August
Materialism and the Law
Materialism, by displaying itself as it had never done in any other period, by posing as the supreme regulator of the moral destinies of humanity, has had the effect of frightening the masses, by the inevitable consequences of its doctrines for the social order; by this very fact, it provoked, in favor of spiritualist ideas, an energetic reaction that must prove that it is far from having sympathies as general as it supposes, and that it is strangely deluded if it hopes one day to impose its laws on the world.
Certainly, the spiritualistic beliefs of the past are insufficient for this century; they are not at the intellectual level of our generation; they are, on many points, in contradiction with the positive data of science; they leave in the mind a void that is incompatible with the need for the positive that dominates in modern society; besides, they make the big mistake of imposing themselves by blind faith and by proscribing free examination; it is certainly followed by the development of skepticism among the majority; it is quite evident that if men were nourished, from their childhood, only with ideas capable of being later confirmed by reason, there would be no nonbelievers. How many people brought back to belief by Spiritism have told us: If we had always been presented with God, the soul, and the future life in a rational way, we would have never doubted!
From the fact that a principle receives a bad or a false application, does it follow that it should be rejected? It is with spiritual things as with legislation and with all social institutions: they must be tailored to the times or pay the price of succumbing. But instead of presenting something better than old classical spiritualism, materialism preferred to do away with everything, sparing it from searching, and seemed more convenient to those bothered by the idea of God and the future. What would one think of a doctor who, finding that the diet of a patient is not substantial enough for his temperament, would prescribe him with eating nothing at all?
What one is astonished to find in most of the materialists of the modern school is the spirit of intolerance, pushed to its limits, they who constantly claim the right to freedom of conscience. Their very political comrades do not find favor with them, as soon as they profess spiritualism, as Mr. Jules Favre witnesses after his speech at the Academy (Le Figaro, May 8th, 1868); Mr. Camille Flammarion, outrageously ridiculed and denigrated, in another newspaper whose name we have forgotten, because he dared to prove God by science. According to the author of that diatribe, one can only be a wise man on the condition of not believing in God; Chateaubriand is then only a poor and senseless writer. If men of such unquestionable merit are treated with so little consideration, the Spiritists should not complain of being somewhat mocked about their beliefs.
There is at this moment, on the part of a certain party, an outcry against spiritualist ideas in general, in which Spiritism is naturally included. What it is looking for is not a better and more just God, it is the less troublesome God-matter, because there is nothing to be accountable for with him. No one disputes that party's right to have their own opinion, to discuss opposing opinions, but what we cannot concede to is the claim, amazing to say the least for men who pose as apostles of liberty, to prevent others from believing in their own way and discussing doctrines they do not share. Intolerance for intolerance, one is no better than the other.
One of the best protests we have read against materialist tendencies was published in the journal Le Droit, with the title: Materialism and the Law. The question is treated with remarkable depth and perfect logic from the double point of view of social order and jurisprudence. Since the cause of spiritualism is that of Spiritism, we applaud any energetic defense of the first, even though the second is ignored; that is why we believe that the readers of the Spiritist Review will be pleased with the reproduction of this article.
Extracted from the journal Le Droit, May 14th, 1868
“The present generation is going through an intellectual crisis of which there is nothing to worry about too much, but it would be imprudence to leave its outcome to chance. Ever since humanity has thought, men have believed in the soul, an immaterial principle, distinct from the organs that serve it; it was even made immortal. They believed in a Providence, creator and Lord of beings and things, in the good, just, in the freedom of the human arbiter, in a future life that, to be better than the world in which we are, does not need, as the poet says, but exist. Modern doctors, who are starting to get loud, have changed all that. Man is reduced by them to the dignity of the brute, and the brute reduced to a material aggregate. Matter and the properties of matter, such would be the only possible objects of human science; thought would only be a product of the organ that is its seat, and man, when the organic molecules that constitute the person disintegrate and return to the elements, would perish entirely.
If the materialist doctrines were ever to have their hour of triumph, the jurisconsult philosophers, it must be said to their credit, would be the first to be vanquished. What would their rules and their laws have to do in a world where the law of matter is the whole law? Human actions can only be automatic facts if man is all matter. But then where will freedom be? And if there is no such thing as freedom, where will the moral law be? How could any authority claim to control the fatal expansion of a force that is entirely physical, and necessarily legitimate if it is fatal? Materialism destroys the moral law, and with the moral law the right, the whole civil order, that is the conditions of existence of humanity. Such immediate, inevitable consequences are certainly worth considering. So. let's see how this old materialist doctrine reproduces itself, that we have only seen emerging in the worst days, until now.
There have almost always been materialists, theorists, or practical, either by deviation from common sense, or to justify low habits of life. The first reason for materialism is in the imperfection of human intelligence. Cicero said in very crude terms that there is no foolishness that has not found some philosopher to defend it: Nihil tam absurde dici potest quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum. Its second reason is in the evil inclinations of the human heart. Practical materialism, that is reduced to a few shameful maxims, has always appeared in times of moral or social decomposition, such as those of the Regency and the Directory. More often than not, when it has had higher aims, philosophical materialism has been a reaction against the exaggerated demands of ultra-spiritualist or religious doctrines. But, nowadays, it appears with a new character; it's called scientific. Natural history would be the whole science of man; nothing would exist that it does not have as its object, and since it does not have the spirit as its object, the spirit does not exist.
For whoever wants to think about it, materialism is indeed a peril, not of true science, but of incomplete and presumptuous science; it is a bad plant that grows on its soil. Where do the materialist tendencies come from, somewhat markedly of so many scientists? From their constant occupation studying and manipulating matter? Maybe a little bit. But they mainly come from their habits of mind, from the exclusive practice of their experimental method. The scientific method can be reduced to these terms: collect only facts, very cautiously induce the law of these facts, absolutely ban all research for causes. It is not surprising, after that, that short-sighted intelligences, weak in some sense, deformed, as we all become by the same and too continuous intellectual or physical work, ignore the existence of moral facts to which it is not appropriate the application of their logical instrument, and by an insensible transmission, pass from methodical ignorance to denial.
However, if this exclusively experimental method may be at fault, it is indeed in the study of man, to be double, spirit and matter, of which the organism itself can only be the product and the instrument of a hidden force, but essentially unique that animates it. One only wants to see in the human organism a material aggregate! Why split the man and want methodically to consider in him only one principle if there are two of them? Can we at least flatter ourselves in explaining all the phenomena of life in such a way? Physiological materialism, that prepares for philosophical materialism, but that does not necessarily lead to it, is helplessly struck at every step. Life, whatever one says, is movement, the movement of the soul informing the body; and the soul is thus the spring that moves and transports, by an unknown and unconscious action, the elements of the living bodies. By systematically reducing the study of physical man to the conditions of the study of inorganized bodies; by seeing in the living forces of each part of the organism only properties of matter; by locating these forces in each of these parts; by considering life only as a physical manifestation, a result, when it is perhaps a principle; by setting aside the unity of the principle of life as a hypothesis when it can be a reality, one certainly fall into physiological materialism, only to slide rapidly into philosophical materialism; but one concludes with an incomplete enumeration and examination of the facts; one thought to be going only on the basis of observation, setting aside the fundamental fact that dominates and determines all particular facts.
