PROS AND CONS OF SPIRITUALISM.
It has been repeatedly urged upon me on previous occasions, and also
during the progress of these sheets through the press, that I should
make a clean breast of my own belief or disbelief in spiritualism; that
besides being descriptive, I should go one step beyond a mere catalogue
of phenomena, and, to some extent at least, theorize on this mysterious
and generally proscribed subject.
Let me say at the outset that against the proscription of this, or
indeed any topic which does not offend against morals, I would at the
very outset protest as the height of unwisdom. Thus to taboo a subject
is at once to lend it a factitious interest, and more than half to
endorse its truth: and I believe modern spiritualism has been very
generally treated in this way. Whether truth has gained by such
indiscriminate condemnation and prejudgment is, I think, greatly open to
question.
For myself, I have, from the first, steadily refused to look upon
spiritualism in this bugbear fashion. The thing was either true or
false--or, more probably still, partly true and partly false: and I must
bring to bear on the discovery of its truth or falsehood, just the same
critical faculties that I should employ on any other problem of common
life. That, I fancy, is no transcendental view of the matter; but just
the plain common sense way of going to work. It was, at all events,
right or wrong, the method I adopted to get at such results as I proceed
to make public. I declined to be scared from the study either by Bogey
or my esteemed friend Mrs. Grundy, but went at it just in the calm
Baconian inductive method in which I should have commenced any other
study or pursuit.
What I want to do is to tabulate these results in the same order as that
in which they occurred to me; and here I am met by a preliminary
difficulty, not incidental to this subject only, but common to any
narrative where we have to take a retrospective glance over a number of
years. We are apt to view the subject from our present standpoint; and I
shall try to avoid this by quoting, whenever I can, what I published, or
committed to writing in the course of my investigations. I shall not
cull from others, because I want to make this purely a personal
narrative.
Let me add, too, I do not in the least expect persons to believe what I
say. Some, I think, will regard me as a harmless (_if_ a harmless)
lunatic, on account of certain statements I may have to make. Others
will consider the whole thing as decidedly unorthodox and "wrong." For
each of these issues I am prepared. I would not have believed any one
else if they had, prior to my experience, told me what I am going to
tell them here; and therefore I do not expect them to believe me. All I
hope to do is to interest persons sufficiently in the subject to induce
them to look into the matter on their own account; for verily I believe,
as a distinguished spiritualist once said to me, that this thing is
either an important truth or else one of the biggest swindles ever
palmed off upon humanity.
One word more, and I proceed to my narrative. Of the three aspects under
which it is possible to view spiritualism, the scientific, the
theological, and the social, I shall not touch at all on the first since
I am not a scientific man; shall only glance at the second, because this
is not the place for a theological discussion. I shall confine myself to
the third, therefore, which I call the social aspect; looking at the
subject as a question of the day, the truth about which we are as much
interested in solving as any other political or social question, but the
investigation of which need not make us get excited and angry and call
one another bad names. I venture to hope that by these means I may
manage to compile a not unedifying or uninteresting narrative, though
our subject be withal somewhat a ponderous one.
In order then to cover the preliminary part of my narrative, and to let
my readers somewhat into the state of my own mind, when I had looked at
the subject for several years, I will quote some extracts from a paper
I read before a society of spiritualists at the Beethoven Rooms a few
years ago under the title "Am I a Spiritualist?" I may mention that the
assembly was divided, and never decided whether I was or not, and what
is more, I do not think they are quite decided to the present day. I am
a patient investigator still; but I really do not feel it necessary to
issue perpetual bulletins as to the state of my convictions.
Taking as my thesis, then, the question, Am I a Spiritualist? it will
certainly appear, at first sight, I said, that the person best qualified
to answer this question is precisely the person who puts it; but a
little consideration will, I think, show that the term "Spiritualist" is
one of such wide and somewhat elastic meaning--in fact, that the word
varies so widely according to the persons who use it--that the question
may really be asked of one's self without involving an inconsistency.
When persons ask me, as they often do, with a look of unmitigated
horror, "Is it possible that you, a clergyman, are a spiritualist?" I am
often inclined to answer, "Yes, madam,"--(for it is generally a lady who
puts the question in that particular shape)--"I _am_ a spiritualist, and
precisely because I am a clergyman. I have had to express more than once
my unfeigned assent and consent to the Common Prayer Book, and the
Thirty Nine Articles; and that involves belief in the inspiration of all
the Bible (except the Apocrypha), and the whole of that (_not_ excepting
the Apocrypha) is spiritual, or spiritualistic (if you prefer the term)
from beginning to end; and therefore it is not _in spite of_ my being a
clergyman, but _because_ I am a clergyman that I am such a confirmed
spiritualist."
I could answer thus, only I do not, simply because to do so would be
dishonest. I know my questioner is using the word in an utterly
different sense from what I have thought proper to suppose. Besides such
an answer would only lead to argumentation, and the very form of the
question shows me the person who puts it has made up her mind on this,
as probably on most other subjects; and when a feminine mind is once
made up (others than ladies have feminine minds on these subjects) it is
very little use trying to alter it. I never do. I administer some
orthodox verbal sedative, and change the subject. But even accepting the
term in the way I know it is meant to be used--say, for instance, as it
comes from the mouth of some conservative old gentleman, or supposed
scientific authority--one's medical man to wit--"Do you believe in
spiritualism?" meaning "Are you such an ass as to believe in
table-turning, and rapping, and all that kind of nonsense?"--even so,
the question would admit of being answered by another question; though I
rarely enter so far on the matter with those whose minds are evidently
quite comfortably made up on the matter. It is such a pity to interfere
with cherished opinions. I have found out that there are Athanasian
creeds in science as well as in theology; and really, whilst they form
recognised formulæ in the one or the other, it is positively lost labour
to go running one's head against them. The question I want to ask--not
the gentle apothecaries, but my readers--is, What do you mean by
believing in spiritualism? Many of the phenomena of spiritualism I
cannot but believe, if I am to take my five senses as my guides in this
as in other matters, and quite setting aside any credence I may give to
respectable testimony. When, however, I pass from facts to theories, and
am asked to account for those facts, then I hesitate. There are some
here, I know, who will say that the spiritualist like the lady who
hesitates is lost--who think me as heterodox for doing so, as the
inflexible old ladies and the omniscient apothecaries did on account of
my even deigning to look into the evidence of such phenomena. I feel
really that I have set myself up like an animated ninepin to be knocked
down by the first thorough-going spiritualist who cares to bowl at me.
