Chapter VI: Appendix: To Chapter IX

SPIRITUALISM AND SCIENCE.

The following Letter appeared in "The Times" newspaper a few years ago:--

"SIR,--Having been named by several of your correspondents as one of the scientific men who believe in Spiritualism, you will perhaps allow me to state briefly what amount of evidence has forced the belief upon me. I began the investigation about eight years ago, and I esteem it a fortunate thing that at that time the more marvellous phenomena were far less common and less accessible than they are now, because I was led to experiment largely at my own house, and among friends whom I could trust, and was able to establish to my own satisfaction, by means of a great variety of tests, the occurrence of sounds and movements not traceable to any known or conceivable physical cause. Having thus become thoroughly familiar with these undoubtedly genuine phenomena, I was able to compare them with the more powerful manifestations of several public mediums, and to recognize an identity of cause in both by means of a number of minute but highly characteristic resemblances. I was also able, by patient observation, to obtain tests of the reality of some of the more curious phenomena which appeared at the time, and still appear to me, to be conclusive. To go into details as to those experiences would require a volume, but I may, perhaps, be permitted briefly to describe one, from notes kept at the time, because it serves as an example of the complete security against deception which often occurs to the patient observer without seeking for it.

"A lady who had seen nothing of the phenomena asked me and my sister to accompany her to a well-known public medium. We went, and had a sitting alone in the bright light of a summer's day. After a number of the usual raps and movements, our lady friend asked if the name of the deceased person she was desirous of communicating with, could be spelt out. On receiving an answer in the affirmative, the lady pointed successively to the letters of a printed alphabet while I wrote down those at which three affirmative raps occurred. Neither I nor my sister knew the name the lady wished for, nor even the names of any of her deceased relatives; her own name had not been mentioned, and she had never been near the medium before. The following is exactly what happened, except that I alter the surname, which was a very unusual one, having no authority to publish it. The letters I wrote down were of the following kind:--yrnehnospmoht. After the first three--yrn--had been taken down, my friend said, "This is nonsense, we had better begin again." Just then her pencil was at e, and raps came, when a thought struck me (having read of, but never witnessed, a similar occurrence), and I said, 'Please go on, I think I see what is meant.' When the spelling was finished I handed the paper to her, but she could see no meaning in it till I divided it at the first h, and asked her to read each portion backwards, when to her intense astonishment the name 'Henry Thompson' came out, that of a deceased son of whom she had wished to hear, correct in every letter. Just about that time I had been hearing _ad nauseam_ of the superhuman acuteness of mediums who detect the letters of the name the deluded visitors expect, notwithstanding all their care to pass the pencil over the letters with perfect regularity. This experience, however (for the substantial accuracy of which as above narrated I vouch), was and is, to my mind, a complete disproof of every explanation yet given of the means by which the names of deceased persons are rapped out. Of course I do not expect any sceptic, whether scientific or unscientific, to accept such facts, of which I could give many, on my testimony; but neither must they expect me, nor the thousands of intelligent men to whom equally conclusive tests have occurred, to accept their short and easy methods of explaining them.

"If I am not occupying too much of your valuable space I should like to make a few remarks on the misconceptions of many scientific men as to the nature of this inquiry, taking the Letters of your correspondent Mr. Dirks as an example. In the first place, he seems to think that it is an argument against the facts being genuine that they cannot all be produced and exhibited at will; and another argument against them, that they cannot be explained by any known laws. But neither can catalepsy, the fall of meteoric stones, nor hydrophobia be produced at will; yet these are all facts, and none the less so that the first is sometimes imitated, the second was once denied, and the symptoms of the third are often greatly exaggerated, while none of them is yet brought under the domain of strict science; yet no one would make this an argument for refusing to investigate these subjects. Again, I should not have expected a scientific man to state, as a reason for not examining it, that Spiritualism 'is opposed to every known natural law, especially the law of gravity,' and that it 'sets chymistry, human physiology, and mechanics at open defiance;' when the facts simply are that the phenomena, if true, depend upon a cause or causes which can overcome or counteract the action of these several forces, just as some of these forces often counteract or overcome others; and this should surely be a strong inducement to a man of science to investigate the subject.

"While not laying any claim myself to the title of 'a really scientific man,' there are some who deserve that epithet who have not yet been mentioned by your correspondents as at the same time spiritualists. Such I consider the late Dr. Robert Chambers, as well as Dr. Elliotson, Professor William Gregory, of Edinburgh; and Professor Hare, of Philadelphia--all unfortunately deceased; while Dr. Gully, of Malvern, as a scientific physician, and Judge Edmonds, one of the best American lawyers, have had the most ample means of investigation; yet all these not only were convinced of the reality of the most marvellous facts, but also accepted the theory of Modern Spiritualism as the only one which would embrace and account for the facts. I am also acquainted with a living physiologist, of high rank as an original investigator, who is an equally firm believer.

