he may be rich
in material things, and in intellectual lore, he may at
the same time be spiritually dead, or a blind beggar in
filthy rags, whilst the bounty of the spiritually rich
spreadeth over humanity as the pearly “dew of Her-
mon.” . º ſº
It is a well-ascertained fact, that in all the various
combinations of matter, no one nor two contain within
themselves all the needful properties and proportions
which are necessary for the healthful existence of man.
Hence, what is most important for each one to learn is:
First—What are the
IMMEDIATE NEEDS
Of his or her system P Second—How these properties
can be most readily supplied. It is really amusing to
witness the notions of otherwise sensible. men on this
subject. It would seem they would reject every prop-
erty, carbon, nitrogen, or anything else that did not
come from a wheaten berry, although more easily ob-
tained from other sources. Having learned scientifically,
mathematically, analytically and chemically that un-
bolted wheaten bread and lean beef contain the same
life-sustaining properties, they reject the latter, and call
this progression (!)
TRUE PROGRESSION
Does not consist in either the change or use of any mate-
rial thing. The very best we can do with these externals
is to build cob houses to see them crumble, fall and de-
cay. Were we able to suspend the law of gravitation,
and with flowing robes sail to the moon, we would not,
on our return, have progressed an iota unless we hated
self and loved our neighbors more than we did at start-
ing. This outward appliance is only “tithing mint and
Cummin '' to the neglect of weightier matters. Real
progress consists in governing all the appetites and pas-
T TT T. *T--------, -e- - * = %
32
sions of our nature more perfectly to-day than we did yes-
terday; be more loving and kind, more charitable and
forgiving, less selfish and exclusive, more pure in heart
and less defiled ; more cheerful and contented, and less
mulish. This is
PROGRESSION GODwARD. * ,
It is a matter of no essential importance if one chooses
to get his carbon from one thing and another from an-
other thing. But the would-be-reformers of the outer
world, with stretched necks as giddy as goslings, and
less consistent, demand that we should eat as they do,
or be left in the rear ! When the fact is: Our bodies
are machines, that require constant lubrication, internal
and external, wherever matter passes—the stomach,
lungs, intestines, skin, eyes, joints, &c. Then we should
take the easiest means of supply, whether it be from
vegetables, nuts, berries, “cod-liver or dog-liver.” The
matter of the
VEGETABLE AND ANIMAL
Kingdoms are so closely interlocked, that some foods
prepared from each are indistinguishable the one from
the other. All flesh is composed of what the animal
eats and drinks, the difference being in utilization and
waste of the combinations used, one retaining properties
which another throws away. For example, we will take
the two over which the “biggest fuss" is made—the ox
and the hog. Both will live and thrive well on the same
foods, say corn, blue-grass and clover. If fed with these
alone, the flesh would be alike were the utilization and
waste the same. As it is, they are
o BOTH CLEAN ALIKE, ©
Unless made filthy by their masters’ treatment. It so hap-
pens that the hog is the greater economizer. He stores
up and makes greater returns of what his master gives
him than any other quadruped ; therefore he has more of
the vegetable and less of the animal life, which is more
easily taken than any other; hence he must ever be the
33
poor man's principal meat food. He retains of the car-
bonaceous nearly double that of the ox, hence more in
‘weight of the latter can be used at one time in safety
than of the former; but the lean parts of two such
cleanly kept animals, using the same kind of food, are
nearly identical. But in foods as in other things,
CHRIST IS OUR EXEMPLAR. |
He reached the philosophy of the case without the aid
of philosophers. On being charged by the hypocritical
Pharisees with some trivial deviation from Jewish usage,
he arose to the magnitude of the occasion, and spoke in
words of no doubtful meaning. Calling to the multitude,
he said: “Not that which goeth into the man that de-
fileth him.” And to the seventy who were commision-
ed and sent out, he said: “And in the same house re-
main eating and drinking such things as they give * *
and into whatsoever city ye enter, eat such things as are
set before you,” pigeon, pig or 'possum, as much as to
say, make no account of Jewish law. (Luke X. Io.) So well
did he understand that his mission was to regenerate the
souls, t
NOT THE BODIES OF MEN,
And that what they chose to eat did not affect the soul;
he treated the body with an indifference almost amount-
ing to contempt. “Take no thought for your life [none at
all] what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink, nor for your
body, what ye shall put on.” (Matt. x. 28.) And, “Fear
not them that kill the body,” &c. -
I am aware of having given what may be thought
undue prominence to this subject; but it has of late
been so often placed in the foreground, and has been
made to appear to cut such an important figure in form-
ing the status of the spirit in its work of redemption,
that the use or non-use of this or that formed an import-
ant plank in the
GOSPEL PLATFORM, ©
That it seemed I could not say less to relieve it of the
false garb that had been placed upon it. It is, to say, the
very least (using a homely phrase) “putting the cart be-
fore the horse" to put these external things forward as
causes and say we should abstain from this, that or the
other kind of foods, (qualities instead of quantities) in or-.
