Legend
"Fidelity" Again
Sir,—Last week you published a letter from me relating to information supplied to the Banner of Light from a writer signing himself “Fidelity.” I did not subscribe my letter with my own name, but 1 now do so, as I never make public observations adverse to individuals under even the most transparent disguise of my own personality.
In the Banner of Light of October 11th is another London letter from “Fidelity,” in which the Whitehall Review article is again vaunted. The American public is told, moreover, that the English spiritual papers have not referred to the article in question because Mr. Fletcher is an American.
Such nonsense would not, of course, require notice, except, perhaps, to show what foolish things an American editor (and for that matter some of our own) can be found to publish, seeing how prominently American mediums have from time to time been recommended in your and other organs of English Spiritualism. Mr. Fletcher, however, has to thank “Fidelity” for compelling attention to the true reason, as I conceive it, of the excellent discretion exercised in ignoring the advertisement of him in that not very widely-accepted organ of public opinion, the Whitehall Review.
We have none of us quite forgotten Dr. Slade—his matchless mediumship, his undeserved sufferings, our own united efforts in his behalf, which identified him, and rightly, with English Spiritualism, and the best phenomenal evidence we have to offer, of its claims. Many of us think of him as of one who has done’ at least as much to compel public and scientific recognition of the facts of Spiritualism as any other medium in the world. Yet Mr. Fletcher, who, as a member of Council of the British National Association of Spiritualists, is an accepted representative of a large number of us, and by that description ought to represent us all, tells an interviewing gentleman of the press, for the purpose of publication to the world, that Slade, though perhaps not an impostor, was a “charlatan,” and one who had “disgraced Spiritualism,” which he, forsooth, Mr. Fletcher, had come over from America expressly to restore to its fair fame.
“I mentioned no names,” says Mr. Fletcher; “I was told” an American medium had disgraced Spiritualism. Now if Mr. Fletcher, when challenged on the subject, had manfully replied, “Yes, I did mean Slade; I do think him a charlatan and a disgrace to Spiritualism; that is my opinion, and I have a right to it,” I think the spirit of such a reply would have made rather a favourable impression on us than otherwise, however energetically we might have protested against Mr. Fletcher in his assumed capacity of a representative of English Spiritualists. But “mentioned no names,” and “was told!” Well, I need only to quote this defence; surely there is no occasion to characterise it! But Mr. Fletcher “was told” this about Slade. By whom? By a Spiritualist, or by an outsider? I hope “Winona” is not responsible for the statement. While the Slade case was going on, Mr. Fletcher was, I suppose, in America; but probably he read his Banner of Light then, as now; and if so, he cannot have been ignorant of what was thought, by English and American Spiritualists alike, of that cruel and unjust prosecution,* or of the notorious fact that it was Spiritualism that was assailed and sought to be struck down in the person of Slade. And now “Fidelity” complains that the editors of our Spiritualist papers have not stultified our opinions and our past conduct, and outraged our sympathies with the unfortunate Slade, by reproducing this “splendid” Whitehall article, in which he is thus vilified for the glorification and advertisement of Mr. Fletcher! That Mr. Fletcher is a clairvoyant of extraordinary faculty I do not in the least question; the fact rests upon cumulative and unexceptionable testimony, which I heartily accept, though I have not been myself permitted the opportunity of verifying it, and he is high on the list of mediums whom I always recommend inquiring friends to visit, not, certainly, for his sake, but for theirs. Yet I much fear that, unless times are changed since 1876, lie would have as little chance at Bow-street against ignorance and prejudice as had Slade himself. Should he ever be so unfortunately situated—and no professional medium is safe—I hope he may have, no cause, and we no disposition, to remember the article in the Whitehall Review, C. C. Massey.
Temple, Oct. 24th.
* By these words I do not mean to imply that those concerned in it had not a full conviction that it was both just and righteous.