But whatever else they think of me--sceptical though they deem me on
subjects where perhaps you are, many of you, a little prone to
dogmatize--I claim the character at least of an honest sceptic. I do not
altogether disavow the title, but I understand it to mean "inquirer." I
confess myself, after long years of perfectly unbiassed inquiry, still
an investigator--a sceptic. It is the fashion to abuse St. Thomas
because he sought sensible proofs on a subject which it was certainly
most important to have satisfactorily cleared up. I never could read the
words addressed to him at all in the light of a rebuke--"Because thou
hast seen thou hast believed." The Church of England treats the doubt of
St. Thomas as permitted by God "for the more confirmation of the faith;"
and I feel sure that professed spiritualists will not be so inconsistent
as to censure any man for examining long and carefully matters which
they believe to admit of demonstration. I heard the most eloquent of
their advocates say, when comparing spiritual with credal conviction,
"Our motto no longer is 'I believe,' but 'I know.'" Belief may be
instantaneous, but knowledge will be gradual; and so it is that,
standing at a certain fixed point in very many years' study of
spiritualism, I pause, and--so to say, empanelling a jury--ask the
question it seems I ought to answer at others' asking--Am I a
Spiritualist?
One word of apology further before entering on the details of the
matter. It will be inevitable that the first personal pronoun shall
recur frequently in the course of this paper, and that so the paper
shall seem egotistical. The very question itself sounds so. I am not
vain enough to suppose that it matters much to anybody here whether I am
a spiritualist or not, except in so far as I may be in any sense a
representative man. I believe I am. That is, I believe, nay, am sure,
that a great many persons go as far as I do, and stop where I stop.
There is a largish body of investigators, I believe, dangling there,
like Mahomet's coffin, between heaven and earth, and it would be a
charity to land them somewhere. Of the clerical mind, I do _not_ claim
to be a representative, because the clerical mind, quâ clerical, has
made up itself that the phenomena in question are diabolical. Of course
if I accepted this theory my question would be utterly irrelevant, and I
should claim a place among the spiritualists at once. The diabolical
people not only accept the phenomena, but admit their spiritual origin,
and, more than this, identify the spirits. They are in point of fact the
most thorough-going spiritualists of all.
In sketching their creed, I have mentioned the three stages through
which most minds must go in this matter. Some few, indeed, take them by
intuition, but most minds have to plod patiently along the path of
inquiry, as I have done. The first stage is acceptance of the phenomena,
the second the assignment of those phenomena to spirits as their source,
the third is identification of these spirits.
1. On the first part of my subject I shall venture to speak with some
boldness. I am not a philosopher, therefore I can afford to do so. I
shall suppose my five senses to serve my purposes of observation, as
they would be supposed to serve me if I were giving evidence in a court
of justice. If I saw a table move, I shall say _it did_ move, not "it
appeared to move." I do this in my capacity of a commonplace instead of
a philosophical investigator; and I must say, if I were, as I supposed
myself just now, in the witness-box, with a good browbeating counsel
cross-examining me on this point, I would rather have to defend the
position of the commonplace inquirer than the philosopher, pledged to
defend the philosophy of the last fifty years, and bound hand and foot
by his philosophic Athanasian Creed, and I don't know how many articles,
more than thirty-nine, I fancy.
In the latter part of the year 1856, or beginning of 1857, then, I was
residing in Paris, that lively capital being full of Mr. Home's doings
at the Tuileries. At that time I knew nothing, even of table-turning. I
listened to the stories of Mr. Home and the Emperor as mere canards. I
never stopped to question whether the matter were true, because I in my
omniscience knew it to be impossible. It is this phase of my experience
that makes me so unwilling to argue with the omniscient people now; it
is such a waste of time. At this period my brother came to visit me, and
he had either been present himself or knew persons who had been present
at certain séances at Mr. Rymer's. He seemed staggered, if not
convinced, by what he had heard or seen, and this staggered me too, for
he was not exactly a gullible person and certainly by no means
"spiritual." I was staggered, I own, but then I was omniscient, and so I
did what is always safest, laughed at the matter. He suggested that we
should try experiments instead of laughing, and, not being a
philosopher, I consented. We sat at the little round table in our tiny
salon, which soon began to turn, then answered questions, and finally
told us that one of the three, viz., my wife, was a medium, and
consequently we could receive communications. I went to a side table and
wrote a question as to the source of the manifestations, keeping it
concealed from those at the table, and not rejoining them myself. The
answer spelt out by them was--"We, the spirits of the departed, are
permitted thus to appear to men." Again I wrote--"What object is served
by your doing so?" The answer was--"It may make men believe in God." I
have said I am not a philosopher, therefore I do not mind confessing
that I collapsed. I struck my flag at once as to the _impossibility_ of
the matter. At the same time I did not--as I know many ardent
spiritualists will think I ought--at once swallow the whole thing,
theory and all. I should not have believed if a man had told me this;
was it to be expected that I should believe a table? Honesty is my best
policy; and I had better, therefore, say I was never so utterly knocked
over by anything that occurred to me in my life before or since. My
visage of utter, blank astonishment is a joke against me to this hour.
We pursued the inquiry almost nightly during the remainder of my stay in
Paris--up to late in the summer of 1857 that is--and also on our return
to England; but, strangely as it seems to me now, considering how we
began, we did it more as a pastime than anything else. The only time we
were serious was when my wife and I sat alone, as we often did. Of
course when I came to inquire at all into the matter I was met by
Faraday's theory of involuntary muscular action, and also with the
doctrine of unconscious cerebration--I was quite ready to accept either.
My own position, as far as I can recall it, then was that the spiritual
agency was "not proven." My wife had great reluctance against admitting
the spiritual theory. I was simply passive; but two circumstances seemed
to me to militate against the theories I have mentioned: (1.) The table
we used for communicating was a little gimcrack French affair, the top
of which spun round on the slightest provocation, and no force whatever,
not even a philosopher's, applied to the surface would do more than spin
the top round; but when the table turned, _it turned bodily, legs and
all_. (2.) As to that ponderously difficult theory of unconscious
cerebration communicated by involuntary muscular action, whenever we
asked any questions as to the future, we were instantly checked, and
told it was better that the future should not be revealed to us. I was
anxious about a matter in connexion with an election to an appointment
in England, and we asked some questions as to what form the proceedings
would take. The reply was that certain candidates would be selected from
the main body, and the election made from these. I thought I had caught
the table in an inconsistency, and said--"There now you _have_ told us
something about the future." It immediately replied--"No, I have not;
the matter is already settled in the minds of the examiners." Whence
came that answer? Certainly not from our minds, for it took us both by
surprise. I could multiply a hundredfold instances of this kind, but, of
course, to educated spiritualists these are mere A B C matters; whilst
non-spiritualists would only accept them on the evidence of their own
senses. I do not mean to say they actually question the facts to the
extent of doubting one's veracity, or else nearly all testimony must go
for nothing; but there is in these matters always room for doubting
whether the narrator has not been deceived; and, moreover, even if
accepted at secondhand, I doubt whether facts so accepted ever become,
as it were, assimilated, so as to have any practical effect.
