< Spiritualism, and Some of Its Recent Critics (continued from page 4-124) >
culties are of our own making. We shall never be free—how should we?—from assault by spiritual foes. Is not advanced truth always an object of detestation to those who from ignorance cannot see any beauty in it that they should desire it, as well as to those who have aversion to light? But we, ourselves, do our best to make pure spirit-communion a thing rare as it is lovely. That is the indictment, and it is true.
For the rest, the theories advanced, like many others less vraisemblable, cover only a part of the ground, and while it is well that they should have their due weight, no undue prominence can be given them without ignoring what is the very heart and life of Spiritualism.
Though it is obvious, I guard myself from possible misconception by saying that there is much in Colonel Olcott’s valuable paper which I have not touched, as not coming within my present scope.
December 24th, 1877.
What is the Intelligence?
Sir,—Mr. Massey’s article containing Mr. Simmons’s observations is, as usual, pregnant with exact facts and reasoning. We have to thank him for a sentence which should be inscribed in letters of gold over our portals, “The powers of the human spirit are like a heritage, of which the permanent enjoyment is deferred.”
The most important point in Mr. Massey’s paper is the theory that the duplicated limbs of the medium, which are admittedly instrumental in many physical phenomena, may be the sources of force whence the pencil is moved in a bond fide case of slate-writing, like those of Slade or Watkins. Such theory involves the supposition that there is a hand which moves in a confined space between a slate and a table, or, in the case of some book slates, in a space into which it is impossible to introduce a paper cutter. Such hand presupposes for the act of writing, a substantial elbow, and an arm to it, with radial, wrist, and finger muscles of normal proportions in cases where the writing is of the normal size.
It is impossible for the ordinary human “accidental” hand to be placed above or within the slate, and the inquirer has, I humbly submit, to advance only two hypotheses which explain the genuine phenomena.
Either, the hand, which must move with a certain amount of flexibility to produce any writing, must be so diminished in size as to be extremely minute, so as to be able to grasp no object larger than the crumb of slate-pencil which is usually employed; or, the force so producing the writing must have its fulcrum beneath or outside the slate, and must pass through the matter of the slate.
If such a theory were to be adopted, it would be well to consider that the writing so produced would be reversed on the slate, unless, of course, the “medium” or “control” were to will the contrary. Such a case has never been seen by me, though, of course, I am far from denying its possibility.
The conclusion must therefore be arrived at, either that the “astral form” (I adopt, as the leaders in the science have done before me, M. Blavatsky’s highly convenient nomenclature, which no doubt will soon be universally employed, for the reason that it is better defined than that hitherto used by Spiritualists) is smaller than, or as large as, the actual hands of the medium.
The few cases in which writing has been obtained with long slate pencils placed on the slate, and held at a distance of some inches beneath the table by the sitter, while the medium’s actual hands have been on the table, and in full view, with good light, are not, I submit, explicable under the first theory, but may, perhaps, be so under the second.
To my mind, the phenomena, though rare, produced when a long pencil is employed, are even more interesting than those with the pencil crumb, though they possibly require a far greater amount of force.
The next point in Mr. Massey’s article is that in which he speaks of knowledge being displayed which has never been in the mind during its earthly experience. If there are such cases (I do not mean to hint that there are not), I think we ought to have a tabulated statement of them, with dates, and names of witnesses. Such a table would take months to prepare, and would be of inestimable value to those persons who seek to find out “What is the intelligence?” and who in that investigation have received material assistance from the theories, each of which covers many facts, of M. Blavatsky, Miss Kislingbury, Mr. Massey, and Dr. Wyld.
In conclusion, let me thoroughly coincide with Mr. Massey that my friend Mr. J. Simmons is “one of the most intelligent Spiritualists it has been my fortune to know.” It is but rarely in this science that he who has seen much is identifiable with him who has thought much, and that the perceptive qualities of the observer have been united with the reasoning faculties of the philosopher. Had it been otherwise, the science would have been before now in a higher position. But with regard to such cases as that of Mr. Watkins, Mr. Simmons has assumed the existence of a “spirit” independent from the minds of Miss Kislingbury or the medium. I hope he will give us the reasons which lead him to advance the hypothesis, as I for one cannot see my way to its acceptance. Such a hypothesis, if advanced, should cover all, and not some of the facts; and metaphysicians have only to cast their eyes to France at the present moment to see that a loyal obedience, and perfect faith in the contenant, is not incompatible with a vigorous denial of the contenu; whilst there are to be found ingenious persons amongst whom I would be sorry to be numbered, who can manage to justify a converse proposition to their own minds. But Mr. Simmons is nearer to the seat of war than I am.
Progression of the Soul
...
<... continues on page 4-128 >
Editor's notes
London Spiritualist, No. 280, January 4, 1878, p. 8