THE MEDIUM AND THE WITCH
By D. M. PANTON.
Study
of the occult engrosses an ever-widening circle of literature. Forty years ago this was a field nearly
confined to the illiterate and the charlatan; to-day, inquiry is being pushed by
men of ability and leading, and can no longer be ignored as foolishness, or
dismissed as knavery. The old
sledge-hammer sneer with which reports of spiritism were met, however
wholesomely based on repulsion from the occult, is now inappropriate, for it is
felt to be inadequate. With such
names concerned as Myers and Sidgwick, Podmore and Hodgson, Leaf and Lodge,
criticism may remain sceptical, but it cannot afford to be supercilious. “The
extraordinary growth of the movement, the number of its adherents, and their
fidelity through evil and good report, has made Spiritualism an important historical
fact.” (Frank Podmore, Naturalization of the Supernatural, p.
172.) Thousands are conscious of
movements propelled by unseen realities.
“The Ghost in Man, the
Ghost that once was Man,
But cannot wholly free itself from Man,
Are calling to each other through a dawn
Stranger than earth has ever seen; the veil
Is rending, and the Voices of the day
Are heard across the Voices of the dark.”
-
(The Ring)
But
these facts, as also Ternnyson’s
lines, introduce us to an even weightier problem. Mankind is not without a history. What relation is borne to older
supernatural facts, to embodied spiritisms of other generations, other climes,
by this great revival of spiritual forces?
Spiritualism has not the distinctness or the unity of a single
revelation; rather, it appears as one aspect of a many-sided movement, linked
on to curious displays of the supernatural in the present, and to strikingly
similar developments in the past.
On all hands is admitted the active existence of good and bad spiritual
powers. To which does Spiritualism
belong? Or is it a mixed
agency? The Lord Jesus, accompanied
by His apostles and prophets, was the channel of an harmonious revelation,
backed by beneficent miracle and holy life; various occult practices, on the
other hand, mixed with strange teachings and manifold uncleannesses, have also
had root in the unseen, and revealed themselves to be witchcraft.* Under what
heading must Spiritualism fall? To
the Spiritualist himself this must be a question of the deepest moment. Holding loosely, perhaps, older forms of
faith, facts, to him convincing, have crossed his vision; he thinks he has
grasped a faith based on personal experiment; he rejoices in communion with
loved ones, passed, hitherto, beyond his ken; and, though perplexed over many
things curious and contradictory in his new sphere of experience, he is
gladdened by optimistic messages and new-born assurance of the soul’s
immortality. But it is obvious that
all this rests on an assumption that the intercourse, is really with the
dead. What if the spirits’
claim to be the dead be falsified?
What if other hands incite the script, other eyes direct the dark
circle? Immortality would remain
unproven; and, for the rest, the Spiritualist be a dupe of organised deception
and systematic cunning; voices would speak but to allure; and crystals, let
down before the eyes with visions of surpassing loveliness, prove, it may be,
foolish dreams and opiate fantasies, the illusory portal to a lost world.
[* The term is used here in its wider sense; as
intercourse with evil powers, with whatever motives and aims; though with
special reference to those medieval practices which, when spurious, were
contemptible, and when real, were felt by all to be abhorrent. Demonic possession the Bible always regards
as involuntary, pitiable, and not necessarily connoting great wickedness;
sorcery, or witchcraft, it regards as voluntary and evil. “There shall not be found with thee an enchanter, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a consulter with
a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a necromancer” (Deut. 18: 10).]
THE IDENTITY OF THE SPIRITS
I
appeal to the Spiritualist, as solemnly as I know how, to ponder deeply the
problem of identity; for upon it much hinges. Unconscious of evil, and with
laudable rectitude, it is possible to assimilate irretrievable error; and it is
certain that no investigation is so fraught with the perils of ignorance as is
this. Forcible objections render
the hypothesis of the dead difficult of belief. (1) Why should death paralyse the
memory, and frequently make the returning soul powerless even to spell his
name? A Spiritualist, keenly sensible of this difficulty, offers an
explanation which frankly admits the fact. “It
would appear from the experience of others,” he says, “as well as from my own, that the memory of names, or of other
words in themselves not suggestive of ideas, is a faculty almost exclusively
confined to a material brain.” (Address,
London Spiritual Alliance, 1890.)
The pseudo-Stainton Moses,
after death, endeavours in vain to recall the names of his ‘controls’ in life; and Mr. Myers has forgotten
the existence of the Psychical Research Society which he helped to found. (2) The incompetence of returning
spirits is proverbial. Homer cannot write passable Greek; Shakespeare spells, but in neither
Elizabethan nor Victorian fashion;
[*
Dr. Maurice Davies records a test
case. “I was sent for by a lady who had been a member in my
congregation, and who had taken great interest in these questions. She was suddenly smitten down with a
mortal disease, and I remained with her almost to the last ‑ indeed, I
believe her last words were addressed to me, and referred to this very question
of identification - she consulting me on the great problem she was then on the
very point of solving! As soon as
she had gone from us, I went home, and tried to communicate with her. I was informed that her spirit was
present, and yet every detail as to names, etc., was utterly wrong.”
(Mystic London, P. 387.)
**
The hosts of heaven are also round about us (Heb.
1: 7, 14); but, day and night, they serve the Father (Matt. 18: 10); and the Father, with the blessed
bands of unfallen angels, is approachable only through One (John 14: 6).]
***
It is so faulty a “revelation,”
however, that Spiritualists admit it to be, as a revelation, valueless. “Absolute dependence,” says Dr. Wallace, “is to be placed on no
individual communications” (Miracles
and Modern Spiritualism, p. 220).
