REPLY TO MR PARRY.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1828, 8 August 1906, Page 3

REPLY TO MR PARRY.

(To Hie Editor Gisborne Times.)

Sir, —I am obliged to Mr Parry for devoting so lnuch.spaco to me and others of an enquiring turn of mind, in yesterday morning’s Tdius. -While again replying to him, by your favor, I may be permitted to disclaim any intonti n of taking up the cudgels for " Spiritualism,” for I had rather desired to evoke discussion and induce someone who had studied the subject to come into the arena. I will pass over tho first portion oj Mr Parry’s letter, because there docs not appear to be much which cal's for answer until we reach ins three “ reasons and proofs for the rejection of Spiritualism. To tlie lay mind these do not appear convincing. First, “ Many of its vaunted manifestations have been proved to bo impostures.” This undoubtedly is so, but is il not also true that many clergymen have been proved to bo wolves in sheep s clothing Arc wo therefore to condom all the clergy

'L'nu uigumonC is analogous. Hscood, that ‘'Whatever of She genuinely supernatural it may have disclosed, has been ascribed by impartial invosiigatora (not cioric) to demonism," is an assertion which 1 ehou ; d like Mr Parry to prove, for 1 have never read of any” but cltrios in recant days a3cribiog theso " manifestations ” to " demooitin," and a very superficial examination of the writings of perhaps the leading scientist of the day, Crookes. «nd lha great naturalist, Alfred Ru-sell Wallace, brßides leading eciontista such as Professor B arrett and many others, would convincs anyone of the absurdity of such a statement. With regard to Me Parry’e third 11 proof," 1 do not desiro to draw tbo name of the Deity lightly into this discussion, and it also appears to m 3 unnecessary to do so, but I would point out that Q 9 Mr Parry’s arguments will bo road by people of many shades of roiig’oua thought, to maka them convinciog ho must leave tbo Bible out, a 3 it will not be accoptcd by many as a basis for argument upon spiritualistic phenomena. Yen; correspondent would appear to again return to bis dogmatism when he co emphatically states that " the man never lived, and Dover will live who oould" reconcile Spiritualism wish Christianity, a,ad certainly assumes a pretty safo attitude when ho aski me to point to “one singlo sentence in tbo whole range of spiritualistic literature that would conclusively servo to reconcile Spiritualism with Christianity," for I ru’ght with tqual justice desiro him to give ms ono siug'e sentence which would explain the tenet) of bio particular creed. To fully explain even tbe little wh'u'i I have gathsrod of

tho spiritualists’ viov3 with regard to Christianity would C l moro space than you, sir, could allow me; but if Mr Parry would ooiy read tbo book to which I rc-foned, i.c,, Hudson’s ‘ Law of Psychic Phenomena," and o-'pc-cially llie last ffro chapters, bo would probably sec that tbo.c was another and entirely d.ffeient atdc to tho question. Ido not piofe33 to hat o traversed tbo w : de range oi literature upon the subject which your correspondent has, but tho little I have read, aud the unuifos'.a'ions I bave experienced, have shown me ooough to convince mo that thesul j'Cl shou d bo tvo .ted with toleration and an cpeD iuiud, such us Mr Parry does not display, Your correspondent dogmatists once more when ho assorts that 11 science can (only deal with visible materialism,” I wa3 not aware that, for instance, gases, other, light, clocUioity, paid the assumed composition of the heavenly bodies so la-'gely do ils with by Ecienct could be described as" visible materialism.’’ You, sir, could p srhups, if desired, satisfy Mr Parry that bo is wrong in na-urnieg ' that I am not tvbat my aorn da plume ! ind’cateJ, and that I am correct when I 3 subscribe myself NOT A SPIRITUALIST.