“
Summary of the Spiritist Doctrine
Here is a rather curious little book, written by a villager from Saint-Sauflieu. It is true that the author lived in Paris for a long time, and that it was in that city that he was able to get in touch with the apostles of Spiritism. Since we are interested in all the publications in our country, we wanted to get acquainted with this work. We were told that the work by Mr. Florent Loth was blacklisted in the neighboring municipalities of his village; this news piqued our curiosity, and we decided to read the Abrégé de la Doctrine Spirite. We love the forbidden fruit so much.
As for ourselves, who have no interest in blaming or in approving the work of the author, we will say frankly, to put ourselves at ease, that we do not believe in Spiritism, that we do not give any credit to the turning or talking tables, because our reason is unwilling to admit that material objects can be endowed with the slightest intelligence. We do not believe either in the gift of second sight, or to put it better, in the ability to see through thick walls, or to distinguish at great distances what is happening far away, that is, at several hundred leagues. Finally, to continue our preliminary confessions, we declare that we have no faith in the Spirits of the ghosts, and that man, somewhat inspired, does not have the power to evoke and specially to make the souls of the dead speak.
Having said that, to clear the field of anything that is not within our scope, we recognize that Mr. Florent Loth's book is not a bad book. The moral is pure, love of neighbor is recommended, tolerance for the beliefs of others is defended, and that explains the sale of this work.
But to say that convinced believers of the Spiritist doctrine will be formed, because of the reading of the work of our compatriot, with all its parts admitted, would be to sustain a fact that will not be realized. In what seems reasonable to us, and let's slap the word, to have common sense, in the best meaning of those terms, there are some excellent things there. Thus, certain abuses are rejected with clear, spotless, and precise reasons, and if the author tries to convince, it is always by gentleness and persuasion.
So, leaving aside all that relates to the material practices of Spiritism, practices in which we do not believe in any way, we will be able to derive from reading the book in question very good notions of morality, tolerance, and love for the neighbor. From these points of view, we fully approve of Mr. Florent Loth, and we do not understand the ban launched against his pamphlet.
So, leaving aside all that relates to the material practices of Spiritism, practices in which we do not believe in any way, we will be able to derive, by reading the book in question, very good notions of morality, tolerance, and love for the neighbor. From these points of view, we fully approve of Mr. Florent Loth, and we do not understand the ban launched against his pamphlet.
Will the Summary of the Spiritist Doctrine one day be defended by the congregation of the Index, whose headquarters are in Rome? This is an unresolved question, because this little book is not intended to cross our Picardy borders. If, however, this fact happened, Mr. Florent Loth would gain a notoriety he had never dreamed of for his book.
As for the physical experiences of Spiritism, we believe we should let Mr. Georges Sauton, one of our colleagues, speak here, who in La Liberté, on Wednesday, September 11th, 1867, said about a Spiritist session that had taken place in Paris, at the house of a doctor in medicine:
Doctor F… had amassed some fortune. He spends it by giving Spiritism sessions that cost him dearly in candles and mediums.
Yesterday evening, he invited the press to his monthly meeting. Those Spirits were to be questioned on the account of the Zouave Jacob and give their views on this interesting soldier. Mr. Babinet, from the Institute, - excuse me for so little! - had promised to honor the meeting with his presence; at least the host had hinted at that on the invitation letters.
Albert Brun, Victor Noir, and I went to the doctor's house. Not a word from Mr. Babinet.
Ten people around a table were spinning this piece of furniture, that turned around badly; thirty others, many of whom were decorative, looked on.
The Spirits, undoubtedly ill-disposed, had their ears pulled to speak. They scarcely deigned to imitate the cry of the saw, of the cooper and blacksmith's hammers striking the barrels or the anvil. They were asked to sing The Bearded Woman and I Have Good Tobacco, and they did not sing. They were ordered to make a pear jump in the air, and the pear did not jump.
We will add nothing to this small and witty story.
Let us end with an extract from the author's preface in which the moral part of his ideas is exposed:
Spiritism does not pretend to impose its belief; it is by persuasion alone that it hopes to arrive at its goal, that is the good of mankind. Freedom of conscience: thus, I firmly believe in the existence of the soul and its immortality; I believe in future sorrows and rewards; I believe in the manifestations of the Spirits, that is to say in the souls of those who have lived on this earth or in other worlds; I believe in it by virtue of the right that my neighbor has not to believe in it; but it is as easy for me to prove my affirmation to him, as it is impossible for him to prove his negation to me, for the negation of unbelievers is not a proof. The fact, they say, is against the known laws. Well! it is because it is based on an unknown law: we cannot know all the laws of nature, for God is great and he can do everything! ...
Malicious people spread the rumor that Spiritism was an obstacle to the progress of religion; these people, more ignorant than truly pious, not knowing the doctrine at all, can neither appreciate nor judge it.
We say, and moreover we prove, that the teaching of the Spirits is very Christian, that it is based on the immortality of the soul, the future penalties and the rewards, the justice of God and the morals of Christ.
The citation of this profession of faith by the author will be sufficient to make his point of view known. It is up to the reader to appreciate the work we are talking about.
In writing this report, we only wanted to note one fact, which is that in our province of Picardy, Spiritism had met a fervent and convinced defender.
We do not accept all the ideas of the author. We hope that, by virtue of his gentleness, he will not be angry at our honesty. As long as public peace is not disturbed by impious doctrines, as long as the social order is not shaken by subversive maxims, our fraternal tolerance will make us say what we say here of the book by Mr. Florent Loth: Peace to conscience! Respect for the beliefs of the neighbor!
Mr. A. Gabriel Rembault.”
Mr. Director,
I would be grateful if you would insert in your journal my response to Mr. Gabriel Rembault's criticism of my Summary of the Spiritist Doctrine, an article that appeared on December 29th.