“We may lawfully dispute,” the
London Spiritualist Alliance is informed, “both
the truth and the wisdom of their utterances; we must subject them to
criticism, and judge for ourselves what their import and value are”
(M. and Dr. Thcobald, Address, Nov. 1888). “Do not believe everything
you are told,” adds Mr.
Moses (Conduct of Circles).]
WITCHCRAFT AND THE SCRIPTURES
But
Dr. Wallace and other Spiritualists
admit that, in its essential nature, witchcraft is identical with Spiritualism.* (Miracles
and Modern Spiritualism) “The phenomenal
aspect of modern Spiritualism,” says Mr. J..J. Morse, “reproduces all
essential principles of the magic, witchcraft, and sorcery of the past. The same
powers are involved, and the same intelligences are operating.” (Practical
Occultism, p. 85.) But it is
said that witches, embittered by persecution, and dominated by the belief in
Satan, were “mediums” driven by
adverse environment into alliance with evil spirits. Prompted by purer motives, and
safeguarded by a reverent attitude, the modern “circle”
is supposed to be freed from unclean powers, and contemporary spiritism removed
bodily from the region of witchcraft.
The gravity of the admission will appear later. “We have
come round again,” Mr.
Myers frankly acknowledges, “to the
primitive practices of the shaman and the medicine man.” But if the work of spirits in
Spiritualism and witchcraft, separated only by lapse of years, is so closely
similar as to compel an admission of identity in character, only a signal
difference of moral teaching and conduct can save Spiritualism from sharing in
the sharp condemnation of witchcraft.
A great chasm must be shown to stretch between the morale breathed by the
earlier and by the later manifestations. For it will not do, with Dr. Wallace,
to advance a bold apology for witchcraft.
Witchcraft has been widely recognised as the vice of the ages. What is
the attitude taken towards it by God’s prophets and apostles? This is not
a question of Bibliolatry. It is possible, I suppose, for regard for a book to
pass into a kind of worship. But what we have to observe is this, that to
reject a message, is to reject the messenger; that to disregard Isaiah and
Paul's words, is to ignore Isaiah and Paul; that to
contradict the words of Christ, is to disown Christ. To take up a position of
antagonism to such men, who assert that they speak by the Holy Ghost, may be
thought by some advisable, but at least calls for grave and weighty
reasons. Witchcraft, also, raises
moral questions, suitable to be answered by great moral teachers; it is a
communication with the unseen, which can be judged authoritatively only by
those speaking from the same region, and divinely. The weight of such speaking is not
lessened by lapse of time; an art abhorrent under
[*
Professor Barrett admits (Light, Nov. 1894), that necromancy
seduced the Hebrews from Jehovah; he supposes, however, that identical
intercourse to-day, owing to increased enlightenment, will not have a like
effect. So also Mr. Stead: “It is quite conceivable that practices, which in those days
were synonymous with crime of the worst type, may, now divested of their
criminal concomitants, become the legitimate pursuits of godly men.”
(Borderland, April, 1896.)
**On
the scriptural terms for witchcraft, cf.
G. H. Pember, (Earth’s Earliest Ages, p. 256.)
***
The mediaeval torture of witches was cruel and shameful. The Mosaic Law commanded,
not torture, but death; a sentence that sufficiently expressed God’s
abhorrence of the practice. So
obnoxious to God is mediumship, the, possession of a ‘familiar’ spirit, that, under the Law, such were
“surely to be put to death; they shall stone them with stones”
(Lev. 20: 27). But disciples of Christ may not launch against sinners the
machinery of the Law. The rule of
Jehovah over an earthly people demanded prompt punishment on sin: but a heavenly people, called out for a
Kingdom still future, must plead with sinners graciously and with
affection, until grace shall yield place to judgment. Retribution on the ungodly does not fall
within the province of the
THE APPARITION OF ENDOR
The narrative of Endor is the locus classicus of recorded witchcraft. Much
depends on the true interpretation of a scene made memorable by the
circumstances of the chief actor, the detailed character of the narrative, the
alleged result, and the historian’s equipment in inspiration. Saul,
troubled by the approach of Philistine hosts, and awed by the ominous silence
of Jehovah, who would no more speak with him through Urim, prophet, or in dream
(1 Sam. 28: 6),* thought to summon his
deceased adviser, Samuel. It is of ill augury to modern necromancy
that the king sought the dead only when he forsook God. Saul knew perfectly what he did; he had
himself once been energised by the Holy Ghost (1
Sam. 11: 6), and thus would probably have known the futility of
witchcraft, had it been purely fraudulent; and the stringent law against
witches he himself had put into execution (1 Sam.
28: 3, 9). The narrative
proceeds:-
“Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried
with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived
me? for thou art Saul. And the king
said unto her, Be not afraid: for what seest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I see elohim coming up out of the earth. And he said unto her, What form is he
of? And she said, An old man cometh
up; and he is covered with a robe.
And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the
ground, and did obeisance. And Samuel
said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed;
for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by
prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make
known unto me what I shall do. And
Samuel said, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed
from thee, and is become thine adversary?
And the Lord bath wrought for himself, as he spake by me: and the Lord
bath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour,
even to David. Because thou obeyedst not
the voice of the Lord, and didst not execute his fierce wrath upon Amalek,
therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover, the
Lord will deliver
[*
The Spiritualist’s contention (Allemene’s
Saul’s Visit) that, 1 Chron. 10: 14, is irreconcilable with 1 Sam. 28: 6 is not very acute. 1 Chron. 10:
14 is not concerned to deny that Saul did inquire of God; but declares his sin to have lain in consulting
a witch, and thereby ceasing to consult the Lord. The short space before the battle might
have been passed in persistent entreaty of God to break His silence - a silence
which obviously did not justify a resort to necromancy.]
