The Spiritualist newspaper > No.208, August 18th 1876

THE SPIRITUALIST.
Aug. 18, 1876.
does not call for more criticism than an essay which has been awarded
a prize.
Not having yet read the Prize Essay, I do not know how much of it
is occupied with the subject of reincarnation; but from the Baron’s
criticism one would be disposed to think that it treats of little else.
The reviewer states that he was as surprised to see that Miss Blackwell
had gained the prize as he would have been had a blind person gained it
for the best treatise on the progress of pictorial art. This is the kind of
argument this writer has made use of all along. Is it not substituting
foregone conclusions for impartial reasoning on such a subject? This
piece of sentiment is followed by an irrelevant disquisition on the dis¬
qualifications of the female mind. In the enumeration of these dis¬
qualifications the Baron shows a great want of appreciation of the great
change on this subject that has taken place in modern thought, and
appears, as may perhaps he thought natural on his part, to fail to per¬
ceive the superiority of mind of Miss Anna Blackwell.
Baron Dirckinck-Holmfeld not only authoritatively condemns rein¬
carnation, without vouchsafing any arguments or reasons for doing so,
hut pits the whole of his mental strength (also in the shape of senti¬
ment) against such scientific minds as Darwin, H. Spencer, Hceckel,
Tyndall, Huxley, and the host of scientific evolutionists, for he hesitates
not to condemn the modern results of scientific research, and “ un¬
conditionally rejects these would-be fundamental pillars of modern
science.”
One cannot help feeling surprised that a man who condemns the
philosophy of reincarnation and the allied scientific doctrine of evolu¬
tion all in one breath, does not found a school of philosophy and science
of his own, assisted possibly by the tenants of the <l temple of intelli¬
gence,” and “spiritual truth and wisdom,” some of whose names I
suppose are “Kibosh,” “Annie,” and the spiritual dictators of the
eminently philosophical work, “ Angelic Revelations,” et hoc genus
omne.
The writer of the review “ was the first to discover that reincarnation
was artfully insinuated by Jesuitism to combat Spiritualism on its own
ground ”—a discovery which, being entirely false, is not exactly akin to
the discovery of gunpowder, and it is charitably to be hoped that this is
not the only discovery the writer has made.
The writer, therefore, shows the breadth of his conceptions—
1. By misappreciating the mind of a writer whose essay, among other
competing productions, has been awarded a prize, notwithstanding a
strong sentiment still existing in England against a doctrine enunciated
in it.
2. By making a discovery which has no foundation whatsoever in
fact.
3. By misappreciating the great change that has taken place in
modem civilized thought with regard to the disqualifications of the female
mind, emphatically pronouncing for these disqualifications in the course
of the review.
4. By expressing his sentiment only against the belief in reincarna¬
tion—and what will be considered hastier by many persons ?—express¬
ing it likewise against the most brilliant results of science-evolution
(Vide Hoeckel’s History of Creation).
5. By occupying over eleven pages in a magazine with sentiment
instead of reason.
" Reincarnationists could well afford to offer a heavy premium to any
one who could discover in any of Baron Dirckinck-Holmfeld’s writings
a genuine argument, not tinged with sentiment, against the doctrine of
reincarnation professed generally on the Continent, also to a great extent
in North and South America, and rapidly gaining ground in England.
B. P. J.
Sir,—Mr. M. A. Cantab has in The Spiritualist of June 30 (p. 309),
tried to invalidate some of my remarks in your paper about the reincar¬
nation theory. Allow me a few lines to answer him. I especially wish
to prevent his singular misconception (in the final part of his article)
from entering into the minds of your readers. In a few lines I had
stated my opinion that the Brahminical theory of transmigration was
merely a crude sensuous perversion of a primitive true doctrine, accord¬
ing to which evil-doers, after leaving the natural world, would, in a
spiritual future, or in hell, be left to the animal propensities of their ill-
used self-hood, expressing the particular quality of their lusts. When
looked at in a superior light, they might even show themselves in animal
forms, corresponding to their interior passions, though they might,
among themselves, externally appear in a human shape, perhaps more
or less distorted. By the example of Mr. Cantab we see how easily
such a true doctrine could, in the interest of the corrupted system of
priestly rule, be falsely interpreted as teaching the transmigration of
souls into terrestrial animals.
Truth teaches that man, as to his “ proprium ” or self-love, if left to
his own nature, is nothingness, darkness, cold, and only divinely ani¬
mated when in his mental organisation he receives life, light, and love
exclusively from God through the spiritual world.
The animal kingdom represents the various forms of selfhood, both in
its natural state and when spiritualised. As far as man follows an
egotistical path, rejecting regeneration or the free control of his animal
nature, he is left to his proper will, or to his animal cupidities of
self-hood.
Buddha, or the mythical, traditional personification of reason, tried
to restore true religion, and to reform the Hindoo perversion. Though
the faith in divinity and immortality never was totally extinguished,
the Lamas, or priests, succeeded in their revival of materialistic cor¬
ruption. Their transmigration theory prevails even now in Africa. It
is no wonder that the corruption reappeared in mere external Christi¬
anity when its internal principles perished. So it did in French, or
rather Rivails, reincarnation. The Jesuits succeeded in turning ob¬
noxious Spiritualism into an absurdity, which might be made to favour
their system of domination by superstition. Mr. Cantab ought to read a
I /j passage in Addison’s Spectator, p. 408, quoted by Mr. Gorman in his
(| admirable Christian Psychology, p. 440. He would then learn how a
jjj sound British rationalist, nearly two centuries ago, looked on the
j |j theories which since have made such an inroad into science and among
I (| mankind generally.
