CONVERSATION XII.

The sixth Principle of Social Order further criticised and defended-The seventh Principle taken up, expounded and proved-The eighth Principle considered and demonstrated-End of Part I.

Inq. Since our last conversation, I have thought much on the knotty questions raised respecting the just reproof and disfellowship of evil-doers. I am convinced that the principle is a sound and fundamental one, however difficult to carry out in practice. But there is one objection to your sweeping application of this principle, which I did not present, and which seems to me a very serious one. It is this: the holding and treating of persons as evil-doers, who are not actually, but only theoretically or opinionally such, as tried by your test. For instance, suppose a man should honestly avow that he did not accept as true some one, or two, or ten, or even, if you please, your whole twenty-four essential Divine Principles; but that he believed in doing what appeared to be best for him from moment to moment, and could profess nothing more definite; yet this man should be unexceptionably upright, moral and congenial in the externals of life. Would it be right to hold such a person in disfellowship as an evil-doer, according to your standard?

Ex. You present a very strong case, but not a very supposable one. However, I shall meet it squarely. One of two conclusions must be adopted in this case. Either the Principles in question are not essential, or the man is a very dangerous evildoer. Therefore the Principles must stand aside, or the man must. The test is useless, or the man is dangerous. So the question is simply this: Shall the basis of fellowship be one of acknowledged immutable Principles, or shall it be one of mere external morality for the time being, without any acknowledg ed essential Divine Principles? Without hesitation I say,

acknowledged, immutable Principles must be the basis. I would not trust the mere morality out of sight. Having no foundation but human caprice, it would be like a bank of quick-sand in the midst of rolling floods.

Ing. But have you a right to assume that my moral man has no immutable Principles as the foundation of his external virtues?

Ex. You said that he believed only in doing what to him appeared to be best from moment to moment. Is that any immutable Principle of morality for a being as changeable in circumstances, passion, purpose and conduct as mortal man?

Ing. Rather an unreliable one, I confess. But perhaps the man trusts to the instincts and intuitions of his own nature, which he believes to be unerring, and which to him supersede all necessity for definitely acknowledged Principles.

Ex. You now give your man a creed and a standard, viz: the unerring instincts of his own unrestrained nature. This is either a true and sufficient standard, or a false one. If a true one, it ought to be proclaimed as such, and made the basis of social fellowship; for all others must be false and injurious to human nature. If your man honestly believes this, he will act accordingly. And in that case, he will not desire to be in our fellowship; neither can he consistently offer us his fellowship, except under his own standard. So both parties will honestly disfellowship each other, until one of them shall have been converted to the standard of the other. And if we stick to our principles of justice and love, it is certain that we shall never intentionally injure your man, whatever his unerring instincts may lead him to do. Besides, the world will afford both parties room to solve their respective problems, without any serious interference of the other. And thus in due time each tree will be known by its own fruits. Until then, he would be an evil-doer in our esteem, and we should be evil-doers in his; both mutually reproving, disfellowshiping and trying to reform each other.

Inq. Well, all this seems perfectly fair, and I do not see how the two parties, if really sincere and in earnest, could act otherwise or complain much of each other. But I will state

my objection in another form, by supposing a case like the following: Here is a good man who accepts all your acknowledged essential Principles in full confidence, excepting one or two of the less important, if you will allow any such distinction. For instance, he may say, I do not believe in the mediatorial manifestation of God through Christ, but I believe in God's direct manifestation as a Spirit to each true soul. I believe nothing and care nothing about Christ as a mediator between God and men. What would you say of such a case?

Ex. I should be instantly certain in my own mind, that such a man would make an uncomfortable member of our fraternity, if admitted into it, and that his influence on the whole would be demoralizing.

Inq. Would it be demoralizing, if he were otherwise unexceptionable?

Ex. Such a man would not be otherwise unexceptionable. The interior causes which would make any man say he believed nothing and cared nothing about Christ as a mediator between God and men, while pretending to have manifestations of God within himself, would be causes inevitably operating to demoralize, in a greater or less degree, the man himself, and all his adherents.

Inq. How so?