der to get a healthy body, or we can not have a healthy.
spirit—and even go so far as to affirm that resurrection.
of the soul is impossible in an unsound body (!!)
MISTAKEN DECLARATION | . . .
This pointing to externals that reach matter only, as of
prime importance to grace in the soul, is a cheat. " It’
comes from the enemy's quirk-shop, and is only calcu-
lated to call the attention from the substance to the
shadow, and place it above spiritual submission to .
Christ in his appointed order, By this obedience, it is
safe to say, a soul may be resurrected and saved that
has never known a healthy body in an earth-life of half
a century or more. Of foods there is variety sufficient
placed on the tables in *-
OUR MOTHER'S House, - &
One would think, to satisfy the demands of the most
fastidious. Union, love, reconciliation and cheerful ac-
quiesence, is of more value for the health of body and
soul, taken together, than would be the choice of all
combinations of matter in existence. w
It is perhaps needless for me to add in conclusion,
that I am honestly satisfied that a mixed diet, always in
moderate quantities, is most healthy and best for human-
ity. The exclusive vegetable diet is only to be recom-
mended for those who cannot govern their appetites,
and must fill their stomachs, no odds what the dish, like
so many corn sacks that could not be tied at top, three
times every day. But all such as can partake their food in .
thankfulness, as a duty governing the amount by their
understanding and judgment, will find on our tables all
things necessary for the promotion of bodily health and
general well-being.
35
Finally and lastly, beloved: let us cut clear as Christ
did from the Jewish law, rites and ceremonies, all of
which are carnal and external, and cleave to the spiritual
law of Christ, as the sheet-anchor of the soul.
The highest aim of the former, was to regulate exter-
nals and check sensuality in generation ; but it failed, in
that “it was weak thro’ the flesh.” But “Christ is the
end of the law;” if he spake of it, it was for those un-
der the law, ; but to his disciples never—nor should we.
If we “become dead to the law to live unto God” why
should we look to it for anything, seeing “Christ in his
flesh abolished it P” The unconditional obedience he
required in his first, is no less requisite in his second ap-
pearing. The chain runs thus:
... 1st. He obeyed God.
2d. His vicegerents obey him.
3d. Subministers obey them.
4th. Elders obey the ministry.
5th. Officers and other deacons obey the ministry and
elders. Y - ſ
6th. Members obey the elders and deacons.
7th. Children obey the elders and caretakers.
It is disastrous to break a link in this chain of obe-
ience. No church nor society can prosper under two
or more heads, that feel at liberty to act independently of
the order before them, even with the very best inten-
tions: A wilful independence must result fatally to any
who persist in it.
It is where true spirituality reigns, that no one need
say to another, “Know ye the Lord,”—and it is only the
want of this, that necessitates external law and arbitrary
rule;—precisely in proportion as the former is wanting,
the latter must remain in force for protection. If we
“first make clean the inside of the platter,” the outside
will become so as a consequence. It is a very great mis-
take, and unchristlike, to begin on externals as causes to
produce spzrātual results. A perfect inward spirituality
will make every external thing right, without force,

36 .
grating, infringing or abrasion; with this, the same har-
mony would exist in God’s kingdom that is in the
spheres and rolling worlds. Reasoner or not as I may
be, I am compelled to admit that one ounce of true
spirituality is of more value than a pound of reasoning;
hecause the former is always right, while one missing
link in the latter, renders the whole worthless. The
phases of the world which we have left behind are, *.