The materialism of the new school, therefore, is not a demonstrated result of the study; it is a preconceived opinion. The physiologist does not admit the mind; but how surprising is that? It is a cause, and he has set himself to study with a method that precisely precludes him from searching the causes. We do not want to submit the cause of spiritualism to a question of controversial physiology, and to which we could rightly be challenged. The intimate sense reveals to me the existence of the soul with a very different authority. When physiological materialism is as true as it is debatable, our spiritualist convictions would not remain less intact. Strengthened by the testimony of intimate sense, confirmed by the assent of a thousand successive generations on Earth, we would repeat the old adage: "Truth does not destroy truth," and we would wait until reconciliation takes place. But how much weight don’t feel off our shoulders when we see that, to deny the soul and give this statement, as a result of science, the scientist, by his own admission, methodically started from this idea that the soul does not exist!
We have read many books on physiology, generally quite badly written; what struck us is the constant flaw in the reasoning of the organic physiologist when he leaves his field to become a philosopher. We constantly see him taking an effect for a cause, a faculty for a substance, an attribute for a being, confusing existences, and forces, etc., and reason accordingly. One would think it was a challenge. Sometimes he crosses incredible distances without realizing the path he is taking. What exact and clear mind, for example, has ever been able to understand this so well-known thought of Cabanis and Broussais that "the brain produces, secretes thought?" On other occasions, the positive man, the man of science, the man of observation and of facts, will seriously tell us that the brain "stores ideas." A little more, and he will draw them. Is it metaphor or gibberish?
We will never ask natural science to take sides for or against the human soul; but why does it not resolve to ignore what is not the object of its investigations? By what right does it dare to swear that there is nothing afterwards, after having established a law for not seeing? What doesn’t it retain a little of this reservation that suits us all so well, especially those who pretend to only move forward with certainty? How come will the anatomist take it upon himself to declare that the soul does not exist, because he has not encountered it under his scalpel? Did he, at least, start by demonstrating rigorously, scientifically, by experiments and facts, according to the method he advocates, that his scalpel can reach anything, even an immaterial principle?
Whatever happens to all these questions, materialism claiming to be scientific, without being better for that, is spreading in broad daylight, and we must see what materialist law would be. Alas! The materialist social state would present us with a very sad and shameful spectacle. To begin with, it is certain that, if man only exists through his organism, this material and automatic mass that will henceforth be the whole man, provided with an encephalon to secrete ideas, will not be responsible for all the movements that it produces.[1] With that, the brain of another material mass must not dare to secrete ideas of justice or injustice; for these ideas of justice or injustice are applicable only to a free force, existing by itself, capable of wanting and of abstaining. One does not reason with the torrent or the avalanche.
So, freedom, that is the will to act or not to act, will not exist down here, and neither will right. In this state, all forces will have full and absolute power of expansion. Everything will be legitimate, lawful, permitted, let us say even ordered; because it is clear that any fact that is not the act of a free-will, that does not occur as a morally obligatory or morally forbidden act, is an obligatory fact, that may well come up against a contrary fact of the same character, but that like all physical facts, falls under the unavoidable influence of natural laws.
It is enough to expose such ideas to do it justice. It was Spinoza's system, that very resolutely posited the principle of the law of force. The strong, says Spinoza, are made to enslave the weak, just as the fish are to swim, and the larger to eat the smaller. In the materialist system, what we would call law cannot have a different principle. But what sensible man would dare to admit such a system, that would suffice on its own for the refutation of materialism, since it necessarily follows from that? However, do they want this principle of force to be in fact limited by itself? Nothing, or almost nothing, will be gained from this blatant denial of the principle. Let us admit, if you will, that the thinking substance (we continue to speak the language of the materialists) combines in individuals, to regulate this expansion of force; what will it lead to? At most to a set of rules that will be based on interest, and again, since there are no other laws than the laws of matter, this legislation will have no binding character; each one will be able to infringe it, if his thinking material advises him to do so, and if his strength allows it. Thus, in this singular doctrine, we would not even have a social state built on the plane of the sad society of Hobbes.
We are still speaking only of the first conditions of any social state. But, in all civil society, individual property is enshrined; we contract, we sell, we rent, we partner, etc. Marriage is the foundation of the family; a whole new order of relations is born from it. Through home education and public education, traditions are perpetuated. Thus, a national spirit is formed and civilization develops. Will our materialistic society have its civil law? Impossible to suppose it; for civil law has justice as its principle, and justice can only be a word, or a contradiction in a doctrine that only knows matter and the properties of matter. We thus inevitably conclude (unless we are wrong about it) that the civil status of materialist society is the state of bestiality.
We do not say too much by arguing that materialism is destructive, not of such morality, but of all morality, not of such civil status, but of any civil status, to any society. We must retreat with that beyond the regions of barbarism, beyond savagery. Should it be banned for that? God would not allow it. Having acknowledged its character, we would not, however, ask that its teaching be prohibited; we would defend it, if necessary, against any compression by force, provided that the teacher spoke only in his own name. Freedom is so dear to us (the readers of this newspaper know this); it carries such blessings; we have such a confidence in the public good sense that we could not conceive any concern to see any pulpit, any platform open to any idea.
But the question would no longer present itself in the same terms, if the teacher happened to speak in chair of State, paid by the budget. Rightly or wrongly, the State teaches; can he teach doctrines whose most immediate consequences are destructive to the state? Will it be at the discretion of any teacher to make the State endorse all the doctrines he can conceive? The question is not simple. State teachers are public officials; their teachings can only be an official teaching. The State guarantees what they say, and it is answerable to the youth and their families. If, for the great words of independence of the teachers, we challenged its control, we would be the oppressor of the State, by the most hypocritical of oppressions, because we would be blaming it for doctrines it disavows.
There is no doubt that the superior authority owes to its professors, often whitewashed by study, respect, consideration, and great confidence, as to its generals, its administrators, and its magistrates; but it does not owe them the sacrifice of the mandate it is still presumed to hold from the country. The professor is not more independent from the state than the general who would take command of an insurrection.
H. Thiercelin.”
[1] Like the liver is not responsible for the bile that it secrets
The Journal La Solidarité
The newspaper La Solidarité, of which we spoke in the Spiritist Review of June 1868, continues to deal with Spiritism, with the tone of serious discussion that characterizes this eminently philosophical paper.
With the title Psychological research on Spiritism, the July 1st issue contains an article from which we extract the following passages:
“There are very few newspapers that can claim to be independent. I mean a true independence, that makes it possible to treat a subject without concerns of party, Church, school, faculty, academia; better than that: without concern of the public, with its own audience of readers and subscribers, and only caring about seeking and telling the truth. La Solidarité has this very rare advantage of facing even churns - for it only lives on sacrifices - and for being placed too high up in the regions of thought to have to fear the arrows of ridicule. In dealing with Spiritism, we knew that we would satisfy no one, neither the believers, nor the unbelievers; nobody, except perhaps the people who have no bias in the issue. These know that they do not know. They are the wise ones, and they are few.”