"In conclusion I may say that, although I have heard a great many accusations of imposture, I have never detected it myself; and, although a large proportion of the more extraordinary phenomena are such that, if impostures, they could only be performed by means of ingenious apparatus or machinery, none has ever been discovered. I consider it no exaggeration to say that the main facts are now as well established and as easily verifiable as any of the more exceptional phenomena of nature which are not yet reduced to law. They have a most important bearing on the interpretation of History, which is full of narratives of similar facts, and on the nature of life and intellect, on which physical science throws a very feeble and uncertain light; and it is my firm and deliberate belief that every branch of philosophy must suffer till they are honestly and seriously investigated, and dealt with as constituting an essential portion of the phenomena of human nature.

"I am, Sir, yours obediently,
"ALFRED R. WALLACE."

The following Review, taken from the "Weekly Register" of August 1, 1874, will be read with interest:--

"The May and June numbers of the 'Fortnightly Review' for 1874, contain two remarkable articles by Mr. Wallace, the eminent naturalist. They are entitled--'A Defence of Modern Spiritualism.' His aim in these is to prove the objective reality of its phenomena in the first instance, and then to show that the theory which explains them can be accepted by those who, like himself, entirely disbelieve in a Supernatural order. He points out that Modern Spiritualism is not in any way a survival or revival of old superstitions, but a completely new science. The facts upon which it rests have been known and noted from the earliest beginnings of history, but, owing to the influence of Superstition, were almost universally misinterpreted. Now, at last, these mists are clearing away. We have abundant materials upon which to work, and he looks forward with confidence to the establishment of a satisfactory scientific theory of a future life. Such a theory will be a truly regenerating influence, resting, not on arbitrary beliefs, but on established facts, and will, for the first time, make a true religion possible and a pure morality.

"At the close of the second essay, there is a sketch of the outline of the theory up to the point which it has reached as yet. Of course there is still much which requires to be explained and developed. The science is only in its infancy; but still its principles can be understood and appreciated. It is taken for granted that there are no spirits but human ones, these being the only spirits of which we can have any scientific knowledge. This being assumed, Mr. Wallace proceeds to give a short analysis of human nature, drawn from generalizations from the 'phenomena in their entirety,' and the communications of the spirits themselves. This is contained in four propositions:--

"1. Man is a duality, consisting of an organized spiritual form evolved coincidently with and permeating the physical body, and having corresponding organs and development.

"2. Death is the separation of this duality, and effects no change in the spirit, morally or intellectually.

"3. Progressive evolution of the intellectual and moral nature is the destiny of individuals; the knowledge, attainments, and experience of earth-life forming the basis of spirit-life.

"4. Spirits can communicate through properly-endowed mediums. They are attracted to those they love or sympathise with.... But, as follows from Clause 2, their communications will be fallible, and must be judged and tested just as we do those of our fellow-men.