Apparently
the narrative implies a certain reality in the witch’s power, and asserts
the actual return of Samuel. But
was the apparition purely imaginary?
It is sometimes urged (1) that Saul and the witch could not have been
together, since, on the appearance of the phantom, the king inquired of the
woman what she saw. But this is not
conclusive; in Scripture (2 Kings 6: 16,
etc.), as in other quarters, spirits are not always simultaneously visible to
all. Saul also perceived it
later. It may be replied (2) that
it is doubtful whether Saul saw it at all; he may have recognised Samuel from
the witch’s description only.
But her description scarcely revealed the prophet:- “An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a robe.”
Saul could not recognise* Samuel
from such a slender portraiture.
But his action seems to put the matter beyond doubt. “He bowed
with his face to the ground, and did obeisance.” He would scarcely have bowed to a description of the witch. He must also have heard and recognised
Samuel’s voice, for he talked with him at length, and believed that it
was he. There is no intimation (3)
that the woman went into trance, or spoke as a ventriloquist; according to the
Scripture, it was the apparition who spoke. This takes us as far as something
supernatural. Not only (4) had the
woman no time to obtain a confederate in the likeness, face and voice, of
Samuel;** it is not possible that a
confederate could have prophesied accurately; nor is it probable that he would,
to his face, rebuke the king and hazard a prediction of his death, when on the
pleasure of that king hung the death or life of the witch.***
[*
“Perceived that it was”: Cf. Is. 6:
9; 2 Kings 4: 9; Judges 6: 22, A.V.
**That
Saul’s disguise (v. 8) had been
successful is evident from the exclamation of the woman, “Why hast thou deceived me?”
***
Saul’s oath (v. 10) lessened, but did
not remove, the danger of an exhibition of necromancy before two disinterested
witnesses (v. 8).]
THE IDENTITY OF THE APPARITION
But
was the phantom a personating demon?
In support of this it is alleged (1) that neither body nor spirit of the
dead can return. But this was a spirit,
[i.e.,
a disembodied
soul appearing in its former likeness: Samuel’s animating spirit
returned to God at the time of his death - like that of every other saint of
God, (Acts 7: 59)] invisible at first to Saul; and return
of the spirit is hinted at as possible by certain scriptures (Deut. 18: 11 ; Is. 8: 19).* Very probably, return is made
practicable only by demonic assistance; Saul says:- “Divine unto me, I pray thee, by the familiar spirit, and bring me up whomsoever I shall
name unto thee.” Nor
may it be argued (2) that the cloak goes to prove the whole a demonic
phantasm. We are too ignorant of
the conditions of the dead to argue thus.
We know death is an unclothed state (2 Cor. 5: 4); the robed
prophet may but reveal the comely decorum befitting the faithful in death as in
life. It is not impossible that it
was the prophetic mantle (2 Kings 2: 13),
assumed for the passing of sentence on Saul, and symbol that Samuel was still clothed with supernatural efflux (Luke 24: 49). Various points in the narrative
indicate Samuel’s real appearance.
(1) Saul perceived that it was Samuel himself, (See
Greek and LXX.). (2) The woman’s cry rose from what
she saw, as Saul perceived: “Be not afraid, for
what seest thou?” A
phantom, escorted by angels (elohim of verse 13),
appeared ere she had even invoked her familiar. Her familiar, though un-invoked, would
have been no cause of “a loud cry.” (3) The woman’s quick appreciation
of the whole drama implies the reality of the scene. Her “Why hast
thou deceived me?”
shows Saul’s disguise to have been effectual. But at the moment of her perception of
Samuel, she knew that her visitor
was Saul; not by reason of the apparition, which would have been ground for
little more than suspicion, and would have caused her to ask him if he were
Saul; but by knowledge, super-normally
acquired, that made her turn on the king with indignant revelation of his
identity (cf. 1 Kings 14: 5, 6). To
be caught in the act of witchcraft by its royal exterminator was only less
startling than the sudden appearance of prophet and angels, rising from the
realm where Saul’s dark steps had been tracked, and using his very
necromancy to announce his doom.
(4) The apparition, asserting himself Samuel, and once God’s
prophet (verse 17), speaks –
un-contradicted by the narrator - on Jehovah’s behalf; rebukes the king,
and announces sharp judgment on him - hardly in the manner of a consulted
demon; and employs terms measured and massive, such as rise to the level of
inspired prophecy, far above the maudlin mimicry of familiar spirit or human
confederate. (5) Five
times the inspired writer
calls the apparition Samuel.**
[* [A] Disembodied spirit itself can be seen
(Rev. 6: 9) and heard (Rev. 6: 10), but not handled (Luke 24: 39).
Probably demonic aid could not be effectual in summoning souls of the
just; these, at rest ‑ Samuel explains that he was disquieted, ‑ and enjoying a peculiar
manifestation of the Redeemer’s presence (Phil.
1: 23), would not care, even if allowed, to re-enter the tumult of
life. Samuel, returning charged
with a rare mission, appeared before, and independently of, any incantation of
the witch. Abraham does not reply
to Dives that return is impossible; but
asserts its futility in face of unbelief so hardened as to reject the
Scriptures. “Even though one rise from the dead” (Luke 16: 31): miracle
of resurrection itself would not convince the confirmed sceptic that he was not
the dupe of disordered senses.