The author then describes the material phenomenon of the turning tables, that he explains by human electricity, declaring that he sees nothing there that accuses a foreign intervention. That is what we said from the beginning. He keeps on:
“As long as we only have to explain the automatic movement of objects, we don't need to go beyond what is learned in the physical sciences. But the difficulty increases when it comes to phenomena of an intellectual nature.
The table, after having just danced, soon began to answer questions. Therefore, how can we doubt that there was intelligence there? The vague belief in Spirits had given rise to the movement of material objects because it is obvious that, without this a priori, they would never have dared to turn the tables. This belief, finding itself confirmed by appearances, was to lead to a further step. Given that the Spirit is the cause of the movement of the tables, one had to think of questioning it.
“The first intelligent manifestations,” says Mr. Allan Kardec, “took place by means of tables rising and kicking with one foot a fixed number of knocks, and thus answering yes or no, according to the convention, to a framed question. We then obtained more developed answers by the letters of the alphabet: the mobile object striking several hits, corresponding to the sequential number of each letter, they thus succeeded in forming words and sentences answering formulated questions. The correctness of the answers, and their correlation, aroused astonishment. The mysterious being who answered that, questioned about his nature, declared that he was a Spirit or Genius, gave himself a name and provided various information on his account."
This means of correspondence was long and inconvenient, as Mr. Allan Kardec quite rightly remarks. It was not long before it was replaced by the basket, then the planchette. Today, these means are generally abandoned, and believers rely on what the hand of the medium mechanically writes by the dictation of the Spirit.
It is difficult to know what the medium's share is in products somewhat inspired of his pen; it is not easy either to determine the degree of automatism of a basket or a planchette, when these objects are placed under living hands. But if the correspondence by the table is slow and inconvenient, it makes it possible to note the passivity of the instrument. For us, the intellectual communication by means of the table is as well established as that of the telegraphic correspondence. The fact is real. It is only a question of knowing if the correspondent from beyond the grave exists. Is there a Spirit, an invisible being with whom one corresponds, or are the operators the victims of an illusion and are they only in contact with themselves? That is the question.
We have attributed to the electricity emitted by the human machine the mechanical movements of the tables; we do not have to look elsewhere other than the human soul for the agent that gives these movements a character of intelligence. By imagining electricity as an elastic fluid of extreme subtlety, imposed between the molecules of the bodies, and surrounding them as in an atmosphere, we can very well understand that the soul, thanks to this envelope, makes its action on all parts of the body, without occupying a determined place there, and that the unity of the self is everywhere at the same time, where its atmosphere can reach. The action by contact then goes beyond the periphery of the body, and the ethereal or fluidic vibrations, by communicating from one atmosphere to another, can produce between the beings in relation, effects at a distance. There is a whole world to study here. The forces are influenced and are transformed there according to the dynamic laws known to us, but their effects vary with the rhythm of the molecular movements, and according to whether these movements are exerted by vibration, undulation, or oscillation. But whatever the case may be with these theories that are far from having attained the positivity necessary to take rank in science, nothing prevents us from viewing the human self as extending to the table the action of spontaneity, using it as an appendage to one’s nervous system to manifest voluntary movements.
What is most often misleading in these kinds of telegraphic correspondence is that the self of each of the assistants can no longer recognize oneself in the resultant of the collectivity. The subjective representation that is made in the mind of the medium by the aid of this kind of photography may not resemble any of the assistants, although most of them undoubtedly provided some feature; However, it is rare, if we observe carefully, that we no longer particularly find the image of one of the operators who was the passive instrument of the collective force. It is not an ultra-mundane Spirit speaking in the room, it is the spirit of the medium, but the spirit of the medium perhaps doubled by the spirit of such and such an assistant who often dominates him without them both knowing it, and exalted by forces that come to him, such as various electromagnetic currents, from the support given by the assistants.[1]
We have seen many times the personality of the medium betrayed by spelling mistakes, by historical or geographical errors that he usually made, and that could not be attributed to a Spirit truly distinct from his own person.
One of the most common things in phenomena of this nature is the revelation of secrets that the interrogator does not believe known to anyone; but he forgets that these secrets are known to the interrogator, and that the medium can read his mind. This requires a certain mental relationship; but this relation is established by a derivation of the nervous current that envelops every individual, much like one could deflect the electric spark by intercepting the telegraph line and substituting it for a new conducting wire. Such a faculty is much less rare than one might think. Communication of thought is a fact admitted by all those who have been concerned with magnetism, and it is easy for everyone to be convinced of the frequency and the reality of the phenomenon. We are forced to slip on these very imperfect explanations. They are not sufficient, we know, to invalidate the belief in Spirits among those who believe they have sensible evidence of their intervention.
We cannot confront them with evidence of the same nature. There is nothing irrational about belief in spiritual individualities, but we consider it entirely natural. Our deep conviction, as we know, is that the human self persists in its identity after death, and that it is recovered after its separation from the earthly organism, with all its previous acquisitions. That the human person is then clothed with an organism of an ethereal nature is what seems perfectly probable to us.
The perispirit of these gentlemen, therefore, does not repel us. What is it that separates us? Nothing fundamental. Nothing, except the insufficiency of their proofs. We do not believe that the Spiritist relationships between the dead and the living are attested by the movements of the tables, by correspondence, by dictations. We believe that physical phenomena can be explained physically, and that psychic phenomena are caused by the forces inherent to the soul of the operators. We speak of what we have seen and studied with great care. We do not know of anything so far among the inspirations of mediums that could not have been produced by a living brain, without the aid of any celestial force, and most of their productions are below the intellectual level of the environment in which we live.
In a future article, we will examine the philosophical and religious doctrines of Spiritism, and particularly those for which Mr. Allan Kardec presented the synthesis in his last book, entitled Genesis according to Spiritism.”
There would be undoubtedly a lot of things to answer on this article; however, we will not refute it, because it would be repeating what we have written many times on the same subject. We are happy to recognize, with the author, that the distance that still separates him from us is small: it is only the material fact of the direct relations between the visible world and the invisible world; and yet this little thing is a great deal in its consequences.
As a matter of fact, it should be noted that, if he does not admit these relationships, he does not deny them absolutely either; it is not even averse to his reason to conceive the possibility of it; indeed, this possibility follows quite naturally from what he admits. What he lacks, he says, is evidence from communications. Well! Sooner or later this proof will come to him; he will find them either in the careful observation of the circumstances that accompany certain mediumistic communications, or in the innumerable variety of spontaneous manifestations, that occurred before Spiritism, and still occur with people who do not know it or do not believe it, and consequently one cannot admit the influence of a preconceived idea among them. It would be necessary to ignore the first elements of Spiritism to believe that the fact of the manifestations occurs only among the followers.