My facts at all events came at first-hand. I suppose a man need not be
considered credulous for believing in his own wife, and nearly all these
phenomena were produced by my wife's mediumship. It was not until late
in the year 1865 or early in 1866, that I ever sat with a professional
medium. My wife, moreover, from first to last, has steadily disbelieved
the spirit theory, so that she has not laid herself open to suspicion of
being prejudiced in favour of the subject. She has been emphatically an
involuntary, nay, even unwilling agent in these matters.
During these eight or nine years the communications were generally given
by automatic writing, though sometimes still by tilting of the table. I
am very much tempted to quote two, which linger in my recollection,
principally, I believe, because they were so destructive of the
cerebration theory, besides being curious in themselves. I kept no
records until a later date. At present all rests on tradition. Each of
these cases occurred in presence of myself, my wife, and a pupil. In the
former, he was a young Englishman, who had lived a great deal abroad,
whose mother was a Catholic and father a Protestant. He had been brought
up in the latter faith; and when I desired him to ask a mental question,
he asked, in French--that being the language most familiar to him--"Is
the Catholic or the Protestant religion the true one?" Mark you, he
never articulated this, or gave the least hint that he was asking in
French. He did it in fact, spontaneously. My wife immediately wrote "Ta
mère est Catholique"--so far, in French, with difficulty, and then
breaking off into English, "Respect her faith."
In the second instance, my pupil was a French youth, a Catholic, who was
living in my house, but used to go to his priest frequently to be
prepared for his first communion. One day when we were writing, this
youth asked who the communicating spirit was, and received in reply the
name of Louis D----. The name was totally unknown to us; but to our
surprise when the youth came back from his visit to the priest that day
he informed us that his reverend instructor had dwelt strongly on the
virtues of Louis D----. Seeing the boy look amazed as the name which had
just been given at our séance was pronounced, the priest inquired the
reason; and, on being informed, of course directed his catechumen never
to join in such diablerie again.
The impression, then, left on my mind by these years of desultory
dabbling with--rather than study of--the subject, was decidedly that the
phenomena of spiritualism were genuine. Looking at the matter from my
present standpoint and frame of mind, it seems to me incredible that I
should have thought so little of the source of the phenomena. It was, as
I said, that I was then dabbling with, not studying, the subject.
But even without advancing beyond this rudimentary stage, I saw a very
serious result produced. I saw men who literally believed in nothing,
and who entered on this pursuit in a spirit of levity, suddenly
staggered with what appeared to afford even possibility of demonstration
of another world, and the continued existence of the spirit after bodily
death. I believe a great many persons who have never felt doubt
themselves are unaware of the extent to which doubt prevails amongst
young men especially; and I have seen many instances of this doubt
being--if not removed--shaken to its very foundation by their witnessing
the phenomena of spiritualism. "Yes, but did it make good consistent
Christians of them?" asks one of my excellent simple-minded objectors.
Alas! my experience does not tell me that good consistent Christians are
so readily made. Does our faith--I might have asked--make _us_ the good
consistent Christians it ought to do, and would do perhaps, if we gave
it fair play?
So, then, my study of spiritualism had been purely phenomenal. It was a
very sad and serious event which drove me to look deeper. Some people
will, I daresay, think it strange that I allude to this cause here. The
fact that I do so shows, at all events, that I have looked seriously at
spiritualism since. It was none other than the loss, under painful
circumstances, of one of my children. Now I had always determined that,
in the event of my losing one near and dear to me, I would put
spiritualism to the test, by trying to communicate with that one. This
will, I think, show that, even then, if I did not accept the
spiritualistic theory, I did not by any means consider the position
untenable. The very day after my boy's death, I got his mother to sit,
and found she was writing a little loving message purporting to come
from him. This, a sceptic would say, was natural enough under the
circumstances. I said no word, but sat apart, and kept writing "Who is
it that communicates? write your name." Suddenly the sentence was
broken off, and the child's name written, though I had not expressed my
wish aloud. This was strange; but what followed was stranger still. Of
course, so far all might have been fairly attributed to cerebration--if
such a process exists. It was natural enough, it might be urged, that
the mother, previously schooled in the belief of the probability of
communication, should write in her lost child's name. For years the same
thing never occurred again, though we sat night after night for the
purpose of renewing such communications. I can certainly say of myself
that, at this time, I _was_ a spiritualist--as thorough and devout a one
as any existing; and the fact that I was so, when carried away by my
feelings, makes me the more cautious to test and try myself as to
whether my feelings may not sometimes sway my judgment even now; whether
the wish be not often father of the thought, at all events in the
identification of spiritual communications, and so, possibly, of the
spiritual nature of such communications altogether.
However, from this time--the autumn of 1865--my spiritual studies
underwent an entire change--they _were_ studies--serious studies. I now
kept a careful journal of all communications, which journal I continued
for three years, so that I can trace all my fluctuations of opinion--for
I did fluctuate--during that period. Now, too, it was necessary for me
to consult those who had already gone deeply into the subject; and the
record of my experiences would be both imperfect and ungracious if I did
not here acknowledge the prompt kindness of the two gentlemen to whom I
applied--Mr. Benjamin Coleman and Mr. Samuel Carter Hall. I was
comparatively a stranger to each of them, but they replied to my
inquiries with the most ready courtesy, and I am happy to date my
present friendship with each of them from this time. At Mr. Hall's I met
Mr. Home, and on the second occasion of my doing so, not only saw him
float, but handled him above and below during the whole of the time he
floated round Mr. Hall's drawing-room. I am unphilosophical enough to
say that I entirely credit the evidence of my senses on that occasion,
and am as certain that Mr. Home was in space for five minutes as I am of
my own existence. The ordinary solution of cranes and other cumbrous
machinery in Mr. Hall's drawing-room I cannot credit, for I think we
should have seen them, and I am sure I should have felt ropes round Mr.
Home's body. Chairs went from one end of the room to the other _in full
light_; and nobody had previously tumbled over strings and wires, so
that I don't think there could have been any there.
