The Astral World—Higher Occult Powers / Clairvoyance, Spiritism, Mediumship, and Spirit-Healing Fully Explained

MAN, as a finite and relational being, is the subject of government. Being produced and developed by laws acting to certain ends, he is the subject of such laws. Being receptive of influences out of himself, he is subject to such external influences, through their action upon his conscious perceptions and affections.

Man, as a conscious being, is the subject of two classes of impulses. One is a sense of affinity, the other of restraint. The first is the natural impulse proceeding from certain relations, and is a spontaneous proceeding from such relation without considering consequences. The other is a reflex impulse proceeding from supposed consequences which will follow certain conditions and actions, and has respect to ends or uses.

This latter class of impulses makes him the subject of outward motions, and bring him under the dominion of laws external to his being. As such he becomes the subject of an external government. As a conscious being, man is the subject of two classes of external government, the one which appeals to his selfish and lustful nature, and the other which appeals to his moral and relational nature—and he is the proper subject of the one or the other government, according to the character of his ruling affection or love.

Man, as a conscious being, can be governed only through some department of his consciousness. That which induces in him volition must address his perceptions, and proceed thence to his affections. For man’s affections can not be approached externally except through his perception. This is most manifest to the reflecting mind. Before an individual can love or hate an object, he must be able to perceive it. And his love or hatred thereof will be according to his perceptions. Hence it will be perceived that the individual who is in the ruling love of self, if governed at all as a conscious being, must be governed by an appeal to his selfish nature; that is, by an appeal to his hopes and fears. For so long as he is not under the rule of his moral nature, he can not be governed by its influence. If man is to be controlled, he must be controlled by controlling that which controls him.

The selfish and lustful man is under the dominion of his selfish nature, and whatever controls that nature governs him. And he can be governed, as a lustful being, only by controlling his selfish nature. The same is true in principle of the moral man, or he who is under the dominion of his moral nature. Whatever controls the moral nature governs him; and so long as he is under the dominion of his moral nature he must be so governed. Thus it will be perceived that our proposition is true, that man, as a conscious being, must be governed through that department thereof which rules in him. If it be the selfish, he must be governed by an appeal to selfishness; if it be charity or moral love, then that nature must be appealed to.

Since, then, man must be governed by an appeal to that impulse which rules in him, and since mankind are naturally under the selfish impulse, the first government to which man becomes subject naturally is that of force; and it appeals to his hopes and fears—that is, to his selfish desire for gain or happiness, and his dread of suffering and loss. Hence selfishness is the basis of the first dispensation of government. This dispensation of government is not calculated, nor is it designed, to make the comer thereunto perfect. Its end and use is to protect the individual from external or outward evils, and not from that which comes from within. It can not extend beyond the cleansing of the outside of the cup and platter.

The most this kind of government can do is to restrain man from depredating upon the rights of his neighbor, by an appeal to his selfishness. Hence the language of the law pertaining to this kind of government is,“eye for an eye,” “tooth for a tooth,” “life for life,” etc. It does not propose to govern man by appealing to his sense of justice and his love for right. On the contrary its language is, man has no sense of justice or love of right. He is selfish and sensual, and therefore the law appeals to his selfishness and sensualism. It says, Your love of your neighbor is not sufficiently strong to prevent you from injuring him, but your love of self is sufficiently strong to prevent your injuring yourself. Therefore says the law, if you injure your neighbor, we will injure you; if you kill your neighbor, we will kill you; and the same blow which you aim at your neighbor, we will cause to fall upon your own head. In this way this first kind of government takes advantage of man’s selfishness to restrain him. It does not cause him to love his neighbor. It does not cause him, from his heart, to respect his neighbor’s rights. It does not tend to lesson his selfishness or lust. It does not in any manner tend to make him more true, just, and pure at heart. It only restrains him from giving expression to his selfish and lustful desires.

So far as his motions to action are concerned, he is under the same impulse, whether he keep or break the law. He is as righteous at heart in violating its commandments as in observing its requirements. In either case he is governed by his judgment respecting that which pertains to his self-interest, and in keeping the law he is consulting his own gratification, and in violating it he is doing the same.