In the meantime, and even though his conviction should end there, it would be desirable that all materialists were at this point; we must therefore congratulate ourselves on counting on him among the righteous men, at least sympathetic to the general idea, and to see a commendable journal, by its serious character and its independence, fighting with us the absolute skepticism in matters of spirituality, as well as the abuse that has been carried out to the spiritual principle. We walk to the same goal by different routes but converging towards a common point and approaching more and more through the ideas; a few dissents on questions of detail should not prevent us from reaching out to each other.
In this time of effervescence and aspiration towards a better state of things, each one brings his stone to the building of the new world; each works on his own, with his own means; Spiritism brings its contingent that is not yet complete; but as it is not exclusive, it does not reject any support; it accepts the good that can serve the great cause of humanity, from wherever it comes, even from its adversaries.
As we said at the beginning, we will not undertake to refute the theory set out in La Solidarité on the source of intelligent manifestations; we will only say a few words about it.
This theory, as we can see, is only one of the first systems hatched at the origin of Spiritism, when experience had not yet clarified the question; however, it is well known that this opinion is today reduced to a few rare individuals. If it were right, why would it not have prevailed? How could that be that millions of Spiritists who have been experimenting for fifteen years, all over the world and in all languages, who are recruited for the most part from the enlightened class, who have in their ranks men of knowledge and of incontestable value, such as doctors, engineers, magistrates, etc., noted the reality of the demonstrations, if it did not exist? Can we reasonably admit that all have deluded themselves? That there were not among them men endowed with sufficient good sense and perspicacity to recognize the true cause? This theory, as we have said, is not new, and it has not gone unnoticed among the Spiritists; on the contrary, it has been seriously thought of and explored by them, and it is precisely because it has been found contradicted by the facts, powerless to explain them all, that it has been abandoned.
It is a serious mistake to believe that the Spiritists came with the preconceived idea of the intervention of the Spirits in the manifestations; if it was so with some, the truth is that the majority did not come to belief until after having passed through doubt or skepticism.
It is also a mistake to believe that, without the a priori belief in Spirits, we would never have dared to turn the tables. The phenomenon of turning and talking tables was known in Tertullian time, and in China from ancient time. In Tartary and Siberia, flying tables[2] were known. In some provinces of Spain, sieves held in suspension by the tips of scissors are used. Do those who interrogate believe that it is Spirits who are answering? Not at all. Ask them what it is, they know nothing about it: it is the table, the sieve endowed with an unknown power; they question these movements like those of the divinatory wand, without going beyond the material fact.
Modern Spiritist phenomena did not begin with turning tables, but with spontaneous knocks struck on walls and furniture; these noises caused astonishment, surprise; there was something unusual about their beating pattern, an intentional character, a persistence that seemed to call attention to a specific point, like when someone knocks to call attention. The first movements of tables or other objects were also spontaneous, as they are still today in certain individuals who have no knowledge of Spiritism. It is the same here with most natural phenomena that occur daily, and nevertheless go unnoticed, or whose cause remains unknown, until the time when serious and more enlightened observers pay their attention, study, and explore them.
Thus, of two contrary theories, born at the same time, one grows with time as a result of experience, becomes generalized, while the other dies out; in favor of which is there a presumption of truth and survival? We are not giving this as proof, but as a fact that deserves consideration.
Mr. Fauvety relies on that he has found nothing in mediumistic communications that is beyond the reach of the human brain; this is again an old objection a hundred times refuted by the Spiritist doctrine itself. Has Spiritism ever said that the Spirits are beings outside of humanity? On the contrary, it comes to destroy the prejudice that makes them exceptional beings, angels or demons, intermediaries between man and the divinity, species of semi-gods.
It is based on this principle that the Spirits are none other than men stripped from their material envelope, that the visible world flows incessantly into the invisible world through death, and the latter into the corporeal world through births.
Since the Spirits belong to mankind, why would anyone want them to have superhuman language? We know that some of them do not know more, and often much less than certain men, since they learn with the latter; those who were incapable of making masterpieces during their lifetime, will not do more like Spirits; the Spirit of an ignorant will not speak like a scholar, and the Spirit of a scholar, who is only a human being, will not speak like a god.
It is therefore not in the eccentricity of their ideas and their thoughts, in the exceptional superiority of their style, that we must seek proof of the spiritual origin of the communications, but in the circumstances that attest, in a multitude of cases, that the thought cannot come from an incarnate, even if it is most trivial.
From these facts emerges the proof of the existence of the invisible world in the middle of which we live, and for that the Spirits of the lowest level prove it just as well as the most elevated ones. Now, the existence of the invisible world in our midst, an integral part of earthly humanity, the spillway of discarnate souls, and source of the incarnate, is a fundamental, immense fact; it is a whole revolution in beliefs; it is the key to man's past and future, that all philosophies have sought in vain, just as scientists have uselessly sought the key to astronomical mysteries, before knowing the law of gravitation. Let them follow the chain of the forced consequences of this single fact: the existence of the invisible world around us, and they will arrive at a complete, inevitable transformation of ideas, with the destruction of prejudices and the abuses that result from it, and consequently, a modification of social relationships.
Spiritism leads to that. Its doctrine is the development, the deduction of the consequences of the main fact, whose existence it has just revealed; these consequences are innumerable, because, step by step, they affect all branches of the social order, physical as well as moral. This is understood by all those who have taken the trouble of studying it seriously, and what they will understand even better later, but not those who, having only seen the surface, imagine that it is entirely in a rotating table or in puerile questions about the identity of Spirits.
For further development on some of the questions dealt with in this article, we refer to the first chapter of Genesis: Character of the Spiritist revelation.[3]
[1] See, for the response to several propositions contained in this article, The Book of Mediums, chapter IV, Systems. Introduction of The Spirits’ Book. - What is Spiritism? chapter. I, Small conference.
[2] Spiritist Review, October 1859
[3] Published in a separate brochure; price 15 cents; by mail, 20 cents.
The Spiritist Party
“In an article in the last number of the Spiritist Review, entitled: The Spiritist Party, you say that since Spiritism is given this name, it accepts it. But should it accept it? It perhaps deserves serious consideration. Do not all religions, as well as Spiritism, teach that all men are brothers, that they are all children of a common father who is God? Now, should there be parties among the children of God? Isn't that an offense to the Creator? Since the peculiarity of parties is to arm men against each other; and can the imagination conceive a greater crime than to arm the children of God one against another? Such are, sir, the reflections that I thought to be right to submit to your appreciation; perhaps it would be advisable to submit them also to that of the benevolent Spirits who guide the work of Spiritism, to know their opinion. This question is perhaps more serious than it appears at first glance; for my part, I would be loath to belong to a party; I believe that Spiritism should consider parties as an offense against God."
We fully agree with our honorable correspondent, whose intention we can only praise; we believe, however, his scruples a little exaggerated in the case in question, no doubt for not having sufficiently examined the question.