I fancy, as far as any order is traceable in the somewhat erratic course
of spiritualistic experiences, that most people arrive at spiritualism
viâ mesmerism. It so happened that this order was exactly inverted in
my case. It was not until 1866 that I found I possessed the power of
magnetism, and moreover, had in my house a subject whom Alphonse Didier
(with whom I afterwards put myself in communication) declared to be "one
in a thousand." Some of the details of this lady's case are very
curious, but this is scarcely the place to dilate upon them further than
as they affected my spiritualistic studies. She passed with
extraordinary ease into the condition of lucidity, when she was
conscious only of basking in light, anxious to be magnetized more deeply
so as to get more thoroughly into the light, and, moreover, aware only
of the existence of those who had passed away from earth. She knew they
were with her: said I _must_ know it, as I was there too, and that it
was I only who would not "let her" see them. The fact that "our life is
twofold" was to me most marvellously brought out by my magnetic
treatment of this lady; and, moreover, the power of influencing action
could not fail to be suggestive of the truth of one of the cardinal
doctrines of spiritualism--that we are thus influenced by disembodied
spirits, as I, an embodied spirit, could influence another spirit in the
body. Some of the likes and dislikes which I, so to say, produced then
in 1866 have remained to the present hour. For instance, one particular
article of food (I will not mention what, or it would be fatal to my
reader's gravity), for which she previously had a penchant, I rendered
so distasteful to her that the very smell of it now makes her
uncomfortable. I must plead guilty to having experimented somewhat in
this way; but what a wonderful light it sheds upon the great problem of
the motives of human action! By the simple exercise of my will I could
make my patient perform actions the most abhorrent to her. For
instance--the ladies will appreciate this power--at a time when
crinolines were extensive, I made that poor creature draggle about in a
costume conspicuous by the absence of crinoline, and making her look
like some of the ladies out of a Noah's ark.
During this period my wife and I constantly sat alone, and she wrote. It
is no disrespect to her to say that writing is not her forte, but the
communications she made in this way were exceedingly voluminous, and
couched in a particularly happy style, though on subjects far above the
range of ordinary compositions. We never obtained a single communication
purporting to come from our child, but the position claimed by the
communicating intelligence was that of his spirit-guardian.
Having now probably said enough in these confessions to convince every
non-spiritualist that I am insane, because I believed the evidence of my
senses, and even ventured to look into matters so unorthodox and
unscientific as mesmerism and spiritualism, I go on to "make a clean
breast," and set myself wrong with the other moiety of my readers. I
must candidly confess that the experiences of this year (1866) did not
confirm my sudden conviction of the spiritual agency in these phenomena.
I drifted back, in fact, to my previous position, accepting the
phenomena, but holding the cause an open question. The preface to the
book, "From Matter to Spirit," exactly expressed--shall I say
expresses?--my state of mind. There is one passage in that preface which
appears to me to clinch the difficulty--"I am perfectly convinced that I
have both seen and heard, in a manner which should make unbelief
impossible, things called spiritual, which cannot be taken by a
reasonable being to be capable of explanation by imposture, coincidence,
or mistake. So far I feel the ground firm under me. But when it comes to
what is the cause of these phenomena I find I cannot adopt any
explanation which has yet been suggested. If I were bound to choose
among things which I can conceive, I should say that there is some sort
of action--some sort of combination of will, intellect, and physical
power, which is not that of any of the human beings present. But
thinking it very likely that the universe may contain a few agencies,
say half a million, about which no man knows anything, I cannot but
suspect that a small proportion of these agencies, say five thousand,
may be severally competent to the production of all the phenomena, or
may be quite up to the task among them. _The physical explanations which
I have seen are easy, but miserably insufficient: the spiritual
hypothesis is sufficient but ponderously difficult._" This statement is
natural enough from the scientific side of the question. Perhaps the
theological inquirer, taking the fact into consideration that Scripture
certainly concedes the spiritual origin of kindred phenomena, would
rather reverse the statement, and say (what I individually feel) that
the psychological explanation is the ponderously difficult--the
pneumatological, the comparatively easy one.
It is now no secret that the author of this excellent treatise, is
Professor De Morgan; and I can only say that if I am accused of
heterodoxy, either from the spiritualist or anti-spiritualist side of
the discussion, I am not ashamed to be a heretic in such company. Let me
put the matter in the present tense, indicative mood--that is the state
of my opinion on the cause of the phenomena. Admitting the facts, I hold
the spiritual theory to be "not proven," but still to be a hypothesis
deserving our most serious consideration, not only as being the only one
that will cover all the facts, but as the one I believe invariably given
in explanation by the intelligence that produces the phenomena, even
when, as in our case, all those present are sceptical of or opposed to
such a theory.
3. It may perhaps sound illogical if, after stating that I hold the
spiritual origin of these phenomena unproven, I go on to speak of the
identification of the communicating spirit; but I hope I have made it
clear that, even if I do not consider the spiritualistic explanation
demonstrated, it is still a hypothesis which has much in its favour.
I have already mentioned the subject of identification in the case of
the first communication purporting to come from our little child, and
how no such communications were received for a period of some years
after. In December, 1866, I went to the Marshalls', entering as an
entire stranger, and sitting down at the table. I saw some strong
physical manifestations--a large table being poised in space, in full
light, for some seconds. It was signified there was a spirit present who
wished to communicate, and the message given by raps to me was--"Will
you try to think of us more than you have done?" I asked the name, and
my child's was correctly given, though I had not been announced, and I
have no reason to believe my name was known. The place where he passed
away from earth was also correctly specified. I then asked for my
father, and his name was correctly given, and a message added, which I
cannot say was equally suggestive of individuality. It was--"Bright
inspiration will dawn upon your soul, and do not hide your light under a
bushel."
Another case in which I tested individuality strongly, with utter
absence of success, was also brought before me somewhat earlier in this
year. I was sent for by a lady who had been a member of my congregation,
and who had taken great interest in these questions. She was suddenly
smitten down with mortal disease, and I remained with her almost to the
last--indeed, I believe her last words were addressed to me, and
referred to this very subject of identification--she consulting _me_ as
to the great problem she was then on the very point of solving! As soon
as she had gone from us, I went home, and tried to communicate with her.
I was informed that her spirit was present, and yet every detail as to
names, &c., was utterly wrong.
In the spring of the following year I went again to the Marshalls', in
company with one or two other persons, my own object being to see if I
could obtain communication from the spirit of a highly-gifted lady who
had recently died--and also, I may mention--had been the medium of my
previous slight acquaintance with Mr. Coleman. She was very much
interested in these matters, and, when in this world, her great forte
had been writing. She published a volume of poems, which won the special
commendation of the late Charles Dickens, and her letters were most
characteristic ones. I mentioned that I wished to communicate with the
spirit I was thinking of, and said I should be quite satisfied if the
initials were correctly given. Not so--the whole three names were
immediately given in full. I do not feel at liberty to mention the
names; but the surname was one that nine out of ten people always spelt
wrongly (just as they do _my_ name), but on this occasion it was
correctly spelt. I asked for a characteristic message, and received the
words, "I am saved, and will now save others;"--about as unlike my
friend's ordinary style as possible. It may be said her nature had
undergone revolution, but that was not the question. The test was that
something should be given, identifying the spirit, by the style of its
_former_ writing while embodied on earth.
