Spiritist polemic.

Several times we have already been asked why we do not respond, in our journal, to the attacks of certain sheets, directed against Spiritism in general, against its partisans and, at times, against ourselves. We believe that silence, in certain cases, is the best answer. Besides, there is a genre of polemic from which we have made it our rule to abstain: it is that which may degenerate into personal attack; not only does it repel us, but it would take from us a time that we can employ more usefully, which would be of very little interest to our readers, who subscribe to the review in order to instruct themselves, and not to hear diatribes more or less witty. Now, once engaged on that path, it would be difficult to leave it, which is why we prefer not to enter upon it, by which Spiritism has only to gain in dignity. Until now we have only to applaud our moderation, from which we shall not deviate, and we shall never give satisfaction to the lovers of scandal.

However, there is polemic and polemic; there is one before which we shall never recoil: it is the serious discussion of the principles that we profess. Yet, even here there is an important distinction to make; if it is merely a matter of general attacks, directed against the Doctrine, without a determined end beyond that of criticizing, and if they come from persons who reject in advance everything they do not understand, they do not merit greater attention; the ground gained daily by Spiritism is a sufficiently peremptory answer and one that must prove to them that their sarcasms have not produced great effect; we also note that the interminable jests of which until recently the partisans of the doctrine were the victims are little by little dying out. We ask whether there are grounds for laughter when we see the new ideas adopted by so many eminent persons; some laugh only with disdain and by force of habit, while many others absolutely laugh no more and wait. Let us note further that, among the critics, there are many persons who speak without knowledge of the matter, without giving themselves the trouble to go deeply into it. To answer them it would be necessary to begin ceaselessly anew the most elementary explanations and to repeat what we have already written, a measure we judge useless. The same is not the case with those who have studied and have not understood everything, with those who seriously wish to enlighten themselves, and with those who raise objections in good faith and with knowledge of the matter; on that ground we accept the controversy, without boasting of resolving all the difficulties, which would be much presumption on our part. Spiritist science takes its first steps and has not yet revealed to us all its secrets, however great the marvels it has unveiled to us. What science is there that does not yet have mysterious and unexplained facts? We confess, then, without being ashamed, our insufficiency on all the points that it is not yet possible for us to explain. Thus, far from repelling objections and questions, we solicit them, provided that they are not idle, nor make us lose time with futility, for they represent a means of enlightening ourselves. It is this that we call useful polemic, and it will always be so when it occurs between serious persons who respect one another enough not to depart from the proprieties. We may think differently without, for that, ceasing to esteem one another. After all, what do we all seek in this so stirring and fecund question of Spiritism? Our enlightenment. Above all, we seek the light, come from where it may; and, if we set forth our manner of seeing, it is merely our manner of seeing, and not a personal opinion that we claim to impose upon others; we deliver it up to discussion, being ready to renounce it if they demonstrate that we labor in error. This polemic we sustain every day in our Review, through the answers or the collective refutations that we have had occasion to present, on the subject of this or that article, and those who honor us with their letters will always find the answer to what they ask us, when we cannot give it individually in writing, since our material time does not always permit it. Their questions and objections are likewise the object of studies, of which we make use personally, feeling ourselves happy to make our readers profit from them, treating them in the measure that the circumstances present the facts that may have relation to them. We also feel pleasure in giving verbal explanations to the persons who honor us with their visit and in the conferences marked by reciprocal benevolence, in which we enlighten one another mutually.