I don't want to raise a controversy between Mr. Gabriel Rembault and I; I am not up to his talent as a writer, undeniable talent and that everyone recognizes in him; but allow me to demonstrate to him the reasons that made me write my book.
Before anything else, I must admit that Mr. Gabriel Rembault's criticism is courteous and polite; it emanates from a man who is convinced, but not irritated. Alas! I cannot say the same of other critics who anathematize the Spiritists with insults and disrespectful words! I do not understand this display of hatred and insults, those uncalled-for words of madmen and bastards that are thrown in our face and that only inspire a deep disgust in honest people. These intolerant men know, however, that, according to the principles of our modern society, all consciences are free and have the right to inviolable respect.
Forgive me for this digression, Mr. Director, as I forgive these deriders; I forgive them with all my heart, and I pray to God that he deigns to enlighten them on charity. They should better practice this virtue of the Gospel, towards their neighbor.
Coming back to my subject:
It is by study, meditation and specially by practice that I have acquired the proof of certain physical facts that have thus far been regarded as supernatural; it is by the universal fluid that we can explain the phenomena of magnetism. These phenomena can no longer be seriously contested today; it is thanks to the same fluid that the Spirit crosses the space, that it possesses the double sight, that it is endowed with ethereal perception, to which the opacity of bodies cannot be opposed. These phenomena are no more than momentary liberation of the Spirit. Incredulity, it is true, does not want to admit these phenomena, but authentic and numerous observations no longer allow them to be called into question.
Thus, all the wonders of which magnetism and Spiritism are accused are simply effects, whose cause lies in the laws of nature.
And since Mr. Gabriel Rembault quoted an article from the newspaper La Liberté, I in turn will allow myself to quote an extract from a brand-new book (Reason for Spiritism), the fruit of long studies by an honorable magistrate; he says on page 216:
Has God ever departed from the laws He instituted to bring His work to good ends? He who has foreseen everything, hasn’t he provided for everything? How could you pretend to claim that mediumship, the communication of Spirits, does not conform to the laws of nature of man? And if revelation is the necessary consequence of mediumship, why would you say that it is a derogation of the law of God, when it ostensibly falls within the views of Providence and of human economy?"
I stop after this quote; it is an argument in a direction opposed to the ideas of M. Gabriel Rembault, and that I submit to the appreciation of your readers.
In short, I agree with him when he says: “Peace to conscience! respect for the beliefs of the neighbor!”
"Receive, Mr. Director, my kind regards.
Florent Loth
Saint-Sauflieu, January 16th, 1868
It appears from the above account that the author of the article did not know the first word of the doctrine; he judged it, like so many others, on hearsay, without having taken the trouble to get to the bottom of the question, and to lift the cloak of ridicule with which a malicious critic, or more or less interested, took pleasure in adorning it. He acted like the monkey in the fable who rejected the nut, because he had only bitten the green shell. If he had known the first elements of it, he would not have supposed the Spiritists simple enough to believe in the intelligence of a table, any more than he himself believes in the intelligence of the pen that, in his hands, transmits the thoughts of his own mind; the Spiritists do not admit that material objects can be endowed with the least intelligence any more than he does; but like him, no doubt, they admit that these same objects can be instruments at the service of an intelligence. Mr. Lot's book did not convince him, but it showed him the seriousness and the moral tendencies of the doctrine, and that was enough to make him understand that the thing was good and deserved at least the respect due to the beliefs of the neighbor. He showed commendable impartiality by immediately inserting the correction addressed to him by the author.
What touched him were not the facts of the manifestations, of which, moreover, there isn’t much in this book, it was the liberal and anti-retrograde tendencies, the spirit of tolerance and conciliation of the doctrine; such is, in fact, the impression that it will produce on all those who take the trouble of studying it. Without accepting the experimental part that, for the Spiritists, is the material proof of the truth of their principles, they will see in it a powerful aid to the reform of the abuses against which they rise every day. Instead of fanatics of a new kind, they will see in all the Spiritists, whose number is constantly increasing, an army that fights for the same goal, with other weapons, it is true; but what do they care about the means, if the result is the same?
Their ignorance of the tendencies of Spiritism is such that they do not even know that it is a liberal doctrine, emancipating intelligence, enemy of blind faith, that proclaims freedom of conscience and free examination as an essential basis of any serious belief. They do not even know that it was the first to inscribed on its flag this immortal maxim: there is no salvation but through charity, principle of universal union and fraternity, the only one that can put an end to the antagonisms of peoples and beliefs; while they believe it to be childishly absorbed by a spinning table, they have no idea that the child has left the toy for the armor, that he has grown up and that he now embraces all the questions that concern the progress of humanity. All that is lacking in its impartial and in good faith adversaries is to get to know it, to judge it otherwise than they do. If they reflected on the speed of its propagation, that nothing could hinder, they would say to themselves that it cannot be the effect of a completely empty idea, and that if it contained only one truth, if this truth is capable of moving so many consciences, it deserves to be taken into consideration; that if it causes so much fear in certain people, it is because it is not considered there as a hopeless smoke.
The article reported above further notes an important fact, that is the ban launched against this little book, by the clergy of the countryside, served to propagate it, what could not be different, so powerful the attraction of the forbidden fruit is. The author of the article rightly thinks that, if he were condemned by the congregation of the Index that sits in Rome, he would acquire a notoriety that Mr. Lot should not have claimed. He ignores that the fundamental works of the doctrine had this privilege, and that it is through the wrath launched against the doctrine, in the name of this Index, that these books must have been sought in circles where they were unknown. People did this quite natural reflection: the louder they thunder, the more important the thing should be. They first read them out of curiosity, then, since they found good things in them, they accepted them. That is history.