With one more case, bearing on this subject of identity, and bringing
the matter up to the present date, I feel I may advantageously close
this portion of my experiences--though as I do so, I am thoroughly
dissatisfied with myself to find how much I have left unsaid. It is so
difficult to put these things on paper, or in any way to convey them to
another;--most difficult of all for one unblessed with leisure, and
combining in his single self the pursuits of some three laborious
callings.
Last year, whilst sitting at Mrs. B----'s, I was touched by a hand which
seemed to me that of a small girl, and which attracted my attention by
the way it lingered in mine--this would amuse Professor Pepper--and the
pertinacity with which it took off my ring. However, I never took any
steps to identify the owner of the hand.
Some few months ago, my wife and I were sitting, and a communication
came ostensibly from our child. It was quite unexpected; and I said, "I
thought you could not communicate." "I could not before," was the reply.
"But you have not tried me for two years." This we found was true; but
we actually had to look into dates to ascertain it. He added, that he
always was present at séances where I went, and especially at Mrs.
B----'s. It will, I daresay, sound strange to non-spiritualists, but the
initiated can understand the conversational tone we adopt. I said, "But,
Johnny, that was not your hand that touched me at Mrs. B----'s. It was
too large." The answer was, "No! it was Charlie's turn." I said, "What
_do_ you mean by Charlie's turn?" The word was rewritten with almost
petulant haste and remarkable plainness, "Charlie's _twin_." Charlie is
my eldest boy, and his twin-brother was still-born. He would be between
thirteen and fourteen years of age, and that was precisely the sized
hand I felt. This was curious; as the event had occurred a year before,
and such an explanation had never even crossed my mind. I was promised
that, if I would go to Mrs. B----'s again, each of the children would
come and place a hand in mine. I went to the ordinary séance some time
before Christmas, and was then told that the test I wished--which I had
not then specified--should be given to me at a private séance. We had
the private séance, but nothing occurred.
Such is my case. To one section of my readers I shall appear credulous,
to another hard of belief. I believe that I represent the candid
inquirer. As for being scared off from the inquiry by those who call it
unorthodox, or cry out "fire and brimstone," I should as little think of
heeding them as the omniscient apothecaries who smile at my believing in
mesmerism. If a man's opinions are worth anything--if he has fought his
way to those opinions at the bayonet's point--he will not be scared off
from them by the whole bench of Bishops on the one side, or the College
of Surgeons on the other. Not that I for one moment plead guilty to
heterodoxy, either scientific or theological. I am not, as I have said
several times, a philosopher, but I believe it is scientific to hold as
established what you can prove by experiment. I don't think my creed
contains a jot or tittle beyond this. And as for theological orthodoxy,
I simply take my stand upon the Canons of the Church of England. If all
this spiritual business is delusion, how comes it that No. 72 of the
Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical says: "Neither shall any
minister, not licensed, attempt, upon any pretence whatever, either of
possession or obsession, by fasting or prayer, to cast out any devil or
devils?"
The question, however, is not of this kind of orthodoxy. It rather
refers to the creed of spiritualism. The question, in fact, to which I
and the many who think with me pause for a reply, is:--Allowing, as we
do, some of the phenomena--but considering the pneumatological
explanation hypothetical only--and therefore any identification of
communicating intelligence impossible--are we (for I am sincerely tired
of that first person singular, and glad to take refuge in a community),
are we, or are we not, spiritualists?
So far was I able to commit myself in my address to the spiritualists of
Harley Street. I was, I confess, greatly pleased when, in 1869, the
Dialectical Society took up this matter, because I felt they were just
the people to look into it dispassionately. They were bound to no set of
opinions, but regarded everything as an open question, accepting nothing
save as the conclusion of a logical argument. I joined the
Society--straining my clerical conscience somewhat to do so--and
eventually formed one of the committee appointed by the Society to
inquire into the matter, and having a sub-committee sitting at my own
house. This, however, broke up suddenly, for I found even philosophers
were not calm in their examination of unpalatable facts. One gentleman
who approached the subject with his mind fully made up, accused the lady
medium of playing tricks, and me of acting showman on the occasion. As
there was no method of shunting this person, I was obliged to break up
my sub-committee. To mention spiritualism to these omniscient gentlemen
is like shaking a red rag at a bull. As a case in point (though, of
course, I do not credit these gentlemen with the assumption of
omniscience), I may quote the replies of Professor Huxley and Mr. G. H.
Lewes to the Society's invitation to sit on their committee:--
"Sir,--I regret that I am unable to accept the invitation of the Council
of the Dialectical Society to co-operate with a committee for the
investigation of 'spiritualism;' and for two reasons. In the first
place, I have no time for such an inquiry, which would involve much
trouble and (unless it were unlike all inquiries of that kind I have
known) much annoyance. In the second place, I take no interest in the
subject. The only case of 'spiritualism' I have had the opportunity of
examining into for myself, was as gross an imposture as ever came under
my notice. But supposing the phenomena to be genuine--they do not
interest me. If anybody would endow me with the faculty of listening to
the chatter of old women and curates in the nearest cathedral town, I
should decline the privilege, having better things to do.
"And if the folk in the spiritual world do not talk more wisely and
sensibly than their friends report them to do, I put them in the same
category.
"The only good that I can see in a demonstration of the truth of
'spiritualism' is to furnish an additional argument against suicide.
Better live a crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a
'medium' hired at a guinea a séance.
"I am, Sir, &c.,
"T. H. HUXLEY.
"29th January, 1869."
Confessedly Professor Huxley only tried one experiment. I cannot help
thinking if he had not approached the subject with a certain amount of
prejudice he would have been content to "Try again." The side-hit at
curates of course I appreciate!
"Dear Sir,--I shall not be able to attend the investigation of
'spiritualism;' and in reference to your question about suggestions
would only say that the one hint needful is that all present should
distinguish between facts and inferences from facts. When any man says
that phenomena are produced by _no_ known physical laws, he declares
that he knows the laws by which they are produced.
"Yours, &c.,
"G. H. LEWES.
"Tuesday, 2nd February, 1869."
