Usefulness of the teaching of the Spirits.

A notable publicist, for whose character we profess the most profound esteem, and whose sympathies have been won by the Spiritist philosophy, but for whom the usefulness of the teaching of the Spirits has not yet been demonstrated, writes us the following:

“…I believe that for a very long time Humanity has been in possession of the principles you have set forth, principles that I appreciate and defend without the aid of spirit communications, which does not mean, mark it well, that I deny the help of the divine lights. Each one of us receives that help within a certain limit, according to his degree of good will, of love for the neighbor, and also in the measure of the mission he has to fulfill during his passage on Earth. I do not know whether your communications have put you in possession of a single idea, of a single principle that had not been previously set forth by a series of philosophers and thinkers who, from Confucius to Plato, Moses, Jesus Christ, Saint Augustine, Luther, Diderot, Voltaire, Condorcet, Saint-Simon and others, made our humble planet progress. I do not believe it, and, if I am mistaken, I should be very grateful to you for the effort you would take to demonstrate my error. Mark it well that I do not condemn your spirit methods; I think they are useless for me, etc.…” My dear sir, I shall answer your question in a few words. I do not have your talent nor your eloquence, but I shall try to be clear, not only for you, but for my readers, to whom my answer may serve as teaching, which is why I do it through my journal.

At the very outset I shall say that one of two things is true: either communications with the Spirits exist, or they do not exist. If they do not exist, the millions of people who daily communicate with them are victims of a strange illusion, and I myself would have had a singular idea in attributing to them something whose merit could have been my own. But it is not worth discussing such a point, since you do not contest it. If this communication exists, it must have its usefulness, because God does nothing useless. Now, this usefulness stands out not only from that teaching, but also, and chiefly, from the consequences of that teaching, as we shall see shortly.

You say that these communications teach nothing new beyond what has already been taught by all the philosophers, from Confucius, whence you conclude that they are useless. The proverb: “There is nothing new under the Sun” is perfectly true, and Edouard Fournier demonstrated it clearly in his interesting work Vieux neuf. What he said of the works of industry is equally true in philosophical matters, and this for the very simple reason that the great truths are of all times and in all times must have been revealed to men of genius. But because one man formulated an idea, does it follow that the one who formulates it after him is useless? Did Socrates and Plato not enunciate principles of morals identical to those of Jesus? Should one, for that reason, conclude that the doctrine of Jesus was a superfluity? If that were so, very few works would be of real usefulness, for of most of them it could be said that another had the same idea and that it suffices to resort to him. You yourself, my dear sir, who consecrate your talent to the triumph of the ideas of progress and of liberty, what do you say that a hundred others have not already said before you? Shall we, for that reason, conclude that you ought to remain silent? You do not think so. Confucius, for example, proclaims a truth; then one, two, three, a hundred other men, coming after him, develop it, complete it and present it under another form, so that this truth, which had remained in the archives of History and was the privilege of a few scholars, becomes popularized, infiltrates the masses and ends by becoming a common belief. What would have happened to the ideas of the ancient philosophers if they had not been taken up at their base by modern writers? How many would know them today? It is thus that, in turn, each one comes to give his hammer-blow. Let us suppose that the Spirits have taught nothing new; that they have revealed not a single new truth; in a word, that they have merely repeated the truths professed by the apostles of progress. Then do these principles mean nothing, principles taught today by the voice of the invisible world in all parts of the world, in the intimacy of every family, from the palace to the hut? Do these millions of daily hammer-blows, at every hour and everywhere, represent nothing? Do you believe that the masses are not more penetrated and impressed by such truths, whether they come from their relatives or friends, than by the maxims of Socrates and Plato, which they have never read or know only by name? How can you, my dear sir, disdain such an auxiliary, you who combat abuses of every kind? An auxiliary that knocks on every door, defying all orders to the contrary and all inquisitorial measures? This auxiliary alone — and one day you will have the proof — will overcome all resistance, because it takes abuses at their base, supporting itself upon the faith that is being extinguished and which it comes to consolidate. You preach fraternity in eloquent terms, and you do very well, for which I admire you; but what is fraternity together with selfishness? Selfishness will always be the stumbling-block to the realization of the most generous ideas, and there is no lack of examples, ancient and recent, in support of this proposition. It is necessary, then, to attack the evil at the root, and for this to combat selfishness and pride, which have made and will make the best-conceived projects miscarry. And how to destroy selfishness under the dominion of materialist ideas, which concentrate the action of man in the present life? For one who expects nothing after this life, abnegation has no reason for being; sacrifice is a lure, because we must take advantage of the short pleasures of this world. Now, who better than Spiritism gives that unalterable faith?

How has it managed to triumph over the incredulity of so great a number and to subdue so many evil passions, if not through the material proofs it gives? And how can it give these proofs without the relations established with those who are no longer on Earth? So is it worth nothing to have taught men whence they come, whither they go, and the future that is reserved for them? The solidarity it teaches is no longer a simple theory, but the inevitable consequence of the relations existing between the dead and the living, relations that make fraternity among the living not only a moral duty, but a necessity, because it corresponds to the interest of the future life.

The ideas of caste, the aristocratic prejudices, products of pride and selfishness, have they not in all times been an obstacle to the emancipation of the masses? In principle, will it suffice to say to the privileged of birth and of fortune: All men are equal? Was the Gospel sufficient to persuade the Christians who possessed slaves that these latter are their brothers? Now, who can destroy these prejudices, who levels these heads better than the certainty that in the lowest strata of society are found beings who occupied the top of the social ladder? that among our servants, among those to whom we give alms, may be found relatives, friends, men who commanded us? that, in short, those who now find themselves highly placed may descend to the last step? Will this constitute a sterile teaching for Humanity? Is the idea new? No; more than one philosopher emitted it and had a presentiment of this great law of divine justice. But is it worth nothing to give the palpable, evident proof of it? Many centuries before Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, the roundness and the movement of the Earth had been established as principles; these scholars came to demonstrate what the others had only suspected. Thus, there are Spirits who come to prove the great truths, left as a dead letter for the greater number, giving them as their basis a law of Nature. Ah! my dear sir! if you knew, as I do, how many men who would have been obstacles to the realization of humanitarian ideas have changed their way of seeing and today, thanks to Spiritism, have become champions of them, you would not say that the teaching of the Spirits is useless; you would bless it as the plank of salvation of society and would appeal with all your strength for its propagation. Was it the teaching of the philosophers that they lacked? No, because for the most part they are enlightened men, for whom the philosophers were dreamers, utopians and eloquent men; what am I saying? revolutionaries. It was necessary to touch their heart, and what touched them were the voices from beyond the tomb, which made themselves heard in their own homes.

For today, dear sir, permit me to stop here. The abundance of matter obliges me to postpone the question to the next number, where it will be considered from another point of view.