CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16725, 7 January 1920, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

I ♦ RELIGION ANJ> SPIRITUALISM. TO TOE EDITOR 0? "THE TRESS.'' Sir, —The newspaper is not the most ideal place for a religious discussion, but when "religion" is in tho air, one is grateful for the only medium offering. Mr Branscombc's long letter ou spiritualism and theosophy is interesting. But it is surprising that he falls into a great delusion of theosophists, viz., jumping to tho conclusion that no ono outside of tho proportion of man. kind accepting its teaching as tho only solution of tho problems of humanity and the universe, have the intelligence to have studied carefully its claims. Hp sweepingly takes for granted that tho ministers who -warn us against spiritualism, though men of religious cultivation and with highly-trained intellectual powera, liko little children run eagerly into a hog which they know not, heedless of feeble powers which will leave them there. Many thousands, nay millions, of people, clerical and lay, have patiently studied theosophy's complications, at least sinco its early opearanee in the world, and rejectcti it as inadequate (I will not say "illogical," as, in a manner of speaking, to tho«o whoso spiritual senso is moribund all religion is so). A great ci«nl of what is claimed for theosophy is embodied in every religion, and this your correspondent acknowledges, and claims as_ its strength. In regard to spiritualism, many thinking people still reject it, irrespective of ministers' warnings. In spite of its increasing scientific and literary adherents, they aro unconvinced that the manifestations are not either an embodiment of tbeir own personal desires and thoughts, or they fear that thoy are manifestations not to bo trusted as 3>ivine, for many reasons. I myself shrink, however, from denying what so manv pood and great people find to be modicino and food for failing spiritual belief. It .is. certainly more human than tho vague and snadowy claims of theosophy. Notwithstanding what your correspondent calls "the essence of puerility," it is more near to tho heart teaching—so sweet and familiar, of the "Great Teacher," as theosophists call our Lord. He demanded no complicated, poetising, or transcendental mind: to understand and accept his tnition. called a littlo child in the midst, and said, "ExoM>t> ye become as this ye cannot enter tLe Kingdom." But what I take except tion to in your correspondent's advocacy of theosophy are some of tho statements roaae in tbe course of this presentment. Among several that could " be disputed, take one. He says: "Tho • tyranny of tho Churches is a truism. > For centuries, except" (a gigantic ex- ; ception, surely) "in the departments of , music, painting, architecture, etc., progress was barred." He passes over, as ' theosophists and other theorists so ' often do, the manifestations and ■ "miracles" claimed by the Church, i Nothing is more astounding than the . -wholesale rejection in modern times of ; the Church's claims in favour of others | teaching systems resting on no more i "solid" foundations than the "sys- ; terns'' and "churches'' .they desire to 1 dominate and reform. Has, then, agei old theosophy sown seed of martyrs and I workers tor humanity in proportion to its age, and which _ the despised "churches" have so lavishly furnished, keeping alive for conturies tho Faith? Aro the Eastern peoples, who are theosophy's chief adherents, moro noblo than the Western peoples? Are they more self-sacrificing? The East cruci- , fied tho "Great Teachcr" in the uajno . of the Church, but not till its Church s . teaching had been rejected and cast i aside, its life a dead letter. Still sheltering under the Church's altars, it tacitly rejected God's message in ro- , gard to sin and salvation. Is it not so ! now? This brings me to the statement .- -which surprised mo most in your corj respondent's letter. Ho says "if- |" (theosophy) "seeks to alienate no«ody . j from his or her particular faith" (Sal- | vation Array, Romanist, etc.). "and " abhors tho very name of proselytism." i What! Surely .your correspondent must indeed despise the intelligence of all but theosophists. Can he deny that ) Mrs Besant, when on a lecturing tour ' in New Zealand somo years ago, told her disciples not to leave their churches, | but to go on signing its tenet's, kneel- ' ing at its altars, outwardly professing a belief in the Church's Lord as thb 1 only manifestation of God, and tho ' sacrific for sin; while all the time they quietly worried and worked like moles | at the Church's foundations. Thosa ' disciples, many of whom cast open mud [ on -what they understand as "Jesuit- ' ism," dip not, when the necessity arose, : as they thought, and at the bidding or ' their accepted teacher for the timo bo- ' ing, hesitate to adopt the slcrw-poison- • ing policy, -which now cannot any longer be concealed from their ministers, and ■ the "fellow-believers" they have dei reived. Such a policy is unblessed. I Theosophists are now coming boldly 1 into tho open, by those quieter means i having gained a following. They will - always capture a certain class of seeker F —he who desires a religion to "suit his , temperament," however unbalanced. - The wild statements of the-soph'sts and - others who seek to undermine the J Church's faith, that Christianity has i failed by reason of "the Churches," is - a one-sided statement which bear's its - own refutation. The Churches havo i borne the banner of the "Great I Teacher" when philosophy was dumb. - drifting, dead, and almost buried, and - will bear it to the end. The awakened i and bewildered world still in extremity s finds the bread and water of life t sweeter and more potent than a stone r even a sparkling many-colcured stone! 1 ,1, t , stone of . "theosophy.' —\ours, etc., 3 .January 3rd, 1920. A.B.C. 3