Legend
< Untitled (continued from page 8-127) >
Spiritualists, even among those men whose sincerity of purpose, holiness, and ardour of conviction have made them justly respected leaders, we fail to perceive any unity of belief.
One Spiritualist believes in the immortality of the soul; another denies it.
One considers the resurrection of the body to be an essential article of the faith he possesses; another strongly dissents from this belief.
One considers the fact of the return to earth of the souls or spirits of the departed at a seance, or otherwise, to be an essential article of the Spiritualist belief. Another person, not less loyal in conviction to the cause of what he deems to be genuine Spiritualism, finds no pressing necessity to declare that he possesses a soul during life, and refrains from threatening his neighbour with its post mortem appearance.
One Spiritualist considers that the revelation given in the various sacred books, commonly accepted by many persons in the Christian, Jewish, Mohammedan, Buddhist, and other religions, was, prior to the advent of the Rochester rappings, all-sufficient to satisfy the intellectual and moral needs of any person whose soul was diseased, and who aspired towards a higher life. Others pity the ignorance of the bygone ages, at the time when the Greek grammar was taught in elementary schools to the living, and the dead were prayed for in their quiet graves. Such are pleased with a new revelation, whose claims to genuineness rest on the ignoral of the hopes of all those persons who, up to thirty years ago, had fulfilled their life career.
One person is perfectly convinced of the genuineness of the phenomena presented through this or that physical medium, and often carries his belief to the excess of expressing faith in the accuracy of the statements which this medium assert in or out of the trance condition, and obedience to the advice of the assumed “control.” His opponent selects this especial medium as a “dreadful example” of imposture, and, as in a recent case, is too ready to condemn him on the flimsiest of evidence, and after the most slipshod investigation.
The Continental medium who is inspired by the teachings of Allan Kardec is fervent in asserting the doctrines of reincarnation, and the ghosts which appear through his mediumship, out of deference to the habitual thoughts of the circle, terminate their addresses by a vehement Priez pour nous. The Teutonic spirit, however, passes over the reincarnationist theory with a contemptuous sneer, and although his customer has no objection to pay five shillings for the privilege of an interview with the soul of one of his departed relatives, he has every objection to be so entirely out of the track of nineteenth century progress, as to utter a prayer for the eternal rest of what he conceives to be a departed soul.
One school of observers is vehement in favour of certain methods of test, which are satisfactory to themselves. Rope, cord, broad and narrow, red and white taps have all been supported by successive generations of inquirers. I have often been struck with the sceptic, who at an inquirer’s seance is willing that some method of securing the medium should be practised which is quite satisfactory to himself, and quite within the scope of the experiments which an impromptu provision against imposture might suggest. Yet such a test in the eyes of those who have watched the methods by which deceitful mediums might cheat, and are said to have cheated, is perfectly valueless, and though it serves to satisfy the scruples of the ignorant sceptic, it is nugatory in view of the more experienced tester.
But the greatest difficulty in defining what collective objects may be existing in the aims of all the modern Spiritualists is the introduction of an element which, without offence, may be termed the bourgeois train of thought. It has often been a subject of temporary surprise and permanent grief to me to hear Spiritualists on numerous public and private occasions boldly decide offhand on subjects of science, theology, and philosophy with perfect readiness, and with that aplomb which might lead the inquirer to fancy that their authoritative decisions were the outcome of years of thought, accumulation of evidence, or vast erudition. The prevalence of this laxity of education, and consequent laxity of thought, has tended in many cases to an undercurrent being developed of theories which, being held by Spiritualists, are often identifiable with the unwritten creed of the science. We have only to look at the advertisement columns of some of the Transatlantic newspapers to understand exactly what I mean. The subjects of the engineer, the telegraphist, or the geologist are not mixed up with the exuviæ which often cover Spiritualism, but there appears to be some inscrutable law by which the enemy is permitted to shoot all his rubbish on the Spiritualist side of the hedge. Mr. D. G. Fitz-Gerald has in a recent letter referred to this flaw, and it is melancholy that Spiritualism should continually, either through wilful malice or carelessness, be exposed to difficulties which would crush the upward progress of any other science with the outside world. The bourgeois (shall I not rather call it the epicier?) element, is naturally prone to seek for wonders, and the success of the Research Committee’s experiments, and of the fortnightly discussion meetings, have been attained in spite of it. The instant the dry light of experiment and the fierce flame of discussion has been let in on the subject, it is remarkable how clear the atmosphere has become, and how few the eases of fraud which are at present known to us. Personally, though I am aware that my opinions are not those of the majority, I think that cases of fraud have never been very prevalent; at least, that they have been confined to other bathymetrical levels than those I know. I carefully guard myself against advocating any of the above theories, as, for the sake of my present argument, I merely wish to show their ^diversity. Some must bo wrong.
