< The Inspiration of the Hebrew Prophets (continued from page 7-21) >
conceive, preclude us from experimenting scientifically in this matter; nor is the obligation to put witches to death binding on us now.
In these ages of the world, before the existence of philanthropic societies and reformatory associations, the laws applied to delinquent human beings were much the same as we now apply to beasts of prey. We do not now put witches to death, but if mediums were by trick or conjuring to rob us of our money, even modern Spiritualists would not hesitate to imprison them.
The object of my recent papers has not been to disprove the facts of the control in certain cases exercised by departed human spirits; but to indicate that such control is always unreliable, frequently deceptive and dangerous, and sometimes very wicked. As a scientific experiment such investigations are profoundly interesting, but as the basis of a religion spiritual phenomena may become a worshipping of false gods in contradistinction to the only true religion, which by temperance, love, and prayer so awakens our own dormant spirit, that it seeks, finds, and is controlled by the Father of all Spirits.
12, Great Cumberland-place, Hyde-park, London.
Christianity Versus Buddhism
Sir,—May I intrude on your space to suggest some considerations awakened by Col. Olcott’s letters, which, as it seems to me, have not yet been touched upon in the interesting comments upon them hitherto published. Like “M.A., Oxon,” I am startled at Col. Olcott’s assertion that “he adheres to Oriental religious philosophers as better guides to happiness and morality than the Christian theology”; and I would ask him if these religious philosophies are, in his opinion, better guides for the majority of mankind than Christian theology, or only better for a small inner circle of sages? If he considers that Eastern faiths have really done more for their followers in the mass than Christianity has done for its followers, I would ask him how he accounts for the degraded state of women and the maintenance of caste among the Hindus (an Aryan race like ourselves) and for the gross superstitions and cruelties, and the utter recklessness of human life which distinguish the lower classes in countries where Buddhism has been the prevailing creed for centuries? Why, if the teachings of these religions tend to produce greater happiness and a higher morality than Christianity, have they not emancipated women, broken the bonds of slaves, mitigated the cruelties of legal punishment, let light and mercy into prisons, and taught men to look on themselves as equals in rights and blood, as Christianity has done? If, on the other hand, Col. Olcott only means that the highest teachings of these religions, as understood by the few, are more philosophical and enlightening than the dogmas of Christianity as understood by the gross-minded many in Christian countries, is he not comparing two things that have no relation to each other? Ought not a religion to be judged by the whole of its fruits? And is not that religion most divine that can descend lowest and leaven the whole lump, as well as raise a chosen few to high attainments of wisdom? Col. Olcott will hardly say that Christian theology, as expounded by its highest teachers—such as Thomas a Kempis, Fenelon, Pascal, Madame Guyon-Tauler, Professor Maurice, &c.—has any tendency to promote lazy self-indulgence, or allow men to rest content with a small degree of effort after the higher life.
It often seems to me that contemners of current Christian theology make an unfair use of the allegorical forms and somewhat gross phrases and images under which average preachers present obscure doctrine to their hearers. Many, doubtless, do hold the literal and sordid views of “rewards and punishments,” “atonement,” “conversion,” that their criticisers credit them with; but the words carry quite other meaning to all thoughtful and sincere souls—to those whose ears are open to spiritual truths. These, while they sing of golden crowns and glory, remember that Christ the “King of Glory” is also the “King of self-sacrifice”; and, in talking of atonement and salvation, understand that it is sin from which they look to be saved; and that conversion, let it be ever so much the effect of an outside influence upon them, means for them the passing from a life of self-indulgence—from death—into a life of holiness and active benevolence, which it life.
It always puzzles me why Spiritualists should sneer at conversion. Do they not recognise spiritual influx, and is it not very comprehensible that there should be epochs in a soul’s history when the avenues to spirit influences, closed before, are opened to receive them, and men may suddenly become conscious of new powers, and new motives in themselves? Spiritualism seems to me to open out all Christian mysteries, and flare them with a clear light. Do not let us throw away our jewel caskets just when we have found their keys.
