 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1879-1880 pages in vol.: 577 |
Religious Hostility to Spiritualism
Some time ago I called attention in your paper to the very interesting meetings then being held at the studio of Mr. Edward Clifford, in Wigmore Street, to consider the relative efficacy of certain agencies—“Art, Philanthropy, Spiritualism, Conversion, Roman Catholicism, Temperance,” in regard to their “power over evil.” I was able to avail myself only once of Mr. Clifford’s kind invitation to these meetings; but I gather from a report of them which he has just sent me that of the six subjects mentioned, five were unrepresented by any important testimonies. Nor is this surprising, seeing that the restriction of speakers to facts excluded discussion of those elevating influences which may purify a whole lifetime and protect it from evil, but are not rich in the incidents and crises which illustrate religious experience. The attempt to secure a representation of Spiritualism had the result which appears in the following passages of the printed report. Mr. Clifford’s comments, embodying the sentiment of the so-called religious world upon this subject, afford an opportunity for explanations which may perhaps lead to a better understanding of the relation of Spiritualism to religion.
Mr. Clifford took considerable pains to invite leading Spiritualists to relate any experience as to the power of Spiritualism in overcoming evil; but the reply was the same from all of them—that Spiritualism had as yet no moral results. We give the following extracts from letters from well-known gentlemen who are leading Spiritualists, and whose opinions are much looked up to by Spiritualists:—
“I have never regarded the sort of Spiritualism which can alone be presented to the public, or of which any one can have personal experience as directly conducive to moral results. I look upon the recognition of the facts of Spiritualism (often I think misconstrued by Spiritualists themselves), as of supreme importance to science and in relation to transcendental speculation, and so no doubt to the moral interests which depend on these. But I should find it difficult to explain wherein a belief in Spiritualism may have, and doubtless often has, a direct ‘power over evil’ without going into consideration which would be called ‘the secret doctrine,’ and so excluded from your programme.”
“Such facts as you refer to are not easily to be got at, as Spiritualism is in its modern phase so recent a movement, and has at present no general organisation. I am quite satisfied, however, that the principles and teachings of Spiritualism are such as must produce the best effects on human nature when better known and more appreciated, while I am inclined to believe that whatever good effects are produced by ‘conversion,’ are really due to spiritual influence.”
“I shall be very much surprised if you get any evidence of consequence of the moral effects of Spiritualism. As far as my experience goes it shows conclusively the existence of disembodied spirits, and nothing more. They seem to be without the range of moral feeling, although they can muster a few common-places.”
In commenting on these and other letters, Mr. Clifford expressed his belief that Spiritualism was neither more nor less than the sin of sorcery, and was as distinctly forbidden in the Bible as the sin of theft. It can lead unbelievers as far as the belief in an after-existence, <... continues on page 10-417.1 >
<Untitled> (Strange Hallucination...)
Strange Hallucination.—A butcher named Raymond, residing at Swansea, has attempted suicide for the second time. Two years ago his next door neighbour and companion, Creese, a pawnbroker, hanged himself in his own house, and Raymond cut him down after death. He has said that the sight has haunted him at intervals ever since, and that the dead man’s ghost has beckoned him to adopt the same method of quitting life. This time he was discovered only just in time to be saved. He is recovering slowly.—The Echo.
N.W.Provinces Punjab, and Oudh
...
Editor's notes
- ↑ Religious Hostility to Spiritualism by Massey, C.C., London Spiritualist, No. 404, May 21, 1880, pp. 247-49
- ↑ Strange Hallucination... by unknown author, London Spiritualist, No. 404, May 21, 1880, p. 242
- ↑ N.W.Provinces Punjab, and Oudh by unknown author, Bombay Gazette, The, Wednesday, October 20, 1880
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 404, May 21, 1880, pp. 247-49
-
London Spiritualist, No. 404, May 21, 1880, p. 242
Back
< Religious Hostility to Spiritualism (continued from page 10-417) >
but (as far as he knew) it never led any one further. It was a complete “cul de sac,” and was no more a step towards Christ than a train to York is a means of getting to Bristol. It takes a man slightly in that direction, but never gets him there. Meanwhile, the risk of possession by evil spirits, if communication with them is once invited, is real and terrible.