I am not, as I have said, a scientific man, nor do I advance the
slightest pretensions to genius; therefore I have no doubt it is some
mental defect on my part which prevents my seeing the force of Mr. G. H.
Lewes's concluding sentence. I have worked at it for years and am
compelled to say I cannot understand it.
I sat, however, through the two years' examination which the Society
gave to the subject; and it is not anticipating the conclusion of this
chapter to say I was fully able to concur in the report they
subsequently issued, the gist of which is continued in the final
paragraph:--
"In presenting their report, your committee taking into consideration
the high character and great intelligence of many of the witnesses to
the more extraordinary facts, the extent to which their testimony is
supported by the reports of the sub-committees, and the absence of any
proof of imposture or delusion as regards a large portion of the
phenomena; and further, having regard to the exceptional character of
the phenomena, the large number of persons in every grade of society and
over the whole civilized world who are more or less influenced by a
belief in their supernatural origin, and to the fact that no
philosophical explanation of them has yet been arrived at, deem it
incumbent upon them to state their conviction that the subject is worthy
of more serious attention and careful investigation than it has hitherto
received."
With those cautiously guarded words I venture to think that any one who
even reads the body of evidence contained in the Dialectical Society's
report will be able to coincide.
To return to my more personal narrative.
As far as I can trace any order in this somewhat erratic subject, I
think I may venture to say that the manifestations of the last few years
have assumed a more _material_ form than before. It sounds a little
Hibernian to say so, I know; but I still retain the expression.
Supposing, for the moment, that the effects were produced by spirits,
the control of the medium for the production of trance, spirit-voice,
automatic writing, or even communications through raps and tilts of the
table was much more intellectual--less physical than those of which I
now have to speak--namely, the production of the materialized Spirit
Faces and Spirit Forms.
Two phases of manifestation, I may mention in passing, I have not
seen--namely, the elongation of the body, and the fire test--both as far
as I know peculiar to Mr. Home: nor again have I had personal experience
of Mrs. Guppy's aërial transit, or Dr. Monk's nocturnal flight from
Bristol to Swindon. Nothing of the kind has ever come at all within the
sphere of my observation: therefore I forbear to speak about it.
I shall never forget the delight with which I received a letter from a
gentleman connected with the literature of spiritualism, informing me
that materialized Spirit Faces had at last been produced in full light,
and inviting me to come and see. I was wearied of dark séances, of fruit
and flowers brought to order. John King's talk wearied me; and Katie's
whispers had become fatally familiar: so I went in eagerly for the new
sensation, and communicated my results to the world in the two papers
called _Spirit Faces_ and _Spirit Forms_, the former published in
_Unorthodox London_, the latter in Chapter 43 of the present volume.
This class of manifestation has since become very common. I cannot say I
ever considered it very satisfactory. I have never discovered any
trickery--and I assure my readers I have kept my eyes and ears very wide
open--but there are in such manifestations facilities for charlatanism
which it is not pleasant to contemplate. This, let me continually
repeat, is a purely personal narrative, and I have never seen any Spirit
Face or Form that I could in the faintest way recognise. Others, I know,
claim to have done so; but I speak strictly of what has occurred to
myself. The same has been the case with Spirit Photographs. I have sat,
after selecting my own plate and watching every stage in the process;
and certainly over my form there has been a shadowy female figure
apparently in the act of benediction;[2] but I cannot trace resemblance
to any one I ever saw in the flesh. Perhaps I have been unfortunate in
this respect.
Very similar to Miss Cook's mediumship was that of Miss Showers; a young
lady whom I have met frequently at the house of a lady at the West-end
of London, both the medium and her hostess being quite above suspicion.
In this case, besides the face and full form we have singing in a clear
baritone voice presumably by a spirit called Peter--who gives himself
out as having been in earth-life, I believe, a not very estimable
specimen of a market-gardener. I am exceedingly puzzled how to account
for these things. I dare not suspect the medium; but even granting the
truth of the manifestations, they seem to me to be of a low class which
one would only come into contact with under protest and for the sake of
evidence.
Mr. Crookes used to explain, and Serjeant Cox still explains these
manifestations as being the products of a so-called Psychic Force--a
term which I below define. Although I am as little inclined to
hero-worship, and care as little for large names as any man living, yet
it is quite impossible not to attach importance to the testimony of
these gentlemen; one so eminent in the scientific world, and privileged
to write himself F.R.S., the other trained to weigh evidence and decide
between balanced probabilities. But it would seem that while Psychic
Force might cover the ground of my earlier experiences, it singularly
fails to account for the materializations, and obliges us to relegate
them to the category of fraud, unless we accept them as being what they
profess to be. This I believe Serjeant Cox ruthlessly does. He claims as
we have seen to have "caught" Miss Showers, and was not, I believe,
convinced by Miss Cook. Mr. Crookes was: and, when we remember that Mr.
Wallace, the eminent naturalist, and Mr. Cromwell Varley, the
electrician, both accept the spiritual theory, it really looks as though
the scientific mind was more open to receive--perhaps driven to
receive--this which I frankly concede to be the only adequate cause for
the effects, while the legal mind still remains hair-splitting upon
conflicting evidence. Whereabouts the theological mind is I do not quite
know--perhaps still dangling between the opposite poles of Faith and
Reason, and dubiously debating with me "Am I a Spiritualist or not?"
In a recent pamphlet reprinted from the Quarterly Journal of Science,
Mr. Crookes thus compendiously sums up the various theories which have
been invented to account for spiritualistic phenomena, and, in so doing,
incidentally defines his now discarded theory of Psychic Force which
owns Mr. Serjeant Cox for its patron:--
_First Theory._--The phenomena are all the results of tricks, clever
mechanical arrangements, or legerdemain; the mediums are impostors, and
the rest of the company fools.
It is obvious that this theory can only account for a very small
proportion of the facts observed. I am willing to admit that some
so-called mediums of whom the public have heard much are arrant
impostors who have taken advantage of the public demand for
spiritualistic excitement to fill their purses with easily earned
guineas; whilst others who have no pecuniary motive for imposture are
tempted to cheat, it would seem, solely by a desire for notoriety.
_Second Theory._--The persons at a séance are the victims of a sort of
mania or delusion, and imagine phenomena to occur which have no real
objective existence.
_Third Theory._--The whole is the result of conscious or unconscious
cerebral action.
These two theories are evidently incapable of embracing more than a
small portion of the phenomena, and they are improbable explanations for
even those. They may be dismissed very briefly.
I now approach the "spiritual" theories. It must be remembered that the
word "spirits" is used in a very vague sense by the generality of
people.
_Fourth Theory._--The result of the spirit of the medium, perhaps in
association with the spirits of some or all of the people present.