The word party implies, by its etymology, the idea of division, scission, and consequently, that of struggle, aggression, violence, intolerance, hatred, animosity, vindication, all things contrary to the spirit of Spiritism. Spiritism having none of these characteristics since it repudiates them, by its very tendencies is not a party in the vulgar meaning of the word, and our correspondent is very much right to reject this qualification, from this point of view.
But to the denomination of party, it is also attached the idea of a force, physical or moral, strong enough to weigh in the balance, preponderant enough to be counted on; by applying it to Spiritism, little known or misunderstood, was to attest its notorious existence, a rank among opinions, to note its importance, and consequently provoke its examination, that it asks constantly. In this respect, it should not repudiate this qualification, while making its reservations about the meaning to be attached to it, since starting from above, it gave an official denial to those who claim that Spiritism is a myth without consistency, that they had flattered themselves that they had it buried twenty times. We could judge the reach of this word by the clumsy ardor with which certain organs of the press seized it to make a scarecrow of it.
It is by this consideration, and in this sense, that we have said that Spiritism accepts the title of party, since it was given, because it meant to grow it in the eyes of the public; but we did not intend to make it lose its essential quality, that of moralizing philosophical doctrine, that constitutes its glory and its strength; far from us therefore the thought of transforming followers of a doctrine of peace, tolerance, charity and fraternity into partisans. The word party, moreover, does not always imply the idea of struggle, of hostile feelings; do we not say: the party of peace, the party of honest people? Spiritism has already proven and will always prove that it belongs to this category.
Besides, whatever it does, Spiritism cannot help being a party. What, in fact, is a party, apart from the idea of struggle? It is an opinion that is shared only by a part of the population; but this qualification is only given to opinions that have a given number of followers, large enough to attract attention and play a role. However, the Spiritist opinion not being yet that of everyone, is necessarily a party in relation to the contrary opinions that oppose it, until it has rallied them all. By virtue of its principles, it is not aggressive; it does not impose itself; it does not subjugate; it only asks for the freedom to think its own way, yes; but from the moment it is attacked, treated as a pariah, it must defend itself, and claim what is common law; it must, it is its duty, or pay the price of being accused of denying its own cause, that is of all its brothers in belief, that it could not abandon without cowardice. It therefore necessarily enters into a struggle, whatever repugnance it feels from it; it is nobody's enemy, it is true; but it has enemies who seek to have it crushed: it is by its firmness, its perseverance and its courage that it will impose on them; its weapons are quite different from those of its adversaries, it is still true; but nonetheless to them, and in spite of itself, it is a party, for they would not have given it this title if they had not judged it strong enough to counterbalance them.
These are the reasons for which we believed that Spiritism could accept the qualification of party, that was given by its antagonists, without it having taken it itself, because it was to raise the glove that was thrown at it; we thought it could do so without repudiating its principles.
Persecutions
“Flee, Christians; flee these lost men, and these bad women who indulge in practices that the Church condemns! Do not have any dealings with these madmen and these mad women; abandon them to absolute isolation. Avoid them like dangerous people. Do not have them by your side, and drive them out of the holy place, whose access is banned to their unworthiness.
See these lost men and bad women who hide in the shadows, and who meet in secret to spread their vile doctrines; follow them with me to their lairs; Don’t they look like low-level conspirators taking pleasure in the darkness to form their infamous plots? They conspire audaciously, in fact, with the help of Satan, against our holy mother the Church that Jesus established to reign on Earth. What are they still doing, these ungodly men and shameless women? They blaspheme against God; they deny the sublime truths that for centuries have inspired the deepest respect in their ancestors; they adorn themselves with a false charity of which they only know the name, and they use it as a cloak to hide their ambition! They break into your homes like ravenous wolves to seduce your daughters and your wives and they want to destroy you all forever; but you will drive them out of your presence like evil beings! “You have understood, Christians! Who are those that I point out to your reprobation? They are the Spiritists! And why shouldn't I name them? It's time to push them back and curse their hellish doctrines!"
Sermons like this one were the order of the day at that time. If we unearth this document from our archives, after four years, it is to respond to the qualification of a dangerous party recently given to the Spiritists, by certain organs of the press. In the circumstance above, on which side was the aggression, the provocation, in a word, the spirit of party? Could we push the excitement any further, to the hatred of citizens against each other, to the division of families? Don’t such sermons recall those of the disastrous time when these same countries were bloodied by the wars of religion, where the father was armed against the son, and the son against the father? We don’t judge them from the point of view of evangelical charity, but from that of prudence. Is it really political to arouse fanatic passions in this way, in a country where the past is still so vivid, where the authority often has difficulty preventing conflicts? Is it safe to exhibit the sparks of discord there again? Would they, therefore, want to renew the crusade against the Albigenses and the war of Cevennes? If such sermons were preached against the Protestants, bloody reprisals would be inevitable. Today they are attacking Spiritism, for not having a legal existence yet, they believe everything is allowed against it.
Well! What has always been the attitude of the Spirits, in the presence of attacks to which they have been the object? That of calm and moderation. Shouldn’t they bless a doctrine whose power is great enough to curb turbulent and vindictive passions? Note, however, that the Spiritists don’t form a constituted body anywhere; that they are not regimented in congregations, obeying a commandment; that there is between them no obvious or secret affiliation; they are subjected quite simply and individually to the influence of a philosophical idea, and this idea, freely accepted by reason rather than imposed, suffices to modify their tendencies, because they are conscious of being with the truth. They see this idea growing constantly, infiltrating everywhere, gaining ground every day; they have faith in their future, because it is according to the principles of eternal justice, because it responds to social needs, and because it is identified with progress, the march of which is irresistible; that is why they are calm in the face of the attacks addressed to them; they would think they were giving proof of distrust in their strength if they supported it by violence and by material means. They laugh at these attacks, since their only result is to propagate it more quickly, attesting its importance.
But the attacks are not limited to the idea. Although the crusade against the Spiritists is no longer openly preached, as it was a few years ago, their adversaries have not become more benevolent or more tolerant; persecution against individuals is not less exercised when there is an occasion, not only in the freedom of their conscience, that is a sacred right, but even in their material interests. In the absence of good reason, the opponents of Spiritism still hope to overthrow it by calumny and oppression; they are undoubtedly mistaken, but in the meantime, there are some victims. However, we must not hide from ourselves that the struggle is not over; the followers must therefore arm themselves with resolution to walk firmly in the path that has been laid out for them.
It is not only in view of the present, but above all in anticipation of the future, that we have thought it convenient to reproduce the instruction below, to which we call the serious attention of the followers. Moreover, it is a denial given to those who seek to represent Spiritism as a dangerous party to the social order. May God wish that all parties only obey such inspirations, for peace would soon reign on Earth.
