SPIRITUALISM.

Evening Star, Issue 3144, 18 March 1873, Page 2

SPIRITUALISM.

To the Editor.

Sir, —There is an audacity of assertion on the part of the apostles of the “new faith,” that is apt to impose on the unthinking. If a statement be made over and over again, with such a degree of positiveness as to create an impression that doubt on the matter is out of the question, people are in no slight danger of accepting that positiveness in lieu of evidence, and imposing on themselves by a foolish credulity. That is the secret of the success of the quack-doctor, I do not wish to suggest any odious comparison, when I say that the principle seems to be perfectly understood by the lecturers now in our midst. In all their lectures there is an expression of unctuous and exaggerated admiration of the teachings of Jesus Ch ist. “I allow no mam” says Mr Peebles, “to excel mein the love of Christ—love of his beautiful doctrines and precepts. ” There is a strong repudiation of the idea that Spiritualism in any way detracts from the truth of Scripture. ‘“Spiritualism,” says Mr Peebles, is in perfect harmony with the Bible. ” And there is a positive and repeated assertion that Spiritualism is, and that Evangelical theology is not, in accordance with the teachings of Christ. “The Christianity of the present day,” says Mr Peebles, “is not by any means in accordance with the teachings of Christ. Men who cannot discriminate between the pure and positive religion of Jesus, in which I believe, and modern Christianity (I omit the offensive epithets by which the lecturer stigmatises it), are, if not hopelessly imbecile, at best but the postponed possibilities of men.” Ipse dixit! Here is dogmatism enough in all conscience, Whatever else is defective, there is here no lack of confident assertion. Let us calmly examine these statements of Mr Peebles.

1. If there is one doctrine revealed in the New Testament with more distinctness than another, ibis the doctrine of the Deity of Christ That doctrine so underlies the life of Jesus Christ, is so wrought into the very texture of the gospels apd epistles, that you in ay as soon eliminate one of the prismatic'colors from the light of heaven, as eliminate that doctrine from the New Testament. The Christian Church holds to the doctrine as one of the most vital articles of the Faith. Mr Peebles rejects it. 2. No attentive reader of the gospels can fail to be struck with the large space occupied by the fact of the Incarna'ion No fact could be more distinctly or expressly related. Mr Peebles rejects it also. S. Let any candid enquirer take up the gospel narrative with a view to ascertain whether Jesus bhrist believed in the existence of the devil, and what will be his conclusion ? Why, the whole narrative is so full of references to such’a being, that the reader would feel compelled to reject the whole biography as an utter imposture, if Jesus did not believe in the existence of the devil. What is meant by “ Satgn {rising up against himself,” “Satan casting out Satan, ’* if Satan is a fiction of half-crazed theologians? What is meant by “ the tares are the children of the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is the devilif no such wicked one, enemy, or devil exists? What is meant by “ Satan ha'h desired to have thee. Peter, that he may sift thee as wheat,” if Satan is nobody ? What of all those cases of demoniacal possession recorded in the Gospel ? What—but I forbear—l am not at liberty to transcribe half the Evangelic history into yonr columns. L know the unlearned reader may be told that a knowledge of the 01 iginal would dissipate the impression created by the English version. Let me, however, warn the English reader against any such fallacy. Such argumenta ad ignorantiam are often resorted to ; but “ truly in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.” Let me (as one who knows) assure the English reader, not only of the literal accuracy’ of the translation, but of its perfect expression of the sense and' meaning of the original. We have no better evidence that Christ believed anything than we have of bis belief in the existence of the devil. How now is this belief regarded by Messrs Peebles and Dunn ? Your readers are aware how they have used up every vile adjective that a dictionary of synonyms could supply in stigmatising the doctrine, how they have exhausted the armory of their base rhetoric to satirise, to ridicule, to denounce, to vilify, to damn the doctrine. Indeed, a sort of hysteria seems to seize those gentlemen whenever the idea of the devil occurs to them. Now let the significance of all this bo well Understood. It is the teaching of Christ at which they jesty It is His doctrines they ridicule ; it is His language they yility ; it is His creed they damn, There is light in the eye and honey on the lip of Mr Peebles, when he speaks of “the beautiful doctrine, the pure and positive religion of Jesus ” ; but Mr Peebles pronounces that a blasphemous conception, which (it is as clear as noonday) formed part of the religion of Jesus. What shall we say of this, 0 seer of the age ! “ Betrayest thou the Son of Map with a kiss ?” 4. 'l'he last topic is one which 1 approach with a feeling of awe not unmingled with shame. The ear of this community has now for some weeks been assailed by language to which—thanks to the Paeilic Ocean rolling between New Zealand and the great American Republic—we are happily not yet quite accustomed. We have heard the most solemn subjects treated in a style of indecent ribaldry; we have seen the most awful mysteries of the faitli made the subject of such roystering impiety as is not only shocking to every feeling of piety, but repulsive and nauseating to tho last degree to every rclined sensibility. The disgusting exhibition reminds one of nothing so much as of Christ’s strong figure of casting pearls before swine ! To show that I do not write thus without reason, I select the following from Dr Dunn’s lecture of last Sabbath evening : “ Indeed, there were some so bad that they deserved to be shook three 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 ” Again, “If this be true, then would it not be better to follow the example of certain Chinese, and knock tho yogng ones op the head ?” And yet again, “Or that Mary, when she declared she had conceived by the Holy Ghost, was suffering from indigestion. ” Sir, I say that such language as this is a public scandal. It is au utter abuse of our hospitality for a stranger to come hither, and pour out on this community such filthy blasphemy. One may well enquire—What qualification has this profane trifler to judge the solemn and venerable teachings of the great God?

