“4. Spirits can communicate through properly-endowed mediums. They are attracted to those they love or sympathise with.... But, as follows from Clause 2, their communications will be fallible, and must be judged and tested just as we do those of our fellow-men.
“From the acceptance of these propositions will result a far purer morality than any which either Religious systems or Philosophy have yet put forth, and with sanctions far more powerful and effective—‘For the essential teaching of Spiritualism is that we are all, in every act and thought, helping to build up a “mental fabric” which will be and constitute ourselves more completely after the death of the body than it does now. Just as this fabric is well or ill built will our progress and happiness be aided or retarded. There will be no imposed rewards and punishments; but everyone will suffer the inevitable consequences of a well or ill spent life. The well-spent life is that in which those faculties which concern our personal physical well-being are subordinated to those which regard our social and intellectual well-being and the well-being of others; and that inherent feeling, which is so universal and so difficult to account for, that those latter constitute our higher nature, seems also to point to the conclusion that we are intended for a condition in which the former will be almost wholly unnecessary, and will gradually become rudimentary through disuse, while the latter will receive a corresponding development. This teaching will make a man dread to give way to passion, or falsehood, or a selfish and luxurious life—knowing that the inevitable consequences of such habits are future misery and a long and arduous struggle, in order to develop anew the faculties which had been crippled by long disuse. He will be deterred from crime, knowing that its unforeseen consequences may cause him ages of remorse, and his bad passions perpetual torment, in a state of being in which mental emotions cannot be drowned in the fierce struggles and sensual pleasures of a physical existence. And these beliefs (unlike those of theology) will have a living efficacy, because depending on facts occurring again and again within the family circle, and so bringing home the realities of the future life to the minds of even the most obtuse.’ He asks us to ‘contrast this system of natural and inevitable reward and retribution, dependent wholly on the proportionate development of our higher mental and moral nature, with the arbitrary system of rewards and punishments dependent on stated acts and beliefs only, as set forth by all dogmatic religions; and who can fail to see that the former is in harmony with the whole order of Nature—the latter opposed to it?’ We cannot enter on the religious and moral questions which this brief survey of Mr. Wallace’s theory suggests, but we wish to make some remarks on the ‘facts’ on which it is founded, and his treatment of them. The point that strikes one most in these articles is their evident sincerity. Mr. Wallace has become a believer in Spiritualism in spite of deeply-rooted prejudices against it, and he is anxious to deal thoroughly and impartially with all the facts connected with it as far as he can, without contradicting the first principles of his scientific creed. We can understand this limitation, for we, too, have first principles—first principles of which we are so certain that no seeming contradiction of them by facts could shake our belief. But the difference between our position and his is that our first principles are founded, not on facts of experience, but on a belief that God has spoken to us, and is speaking every day in the Church. Therefore, whatever God has revealed becomes to us as a first principle, which, à priori, cannot contradict facts, and which, as our knowledge increases, we more and more find experimentally to harmonize with them and explain them. But the whole of Mr. Wallace’s theory is founded on the assumption that God does not speak—that He, and all that concerns Him, is unknown and unknowable to us; and this assumption rests, he would tell us, on facts—i. e. on his view of the order of Nature. Now, what we wish to point out is, that nothing which thus rests only on experience can, in any true sense, be called a first principle. It is merely a wide generalization, which may, any moment, be displaced by a still wider one. Mr. Lecky, in his ‘History of Rationalism,’ asserts that the evidence in favour of the reality of witchcraft would be irresistible, were we not convinced, on à priori grounds, that witchcraft is a delusion. Once Mr. Wallace fully shared this conviction, and found himself compelled, in his own words, to ‘reject or ignore’ all this evidence. Now, Modern Spiritualism has enabled him to accept all these, and other facts of a similar nature; and he expatiates on the relief he feels in being able to open his eyes to a whole host of things which he had hitherto been obliged painfully and laboriously to overlook. There is quite a string of them. Socrates’ Demon, the ancient Oracles, all Miracles—those of the Bible, the lives of the Saints, and in the present day, answers to prayer, all the phenomena of Second Sight, Ghosts, and occult disturbances of all sorts. We cannot refer our readers to the articles themselves for the explanations, some of them very curious, of all these things. But we should like to ask whether it may not be possible that there may be some theory yet to be found still more comprehensive than Spiritualism, and which may yield a still deeper joy and relief? The one before us seems to us still to require a considerable amount of reserve, to say no more, in dealing with some of the facts. Professor Huxley objects to the amount of twaddle that is talked by the spirits; but to this Mr. Wallace replies, very justly, we think, that it is no more than we must expect, considering the mental and moral calibre of the majority of mankind; and, consequently, of spirits, who are not much improved by the mere fact of dying, not to mention that of the spiritualists themselves; and we know that the proverb, ‘Like attracts like,’ is especially applicable to mediums. But we confess that we are surprised when we are told that ‘sectarian’ spirits continue to maintain special dogmas and doctrines, while yet quite unable to describe themselves as being in any situation which at all corresponds to the orthodox teaching about a future life. We cannot understand what doctrines or dogmas could survive such a désillusionnement, whether agreeable or the reverse, as Mr. Wallace’s future life would be to a spirit whose conceptions on the subject had been moulded on any form of Christianity. Nor can we conceive of any motive, except a diabolical maliciousness, which could prompt spirits to wish to keep up such delusions among their surviving friends. And yet Mr. Wallace explains the apparitions of Our Lady, &c., in modern times, as being produced by spirits with strong Catholic predilections, knowing that they would be very efficacious in stimulating the cultus which they prefer. And this is said without any moral comment whatever. Also allowing, as he does, the reality of the apparitions, though only of human origin, in the Bible and lives of the saints, we are at a loss to see how he can say that orthodox notions of heaven are never confirmed by spirits. We should have said that it was precisely by them that most of these had been originated, not to say confirmed. If his spirits are spirits, so are ours, and quite as worthy of credit. These are only a few of the difficulties on the surface of Sceptical Spiritualism. But we have already exceeded our limits. We will only add that we cannot but hope that, Spiritualism being so far an approach to truth that it admits an important class of facts which had lately been very much denied and ignored, may, by the difficulties which they raise, lead some minds to reconsider the position they have taken up with regard to the Supernatural. There is no bridge across the chasm which divides Faith from Unbelief, and yet in this World the edges are so close that it is but a step, and we pass from darkness into light.”
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
