CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16723, 5 January 1920, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE.

FIREWORKS IN* THE CITY. to thj: kpitob or "thk nucs.'' Sir, —I happened to bo in town on New Year's Eve, and thought what an ! ! unnecessary lot of worry fireworks ' caused to children, and even "grown ' ups." I must say that Ido not mind I small crackers and* such like, if it gives \ some people pleasure, but wiien it. comes to sky-rockets and dangerous fireworks, ■ 1 tiiink it should he prohibited. For , instance, 1 was standing on a street eor- , ner, when a horse and trap passed me. It was poin;- at a /air pace, when a i sky-rocket went olf. It was a very dangerous sight, tor the iiorso to run very fast, and, perhaps, would havo i fzotie through a shop window, only for j its skilful driver. A little while iifter. ! a woman passed me wheeling a pram : with a baby in it. Somebody passing ; threw a bomb very near to the child's I pram—another inch further, and it • would have hit the infant. Hoping that this letter will open tho eves of the 1 foolish public before any serious damage is done. -Yours, etc.. IMV.Iv THEOSOPIIY AND TRUTH. TO THE F.IHTOK OY '"nrr. 1-RRiS." i Sir, —In a recent issue of your paper I voti reported i>ir tXnuui Doyle s re- ! joinder to certain critics ot Spiritualism. I at a recent Church Congress in JuijiI land. If the Church Congress discusj sion were reported, it has unfortunate- ! ly escaped my notice. But many people | who havo enjoyeil Sir Conan iWle s ! romantic and imaginative tales will | doubtless enjoy equally his roniaiitie and : imaginative assertions. despite the maxim, "audi alteram partem." At all events, he docs not appear to have forgotten the imoortnnco under certain ! conditions of ''abusing the plain till s attorney." Mav I remark that not all I the clenrv are as ignorant in these matI ters as Sir Conan Doyle and others supj pose. Because we do not spend our scanty store of shillings in listening to Madame 's ''Message from Flowers,"' or Mr 's "trance" or "inspirational addresses," it- does not follow that we take no interest in those things. On the contrary, we are otten told that the prcsenco of detached and critical minds is a positive bar to spiritualistic manifestations. Tt would often seem so. Thus we are content to accept the evidence adduced by enthusiastic supporters of the cult, anil in Mr Branscombe'*; wonls, we find an analyi sis that- iliey aro often "the essence of i puerility," that the.v aro often "eon- ! tradictorv.'' and that a largo number j are "obviously eases of absurd irnporsoi nation.'' And there aro still pome | scientific men of no religious profession ! (that necessary certificate of intellectual eminence!), who hold that there are explanations (e.g.. telepathy), other than the truth of three supposed rovclations, which In-tter fit the facts. I do not think that a secular newspaper is the proper medium for controversy on the* merits of rival religions. Nevertheless, as Mr Brnnscombe has been permitted to describe at some length tho attractions of Theosophy, may I alltido to two matters, which nro hardly controversial. Mr Brnnscombe appears to bo surprised that the clergv as a bodv oppose Theosophy, although that tvpe of belief "takes the bases of nil religions as its starting point."' and "seeks to alienate no one from his or her particular faith." It is a simple fact, which no ono will deny, that ordinary Christianity is based upon the belief that Jesus Christ bold an unique relationship, both to the Supreme source of nil things, and to mankind, and that His revelation iadoquato and final. Theosophy tolls us of many and many teachers, each ns complete and adequate for his own time as Christ was for his era. It speaks of another tencher yet to come, who shall supersede the last by offering yet fuller and deeper truth. Of two contradictory propositions it is generally understood that ono must bo false. I am snro that Mr Branseombe will believe tho clergy, as a body, to lie honest and sincere, even if dull-witted and stupid men. Will he also believe that when, after years of study of that great mass of philosophic thought and speculation which lies behind 'the plainest statement of the simplest religious truth, we are found opposing theosophy, it is not because wo have-refused to give that snbject, or any other eognato, "a decently honest hearing." but because still honestlv believing that the basis of ; ordinary Christianity is true, for Truth's sake we cannot do less than oj>- ' pose that which denies it. j And, as Mr Bransoombo has reminded i the Spiritualists that thero nro certain ] facts which their explanations as yet | do not explain, I remind him that . somo of us find it very difficult to recon- 1 cilo the doctrines of "harma" and re- < incarnation with the Mendelian modifi- i cations of the theory of inheritance. I The Mendelian theories are, I believe, hold to be. of vast importanco by every r living biologist, and their influenco in ' biology and psychology increases each « year. By tho way. Mendol wns a rame- 1 what obscure country clergyman, inter- i ested in his gardon, and a Roman 1 Catholic, and a German to boot! T ' j hasten to add thut lio died hoforo the ' war, and that many quite secular an- * thorities have taken up and extended his ideas. It is really not at ah "ob- J Bcurantist" to be a Mendelian, but - rather the reverse. i Living in the country. T must deny J myself tho pleasure of entering into a ' newspaper controversy. I have written ( merely to let your renders know that somo who have studied the evidence 1 even with eagerness, still feel "honest 1 doubts, and that despite Sir Conan 1 Doyle's and M r Bransoombo's positive- 1 ness, !t is not yet "all over but the shouting."—Yours, etc. ° W HAEDKC