DM Bennet: The Shoulders On Which We Stand

DeRobigne Mortimer Bennett, born in 1818, was the country's most controversial publisher of his time. In less than a decade Bennett accomplished more to popularize freethought in America than anyone before or since. His courageous indictment of organized religion and church hypocrisy, as well as his subsequent persecution, earned him martyr status among freethinkers. He published a prodigious amount of freethought literature including philosophical, biographical and scientific books and pamphlets. His debates with some of America's leading clergymen, which he printed and sold as tracts, earned him the appellation, "the devil's own advocate." Bennett was raised a Shaker and became a Theosophist late in life.

Letters of criticism from fellow liberals began in 1876 when Bennett acknowledged his interest in spiritualism. As editor of The Truth Seeker Bennett was accustomed to receiving acrimonious and even life threatening letters from his pious adversaries. Unfriendly correspondence from fellow freethinkers however, was disheartening. Some of his views caused dismay and divisiveness among liberals. The following editorial reply was Bennett's answer to a reader who was critical of spiritualism, which was becoming pseudoscientific cult.

Two weeks ago we published an able letter from Robert Gunther, of Eureka, California, touching our belief in a future existence, in which he criticized us, if not severely, at least sharply, and which at that time we had neither time nor room to notice, and what we have to say now must necessarily be brief.

We are not making an effort to convince our readers of a future life. We do not feel positive of such existence and are disinclined to say very much about it. We find more in this life than we can attend to, and are disposed to leave the other until we have done with this and become apprised of what we need to do in relation to that.

We cannot see that nature offers any proofs of individual immortality. All matter is eternal but organizations seem not to be. They all had a beginning and it is logical to conclude that they must have an end. We have no very strong proofs to offer, nor are we anxious to induce others to come to the same conclusions on the matter that we have arrived at. But we are frank to say we have received proofs that have been satisfactory to us that there are intelligences in existence whose bodies are invisible. We feel convinced that there is no intelligence which is not the result of organization. When evidences of intelligence are presented to us we are forced the conclusion that there is an organization in existence that produces it and that that organization possesses a form or body.

We do not believe in all the claims of spirit communication that are set up. On the contrary we confess that a large percentage of it is either spurious or unreliable. We admit there is much fraud and delusion in this business, but we have witnessed phenomena when we were fully satisfied no fraud existed. We have had these phenomena in our own family and under conditions when collusion and fraud were impossible. We have, when none were present but our wife, received intelligence from our little daughter, from her brother who died at our house and our sister. We knew we were not deceiving each other and that the phenomena that we witnessed really took place.

It is not necessary to detail this phenomenon, nor the many others we have witnessed, nor even of the almost numberless instances that have been related to us by persons whom we can believe—just as implicitly as we can ourselves—of the proofs—many of them astounding—they have received of the continued existence of their relations and friends and that they could not be mistaken in the phenomena.

Now what shall we do about all this? Shall we accept the evidence of our senses, when submitted to the closest tests or shall we follow the advice of our materialistic friends and throw aside every kind of proof and insist, as they do, that there can be no existence except such as they admit can and does exist? We prefer to accept such evidence as is presented to our own minds and quietly enjoy our own convictions, leaving others to enjoy theirs.

We do not report the evidences we have received because we want people to accept our statements, nor because we want them to believe as we do. We have the same fraternal feeling; towards those who disbelieve in a future life as those who believe in one, and we would be glad to discover the same sentiments ruling all Materialists.

We claim to be as positive a Materialist as lives in the country. We believe that matter with its properties is all that has existence. That which is not matter in some form is nothing. That matter is all, and does all, that is and is done, but in addition to this we admit that all the possibilities and powers of matter are not yet known, and that it may be possible for matter to be evolved into a state of existence higher, more subtle and more attenuated than anything within our present knowledge, and no one is able to prove not so.

But because we presume to enjoy this opinion we have been made to feel the disapprobation of many Materialistic friends. Contemporaries more unbelieving than ourselves have taunted us with our credulity. Numbers have stopped The Truth Seeker because we admitted the possibility of a continued existence. A gentleman of this city wrote us the other day that he admired the paper very much, and read it with great pleasure until he discovered that we admitted the possibility of life after death, when he wanted nothing more of it, and had allowed twenty-eight numbers of the paper to lie unopened. There is Liberality for you.

And here in the building of which we occupy a part, a new society with the appalling name of "The First Congregational Society of the Religion of Humanity," which proposes to redeem the world and afford to man all he needs to make him happy. No matter how much we sympathize with the movement, however much we may be disposed to advocate its extension; we are not permitted to become a member. We are virtually ostracized because we have confessed that we had received proof of the existence of intelligences not belonging to visible bodies. That was sufficient for the ban to be pronounced against us. We have been told by members of this very liberal society, that no one was wanted in it who admitted the possibility of a future existence, and that we were hugging to our bosom the same superstitions that our Christian opponents were groping in, and that any person who is a Spiritualist is either a fool or a knave. Is not that a Liberal Society with a vengeance?

We have a Liberal Club, too—"The New York Liberal Club." We were with them for a year, and took pleasure in reporting their meetings and extended a knowledge of them to thousands who had never heard of that club. But at length we learned that we had in a certain sense become offensive to the club because we admitted the possibility of a future life. We had said as much in a lecture which we delivered a year ago before it, and when the question was agitated to hold their meetings in Science Hall, we found the proposition was opposed because The Truth Seeker was published in the same building—a paper which admits that it may be possible that our present existence is a rudimentary one. When we learned this we concluded it was time we withdrew from the club, and recommended that it place "il" before its name. We admire Liberal clubs, but would be glad to see them able to tolerate those who cannot see through the same spectacles they do.

We claim to be sound on all the leading features of Liberalism, to wit: the eternality of matter; the Universe the only Deity; the impossibility of supernaturalism; the absurdity of Christian dogmas; the plagiarism Christianity has been guilty of in appropriating Pagan rites and sacraments. We are persistent in our opposition to priestcraft, pretended inspiration, supernaturalism of all kinds, the rule of ignorance and sectarianism, the union of Church and State, the non-taxation of Church property, etc., etc. We are in favor of elevating the human race to the highest degree of knowledge and self-control. We wish to see all men capable of becoming their own priests, and to become emancipated from the tyranny of priestly rule; and we are trying to do all in our power to advocate the principles and objects here named. We have used our means and our strength in this direction. But we are sorry to say with many of our Materialistic friends this all passes for nothing. We have had the temerity to accept the evidences of our senses, which have led us to conclusions somewhat diverse from theirs, and notwithstanding the entire honesty of our convictions, it is of no avail—we must be ostracized and thrown overboard.

Now we do not indulge in this spirit. We feel equally friendly towards those who believe in a future life and those who do not. We have warm friends in both directions, and we recognize talented minds in both directions. Both are equally liberal and both are equally anxious to oppose our common foe, by increasing science and truth. We desire to see Materialists and Spiritualists working in harmony and fraternity, being willing that the other should enjoy the glorious liberty of free thought and free conviction. It is impossible for all to arrive at the same conclusion and to see things with precisely the same optics. If some of us believe that sixteen years of adult life is the average existence of the human race, and when death visits us that is the end of us, while others believe that this is only a preparatory existence for a better and brighter life, let us not indulge in hatred and unfriendliness. Let us remember that neither our belief nor our choice can make the slightest difference in the final result. Let us learn to be tolerant and concede the same liberty and honesty of opinion to others that we prize and claim for ourselves.