"From the acceptance of these propositions will result a far purer morality than any which either Religious systems or Philosophy have yet put forth, and with sanctions far more powerful and effective--'For the essential teaching of Spiritualism is that we are all, in every act and thought, helping to build up a "mental fabric" which will be and constitute ourselves more completely after the death of the body than it does now. Just as this fabric is well or ill built will our progress and happiness be aided or retarded. There will be no imposed rewards and punishments; but everyone will suffer the inevitable consequences of a well or ill spent life. The well-spent life is that in which those faculties which concern our personal physical well-being are subordinated to those which regard our social and intellectual well-being and the well-being of others; and that inherent feeling, which is so universal and so difficult to account for, that those latter constitute our higher nature, seems also to point to the conclusion that we are intended for a condition in which the former will be almost wholly unnecessary, and will gradually become rudimentary through disuse, while the latter will receive a corresponding development. This teaching will make a man dread to give way to passion, or falsehood, or a selfish and luxurious life--knowing that the inevitable consequences of such habits are future misery and a long and arduous struggle, in order to develop anew the faculties which had been crippled by long disuse. He will be deterred from crime, knowing that its unforeseen consequences may cause him ages of remorse, and his bad passions perpetual torment, in a state of being in which mental emotions cannot be drowned in the fierce struggles and sensual pleasures of a physical existence. And these beliefs (unlike those of theology) will have a living efficacy, because depending on facts occurring again and again within the family circle, and so bringing home the realities of the future life to the minds of even the most obtuse.' He asks us to 'contrast this system of natural and inevitable reward and retribution, dependent wholly on the proportionate development of our higher mental and moral nature, with the arbitrary system of rewards and punishments dependent on stated acts and beliefs only, as set forth by all dogmatic religions; and who can fail to see that the former is in harmony with the whole order of Nature--the latter opposed to it?' We cannot enter on the religious and moral questions which this brief survey of Mr. Wallace's theory suggests, but we wish to make some remarks on the 'facts' on which it is founded, and his treatment of them. The point that strikes one most in these articles is their evident sincerity. Mr. Wallace has become a believer in Spiritualism in spite of deeply-rooted prejudices against it, and he is anxious to deal thoroughly and impartially with all the facts connected with it as far as he can, without contradicting the first principles of his scientific creed. We can understand this limitation, for we, too, have first principles--first principles of which we are so certain that no seeming contradiction of them by facts could shake our belief. But the difference between our position and his is that our first principles are founded, not on facts of experience, but on a _belief_ that God has spoken to us, and is speaking every day in the Church. Therefore, whatever God has revealed becomes to us as a first principle, which, _à priori_, cannot contradict facts, and which, as our knowledge increases, we more and more find experimentally to harmonize with them and explain them. But the whole of Mr. Wallace's theory is founded on the assumption that God does not speak--that He, and all that concerns Him, is unknown and unknowable to us; and this assumption rests, he would tell us, on facts--_i. e._ on his view of the order of Nature. Now, what we wish to point out is, that nothing which thus rests only on experience can, in any true sense, be called a first principle. It is merely a wide generalization, which may, any moment, be displaced by a still wider one. Mr. Lecky, in his 'History of Rationalism,' asserts that the evidence in favour of the reality of witchcraft would be irresistible, were we not convinced, on _à priori_ grounds, that witchcraft is a delusion. Once Mr. Wallace fully shared this conviction, and found himself compelled, in his own words, to 'reject or ignore' all this evidence. Now, Modern Spiritualism has enabled him to accept all these, and other facts of a similar nature; and he expatiates on the relief he feels in being able to open his eyes to a whole host of things which he had hitherto been obliged painfully and laboriously to overlook. There is quite a string of them. Socrates' Demon, the ancient Oracles, all Miracles--those of the Bible, the lives of the Saints, and in the present day, answers to prayer, all the phenomena of Second Sight, Ghosts, and occult disturbances of all sorts. We cannot refer our readers to the articles themselves for the explanations, some of them very curious, of all these things. But we should like to ask whether it may not be possible that there may be some theory yet to be found still more comprehensive than Spiritualism, and which may yield a still deeper joy and relief? The one before us seems to us still to require a considerable amount of reserve, to say no more, in dealing with some of the facts. Professor Huxley objects to the amount of twaddle that is talked by the spirits; but to this Mr. Wallace replies, very justly, we think, that it is no more than we must expect, considering the mental and moral calibre of the majority of mankind; and, consequently, of spirits, who are not much improved by the mere fact of dying, not to mention that of the spiritualists themselves; and we know that the proverb, 'Like attracts like,' is especially applicable to mediums. But we confess that we are surprised when we are told that 'sectarian' spirits continue to maintain special dogmas and doctrines, while yet quite unable to describe themselves as being in any situation which at all corresponds to the orthodox teaching about a future life. We cannot understand what doctrines or dogmas could survive such a _désillusionnement_, whether agreeable or the reverse, as Mr. Wallace's future life would be to a spirit whose conceptions on the subject had been moulded on any form of Christianity. Nor can we conceive of any motive, except a diabolical maliciousness, which could prompt spirits to wish to keep up such delusions among their surviving friends. And yet Mr. Wallace explains the apparitions of Our Lady, &c., in modern times, as being produced by spirits with strong Catholic predilections, knowing that they would be very efficacious in stimulating the cultus which they prefer. And this is said without any moral comment whatever. Also allowing, as he does, the reality of the apparitions, though only of human origin, in the Bible and lives of the saints, we are at a loss to see how he can say that orthodox notions of heaven are never confirmed by spirits. We should have said that it was precisely by them that most of these had been originated, not to say confirmed. If his spirits are spirits, so are ours, and quite as worthy of credit. These are only a few of the difficulties on the surface of Sceptical Spiritualism. But we have already exceeded our limits. We will only add that we cannot but hope that, Spiritualism being so far an approach to truth that it admits an important class of facts which had lately been very much denied and ignored, may, by the difficulties which they raise, lead some minds to reconsider the position they have taken up with regard to the Supernatural. There is no bridge across the chasm which divides Faith from Unbelief, and yet in this World the edges are so close that it is but a step, and we pass from darkness into light."

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.

"The Angel of the Lord tarrieth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them."--_Psalm xxxiv. 7._

"God sees at one view the whole thread of my existence, not only that part of it which I have already passed through, but that which runs forward into all the depths of Eternity. When I lay me down to sleep I recommend myself to His care; when I awake I give myself up to His direction. Amidst all the evils that threaten me, I look up to Him for help, and question not that He will either avert them, or turn them to my advantage. Though I know neither the time nor the manner of the death I am to die, I am not at all solicitous about it: because I am sure that He knows them both, and that He will not fail to comfort and support me under them."--_Addison._

"Reverence the angels; shun the demons."--_Thomas Scott._