DR DUNN AND THE CLERGY.

Evening Star, Issue 3143, 17 March 1873, Page 3

DR DUNN AND THE CLERGY.

The Queen’s Theatre was filled in every part last evening, when Dr Dnnn, according to announcement, reviewed the lectures on Spiritualism recently delivered by the Right Rev. Bishop Nevill, Dr Copland, and the Rev. A. Reid.

Dr Dunn said it had fallen to his lot that night to revieiv the discourses of three of the Dunedin clergy, who had taken the liberty, or rather had taken upon themselves to deliver themselves of discourses against Spiritualism—at any rate they had made an effort in that direction. In so doing, he would endeavor to temper his remarks with charity. But when they had a foe fighting against them who dealt with them uncharitably and unkindly, it-necessitated them in a degree to meet the enemy with the weapons with which he would have met them; and when his “pure and beautiful” religion was attacked by these theologians it was necessary for him to defend it, and to be unswerving in the duty which lay before him. It was not a church or churches that he (Dr Dunn) attacked, because when he looked at the history of past ages he realised that each had done its work ; but the bigotry and superstition which he found -r-bigotry and superstition that had a tendency to bring down the human race to slavery and bondage—not alone slavery of the body, but of the senses apd soul, which degraded and brutalised the human race. He Old not appear before them, as did a rev. gentleman a few nights before, to “enlighten the heathen ” upon the subjects on which he was to discourse. He did not believe there were ignorant people before him, but men and women who bad reasoning faculties given to them by God, and who had the right to use them. He simply appeared there that night to deliver his ideas, crude as they might be, to the best of his limited capacity, asking them to accept them only so far as they were worthy of credence. If they disbelieved the doctrines he held, he and his audience only stood in this relative position—they disbelieved his, and he disbelieved theirs, because he did not see them as they did ; and if they differed, they did so at least in the spirit of charity and kindness. What he had to discuss was Spiritualism, and he would say then, as he had said once before, that he did not believe in Spiritualism : that was, in the fact of spirit communion. He did not believe, because he knew that it was true. If he knew anything, he knew that his angel friends held communication with him; hence belief was swallowed up and lost in proof. His brethren and sisters could not know for him; they must know it for themselves. If they said to him he did not know that his spirit friends communicated with him, he would prove to them that they did not know anything about it: simply because we had a standard of knowledge, which was corroboration by a majority of the five senses. And by this standard he proceeded to argue that he knew his angelic, sainted friends were then around him ; he saw them, heard the lute-like voices of bis departed father and sister, which cheered him on his journey of life, and felt the touch of tbeir hands, which would guide him to walk the road of life aright. But because his audience did not hear, nor see, nor feel them, they should not make their ignorance the standard of what he knew. He, however, could not delay in speaking upon preliminaries ; but must come to the examination of the arguments of these “learned” doctors. The first lecture to be discussed was that of the Rev, Mr Reid, which was delivered on Sabbath evening last. Mr Keid commenced his remarks to his audience by stating that his object—although he advertised that his lecture was upon Spiritualism, which was perhaps done as a draw—was not to discuss Spiritualism within itself, but that he would dis’euss outside questions which bad a bearing upon it; finally, he told his audience that he had been drawn into this matter against his own will. Poor man, what a terrible position’ he must have been in! Mr Reid prefaced his remarks by saying that the doctrine of ministering spirits and angels was a welcome theme. Then what 'could be his objection to it ? Why raise a warfare against what was a welcome theme’ Yqt he said in the very next breath 1 that thfe great question theologically was how to get rid of this doctrine ? That did seem the question which agitated the clergy of Dunedin to-day. Three of them took three distinct roads, all leading in different directions. According to Mr Reid these manifestations were the wprk of tfie ffevil j according to Bishop Nevill, the work of aqgels, good or bad; while Dr Copland said they were all hum; bug. The position of the Dunedin clergy reminded him (Dr Dunn) very muon of the story of the lawyer’s kettle, which was recorded in the same book as the story told by Dr Copland about the “old fogie.’ 1 It was something like this : A man borrowed a kettle, and returned it broken, whereupon he was summoned for the amount of the damage done. After all the evidence had been given, his attorney rose, and addressing the jury, said: “This is a very clear case; it has been proved that the kettle was broken when it was borrowed ; secondly, it was not broken when it was returned ; and thirdly, he never had the old kettle at all !” Of couise all could not be right. If friend Reid was right, the Bishop and Dr Copland were wrong; if they were right, then friend Reid was wrong; and if Dr Copland was right, both friend Reid and Bishop were wrong. Wiped entitled to be believed—Bishop Nevill, friend Reid, or Dr, Copland ? Let them go a little further into this matter. Mr Reid said Spiritualists denounced the creeds of the Churches, in consequence of which the clergy had been obliged to take up the gauntlet. Indirectly he had denounced creeds, and he feli it right to do so, because the Methodist creed did not belong to Methodists alone : it belonged to the people, when his and their children were asked to accept it as containing the whole truth. The Presbyterian Church and the Church of England presented theirs id the fpr their consideration ; and it was their duty tq discuss them. While they discussed them,' they clid so in a spirit of kindness, for the reason that they might develop the truth. Again, Mr Reid said Spiritualists wanted to destroy the Bible. The Spiritualists want to destroy the Word of God ? It only showed how weak was the poor man’s faith in the Bible, when he thought finite man could destroy the work of the Infinite. Why, if all the demons in hell directed their utmost efforts to do so, and trampled it beneath their feet, it would rise superior to its enemies, for it was the truth. They feared to have their creeds discussed. The Spiritualists had extended their open hands to the other creeds, to meet them on the rostrum side by side ; but the clergy, like cowards, had sheltered themselves- behind the pushed batteries of theit pulpits, from which they hurled their javelins at the religion of the Spiritualists, without giving the latter the right of reply. The Spiritualists wanted them to stand side by side with them, that they might take issue with them. Mr Reid had introduced into the discussion Mr Janies Smith of Melbourne. He wanted to say a few words about that gentleman, as it might gave some of these orthodox gentlemen further trouble. The Spiritualists bad been laughing in their sleeves for some

