HPB-SB-10-337: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |A Voice from Laodicea|10-336}} | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |A Voice from Laodicea|10-336}} | ||
... | {{Style P-No indent|all agree in believing, may help us to understand under what circumstances belief is withheld.}} | ||
In walking westward down Ludgate Hill a few months ago, on the south side of the street, I received a blow across the face, causing me to close my eyelids. I opened them almost immediately, but could see nothing by which the blow could have been given. Certainly there was no hansom cab in sight, within a reasonable distance, yet I believe that the blow came from the projecting lash of the whip of a hansom cab, which had probably just hurried out of sight in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge, when I looked up. Why do I believe that this was so, and yet not believe that the caress which I have often received at a ''séance'' proceeded from a spirit hand? It would appear that there is stronger evidence for the last than for the first: for the hand is often seen, the whip-lash in this case was not. My belief is given in the one case, and withheld in the other, chiefly, it would seem, for two reasons. I am familiar with the existence of hansom cabs, and with their mode of action. I have driven in them, and occasionally, I have been nearly driven over by them. A hansom cab is unquestionably a ''vera causa''. Now spirits are not so. I have no other evidence for the existence of spirits than these phenomena themselves, and any preconceived opinion which I may have had on their mode of action, is entirely opposed to what I here find attributed to them. But this is not enough to justify my unbelief, for the existence of everything must some time or other be proved for the first time. I believe in the existence of what are called atoms, of the luminiferous ether, and of the element fluorine which has never yet been handled or seen, on evidence of apparently the same nature, but far less cogent than that which I here find insufficient to induce belief. I have not the least doubt of the existence of the last discovered metal, or the newest asteroid. I believe in thallium, though I do not remember to have ever seen it, and I do not—without intending the least disrespect to their common discoverer—I do not believe in “Katie King.” | |||
<center>''To be Continued.''</center> | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 15: | Line 19: | ||
| item =1 | | item =1 | ||
| type = notice | | type = notice | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues = | | continues = | ||
| author = | | author = | ||
| Line 29: | Line 33: | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | {{Style S-Small capitals|Mrs. Paton}} is obtaining strong flower manifestations in Melbourne. | ||
An organisation under the name of the St. Thomas Association of Spiritualists has been formed in the Island of St. Thomas, West Indies, and it already has one hundred members, including a trance medium, Mr. Charles E. Taylor. | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 36: | Line 42: | ||
| item =2 | | item =2 | ||
| type = correspondence | | type = correspondence | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues = 338 | | continues = 338 | ||
| author = Blake Carter, C | | author = Blake Carter, C | ||
| Line 50: | Line 56: | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | Sir,—Your remarks open up several points in controversial theology, on none of which shall I attempt to enter. | ||
Firstly, because it does not concern me to defend the dogma of eternal punishment, or any other part of my individual belief. | |||
Secondly, the example of the “more intelligent divines,” who repeat the arguments of Origen (''Periarchon'', cap. 6.) warns me against ranking myself under their banner. As one whose intellect is probably only level with that of the “children,” and the “enthusiastic women,” who attend “aesthetic and pleasing” services, I must kneel with tranquillity under your rod. In this position it is consolatory to share a position held by St. Ignatius, S. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory, St. Augustine, St. John Damascene, St. Bernard, St. John Chrysostom, and a few others, some of whom are thought “intelligent,” all of whom were not “children” or “women,” and can scarcely be said to have been “enthusiastic” in the sense of being imaginative or credulous. | |||
Not knowing the united decree by which Spiritualists have agreed to denounce the dogma of eternal punishment, it is more comforting to know something of the points in which the Catholic Church, who defines her creed, is in accordance with the various spiritual doctrines, and to find out the points on which we agree. | |||
That 1. There is a Divine Providence; 2. A future life after death; 3. That sins committed in this world are punished in the next; 4. That certain souls are in a condition where they may be helped by the suffrages of the faithful—are points which Catholics abide on, and which I think that all Spiritualists do not contradict. Such doctrines have been, as you well say, like “a lump of honest quartz in front of the steam roller of modern progress.” Sometimes the roller does not succeed in crushing it, the machinery is thrown out of gear, and the riders of the roller are spilt in the mud. But, however the piece of quartz may be shattered, it always remains silex, as hard as the larger piece from whence it was broken. That an institution which is directly opposed to the materialist and agnostic philosophies of the day, and which its syllabus has declared to be irreconcilable with modern science, should be in the way of some, I can well imagine. But it is not the Spiritualist, in the enlarged sense in which I have always used the word, as opposed to the Animist, in whose path the power which sways so many minds, has placed itself. | |||
Permit me also just to say that the excellent man Turricremata was not named Torquemada by his family, and that the punning word by which his adversaries have called him on the theory that his patronymic was a Spanish one, is so obviously a feeble and depreciatory joke, that historians have long since restored him to the title of a family, whose coat of arms exactly indicates his real name. The whole history of the Inquisition in Spain is a subject well worthy the attention of historians, and the life of B. Peter Arbues is suitable for the perusal of all Spiritualists. | |||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|10-338}} | I may, in conclusion, ask those Spiritualists who care to know what the Catholic Church has said respecting the dogma of eternal punishment, to read a little book, published last year by my venerable friend, {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|10-338}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:01, 12 December 2025
< A Voice from Laodicea (continued from page 10-336) >
all agree in believing, may help us to understand under what circumstances belief is withheld.