So far is this kind of government from tending to make the individual better at heart, that it not unfrequently makes him more selfish by intensifying his selfish feelings. The individual who is restrained from stealing through fear of punishment, and not from a love of justice, is a thief at heart, and will continue so notwithstanding the law says, “Thou shalt not steal,” and by its penalties deters him from stealing. His neighbors may thank the law for its protection. But that is the end of its use. It will not improve the moral condition of its subject.

Such, then, is the nature and use of this just dispensation, sometimes called the first covenant. It is absolutely indispensable for the protection and preservation of individuals and society. Man left to the unrestrained exercise of his lustful and selfish nature, would not only destroy his neighbor, but he would ultimately destroy himself. And thus the very principle of self-protection compels individuals to associate together under these governmental forms, by means of which the weak are to be protected against the encroachments of the strong, the simple against the machinations of the cunning.

This necessity gives rise to institutions among men which are designed to direct the manner of applying this power to the protection of those who institute them. The laws of these institutions are but the expressions of the intellectual and moral character of those who make them. Their wisdom is displayed in adapting the means by which their united force shall be directed to the execution of the governmental will, whether that be just or unjust.

The uses of these external governments are most apparent; by which I mean their uses as a means of protection. The highest possible use of governmental institutions is that of uniting and directing its force to prevent the weak from becoming the prey of the strong, and the simple the dupes of the cunning. If every man or human being had the means of self-protection always at hand, or if none were disposed to encroach upon the rights of others, but were disposed to do good to all rather than evil, then there would be no occasion for governmental institutions. So we see that the uses of institutions, as means of government, have respect to the concentration and direction of force.

But as the selfish man can be governed only by an appeal to his selfish nature, and that must be addressed through the motives of hope and fear, these institutions of government, addressing man’s hopes and fears, are indispensable for the well-being of society, and can never be dispensed with until man is elevated to a higher plane, and made the subject of a higher government. In other words, this kind of government must never be taken from man, but man must be elevated above, and thus be taken from the government. There have been two opposite errors respecting this kind of government: one declaring it to be ordained by God, and therefore to be observed and obeyed as an exponent of the Divine will and character; the other holding that all governments of force and blood are contrary to Divine appointment—both of which doctrines are true when viewed in a proper direction, and false when viewed in the opposite one.

In the first place, it is according to Divine appointment that man, as well as every other finite being, shall be governed according to the law of the plane in which he exists and acts; because every thing existing in a finite and relational sphere must become the subject of some law, or it could perform no mission in respect to itself or any other existence. Without law it could not be saved from utter destruction. And being the subject of law, it must be the law of the plane in which it exists and acts; hence whatever may be the law of that plane, it is one of Divine appointment.

Man living in the plane of selfishness and lust must be governed by the laws of that plane; he can be governed by no other. Hence the law of that plane of sensualism requiring “eye for eye,” “tooth for tooth,” “life for life,” etc., is a law of Divine appointment for that plane; and whoever descends into that plane of impulse, and lives there, becomes subject to its law. Having yielded himself servant to obey his selfishness and lust, he has become the subject of its laws. Having taken the sword, he is subject to its use. Having appealed to force, he must be sure to be on the strongest side, or he will be likely to be crushed.

But while the law of selfishness and force is one of Divine appointment, in the sensual plane, it must not be understood as giving law to any other plane. If the law of “eye for eye,” “tooth for tooth,” etc., was applicable to the dispensation of sensualism, which the Mosaic represents, it does not follow that it is the true law of the Christian or Spiritual dispensation; and he who appeals to such laws of the Mosaic can have the benefit of them by containing under that kind of government. But he must remember, if he wishes to obtain the benefits of the Christian dispensation, he must “put away the old man with his deeds.”

Hence, according to the teachings of Jesus, he who would become his disciple must rise above the plane of sensualism. The new law under which he was to come demanded that the law of force should be discontinued. If he would have the benefits of the kingdom of heaven, that is, of the government pertaining to the moral and spiritual plane, he must not resist evil by force; he must not smite back when smitten; he must not indulge in feelings of hatred or unkindness toward any one; he must love his enemies; bless them in the midst of their cursings. He must be pure in heart; he must hunger and thirst after righteousness; he must, in all things, be under the dominion of a love, pure, holy, and unselfish. Such a one would be freed from the law of sin and death; such a one would cease to be a debtor to the law of the first dispensation, and would be born into liberty, not into a liberty to do wrong, but a liberty which had respects to his purified affections.