_Fifth Theory._--The actions of evil spirits or devils, personifying who
or what they please, in order to undermine Christianity and ruin men's
souls.
_Sixth Theory._--The actions of a separate order of beings, living on
this earth, but invisible and immaterial to us. Able, however,
occasionally to manifest their presence; known in almost all countries
and ages as demons not necessarily bad, gnomes, fairies, kobolds, elves,
goblins, Puck, &c.
_Seventh Theory._--The actions of departed human beings--the spiritual
theory _par excellence_.
_Eighth Theory._--(_The Psychic Force Theory_).--This is a necessary
adjunct to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th theories, rather than a theory by
itself.
According to this theory the "medium," or the circle of people
associated together as a whole, is supposed to possess a force, power,
influence, virtue, or gift, by means of which intelligent beings are
enabled to produce the phenomena observed. What these intelligent beings
are is a subject for other theories.
It is obvious that a "medium" possesses a _something_ which is not
possessed by an ordinary being. Give this _something_ a name. Call it
"_x_" if you like. Mr. Serjeant Cox calls it Psychic Force. There has
been so much misunderstanding on this subject that I think it best to
give the following explanation in Mr. Serjeant Cox's own words:--
"The Theory of _Psychic Force_ is in itself merely the recognition of
the now almost undisputed fact that under certain conditions, as yet but
imperfectly ascertained, and within a limited, but as yet undefined,
distance from the bodies of certain persons having a special nerve
organization, a Force operates by which, without muscular contact or
connexion, action at a distance is caused, and visible motions and
audible sounds are produced in solid substances. As the presence of such
an organization is necessary to the phenomenon, it is reasonably
concluded that the Force does, in some manner as yet unknown, proceed
from that organization. As the organism is itself moved and directed
within its structure by a Force which either is, or is controlled by,
the Soul, Spirit, or Mind (call it what we may) which constitutes the
individual being we term 'the Man,' it is an equally reasonable
conclusion that the Force which causes the motions beyond the limits of
the body is the same Force that produces motion within the limits of the
body. And, inasmuch as the external force is seen to be often directed
by Intelligence, it is an equally reasonable conclusion that the
directing Intelligence of the external force is the same Intelligence
that directs the Force internally. This is the force to which the name
of _Psychic Force_ has been given by me as properly designating a force
which I thus contend to be traced back to the Soul or Mind of the Man as
its source. But I, and all who adopt this theory of Psychic Force, as
being the agent through which the phenomena are produced, do not thereby
intend to assert that this Psychic Force may not be sometimes seized and
directed by some other Intelligence than the Mind of the Psychic. The
most ardent spiritualists practically admit the existence of Psychic
Force under the very inappropriate name of Magnetism (to which it has no
affinity whatever), for they assert that the Spirits of the Dead can
only do the acts attributed to them by using the Magnetism (that is, the
Psychic Force) of the Medium. The difference between the advocates of
Psychic Force and the spiritualists consists in this--that we contend
that there is as yet insufficient proof of any other directing agent
than the Intelligence of the Medium, and no proof whatever of the agency
of Spirits of the Dead; while the spiritualists hold it as a faith, not
demanding further proof, that Spirits of the Dead are the sole agents in
the production of all the phenomena. Thus the controversy resolves
itself into a pure question of _fact_, only to be determined by a
laborious and long continued series of experiments and an extensive
collection of psychological facts, which should be the first duty of the
Psychological Society, the formation of which is now in progress."
It has frequently struck me, especially in connexion with certain
investigations that I have been making during the last few years, that
Spiritualism is going through much the same phases as Positivism. It
seemed at first impossible that the Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte
could culminate in a highly ornate Religion of Humanity, with its fall
ritual, its ninefold sacramental system. It is even curious to notice
that it was the death of Clotilde which brought about the change, by
revealing to him the gap which Philosophy always does leave between the
present and the future. So too Spiritualism is beginning to "organize"
and exhibits some symptoms of formulating a Creed and Articles of
Belief. The British National Association of Spiritualists, which has
honoured me by placing my name on its Council, thus states its
principles, under the mottoes:--
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame
unto him."--Proverbs xviii. 13.
"In Scripture we are perpetually reminded that the Laws of the Spiritual
World are, in the highest sense, Laws of Nature."--Argyll.
"He who asserts that, outside of the domain of pure Mathematics,
anything is impossible, lacks a knowledge of the first principles of
Logic."--Arago.
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES.
"Spiritualism implies the recognition of an inner nature in man. It
deals with facts concerning that inner nature, the existence of which
has been the subject of speculation, dispute, and even of denial,
amongst philosophers in all ages; and in particular, with certain
manifestations of that inner nature which have been observed in persons
of peculiar organizations, now called Mediums or Sensitives, and in
ancient times Prophets, Priests, and Seers.
"Spiritualism claims to have established on a firm scientific basis the
immortality of man, the permanence of his individuality, and the Open
Communion, under suitable conditions, of the living with the so-called
dead, and affords grounds for the belief in progressive spiritual states
in new spheres of existence.
"Spiritualism furnishes the key to the better understanding of all
religions, ancient and modern. It explains the philosophy of
Inspiration, and supersedes the popular notion of the miraculous by the
revelation of hitherto unrecognised laws.
"Spiritualism tends to abrogate exaggerated class distinctions; to
reunite those who are now too often divided by seemingly conflicting
material interests; to encourage the co-operation of men and women in
many new spheres; and to uphold the freedom and rights of the
individual, while maintaining as paramount the sanctity of family life.
"Finally, the general influence of Spiritualism on the individual is to
inspire him with self-respect, with a love of justice and truth, with a
reverence for Divine law, and with a sense of harmony between man, the
universe, and God.
"The British National Association of Spiritualists is formed to unite
Spiritualists of every variety of opinion, for their mutual aid and
benefit; to promote the study of Pneumatology and Psychology; to aid
students and inquirers in their researches, by placing at their disposal
the means of systematic investigation into the now recognised facts and
phenomena, called Spiritual or Psychic; to make known the positive
results arrived at by careful scientific research; and to direct
attention to the beneficial influence which those results are calculated
to exercise upon social relationships and individual conduct. It is
intended to include spiritualists of every class, whether members of
Local and Provincial Societies or not, and all inquirers into
psychological and kindred phenomena.
"The Association, whilst cordially sympathizing with the teachings of
Jesus Christ, will hold itself entirely aloof from all dogmatism or
finalities, whether religious or philosophical, and will content itself
with the establishment and elucidation of well-attested facts, as the
only basis on which any true religion or philosophy can be built up."