Ex. Because, Christ was characterized by Divine Love and Wisdom. As a man he was an embodiment and illustration of them so preeminent that no one who ever knew any thing of his history could possess the same divine Spirit, and be indifferent to his excellence. As a focalization of the eternal Christ-Spirit in a glorious personality, Christ is Love and Wisdom-is God communicable; and no good man, inspired of God, i.e. possessing the Christ-Spirit, can contemn him. Now here is your supposed good man sneering at Christ, at faith in Christ, at the manifestation of God through Christ, at the very name of Christ. He believes nothing and cares nothing about Christ as a mediator between God and men. But he believes in One All-Perfect Infinite God, and claims that this God is manifested in and through his own soul. Indeed he believes in all the great cardinal principles taught and exemplified by

Jesus Christ, yet believes not in Christ himself as being what he claimed to be. A wondrous good man is this same, who surely ought not to be disfellowshiped as an evil-doer-a demoralizer! Alas! there is a screw loose some where in this man's moral nature. There is an evil cause for his believing nothing and caring nothing about Christ as a divine mediator. He has the vanity and self-conceit perhaps to set up for a Christ himself. Or, he has too much pride to acknowledge that he is indebted for divine manifestations to any mediation except that of his own natural faculties. Or, there is some peculiar object of personal ambition which he has in view, that makes it convenient to get rid of the New Testament Christ. Or, he is swayed by old disgusts, prejudices and antipathies excited by people who in the name of Christ have become abominable to him. In either case, his bias of mind, and his egotism, will prove to be mischievous. build up, but undermine and pull down the true social fabric. If he can do any good, let him have an open field to work out his ideal, with his own tools, or in coöperation with kindred spirits. Let him not be injured. Let him have a fair opportunity to illustrate his real character.

He will not

But let not those who honor Jesus Christ as the highest manifestation of God to mankind approve and fellowship him. His career will ultimately prove a failure, though in some respects and for a time he may flourish like the green bay tree. He will diffuse a leaven of evil in the long run, which cannot fail to prove as mischievous to human welfare as it shall be anti-christian. These are my firm convictions.

Inq. I cannot say I am fully convinced that you are right in this particular; for I can imagine cases of partial dissent from your Standard, in which it would seem very hard for the dissenter to be disfellowshiped by your people as an evil-doer, or a heretic. But I do not feel inclined to press my objections further at this time.

Ex. I think all your difficulties, under this head, must arise from a doubt in your own mind, whether the twenty-four fundamental divine principles of my Table are all really essential to human salvation, progress and happiness. If so, I beg you

to remember that I am perfectly ready to have each of them thoroughly discussed, and if found to be false, or non-essential, then discarded. Or, if I have left out any essential, I desire it may be added. But you must see that so long as I honestly and firmly believe that Table to contain all these divine essentials, and no non-essentials, I am obliged to make it a test of fellowship. And, if I and my fellow adherents act to our acknowledged obligations under it, where is the evil-doer, or the heretic, on whom we can inflict any absolute injury? Can you imagine one?

Inq. Perhaps not. Your Standard is high, heaven high; and your bigotry, if it be bigotry, is so hemmed in by justice and charity that your sternest reproofs, oppositions and disfellowshiping testimonies cannot vitally harm even their occasionally mistaken victims. Please now take up your non-resistance principle.

Ex. I will do so. This is my seventh Principle of Social Order, viz. The required non-resistance of evil-doers with evil. This great prohibitory principle is exceedingly radical and sweeping. It forbids us to carry our reproof, rebuke, disfellowship, restraint, opposition and resistance of evil-doers beyond the bounds dictated by Charity, which seeks every neighbor's good as our own. We have already seen that the evil-doer must be reproved, disfellowshiped, resisted and restrained. This has been shown in discussing the sixth principle. Now here is another principle which confines us within the limits of the second great commandment, viz. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It restrains us from hating and injuring any one of our neighbors, under pretext that such neighbor is an evil-doer and may rightfully be injured for the sake of othSuch has hitherto been the selfishness and darkness of the human mind, that nearly all mankind, from the lowest to the highest classes, have held it perfectly justifiable to resist evil-doers with evil, especially in extreme cases. Hence the common doctrine of self-defense, that an individual may rightfully preserve his own life, &c., by killing, or to any necessary extent, partially killing, his assailant; provided he cannot place himself under the protection of the civil authorities. Hence

ers.