1st. Promiscuous animal man. 6 ©
2d. The Adamic gospel of marriage.
3d. The Abrahamic and patriarchal.
4th. The Mosaic laws and ritual.
5th. Judges, kings and prophets, until John. *
6th. The external Baptism, which brings us to the
7th phase—To Christ and his gospel, which we have
received—and which is the highest phase possible to man,
translating him from the natural to the spiritual, where-
in he gives not only his property, but his soul and body
away: To speak of another phase seems simple, be-
cause more than this cannot be. This is the maximum
of all possibilities either of men or angels. We have no
power of thought to enable us to reach a higher, a bet-
ter, a holier or more advanced or happy condition than
to be untzłżzed and “Aza! wath Chrzsz Zm God,” therefore,
it were folly to expect some great manifestation among
men of something better: Then let us herein perfect
ourselves, seeing it is now made possible, and a better is
impossible—as herein we may become “as perfect as our
Father in heaven is perfect.” Thus have the seven
thunders uttered their voices. The seven seals are
broken and the seventh vial is being poured out on
the world, whereby the existence of wholly spiritual men
and women is made possible, and complete salvation and
redemption attainable, by living the life and dying the
death of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in his first
and second appearing. *
Thine, in Brotherly love, e
e H. L. EADES.
s U P P L E M E N T.
MY DEAR BROTHER B.:
I have the pleasure of acknowledging the receipt of your interesting
rebmarks relative to foods, matter and spirit, treated of in my Discursive Let-
ter. I propose now to offer some further reasoning on the subjects named,
that if possible we may set them at rest. Yet, I know that, for a mind of
your spiritual and sensitive mould, reasoning must be an uninviting dish-
cold, unsympathetic, not to say phlegmatic and insipid. I confess that the
sweet blending of spirits in union and holy love, affords the highest of all
possible delights. Still, if we seek truth, though the way be thorny, I see
no way only to endure it. You are doubtless aware, that by far the greater
portion of human beings are influenced and governed by the sentimental
and emotional part of their nature, rather than by the rational understand-
ing; hence one who reasons cannot expect to reach this class readily: But
really no one should permit prepossession or bias to cause them even to leazz
from truth, let it lead whithersoever it may : But we are apt to cling with
wonderful tenacity to former opinions; especially such as we have publicly
avowed; this is a weakness common to nearly all. TRUTH, pure and simple,
we all wish to learn. My definition of it is : The eternal fitness of things:
matter with mind — mind with mind and the finite mind with God. Now—
For matter to affect spirit, it must touch it, which is impossible, admit-
ting the two substance theory, and the disastrous consequences of denial is
shown in the Discursive Letter. Certain combinations, when both are mat-
ter, resist each other and cannot be coerced into union, let alone substances
that are wholly distinct, as is mind and matter; thought being the attribute
of one,—extension the other: So it would seem clear that philosophers are
right in affirming the impossibility of matter and spirit contact by touch. All
the arguments I have seen, including your letter, only go to prove that mat-
ter may affect matter, but reaches not the spirit: But I most cordially agree
with you, that certain combinations of matter in given quantities, solid,
liquid and aeriform, entering the human system, and going into the general
circulation, affect the animal body and passional nature, and sometimes ren-
der them for the time being uncontrollable by the spirit: It is hence the
spirit's duty to guard against filling the house too full of any combination,
since too much of any one thing is as disastrous as too much of any other
thing. But— tº
The body may be defiled without the spirit partaking of it; and may be
destroyed whilst the spirit remains intact. So likewise, the spirit may be de-
filed and the body not. A man forcing a female against her spirit's protest,
her body becomes defiled even to forced maternity, while her spirit remains
pure and unscathed with crime, And, the spirit directing the thoughts
º 38
toward a female and would have the body go into action, but fails for want of
opportunity, is, defiled and the body not. In this case the celibacy is
external and not internal. Christ was right in saying, “He that looketh
upon a woman to lust after her is defiled.” The spirit that allows the
thoughts to explore ambrosial fields of sensual delights and feeds on its liter-