I, therefore, have to repeat what I said at the time of the National Conference of Spiritualists (The Spiritualist, Feb. 23, 1877), that I “thought that Spiritualism had little influence on our ideas about a future life or theological dogma. To him it offered a number of physical facts, perfectly true, in which he did not see any moral bearing whatever.” Those persons who have not definitely made up their minds as to any given point of theology, and who require the sound of a rap, or the flourish of the drapeau blanc of “materialised” grenadine to convince them of the immortality of the human soul, will of course seek in the evidence for such as will satisfy them. But it may be a question whether a belief which is entirely built up on a posteriori evidence will be deep, permanent, or valuable. It must also be remembered that a belief in the perfect accuracy of many Spiritualistic phenomena is with many scientific minds compatible with a denial of all soul, spirit, or future life.
If I have in any way led others to consider the fact that Spiritualists have no common creed which any one could propose with the chance of acceptation by all, or without the certainty of the exclusion of a powerful minority, and consequently no “note of unity,” I have disposed of the claims of a nebulous, though luminous body to be the illuminator of others unto truth, or, in other words, to be “a new religion.”
The Religious Aspects of Spiritualism
Sir,—It is far from my wish to prolong a correspondence which has already served its purpose.
Miss Kislingbury, apparently, does not admire the Socratic method. I beg to assure her that I laid no trap for her, and that my four propositions required no answer from her, being merely convenient methods of suggesting truth in the form of queries, the answers to which, so far from, filling a number of The Spiritualist, might have been written on the back of her visiting card.
Question No. 5 needs another answer, and Miss Kislingbury will find it in The Spiritualist for January 25, 1878, p. 40, §3.
At that time—long to look back upon, yet only twelve short months ago—she was defending the views of the Theosophists, with much enthusiasm, against one “M.A., Oxon,” who maintained the tenets of Spiritualism. Times are changed, and she now propounds from the standpoint of the Catholic Church the same doctrine, with the same underlying confusion of thought.
The reply of “M.A., Oxon,” on that occasion, I should be willing to adopt now as my own. Throughout the Bible (and, I may add, throughout the creeds and formularies of all branches of the Church of Christ) immortality, in its plain sense, is predicated of every soul. But for some it is an immortality of bliss: this is called eternal life; for others an immortality of woe: this is called eternal death. The words Lite and Death are plainly used in the allegorical or symbolic sense common among the Hebrews. In our modern speech the word Immortality cannot be so used without confusion; and this my knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, to say nothing of English, makes plain to me. Nor does even Mr. Dodwell affect the conclusion.
I raised the point with no eye to controversy, but because I find a doctrine that I believe to be chimerical urged as a fair ground of argument. The Theosophists, as will be seen by reference to the pages of The Spiritualist of a year ago, insist on it, but I hardly know on what authority. It has been put forward, too, by a few enthusiasts who assert it on the authority of some stray texts in the Bible. Any one who is at all versed in theological controversy knows well enough, by sad experience, that such methods can prove anything to minds that can receive proof of that order. But it is not in any sense a doctrine of the Church of Christ, nor was it ever taught by Him.
A doctrine stated once or twice, and unchallenged, is very apt to assert itself with increased power. Hence I asked my little question, neither in pride nor in humility, but simply for information; aping nothing, nor dreading any return to ancestral apishness, but resolved to preserve my sacred right not to “submission to any discipline,” but to search out a reason always for the faith that is in me; intending, moreover, to be a Doasyoulike to the end of the chapter, in the highest sense of doing what my internal arbiter approves.
I have the less reason for trenching further on your valuable space that I have opportunity of explaining my position more fully on the publication of the paper which originated this correspondence.
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 335, January 24, 1879, p. 43