months that Mr Smith should be thought to be a Spiritualist. Why, he was thoroughly orthodox, did not accept the doctrines of Spiritualists, said the world would be burned, and absolutely denounced Spiiituali.sm. Hence Mr Smith belonged to them, and not to the Spiritualists ; and the clergy could make as much of him as they pleased. Mr Reid took great objection to Mr Peebles’s remark as to his admiration of Jesus’s life. “Why.” said Mr Reid, “this man has the audacity to stand before a Dunedin audience, and say, ‘ I may allow no man to excel me in the love of Christ,’ ” and from his objection, he (Dr. Dunn) inferred that Mr Reid did not want Mr Peebles to love Christ. Mr Peebles did love Christ; loved his beautiful doctrines and precepts; but did not accept'of the clergy’s idea of the personality of the devil. Then, said Mr Reid, he was wrong again. The fact was he was wrong whichever way it was ; it was like the doctrine of election and probation:— You will be damned if yon do, And you will be damned if you don’t; You will be damned, if you will, And you will be damned if you won’t. Mr Reid reasoned that the doctrine of eternal punishments was a doctrine founded on the teaching of the Scriptures ; but this was an error, lor there was no such word in the Scriptures as “ everlasting” applied to punishment. The original word, translated “ everlasting,” did not mean endless, but simply the limit of anything. Mr Reid also said that God did not create the devil, but knew that he was coming, and that he would work mischief amongst the finitely perfect angels. This was all known to God beforehand, but it was alleged to be essential to the moral wellbeing of man. Man could not resist the temptation of the devil and his angels, and God, knowing this beforehand, created him to be tempted, and then punis u ed him in eternal lire for doing that which he could not help doing. Where was the leaching of man being a free moral agent, in the face of this? Hither one or the other must be an error. It was opposed to reason to hold that God created men to be tempted, and then whip them throughout eternity for yielding. The doctrine was simply one of the supports of priestcraft, and he was glad to see that the power of priestcraft was rapidly fading away. But Mr Reid established, his doctrine on the grounds of God’s attribute of justice, But whore was the justice in this case. Imagine the idea of a child being trained to steal by its parents, and without having learned anything of this doctrine, being eternally damned for doing what it was trained up to. The doctrine was, in Mr Reid’s idea, an appalling ©ne, though orthodox. If orthodox, then what of the idea of infant damnation ? This idea, if not true, puts orthodox theologians in a peculiar and difficult position, for the Shorter Catechism of the Presbyterians and other authorised hooks taught it indirectly. But Mr Reid gets out of the difficulty by asserting that the atonement provided means of escape from damnation. If this be true, then, would it not be better to follow the example of certain Chinese and knock the young ones on the head? He knew a case of a woman who was converted to Christianity, and immediately afterwards went home and killed her children, because she thought that by this means they would be saved. Why send bibles and missionaries to the heathen, when, if left in their ignorance, they would be saved from eternal damnation? The doctrine was illogical, and contrary both to the Scriptures and the character of God. No doubt there were a great many bad people in the world, and it was necessary to have a hell to frighten them. Indeed there were some so bad that they deserved to be shook throe times a day over hell, and have a number of little devils thrown in to keep them company, in order to make them behave themselves. He then reviewed Bishop Nevill’s lecture on Spiritualism, characterising it as illogical. The Bishop started from false premises, and the result was that the lecture was illogical throughout. He started by telling ns that the angels created by God were finitely perfect, but if perfect why did they fall ? One of them was proud, hut perhaps his pride was a characteristic of his perfection. This, angel, however fell, and then about one-third of all the angels rebelled and were banished from heaven. These angels have been going from bail to worse ever since. Now, where the Bishop got all this information was hard to say, for the Bible said nothing about it. The Bishop had tried to exhibit the false teaching of Spiritualism, so far as the ministry of angels or spirits was' concerned, but the only difference hb cduld see between the ideas of. the Spiritualists and Bishop Nevill was, that both believed there were good and bad spirits operating on the minds and souls of men. The Bishop admitted the case of the woman of Endor, but he ought not to have