This last clause has, I believe, been modified to suit certain members
of my profession who were a little staggered by its apparent
_patronizing_ of Christianity. For myself (but then, I am unorthodox) I
care little for these written or printed symbola. Having strained my
conscience to join the Dialecticians, I allow my name, without
compunction, to stand on the Council of the Association,--and shall be
really glad if it does them any good. The fact is, I care little for
formal creeds, but much for the fruit of those creeds. I stand by that
good old principle--"By their fruits ye shall know them;" and that
reminds me that to my shreds and patches of "experience" I am to append
some pros and cons of this matter. They have cropped up incidentally as
we have gone on: but I could with advantage collect them if my limits
admitted of sermonizing.
As to the fruits of Spiritualism, I can only say that I have never
witnessed any of these anti-Christianizing effects which some persons
say arise from a belief in Spiritualism. They simply have not come
within the sphere of my observation, nor do I see any tendency towards
them in the tenets of Spiritualism--rather the reverse.
Then again, to pass from practice to faith, Spiritualism professes to be
the reverse of exclusive. In addressing the Conference of 1874, and
defending my position as a clerical inquirer, I was able to say:--"On
the broad question of theology I can conceive no single subject which a
clergyman is more bound to examine than that which purports to be a new
revelation, or, at all events, a large extension of the old; and which,
if its claims be substantiated, will quite modify our notions as to what
we now call faith. It proposes, in fact, to supply in matters we have
been accustomed to take on trust, something so like demonstration, that
I feel not only at liberty, but actually bound, whether I like it or
not, to look into the thing.
* * * * *
Whether your creed is right or wrong is not for me to tell you; but it
is most important for me that I should assure myself. And while I
recognise that my own duty clearly is to examine the principles you
profess, I find this to be eminently their characteristic, _that they
readily assimilate with those of my own Church_. I see nothing
revolutionary in them. You have no propaganda. You do not call upon me,
as far as I understand, to come out of the body I belong to and join
yours, as so many other bodies do; but you ask me simply to take your
doctrines into my own creed, and vitalize it by their means. That has
always attracted me powerfully towards you. You are the broadest
Churchmen I find anywhere."
I am not writing thus in any sense as the apologist of Spiritualism. I
am not offering anything like an Apologia pro vitâ meâ in making the
inquiries I have done, am doing, and hope to do. I have elected to take,
and I elect to maintain, a neutral position in this matter. All I have
done is to select from the Pros and Cons that present themselves to my
mind. If the Pros seem to outweigh the Cons--or vice versâ--be it so. I
cannot help it. I have scarcely decided for myself yet, and I am a
veteran investigator. Others may be more speedy in arriving at a
conclusion.
Among the more obvious "Cons" are the oft-quoted facts that some people
have lost their heads and wasted a good deal of their time on
Spiritualism. But people lose their heads by reading classics or
mathematics, or overdoing any one subject however excellent--even
falling in love: and the ingenuity displayed in wasting time is so
manifold that this is an objection that can scarcely be urged specially
against Spiritualism, though I own Dark Séances do cut terribly into
time.
Then again one is apt to be taken in by mediums or even by spirits. Yes;
but this only imposes the ordinary obligation of keeping one's eyes
open. I know spiritualists who believe in every medium quâ medium, and
others who accept as unwritten gospel the idiotic utterances of a
departed buccaneer or defunct clown: but these people are so purely
exceptional as simply to prove a rule. Do _not_ accept as final in
so-called spiritual what you would not accept in avowedly mundane
matters. Keep your eyes open and your head cool, and you will not go far
wrong. These are the simple rules that I have elaborated during my
protracted study of the subject.
"We do not believe, we know," was, as I said, the proud boast a
spiritualist once made to me. And if the facts--any of the facts--of
Spiritualism stand _as_ facts, there is no doubt that it would form the
strongest possible counterpoise to the materialism of our age. It
presses the method of materialism into its service, and meets the
doubter on his own ground of demonstration--a low ground, perhaps, but a
tremendously decisive one, the very one perhaps on which the Battle of
Faith and Reason will have to be fought out.
If--let us not forget that pregnant monosyllable--if the assumptions of
Spiritualism be true, and that we can only ascertain by personal
investigation, I believe the circumstance would be efficacious in
bringing back much of the old meaning of the word [Greek: pistis] which
was something more than the slipshod Faith standing as its modern
equivalent. It would make it really the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen.
Even if the dangers of Spiritualism were much greater than they
are--aye, as great as the diabolical people themselves make out--I
should still think (in the cautious words of the Dialecticians)
Spiritualism was worth looking into, if only on the bare chance, however
remote, of lighting on some such Philosophy as that so beautifully
sketched by Mr. S. C. Hall in some of the concluding stanzas of his poem
"Philosophy," with which I may fitly conclude--
And those we call "the dead" (who are not dead--
Death was their herald to Celestial Life)--
May soothe the aching heart and weary head
In pain, in toil, in sorrow, and in strife.
That is a part of every natural creed--
Instinctive teaching of another state:
When manacles of earth are loosed and freed--
Which Science vainly strives to dissipate.
In tortuous paths, with prompters blind, we trust
One Guide--to lead us forth and set us free!
Give us, Lord God! all merciful and just!
The FAITH that is but Confidence in Thee!
THE END.
FOOTNOTES:
[2] Alluded to above, p. 350.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Transcriber's Notes: |
| |
| Page 36: Single closing quote mark after "He will accept |
| you" _sic_ |
| Page 79: "next my boy" _sic_ |
| Page 110: Wormwood Scrubbs _sic_; platform amended to |
| platforms |
| Page 185: anatotomized amended to anatomized; full stop |
| following "few friends" removed |
| Page 186: hooping cough _sic_ |
| Page 234: umpromising amended to unpromising |
| Page 244: "vary scrubby ground" amended to "very scrubby |
| ground" |
| Page 338: flabbergastered _sic_ |
| Page 341: facilè princeps amended to facile princeps |
| Page 360: scarely amended to scarcely |
| Page 365: closing parenthesis added after "particular shape" |
| Page 370: invesgator amended to investigator |
| Page 388: closing parenthesis added after "assumption of |
| omniscience" |
| |
| In the last essay, while there are paragraphs numbered 1 |
| and 3, there is no paragraph numbered 2 in the original. |
| |
| Hyphenation has generally been standardized. However, when |
| hyphenated and unhyphenated versions of a word each occur |
| an equal number of times, both versions have been retained |
| (beershop/beer-shop; nowadays/now-a-days; |
| reaction/re-action; reassumption/re-assumption). |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
End of Project Gutenberg's Mystic London:, by Charles Maurice Davies