< Plain Statements and Explanations (continued from page 1-66) >
But according to Dr. Blode the Jesuits are at work—how? Publishing a small book of which only five hundred copies will be issued in any event.
And, as he says,—“By capturing the minds of the most earnest and influential Spiritual leaders, by persuading them that Modern Spiritualism is nothing but the old ‘occultscuence’ of by-gone centuries; the ‘magic art’ practised by the adepts of a secret order in the Orient, by affording them, as ‘advanced thinkers,’—as Mrs. Britten says — ‘the clue they need so badly to the understanding of all the mysteries of Ancient and Modern Spiritualism?’ Should this view of the ‘important notice' before us be considered only as the promptings of black-seeing? We think not. The captivation of earnest and influential Spiritualist leaders has already commenced. Dating from the advent of a remarkable foreigner in our country, Madame Blavatsky, we have seen the Spiritual Scientist fill its pages with learned and abstruse stuff on occult art and secret orders.”
It is this paragraph that drew our attention. Mrs. Emma Hardinge Britten is too well known to our readers, and Spiritualists in general, to need any defence at our hands. She will, without doubt, reply in such a manner that those who read will gain information.
We thank Dr. Bloede for classing us among the ‘‘earnest’’ Spiritualists; we are, indeed, too earnest to be captured by any person or order, and hope we may be sufficiently influential to lift Spiritualism to a higher plane than it at present occupies. And, as the only fact alleged in proof of our captivity seems to be that our pages have been filled with “learned and abstruse stuff" since the advent of Madame Blavatsky. we beg the favor of our readers, while we refer to several of our able correspondents.
At what date Madame Blavatsky came to this country we do not know; we did not see her until July last, and then but several times, nor have we seen her since. In the month of March, without previous acquaintance or preliminary correspondence, we received from her the article, “Who Fabricates?” This had been refused by all other Spiritual journals, for it contained direct charges against Dr. H. G. Child, indicting him as a conspirator with the Holmes in producing the photographs of Katy King and his wonderful book. And this Spiritualist, this leader, has attempted no reply to the evidence adduced, and is still accepted and endorsed by “leading Spiritual journals.”
Previous to this time, the month of November, we think, she alone undertook a reply to Dr. Beard, who charged the Eddy’s with fraud; her evidence at that time was the most conclusive proof we have yet seen produced, of the genuineness of the mediums at Chittenden, Vt. The defence was an able article.
The Brotherhood of Luxor circular was published; the last week in April; but we have not asked our readers to accept any wonderful explanations, nor do we intend to at this time of writing.
Madame Blavatsky recognized in the Spiritual Scientist a spiritual paper; it was plain and outspoken in its opinions, recognizing the evils which encumbered and checked the progress of Spiritualism, and calling for a reform which would divest it of its tricksters, hypocrites, and sensualists We believe the Scientist owes it success to this policy, from which it has never deviated. We think Col. Olcott, Gen Lippitt, Mrs. Emma Hardinge Britten, Prof. Wm. Denton, J. M. Peebles, and our many other correspondents and warm, firm friends made since the first number of the Scientist was printed, are such for this reason and no other. We stepped from secular journalism into Spiritualism, having no acquaintance with Spiritualists. We were actuated by a stern sense of duty, which was ours: consequences or results belong to God. The columns of our paper are open to Spiritualism and knowledge; but closed to sensualism and ignorance. We can say with Paul, “our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience."
Dr. Bloede says further: —
“Should any further indications of the same designing power be needed, we may refer the reader to the article in No. 2 of the Spiritual Scientist of Sept. 16th entitled, ‘A Theosophical Society.’ There we are informed that ‘One (tic) movement of great importance has just been inaugurated in New York under the lead of Col. Henry S. Olcott, in the organization of a society to be known as the ‘Theosophical Society.’ This event, which occurred in the parlors of Madame Blavatsky and under her auspices and those of one M r. George Henry Felt, (as we are told ‘the discoverer of the geometrical figures of the Egyptian Cabala’) is hailed by the Scientist ‘with great satisfaction’ as likely to bring order out of our present chaos, (?) furnish cs a true (?) philosophy of spirit intercourse, and afford a neutral ground upon which the tried wrestlers of the Church and College may rest from their cruel and illogical strife. (!!!)” #
When Dr. Bloede writes concerning what the Jesuits may do or are doing, he should glance his eye over the field and see what “Free Love” HAS DONE. Had he told us that this was an engine of destruction, invented by departed spirits of Jesuits, we might see some consistency between cause and effect. Compare Spiritualism and its societies to-day with Spiritualism and its societies of four years ago, before the advent of these jesuitically controlled individuals who consider sensualism paramount to Spiritualism. Judge a tree by its fruits; then will he welcome, as we do, the discussion of “occultism,” “elementaries,” or aught else that has the slightest bearing upon Spiritualism, or furnishes a subject upon which the learned, and those giving instruction can write, and upon which the ignorant and monomaniacs must be silent. Then he may see, as we do, that a society devoted to Theosophy, will attract able and philosophical minds, who will unite for an object, incite others to do the same, and thus “bring order out of chaos.” The object will be to experiment and study for FACTS, on which, perhaps, we may build a “true philosophy” of spirit intercourse; our present philosophy is imperfect and full of mystery. The minds thus attracted will stand upon the “neutral ground” of ignorance seeking for information, rather than on the positive dogma of “what, ever is, is right” And they will cease denouncing each other as fools, knaves, or Jesuits, which we call “cruel and illogical strife.” We hope when Dr. Bloede reads this courteous explanation, he will regret having so far lent himself to the “mysterious” as to use, when quoting our remarks, such cabalistic signs, as (?), (?), (!!), (!!!) in so great profusion.
He “hopes the Banner will reprint the entire article for the instruction of its readers.” We think it will not It has passed over too many similar golden opportunities through its prejudice to any new and powerful enterprise in Spiritual journalism. It does not give credit to the Scientist, for Col. Olcott» letter used in its last issue. Dr. Bloede is on dangerous ground, if he gives much of this advice, and we wonder that he had sufficient influence to gain us a notice in its columns, even though it was loaded with the damaging insinuations which called forth the above explanations.
# And now I am accused by Dr. Bloede, an ardent Spiritualist, of being the paid tool of the Jesuits to pull down Spiritualism!!!
An Important Letter
We desire attention to the following communication from Col. Olcott, in reference to his article printed last week.
To the Editor of the Spiritual Scientist:
SIR:—I desire to express my regret that in writing to you the MS, of my article, “Occultism and its Critics," which appeared last week, I should have made the mistake of including a page upon which was written the rough draft of the following sentence, “when the great army of perspirational and inspirational speakers, with numerous honorable and evident exceptions, will be crowded off the rostrum and back to the wash-tub and the manure-fork, at which alone they are of practical benefit to society.” This is what I meant to say, and what I wrote in the revised copy which should have been sent you, but in the rough draft the italicized words are omitted. Without this explanation, I would appear as including in one sweeping denunciation many ladies and gentlemen whose talents and devotion I thoroughly respect, and whose feelings I should be very loth to offend.
Yours truly,
Editor's notes
Sources
Spiritual Scientist, v. 3, No. 7, October 21, 1875, p. 79