ature, and then flatters itself that it is risen with Christ because for a
series of years external celibacy has been maintained, will, at some period,
wake up and find itself wofully mistaken; and instead of having come into
Christ's resurrection, it has simply been amusing itself with an internal
worldly life and scarcely made a beginning in the work of redemption. Sen-
sation is the impression made on the mind by the conditions of the body,
which is a mere subordinate, pleading either for indulgence or guidance; so
it is clear that when the cause preventing evil is external, the spirit loses the
credit of it, and is not benefited thereby. If a man or woman resists the
sexual contact merely for the sake of a home or bodily comfort, or temporal
advantage, the spirit finds no substantial travel or resurrection. Such are only
reformers, not Christians. The difference is this: The Reformer's work is
external — ours is internal. Whilst we are looking at the psychical or inner
life, their concern is with the outer life. When we speak of spiritual food
they seem not to understand us, but talk of material food.' While we are
concerned for soul comfort, they are concerned for creature comforts. We
speak of spirit elevation and goodness, they speak of moral elevation and
goodness. They ask, with apparent astonishment: *
“Must not a spiritual man be a moral man 2"
Ans.—The spiritual-minded man and follower of Christ can not be im-
moral, but a moral man may be unspiritual. He who keeps the law of
Moses merely is a moral man, but the soul that is risen with Christ must fall
from the Christ plane to have any need of the Mosaic law, which was only a
stepping stone to Christ. The spiritual laws of Christ supercedes the ex-
ternal law of Moses and all other moral codes that have ever existed among
men. . It seems impossible for reformers to get beneath the surface of things.
Whilst our interest is in re-generation, theirs is in generation—all earthly
and for time only; whilst ours is for Eternity. The person who is not
wholly given up; soul as well as body, to God's will made known by and
through his appointed order, may hardly hope to be counted among the re-
deemed. . “Hard sayings, who can hear them 2" - -
My dear Brother: It will never do in the world for us to look to, think
of and charge matter or externals, as causes of spirit debasement. It is so
unchristlike (!) If it may be said to be the immediate, still the remote and
real cause stands directly behind it. The spirit is governor of the house,
and sole master of the situation — infinitely above and superior to matter.
Where punishment is due for crime, the cause thereof should receive it. If
the pig causes me to sin, then punish the pig. If brandy, punish the
brandy. The spirit should not be permitted to skulk and hide behind a hog
or keg of.brandy, when it had the meanness to consent to gluttony or direct
a dram. This would be like Adam trying to palm his sin on his wife.
It is too clear for further comment, that when the spirit acts it is culpable,
but wherein it has no action it remains clean and pure, no odds what may be
done with the body. . This position it seems to me is impregnable and can
39.
not be overturned. But it has been thought that I wished to convey the
idea that the consent of the spirit alone, equals the consequences, though
the thing be not carried out into action. This is a mistake. I will try to be
clear. The case stands thus: . . . . .
First—If the spirit should either consent to, or direct the performance
of evil, but seeing its enormity, should retract and forbid the body's action, y
it has at last done well: nevertheless it is culpable, and needs the cleansing
waters of confession; though the body has not shared in its defilement, be-
cause it was timely restrained; and hence the spirit's punishment is light to
what it would have been without such retraction. 0.
Second — But if by the spirit's consent, the body gets beyond its con-
trol, as in the case of brandy, though it should retract before the deed was
done, it is nevertheless accountable for all that follows.
Third — But if the spirit is only tempted, and gives not its consent, it
remains pure and needs not confession.
It seems to me this is now clear. Next —
As it regards quality and guantity of food, I feel safe in saying, that
there is no proposition in Euclid of more easy and satisfactory demonstration
than that it is quantity alone and not quality that injures the system: That
is, too much of some things and not enough of other things. Too many
ripe peaches will kill you as certainly as too much arsenic. You can take
with impunity the proper quantity of one as well as you can of the other.
