Planchette is intelligent; she can answer questions, and often answer
them correctly, too. On what class of subjects, then, might she be
expected to give answers more generally correct than those which relate
to herself, especially if the questions be asked in a proper spirit,
and under such conditions as are claimed to be requisite for correct
responses? Following the suggestion of this thought, the original plan
of this essay has been somewhat modified, and a careful consultation
instituted, of which I here submit the results:
_Inquirer._ Planchette, excuse me if I now treat you as one on whom a
little responsibility is supposed to rest. An exciter of curiosity, if
as intelligent as you appear to be, should be able to satisfy curiosity;
and a creator of doubts may be presumed to have some ability to solve
doubts. May I not, then, expect from _you_ a solution of the mysteries
which have thus far enveloped you?
_Planchette._ That will depend much upon the spirit in which you may
interrogate me, the pertinence of your questions, and your capacity to
interpret the answers. If you propose a serious and careful consultation
for really useful purposes, there is another thing which you should
understand in the commencement. It is that, owing to conditions and laws
which may yet be explained to you, I shall be compelled to use your own
mind as a scaffolding, so to speak, on which to stand to pass you down
the truths you may seek, and which are above the reach of your own mind
alone. Keep your mind unperturbed, then, as well as intent upon your
object, or I can do but little for you.
_I._ The question which stands as basic to all others which I wish to
ask is, What is the nature of this power, intelligence, and will that
communicates with us in this mysterious manner?
_P._ It is the reduplication of your own mental state; it is a spirit;
it is the whole spiritual world; it is God--one or all, according to
your condition and the form and aspect in which you are able to receive
the communication.
_I._ That is covering rather too much ground for a beginning. For
definiteness, suppose we take one of those points at a time. In
saying, "It is a spirit," do you mean that you yourself, the immediate
communicating agent, are an intelligence outside of, and separate from,
myself, and that that intelligence is the spirit or soul of a man who
once occupied a physical body, as I now do?
_P._ That is what I assert--only in reaffirmation of what the world, in
explanation of similar phenomena, has been told a thousand times before.
_I._ Excuse me if I should question you a little closely on this point.
There are grave difficulties in the way of an acceptance of this theory.
The first of these is the _prima facie_ absurdity of the idea.
_P._ Absurdity! How so?
_I._ It is so contrary to our ordinary course of thought; contrary, I
may say, to our instincts; contrary to what the human faculties would
naturally expect; contrary to the general experience of the world up to
this time. In fact, the more highly educated minds of the world have
long agreed in classing the idea as among the grossest of superstitions.
_P._ If you would, in place of each one of these assertions, affirm
directly the contrary, you would come much nearer the truth. It is
certain that the highest minds, as well as the lowest, of all ages and
nations, with only such exceptions as prove rather than disprove the
rule, have confidently believed in the occasional interposition of
spirits in mundane affairs. True, there are in this age many of the
class which you call the "more highly educated minds," who, spoiled by
reasonings merely sensual, and hence necessarily sophistical, do not
admit such an idea; but do not even these generally admit that there is
an invisible world of spirits?
_I._ Most of them do; all professing Christians do. I do, certainly.
_P._ Let me test their consistency, and yours, then, by asking, Do they
and you hold that one and the same God made all worlds, both natural and
spiritual, and all things in them?
_I._ Of course they do; how otherwise?
_P._ Then, seeing that you acknowledge the unity of the Cause of all
worlds and all things in them, you must acknowledge a certain union of
all these in one universal system as the offspring of that one Cause,
must you not?
_I._ Yes; I suppose the totality of things, natural and spiritual, must
be acknowledged as forming, in some sense, one united system, of diverse
but mutually correlated parts.
_P._ Please tell me, then, how there can be any united system in which
the component parts, divisions, and subdivisions, down even to the most
minute, are not each, necessarily and always, in communication with all
the others, either immediately or mediately?
_I._ I see the point, and acknowledge it is ingeniously made; but do you
not see that the argument fails to meet the whole difficulty?
_P._ What I do see is, that in admitting a connection of any kind,
whether mediate or immediate, between the natural and spiritual worlds,
you admit that a communication between the two worlds--hence between all
things of one and all things of the other; hence between the intelligent
inhabitants of one and those of the other--is logically not only
possible but probable, not to say certain; and in this admission you
yield the point under immediate discussion, and virtually concede that
the idea of spirit-communication is not only _not absurd_, but is,
indeed, among the most reasonable of things, to which ignorance and
materialistic prejudice alone have given the aspect of absurdity.
_I._ Well, there is something in that which looks like argument, I must
admit.
_P._ Can you not go a little farther and admit for established fact,
proved by the testimony of the Book from which you derive your religious
faith, that communications between spirits and mortals have sometimes
taken place?
_I._ True, but the Bible calls the spirits thus communicating, "familiar
spirits," and those who have dealings with them, "witches" and
"wizards," and forbids the practice under severe penalties. How does
that sound to you, my ingenious friend?
_P._ The way you put it, it sounds as though you did not quite
understand the full scope of my question; but no matter, since it is
at once a proof and an acknowledgment on your part that spirits have
communicated with mortals--the essential point in dispute, which when
once admitted will render further reasonings more plain. Let me ask you,
however, was not the practice of consulting familiar spirits that is
forbidden in the Bible, a practice that was common among the heathen
nations of those times?
_I._ It was, and is spoken of as such in several passages.
_P._ Did not the heathens consult familiar spirits as petty divinities,
or gods, and as such, follow their sayings and commands implicitly? and
would not the Israelites to whom the Old Testament was addressed have
violated the first command in the decalogue by adopting this practice?
and was not that the reason, and the only reason, why the practice was
forbidden?
_I._ To each of those questions I answer, Yes, certainly.
_P._ Do the Old or New Testament writings anywhere command us to abstain
from all intercourse with spirits?--or from any intercourse which would
not be a violation of the command, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before
me?"
_I._ Really I do not know that the Bible contains any such command.
_P._ Do you not know, on the contrary, that spirits other than those
called "familiar spirits," often did communicate, and with apparently
good and legitimate purposes, too, with men whose names are mentioned in
the Bible?
_I._ Well, I must in candor say that there were some cases of that kind.
_P._ May you not, then, from all this learn a rule which will always
be a safe guide to you in respect to the matters under discussion? I
submit for your consideration, that that rule is, "Be not forgetful to
entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."
But even if the "strangers" that may come to you, either of your own
world or the spirit-world, should prove to be "angels," do not follow
them implicitly, or in an unreasoning manner, nor worship them as gods,
for in so doing you would render yourself amenable to the law against
having dealings with "familiar spirits."
_I._ I must admit that your remarks throw a somewhat new light on the
subject, and I do not know that I can dispute what you say. But even
admitting all your strong points thus far, the spirit-theory of
Planchettism and other and kindred modern wonders remains encumbered
with a mass of difficulties which it seems to me must be removed before
it can be considered as having much claim to the credence of good and
rational minds. On some of these points I propose now to question you
somewhat closely, and shall hope that you will bear with me in the same
patience and candor which you have thus far manifested.
_P._ Ask your questions, and I shall answer them to the best of my
ability.