**
This conclusion does not uphold intercourse with the dead. For (1) this act was one for which Saul
had to die (1 Chron. 10: 13); (2) he sinned, for himself had
slain the witches (1 Sam. 28: 3); and (3)
necromancy was forbidden to the Israelites (Deut.
18: 11). But it proves the
possibility of return.]
THE ORACLES
Thus
the Scriptures regard witchcraft as a real and abhorrent intercourse with
powers of darkness; and the moment we discover that evil in the unseen is
personal and organised, we know that Satan exists: for if there are ranks of
spirit beings, graded in both power and wickedness, there must be one who is
supreme in both: that spirit Scripture calls Satan. Satan is no principle of evil, but a
potent angel;* his minions organised bands (Ps. 78:
49), now tyrants of the lunatic, now clothed in light; not one in kind
or character, ‑ for our Lord speaks of “this kind” (Mark
9: 29), “seven spirits more
wicked” (Matt. 12: 45), and we are informed of “pythons” (Acts
16: 16). The pythons, whose field of action
was the oracles, - Python was the prophetic Serpent at
[*
He is the Serpent (Rev. 12: 9); the
Adversary (1 Pet. 5: 8); the Accuser (Rev. 12: 10); the Tempter (Matt.. 4: 3); fallen, probably from Cherubic rank (Ez. 28: 11-19), through pride (1 Tim. 3: 6); god of this age (2 Cor. 4: 4), whose principality is our world (John 12: 31); constantly present, alike in earth (1 Pet. 5: 8) and in heaven (Rev. 12: 10); the blinder of unbelievers (2 Cor. 4: 4), - [including unbelievers in “the gospel of the kingdom” – the good news
“of the GLORY
of Christ” R.V. (verse 5).] - and a peril to the saved (Matt. 6: 13). He
first appeared disguised in another’s body (Gen.
4: 1); is still unshorn of his brightness (
**
Similar are the present oracles of
***
The python expelled by Paul (Acts 16: 19),
as others in the oracles (see Wordsworth on Acts 16.),
witnessed to the truth; as the demons also proclaimed Christ (Mark 3: 11): but early disciples, following the example of our Lord (Luke 4: 41),
and Paul, repudiated the testimony. “The
demons also believe, and shudder” (Jas.
2: 19). Paul did not at once
eject the spirit. “It was not of the worst,”
says Bengel; “yet fit to be exorcised.” ... greater is our lapse from light if we, who hold in our hands living
oracles (Acts 7: 38, R.V.) resort to oracles
of the death: “for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the Lord” (Deut. 18: 12). God’s oracles are from above,
clear-spoken and true: “I have not spoken in
secret in a dark
place of the earth. I
the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right”
(Isa. 45:
19, A.V.).]
THE PHENOMENA OF MEDIAEVAL WITCHCRAFT
Without
doubt contemporary witchcraft was regarded as real by thoughtful observers of
the middle ages.* (Saducismus Triumphatus,
p. 328; by Joseph Glanvil, D.D., F.R.S.; 3rd. ed. London,
1679.) “The reality of the witch miracles,” says Mr. Lecky, “was established by a critical tribunal, which, however
imperfect, was at least the most searching then existing in the world, by the
judicial decisions of the law courts of every European country, supported by
the unanimous voice of public opinion, and corroborated by the investigation of
some of the ablest men during several centuries.” Monstrous narratives, it is true,
abounded; alleged occurrences, badly evidenced, were thought to be strengthened
by repetition in print, and established by a minimum of testimony. “For every grain of testimony,” says Mr. Gurney,
“there is no difficulty in finding a ton of authority.” But this is no solution of witchcraft. First-hand testimony is not altogether
absent; such testimony in support of baseless fictions would be unparalleled;
and modern occurrences, able to be investigated and established, render the
substantial truth of the older allegations probable. This is all that is required. “If,”
says Mr. Lecky, “we considered witchcraft probable, a hundredth part of the
evidence we possess would have placed it beyond the region of doubt.” In such a work as Dr. Glanvil’s Saducismus
Triumphatus we find occurrences recorded closely parallel to
spiritualistic, and not of a kind to be explained solely by hypnosis, or
attributed off-hand to hystero-epilepsy.
Some of these occurrences Dr.
Glanvil himself witnessed. Rooms were disturbed, for months
together, by raps, sometimes sounding within the wood. Furniture
was visibly moved by unseen hands.
Intelligence was displayed, and sounds imitated, by the controlling
agency. Objects were made
impervious to fire.
[*
Sir Walter Scott’s distinction
(Letters on Demonology) between scriptural and mediaeval
witchcraft is not based in fact. Teraphim (Gen. 31:
19), divining rods (Hos. 4: 12) and
arrows (Ez. 21: 21), and invocation of
spirits through wood (Hab. 2: 19), have
their counterpart in waxen images, luck boards, and magic drums.]
EVIL CHARACTER OF MEDIEVAL WITCHCRAFT
As
no age or people has been exempt from witchcraft, so none has failed to bear
witness to the burden of hatred, gross uncleanness, and superstitious fears
which it has laid on the shoulders of mankind. It has been a lever for the worst
passions of men. One absorbing work
of the witch was to inflict disease by curse or touch. Symptoms arose in the victim closely
resembling those of the demoniac.
He was possessed with the strength of the lunatic; and saw, in trance,
objects remotely distant. The boils
of Job reappeared. Witchcraft never
stood in need of an introduction to whoredom.* Few narratives are so unclean as the
records of its natural and supernatural excesses. It reigned with a supreme fear over its
votaries, and inspired its opponents with an unbalanced terror. It was a momentary manifestation of the
[*
See Hos. 4: 12, 13; Nahum 3: 4; 2 Kings 9: 22.
