Legend
< [1]The Identity of the Higher Teaching of Spiritualism with Bible Christianity (continued from page 7-223) >
putants, putting such questions and giving such answers as fairly to silence these venerable fathers of the Hebrew nation. I really smiled as I looked on their dumfoundered faces. Ah! where had this Boy gained His knowledge of these things? His teachings were not of earth; they must come from the Great and Holy Spirit, the Source of all truth, the Ruler of the universe. I took no part in the discussion, I was entranced. I could say nothing, and wondered to see the gray-haired venerable men sitting powerless before this mere Child.’’
Issha, the Egyptian priest, stated by “Hafed” to have had the care of the “young Child” upon His being taken to Egypt, says of the Child—“this little One speaks of Heaven, and opens up Paradise in all its glory and beauty—telling me things not spoken of on earth. When I contrast the wisdom of Egypt with the sayings of this Child the one is far surpassed by the other. ... I believe this young Prince... to be indeed the Son of God, having in Him the Spirit of the Father.” As a Boy and a human being He would need education, and nothing more likely than that He would make Himself acquainted as a boy and as a young man with every system of religion which had been given to men. This relates to mere earthly knowledge. Those in whose charge and companionship He is made to be in the book, all unite in acknowledging His wisdom to be “not of the earth,” but “from the Spirit of the Father.” The book further speaks of Him as “The Prince of Peace,” the “Messiah,” the Giver of the “Law and commandments to Moses;” and just the same account of His birth and Divine parentage is given as is to be found in the Scriptures. The book was well received by English Spiritualists, because their reading of it was more careful than Mr. Howitt’s; and I deeply regret to observe this same want of accurate knowledge and careful observation is apparent in every charge against Spiritualism in this country made in this letter now under review. Of this I will give you sufficient proof; the allegations against the British National Association affording the next illustration.
I must guard myself here against being supposed to charge Mr. Howitt with making false statements knowingly. Indeed, this must be understood throughout. I believe him to be incapable of deliberate untruth; but I cannot resist the conviction that in this letter he has written hastily and upon erroneous information.
This Association, we are informed, started with a programme from which Christianity was expressly banned and excluded. It is not in my purpose to inquire whether or not the Association is representative of Spiritualism in England; I have to do with the fact of its existence, and the use to which Mr. Howitt has tried to put it. By its programme Christianity is said to have been banned and excluded. This banning and excluding was, we learn further on in the letter, effected by one particular article, suggested, according to our authority in his letter of April 19th, by “a very active medium and lecturer of the present time,” whose name he mentions elsewhere. These statements are very circumstantial, and it appears to be going hard with the Association. So righteously indignant was Mr. Howitt at the “shameful programme,” that we are not surprised to hear that he made a “vigorous onslaught” upon it, resulting in the Association being compelled “to haul down its colours in a hurry, and to expunge this particular article of their proclamation.” So precise is Mr. Howitt in his statements, so certain as to his facts is he, that in his second letter he plainly states the “obnoxious article” was erased “at a public meeting of the Association, avowedly in consequence of my exposure.” Such evidence as this from Mr. Howitt would, in the absence of irrefragible proof to the contrary, be deemed conclusive, and the Association would stand condemned. Now, if a person of lesser reputation than Mr. Howitt, obtaining his information from a similar source to that from whence Mr. Howitt obtained his, viz., hearsay, were to assert that he had been misinformed, that the information upon which he had based his statements was “a mere refaciamento from (western) extravagances of fancy, without the smallest possible basis of proof or fact,” he would probably be made the subject of another such a “vigorous onslaught” as that inflicted upon the editor of The Spiritualist, whose correction of Mr. Howitt was denounced by him in the Christian World of the 29th April in these words—“This is a hardy and impudent assertion, of course resulting from my exposure of Spiritualism at present, and the character of that journal.” But if a person who took an active part in the construction of the “shameful programme, who is personally conversant with every detail of the growth of the programme, from the causes which led to its inception, publication, and withdrawal, if such an one testify differently, you will have personal testimony versus “hearsay.” The first would be received in every court of justice in the kingdom, the latter scouted from its doors. Such testimony I myself can give you, and our chairman can confirm me in much. I am much pained to have to refer to this subject, but it is a duty. Mr. Howitt has rashly charged this Association with trying to institute a rebellion against the descent of the Divine Spirit; it is consequently necessary to confute him. The statements he makes are—By a particular paragraph of the Association’s programme Christianity was expressly banned and excluded. This paragraph was suggested by a very active medium and lecturer of the present time. A vigorous onslaught by Mr. Howitt compelled the Association to expunge the obnoxious article. The obnoxious article was erased at a public meeting of the Association, avowedly in consequence of Mr. Howitt’s exposure. The members of the Association were to renounce Christianity, but to embrace as fellows the holders of every other species of spiritual credence, however absurd and degrading. The Association, notwithstanding the erasure of the obnoxious article, remains utterly hostile to Christianity. This hostility is every day more apparent. At the time referred to in the first four statements I belonged to the Association, and was one of its Organising Council, having been amongst the first who were invited by Mr. T. Everitt, in pursuance of the resolution of the representative Liverpool Conference, to form the nucleus of an association, and up to the time of the hauling down the