DR. RANDOLPH AND SPIRITUALISM.
By J. H. W.
ThE renunciation of Spiritualism by Dr. Randolph has been announced and denied; but the N. Y. Tribune of Dec. 4th places the matter beyond a doubt. Dr. Randolph has been a lecturer and medium for eight years, but has now renounced and denounced the whole system of Spiritualism. His denunciations are in the most unmeasured terms—we may safely say unmeasured, for the Dr. shows a perfect acquaintance with the Spiritual vocabulary, and every one knows that it contains a mass of expletives that cannot be fathomed! For proof, see the first chapter of the Spiritual Genesis, as published in our tract on that subject. He fully sustains the admission of the Editor of the Telegraph in his remarks on the identity of spirits; to Spiritualists he says, "Nor can you prove that a single spirit ever manifested, simply because you cannot clearly establish one single case of identity?" His present position he announces as follows: "I enter the arena as the champion of common sense, against what in my soul I believe to be the most tremendous enemy of God, morals, and religion, that ever found foothold on the earth—the most seductive, hence the most dangerous form of sensualism that ever cursed a nation, age, or people. I was a medium about eight years, during which time I made 3000 speeches, and traveled over several different countries, proclaiming the new gospel. I now regret that so much excellent breath was wasted, and that my health of mind and body was well-nigh ruined. I have only begun to regain both since I totally abandoned it, and to-day had rather see the cholera in my house than be a spiritual medium!" We next give an extract from his experience: "On the advent of the 'New Philosophy,' I hailed it with thousands of others not only as the harbinger true and God-sent of the good time coming, but also as a religion, pure, true, sweet and elevating; and it was only because I thought it would satisfy the religious needs of my soul, that I accepted it as the guide of my life. What was the result? I will tell you. After embracing Harmonial Philosophy (and my experience is that of thousands) I sought to be a medium—made experiments, and obtained my wish. Better had I found my grave! The rapping and other phenomena followed me, produced, as I then thought, by good human spirits. These were soon succeeded by the trance condition, to which I became subject, and the moment I yielded to that seductive influence, I ceased to be a man, and became a mere automaton, at the mercy of a power I believe to be demoniac, but which others accept as Progressive-spiritual, but which they cannot prove to be such, try as they may. Mind, I do not say it is not so, but aver that not the faintest proof can be adduced that it is so! As a trance-speaker, I became widely known; and now aver that during the entire eight years of my mediumship, I firmly and sacredly confess that I had not the control of my own mind, as I now have, one-twentieth of the time; and before man and high heaven I most solemnly declare that I do not now believe that during the whole eight years I was sane for thirty-six consecutive hours, in consequence of the trance and susceptibility thereto. I would have lucid intervals, an hour or two at a time, until the next circle. . . . I frequently resolved to break my fetters, but some good-natured miracle-seeker, would persuade me to sit in a circle just once more in order that some great defunct, Napoleon, Cæsar, Franklin, or Mohammed, might, through my lips, give his opinion on the subject, and edify some dozen or so with metaphysical moonshine and transcendental twaddle. I would consent just to oblige, and then good bye reason, sanity adieu, common sense farewell." In regard to the immoral tendencies of Spiritualism the Dr. is most emphatic, charging it more boldly than all others of its opponents. He says: "For seven years I held daily intercourse with what purported to be my mother's spirit. I am now firmly persuaded that it was nothing but an evil spirit, an infernal demon, who in that guise gained my soul's confidence, and led me to the very brink of ruin. We read in Scripture of demoniac possession as well as of normal spiritual action. Both facts exist provable to-day; I am positive the former does. As an offset to the foregoing list of good(?) things coming out of this medium school, a formidable list of evils can be presented. A. J. Davis and his clique of Harmonialists say there are no evil spirits. I emphatically deny the statement. Five of my friends destroyed themselves, and I attempted it, by direct spiritual influences. Every crime in the calendar has been committed by mortal movers of viewless beings. Adultery, fornication, suicides, desertions, unjust divorces, prostitution, abortion, insanity, are not evils, I suppose! I charge all these to this scientific Spiritualism, and not to religion. This scientific Spiritualism has healed the sick, comforted the mourner, converted a few. It has educated the ignorant, it is a royal road to knowledge, yet I prefer a different school. It has also broken up families, squandered fortunes, tempted and destroyed the weak. It has banished peace from happy families, separated husbands and wives, and shattered the intellects of thousands." An extract from his description of 'Harmonialism' may be interesting. The following is not the strongest part of it: "Harmonialism robs God of personality, converts him into a rarified gas: many million times finer than electricity"(!!) according to Davis, and elevates Reason to the throne of the universe by deifying human intellect. God, Nature, Love, Panthea, Rarified Gas,53sublimated Oxygen, and Ether, are by this lexicon convertible terms, and essences! It is claimed that this ism has done much for science. I deny it, and challenge the production of a solitary fact or principle referable to it as the original source of discovery. Davis plays on the credulity of the nation