Considerations on prayer in Spiritism.

— Each one is free to view things in his own way, and we, who claim this liberty for ourselves, cannot refuse it to others. But, from the fact that an opinion is free, it does not follow that it cannot be discussed, that its strong side and its weak side cannot be examined, that its advantages and disadvantages cannot be weighed.

We say this with regard to the negation of the usefulness of prayer, which some persons would like to erect into a system, in order to make of it the banner of a dissident school. This opinion may be summarized thus:

“God established eternal laws, to which all beings are subjected; we can ask nothing of Him and we have no special favor to thank Him for; therefore, it is useless to pray.

“Since the fate of the Spirits is traced out, it is useless to pray for them. They cannot change the immutable order of things; so it is useless to ask anything of them.

“Spiritism is a purely philosophical science; not only is it not a religion, but it must not have any religious character. Any prayer said in the meetings tends to maintain superstition and religious hypocrisy.”

— The question of prayer has already been discussed enough, so that it is useless to repeat here what is known about it. If Spiritism proclaims its usefulness, it is not out of a spirit of system, but because observation has allowed its efficacy and its mode of action to be ascertained. From the moment that, through the fluidic laws, we understand the power of thought, we likewise understand the power of prayer, which is, itself too, a thought directed toward a determined end.

For some persons, the word prayer awakens only the idea of a request; this is a grave error. In relation to the Divinity it is an act of adoration, of humility and of submission, which cannot be refused without disregarding the power and the goodness of the Creator. To deny prayer to God is to recognize God as a fact, but it is to refuse to render Him homage; it is, moreover, a revolt of human pride.

In relation to the Spirits, who are nothing more than the souls of our brothers, prayer is an identification of thoughts, a testimony of sympathy. To repel it is to repel the remembrance of the beings who are dear to us, because that sympathetic and benevolent remembrance is, in itself, a prayer. Besides, it is known that those who suffer claim it with insistence, as a relief to their pains; if they ask for it, it is because they need it. To refuse it is to refuse a glass of water to the unfortunate one who is thirsty.

Beyond the purely moral action, Spiritism shows us in prayer an effect in a certain way material, resulting from fluidic transmission. In certain illnesses its efficacy is ascertained by experience, as theory demonstrates. To reject prayer is, then, to deprive oneself of a powerful aid for the relief of corporeal ills.

— Let us now see what would be the result of this doctrine, and whether it has any chance of prevailing.

All peoples pray, from the savages to civilized men; they are led to it by instinct, and it is what distinguishes them from animals. Doubtless they pray in a more or less rational manner, but, in short, they pray. Those who, through ignorance or presumption, do not practice prayer, form in the world an insignificant minority.

Prayer is, then, a universal necessity, independent of sects and of nationalities. After prayer, if we were weak, we feel ourselves stronger; if sad, we feel ourselves more consoled. To abolish prayer is to deprive man of his most powerful moral support in adversity. Through prayer he elevates his soul, enters into communion with God, identifies himself with the spiritual world, dematerializes himself, an essential condition of his future happiness; without prayer, his thoughts remain on Earth, attach themselves more and more to material things. Hence a delay in his advancement.

In contesting a dogma, we do not place ourselves in opposition to the sect that professes it; in denying the efficacy of prayer, we wound the intimate sentiment of the near unanimity of men. Spiritism owes the numerous sympathies it encounters to the aspirations of the heart, into which the consolations drawn from prayer enter for a large part. A sect that founded itself upon the negation of prayer would deprive itself of the principal element of success, general sympathy, because, instead of warming the soul, it would freeze it; instead of elevating it, it would lower it. If Spiritism is to gain in influence, it is by increasing the sum of satisfactions it provides. Those who want what is new in Spiritism, at whatever price, in order to attach their name to a banner, let them strive to give more than it; but it is not by giving less that they will supplant it. The tree stripped of its savory and nourishing fruits will always be less attractive than the one that is full of them. It is by virtue of the same principle that we have always said to the adversaries of Spiritism: The only means of killing it is to give something better, more consoling, that explains more and satisfies more. It is what no one has yet done. One may, then, consider the rejection of prayer, on the part of some who believe in the spiritist manifestations, as an isolated opinion that may bind together a few individualities, but that will never bind together the majority. It would be an error to impute such a doctrine to Spiritism, for it teaches exactly the contrary.