The loathsome orgies of phallic worship; the polygamies of Mecca and
Utah; the
prostitution in temples of Siva; the moral excesses of the Agapenione:-
all these are but whoredoms sanctioned by witchcrafts; displayed also in the
fornicating City,- “She that work’d
whoredom with the demon power” (Coleridge), ‑ who is
unclean in life because she is a cage of unclean spirits (Rev. 18: 2, 3).
**
Saducismus Triumphatus, pp. 351, 359,
etc. The intelligence itself
sometimes confessed to spectators its Satanic origin. The spirit that caused the famous
disturbances in the house of Mr.
Mompesson was declared to have been sent thither by witchcraft, both by the
sorcerer who sent him (lb., P. 333), and
by himself (Ib., p. 326)]
WITCHCRAFT AND SPIRITUALISM
How
does our inquiry now stand? (1)
That witchcraft, illuminated by the incidents of Spiritualism, did not spring
solely from imposture, or find its solution in disease. It is not credible that rap and voice
and apparition, occurring at intervals of centuries, alike in mode and physical
result, and persistently attributing itself to a spiritual intelligence, should
have been a conjuring art that must have become, without detection, hereditary,
or the product of a “psychic force”
that has remained undiscovered. Witchcraft, like Spiritualism, was, in
part, an intercourse with real powers in the unseen. (2) We find, also, that the methods
adopted by these unseen powers to reveal themselves are closely and wholly
independent of time and circumstance, travail, fitful, impish. (3) We discover, further, so far from an
unlikeness or antagonism in the morale enveloping the two groups of phenomena, that, after allowance has
been made for changed conditions of belief, both the doctrines proclaimed and
the practical conduct drift to the same goal. How shall we avoid Dr. Tyler’s inference that Spiritualism is in great measure
“a direct revival from the region of savage
philosophy and peasant folk-lore”? (Primitive Culture, vol. 1. p. 143) Where are the hundreds of thousands of evil
spirits that admittedly worked in witchcraft? The Spiritualist is impaled on a difficult
dilemma. If witches were “mediums,” and witchcraft diabolic, the obvious
inference is not to be met by assertion of the guarding power of a reverent
attitude, or by conjecture that only expectancy of demons will produce the
reality. Demons alone can know when
and how themselves appear. Will an
unclean spirit, such as confessedly worked in witchcraft, become pure and
truthful, or hold aloof, because an inquirer is reverent and self-possessed?*
The motive in witchcraft, as a rule, may have been the gratification of
malicious ends; that of Spiritualism may be simply investigation: but this
cannot sweeten an impure, intercourse, nor lessen the peril of its ultimate
issue; nor, since the intercourse is forbidden, does it remove the
Spiritualist’s manifestations from the region of sorcery. The
art has become more respectable: it is the many-sided puzzle of the savant; the
after-dinner toy of mine hostess; the religion, even, of not a few doors in the
back street; the latest racer that can be jockeyed by the journalist. But can
the leopard cast his spots? This realm remains, as Mr. Myers has it, “the happy hunting-ground of the charlatan and the
fool’s paradise of the dupe.” For no piteous lifting of hands, no
trustful face or generous enthusiasm, can move the cold, stern heart of him
whose approach is ever veiled; who, where he cannot flaunt wickedness, will
insinuate it; nor will tire, until the confiding but heedless soul has joined
the Sorcerers whose feet are swift in ungodliness, and whose hands grasp only
at the evanescence of a dream.
[*
Reverence, says the Spiritualist, will be respected. “The best
protection against lying spirits,” says Light (Sep. 1894), “is a
truth-loving spirit in the inquirer, and strong self-possession.” How inadequate! No one entering the marketplaces of the
world would dream that a pious demeanour and a reverent spirit were a
sufficient safeguard against swindlers; yet the Spiritualist, in a realm where
it is possible for craft to be incomparably more subtle, and where we are
endowed with a power of detection infinitely less, and where the issues are
pregnant beyond all calculation, imagines that a guileless heart is a
prophylactic against Hell. God
no more guards the dabbler in sorcery front hellish craft than He delivers the
simpleton (who does not seek His aid) from the swindler.]
EVIL CHARACTER OF SPIRITUALISM
But
if the forces that inspired witchcraft now work in Spiritualism, ought not
fruits to appear no less purely evil? This is only partially true. Mediaeval opinion, modified if not
guided by Christian doctrine, so fenced off magical arts as forbidden, that
none abandoned himself to the
intercourse without full consciousness of guilt. Negro
practisers of Obeah are types of the wizard surviving in this older
form.* Modern thought, nearly
emptied of the conception of Satan, regards his person and work as inactive,
impotent, and remote. Thus
Spiritualism is a diluted witchcraft,
shorn of its oaths, its incantations, its compacts; and many Spiritualists are
dupes, not knaves, - all unconscious of the vastness of the deception. Seduction is used where frank revelation
would alarm. But it would be quite
erroneous to suppose that Spiritualism, especially that form of it which is
secluded and confined to appreciative circles, is without symptoms of malignant
sorcery.** Mr. S. C. Hall writes:- “I have as
entire conviction of its truth as I had thirty years ago. But I have
less joy in it now than I had then.
It is, at this time, not only enveloped in mystery, not only confused
and conflicting and contradictory, but many of its public professors subject it
to the vilest influences, while some ‘spiritual’ publications
uphold frightfully evil doctrines, taught to them, as they say - and probably
say truly - by spirits who have lived in earth-life.”