My last topic is the doctrine of a future hell. Is that a doctrine of Christ or not? Let me refer to but two passages. The terrible passage in the ninth chapter of Mark, where with triple iteration our Lord speaks of the Gehenna of fire, a fire ucquencfied, and a worm undying may be

just pointed out and dismissed with the one remark, that the passage is most faithfully rendered, and conveys (o the common reader a just sense of the original. The next passage is that in the twentyfifth chapter of Matthew. Let not Dr Dunn presume upon the ignorance of this community, by telling us that there is no such word as “everlasting” in the New Testament. The expressions of thrist are, “ eternal fire, eternal punishment, eternal life ” the same word used three times in one chapter. A simile consideration will suffice to evia.e the justice of the rendering of our English version. In what sense is God everlasting ? Surely in the sense of endless existence. Now tlie same word is used in tlke passage just named, as is thrice elsewhere used (in the Septuagint version of Genesis and Isaiah, and in the Epistle to the Romans) concerning the eternity of God. The same word which designates the ever-during being of God is used concerning the woe of hell. Ko believer in the authority of Scripture would willingly entertain so terrible a conception, if it were possible to escape it. The apostles of the new faith do scant justice to the clergy of Christendom, when they represent them as clinging to the doctrine from love of its horrors, it is their fidelity to the teaching of Christ that causes them toadheie to it. It is a doctrine confessedly terrible and mysterious, but so distinctly revealed that they dare not reject it. The gross caricature of the doctrine drawn by the lecturers may be passed over in silence. Let us then distinctly understand that when Mr Peebles and Dr Dunn make merry over the woe of hell, which they have first falsified by vulgar caricature, it is the teaching of ‘ffirist which they turn into this ghastly burlesque; it is the language of Jesus v. hich they parody into this inapt and profane jargon. One can but pity so sad a spectacle of impiety and jb lly. My theme is not exhausted, but my space and your patience are, so 1 forbear, i think I have shown that on whatever other basis the teaching of our Jectprers stands, it finds no foundation in the doctrine of Christ. On four distinct issues we have seen that Spiritualism is contradicted by that doctrine. Is it not an infinite meanness on the park of these new apostles to try to shelter themselves under the great name of Christ while repudiating some of the most marked features of his teaching ? Surely it is pot the part of an honorable man to bepraise with theatrical exaggeration the life and beautiful doctrines of the Son of God, and then deny his Deity, make a foul jest at his Incarnation, reject with mingled scorn and detestation his doctrine concerning the Evil One, and break into a fury of denunciation against bis solemn teaching concerning hell. The Christian community will try to bear equanimity a reproach which they share with one whom they see once more buffetted on the cheek by hands which have just arrayed him in the purple robe.—l am, &c., Kappa. Duaedin, March 18.