— In spiritist meetings, prayer predisposes to recollection, to gravity, an indispensable condition, as is known, for serious communications. Does this mean that they must be transformed into religious assemblies? Absolutely not. The religious sentiment is not synonymous with being a sectarian of a religion; one must even avoid what could give the meetings this latter character. It is with this aim that we have constantly disapproved of the prayers and the liturgical symbols of any worship whatever. One must not forget that Spiritism has in view the bringing together of the various communions; it is no longer rare to see represented at these meetings the fraternizing of representatives of different forms of worship, which is why none should arrogate to itself supremacy. Let each one in particular pray as he understands; it is a right of conscience; but in an assembly founded upon the principle of charity, one must abstain from everything that could wound susceptibilities and contribute to maintaining an antagonism that, on the contrary, one must strive to make disappear. Special prayers in Spiritism do not constitute a distinct form of worship, provided that they are not imposed and each one is free to say those that suit him; but they have the advantage of serving for all and of shocking no one.

— The same principle of tolerance and respect for the convictions of others leads us to say that every reasonable person, whom a circumstance brings to the temple of a worship whose beliefs he does not share, must abstain from every outward sign that could scandalize those present; that he must, in case of need, sacrifice to the usages of pure form, which can in no way compromise his conscience. That God be adored in a temple in a manner more or less logical: this is no reason to scandalize those who find that manner good.

— We have said that Spiritism, giving to man a certain sum of satisfactions and proving a certain number of truths, could not be replaced except by something that gave more and proved more than it. Let us see whether this is possible.

What gives authority to the doctrine is the fact that its principles do not result from a preconceived idea or from a personal opinion; all, without exception, result from the observation of facts; it is only through facts that Spiritism has come to know the situation and the attributions of the Spirits, as well as the laws, or rather, a part of the laws that govern their relations with the visible world; this is a capital point. Continuing to rely on observation, we make experimental and not speculative philosophy. To combat the theories of Spiritism, it is not enough, then, to say that they are false: one must oppose to it facts whose solution it would be powerless to give. And even in this case it will always keep itself at the level, because it would be contrary to its essence to persist in a false idea, and it will always strive to fill the gaps that may present themselves, for it does not have the pretension of having arrived at the apogee of absolute truth. This way of viewing Spiritism is not new; one may see it in all times, formulated in our works. Since Spiritism does not declare itself stationary nor immutable, it will assimilate all the truths that are demonstrated, come from where they may, even from its antagonists, and it will never lag behind real progress. It will assimilate these truths, we say, but only when they are clearly demonstrated, and not because it would please someone to give them as such, whether through his personal desires, or as the product of his imagination. This point being established, Spiritism would lose only if it allowed itself to be outdistanced by a doctrine that gave more than it; it would have nothing to fear from those that gave less and restricted what constitutes its strength and its principal attraction.

— If Spiritism has not yet said everything, there is, nonetheless, a certain sum of truths acquired through observation and which constitute the opinion of the immense majority of the adepts; and if these truths have today passed into the state of faith [passées à l’état d’articles de foi — passed into the state of articles of faith.], to make use of an expression employed ironically by some, it was not by us, nor by anyone, nor even by our instructing Spirits that they were thus established and, still less, imposed, but by the adherence of all the world, for each one is free to ascertain them.

— If, then, a sect were to form itself in opposition to the ideas consecrated by experience and generally admitted in principle, it could not conquer the sympathies of the majority, whose convictions it shocked. Its ephemeral existence would be extinguished with its founder, perhaps even before or, at the least, with the few adepts it had been able to gather. Let us suppose Spiritism divided into ten, into twenty sects: the one that will have supremacy and the most vitality will naturally be the one that gives the greatest sum of moral satisfactions, that fills the greatest number of voids of the soul, that founds itself on the most positive proofs, and that best puts itself in unison with general opinion.

— Now, taking as a point of departure all these principles in the observation of facts, Spiritism cannot be overthrown by a theory; keeping itself constantly at the level of progressive ideas, it cannot be surpassed; relying on the sentiment of the majority, it satisfies the aspirations of the greatest number; founded upon these bases, it is imperishable, because therein lies its strength.

Therein also lies the cause of the failure of the attempts made to interpose obstacles to it. In the case of Spiritism there are ideas profoundly antipathetic to general opinion and the latter repels them instinctively. To build upon such ideas, as a point of support, an edifice or any hopes whatever, is to hang oneself disastrously upon rotten branches. Such are those to whom are reduced those who, not having been able to overthrow Spiritism by force, attempt to overthrow it by itself.