colours and erasure of the article referred to above, I was permitted by my colleagues on the Council to take an active part in everything concerning it. A few weeks after I joined the young Association, I was permitted to invite my friend, the chairman, who is a scientific man, and closely related to one of the most eminent of our Royal Society men, to connect himself with us. He accepted the invitation, and was elected a member of the Council, and he remained a member of the Council long after I withdrew from the Association. The Council Was composed of persons who were connected with different sections of the Christian Church, and of one or more who made no profession. All were in sympathy with the teachings of Christ—with His simple gospel. During the construction of the programme, one of the Council, a gentleman professing the Trinitarian faith, suggested that the Association would make its way better if Christianity were recognised in its programme. Now bear in mind that the Association was started to observe, record, and disseminate a knowledge of the phenomena which demonstrated existence beyond the grave; nevertheless, the suggestion was taken into consideration, and adopted after careful consideration, although to frame an article which should evidence the sympathy of the Association with Bible Christianity, and its unsectarian character at the same time, was difficult, because some of us failed at the first to see the difference between Churchianic and Bible Christianity. Nearly three whole sittings of the Council were occupied in discussing the matter, and nearly every member drafted one or more articles, each one as it stood alone more or less objectionable. Ultimately, all agreed to fall back upon the un obscured gospel of Christ—the teachings of Jesus—and an article containing the essence of all previous ones was adopted. This is the origin of the “obnoxious” article. Whatever its merits or demerits it was constructed by the Council after full and earnest thought, and with a sincere desire to show the regard the Council felt for Christ’s gospel. At this time there was no active medium and lecturer on the Council, or, so far as my memory serves me, even a member of it, and unhesitatingly I declare that no suggestions from any such were communicated to the Council in connection with this matter. This article was worded as follows:—
“The Association, while cordially sympathising with the teachings of Jesus Christ, will hold itself entirely aloof from all dogmatism or finalities, whether religious or philosophical, and will content itself with the establishment and elucidation of well-attested facts as the only basis on which any true religion or philosophy can be built up.”
The teachings of Jesus—the true gospel of Christ—Bible Christianity meets here with cordial sympathy. It is dogmatisms and finalities, which obscure true Christianity, that are expressly banned and excluded. If Mr. Howitt disapproved of the construction of the article, he was not justified in thinking evil, still less in expressing it. Why and how the article came to be erased from the programme is briefly as follows:— The Council, contrary to its hope, found, soon after the publication of the article, that the same variety of opinion as to what constituted Christianity, as had existed within itself, was manifested too antagonistically amongst the general body of its members to permit the hope that the definition agreed to by the Council would be accepted by them. When it became apparent that the laudable effort to please all had failed, our chairman—then a member of the Council, and then and now an earnest Christian—on his own responsibility, and without knowing anything of Mr. Howitt’s “vigorous onslaught,” submitted to the Council a fresh draft of the prospectus without the article, and moved its adoption in place of the original one. After due consideration Mr. King’s proposition was adopted by the Council, and submitted to the Association for ratification by private balloting papers, which were returned direct to the Council. Mr. King was ignorant of Mr. Howitt’s “onslaught” until this afternoon, never so much as having heard of it. I have heard of it, but my knowledge extends no further. I never saw it. So we see the pro- gramme of the Association did not ban and exclude Christianity, and require its members to renounce it. On the contrary, Christianity has received cordial sympathy. The misunderstood article was not suggested by a very active medium and lecturer, but was the uninfluenced composition of the Council. Neither was it erased at a public meeting of the Association, in consequence of Mr. Howitt’s exposure, but by the private ballot of the members, upon the motion of Mr. Geo. King, our chairman of to-night, who, until this afternoon, never heard of the exposure and onslaught paraded by Mr. Howitt. In closing this most painful part of the subject, let me say again I believe Mr. Howitt is under the impression that the information upon which he based his statements was reliable. His fault lies as a public man addressing thepublic in not obtaining his information from authentic records.
I will now consider the general charges against Spiritualism and Spiritualists generally, and as the authors I shall quote are some of them members of the British National Association, and as all my citations will be from The Spiritualist newspaper, I shall deal with the whole at once. I need not recapitulate the charges. It is sufficient to remember that Mr. Howitt says, “Everywhere Spiritualism has announced itself as the sworn enemy of the Gospel of Christ. . . . The Spiritualists everywhere boast that they are on the way to discover a new and superior system of faith and worship from the teachings of the spirits In The Spiritualist this anti-Christian leaven is sufficiently obvious.” I have here The Spiritualist for more than a year previous to the date of Mr. Howitt’s first letter, and opening No. 229 I find Mr. Morse, who is, I suppose, the most widely known trance lecturer on Spiritualism, saying in a trance address to the members of the National Association at their own rooms: “We rather oppose the idea of the erection of Spiritualism into a new religious system. ... We think not that we can give you any much better moral or religious code than you could get without Spiritualism. ... We may be able to help you to clear away clouds, to pull down barriers which stand before the grand truths of immortality, but if we attempted to preach a new morality we think the result would be a gigantic failure.”
<... continues on page 7-225 >