SPIRITUALISM.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 54, 13 June 1910, Page 3

SPIRITUALISM.

I GOD'S RENUNCIATION. WiHiiun McLean, Home Street, Wellington, writes:—Sir,--Being in your town on Saturday, 4th June, a friend handed me a -copy of your valuable .paper of that date. Believing the morality of journalism as practiced in your office accords to all honorable parties equal •freedom in the discussion of great public questions, I take the liberty of respectfully asking that you accord me space CO answer the article published by the Rev. John Laird, of the Baptist Church, New Plymouth, lour correspondent says that Spiritualism is denounced bv God from one end of the Bible to the other, and then he asks for continuation of the statement to "Let the Bible speak." He says: "In the Bible Spiritualism is never practiced by a good person or for a good purpose—always evil.'" Let me here ask if this js so, Will the reverend gentleman say that Moses and •Elias were bad men and their appearance an evil purpose? According to the Evangelist, Jesus, after his crucifixion, appeared to Mary Magdalene, out of .whom he had cast seven disorderly' spirits. Was this appearing by a good man? And was it for an evil purpose? While John the Revelator was in exile by the imperial edict on .Patmoss, one of the Grecian islands, he was visited by a spirit, one of the elder prophets who inspired him while in a state of spiritual entraneement, and when John fell down to worship ibefore the feet of the angel, he declined to be worshipped, saying, "I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren the prophets." Will your correspondent say that the Revelator and the Prophet were bad men and that the purpose of their meeting was an evil one? Then the reverend gentleman quoted a number of well-known texts which lie asks us to believe came from God. Your valuable space forbids me to take tne texts in the order given. I can only, by your courtesy, refer to one or two in the order given. He quotes Lev., chapter 20, verse 27: "A man or a woman that hath a familiar spirit or that is a wizard shall surely 'be put to death." Does our •friend wish the readers of your paper to believe that God "Who is Love" ever issued such a command? It is a libel of the foulest kind against our all Father. But, assuming that his texts are correctly aimed at Spiritualism, let me ask, does he believe that the Lord, our God, the aid, Father, permits falsehood and deception? Let him read Kings 22nd, chapter 20-23: "And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord and said, 1 ■will .persuade him. And the Lord sjara unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his .prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Njbw, therefore, Ibehold the Lord hath ipuji a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets (four hundred prophets). Again, "If the prophet foe deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." (Ezek., chapter 14, verse 9). Jer. chapter 22 verse 7, says: "0 Lord thou has deceived me." Now, I do not for one moment believe that the God of Love ever uttered one of these statements, and if our clerical brother, who is, no doubt, a student of truth and is desirous of disseminating the truth, he should have carefully examined the Egyptian Book of the D s ead and there he could trace the history of those gods who controlled the so-called Lord's prophets. They were nearly all cruel, jealous, revengeful and deceitful, and I affirm most emphatically that not one of the gods quoted in the various texts which the reverend gentleman cited had any connection with the great God of the Universe. Our friend next quotes Saul as going to the Witch of Endor to consult Samuel through her mediums<hip, and he is very emphatic that Saul w.as punisuea because of his visit in the night to this so-called witch. Firstly, this woman was not a witch and nowhere in the Bible is she so described. It is true that in the margin she is deeribed as a witch, but this statement does not make her a witch; and again he quoi,c« I. 'Chron. chapter 10, verses 13-14, to prove that Saul was punished for this visit. If the Rev. Laird has carefullyread I. Sam. chapter 15, verses 10-28, he would have seen that up till then he had not consulted the woman of Endor, and he is not quoting correctly when he wishes to prove that, Saul was punished for what he had not committed. At the time the Lord repented he made Saul king. But just think, God who knows all things making a king one day and repenting the next. But assuming that Saul did wrong in his visit to the woman of Endor, was he responsible for his acts? Samuel, chapter 16, verse 14. "But the spirit of the Lord, departed from Saul and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him." Therefore the Lord, one of these jealous gods, was responsible for Saul's shortcomings. •Next our friend says God hates Spiritualism. Yes, he says, and punishes .with great severity those Avho practice and those who follow. This is pure assertion. and I challenge the reverend gentleman to produce his evidence. I have followed Spiritualism for 28 years, have met hundreds of spirits all over the world, and I have never met a spirit but which gave the purest and best and truest aoviee that could come from angel lips. What does our critic know of the philosophy of Spiritualism outside the<=e'erroneous texts which he has quoted? A teacher should not denounce that which he is ignorant of. The distinguished T. J. Hudson says in his Law of Psychic Phenomena (p. 206): "The man who denies the phenomena of Spiritualism is not entitled to be called a sceptic; he is simply ignorant and it would be a hopeless task to attempt to enlighten him." The late W. E. Gladstone, eminent statesman and distinguished churchman, said: "The investigation of Spiritualism is the most important thing in the world.' The Rev. Laird said "God so loved the world that He gave His only beloved Son to die in order to save the world from sin." May I ask is the world better to-day? See all the great Christian nations aiming with the most deadly weapons that the ingenuity of Christian soldiers, sailors and scientists can construct to have the I most deadlv effect in sweeping a* many of God's children as risible from this to another world. Chri.-iinnity with its 2000 years of preaching: and praying has not vet filled the mission that Christ died for. Take, for instance, the command of the Saviour, who says, "He that believeth on Me (Christ) shall he do the works that I do and greater works than these shall he do because I go to my Father." (John, chapter 14, verse viu This lanauage cannot be misunderstood Do Christians do these greater works-; Does the rev. gentleman who denomi'-e* us Spiritualists lay hands on the sick? Does he cure the*deaf and the dumb? And does he cast out devils? And if not, why not? The rev. preacher says Spiritualism is abominable to God. Again I ask, which god? I also respectfully request that he give other and better proof of this statement other than his quotation from Acts, chapter 13, verse 10. 'Did not Saul himself persecute the followers ' of Christ, and was he not entranced by spirit power? Wias this'an abominable