(Introduction to Use of Spiritualism.) “I have
seen a medium,” writes an Australian
Spiritualist, “at other times calm and
respectable, suddenly, under some mysterious influence or control, break out
into a tirade of the most horribly blasphemous and obscene language, which
drove all the sitters from the table, to which no persuasion would ever
afterwards induce them to return.” (Borderland, April, 1894.)
Here is the picture of one “control.” “Mr. Eglinton then retreated to a sofa, and appeared to be fighting violently with
some unpleasant influence. He made
the sign of the cross, then extended his fingers towards the door, as though to
exorcise it; finally he burst into a scornful, mocking peal of laughter that
lasted for several minutes. As it concluded a diabolical expression came over
his face. He clenched his hands, gnashed his teeth, and commenced to grope in a
crouching position towards the door.”*** A
Spiritualist writes:- “Fifteen years of
critical study of spiritual literature, an extensive acquaintance with the
leading Spiritualists, and a patient, systematic and thorough investigation of
the manifestations for many years, enable us to speak from actual knowledge,
definitely and positively, of Spiritualism as it is. Spiritual literature is full of the most
insidious and destructive doctrines, calculated to undermine the very
foundations of morality and virtue, and lead to the most unbridled
licentiousness.” (Grant’s Spiritualism Unveiled, p. 47)
A medium “of eight years” standing speaks of Spiritualism
as the most seductive, hence the most dangerous, form of sensualism that ever
cursed a nation, age, or people. ...
“Five of my friends destroyed themselves, and I
attempted it, by direct spiritual influence.” (Ib., p.40.) Dr.
Hatch, the husband of a “medium”
of European repute, accompanied his wife on her travels, and gained minute
acquaintance with the beliefs and habits of the best circles of Spiritualists.
He writes:- “Iniquities which have justly
received the condemnation of centuries are openly upheld; vices which
would destroy every wholesome regulation of society are crowned as virtues;
prostitution is believed to be fidelity to self; marriage an outrage on freedom.”
(Ib., p. 37) To a Church clergyman who quoted against the Spiritualists the
Scriptural doom of the sorcerer, the organ of English Spiritualism (Light, August, 1898) replied with a
direct threat of sorcery:- “Occultists can take
care of themselves, and anyone who tries to injure them is in danger of
unpleasant experiences; possibly a coroner's inquest, and a verdict
of ‘death from syncope' and
don’t you forget it, my reverend friend at ,Norwich”
[italics
as in original].
[*
“Sorcery,” says Mr. W. T. Stead (Borderland, Oct. 1896), “is not
practised by any of our mediums.” But a compounder of drugs by
magic, and not a poisoner only, practices . . . (see Liddell and Scott); and examples of
this are given in Judge Edmond’s
Letters on Spiritualism. “He that hath an
. . .” was to suffer death. The very gift of the “medium,” which constitutes him such, is the
possession of a spirit who comes at call. “Turn
ye not unto them that have familiar spirits, nor unto THE WIZARDS” (Lev. 19: 31).
**
Brief outbursts of demonism have occurred in various epochs independently of
the ordinary channels of communication. In the fourteenth century “arose the dancing mania of Flanders and Germany, when
thousands assembled with strange cries and gestures, overawing by their
multitudes all authority, and proclaiming, amid their wild dances, and with
shrieks of terror, the power and the triumph of Satan” (Lecky's History of Rationalism, vol. 1. P. 54). Such an outbreak took place at Morzine,
in
***Phychic Notes,
THE POWERS OF DARKNESS
Evil
powers do not always appear as powers of darkness. The contrary idea is a grave error into which Spiritualists are
peculiarly apt to fall. Evil which
is bluntly evil repels; and it is strangely inadequate to suppose “the depths of Satan” (Rev.
2:24) incapable of a nearly impenetrable veil of hypocrisy. Directly the reverse is asserted in the
Scriptures. Satan can dazzle as an
angel of light (2 Cor. 11: 14).
His ministers can pose as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor. 11: 15). The onset is foretold of demons who
seduce by hypocrisy (1 Tim. 4: 2). Judas betrayed with a kiss; and Satan, in the presence of Christ,
handled the pure Word. Thus it is
insufficient proof of the purity of the spirits to cite “the administration of consolation, the pouring out of
heavenly counsel, the setting forth of elevating thoughts concerning life and
God.”* For these can be joined, and
in history have been joined, with
immoralities and infidelities. Closer
proofs are required. God’s
definite tests (1 John 4: 2, 3; 1 Cor. 12: 3) must be plied; careful note must be taken of the doctrines propounded (Gal. 1: 8); and the lives and works of “mediums” closely scrutinised (Matt.7: 15-20). Probably every Spiritualist who reads
this has met cases of flagrant hypocrisy in the powers of the seance. Such are widely confessed in
spiritualistic works. But a brief
consideration of the ranks of darkness may shed further light. There are
principalities world‑rulers of this darkness,** powers, wicked spirits
active in our firmament (Eph. 6: 12). These are not angels; for the apostles
distinguish between angels, principalities, and powers (Rom. 8: 38, 39; 1 Pet. 3: 22); but probably holders of a
delegated authority in the air, such as certain angels sinned by leaving (Jude 6), and such as is still held alike by fallen
(Eph. 6: 12) and unfallen (1 Pet. 3: 22) spirits. Air, water, fire, are probably under
their partial control and guidance.
So Christ rebuked the wind and
the sea (Matt. 8: 26: cf. Rev. 7: 1).
