Some of those who interest themselves in spiritualism affirm that spirits such as those about whom I have been writing can and do influence men's minds. They might possibly give proof that they do so; but I think this has not been proved. If it be true, however, how completely does the truth harmonise with the teachings of Scripture! And there is another idea suggested by the somewhat annoying and wanton tricks of these spirits. The affairs in which they choose to make their agency appear may be unimportant; but we can imagine cases of more importance where the agency is concealed, but where it is hurtful or destructive. Accidents or diseases may be spirits' work, if tablelifting, dress-pulling, music, or drawing be so. And possession by spirits as exhibited in the New Testament no longer looks obsolete, but is once more frightfully real and modern to the mind when we reflect that there are spirits continually about us whose nature permits them to meddle freely with matter. Most serious views are thus opened.

I have read sometimes of philosophical persons attending séances with the intention of testing the reality of the apparitions; but they would appear to have tested the media, not the spirits. The trials were as to whether the media were or were not impostors and mere practisers upon human credulity. But these philosophical persons, though they may have damaged the reputation of some of the mediums, have not succeeded in proving spiritualism itself to be mere. imposture. And such being the case, it is greatly to be desired that some soberminded persons who do not deny that spirits manifest themselves to those in the flesh, would take pains to try the dispositions, powers, and conditions of the spirits, and would let the world know the results of their experiments. If nothing can be elicited from or of them beyond the coups-de-théâtre now so well known by experience or report, the suspicion of their being untruthful and otherwise evil will be strengthened; if anything can be made clear concerning them, our science will have advanced.

The second doctrine which I design to consider is the disbelief in the exist

the creed of only one or two eccentrics, it would hardly be worth notice; but it is to be feared that a postponement of all recollection of bad spirits has of late been becoming only too common among us. It boots not to inquire why, in this age, the idea has become wearisome and disagreeable; perhaps it is because in former ages it was made too prominent, and led to superstitious belief in witchcraft, incantations, traffic with fiends, and so on: but for some reason or other it has certainly become unpalatable. Now it should not be a question of liking or disliking, but a question of faith; and those who will think seriously must soon perceive that our religious system will not cohere without the evil spirits, and that, however godly-minded we may be, we are safe neither in our understanding of the divine will, nor against the assaults of the infidel, if we do not confess the possible existence of these too important beings. It seems a contradiction to call one's self Christian, and then to deny that there are malignant spirits who possess tremendous powers, who can misdirect the course of things in this world, and to a certain extent dispose of worldly things, opposing and thwarting in a permitted degree the providence of God. Our hopes for hereafter may in a sense be said to rest upon the personality, wickedness, and power of evil spirits, because we are distinctly told that God sent His Son into this world that He might destroy the works of the devil. In another place we read that the Son of God came into the world to save sinners. Thus the salvation of the human race, and the destruction of the devil's work, would appear to be one and the same thing. How can we dare to make so light of this fundamental truth as to say that these Scriptures are figurative as far as they relate to the devil? But the Scriptures are consistent from first to last in representing the devil as a person. They affirm, too, that he has the power of death. Surely this being is far too dangerous to be lightly ignored.

I should like to hear, too, how they who object to the recognition of a devil can account for the confusion which is so prevalent in this world. They cannot believe the perversities, the injustice, the suffering, the sorrow, the destruction

66

which are continually showing themselves, to be directly the work of the Almighty. To account for these it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge the continual action of a hostile power who is permitted to a great extent to have things his own way here. True, the earth is not his, and, as we believe, the days will come when he will not retain the slightest influence therein: but, for the present, he has been able to pervert that which was created "very good;" he can presume to dispose of the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he has made rebellion against the rightful sovereign of the earth to prevail over all its regions. That fearful sentence, Cursed is the ground for thy sake," would appear to have involved the introduction to it of the power of the devil. I have seen it stated that that original curse was recalled after the Fiood, when it was said, "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;" but the present state of the earth would furnish a strong argument against this promise having involved a revocation of the first curse. The sorrow only too surely remains, as well as the thorns and thistles, to prove that the first curse remains in force; and, from all the Scriptures that relate to him, there is good reason to believe that the devil, as the prince of this world, is the agent through whom all the sorrow and perplexity are brought about. Dispense with the personality of the devil, and mark what an opening you immediately make for the infidel! The scoff of the unbeliever is pointed at the misery, the iniquity, the imperfection, the wondrous destructive powers that confront us on the earth; and he blasphemes Him who has said "I do all things well" with the reproach that creation is a blunder-that it is the work of knowledge without power, or of power without knowledge-that the ordering of the world is always in excess or in defect that the amount of misery upon the earth discredits the government of it. How can this be answered if there be no devil to charge with the evils complained of? The facts are patent and undeniable. We may answer, perhaps, the Creator could have done His work otherwise, but He chose to do it as we see; and having said so, we shall be