It does not follow that because we can take, without injury, a greater quan-
tity of unbolted bread than mutton Suet at one time, that the latter is
poisonous or useless, or that the quality of one is not as good and useful as
that of the other. So it is of all foods. It is said, that man is the micro-
cosm of the macrocosm, that is the little world of the big world. But I
quote not what is said as evidence; but I ask you, my dear Brother; what
are the elementary or constituent properties of all matter, animal, vegeta-
ble, mineral, liquid and aeriform 2 You answer by saying: They are Carbon,
Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Electricity, &c. I then ask you to name
any one property that is not already incorporated in, and a component part
of your system 2 You will answer and say: It contains them all in certain
proportions in its healthy and normal state. Well then, some of all matter
is there, and no injurious quality present. You can then see at a glance that
the first injury that occurs to the body by what it receives, is simply that of
changing these properties from the proper to improper quantities. It then
legitimately follows that it is too much of some things and too little of other
things that is hurtful—so that any thing that breaks the proper equilibrium,
whether it be exposure, over-exertion, sloth, heat, cold, eating or drinking
that changes the proper proportion, is what does the mischief. — But if it
were quality, the least possible amount would be at all times injurious and
have to be purged from the system. There is no sophistry in this, and I see
no way of escaping the conclusion.
Were it possible that the foregoing is still unsatisfactory, I would be
willing to prove it practically by allowing you to bring on your foods, any
thing eaten by man or beast, and not command me as to quantity, and I will
partake of it without injury. A few drops of brandy is food, a gill is
poison, hence a crime to take it—but whosoever will eat a half dozen large
/* 4O D
ripe peaches at one time, drinks his spoonful of brandy; honey bees, not
unfrequently become intoxicated with it by extracting it from the fruit,
and lie out on the lawn all night like a drunken man. The danger from pig
and 'possum is too much carbon — that from exclusive vegetables, too little
nitrogen — the properties unbalanced — disease the consequence. But I
close. ' ~. Lovingly, | H. .
FIN A L A R G U M E N T.
MY DEAR BROTHER B.:
Since receiving your last remarks, which I hereby thankfully acknowl- ſ
edge, I have been wondering what kind of shool you have been attending.
Suppose the question could not be satisfactorily answered as to how
spirit rules the body, which in all past time has been the unriddled puzzle of
the world. It would not follow, from this, that it was not a distinct and con-
tradictory substance from matter. No philosopher that ever lived has ad-
mitted the possibility of the tactualization of such substances. Then the
dilemma is here. Either we must affirm the one substance theory, and
admit nature to be God, or admit the two substance theory, with the impos-
sibility of tactualization. As reasoners, we can not dodge and adopt the one
or the other to suit an emergency. But I will take your points seriatim.
1st. “If the spirit and body affect not each other, each sins by its own
independent action, we have then a living body without a living spirit.”
This certainly would follow such predicate; but the predicate is not mine.
The spirit is independent, the body not; it is nothing but an animated ship for
the spirit to steer on the great ocean of humanity. Plato said: “The spirit of
man is like a sailor in a ship.” But there is this difference, the sailor touches
his ship, both being matter, while the spirit touches not its ship. When I say
spirit and body are each defiled by their own action, I speak a truism which
can not successfully be gainsayed: The spirit's action is independent—the
body dependent; the spirit being accountable for its own and the body's also.
I take much pleasure in so far modifying the assertion “that matter affecteth
not the spirit,” as to say: The spirit is sympathetically connected with
the body, not tactually; and as I have elsewhere said: SENSATION is the
impression made on the mind by bodily conditions through the intellect .
which is not an entity but simply a faculty: But this gives no latitude to
the thought that the ailments or corruptions of the body can touch or defile
the spirit. The body may become a putrid mass, which it always does at
death, and the spirit still remain pure.