We read of an “angel of the waters”
(Rev. 16: 5), and of another who hath
“power over fire” (Rev.14: 18).*** Angels, that troop with Satan through
heaven (Job 1:6); principalities and powers,
stationed in our firmament; demons, that haunt earth’s surface:- all are
marshalled under Satan, as prince of the
power of the air (Eph. 2: 2).**** Even
national affairs appear to be modified by angelic influence (Dan. 10: 13; cf.
Deut. 32: 8, LXX.; 2
Kings 6: 16). So real is the power of elect (1 Tim. 5: 31) angels, and of the rebellious holders of delegated (Luke 4: 6) authority,
that they are called Elohim.
Jehovah’s is no fantastic title “God of gods and Lord of
lords” (Deut. 10: 17; cf.
Ex. 15:11; Psa. 1. 1; Dan. 11: 36; 1 Cor. 8: 5). Elohim, because agents of God, as our Lord explains
(John 10: 35); shining ones (Matt. 28: 3), as seen by the woman of Endor;
comforters of the dead (1 Sam. 28: 13), as invisible ministrants of the living (Heb. 1: 14), saints;
living fires of God (Heb. 1: 7); yet not by
nature gods (Gal. 4: 8; cf. Deut. 32: 17); but
themselves worshippers of the One who alone inhabiteth eternity (Psa. 97: 7).
How awful the ambition of that great (Rev.
12: 4) host which will not fall before the God of gods! “Evil
spirits act as a combination of the maddest and most wicked persons in
existence, but all their evil is done with fullest intelligence and
purpose. They know what they do,
they know it is evil, and they will do it. They do it with rage, and with the
full swing of malice, enmity, and hatred.
They act with fury and bestiality, like an enraged bull, as if they had
no intelligence, and yet with full intelligence they carry on their work,
showing the wickedness of their wickedness. They act from an absolutely depraved
nature, with diabolical fury, and with an undeviating perseverance.”
(War on the Saints, p. 38)
[*
These words occur in Light's (August,
1895) comments on the first Present-Day
Pamphlet.
“After a time,” writes one, once a “medium,” “the
spirits obtain such control over the minds of those encouraging them that an
infatuation for the thing is induced which constantly puts reason in the second
place. ... The communications we received appeared much more beautiful
to us at the time we were mixed up with spiritism than they do now.” Seven
Weeks with the Spirits, P. 13. Cf.
2 Thess. 2: 8‑12.
**
Darkness, not night; a characteristic
distinction throughout Scripture.
There will be night outside the city of
***
Though the article points to a charge only over the altar’s fire. Says Mr. Crookes of Mr. D. D. Home:- “I once saw him go
to a bright wood fire, and, taking a large piece of red-hot charcoal, put it in
the hollow of one hand, and covering it with the other hand, blow into the
extempore furnace till the coal was white-hot and the flames licked round his
fingers. No sign of burning could
be seen then or afterwards on his hands.” Journal, S. P.R., vol. 6., P. 341. So also, in honour of heathen gods,
children were “passed through the fire”
(2 Kings 23: I0) - a supernatural art
classed by inspiration among magical sorceries (Deut.
28: 10), Satan’s counterfeit miracle of “quenching
the power of fire” (Heb. 11: 34). Such also was the recent experience of Mr. B. P. Ghose, an Indian deputy
magistrate. “At the Thakur’s touch we felt as if our whole frame
were completely cooled down. We
then got upon the pyre and crossed the fire two or three times. The fire had lost its power. My friend
threw a piece of paper which he had in his pocket into the fire, and it was
reduced to ashes in a moment.” Hindu Spiritual Magazine, Jan. 1912. But this power will not make the
sorcerer proof against the final Fire. “THEY
SHALL NOT DELIVER THEMSELVES FROM
THE POWER OF THE FLAME” (Is. 47: 14).
****
May not microbes be used by
the possessor of death’s power (Heb. 2: 14)? Cf Job. 2:
7; Ex. 9: 9; Luke 13: 16. He
is Beelzebub, “the lord of flies.”
Infliction of disease, after Satanic permission had been obtained (Saducismus Thiumphatus, P. 354), was
frequent in witchcraft. Storm, germ, beast ‑ all the manifold agencies of
destruction ‑ form part of “the power
of the enemy” (Luke 10: 19);
weapons of “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4: 4).
But not ever so; for beast shall lose his passion (Isa. 11: 6-9), and thorn shall pass (Is. 55: 13), and miasma lurk no more in stagnant
waters; and “they shall not hurt nor destroy in
all my holy mountain” (Isa. 11: 9).]