"Where, then, is the

met with the sneer, goodness of your God?"

But, having recognised the devil's personality as we are bound to do, we have at once an answer for the caviller. The world, and that which appertains to it, though created perfect and blessed, has temporarily passed under the power of an evil being in whose nature it is to propagate mischief, and suffering, and confusion. If conscientious Christians who, by force of example, may almost insensibly have eliminated the devil from their thoughts, would but carefully study the numerous passages in Scripture, from the Book of Genesis to that of Revelation, that relate to him and his angels, they will, I am persuaded, soon knowledge that these are not allegorical, but that we have, only too certainly, a persistent, powerful enemy, who is God's enemy also.

ac

If the philosophical objectors against. the Christian faith could propound a faith more intelligible, better authenticated, and more hopeful, it would not be surprising if they were able to entice many to follow them. But, as far as I can see, their imaginations are hard to be comprehended, rest upon no testimony whatever, and, as to hope for the future, have absolutely nothing to offer. The mere materialist must of course believe that all the evils of the world are inherent in matter; he can give no account of them further than that they are; he can see no way of escape from any of them except such expedients as the wit of man may devise; and he is weighted with the fact of a fearfully and wonderfully composed and related universe which he is forced to ascribe to chance. Other unbelievers who cannot be satisfied without a First Cause denounce this Cause as unequal to the well-doing of His work; and their religion would seem to consist in finding fault with the handiwork of the Creator, seeing little good in the present, and having literally no expectation of a future life. Others, again, put forward the clumsy idea of more than one creator having contributed to the formation of the universe, and of these beings of various powers and dispositions, so as to have effected harmony in parts, and in parts great ineptitude. Each of these schemes

is, one sees, more difficult to comprehend and to believe than the revelation of Scripture. And yet each has its adherents who prefer it to revealed religion. The reason of this I take to be, that these men replace the Christian religion with another, not so much because they find it (the Christian) more difficult to receive, as because they are offended at and dislike its precepts and restraints. Whatever may be the cause of their attacks, their readers and hearers must not suppose that because they can show that there are in it many points of faith which a finite understanding cannot comprehend, they have weakened our position as compared with their own. They cannot state their own schemes of the universe in forms a bit more intelligible to our minds. A large degree of faith is required for whatever system a man may adopt-even for materialism. And if And if this be granted, the advantages of Christianity in point of testimony, completeness, and future benefit, are enormous.

Independence, unfettered thought that will not yield to priestly dogmas or to any belief which does not commend itself to the understanding, are terms which the philosophic are fond of using when they desire to describe the unbiassed judicial state of their own minds. But one who may agree with me in what I have written about the devil, will probably think that in casting away the influences under which in a Christian land they have probably been reared, freethinkers do not bring themselves to the absolutely neutral state of mind of which they boast. There is reason to believe that in regard to spiritual things such a state is impossible. When grace is shut out, the mind does not remain uninfluenced. Another sway is immediately established. It is written, "He that is not with me is against me," and these are very solemn words. They show that they who flatter themselves that they are free from bias have already ranged themselves against the divine authority. In that attitude we know who their ally is. And is it at all wonderful that, where the devil can suggest and teach and color learning and knowledge, he will make them misleading and impious? Is it not to be expected that he will pervert the lessons derivable from the natural world until it is made to declare the very