act? Did Christ preach to spirits in ] prison? Was this an abominable net: ; Our rev. friend then says that .according j to the book of Revelations, "the sorcerers i (lie undoubtedly means the -Spiritualists) ; will have their part in the lake which ! burnetii with fire and brimstone, which is the second death, whatever that may moan." I am glad that he is doubtful on this point (the .second death), but, surely, our kind friend does not desire to ( see the poor Spiritualists ta'kmg their part in Hell? He has no authority ror this Hell or for the lake either. I have already pointed out that the Revelations of John were given to him while he was ' in the spirit on the Lord's Day and that | these Revelations or psychological picI hires were the impressions which were given to him by one of the okhr ;.iojihots, and they did not pir - ;:;:". 10 tome from any other source than from a human spirit out of the flesh to a human spirit who in the llesh was a prisoner of State on a lonely island. Spiritualists are not afraid of the reveiator's ' vision of Hell, because Hell as properly translated in the Greek is Gehenna, and in the Hebrew Gehimuon, the Valley of Hinnom lying outside the walls of Jerusalem, where the filth and offal was east and where the worm did not die. Neither was the fire quenched because of its purifying and sanitary effects. But those worms long ago died, Hell-fire was long ago quenched, the soil in the valley was ploughed and a lovely vineyard was planted in this very Hell of .St. Mark's Gospel, and now globe-trotters, like the Rev. J. M. Peebles and others, pluck and eat delicious grapes and other fruits growing in this very Hell that the Rev. J. Laird has so nicely pictured for the Spiritualists. In conclusion, I hope that the pastor of the New Plymouth tabernacle will be charitable with us poor Spiritualists. Among their number may be found some of the brightest and brainiest men on the face of God's earth and as charity thinketh no evil, I believe that our critic and all 'his good flock with all Spiritualists will some day, somewhere, somehow be finally saved, basing their beliefs to some extent on the passage, "The mercy of the Lord endureth for ever. The Lord' preserveth the simple." FURTHER ARGUMENT DECLINED. Mr. Mofflm, president of the local Spiritualists' Association, writes: Sir, —ln answer to the Rev. J. Laird's letter in your issue of June i), I must decline any further argument with one who assumes that bis rendering of Scriptural quotations is correct and irrefutable, as it would be merely arguing in a circle, and who relies on second hand information when it is open to personal investigation. Further, it is dangerous arguing with an individual who holds the theory that there are degrees in lying. Re the side issues, Bailey's so-called fiasco had the opposite ending to what the writer is trying to convey. Other versions of the "Foxes'" doings give also a different account. John Marriat is presumably a journalist capable of writing up any subject to order. The Hudson sister affair is explainable, but not in the vdlumns of the public press. The Rev. R. J. Campbell is still on top, despite a Professor Fairburn denunciation. The fundamental teaching of Spiritualism' is peace, and the hand of amity, in its fullest sense, is ever outstretched to all,! no matter what creed or dogma tney hold. Can the Rev. J. Laird say the same? I have lived a long and varied life, in contact with all sorts and conditions of men, and have seen more practical Christianity than will be accounted unto them for righteousness, ainongst those whom the smug church-going pharisee would term unregenerates, than by those who make a large profession of' Godliness, but lacking that greatest of all virtues—charity-—and who would re- [ enact the tragedy of Servetis at the ■ present day. Thanking you for space. This will be my last on this question, i

