SPIRITUALISM.

Evening Star, Issue 3133, 5 March 1873, Page 2

SPIRITUALISM.

To the Editor.

Sir,—As a good deal of correspondence has lately appeared in your columns on the subject of Spiritualism, and as the new doctiineis justnowexciting some attention in the community, perhaps you would allow space for a few letters calmly reviewing the summa fnsthjia of the system, as it has been put be : fore this community in the lectures, d’s : courses, and letters of its apostles and adherents. The writer will try to treat the subject rather from q, philosophical than a theological standpoint ; he will £ry to keep the subject free from offensive personalities ; and he will try to remember what newspaper correspondents ape so apt to forget—that the newspaper is but an ephemeral thingj aipl the time of your readers precious. It is very doubtful whether the cause qf truth would he served by a pqblio siou. The refusal of the cle gy to accept Mr Peebles’s challenge is perfectly intelligible. There are few Christian ministers who possess the qualities—both precious and vile that arc required in the public disputant. Those qualifications will usually, I think, be found rather among gentlemen learned 'n the law than among clergymen. Readiness of repartee, the various grades of more or less courteous replication —from the retort courteous to the lie direct—smartness, wit, humour, satire—these are the qualities which carry off the pilm in public discussion. Now the occupation of the cl rgymau, unlike that of the lawyer, does not tend to develop those qualities. Indeed, their possession, or at least their exhibition, would teud rather to hind r, than to promote, the usefulness of the Christian pastor. His prototype is to be found rather in the twenty-third psalm, than in the demagogue of the political arena. But if our ministers were as skilled in the use of polemical weapons as the best knight who e' r er drew sword in that tourmment, II still think no good would be likely to arise to the cause of truth from a public discussion. Her ethereal essence is somehow exhaled in the heat of controversy. Misconception, misrepresent ition, and indiscriminate use of every weapon that c unes to hand that promist s an immediate advantage, false facts, offensive persoualities, pride, and the lust of victqry, these are the incurable vices of (die pqlemic.il arena—especially, I may add, of theological polemics. But passing from these general considerations to others more special. Has Mr Peebles shown himself to be a foeman worthy of the steel of any knight sans reproche 2 What are his weapons? Your readers will remember the disgusting caricature he has drawn of the doctrines of the Church. They will remember Ijqw he has tried to fastep as a stigma on Ohiistjan people representations of the punishment of the wicked, which they as utterly detest as himself. They will remember his flippant treatment of subjects which no man is qualified to touch who is wanting in reverence of s]) : rit. They will remember that he has spoken of the God whom we worship as an everlasljng Devil ! Sprely it is pq reproach to a Christian pastor that He is no match for such au antagonist as this ? And what is the issue tq be tried tjy tips wager of battle i Mr Peebles Spiritualism to Evangelical Theqlqgy. Well. “Jesus we know, and Paul we know,' Evangelical Theology is an ascertained thing. But what is Spiritualism ? Where are its institutes of Theology ? What are its standards of appeal ? The appeal, Mr Peebles replies, is to the spirit. But it is notorious that the spirits contradict each other. Mr Peebles’ touchstone is like one of those unstable chemical compounds, to touch which is to explode it. Nor is it unworthy of notice that Mr Peebles limits the battle ground to King James’s authorised version. By this he must mean that he allows of no appeal to the original. Why this limitation

Is the authorised version accepted by any body of Christians as the ultimate appeal ? Mr Peebles knows that it is not. Must we then conclude that Mr Peebles cannot read the original? What scholar, then, can be expected to pick up his glove ? >’uch are the considerations which appear to fully justify the present action of the clergy in declining Mr Peebles’s challenge.— I am, &c., Kappa.