Of all forms of mediumship, this seems to me to be the one which should be tested most rigidly, as it lends itself very easily not so much to deception as to self-deception, which is a more subtle and dangerous thing.Is the lady herself writing, or is there, as she avers, a power that controls her, even as the chronicler of the Jews in the Bible averred that he was controlled? In the case of L.S.there is no denying that some messages proved to be not true -- especially in the matter of time they were quite unreliable.But on the other hand, the numbers which did come true were far beyond what any guessing or coincidence could account for.Thus, when the Lusitania was sunk and the morning papers here announced that so far as known there was no loss of life, the medium Page 42at once wrote: "It is terrible, terrible -- and will have a great influence on the war." Since it was the first strong impulse which turned America towards the war, the message was true in both respects.Again, she foretold the arrival of an important telegram upon a certain day, and even gave the name of the deliverer of it -- a most unlikely person.Altogether, no one could doubt the reality of her inspiration, though the lapses were notable.It was like getting a good message through a very imperfect telephone.
One other incident of the early war days stands out in my memory.A lady in whom I was interested had died in a provincial town.
She was a chronic invalid and morphia was found by her bedside.There was an inquest with an open verdict.Eight days later I went to have a sitting with Mr.Vout Peters.After giving me a good deal which was vague and irrelevant, he suddenly said: "There is a lady here.She is leaning upon an older woman.
She keeps saying `Morphia.' Three times she has said it.Her mind was clouded.
She did not mean it.Morphia!" Those were almost his exact Page 43words.Telepathy was out of the question, for I had entirely other thoughts in my mind at the time and was expecting no such message.
Apart from personal experiences, this movement must gain great additional solidity from the wonderful literature which has sprung up around it during the last few years.If no other spiritual books were in existence than five which have appeared in the last year or so -- Iallude to Professor Lodge's Raymond, Arthur Hill's Psychical Investigations , Professor Crawford's Reality of Psychical Phenomena , Professor Barrett's Threshold of the Unseen , and Gerald Balfour's Ear of Dionysius -- those five alone would, in my opinion, be sufficient to establish the facts for any reasonable enquirer.
Before going into this question of a new religious revelation, how it is reached, and what it consists of, I would say a word upon one other subject.There have always been two lines of attack by our opponents.
The one is that our facts are not true.This I have dealt with.The other is that we are upon forbidden ground and should come off Page 44it and leave it alone.As I started from a position of comparative materialism, this objection has never had any meaning for me, but to others I would submit one or two considerations.The chief is that God has given us no power at all which is under no circumstances to be used.The fact that we possess it is in itself proof that it is our bounden duty to study and to develop it.It is true that this, like every other power, may be abused if we lose our general sense of proportion and of reason.But I repeat that its mere possession is a strong reason why it is lawful and binding that it be used.
It must also be remembered that this cry of illicit knowledge, backed by more or less appropriate texts, has been used against every advance of human knowledge.It was used against the new astronomy, and Galileo had actually to recant.It was used against Galvani and electricity.It was used against Darwin, who would certainly have been burned had he lived a few centuries before.It was even used against Simpson's use of chloroform in child-birth, on the ground that the Bible declared "in pain shall ye bring Page 45them forth." Surely a plea which has been made so often, and so often abandoned, cannot be regarded very seriously.
To those, however, to whom the theological aspect is still a stumbling block, I would recommend the reading of two short books, each of them by clergymen.The one is the Rev.Fielding Ould's Is Spiritualism of the Devil , purchasable for twopence; the other is the Rev.Arthur Chambers' Our Self After Death.I can also recommend the Rev.Charles Tweedale's writings upon the subject.I may add that when I first began to make public my own views, one of the first letters of sympathy which I received was from the late Archdeacon Wilberforce.
There are some theologians who are not only opposed to such a cult, but who go the length of saying that the phenomena and messages come from fiends who personate our dead, or pretend to be heavenly teachers.
It is difficult to think that those who hold this view have ever had any personal experience of the consoling and uplifting effect of such communications upon the recipient.Ruskin has left it on record that his conviction Page 46of a future life came from Spiritualism, though he somewhat ungratefully and illogically added that having got that, he wished to have no more to do with it.There are many, however -- quorum pars parva sum --who without any reserve can declare that they were turned from materialism to a belief in future life, with all that that implies, by the study of this subject.If this be the devil's work one can only say that the devil seems to be a very bungling workman and to get results very far from what he might be expected to desire.