|{| If the reincarnationists venture to object that the old transmigration
m doctrine teaches that men become animals, while the evolutionists con-
| j trarywise suppose animals to become men, and that their sublime rein-
!;j carnation makes even adult men to be re-born as natural infants, I
answer that evolution in a life of liberty of necessity involves the possi-
i (j bility of descending into animals just as well as of ascending. Reincar-
i| nation is nothing but continued evolution, essentially founded on ma-
| ■ terialism, which identifies and compounds spiritual action and phenomena
j(j with self-acting matter, making them altogether natural. It upsets
j j divine order, by making what is superior subservient to what ought to
i |! be subordinate.
j (I It is useless to enter into a discussion with Mr. Cantab about the
} ?! falsity of his arguments for believing in successive reappearances of the
| (i same individual on the same natural platform, to be compatible with our
; 11 rational Christian notions of personal immortality and real moral re-
i|j sponsibility. His conclusions are fixed, admitting of no controversy.
| ( Everybody else can easily see that such belief is merely a supposition,
| i! founded neither on externally discernible facts, nor on reason, nor on a
I j revealed Divine Word, which teaches a directly opposite doctrine of un-
j j avoidable judgment after death. This contradiction by revelation is
| j why Christianity is not admitted by reincarnationists, or only in a dis-
| n torted form of superstitious perversion.
j ( Ask the millions of living men whether any one of them knows of
] j ever having been another person, and he will answer, “No.” Ask the
j j billions of conscious spirits, if you are able to do so, and they will deny
i j such a fact, except you meet one of the Kakodemons who rejoice in
j I leading people astray, and who, as Miss Blackwell pertinently has it,
j H “ are only the reflex of the perversity of the medium.’* In this she is
j || right, just as in some other few remarks, which display her truly
j )j feminine aspirations. But we meet among reincamaiionists everywhere
| \ j imaginary doctrines, which, as Mr. Gorman rightly says about the
i|| theories of the Huxleys, Wallaces, Darwins, Maudsleys, and other
111 naturalists, “ are ingeniously, but perversely interwoven with a number
||| of dogmatic assertions, destitute alike of scientific value, common sense,
! 11 and refined feeling.”
| i Mr. Cantab says that not only in dreams, but by intuition when
Mi awake, an intimation of an interior state has been experienced. It is
always Pythagoras who is alleged as having fancied himself to have
|)| been in the Trojan war. We know how easily he may have been in the
| (j state, if the report is true, in which he could believe himself to be the
|) spirit who had manifested to him, perhaps only in a dream; nay, he may
j | have been obsessed by such a spirit. The article of Mr. T. Robinson,
I ( following upon that of Mr. Cantab, explains fully such a state of obses-
II sion. I thank this gentleman for having presented to the public the
j ( antidote to the reincarnation poison, even in the same cup. I fully believe
j ( that the reincarnationists interiorly are the prey of such obsessing,
| false spirits, and in that state their persuasions are scarcely to be
I shaken. But what we can do is to warn Spiritualists that they may
j keep aloof from the labyrinthical mazes. C. Dirckinck-Holmfeld. j
| Pinneberg, Holstein.
Mj THE EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN OF SPIRITUALISTS.
i|| Sir,—My theory is that, till a certain' age (say ten years old, for the
j |i sake of compromising the affair), the children of the rich and the poor
| | should be brought up together in class and on the same principles. I
jjj know people will shout when they read this, and imagine I must be a
II dangerous demagogue-ess; but, perhaps, when they have read how I
! J propose to train all children, they will be pacified.
j (j In the first place, I start by proposing that there should be a creche
j | j in every street. If there are two or three public-houses, why should
!)! there not be as many creches 7 According to people’s incomes, they
I (| should be made to pay towards the support of the creches. The chil-
III dren should be fetched in the morning, and taken home at night; they
|) j should all, while at school, be dressed in the same uniform; they
jjj should all be thoroughly washed and cleaned, and taught, as early as
|) possible, to do all washing, cleaning, and dressing of each other and of
j)! themselves.
j j i Little beds should be laid all round the room, for babies almost from
j j | the birth, and for children as old as four years. Some children con-
i (I tinue to want to sleep much later than others; some are more inatten-
jl tive and fidgety than others. Instead of reprimand or punishment,
!) | the most diplomatic thing to do is to treat the sleepy and the inatten-
j | j tive children alike, and to send them to bed from eleven a.m. till one p.m.
j | j daily. If there were fifty children in one creche, besides the head
j (j nurse or teacher, there should be an attendant to every fourth or fifth
j | j child. There’s the fetching of the children, the cooking, the cleaning,
j | j the babies to look after, the washing; and then there’s the watching of
j / i and the attending to the children in class during lessons. The head
j (j teacher should not be interrupted by being obliged to make a remark to
II i a child for inattention oftener than can be helped. The overlooking of
j / i the clothes would be another part of these ten attendants’ work. The
j (j uniform dresses would naturally be made by them; they might as well
j | j see to the children’s own clothes,—a tape or a button is often wanting.
j) I and it is not much, while they are about it, to encourage the tidiest
j (j mothers in their work by helping them and showing interest in their
j | j children.
j) j The babies are soon taught to leave off squalling, unless they are ill,
jjj A separate room might be easily added to the creche for sick children,
j;j and thus housewives’duties might be considerably lightened. A great
jjj deal of work gets badly done, because it is more than it is possible for
j j | one person to get through. It is very evident that it is impossible, as a
rule, to get decent servants. All they think of is eating and getting