The Evolution Theory Considered in its Relation to Psychology*
The notion that man is descended from some lower form of animal life is not in itself new, but also not until the present century has it been sufficiently supported by facts to make it a coherent and tenable hypothesis. It is now so buttressed round by facts and analogies gathered from every department of natural history that it is fast taking its place among scientifically proved theories. I will here state what I mean by a proved scientific theory. Arguments may be divided into three kinds—(1) demonstrations, (2) proofs, (3) probabilities. Under the first head come metaphysics and the exact sciences; but their scope is narrow. The two other kinds—proofs and probabilities—differ only in the effect produced upon the mind, and under one of these two heads we may place every scientific theory. By scientific or inductive reasoning we arrive at something which the human mind does not doubt, as that the sun will rise to-morrow. By deductive reasoning only do we arrive at conclusions which the mind cannot doubt, as that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. While granting this to the metaphysicians and Mr. Massey, I claim the inductive method as the most reliable in the end, for it bases its conclusions on a broader platform than any other. At the beginning of the argument the postulate, “I think therefore I exist,” may seem more indisputable than “(the world of phenomena exists, therefore I think”; but as we proceed it becomes apparent that the edifice erected on the former basis assumes the shape of an inverted cone, and the higher we build it up (albeit the foundation is immovable) the unsteadier it becomes; in fact, it cannot be carried to any height. But not to dwell on this well-worn metaphor, I will only say that the doctrine of evolution seems to me to belong to the class of highly probable theories (such as the theory of gravitation) which produce on the mind the effect of proof. Whether any other causes have been at work—besides “natural selection”—in producing the variations of type which constitute distinct species, it is not necessary to inquire, but I am taking it as proved that all existing varieties have one common origin, and have been brought into existence by the action of universal laws. It seems to me that this theory is sufficiently proved if it be shown to be possible only, for there is no other way of accounting for the existence of species, except by a separate act of creation for each new species, which is an indolent hypothesis—a pure assumption without any scientific evidence in its favour.
If, then, physically man is descended from some lower form of animal life, and this in its turn from a lower and a lower still until the bottom of the scale, where the animal kingdom insensibly merges into the vegetable, let us consider how this truth bears on psychology. At first sight it seems to militate against the belief in a future life, for it brings to light anotheJ1 purpose in nature—the perfection of types and species —to which the well-being and life of individuals are altogether subordinated. Like the discovery that our planet is not the centre of the universe, and the other heavenly bodies merely designed to give it light and heat, the discovery that man is subject to and the product of the same laws as his brute fellow-creatures, is somewhat humiliating, Feeling within him the aspiration for a larger life of which he sees no ratification in nature, he cries out with Tennyson—
“Are God and Nature, then, at strife, |
When psychology takes its proper place as a part of the science of biology, and is divested of all admixture of theological dogmas and metaphysics, maybe this feeling will no longer seem to be justified. In any case, there is such a desire for truth in the human mind as would prompt it to acknowledge even a mud-ancestry rather than be cajoled with lies into false hopes.
The chief difficulty in thus reconciling evolution with current beliefs about the soul of man, arises not from any direct evidence which it furnishes against the soul’s existence, but from its clashing with certain foregone conclusions as to its nature and origin. Supposing for a moment it were proved by the doctrine of evolution that man has descended from a soul-less ancestry, the difficulty of determining the precise period in the remote past at which “soul” made its appearance is no greater (as Darwin has observed) than the difficulty of determining the exact period in the development of the individual from the minute germinal vesicle to the child either before or after birth, when man becomes endowed with a soul.
Instead of disputing the conclusions of this, the more advanced branch of biology—which treats of man’s physical origin—it may be a more useful task to re-examine the foundations of the younger science, psychology, and see whether they support any views really antagonistic to the former. The facts of psychology are well ascertained, and must override the theories of all other sciences, but its inferences are matters of doubt, and need all the corroborative evidence which can be brought to bear upon them. The theory of the origin of the soul should harmonise with the theory of the origin of the body—otherwise both are in doubt.
The order in which I propose to treat this subject, is (firstly) to state the foundations of the science of psychology, and (secondly) to consider some of its theories, especially in relation to the nature and origin of is the soul.
The only indisputable facts of psychology appear to me to be two, viz., (1) the existence of a spiritual part in man which is capable of trans corporeal action; (2) its survival in numerous proved cases after the dissolution of the body. Doubtless, these two facts come far short of the ordinary creed of the Spiritualist, inasmuch as they include no assumption of the soul’s imperishableness. As I am dealing with this question from a purely scientific point of view (without contesting, however, the validity of other methods) I submit to your notice the following proposition. Science can only recognise man as a duality—body and soul; not as a trinity—body, soul, and spirit. It seems as unscientific to add the third term, about which only a negative idea can be formed, as to add a third term to express the combination of gases which produce water. The chemists formula for water is HO, not HO+X. Hydrogen plus oxygen are not water, but as the cementing force is undiscoverable as a separate element, and indescribable, it would be useless to include it in the analysis. We may say “man” or “water,” and a distinct idea is conveyed by the words, but in expressing the elements which go to make up these compounds, we can but set that down which we find.
From what I have said it will be seen that I limit the field of psychology to discovery of the origin, nature, and attributes of the psychical entity—astral body, or whatever it might be called—without <... continues on page 7-23 >
* A paper read last Monday night before the British National Association of Spiritualists.
Editor's notes
Sources
London Spiritualist, No. 290, March 15, 1878, p. 130
London Spiritualist, No. 290, March 15, 1878, pp. 131-2