Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
6,844
edits
HPB-SB-8-307: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| item = 1 | | item = 1 | ||
| type = correspondence | | type = correspondence | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues = | | continues = | ||
| author = F.G.J. | | author = F.G.J. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| source title = Spiritualist | | source title = London Spiritualist | ||
| source details = 1 | | source details = No. 362, August 1, 1879, p. 58 | ||
| publication date = 1879-08-01 | | publication date = 1879-08-01 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style S-Small capitals| Sir}},—Is Spiritualism the fullest and most instructive of all revelations? Is it the worst, the most degraded and degrading? Is it a religion? Can anything like a religion be evolved from it? What is religion, and how is Spiritualism related to it? | ||
All the air about us palpitates with these questions, and with the “jarring yea and nay” which are supposed to answer them. | |||
Not long ago religion was defined by Mr. Abbott, editor of ''The Index, ''as “the effort of man to perfect himself.” Mr. Campbell, in his recent communication to ''The Spiritualist, ''supposes that “every one understands” it to be “one binding link with the father of spirits,” but does not enlighten us as to the exact character of the link. Madame de Steiger’s very suggestive papers dwell much upon the lack and the urgent need of enthusiasm in these days. It seems to me that she strikes the key-note of the matter, and supplies almost all that. is wanting in Mr. Abbott’s cold formula to raise it to the dignity, of a true definition. Mr. Campbell’s view is, however, if I rightly understand it, the more popular. We speak of “religions,” including even the worship of idols, and generally mean any recognition of a mysterious Power, to which we owe the allegiance either of love or of fear. The clement of personal terror, which cowers before the wrath of an angry Deity, enters largely, not only into primitive forms of worship, but also into those of Christendom at the present day. This fear of God is simply the fear of being hurt. But the love of God—what is that? If it be anything worthy of the name, it is an enthusiastic adoration of goodness; a most interior recognition of that supreme beauty of holiness before which angels bow down, and archangels veil their faces; a panting thirst after the water brooks of truth; a worship of purity for its own sake; a love of charity, because it is in itself the highest good. | |||
We are not under some spell which compels us to sink in the magic mirror of a creed for the dimmed reflection of these things; for they are indeed “nearer than hands and feet,” they are engraved upon our very souls. So far, however, from universal acceptance has been this central truth, that a Christian Church has found it possible to denounce as “filthy rags” the effort of man to perfect himself, howsoever intense and humble that effort might be. “Lay your deadly doing down,” saith the preacher. But those who recognise an enthusiastic striving after the right, in all its forms of varied loveliness, as the corner-stone of religion, will accord the palm of superior excellence to any revelation which most vividly, directly, and constantly impresses upon us the vital importance of spiritual self-culture; and I will venture to say that none which the world has ever received compares with Spiritualism in that respect. No teaching has ever placed before man with the same startling force the uncompromising laws of retributive justice. Every communication we receive, from the highest to the lowest, alike impresses upon us the tremendous fact that there is no escape from the results of our own actions, and that not only shall every idle word be required of us, but that every train of thought which we encourage, every emotion that finds a resting, place hi our hearts, every impulse that guides us on our way, awakens an endless echo, | |||
Upon this rock, as it appears to me, must the religion of Spiritualism be builded. | |||
{{Style P-Signature in capitals| F.G.J.}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 56: | Line 66: | ||
| item = 3 | | item = 3 | ||
| type = correspondence | | type = correspondence | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues = 308 | | continues = 308 | ||
| author = Blake, C. Carter | | author = Blake, C. Carter | ||
| Line 62: | Line 72: | ||
| subtitle = | | subtitle = | ||
| untitled = | | untitled = | ||
| source title = Spiritualist | | source title = London Spiritualist | ||
| source details = 1 | | source details = No. 362, August 1, 1879, p. 58 | ||
| publication date = 1879-08-01 | | publication date = 1879-08-01 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| Line 70: | Line 80: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Style S-Small capitals| Sir}},—I am thankful that you have warned off “sectarians”* from this discussion, and more thankful that such prohibition does not, I hope, apply to me. | |||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|8-308}} | I shall carefully abstain from offering argument in favour of any particular theological system, as such a course is not necessary for my present purpose. I merely wish to show that before Spiritualists are in a position to save other denominations “from drowning,” they should exhibit some solidity in their own limbs. If Lurline had not “materialised” a leg or two to stand upon, her arms would not have had the power to draw Sir Roland under the-water, If some proposal of a common point of agreement had been made, we should have been spared the excellent analysis of what some Spiritualists do believe, and some Spiritualists do not believe, which appeared a few weeks ago in the letters signed “A Spiritualist.” (?) | ||
Every religious sect has some positive or negative characters which differentiate it from all others. The “Bounding Brethren of Barnabas” (I speak with respect of the tenets and practices of all the members of this religious denomination, and I trust none, even of the sisters, will be offended by my remarks) either believe something or practice something which other sects do not, or else they deny certain doctrines and neglect certain uses which other sects consider of vital importance. They have, therefore, a definite, creed. Have Spiritualists the like? Is there a certain definite point on which all are agreed? Even beliefs like that in a future state, in the immortality of the soul, in the existence of conditions of reward and punishment after death are capable of denial, and have been absolutely denied, by persons who have the most thorough belief in the truth of the phenomena occasionally presented in the presence of certain psychics. Is I there any ''consensus of ''agreement between the “John Kings” I of various places and times? Some, of course, imagine that what they themselves believe is the canon of truth, and that what others believe is in all cases either fraud or folly. The Proktophantasmist on the road to the Blocksberg is an example of these, and we are told by Goethe of his fate. We find that after all his speeches:— | |||
{{Style P-Poem|poem=''“Er wird sieh gleieh in eine PJiitze setzen,'' | |||
''Das ist die Art, wie er sich soulagirt,'' | |||
''Und wenn Tlutegel sich an seinem Steiss ergetzen, '' | |||
''1st er von Geistern und von Geist eurirt.”''}} | |||
Many persons, of whom I am one, have been accustomed to be alternately styled both “fools” and “knaves” for a few hundred years past. Unfortunately, as Newman has put it, they cannot be both at the same time, and the accusations get mixed. | |||
It is not, however, my present duty to inquire what degree of “intelligence” is possessed by a large body of educated men, or whether or why the President of the Royal Society has a gold mace borne before him, while an antique cocked-hat is placed on the table before the President of the Society of Antiquaries. I would rather discuss Spiritualism; and, as Lord Chelmsford found it more convenient to fight at Ulundi than at Pietermaritzburg, I will ask Spiritualists if they do not agree among themselves on any definite universal belief, at least to give me some affirmative or negative answers on the following points. Of course I have no doubt that the trumpet will give no uncertain sound in the case of many, and it must always be borne in mind that I am merely asking for information, which I shall gladly receive at the hands of those representative persons who are {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|8-308}} | |||
{{Footnotes start}} | |||
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Not sectarians, but essays going into the details of the dogmas of sects,— {{Style S-Small capitals|Ed}}. of ''S.'' | |||
{{Footnotes end}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 107: | Line 132: | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-sources}} | |||
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px> | |||
london_spiritualist_n.362_1879-08-01.pdf|page=12|London Spiritualist, No. 362, August 1, 1879, p. 58 | |||
</gallery> | |||
= Inlay = | = Inlay = | ||