Paris, December 10th, 1864 – medium Mr. Delanne
“My children, these persecutions, like so many others, will fall and cannot be harmful to the cause of Spiritism; the good Spirits watch over the execution of the Lord's orders: you have nothing to fear; nonetheless, it is a warning to you to be on your guard and act with caution. It is a storm that breaks out, as you must expect to see many others breaking out, as we have announced to you; for you must not believe that your enemies will easily consider themselves beaten; no, they will struggle step by step until they are convinced of their helplessness. So, let them throw away their poison without worrying about what they may say, since you know very well that they can do nothing against the Doctrine that must succeed, despite it all; they feel that well, and that is what infuriates them and redoubles their rage.
It is to be expected that in the struggle they will make some victims, but this is the test by which the Lord will recognize the courage and perseverance of his true servants. What merit would you have in winning without difficulty? Like valiant soldiers, the wounded will be the most rewarded; and what glory for those who will emerge mutilated and covered with honorable scars from the battle! If an enemy people came to invade your country, wouldn't you sacrifice your possessions, your life for its independence? Thus, why would you complain about a few splashes that you get in a fight where you know the inevitable outcome, and where you are sure to win? Thank God therefore for having placed you in the first row, so that you are the first to collect the glorious palms that will be the prize for your devotion to the holy cause. Thank your persecutors who give you the opportunity to show your courage and gain more merit. Do not go after persecution, do not seek it; but if it comes, accept it as one of the trials of life, for it is one of them, and one of the most beneficial for your advancement, according to the way you endure it. It is with this trial as with all others: through your conduct, you can make it fruitful or fruitless for you.
Shame on those who have retreated and preferred Earth’s resting to the one that was prepared for them, for the Lord will take their sacrifices into account! He will say to them: “What are you asking for, you who have lost nothing, sacrificed nothing; who has not given up a night of your sleep, a piece of your table, nor have you left some of your clothes on the battlefield? What have you been doing during this time, while your brothers were facing danger? You stood aside to let the storm pass, and show yourself past the danger, while your brothers resolutely stepped into the struggle.
Think of the Christian martyrs! They did not have, like you do, the incessant communications of the invisible world to rekindle their faith, and yet they did not shy away from the sacrifice either of their life or of their possessions. Moreover, the time for those cruel trials has passed; the bloody sacrifices, the tortures, the pyres, will not be repeated; your trials are more moral than material; they will therefore be less painful, but will be nonetheless deserving, because everything is in proportion to its time. Today it is the Spirit that dominates; that is why the mind suffers more than the body. The predominance of the spiritual over the material trials is an indication of the advancement of the Spirit. Furthermore, you know that many of those who suffered for Christianity come to contribute to the crowning of the work, and these are the ones that support the struggle with most courage; thus, they add a palm to those they had already conquered.
What I am telling you, my friends, is not to encourage you to throw yourselves recklessly and hurriedly into the fray; no; I tell you the opposite: act with prudence and circumspection, even in the interest of the Doctrine, that would suffer from an ill-considered enthusiasm; but if a sacrifice is necessary, do it without complaining, and think that a temporal loss is nothing compared to the compensation that you will receive for it.
Don't worry about the future of the doctrine; among those who fight it today, more than one will be the defender tomorrow. The adversaries are agitated; at some point they will want to come together to strike a blow and overthrow the started edifice, but their efforts will be in vain, and division will reach their ranks. The times are approaching when events will favor the blossoming of what you sow. Consider the work you are doing, regardless of what they can say or do. Your enemies are doing all they can to push you beyond the bounds of moderation, so that they can give their aggression a pretext; their insults have no other purpose, but your indifference and your restraint confuse them; Therefore, continue to oppose violence with gentleness and charity; do good to those who want to do you harm, so that later they can distinguish the true from the false. You have a powerful weapon: that of reasoning; use it, but never defile it with insult, the supreme argument of those who have no good reason to give; finally, strive through the dignity of your conduct, to make the title of Spiritist respectful in you.
St. Louis
Retrospective Spiritism
Mediumship in a glass of water in 1706
At the Duke of Orleans’ place.
We can understand, with the general title of retrospective Spiritism, the thoughts, doctrines, beliefs and all the spiritualist facts prior to modern Spiritism, that is until 1850, period in which the observations and studies on these kinds of phenomena began. It was not until 1857 that these observations were coordinated into a body of methodical and philosophical doctrine. This division seems useful to us in the history of Spiritism.
The event below is reported in the Memoirs of Duke Saint-Simon:[1]
“I also remember something that he (the Duke of Orleans) told me in the Marly room, on the verge of his departure to Italy, whose singularity, verified by the event, does not allow me to omit it. He was curious about all kinds of arts and sciences, and with infinite wit, he had had in all his life the weakness so common at the court of the children of Henry II, that Catherine de Medici had, among other evils, brought from Italy. He told me many times that he had sought to see the devil, as much as he could, without success, and to see extraordinary things, and to know the future. Ms. de Sery had a little girl with her, eight or nine years old, who had been born there and never left, and who had the ignorance and simplicity of the age and education. Among other rascals involved with hidden curiosities, of which the Duke of Orleans had seen many in his life, he was introduced to one that claimed to show, in a glass filled with water, all that one would want to know. He asked someone young and innocent to look there, and the little girl was found fit for that. So, they had fun wishing to know what was happening even at distant places, and the little girl saw and described what she saw. The man whispered something over the glass filled with water, and they were immediately successful in seeing something there.
The deceptions often experienced by the Duke of Orleans led him to a test that could reassure him. He whispered to one of his servants to immediately go to Madame de Nancré's, to carefully examine who was there, what they were doing, the position and the furniture of the room, and the situation of everything that was going on there, and without wasting any time or speaking to anyone, to come and whisper it to him. The task was carried out in a jiffy, and nobody realized what had just happened, and the little girl still in the room. As soon as the Duke of Orleans was informed, he asked the little girl to look at who was with Madame de Nancré and what was going on there. She immediately told them, word for word, all that the man sent by the Duke of Orleans had seen. The description of the face, the looks, the clothes, the people who were there, their position in the room, the people who played at two different tables, those looking over or chatting, sitting, or standing, the arrangement of the furniture, in a word, everything. The Duke of Orleans immediately asked Nancré to go there, and he reported having found everything as the little girl had said, and as the valet who had first been there had reported to the ear of the Duke of Orleans.
He hardly spoke to me about these things because I took the liberty of shaming him. I took the liberty of teasing him about this story and told him what I thought I could dissuade him from believing in these sorceries, especially at a time when he should have his mind occupied with so many great things. "That is not all," he said to me, "and I have only told you about it to get to the rest;” He then told me that, encouraged by the accuracy of what the little girl had seen in Madame de Nancré's room, he wanted to see something more important, and what would happen with the death of the king, but without specifying the date that could not be seen in this glass. He then asked the little girl, who had never heard of Versailles, nor seen anyone from the court, but himself. She looked and explained to him at length everything she saw. She correctly described the king's bedroom at Versailles, and the furnishings that were in fact there at his death. She depicted him perfectly in his bed, and a well-behaved small child that was standing near the bed or in the room, held by Madame de Ventadour, after what she cried because she had seen her at the home of Ms. de Sery.
