and perfection of divine
laws; but in the sense in which they would have them understood, they rob
them of all characteristics of law. The first great essential of law is
authority; but this they take away from it; the next is penalty for its
violation; but this they deny, and thus degrade the law to a mere piece of
advice. The "Healing of the Nations," an authoritative work among
Spiritualists, pp. 163, 164, says:--

"Thus thy body needs no laws, having been in its creation supplied
with all that could be necessary for its government. Thy spirit is
above all laws, and above all essences which flow therein. God
created thy spirit from within his own, and surely the Creator of
law is above it; the Creator of essences must be above all essence
created. And if thou hast what may be or might be termed laws,
they are always subservient to thy spirit. Good men need no laws,
and laws will do bad or ignorant men no good. If a man be above
law, he should never be governed by it. If he be below, what good
can dead, dry words do him?

"True knowledge removeth all laws from power by placing the spirit
of man above it."

A correspondent of the _Telegraph_ said of this work, "The Healing of the
Nations:"--

"According to its teaching, no place is found in the universe for
divine wrath and vengeance. All are alike and forever the object
of God's love, pity, and tender care--the difference between the
two extremes of human character on earth, being as a mere atom
when compared with perfect wisdom."

This is a favorite comparison with them,--that the difference between God
and the best of men is so much greater than the extremes of character
among men,--the most upright and the most wicked,--that the latter is a mere
atom, and not accounted of in God's sight. That there is an infinite
difference between God and the best of men, is all true; for God is
infinite in all his attributes, and man is very imperfect at the best. But
to argue from this that God is inferior to man, so that he cannot discern
difference in character here, even as man can plainly discern it, seems
but mad-house reasoning. What would we think of the man who had the same
regard for the thief as for the honest man, for the murderer as for the
philanthropist? To ignore such distinctions as even men are able to
discern would destroy the stability of all human governments; what then
would