SPIRITUALISM AND SPIRITISM.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2260, 4 August 1870, Page 2

SPIRITUALISM AND SPIRITISM.

To the Editor of the Evening Star. “A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a

Daniel !”

Sir,— l have simply to repeat what I stated in my letter in last Saturday’s issue, namely that I had no desire to be drawn into a newspaper controversy with “Veritas.” and I now add, with any of your correspondents on spiritualism, who decline to give their names, or even with the redoubtable Mr Robert Stout, One thing, however, must be obvious to all intelligent readers, in the least degree conversant with the subject, that Mr Stout’s letter with all its flippancy ami apparent cleverness and parade of learning, does not contribute one single iota of information on the subject about which he p ofesscs to write; and it is equally clear that it was written for the sole purpose of endeavoring to damage my reputation by an attempt to fasten on me the charge of plagiarism from the writings of the late )aented Professor Ferr er. Now, I never did, and happily do not require to use “bor vowed plumes,” and if 1 am blamed for anything mow than am tber in my humble labors-to communicate instruction, it is the use of what some think an unnecessary reference ami quotation of “ authorities ” on matters I am called upon to discuss, and it is also very well known that I have suffered both in purse and person for a rigid adhe.ence to my invariable method—extending now over a period mu hj longer than I care to remember. And nwas to this grave and weighty matter of Mr Stout’s letter anent qu ting unacknowledged from Professor Ferrier ;to plain and simple fact is neither more nor less than this (and I n ake Mr Stout and all others welcome to use it as charity dictates), my unfortunate le ter was written in haste, not without reflection, in order to secure its insertion in your Saturday’s issue, and while engaged in writing it a party happened to call, and who, though pressed for time, but incidentally learning what I was doing, kin ly offered to wait and carry my note to your office, and in the hurry of the mom nt in my anxiety not to detain him, by the merest mistake I inserted in the envelope the first draft of ray letter instead of the second—the finished and corrected copy bearing the usual marks of quotation by inverted commas With this simple explanation and statement of fact, which will be perfectly sufficient to all whose opinion I care ranch about, and apologisi g to your readers, I leave Mr Stout heartily welcome to all the honor and glory that may accrue to him from his marvellous discovery and display of learning, though I have no doubt there are hundreds in Dunedin who knew at once without Mr Stout telling them, that the concluding paragraph of my letter was the distinguished Professor’s “well known” nveclive against “spiritrapping and table ' urning. ” I hope the quotation is correc", for I did not quote from ihe original but nom another source. I might stop here, but perhaps you will allow m j to remark that from the whole spirit of Mr Stout’s letter, I am afraid I need say nothing to him as to the want of that courtesy usually extended in all such matters amongst honorable men, in nob first informing himself otherwise, before rushing into print! But, of course, had he done so, where w uld have been the gr nd opportunity for ventilating IPs profound cquaiutanco (?) with the works <f F rrier, Pearson, Buchanan, and Rogers on Spiritualism-

Almost all men, with ut excop 1 ion, who humbly endeavor to benefit their fellows by publ c lectures or otherwise on controverted subjects, know to their cost that the “ stile dodge of the parallel columns ” (a thing of daily occurrence as every mail from home shows) is often but a mere trick of professional controversialists, and is simply resorted to for the purpose of damaging an opponent in public estimation, when they have not a vestige of ; rgmncnt themselves by which to rebut his statements ; and, in fact, is neither more nor less than a tacit acknowledgement of “ the nakedness of the land ” I happen'd to write a letter some time ago on this same subject, and a quani reply some time afterwards appeared in the nice Standard, wherein I was credited in the advertising style of Mr Stout (perhaps he knows who wrote the letter?) with more than an acquaintance with Fuerbach, Ac., Ac.,'and that'said letter “contained notlrng that a careful reader was' not acqu iuted with ” If it will gratify Mr Stout to know, I frank y tell him that I never saw the book referred to ; but does Mr Stout imag ne that this egotistical display is either answering or refuting an opponent ?

One word as to Mr Stout’s positive statements. He coolly informs your readers that I “jumbled together in the most extraordinary way possible my own explanation of Spiritualism and the denunciations of Professor Ferrier. There is only one way of answering such a misrepresentation of fact, uamel , that it is a gross fabrication from end to end. Both iii my lecture and letter I pointed out that the subjects were entirely distinct, but that ignorant parties “ jumbled them together ” as if they were one and the same, and I plainly hinted that the same thing was done by other pa tics who knew better, and for a certain purpose. I veu.

ture to say that Mr Stout could tell us what that purpose is ! I certainly do not believe that Mr Stout’s mode of treating this subject will “ brace the mental faculties or lead to close thinking,” Most as uredly, I never did look on the “phenomena of spirit rapping and table turning ”as a “ theological question but when hundreds of men and women in Dunedin gravely assure us that “ somehow ” out of all this they get a basis fora “new and beautiful faith” and “a higher faith,” yea, “ the highest faith,” then I do say it is time or theology to look about her ! Does Mr Stout admit the “Spiritualism” on which I lectured is a theological questio ? I should be glad ndeed to know “ his ” opinion on that point, and then I should be m ch better able to form some estimate as to the benefit he has derived from the works of Pearson, Buchanan, and Rogers, he seems so anxious to inform your readers he is “not unacquainted with.” When he shall give us a “ taste of his quality ” in this respect, then I can assure him a d thi “ advanced thinkers ” with whom he is generally believed to act, that lie and they will have to fight for something else than the m re love of contest aud the desire for victory, “And the stern joy which warriors feel, In foemen worthy of their steel. ” I am, &c., Robt. Sceimgeoue.