2d. “Philosophers have not agreed,” you say, “that spirit is not sub-
limated matter,” &c. All have so agreed that are not rank atheists. Comte,
Feuerbach and a few others contend that all is matter. This class are
neither good logicians nor philosophers; their writings are weak and contra-
dictory. Feuerbach says: “We (you) who contend for such a thing as
spirit, would speak with some sense were you to declare it to be the last
division of matter.” But here looms up the difficulty, we can’t admit this
without affirming that God is matter. This would be disastrous to any re-
ligion. But the soul, although distinct, is accountable for all the deeds of
the body of normal man and woman, “whether they be good or whether
42
they be evil.” The body has no more accountability than the ship which
sails on the “ ocean wave.” The spirit can not use material things by touch,
but it may by the intellect cause the body to use them. The body of the
carpenter and his adz are both matter. .
3d. “If the spirit action is independent of that of the body, it neither
precedes nor succeeds.” This conclusion does not follow: Thought always
precedes bodily action. Everything done by the body of normal man, is
first done in the mind—there is no exception to this; the body's act is only a
visible external and tangible manifestation of what was or is in the mind; and
still you add: “How can it be defiled by that which it can not touch f"
This question would have been in order for me to ask, since I have constant-
ly denied the possibility of its being defiled by any material thing external
to itself. Neither the body nor the spirit are defiled by contact the one with
the other. The spirit is defiled by base thinking—the body by base action,
directed or consented to by the spirit. Simply “this and nothing more.”
4th. “Is the animal’s life spirit or matter?” I answer matter: It has
no more spiritual existence than a plant, but says one: “We see by vision
animals in the spirit world; ” you also see paláces, mountains, rivers, gold
and pearly gates, plants and flowers. Admitting their reality, we can not
rationally affirm them to be the spirits of earthly existences, unless we admit
the most of them as having two spirit entities at the same time ! For the
rivers, and mountains, and gold still remain here while they exist there. It
were better to say these are the shadowy representations of those. Nothing
contains a distinct spirit entity except such as are conscious of good and
evil, and hence accountable for what the body does. Mountains, pal-
aces, gold, nor animals, nor plants have this. It was matter which affected
the ferret. The same also with the bodies of men. But man’s body is no
more accountable than the ferret's body, but his soul is. The illustration of
the ax, adds no new light on the subject. The instrument that
a man uses is not the cause. The cause is that which bade him tâke the ax
and use it. Were the ax the cause it would fell the tree without the man.
Socrates in his famous dialogue with Alcibiades, placed this in its true light
more than 2,000 years ago. te ( )
5th. “The spirit and body work reciprocally to sin or righteousness,
and this is the reason for rejecting the brandy,” &c. I would ask how can
they work together reciprocally when the body does not think # The ego,
or thinking thing, is within the body. The body possesses nothing under
the shining sun but the appetites and feelings in common with other animals.
—deprive it of this thinking thing and it would indulge and gratify them
without shame or remorse as other animals do. All but working with the
spirit! It finds enough to do to keep the body regulated and in moderately
decent order. - - -
6th. “We demur to the statement that the spirit's defilement depends
on its own independent action, as it depended on the rum to carry out the
bacchanalian revel.” We must not forget that the spirit had its revel and
defilement before that of the body, and it being matter had to have matter to
accomplish its revel. Of course the spirit is dependent on matter to carry
out material designs. In this sense we would make God himself a depend-
ent creature . This material, chosen for the body's use, defiled it only, but
43
touched not the spirit. The spirit was drunk with its thoughts, the body with
the brandy; leaving the postulate sound notwithstanding the demurrer. The
body drunk was only the external manifestation of the spirit drunk,
it, the body, feeling neither compunction, remorse nor justification.
The spirit being the cause of the body's action, merest receive the reward or
punishment for all the deeds of the body in earth life.