Un

opposite of that which its voice, faithfully rendered, is telling out to the ends of the world? It is this very creation of God's with which many of the philosophic think fit to reproach Him. He has said that the heavens declare His glory. And now, made clear by the unbeliever's course in this respect, appears the connection between the former and latter parts of the 19th Psalm. til it is seen what use is made by unbelievers of the mechanism of the heavens and earth, it seems as if the Psalm sang of two distinct subjects: first, God's glory in His works; and, secondly, of His justice and holiness, and of the dangerous character of presumptuous and secret sins. But the utterances of scientific unbelief make it clear that the adoration of God's perfection and the terror of falling into presumptuous sin or into secret mental doubt, were in the writer's mind natural sequences of the contemplation of God's wonderful works. The danger of our misreading, or of our allowing others to misread for us, that awful handiwork which we cannot, by reason of our imperfections, read clearly and fully, is very obvious; and therefore it is that the Psalmist deprecates presumptuous and secret sin in contemplating the work of creation. If, then, the mere observation of God's work is to be made with reverence and awe, and a suspension of our judgment which is quite unable to embrace or to reach the whole subject, what must we think of the man (intelligent and learned though he be) who, having gained a crumb, a speck, an atom of knowledge, a drop from the great fountain of truth, stands up, intoxicated therewith, and charges with incapacity and error the Being who made heaven and earth? Surely we do not employ unwarrantable language if we say that such a one is guilty of presumptuous sin! But there is something more than this. We must not be enticed at all by the ungodly speculations of philosophy, however specious they may be. We must not entertain them for a moment (mind, I am saying nothing about facts), lest we commit the secret fault of doubting, though never so little, the divine affirmation which once for all pronounces the creation to be "very good.' If our powers were capable of dealing with so vast a subject, it might seem

arbitrary and unfair to forbid our examination of it; but experience proves that we only file our minds in vain when we attempt this impossibility, and while we gain no knowledge we expose our faith to trial, so the restriction is simply salutary. I think that now I see a sufficient reason why one who has been studying natural philosophy should keep a guard over the words of his mouth and the meditations of his heart.

Having thus delivered myself after a homely fashion-for I do not pretend to write like one of the learned-on the two points which I proposed for notice, I go on now to make a few remarks suggested by the general subject. There is a story in the 'Percy Anecdotes' of a bookseller who was for a long time afflicted by the sight of unearthly forms, which after a time haunted him continually, by day and by night, in large numbers. Some of these forms, if I recollect the anecdote aright, were those of deceased persons whom he had formerly known-others, of persons still in the flesh-others, again, were unknown forms. The figures were all clad in some way or other, and they were, while his disorder was at its height, quite distinct in outline, and their clothes and flesh were colored. He was treated for his complaint by cupping in the back of the neck, and, after a little, the visions began to change. They became more shadowy, and their outlines grew less firm. Then the colors faded, the outlines almost vanished. By-and-by the spectres became quite hueless and very indistinct, and at last they altogether disappeared. The bookseller remarked that when living persons entered his apartment he could always distinguish them from the spectres, although the latter were very lifelike. I have very little doubt of the truth of this story, because not many years since I knew of a case similar in kind, though not in degree. In this second case also, the disorder yielded to treatment.

Before the second case occurred, I remember speaking of the bookseller's case to a gentleman who was very fond of mesmerism and other mystical studies. I regarded the case as one of simply hallucination, but this my acquaintance would by no means allow. He thought it possible that the patient's condition,

though it may not have been what we call healthy, fitted his organs for the perception of beings not ordinarily apparent to human sight. And I was rather inclined to ridicule his fancy. Since, however, I have heard so much about spirits, and of their densely peopling the atmosphere of this planet, which it is possible that they do, I am less offended at this gentleman's suggestion. I think it is a question whether the sick bookseller saw shapes which were really present, or whether the whole was an optical illusion.