She introduced them to Madam de Maintenon, the singular figure of Fayon, Madam Duchesse d'Orléans, Madam Duchesse and Princess of Conti; she cried out to Mr. Duke of Orleans; in short, she let them know what she saw in terms of princes, lords, servants, and valets. When she finished describing everything, the Duke of Orleans was surprised that she had not introduced them to Monseigneur, to the Duke of Bourgogne, the Monseigneur Duke of Berry, and asked her if she did not see this or that figure. She firmly said no and repeated the ones she saw. This is what the Duke of Orleans could not understand and was greatly surprised with, in vain asking me for the reason. The event explained it. It was then in 1706. All four were then full of life and health, and all four had died before the king. It was the same with the Prince, the Duke, and the Prince of Conti, whom she did not see, while she saw the children of the last two, Mr. du Maine, his sons, and the Count of Toulouse. But until the occurrence, it remained in the dark. Having the curiosity ended, the Duke of Orleans wanted to know what would become of him. So, it was no longer in the glass of water. The man who was there offered to show him, as if painted on the wall of the room, provided he was not afraid to see himself there; and after a quarter of an hour of a few reactions, the face of the Duke of Orleans suddenly appeared before them all, dressed as he was then and in his natural size, on the wall like in a painting, with a crown on his head. It was neither from France, nor Spain, nor England, nor Imperial; the Duke of Orleans, who looked at it with his eyes wide open, could never guess it, for he had never seen one like that; it only had four circles, and nothing at the top. The crown covered his head.
From the preceding obscurity and from this one, I took the opportunity to show him the vanity of these kinds of curiosities, the just deceptions of the devil, that God allows to punish the curiosities that he forbids, the nothingness and darkness that result from it, instead of the light and satisfaction that one seeks in it. He was certainly a long way then from being regent of the kingdom and from imagining it. It was perhaps what that singular crown announced to him. All this had happened in Paris, with his mistress, in the presence of his closest acquaintances, the day before he had told me about it, and I found it so extraordinary that I gave him a place here, not to approve, but to register it."
The credibility of the Duke of Saint-Simon is all the less suspect since he was opposed to these kinds of ideas; there can therefore be no doubt that he faithfully reported the story of the Duke of Orleans. As for the fact itself, it is not probable that the duke invented it for nothing. The phenomena that occur nowadays prove their possibility; what then passed for something wonderful is now a very natural fact. Besides, one cannot certainly blame them on the imagination of the child, who was unknown to the individuals, and could not serve as his accomplice. The words spoken on the glass of water undoubtedly had no other purpose than to give the phenomenon a mysterious and cabalistic appearance, according to the beliefs of the time; but they could very well exert an unconscious magnetic action, and that with even more reason, for that man appeared endowed with an energetic will. As for the fact of the painting that he made appear on the wall, until now one cannot give any explanation for that. Moreover, the prior magnetization of the water does not appear to be essential.
A few years ago, one of our correspondents from Spain told us the following fact that had happened before his eyes, fifteen years ago, at a time and in a region where Spiritism was unknown, and when it pushed skepticism to its limits. Some in his family heard of the ability that some people have to see in a jug filled with water, and they did not give any more importance to this than to popular beliefs. Yet, they wanted to try out of curiosity. A young girl, after a moment of concentration, saw a relative of his, making an accurate portrait; she saw him on a mountain, a few leagues away, where he could not supposedly be, then descend into a gorge, return, and doing various trips up and down. When the individual returned and was told where he came from and what he had done, he was very surprised, because he had not communicated his intention to anyone. Imagination here is completely out of question, since none of the assistants could act on the mind of the young girl through their thoughts.
The influence of imagination is the great objection that is opposed to this kind of phenomenon, as to all those of mediumship in general, hence one cannot be careful enough when collecting the cases in which it is demonstrated that this influence cannot take place. The following fact is a not less conclusive example.
Another of our subscribers from Palermo, Sicily, was recently in Paris; in his absence, his daughter, who has never been to Paris, received the issue of the Spiritist Review, in which the glass of water is considered; she wanted to try to see her father. She did not see him, but she saw several streets that from the description she gave to him, he easily recognized as the streets of Paix, Castiglione and Rivoli. Now, these streets were precisely those through which he had passed on the very day on which the experiment had been carried out. Thus, that young lady does not see her father, whom she knows, whom she wishes to see, on whom her thoughts are concentrated, while she sees the path he has traveled, and that she did not know. What reason can be given to this oddity? The Spirits told us that things happened in such way to give unmistakable proof that the imagination had nothing to do with that. We will complete, through the following reflections, what we said on the same subject, in the June issue.
The glass with or without water, as well as the bottle, obviously play the role of hypnotic agents in this phenomenon; the concentration of sight and thought on one point causes a greater or lesser detachment of the soul, and consequently, the development of the psychic sight. (See the Spiritist Review, January 1860, Details about hypnotism).
This kind of mediumship can give rise to special modes of manifestation, to new perceptions; it is one more means of ascertaining the existence and independence of the soul, and for that reason, a very interesting subject of study; but as we have said, it would be a mistake to believe that this is a better way than any other of knowing everything that one wishes, because there are things that must be hidden from us or that can only be revealed at a certain time. When the moment to know them is right, one learns by one of the thousand means at the disposal of the Spirits, whether one is a Spiritist or not; but one glass of water is not more effective than another. From the fact that the Spirits have used it to give valuable advice for health, it does not follow that it is an infallible method of healing all illnesses, even those that must not be cured. If a cure by the Spirits is possible, they give their advice by any means, and by any medium suitable for this kind of communication. The effectiveness is in the prescription, not in the mode by which it is given.
The glass of water is not a guarantee against the interference of evil Spirits either; experience has already shown that evil Spirits use this means like any other, to mislead and abuse credulity. How could one oppose them a more powerful obstacle! We have said it time and time again, and we cannot repeat it too often: There is no mediumship that is immune to evil Spirits, and there is no physical process for removing them. The best, the only protection is in oneself; it is by one’s own purification that one keeps them away, like one is protected against harmful insects by the cleanliness of the body.
[1] Refer to the issue of June 1868 of the Spiritist Review
Reincarnation in Japan -
Saint Francis Xavier and the Japanese Bonze
The following report is taken from the story of Saint François-Xavier by Father Bouhours. It is a theological discussion between a Japanese monk named Tucarondono, and Saint Francis-Xavier, then a missionary in Japan.
“- I don't know if you know me, or to put it better, if you recognize me," Tucarondono said to François-Xavier.
- I do not remember having ever seen you, the latter replies.
The bonze then burst in laughter and turned to other bonzes, his colleagues whom he had brought with him:
- I clearly see," he said to them, "that I will have no difficulty in defeating a man that has dealt with me more than a hundred times, and pretends to have never seen me.” Then, looking at Xavier with a smile of contempt: “Don’t you have anything left,” he continued, “of the goods that you sold me at the port of Frénasoma?”
“In reality,” replied Xavier, with an always serene and modest face, “I have never been a merchant in my life, and I have never seen Frénasoma.”