DESTINY OF WORKERS IN WITCHCRAFT
A
loosened grasp on the Christian Faith has prepared our generation for teaching
frankly spiritualistic. Satan first
drew a sponge, during the rationalistic ages, across all belief in fallen
angels, demons, and a personal devil; thus, when Scripture’s frequent warnings had been totally expunged, he
introduced, to modern minds thus thrown off their guard, and saturated with
materialistic unbelief spiritistic phenomena in the soft masquerade of
returning relatives or sages made perfect in death. To such minds the Scripture revelations
and warnings, so fearfully revealing an open Pit, are all stereotyped as
childish superstitions and cruel caricatures. So when the recollection of Satan, that
burned itself into the imagination of the middle ages, had died down, his
manifold agencies assumed the role of the dead. Psychical researchers, whose sight,
alas, has become dim to the Christian vision of angelic hierarchies, are apt to
find in ghostly apparitions floating phantasms of the departed, and to imagine
rap and voice resonant from the grave.*
Yet how startlingly different must be the interpretation, when the
imparted teaching is analysed, the personation detected, the widespread evils
unveiled, and the whole examined in its vital connection with historic
witchcraft. Can any appeal to the
Spiritualist be too solemn, too affectionately insistent? to all those who are
being sucked into the fearfully fascinating vortex of the occult, a permanent
“work,” an inherent bias, of the
flesh (Gal. 3: 20)? All of us stumble, sometime, into grave
errors; all are prompted by unregenerate impulse to seek doubtful knowledge,
and embark on seas too treacherous and misty for our pilot powers; all hunger
for the closest news of immortality. But
it is possible to purchase such knowledge at the price of life. Over and beyond the mutter of the
entranced speaker can be heard one calm, Eternal Voice, so full of tender
reproach, winning persuasiveness, affectionate command; for, indeed, not lords
of the dark, nor ancestral phantasms, should draw our wandering hearts; but Another,
who gently chides - “Ye would not come unto Me, that ye might have life.” Knowledge is good; but dubious that,
which reaches only a conjectured “world-soul”:
nor should life be summed in study of script and phantasm, but in knowing God, and
enjoying him for ever. It is no
fancied peril from which we summon the Spiritualist. He has been warned by faithful voices;
some from his own ranks. Professor
Barrett shows himself conscious of danger, and has said: “As a rule, I have observed the steady, downward course of
mediums who sit regularly.” “Spiritualism,”
says Archbishop Whately, “is the same in essentials as the necromancy forbidden in the
Bible.” “It has broken up hundreds of churches,” says Dr. T. L. Nichols, (Spiritualism at the Church Congress, p.
17). “No pursuit,” says the British
Quarterly Review, “can be more dangerous.” “I heard,”
says Mr. W. T. Stead, “of lives that were blasted by the malignant and persistent
influence of malicious intelligences, which, having gained possession of those
who had ventured within range of their power, had succeeded in establishing a
hold that could not be shaken off.” (Borderland, January, 1896.)
“Let none tamper with these abominations,”
says Mr. B. W. Newton, “under the pretence of wishing to convince themselves of the
possibility of the agency of unclean spirits.” (Reflections on the
Character and Spread of Spiritualism, p. 87; second edition.
[*
Though some acknowledge the difficulties of identity. “Absolute proof,” says M. Aksakov (Animism and
Sbiritism, translated by B. Sandow,
London, 1895), “of the identity of the manifesting individuality remains an
impossibility.”
**
Nor will a compact with the powers of Hades (Isa.
28: 15, 18) avail to escape
death.]
SUMMARY
Space
forbids that we should enlarge upon the many grave inferences that flow from
this painful investigation. But
several certainties must strike large upon our vision. For what are the facts? We are face to face with an ample
organization, skilled, experienced, and with unexampled opportunities of influencing
large bodies of men; no human society, which can be dispersed, if inimical to
the state, or held responsible for its deeds, if proved dangerous to society;
but a viewless body of aerial spectators, now become actors in human
tragedy. What further? Either that this organization, as it
claims, is a vast revival of necromantic art; or, as we have found reason to
think, it is witchcraft - better organized and more extensive than the
mediaeval - expressed in modern methods, and equipped with subtler
designs. Either conclusion
condemns. For if indeed
Spiritualism be the restless wandering of the departed, assisted through the
inexorable gates by comrades - different in order, but one in all things
hateful - with whose Prince is the power of death, we behold, not alone the
driving disquiet of the wicked even in their last Sleep,* but, more terrible in
its significance, the mysterious approximation of certain souls of the lost to the powers and purposes of
the Satanic host. If, on the other
hand, darker conceptions become probable, of designs, old as history, and of
persuasive spirits, steaming up from the Abyss, armed with slippery wiles, and
masked with gibbering faces of our dead, - how shall we discern, amid the fret
and tumult of modern perplexities, what forces, hidden and remorseless,
precipitate the age to what crisis? how learn, with painful certainty, the
first simple truths of the prophetic Scriptures, in gloom of flaunted magic and
mustering shadows of apostasy? or, stooping forward, catch, in hollow tread of
famine and anarchy and rumoured war, the first shaking tramp of Antichrist? The
pregnant facts of Spiritualism point with unfaltering finger to the final
drama.** It is the symptom of a decay, But on the
very lips of demons lies a marvellous tribute to the Christ. “Jesus I know” ‑ no demon ever had to
inquire who or whence Jesus was; “and Paul I have
studied
carefully; but who are ye?” (Acts
19: 15): for “the demons also BELIEVE and SHUDDER” (Jas. 2: 19). Hell frankly acknowledges the authority
of Christ over the legions of the Abyss: “and
they intreated Him that He would not command them to depart into the abyss” (Luke 8:31):
for “I know Thee” - Hell cried again
and again – “who Thou art, THE HOLY ONE OF GOD” (Mark 1: 24).
[*
One returned with the message – “There is
a God, and a very just and terrible One.” Saducismus Triumphatus, P. 408. “The definition of Josephus,” says Dr. Delitzsch (Biblical Psychology, P. 346),
“... there appear credibly
attested experiences to affirm that the demoniacal kingdom, in its destructive
influences upon men, is strengthened by the psychical spirits of those who have
died in sin.”
**
1 Tim. 4: 1‑3; 1 John 1: 18, 26; 2 Tim. 3: 1,
8; Matt. 24: 24; 2 Thess. 2: 7‑12. “Seducers
(Greek, ‘jugglers’ - workers of
magic) shall wax worse and worse” (2 Tim, 3: 13). All
astrological parchments, mediumistic books, charms, and idols, saturated with a
hellish aura, should be burnt: “not a few of
them that practised curious arts brought their books together and burned
them in the sight of all”
(Acts 19: 19).]
-------