In walking westward down Ludgate Hill a few months ago, on the south side of the street, I received a blow across the face, causing me to close my eyelids. I opened them almost immediately, but could see nothing by which the blow could have been given. Certainly there was no hansom cab in sight, within a reasonable distance, yet I believe that the blow came from the projecting lash of the whip of a hansom cab, which had probably just hurried out of sight in the direction of Blackfriars Bridge, when I looked up. Why do I believe that this was so, and yet not believe that the caress which I have often received at a séance proceeded from a spirit hand? It would appear that there is stronger evidence for the last than for the first: for the hand is often seen, the whip-lash in this case was not. My belief is given in the one case, and withheld in the other, chiefly, it would seem, for two reasons. I am familiar with the existence of hansom cabs, and with their mode of action. I have driven in them, and occasionally, I have been nearly driven over by them. A hansom cab is unquestionably a vera causa. Now spirits are not so. I have no other evidence for the existence of spirits than these phenomena themselves, and any preconceived opinion which I may have had on their mode of action, is entirely opposed to what I here find attributed to them. But this is not enough to justify my unbelief, for the existence of everything must some time or other be proved for the first time. I believe in the existence of what are called atoms, of the luminiferous ether, and of the element fluorine which has never yet been handled or seen, on evidence of apparently the same nature, but far less cogent than that which I here find insufficient to induce belief. I have not the least doubt of the existence of the last discovered metal, or the newest asteroid. I believe in thallium, though I do not remember to have ever seen it, and I do not—without intending the least disrespect to their common discoverer—I do not believe in “Katie King.”
<Untitled> (Mrs. Paton is obtaining strong...)
Mrs. Paton is obtaining strong flower manifestations in Melbourne.
An organisation under the name of the St. Thomas Association of Spiritualists has been formed in the Island of St. Thomas, West Indies, and it already has one hundred members, including a trance medium, Mr. Charles E. Taylor.
Eternal Punishment
Sir,—Your remarks open up several points in controversial theology, on none of which shall I attempt to enter.
Firstly, because it does not concern me to defend the dogma of eternal punishment, or any other part of my individual belief.
Secondly, the example of the “more intelligent divines,” who repeat the arguments of Origen (Periarchon, cap. 6.) warns me against ranking myself under their banner. As one whose intellect is probably only level with that of the “children,” and the “enthusiastic women,” who attend “aesthetic and pleasing” services, I must kneel with tranquillity under your rod. In this position it is consolatory to share a position held by St. Ignatius, S. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gregory, St. Augustine, St. John Damascene, St. Bernard, St. John Chrysostom, and a few others, some of whom are thought “intelligent,” all of whom were not “children” or “women,” and can scarcely be said to have been “enthusiastic” in the sense of being imaginative or credulous.
Not knowing the united decree by which Spiritualists have agreed to denounce the dogma of eternal punishment, it is more comforting to know something of the points in which the Catholic Church, who defines her creed, is in accordance with the various spiritual doctrines, and to find out the points on which we agree.
That 1. There is a Divine Providence; 2. A future life after death; 3. That sins committed in this world are punished in the next; 4. That certain souls are in a condition where they may be helped by the suffrages of the faithful—are points which Catholics abide on, and which I think that all Spiritualists do not contradict. Such doctrines have been, as you well say, like “a lump of honest quartz in front of the steam roller of modern progress.” Sometimes the roller does not succeed in crushing it, the machinery is thrown out of gear, and the riders of the roller are spilt in the mud. But, however the piece of quartz may be shattered, it always remains silex, as hard as the larger piece from whence it was broken. That an institution which is directly opposed to the materialist and agnostic philosophies of the day, and which its syllabus has declared to be irreconcilable with modern science, should be in the way of some, I can well imagine. But it is not the Spiritualist, in the enlarged sense in which I have always used the word, as opposed to the Animist, in whose path the power which sways so many minds, has placed itself.
Permit me also just to say that the excellent man Turricremata was not named Torquemada by his family, and that the punning word by which his adversaries have called him on the theory that his patronymic was a Spanish one, is so obviously a feeble and depreciatory joke, that historians have long since restored him to the title of a family, whose coat of arms exactly indicates his real name. The whole history of the Inquisition in Spain is a subject well worthy the attention of historians, and the life of B. Peter Arbues is suitable for the perusal of all Spiritualists.
I may, in conclusion, ask those Spiritualists who care to know what the Catholic Church has said respecting the dogma of eternal punishment, to read a little book, published last year by my venerable friend, <... continues on page 10-338 >
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 396, March 26, 1880, p. 149