This will be understood by contrasting the principles of the two dispensations. The first governed by a force external to the subject, constraining him as a selfish being to do things not agreeable to him, thus bringing his will into subjection. The second governed by implanting the true affection within the subject, so that his delight was in the law, according to the inward man. Hence the new kingdom was to be “within.” The first was over man with force and fear; the second was to be within man with charity and love.

From this it will be seen, that the first government, or covenant, as it is called, necessarily required external institutions to beget and direct its force to compel obedience to its enactments and edicts. And these institutions were necessarily authoritative; and persons belonging to their plane of administration were compelled to submit to them, as to the authority of God.

The second government or covenant which ignored force, and governed by love, had no use for such institutions, and hence returned the sword to its sheath. Under its administration, swords were to be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning-hooks. Men were to “call no man master.” But it must be noticed that this second government pertained only to those who had come under the rule of charity and love, and thus had put off the old man and his deeds. So long as the individual, in his affections and lusts, continued in bondage to the impulses of his animal nature, he belonged to the first dispensation, and must be continued under tutors and governors until the coming into him of Christ.

Here, then, we see the two classes of errors into which mankind have fallen, the first by supposing that the laws of selfishness and force were applicable to all planes, and that the Christian could find authority under Moses. The second, by supposing that the laws of selfishness and force were to be abolished in every plane, not thinking that such law is just as necessary at one time as another, so long as man continues under that plane of impulse. Herein we can see the wisdom of Jesus in his teachings. He came not to destroy the law, or take it away from man, but his mission was to take man away from the law, and thus to fulfill or consummate the uses of the law. He condemned not the law of force as applicable to those who, in their selfishness and lusts, were under its dominion. And he did not propose to emancipate them by destroying the law. But he did propose to redeem them from under it, by calling them to a higher plane of impulse and action. He proposed to lead them out of Egypt, not take Egypt away from them.

Herein is to be found one of the fundamental errors of Christendom, in not perceiving the true meaning of the first and second covenants; that is, in not perceiving the true sphere of the Mosaic and Christian governments. Each are of divine appointment in their respective spheres; and neither have respect to time or place of administration, but to condition. The Mosaic, which is a figure representing the governments of force addressed to man as a selfish being, will never be at an end so long as society is in a condition to require that kind of administration. It will not be at an end in the individual until his moral nature is in the ascendant, until he keeps that new commandment of “Love one another.” And the Mosaic dispensation will not be at an end in society until the kingdom of heaven is established in the hearts of the members thereof.

The theologian has committed a great error in making the kingdom of heaven a historic affair, supposing that the death of Jesus terminated the first, and introduced the second dispensation, not seeming to understand that the character of the government determined to which dispensation it belonged irrespective of time or place. That government which is instituted with respect to, and is administered upon the principles of selfishness and force, is Mosaic, no matter in what age or by whom administered. All civil and ecclesiastical governments which are external and forceful belong to the Mosaic, no matter by what names they may be called. A moment’s reflection will demonstrate to a mind of ordinary intelligence and information, that all external human governments are of this character. We have no Christian governments exercising power and compelling external obedience to law. The very supposition is an absurdity. The very moment a government is organized, and clothes itself with external force, its Christian character is destroyed.

Christianity, in its true spiritual and saving character, acts only from within the individual. It is not a government over men or among men. It is a government in man. It cleanses the inside of the cup and the platter, and thence makes clean the outside. Christians have no need of governments to keep them in the right way. Understand me—real Christians, not professing ones. They have no uses for institutions, for each obeys the right, and takes upon himself the labor of all needful charities.

Thus it will be found to be a truth of universal applicability, that wherever institutions, and especially legal institutions, are found necessary, the people are not Christians, no matter what creed they profess. Christianity pertains to character, not creed. External institutions are incompatible with true Christianity. Both can not live and act together in the same individual. Men have been conscious of this, and hence have been involved in doubt and difficulty as to their duties. But there need be no difficulty on this point. Let it be understood, that the man who feels the needs of outward restraint belongs to the Mosaic government, and by it he must be governed; that all men who are under the dominion of their selfish natures have not put on Christ, and hence are under Moses. Such are under the law, and must be continued under “tutors and governors.”