been guilty of a misij notation by calling her the “witch” of Endor.' The I Bishop had, however, tr~atqd the matter as ! a gentbm&n would, but ho could not say as much of the Rev. Dr Copland’s performance. Dr Copland proposed to upset the facts of Spiritualism with’ scientific and historical facts ; but if the facts of Spiritualism were facts, why upset them ? Ur Copland h?.d come forward as the champ on of DYth, he wou|d prove t%t Copland', during h\'s lecture, whs guilty of pntyutb, that the facts presented hy him w<re as clear as mud. Dr Copland’s championship of the truth reminded him of ope of Artemus Ward’s characters, whose love for the Union during the war was so great that he would giv© all his first wife’s relations to support it. Dr Copland asked the Spiritualists to go forth as the martyrs of old did in support of their faith, and then perhaps people would believe them. But even if they did so, would that prove that their teaching was right? Certainly not, Thieves, murderers, and other criminals frequently became martyrs to their pursuits, but that did not prove that their mode of living was correct. Dr Copland described rappings simply as the result of electricity or mesmerism, but electricity in itself did not bring out intelligent results. You might take a message to the telegraph office, and speak it to the instrument, and alfhyugp the current was flowing, there v/ouhl be h'p result until theinteßigeht operator yapped the signals out on the machine. Ip the same manpor therepopldbp po intelligent results from taljerappipg, until the maids of the persons engaged and the spirits operated, The doctor alluded to the story of the Cox family in support of his hypothesis, but he did not tell the whole story. He did not state the facts that the rappings told the exact spot and number of feet under ground where the body would bo found, but he twisted and warped the story to suit his purpose. In this he was guilty of error. He also stated that the London DjalpoticM Society had | investigated tpe phenomena of rapping, and the movement' of bodies through flic air without support, and proved that both were performed by the agepoy of electricity. This statement was untrue. 'The doctor read from the report of a sub-committee of the Society, apd pot from the report of the committee appointed to investigate these phenomena, and ip so doing misled his audience. The report of the committee showed that thirteen of the members saw heavy bodies pass through tho air without support j fourteen saw hands and fingers, and touched and grasped them ; five stated that several parts of their bodies were touched by something unseen ; thirteen heard instruments of music played by unseen hands ; five saw coals of lire placed on persons’ heads with 'unseen hands, without producing injury • eight l‘e- ' ceived detailed Information (rbm spirits of a matter theh uukppwn lib thepi; three witnessed drawings made by upseen bands with marvellous rapidity ;pid corruptness ; ami six received information of a future event long before the event occurrcdt Now the members of this committee were gentlemen of recognised standing, and testified to these things. They, moreover, stated that no philosophical solution of these phenomena had yet been arrived at, and also that the whole matter was worthy of a more searching enquiry. And yet, in the I&C6 of this statement made by the committee itself, and ip the trans-

actions of the Society, Dr Copland declared that the society had cleared up the difficulty. In doing so he made himself contemptible. Then Dr Copeland endeavored to shew that much of the alleged phenomena was the result of hallucinations and the action of diseased organs, and proceeded to illustrate his assertion by narating the story of the “ old fogie. ” But he might have reasoned just as logically that John was suffering from delirium tremens when he received the Revelations ; orjthat Mary, when she declared she had conceived by the Holy Ghost, was suffering from indigestion p or that our Saviour, during the transfiguration, was suffering from an optical illusion. If we accepted the teaching of the Scriptures as being true, then we had evidence of the phenomena eighteen hundred years ago, and if then, wherefore should we not have it now ? Dr Copland said that there was a man in Edinburgh who could do nearly all that Spiritualists could do, without spirit agency. He would not dispute the statement. The Egyptian magicians did all that Moses did but one thing; that they could not do, and so it was with modern tricksters and Spiritualists He then reviewed Dr Copland’s statements regarding clairvoyance, remarking that in six or eight cases he (Dr Dunn) had proved his power in Dunedin. He mentioned the case of the son of Mr Perriman, as a positive instance of his power to diagnose the exter.or, as well as the interior of the human system.