_I._ I am constrained to say, my mysterious friend, that the novelty and
ingenuity of your ideas surprise me greatly, and I do, in all candor,
acknowledge that you have skillfully disposed of my objections to the
spiritual theory of these phenomena on _rational_ grounds, and explained
the philosophy of this thing, in a manner which I am at present unable
to gainsay. I must still hesitate, however, to enroll myself among the
converts to the spiritual theory unless you can remove another serious
objection, which rests on _moral and religious grounds_. From so
important and startling a development as general open communications
from spirits, it seems to me that we would have a right to expect some
conspicuous _good_ to mankind; yet, although this thing has been before
the world now over twenty years, I am unable to see the evidence that
it has wrought any improvement in the moral and social condition of
the converts to its claims. Pray, how do you account for that fact?
_P._ My friend, that question should be addressed to the Spiritualists,
not to me. I will say, however, that this whole subject, long as it has
been before the world, is still in a chaotic state, its laws have been
very little understood, and even its essential objects and uses have
been very much misconceived. I may add that, from its very nature, its
real practical fruits as well as its true philosophy must necessarily be
the growth of a considerable period of time.
_I._ I will not, then, press the objection in that form. When we look,
however, at the _Religious_ tendencies of the thing, I do not think we
find much promise of the "practical fruits" which you here intimate may
yet come of it. I lay it down as a proposition which all history proves,
that Infidelity, in all its forms, is an enemy to the human race, and
that it never has done or can do anybody any good, but always has done
and must do harm. But it is notorious that the spirits, if they be
such, with their mediums and disciples, have _generally_ (though not
universally, I grant) assumed an attitude at least of _apparent_
hostility to almost every thing peculiar to the Christian religion,
and most essential to it, and are constantly reiterating the almost
identical ribaldry and sophistry of the infidels of the last century.
How shall a good and Christian person who knows and has felt the truth
of the vital principles of Christianity become a Spiritualist while
Spiritualism thus denies and scoffs at doctrines which he _feels_ and
_knows_ to be true?
_P._ The point you thus make is apparently a very strong one. But let
me ask, Can you not conceive that there may be a difference between the
mere word-teaching of Spiritualists and even spirits themselves, and the
_real_ teaching of Spiritualism as such? that is to say, between mere
verbal utterances and phenomenal demonstrations? For illustration,
suppose a man asserts at noonday that there is no sun, does he teach you
there is no sun? or does he teach you that he is blind?
_I._ That he is blind, of course.
_P._ So, then, when a spirit comes to you and asserts that there is no
God--it is seldom that they assert that, but we will take an extreme
case--does he teach you that there is no God, or does he teach you that
he himself is a fool?
_I._ Well, I should say he would teach the latter; but what use would
the knowledge that he is such a fool be to us?
_P._ It is one of the important providential designs of these
manifestations to teach mankind that spirits in general maintain
the characters that they formed to themselves during their earthly
life--that, indeed, they are the identical persons they were while
dwelling in the flesh--hence, that while there are just, truthful,
wise, and Christian spirits, there are also spirits addicted to lying,
profanity, obscenity, mischief, and violence, and spirits who deny God
and religion, just as they did while in your world. It has become very
necessary for mankind to know all this; it certainly could in no other
way be so effectually made known as by an actual manifestation of it;
and it is just as necessary that you should see the _dark_ side as the
_bright_ side of the picture.
_I._ Yet a person already adopting, or predisposed to adopt, any false
doctrine asserted by a spirit, would, it seems to me, be in danger of
receiving the spirit-assertion as _verbally_ true.
_P._ That is to say, a person already in, or inclined to adopt, the
same error that a spirit is in, would be in danger of being confirmed,
for the time being, in that error, by listening to the spirit's
asseveration. This, I admit, is just the effect produced for a time
by the infidel word-teaching of some spirits upon those _already_
embracing, or inclined to embrace, infidel sentiments. But if you
will look beyond this superficial aspect of the subject at its great
phenomenal and rational teachings, I think you will see that its deeper,
stronger, and more permanent tendency is, not to promote infidelity, but
ultimately to destroy it for ever. I have said before, that the real
object of this development has been very much misconceived; I tell you
now that the great object is to purge the Church itself of its latent
infidelity; to renovate the Christian faith; and to bring theology and
religion up to that high standard which will be equal to the wants of
this age, as it certainly now is not.