External institutions, then, belong to the first dispensation, and will continue to be necessary so long as man continues to live under the dominion of his selfishness and lusts. When he shall be redeemed from such nature in himself, he will be redeemed from bondage to external institutions, and he can not properly be before. The evil, then, is not in the institution, but in that condition of the individual and society which makes the institution necessary; and the remedy is not in destroying the institution, but in elevating man, and thereby dispensing with its need; and until that is done, the law and the prophets must continue.

This brings me directly to the institution of Marriage, respecting which so much has been said of late. Like all other institutions, it belongs to the external and Mosaic, and looks to the external relations of the parties. Its necessity is based upon the same selfish and lustful principle in man, as is the necessity of all other external institutions.

Its office is protection, not purification. Hence all its laws look to legal security, but do not attempt to elevate and purify the affections. Those who have written and spoken against the external marriage institution have acted very unphilosophically in supposing that the fault of which they complain was in the institution and not in themselves. I will endeavor to make this apparent.

In the first place, I will do them the justice to say, that the external institution is in character but little, if any, better than they affirm of it; that it is made the means of rendering respectable the grossest lusts; that there is no Christian difference between lust within and lust without the forms of wedlock; that the individual who looks upon another with a lustful desire, when tried by the standard of Jesus, is an adulterer, whether sustaining the external marital relation or not.

In speaking of the abuses of this institution, I would not have them abate their zeal by ceasing to proclaim its infidelity to that inward purity of soul so essential to the true Christian union; but I would have them make a very different use of the fact.

The use which many, and perhaps most of those who oppose the external institution of marriage make of its lustful abuses, is rather to palliate the conduct of those who are lustful outside of its license, by showing that, at heart, they do not differ from those who indulge in the same lustful desires and exercises under its licentious permission; thus very naturally taking license, and, when censured by others, pleading the respectable guilt of others as their excuse.

In speaking of the abuses of the marriage institution, I would not plead them in mitigation of lust; nor would I make them the occasion of license. I would refer to them for the purpose of condemning more strongly the foul practice of seeking gratification in that direction.

It is not to be objected to the external institution of marriage that under its sanction the grossest of lusts are practiced in the name of virtue, and that the weightiest evils are the result. Such is not the fault of the institution, but of those who use it for that purpose; and were it not for the institution, under the present lustful condition of society, the same practice would become universal, and would be as respectable as it now is under the sanctions of wedlock. If the external institution does not restrain the exercise of lust between the parties thereof, it does render disreputable its exercise beyond, and thus exerts an influence for good to that extent. It does not make the comer thereunto perfect in his character; but it tends to restrain him in the exercise of his lust toward others, and thus confines its evils to a narrower sphere. One of the greatest moral benefits of the legal institution of marriage is that it tends to restrict the lustful practices of the parties to themselves; and, in reality, this is the bondage of which the objector complains.

The advocate of that which is called "free love" complains that under the legal institution of marriage the parties are prohibited from following their attractions or passional affinities; that although they might have been suited to each other at the time of the union, that circumstances and tastes have changed; that love requires variety, and that in matters of love each ought to be at liberty to follow its leadings. The first great error into which the advocate of free love falls is in mistaking lust for love. The doctrine that love changes is a fundamental error, and of itself demonstrates that the objector has mistaken lust for love. The true impulse known as love has an immutable basis, and will be as constant as the relation and need through which and for which it became manifest.

The nature of hunger and thirst, as expressive of the needs of the body for food and drink, never changes; and the gratification incident to the proper supply of those needs never changes until abuse and disease have wrought their work. Man’s desire for particular kinds of food may change; but that has respect to lustful gratification rather than the supply of a real need.

Remembering our definition of lust to be a desire for self-gratification, we shall find that this change and variety in food and drink looks more to the gratification of desires than to the fulfilling of needs, and therefore belongs to the class of lusts.

True love never changes. From its nature it can not. It being that impulse which indicates an affectional need, it must be as unchanging as the soul and God. Take that known as maternal love, and who that has known a mother’s love will say that it demands for its life and continuance variety and change? Tell the mother, as she presses her first-born to her bosom, that she will soon demand change and variety to keep alive her maternal affection, and she would reply in the language of Macduff, “He has no children.” No, of all things else, true love will admit of no change, no variety.