We think it is almost certain that the coming fashionable religion will be a combination of Spiritualism with materialism, and that one of its chief characteristics will be a bitter hatred and opposition to Christ. This “religion” is foretold clearly in the Bible (especially in the books of Thessalonians and Revelation), and it is already begun. “Seducing spirits” and “doctrines of devils” are terribly rife now in London and America, and materialists will soon be obliged to recognize Spiritualism as a distinct force, and then it will carry them headlong. We would entreat persons to abstain from the slightest approach to it. Doors that have once been rashly opened are not easily closed. If God sends us messages from the other world by angels, as he did to Mary and to Peter and to others, let us reverently and gratefully receive them, but let us not disobey Him by striving to lift the veil ourselves. We could tell terrible stories of the awful states that persons have reached through Spiritualism. Insanity is one of the commonest, but one of the least dreadful results. The discussion then produced only negative information as to the power of Spiritualism; and strange to say, it was almost equally difficult to get facts told of evil having been overcome by pure philanthropy. This was a real surprise to us, but for some reason or other it was the case. “We do not work for those kinds of results, and we have no such facts to relate, but it stands to reason that the means we use must be right, and we are satisfied with them.” This was the kind of reply received again and again.
The writer of the letter first quoted above, certainly did not, and cannot, claim to be a representative Spiritualist, though he seems to be in substantial agreement with others who may perhaps have a better title to be so regarded. It is, however, doubtful whether Spiritualism admits of a truly and sufficiently representative statement. This is not a mere question of definition, (though that is difficult enough), it concerns the essential significance and tendency of the movement. If it is really doing, however gradually and slowly, the work which we believe it is fitted, if not indeed ordained, to accomplish, then, surely, a mightier “power over evil” has seldom arisen in the world, though its effects may not be instantly apparent in individual life. That mere Spiritualism—or, as for this purpose it had better be designated, Spiritualism—stops, its mission ended, where true religion begins, may be admitted. But on the other hand, religion without the sensible evidences to which we appeal, has proved generally helpless against the intellectual error which blocks the way to all recognition of religious truth, and would in time paralyse all religious influences. It is this fact of which the religious world, in its deep antagonism to Spiritualism, takes no account. Mr. Clifford does not see that this demonstration of an after existence, of which he, secure in his own faith, speaks so slightly, is just the first thing needful in the present state of the world. This fact, that we are not ephemeral, is the foundation of religion, yet religion is powerless to prove it. And the world has nearly ceased to accept it without proof. Nothing is more strange than the inability of the religious mind to see in the coincident demonstration of disembodied life and intelligence with the spread of materialistic opinions, an appropriate, if not providential, corrective. But “it is forbidden.” Herein, and as far as I can see, herein only, do Spiritualists necessarily break loose from orthodox religion, and repudiate its bonds. They do not believe, however strong their faith in Christianity, that the Levitical law of the Jews and the prohibitions in the New Testament, which were addressed to the Christian converts of that day, and had for an object their withdrawal from Pagan rites and mysteries, are binding for all time and under all circumstances. As to the dangers of which Mr. Clifford speaks, to some extent they are admitted. Every “control” is a possession for the time being, and sometimes the control is bad and nearly permanent, thrusting out the individuality, or deeply infecting it. But Spiritualists very generally believe in the spiritual guardianship of mediums, which, if true, goes a long way to prove that this phenomenal movement is not a disorderly and aberrational inroad, but has been instituted and is protected by superior powers. That “the coming fashionable religion will be a combination of Spiritualism with materialism, and that one of its chief characteristics will be a bitter hatred and opposition to Christ,” is a denunciation for which Mr. Clifford will not easily find either evidence or probable reasons. As for materialism, it is more in danger from a single powerful physical medium than from a host of preachers, theologians, and missionaries. The former hands over the converted materialist to the latter, when the work of religion begins, or is then first possible. Spiritualism is neither dogmatic nor anti-dogmatic. Whatever was the case in the first surprise and inexperience of the movement, we are all pretty well agreed now that spirit teachings have in themselves no authority, and in their theological complexion they are as various as the opinions of men on earth. That there is a great deal of anti-Christian sentiment among Spiritualists is not the result of Spiritualistic teachings, but arises simply from the fact that Spiritualism is chiefly concerned in restoring the belief in soul to people who had lost that belief along with a prior rejection of Christianity. It cannot do more for them, and the emancipated intellect does not always return to the totality of a discarded faith on discovering that its negations have gone too far. Free thought is not the offspring of Spiritualism, though free-thinkers, being more deeply obliged to Spiritualism for its proofs, are likely always to figure more conspicuously in its ranks. Thus their opinions seem to give a tone to the movement which is not its essential significance. If orthodox Christianity is on the decline, as I believe it is, that is due to intellectual causes with which Spiritualism has no connexion. Our battle is against materialism, and materialism only. Other associations in sympathy with Spiritualism on this essential point, have other and further reaching aims, but these are not now in question. If the orthodox choose, as it seems they do, to join their forces with materialists in reviling the only agency that can deal effectually with the latter, that is their affair. But it is desirable that they should not do so under any excusable misapprehension of our pretensions or character.
Temple, 10th May.