_I._ Planchette, you are now touching upon a delicate subject. You
should know that we are inclined to be somewhat tenacious of our
theological and religious sentiments, and not to look with favor on any
innovations. Nevertheless, I am curious to know how you justify yourself
in this disparaging remark on the theology and religion of the day?
_P._ I do not mean to be understood that there is not much that is true
and good in it. There is; and I would not by a single harsh word wound
the loving hearts of those who have a spark of real religious life in
them. I would bind up the bruised reed, rather than break it; I would
fan the smoking flax into a flame, rather than quench it. This is the
sentiment of all _good_ spirits, of whom I trust I am one. But let me
say most emphatically, that you want a public religion that will tower
high above all other influences whatsoever; that will predominate over
all, and ask favors of none; that will unite mankind in charity and
brotherly love, and not divide them into hostile sects, and that will
infuse its spirit into, and thus give direction to, all social and
political movements. Such a religion the world must have, or from this
hour degenerate.
_I._ Why might not the religion of the existing churches accomplish
these results, provided its professors would manifest the requisite zeal
and energy?
_P._ It is doing much good, and might, on the conditions you specify,
do much more. Yet the public religion has become negative to other
influences, instead of positive, as it should be, from which false
position it can not be reclaimed without such great and vital
improvements as would almost seem to amount to a renewal _ab ovo_.
_I._ On what ground do you assert that the religion of the day stands in
a position "negative" to other influences?
_P._ I will answer by asking: Is it not patent to you and all other
intelligent persons, that for the last hundred years the Christian
Church and theology have been standing mainly on the defensive against
the assaults of materialism and the encroachments of science? Has it
not, without adequate examination, poured contempt on Mesmerism,
denounced Phrenology, endeavored to explain away the facts of Geology
and some of the higher branches of Astronomy? Has it not looked with a
jealous eye upon the progress of science generally? and has it not
been at infinite labor in merely defending the _history_ of the life,
miracles, death, and resurrection of Christ, against the negations of
materialists, which labor might, in a great measure, have been saved if
an adequate proof could have been given of the power and omnipotent
working of a _present_ Christ? And what is the course it has taken with
reference to the present spiritual manifestations, the claims of which
it can no more overthrow than it can drag the sun from the firmament?
Now a true church--a church to which is given the power to cast out
devils, and take up serpents, or drink any deadly thing, without being
harmed--will always be able to stand on the aggressive against its
_real_ spiritual foes more than on the mere defensive, and in no case
will it ever turn its back to a fact in science. Its power will be
the power of the Holy Spirit, and not the power of worldly wealth and
fashion. When it reasons of righteousness, temperance, and judgment,
Felix will tremble, but it will never tremble before Felix, lest he
withdraw his patronage from it.
_I._ I admit that the facts you state about the Church's warfare in
these latter days have not the most favorable aspect; but how the needed
elements of theology and religion are to be supplied by demonstrations
afforded by these latter-day phenomena, I do not yet quite see.
_P._ If religious teachers will but study these facts, simply _as_
facts, in all the different aspects which they have presented, from
their first appearance up to this time--study them in the same spirit
in which the chemist studies affinities, equivalents, and isomeric
compounds--in the same spirit in which the astronomer observes planets,
suns, and nebulæ--in the same spirit in which the microscopist studies
monads, blood-discs, and protoplasm--always hospitable to a new fact,
always willing to give up an old error for the sake of a new truth;
never receiving the mere _dicta_ either of spirits or men as absolute
authority, but always trusting the guidance of right reason wherever she
may lead--if, I say, they will but study these great latter-day signs,
providential warnings and monitions, in this spirit, I promise them that
they shall soon find a _rational_ and _scientific_ ground on which to
rest every real Christian doctrine, from the Incarnation to the crown of
glory--miracles, the regeneration, the resurrection, and all, with the
great advantage of having the doctrine of immortality taken out of the
sphere of _faith_ and made a _fixed fact_. Furthermore, I promise them,
on those conditions, that they shall hereafter be able to _lead_ science
rather than be dragged along unwillingly in its trail; and then science
will be forever enrolled in the service of God's religion, and no longer
in that of the world's materialism and infidelity.
_I._ Planchette, your communication has, upon the whole, been of a most
startling character; tell me, I pray you, what do you call all this
thing, and what is to come of it?