In no affectional relation, save that of husband and wife, would the free lover admit that love required change or variety. In the parental, fraternal, filial, and social relations that doctrine does not apply. The parent loves his child, and feels no demand for variety.

What would be thought of that mother who should tire of loving her child, and give as an excuse that her tastes had changed; that once her child was suited to her maternal affection; but that now her maternal love had changed its character and quality, and demanded a corresponding change on the part of the object of its affection? It requires no argument to show that such can never be the requirements of maternal love. The same is true of every other manifestation of the affectional principle. Fraternal, filial, and social love will admit of no change; demand no variety. The brother and sister can love on and love forever; the parent and child can do the same; and true friendship abides in constancy of affection. But lust demands variety, and consequently change. When the true impulse is overlooked, and self-gratification becomes the end in pursuit, then comes with it the demand for variety. This is seen in eating and drinking. Hunger and thirst only call for simple food and drink. They will supply the demand. But the moment gratification is consulted, then great must be the change and large the variety. And by far the largest amount of labor and expense is bestowed upon gratification.

The same is seen in the social department. Those who, in their social intercourse, are seeking selfish gratification instead of the happiness and well-being of their associates, are those who demand variety; who themselves are cloying of one kind of amusement, and then demanding another. This principle of demanding change in food, in society, in amusement, etc., depends upon that condition known as cloyed; and it does not take place in respect to any need. The thirsty soul is never cloyed with drink until it ceases to be thirsty; the hungry soul with food until hunger ceases. But it is not thus with lust; it ceases to enjoy one means of gratification after another, while yet the demand mand for gratification continues. The same principles apply to the marriage relation. True conjugal love never changes. It can never change, because it must rest upon an unchangeable basis. The mode of begetting offspring must be as enduring as the race. The demand, therefore, will be as imperative as the necessity, and hence the desire for offspring must be as deep and fundamental as the soul itself.

The law of procreation demands that in view of the great end to be accomplished, those who unite in the procreative art should unite upon the highest and purest plane. Hence the conjugal affection or love has its basis in this deepest and most immutable necessity of the soul. Understand me—man, in his present condition, is the grand ultimate of all past being and action. And that which took all past ages to accomplish is committed to man in the command to be fruitful and multiply. The future is committed to him. That which comes into conscious being must do so through him, and the true foundation for the fulfillment of the great command is laid in the conjugal union of the male and female souls. To say of the impulse calling for such union, that it demands change and consequent variety, is blasphemously false and absurd. The basis of conjugal love is as deep and immutable as are the foundations of immortality and eternal life.

But let this union be a mere external and lustful one, that is, one looking for self-gratification, and it becomes subject to the law of lust, and consequently, like every other lustful affection, will demand variety. The very nature of lust is to disease and destroy and to defeat the end sought. It therefore brings with itself ultimate cloying and disgust; and to remedy that, it must have change.

That this is the nature of that impulse which free lovers mistake for love, is further evident from its associations. The plea they set up is, that every one is free to seek happiness; and consequently when one relation or pursuit fails to conduce to that end, they should be permitted to change the relation or the pursuit, and seek happiness in another. They make the seeking after happiness the great end of life; hence they have adopted very appropriate language, such as "passional attraction," "passional affinity," etc.

For this reason, in their assemblies they aim at self-gratification. Each is striving to beget pleasure. Their assembly-rooms are full of amusements and “innocent recreations,” singing, dancing, playing at different games, chatting, etc., all pursued in respect to the pleasures they promise, and not in respect to the good irrespective of the pleasure. The plea is, the people demand cheap amusements, or rather need them. Cheap amusements are the very things they ought not to have. It is but another name for cheap dissipation. But the advocate for free love complains that the law and public sentiment hold him to his choice, when he has made a bad one. The uses and benefits of the law are seen in this, that they do hold all such to their choice, and by so doing avoid a multiplicity of bad matches.

The individual who is out seeking passional affinities is under the influence of lust, and the sooner he or she is caught and caged the better; such can gain nothing by being permitted to experiment. Until they can rise above their selfish and lustful natures in other things, they will not be very likely to do it in matrimonial affairs.

END.