THE "LOCAL MEDIUM" WRITES.

The "Local Medium" writes:—SirSurely we have not lost our sense oi reason, inasmuch as we cannot see, define or consciously understand the meaning that the word "spiritual" conveys to the least of thinking people of to-day. and, in the compliance of the small "ism"; it surely does not disfigure our mental-spiritual being into the belief of its becoming unspiritual. Further, it does not uphold other than the thought that that which is spiritual must of necessity be of God, for God is surely Spirit, and in our claim to be in reality of God we must by necessity be in reality spiritual. Now, I would ask our friend and spiritual brother, the Rev. Laird, of Baptist faith, what he perceives Satanic or pertaining to sorcery, etc., in an "ism" that strives for highpr spiritual knowledge and attainment, that is striving towards a grand or, greater and more Godly ideal than' be proves himself to be conscious of. I could say a lot of unkind things concerning some conscious un-Godliness, but being a high follower of Christian philosophy and teaching, I. realize that it is not wise to do other than good to those of whom you. would have do likewis unto you. I would ask Rev. Laird what is the use of raising war with a supposed foe when that supposed foe is asking for peace. It seems as though some professors of Ohrist's i sacred loveliness, all permeating forgiveness, all atoning love and ever spiritualised Godliness, is sacrificed for the ever imperfect and inhuman desire to make war ■ with the sinful world of which they are herein sent to save. • There is no example like the Christ example; there is no life like the balmy touch of His affection towards all mankind; no spirit so full as the spirit of forgiveness. Ye. here we find His professed followers who profess to have Christ within, quar veiling with they know not what. Well surely they have not sought to know Him. either in spirit or in Power, o their expounding would not be to con demn. but be among the sinners a power of Christly love and self-sacrifice. The "ism" that pertains to be spiritual, step by step, plane by plane, has no reason to fear the persecutions of the uncultured in the arts of spiritual unfoldment. for such are heedless of the cry of the orphan, the wail of the sufferer, the needs of the un-Godly. Go they forward in material comfort and indifference, not desiring to probe the veil of I spiritual expounding that bears food to the spiritually hungered, frees the soul of its fetters of ignorance and darkness and «inis responding hozannahs to the hosts of ministering angel bands that iiti modern time* only 'ho Rev. Laird's Sa lan bespattered spiritualists are con scions of.