Moreover, after reading of these apparitions to waking persons, and after attributing them to spirits, one is easily led to fancy that spirits may have something to do with our dreams-those common but unexplained phenomena. Dreams are often fantastic, meaningless, fragmentary; but in these respects they closely resemble the tricks of the spirits who lift tables and pull dresses. On the other hand, dreams are sometimes remarkable and truthful to a perplexing extent; sometimes they are perplexing without. being truthful. Nobody has ever been able to tell us what these dreams really are, and yet there are hundreds of persons ready to scout the idea of their being produced by immaterial agency. If it be said that they are notoriously dependent on the state of the dreamer's body and mind for their general character, the truth of this assertion does not exclude the agency of spirits. What my mesmeric friend said regarding the bookseller's apparitions may be applicable here. Peculiar physical conditions may induce susceptibility to a certain class of impressions; but this is widely different from pronouncing these impressions the product of matter alone. We who believe the Scriptures know that in certain cases dreams have been spiritual revelations. If they have been so in one case, why not in others? The morbid, false, or silly character of the visions might help us to a negative if spirits were always grave, rational, consistent, and good. But the spirits appear to have characters so curious that the uselessness of the dreams is no argument against their agency. Dr. Benjamin Franklin, I remember, published a little paper on "The art of procuring pleasant dreams.' His method, if my recollection is right, was very simple

He recommended his disciples, if they were not sleeping comfortably, to rise and walk about the chamber for a while, and to lay bare the lower sheet completely while they were absent from the bed. Indeed we should include the plan, nowadays, under the head of ventilation; and probably we should add a few precepts akin to his, but which had not been thought of in his day. If, however, spiritualists were required to accept his remedy (supposing its efficacy admitted) as an evidence that dreams depend wholly on the state of the body, they might reply that it only proves that the state of the body influences the character of dreams, or that in one condition a man is more accessible or attractive to one class of spirits, and in another to another. But I am afraid the Doctor's prescriptions will be found of little use to those who most require them—that is, to those whose bodies or minds are harassed or out of tune. Mr. Locke, by his doctrine that the soul always thinks, would appear to regard dreams as thoughts, sometimes serious, but for the most part wild and fantastic; but he does not in his essay investigate the manner in which thoughts are suggested, but only the manner in which we become possessed of ideas or the materials of thought. But many modern doctrines would seem to dispute this position of the soul being always engaged in thought. Psychologists rather incline to the belief that dreaming takes place only during particular, and limited, portions of a sleep. If this be so, Locke must have assumed too much; but, indeed, when one reflects on how much of what has been thought in sleep may have been forgotten, one does not see how the question concerning the constant or interrupted thought of the soul can be settled.

There is much reason to believe that the inferior animals dream; and this may be put forward as an argument for dreams being mere conditions of matter. But before we receive this we must be convinced that spirits do not influence animals. The general belief of mankind has certainly been against such a conviction. -and to the believers in Scripture such a conviction is impossible. The serpent and the swine certainly receive bad spirits; and the ass saw the angel while he was invisible to her rider.

I do not affirm or deny anything on this subject of dreams. I only put forward suggestions, which I hope readers will not set aside as unphilosophical trifles. It is these new teachings about our constant propinquity to a spiritual world that have led me into this groove. And I would remind any one whose superior intelligence may feel offended by these my musings, that it is only our familiarity with dreams, and their general lack of importance, that causes us to treat them with indifference. They are unexplained phenomena, the nature of which is well worthy of investigation: and when the world is presented with a new science, which may possibly make their nature clearer, one may reasonably suggest a patient investigation of it.

The more one thinks on spiritualism (simply as a fact, and putting aside what spirits may pretend to teach), the more one is persuaded of it being in nowise repugnant to the teachings of Holy Writ. We find passages which not only recognise the existence of immaterial beings, but also seem to imply that they are about us in numbers. There is a remarkable passage in St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which it is affirmed that a woman ought to be covered by her hair, because of the angels. By the manner in which this expression, "because of the angels," is introduced, without preface or explanation, it is most probable that it referred to a subject widely understood in apostolic days; but we seem to have lost the point of the allusion. Angels may be good or bad, and the kind of angels intended is not specified. Is there, then, any liberty taken with the passage if we suppose that a number of immaterial beings, habitually within ken of us, is meant? If the answer to this question be in the affirmative, as I expect it to be, here is a corroboration of the spiritualist's doctrine, so far as it relates to our having numbers of spirits about us. But then we would like to know why, because of these spirits, women should wear a covering. It is evidently a point of modesty and decency that is insisted on; if so, one is led to ask, why it would not have been enough to enforce it because of the male sex, or because even of other women? And a little thought in this direction leads to the probability that long hair was prescribed to women as a covering