A glance at Spiritism and its consequences.

There exists a secret and continuous harmony between the visible world and the world of the Spirits. This harmony, its possible manifestations—here, incontestably, is one of the great questions of our era. It is the one we propose to treat in the columns of this journal.

We address ourselves to all, without doubt, but more particularly to those whose daily occupations prevent, in the great works, the sustained study of facts so moving that, noted from one end of the Universe to the other, are proclaimed and attested by the most enlightened of men; to demonstrate the possibility of these facts through the revelation of natural laws hitherto unknown; to strip them of the ironic epithet of supposed miracles, with which some would diminish them in the eyes of those who know no more about it; to initiate them into the knowledge of the doctrine resulting therefrom, deducing from it the consequences so consoling that it brings with it—here is our objective. They speak of miracles. If there is one, incomprehensible to our eyes, it is that of the coldness and indifference, real or feigned, of intelligent and upright men, in the presence of the manifestations that arise in every corner of the world and are published daily in profusion.

If the reproduction of what so many others have seen resulted only in the satisfaction of a childish curiosity, or had no other result than the use of moments that could not be better employed, oh! then we would understand the disdain and the frivolities of language.

It can no longer be so when we consider that it concerns not only the most important objective of our existence—the solution, by the palpable proof of the immortality of our souls, of the question so long debated of our future destinies—but also and above all that it concerns the calling, through conviction of these great truths, of those who turn away from them, to the fulfillment of their duties toward God, toward their fellows, and toward themselves.

Consider a little: you are a member of a jury; witnesses whom you do not know, whom you have never seen, come to affirm the most improbable fact, the murder of a father by a son, or of a son by a father; you believe and you condemn the wretched author of such a crime, and you do well. But let us probe the question with our hand on our conscience. If that unfortunate man had believed in a powerful and just God and had known, for a long time, that his horrible act would infallibly entail merited punishment in another existence, would he not have recoiled before the carrying out of his crime? No, you did not think of this. Like us, you will say: Yes, belief, but firm belief without reservation, absolute belief, in the penalties and rewards in another life, where each will receive according to his earthly works—here is the curb that must be hardest to break; and you are still right. For almost the entirety, unfortunately, these beliefs are unknown to the great problem of universal moralization.

Stop a little!—the greater number cry out to me—we cease to be in agreement; for a long time our intelligence and our studies have made known to us the solution you indicate. For us, your supposed new proofs are useless: we are and have always been believers.

Such is the language on which the common run of mortals relies.

You say that you have always believed; at least that is what you assure us. So much the better for you, gentlemen; if it must be confessed, we do not doubt it; receive our sincere congratulations; we would be truly happy if we could affirm as much. Frankly, we admit that, despite the favor of all the good conditions that contributed to enlarging our mind, much road remained for us to travel, in order to do as much as you. How many of our brothers, with all the more reason, remained in the rearguard, deprived as they were, by their social positions, of the advantages of study and, at times, of good examples? Yes, faith is dead: all the doctors of the law confess it and groan over it. Despite their efforts, never was incredulity more profound, more general. Follow a little this long line of men who, as they say, have just conducted one of their own to his final resting place, and you will hear ninety-five percent repeating: One more who reaches the end of his sufferings. Sad words; sad and very great proof, at the same time, of the insufficiency of the means employed today for the propagation of the one true happiness that men can enjoy on our Earth, for the propagation of faith. God be praised! a new beacon shines for all. Down with privilege! Room for men of good will! Without efforts of the intelligence, without difficult and costly studies, the most humble, the least instructed, may contemplate the divine light, if he wishes, like all his brothers. Only those who do not wish to see will not see it.

If it is so, we repeat, the most honored, most instructed men, whose names we shall cite by phalanxes, give the most authentic testimony. If it is so, we say, why strive to put the light under the bushel? Why, since we do not feel its necessity, reject without examination phenomena whose knowledge and appreciation can, if not always, at least many times, halt the creature on the fatal precipices, where doubt and incredulity flourish? Why, in all cases and for so little, can it raise up again through hope the courageous spirits about to succumb under the weight of misfortune? Here are the benefits that, by example, can so easily be spread around us, but whose progress and diffusion indifference, as much as opposition, can retard.

A. Chaigneau.

D.-M.-P.

(To be continued.) n Observation.