- “Ah! what a lack of memory and what a stupidity!” resumed the monk, looking astonished, and continuing his bursts of laughter:
- “What! Is it possible that you forgot that?”
- “Refresh my memory,” replied the father gently, “you who have more wit and memory than I do.”
- “I don't mind,” said the monk, proud of the praise Xavier had thrown at him. “It is now just fifteen hundred years that you and I, who were merchants, traded in Frénasoma, and that I bought a hundred pieces of silk from you, very cheaply. Do you remember it now?
The saint assessed where the bonze's speech was going and asked him honestly how old he was.
" - I'm fifty-two years old," said Tucarondono.
“- How can it be,'' Xavier went on, “that you were a merchant fifteen centuries ago, if you have only been in the world for half a century, and how did we deal in those days, you and I, in Frénasoma, if most of the other bonzes teach that Japan was only a desert, fifteen hundred years ago?”
"- Listen to me,” said the bonze; “you will hear the oracles, and you will agree that we have more knowledge of past things than you have of present things.”
“- You must therefore know that the world has never had a beginning, and that souls, strictly speaking, do not die. The soul emerges from the body in which she was enclosed; she seeks another one, fresh and vigorous, where we are reborn sometimes with the noblest sex, sometimes with the imperfect sex, according to the various constellations of the sky and the different aspects of the moon. These changes of birth cause our fortunes to change too. For it is the reward of those who have lived holy, to have the fresh memory of all lives that one has had in past centuries, and to represent oneself entirely as one has been for ages, in the form of prince, merchant, man of letters, warrior and other figures. On the contrary, someone like you that knows so little about his own affairs, who does not know what he has been and what he has done over the course of countless centuries, shows that his crimes have made him worthy of death so many times that he has lost the memory of the lives he changed.”
Observation: We cannot suppose that François-Xavier invented this story, that was not to his advantage, nor can we suspect the good faith of his historian, Father Bouhours. On the other hand, it is not less certain that it was a trap set for the missionary by the bonze, since we know that the memory of previous existences is an exceptional case, and that, in any case, it does not ever has such precise details; but what emerges from this fact is that the doctrine of reincarnation existed in Japan at that time, in identical conditions to those that are taught today by the Spirits, except for the intervention of the constellations and the moon. Another no less remarkable similarity is the idea that the accuracy of memory is a sign of superiority; the Spirits tell us, in fact, that in worlds more elevated than Earth, where the body is less material and the soul is in a normal state of freedom, the memory of the past is a faculty common to everyone; there one remembers their former lives, like we remember the first years of our childhood. It is obvious that the Japanese are not at this degree of dematerialization that does not exist on Earth, but this fact proves that they have its intuition.
Letter from Mr. Monico
To the Journal La Mahouna, from Guelma (Algeria)
“Mr. Director,
I have just read an article in the Independent, from Constantine, on the 20th of this month, appreciating the not very delicate role that a certain Mr. Home would have played, according to that newspaper (in England), beginning with these lines: "The Spiritists, successors of the sorcerers of the Middle Ages, no longer limit themselves to indicating hidden treasures to their imbecile followers; they manage to discover them for their benefit.” Appreciation follows, etc...
Allow me, Mr. Editor, to make use of your honorable journal to protest energetically against the author of these lines that are so little literary and so offensive to the followers of these new ideas, ideas most certainly unknown, since they are so falsely appreciated.
Spiritism succeeds sorcerers, as astronomy succeeded astrologers. Does it mean that this science so widespread today, that has enlightened man by making him know the sidereal immensities, that primitive religions had shaped to their ideal and to serve their interests, has embraced all the imaginary and grotesque rants of ancient astrologers? You don't think so.
In the same way, Spiritism, so much criticized by those who do not know it, comes to destroy the errors of sorcerers and to reveal a new science to humanity. It comes to explain these phenomena misunderstood until now, that popular ignorance attributed to miracle.
Far from espousing the superstitions of another age, like wizards, magicians, etc., like all that crowd of outcasts rebelling against civilization, using such means to exploit ignorance and to speculate on vices, it comes, I say, to destroy them, and at the same time to bring to the service of man an immense force, far superior to all those brought by ancient and modern philosophies.
“That force is the knowledge of the past and of the future reserved to man, answering these questions: Where do I come from? Where am I going to?
The terrible doubt that weighed on the human conscience, Spiritism comes to explain it; not only theoretically and by abstraction, but materially, that is by proofs accessible to our senses, and apart from any aphorism and theological sentence.
Old opinions, often born out of ignorance and fantasy, gradually disappear to make room for new convictions, founded on observation, and the reality of which is most obvious; the traces of old prejudices are effaced, and the more thoughtful man, studying with more attention these supposedly supernatural phenomena, has found in them the product of a will, manifesting outside himself.
By the fact of this manifestation, the universe appears, for the Spiritist, as a mechanism driven by an infinite number of intelligences, an immense government where each intelligent being has its share of action under the eye of God, be it in the state of man or the state of soul or Spirit. Death for him is not a scarecrow that shivers, nor the emptiness; it is only the extreme point of a phase of the being and the beginning of another, that is quite simply a transformation.
I stop, for I do not have the pretension of doing a Spiritism course, even less that of convincing my adversary; but I cannot allow a doctrine, proclaiming freedom of conscience and the maxims of the purest Christianity as a principle, to be offended, without protesting with all my soul.
Spiritism has for enemies those who have not studied it, neither in its philosophical part nor in its experimental part; that is why the first comer, without taking the trouble of learning, arrogates to himself the right, a priori, to treat it as absurd.
But, unfortunately for man, it has always been so, whenever a new idea has arisen; history is there to prove it.
“Spiritism agrees with the sciences of our time (see Genesis, Miracles and Predictions according to Spiritism), and its most authorized representatives, and all their writings have declared that it was ready to accept all ideas based on scientific truths and reject all those found to be tainted with error; in short, that it wants to walk at the vanguard of human progress.
The followers of this doctrine, instead of hiding in the shadows and meeting in the catacombs, proceed in a very different way; it is in full light and publicly that they express their ideas and exercise the practice of their principles. The Spiritist opinion in France is represented by five reviews or journals; in England, Germany, Italy, and Russia, by fifteen weekly papers; in the United States of America, that country of freedom and progress of all kinds, by numerous journals or reviews, and the followers of Spiritism in that country are already counted by the millions, that involuntarily and without more thoughts, the author of article, in The Independent, calls fools.
On this day and age, so far distanced from acts of religious intolerance, that laughs at theological disputes and the wrath of the Vatican, should better inspire respect for contrary opinions.
Respectfully, etc.
Jules Monico”
On July 17th, the same newspaper carries another article by Mr. Monico, announcing that he will have to publish a series, in response to some attacks by the antagonists of Spiritism. It also shows the announcement, as being in press, of a pamphlet by the same author, entitled: Freedom of Conscience, and due to appear in the first half of August. Price: 1 franc.
Bibliography