7th. “The chemist by putting together substances in different propor-
tions from those instituted by the Creator, a new substance is created for
which there is no place in the microcosm, since God did not place it in the
macrocosm.” Were this proposition true, then man could create, a world;
because, if he could create one new substance he could create another. But
this is impossible. The word combination, instead of substance, should
have been used. All that the chemist can do with matter is to change its
position and relation, giving it a different action, but he can create no new
substance. But I do not see that I can make the quality and quantity sub-
ject more plain. A frequent repitition rather weakens than adds strength to
an argument. If man in a healthy state contains within him some, be it in-
finitesimally small, of all that exists (and I take this as conceded), it seems
to me this should safisfy the inquiry. But you refer to the pistol and ask :
“Was it too much sword and pistol 2" I answer certainly. Just enough
sword and pistol is right—too much is wrong. Enough to defend yourself
from a rabid dog is good; to wound a brother man is too much and sinful.
8th. One wearies to be called too often to one point, but, let us have it
in all shapes that truth be unfolded. After quoting me that spirit defilement
precedes that of the body you say: “Very well, but when men have eaten
and drank that which puts the system in an abnormal condition, then with
his body he does things which deftle the spirit” (italics mine). This, remem-
ber, is not granted but constantly and persistently denied. It is impossible
for matter under any condition to defile the spirit; this, it seems to me has
been fully proved. You then further add: “A man on this score may com-
mit adultery [bodily], and his spirit remain undefiled,” &c. No such con-
clusion legitimately follows: From what has been previously said, it is
clear, that no man can commit adultery bodily and his spirit remain
pure, unless it was forced on him against his spirit's protest, or as in
the case of Noah ; whose spirit was in a degree culpable for not better
gaurding his body and limiting the gteantity of grape juice that entered the
system. In the case of the forced female you say: “It was his spirit that
... touched her body as well as his body.” You aver this right in the face of
the proven fact that distinct snbstances can not tactualize. Now, if his
spirit touched her body it was an imaginary touch, and on this wise: He
first had her body in his mind, and there, as Christ said, his spirit committed
adultery with her, whilst in the mind's embrace; there and then was his
spirit defiled, whilst as yet his body had not partaken of the defilement, and
could not until the spirit had found the opportunity for bodily contact. What
in the world can be plainer than this? But you astonish me still more toward
the close of your lengthy discourse, and particularly in the peroration.
9th. You say: “The fact is, in my (your) understanding, that the
soul and body reciprocally do the deeds of life and suffer the consequen-
ces of misdeeds together.” Is this not equal to asserting bodily resurrection,
44 /
which none of us believe? With perfect surprise I ask: How can the ego
and non ego, the extended and unextended, matter and spirit have the same
kind of sufferings, rewards or punishments? The wery thought of its possi-
bility is an airy vapor floating skyward and resting on nothing. All in the
world that the animal body can suffer, is some derangement of the matter of
its structure, together with unsatisfied appetite aud animal desires—hunger,
thirst, heat, cold and sexuality, &c. Whilst that of the spirit is compunc-
tion of conscience and the chastening hand of God. The body of a man has
no more conscience than a pig. It is the immortal spirit that has had the tem-
porary charge of a clay house, that is responsible and must, solitary and
alone, receive the rewards and punishments due for all bodily acts of the
earth life, caused either by its direction, consent or neglect—and this it
must receive whilst the body is being changed into worms, vegetables and
gases. Still you say:
Ioth. “Nevertheless with the body, while yoked to it, the spirit and
body drink rum, &c. (!). They touch each other and must suffer together
the punishment; and in order to do so, the spirit senses the body to exist
in the spirit land until the spirit has settled with it in judgment (!!!). I con-
fess to a feeling of surprise in recording this summing up of your
theory: lts categorical judgments want proof-its inferences confirmation;
but as neither is offered, I must beg to be excused from their further consid-
eration, and consider them already answered.
Unless something entirely new is brought to bear on the topics discussed
I feel that I can add no more to profit. I rest upon the maxim, “Once true
always true.” If I have unfolded more than is palatable or acceptable to-day,
let it rest for the morrow. If true it will bear the gnawing tooth of time. If
false, none would be better pleased than myself to see it exposed and logi-
cally refuted. Unostentiously, serenely and lovingly,
I remain as ever, your brother,
H. L. EADES.