– Our prediction, [“The new ideas will not be slow now to find avowed champions in high science, in literature, and in the press;”] emitted in the previous article, with respect to the sermon of Montauban, begins to be realized. Here is a journal not belonging to the ranks of Spiritism and which today welcomes what, certainly, it would not have done a year ago, not the account of the facts, but feature articles, developing the principles of the doctrine. And by whom are these articles? by an unknown? by an ignorant man? No; they are by a physician who enjoys in the region a reputation for knowledge justly merited and a consideration due to his eminent qualities. One more example that will have imitators.

We know of more than one journal that would have no repugnance in speaking favorably of Spiritism, that would even speak of it willingly, were it not for the fear of displeasing certain readers and compromising its own interests. This fear might have been legitimate some time ago, but today it no longer is. For some years now opinion has changed greatly with regard to Spiritism; it is no longer an unknown thing; it is spoken of everywhere and people no longer laugh so much; the idea has become so popular that, if there is anything astonishing, it is to see the press indifferent to a question that preoccupies the masses and that counts its partisans by millions in all the countries of the world and in the most enlightened strata of society; it is, above all, to see intelligent men criticize it without knowing the first word about it. Is it, then, a futile question, this one that rouses the wrath of an entire party? would that party disturb itself if it saw in it nothing but a myth of no consequence? It would laugh at it; but since it grows irritated, since it thunders, since it kindles its autos-da-fé, in the expectation of killing the idea, it is because there is something serious. Ah! if all those who call themselves representatives of progress would take the trouble to deepen the question, it is probable that they would not treat it with so much disdain. Be that as it may, it is not our objective to make its apology here. We wish only to establish a fact today proven, that the Spiritist idea has its reserved place among the philosophical doctrines; that it constitutes an opinion whose representatives multiply in such a way that the adversaries are the first to proclaim it. The natural consequence of this is that the journals that are frankly sympathetic to this cause will have the sympathies of its adherents, and these are numerous enough to compensate amply for the few defections they might experience, if indeed they would experience any. From the point of view of the Spiritist idea, the public divides into three categories: the partisans, the indifferent, and the antagonists. It is proven that the first two constitute the immense majority; the partisans will seek them out from sympathy; the indifferent will be glad to find in an impartial discussion the means of enlightening themselves about what they do not know. As for the antagonists, the greater part will be content not to read the articles that do not suit them, but, for this reason, they will not give up a journal that pleases them in other respects, by its political tendencies, its editing, its feuilletons, or the variety of its diverse news. Besides, the born adversaries of Spiritism have their special journals. In short, it is certain that, in the present state of opinion, by this they would gain more than they would lose. They will say, no doubt, and with reason, that conviction cannot be ordered, and that a journal, like an individual, cannot embrace ideas that are not its own. This is very just, but it does not prevent impartiality. Now, until today, save for the very smallest exceptions, the journals have opened their columns, as widely as possible, to criticism, to attacks, to defamation even, against a numerous class of citizens, casting without scruple ridicule and contempt upon persons, while they remain mercilessly closed to the defense. How many times has the law not secured a reply to rights that were ignored! Should one then resort to measures of exception, institute proceedings? These would have been in the thousands in the last ten years. We ask: Is there impartiality, justice, on the part of the sheets that incessantly proclaim freedom of thought, equality of rights, and fraternity? One understands the refutation of a doctrine with which one does not agree, the reasoned and good-faith discussion of its principles; but what is neither just nor loyal is to denature it and make it say the contrary of what it says, with a view to discrediting it. Now, this is what the adversaries of Spiritism do daily. To admit the defense after the attack, the rectification of inaccuracies, would not be to espouse its principles, but only impartiality and loyalty. A journal could even go further; without renouncing its convictions and with all reserve of its personal opinions, it could admit the discussion of the pros and cons and, thus, place its readers in a position to judge a question that is well worth it, by the repercussion it attains day by day. We owe, then, praise to the impartiality of the journal that welcomes the articles of Mr. Chaigneau. We owe it also to the author who, as one of the first, enters the arena of official publicity, to sustain our cause there, with the authority of a man of science. The article referred to above is only the introduction of his work; the issue of March 12 contains the opening of the subject: it is a scientifically rational exposition of the history of modern Spiritism. We regret that its length does not permit us to reproduce it.

[1] Note by A. K.: We regret that its length does not permit us to reproduce it.