to an amazing extent. In 1846 he declares himself omniscient, in a little pamphlet called 'Clairmativeness,' in which the reasoning is clear as mud. Subsequently he withdraws this claim in the Great Harmonia. Then he tells us in the Harmonia that he was mistaken, that the principles were not immutable. He tells us that the Univercoelum was one vast, mighty, undefinable, exhaustless ocean of liquid fire, filling the uttermost bounds of space; and yet this same boundless globe of fire threw off seven successive series of rings from its outside! . . . I confess I am not satisfied how much is spiritual, how much humbug, or how much demonic; but that the most of it falls under the two last categories is a self-evident proposition. Usually, in circles, some great spirit announces himself. We expect something worthy of such a name, and either get a string of insipid platitudes, or a word picture and play of language, eloquent, novel, arabesque, beautiful as a soap-bubble, and quite as solid. Yet these speeches pass current as profound philosophy. . . . "Let me briefly recapitulate my estimate of Pantheistic radical popular Harmonialism. It is Godless, non-religious, opposed to the Bible, and all ecclesiastical organizations. It is subversive of human dignity and public morals, is destructive of all we hold most dear, and cherish most sacredly. It denies immortality to untold thousands. It robs us of faith in Christ, without giving us a substitute. It robs us of our refuge of religion, cultivates the intellect at the expense of the heart. It is a masked monster—all brain and no body. It gives us a philosophy, unsound, and at best merely speculative, cold, cheerless, selfish, and far-fetched, which gradually fastens itself about the soul, devours the affections, and makes man a locomotive encyclopedia without a heart. It addresses the intellect only, and as God intended us to feel as well as think, it proves itself anything but the sine qua non. It is a bewitching thing—so is a rattlesnake! At first the neophyte rejoices in his newfound freedom, as he supposes it to be. He becomes intoxicated with joy, for a while, revels in rainbow-tinted dreams of bliss; is led on step by step, deeper and deeper into a mazy labyrinth of unintelligible and profitless mysteries; emerges only to embark his soul's fortunes in an exploring expedition to the Land of Shadow; is wrecked on the rocks of doubt, clings to a single plank; dreams on, and not until the cold and chilling fogs of mysticism have frozen his very spirit, does he rouse from his slumber, to find himself on a rough chaotic sea, which to him, is shoreless, vast and dreamy as the 'icy hand of death'." The above gives a fair idea of the Dr.'s estimate of Spiritualism. One thing is certain—he has had abundant means of understanding the subject, of knowing what Spiritualism is. And no one can think the picture too highly colored who has had any acquaintance with the contradictory, inconsistent, absurd, and often blasphemous 'communications' of the spirits. With many of its advocates Spiritualism is only a mild name for the grossest sensualism; they boast much of freedom, but have neglected to distinguish between liberty and licentiousness. "We speak what we know, and testify what we have seen" and heard. Lest some should endeavor to evade the force of Dr. Randolph's testimony, as coming from an avowed opponent, we will give an extract from a well-known Spiritual lecturer, writer and publisher, who is yet its ardent friend and advocate. In Tiffany's Monthly for June, 1858, was an article entitled 'Aspiration,' from which we quote the following paragraph: "In an article entitled, 'Spiritualism,' published in the December No. of the Monthly, among other faults and errors I charged that its influence had tended to create a kind of moral and religious atheism—that these modern developments had not awakened religious aspirations in the minds of those who had been the subjects of them. To this charge many took exceptions, as being too severe. I have carefully investigated its truth since that time, and find the charge to be just. My experience has been, go among Spiritualists where you will, and, as a general thing, they have no faith in a living, conscious, intelligent Deity; possessed of love, volition, affection, &c., as an object of religious aspiration and worship. They feel no demand for worship themselves, and they denounce and ridicule its exercise in others. On an examination both of their theoretical and practical faith in God, you will find that it amounts to nothing but an indefinite and incoherent pantheism. The God of which they boast has no moral or religious quality challenging the soul's highest and holiest love of adoration. He is of no value to the soul in supplying its affectional needs. Being one that does not notice or love his children, he does not call forth their love. Being one who does not consciously commune with them, he does not produce in their hearts a desire for communion with him." With such testimony from their own ranks, we think the Spiritualist papers can afford to give the 'Harvard Professors' a respite from their ridicule and abuse on account of their decision against this abomination. Some may think, on reading Dr. Randolph's remarks, that Spiritualism has therein received a blow from which it can scarcely recover, or, which it will at least severely feel for a long time. But we think differently. He makes too many concessions. After all his hard sayings and accusations, he compromises the matter, and grants enough to bolster up the delusion, and shield it from the odium of being an unmitigated fraud. The Dr. professes to have turned from the dark bewildering maze of Spiritualism to the light of christianity. But if he would wield the weapons of such a warfare with success he must have more respect to the injunction of the Saviour, 'Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by his fruit.' Matt. xii, 33.