"Fidelity" Again
Sir,—I beg for a second time to correct the misstatements of your correspondents, who say that I have cast aspersions upon the character of Dr. Slade. I have never done so m the Whitehall Review, or any other paper, and I will not allow such assertions to be made unchecked. It is a great, wonder who a “Slade Committee Man” can be, who has lived in London and thought the Whitehall Review one of the least-known journals.
I am not good at answering conundrums, and therefore must? be excused from throwing light upon “Fidelity’s” identity.
22, Gordon-street, W. C.
Spiritualism and Churches
Sir,—As my first letter seems to have stirred up a little controversy, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few more words on Spiritualism in its relation to faith and practice.
I have entered on the subject in a tentative spirit, sincerely desirous of information. Spiritualism has been described as anti-Christian. Now, I wish to learn on what foundation. Why, I ask, should spiritualistic phenomena, accepted as being what Spiritualists make out they are, militate against revelation as we possess it through Moses and the Prophets, Jesus Christ and His Apostles? Are not these phenomena rather confirmatory of a belief in this Revelation? And this, whether professed Spiritualists are, as a body, anti-Christian or not. Indeed, the fact of Spiritualists generally being opposed to tile Christian faith would rather point to a remarkable prophesy about the latter days, dreams, visions, seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;* which prophesy, it would seem, is being fulfilled in its most literal sense. But that all Spiritualists are not opposed to that revelation which we accept, I happen to know from that most eloquent pamphlet by Mr. Hall, “The Use of Spiritualism,” which, through the courtesy of a friend, I have perused.
With regard to the grounds on which I am induced to believe in mesmerism and Spiritualism, I could remark that my credence is not altogether based on the testimony of others alone. I w-as induced to try, and I found, somewhat to my surprise, that I myself possessed a mesmeric power; and I have reason to believe that I can be a spiritualistic medium also. And I am not the only one, as I learn from inquiry, who has shrunk back in horror from exercising so awful a function. On this head I would rather not enlarge; but I might with truth detail experiences which, if not solely hallucinations—and I have never been suspected of insanity—surpass many ghost stories.
The ethical and religious side of Spiritualism I would much rather deal with; and, in doing so, I regret extremely if I disturb that “philosophic calm” which I formerly described truly as admirable. And I confess I am still surprised that Mr. Farquhar does not acknowledge the pre-eminence of the Hebrew Scriptures in dealing with the inner life of the soul. And, certainly, both the Jewish rabbi and the Christian preacher draw equally, though not to the same extent, on revelation given through Jews alone. Where the Aryan element is introduced, I am simply at a loss to conceive.
I do not propose to give an apology of the Christian religion neither am I speaking in conventional language. But in arguing the question, I should proceed in the Socratic dialectical method—that is, I should endeavour to establish certain broad bases, and so on, till my adversary admitted all that I accept myself. And I am simply amazed that Mr. Farquhar does not concede my first point in my endeavour to bring about assent to the fact that “Salvation is of the Jews.”
Now with regard to abstractions, generalities, and popular audiences, what I meant was this. Only highly-educated people can comprehend an abstraction (such as humanity) at all. And is prayer possible to an indefinite final cause? Do we not feel the need of a revelation—nay, more, of an incarnation? Is it to be believed that God cannot be known except to a certain select circle of philosophers?
<... continues on page 10-122 >
* This is one among other prophesies to which I would call attention— “And then shall that Wicked he revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they; might be saved. And fur this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (II Thess. ii. S—12.) The other prophesy I have in mind I shall not be able to lay my hands on before sending this letter off.
Editor's notes
- ↑ Отчетъ by unknown author
- ↑ "Fidelity" Again by Massey, C.C., London Spiritualist, No. 375, October 31, 1879, p. 213
- ↑ "Fidelity" Again by Fletcher, J.William, London Spiritualist, No. 375, October 31, 1879, p. 213
- ↑ Spiritualism and Churches by A Young Clergyman, London Spiritualist, No. 375, October 31, 1879, pp. 213-14
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 375, October 31, 1879, p. 213