Vital principle of Spiritist Societies.

— Sir, In the Spiritist Review of the month of April 1862 I see a communication signed by Girard de Codemberg, in which I observed the following passage: “Do not trouble yourselves about the brothers who withdraw from your beliefs. On the contrary, act in such a way that they no longer mingle with the flock of true believers, for they are mangy sheep and you must avoid the contagion.”

Regarding the mangy sheep I found such a way of seeing little Christian, still less Spiritist, and completely outside that charity toward all which the Spirits preach. Not to concern oneself with the brothers who withdraw and to guard oneself against their contagion is not the means of winning them back. It seems to me that, up to the present, our good spiritual guides have shown more mildness. Will this Gérard de Codemberg be a good Spirit? If it is he, I doubt it. Pardon me this sort of control I have just exercised, for it has a serious purpose. One of my friends, a Spiritist novice, has just read that issue; pausing on those lines, she did not find the charity she has until now observed in the communications. Concerning this I consulted my guide, and here is what he answered: “No, my daughter, an elevated Spirit does not make use of such expressions; leave to incarnate spirits the harshness of language, and always recognize the value of communications by the value of the words and, above all, by the value of the thoughts.”

(There follows the communication of a Spirit supposed to have taken the place of Gérard de Codemberg.)

Where is the truth? Only you can know it.

Receive, etc.

E. Collignon.

— Reply – In Gérard de Codemberg nothing proves that he is a very advanced Spirit; the work he published, under the sway of evident obsession, with which he himself agrees, demonstrates it abundantly. However little evolved he might be, a Spirit could not deceive himself to such a degree as to the value of the revelations he obtained in life, as a medium, nor accept as sublime things evidently absurd. Must we, for this reason, conclude that he is a bad Spirit? Certainly not; his conduct during life and his language after death are the proof; he is in the numerous category of Spirits who are intelligent, good, but not sufficiently superior to dominate the obsessing spirits who abused him, since he did not know how to recognize them.

— This as regards the Spirit. The question is not to know whether he is more or less advanced, but whether the counsel he gives is good or bad. Now, I insist that there is no serious Spiritist gathering without homogeneity. Wherever there is divergence of opinion, there is the tendency to make one’s own prevail, the desire to impose one’s ideas or one’s will; hence the discussions, the dissensions, then the dissolution; this is inevitable and happens in all societies, whatever their object, where each one wishes to march by different paths. What is necessary in the other religions is still more so in serious Spiritist gatherings, in which the first condition is calm and recollection, impossible with discussions that cause time to be lost in useless things; it is then that the good Spirits depart, leaving the field free to the disturbing Spirits. This is why small committees are preferable; the homogeneity of principles, of tastes, of character, and of habits, an essential condition of good harmony, is there far easier to obtain than in great assemblies.

— What Gérard de Codemberg calls mangy sheep are not the persons who, in good faith, seek to enlighten themselves regarding the difficulties of the science or regarding that which they do not understand, by a peaceful, moderate, and proper discussion, but those who come with the preconceived idea of systematic opposition, who raise inopportune discussions right and left, capable of disturbing the works. When the Spirit says that they must be removed, he is right, because the existence of the gathering is bound up with it; he is still right in saying that they must not be troubled about, because their personal opinion, if false, will not prevent the truth from prevailing; the sense of that word is that their opposition must not cause uneasiness. In the second place, if he who has a different way of seeing considers it better than that of others; if it satisfies him, if he persists in it, why thwart him? Spiritism does not impose itself; it must be accepted freely and willingly; it desires no conversion by constraint. Experience, moreover, is there to prove that it is not by insisting that they will make him change his opinion. With him who in good faith seeks the light, one must be all devotion and nothing should be spared: it is zeal well employed and fruitful; with him who does not want it or who thinks he has it, it is to lose time and to sow upon stones. The expression they must not be troubled about can still be understood in the sense that one must not torment him nor do violence to his convictions; to act thus is not to fail in charity. Do they hope to bring him to sounder ideas? Let them do it in private, by persuasion, that is admitted; but if he is to be a cause of disturbance for the gathering, to keep him would not be to give him proofs of charity, for it would profit him in nothing, while it would be a fault toward the others.

— The Spirit of Gérard de Codemberg states his opinion clearly, and perhaps a little crudely, without oratorical preoccupations, no doubt counting on the good sense of those to whom he addresses himself to soften it in the explanation, observing what both urbanity and the proprieties prescribe at the same time; but, save the form of the language, the foundation of the thought is identical to that found in the communication referred to below, under the title Philosophical Spiritism, received by the same person who raised the question. There one reads the following: “Examine well around you whether there are not false brothers, the curious, the incredulous. If you find them, beg them with gentleness, with charity, to withdraw. If they resist, content yourselves with praying fervently that the Lord may enlighten them and, another time, do not admit them to your works. Receive into your midst only simple men, who wish to seek the truth and progress.” That is, in other terms, to rid yourselves politely of those who hamper you.

— In the free gatherings, where one is free to receive whom one wishes, this is easier than in constituted societies, where the associates are bound and have a vote in the matter. Thus, never would enough precautions be taken if one does not wish to be thwarted. The system of free associates, adopted by the Society of Paris, is the most suitable for preventing the inconveniences, for it admits the candidates only on a provisional basis and without an active voice in the affairs of the Society, during a time that permits one to observe their zeal, their devotion, and their spirit of conciliation. The essential thing is to form a nucleus of titular founders, united by a perfect communion of views, of opinions, and of sentiments, and to establish precise rules to which those who, later, wish to gather there must necessarily submit. In this regard, we ask that they refer to the regulations of the Society of Paris and to the instructions we have given on the subject. Our dearest desire is to see union and harmony reign among the groups and societies that are forming on all sides. This is why we have always considered it a duty to aid with the counsels of our experience those who deem it a duty to profit from them. For the moment we limit ourselves to saying: Without homogeneity, there is no sympathetic union among the members, there are no affectionate relations; without union, there is no stability; without stability, there is no calm; without calm, there are no serious works. From which we conclude that homogeneity is the vital principle of every Spiritist society or gathering. This is what Gérard de Codemberg and Bernardin said with reason; as for the Spirit who was taken as the substitute for the first, his communication presents all the characteristics of an apocryphal communication.