WCP3433

[1]

Office of the Chicago Times¹

Chicago,

Feb.20. 1875.

Dear Sir:

I feel under deep obligation to you for having called my attention to "the martyrdom of man".² It is a glorious book, though its closing pages read like the knell of doom. But it has the true ring. It is honest, and that is everything now-adays, as a historical picture it almost chills ones blood with its sombre coloring. What a sketch that of the destruction of Carthage!³ I regard it as one of the most vivid and striking portraitures to be found in the English language, and rivals Schiller's⁴ Destruction of Magdeburg.⁵ If the book has a fault it is its dogmatism. He takes rather too much for granted. He is too eager to be scientific; too much in earnest, he cuts too deeply — clear though the truth — but it is not a fact that truth is generally found by retracing our steps, as our best laws are those which repeal others — but just such iconoclasts are our present need, and I would not repress them. I think of reviewing the book for The Times.[2]

I feel that we are living in the most important period of the world's history. Within the next quarter of a century the foundations will be laid for the thought that will govern the world for centuries to come. I do not mean by this that the world will stand still after 25 years, but it will be busy digesting what is now given it, as the Latin and Germanic people have been digesting Christianity during the past 16 centuries during which time it was the engrossing theme. That structure — Christianity — was a necessity in its day, but that day is rapidly passing, and the temple must be broken — man or rather disestablished. Men like Reade⁶ would grind all beliefs, all religious ideas — all notions pertaining to the hereafter, — into powder, and scatter the dust to the winds; and such would be their fate if in its own good time "modern" spiritualism had not come.

Christi Spiritualism is working Christianity's ruin[?], it is true, but must not obliterate it. Certain fragments are still sound — stand in proof of spiritualism — and as the ancients built one city from the ruins of another, using new material to be sure, so spiritualism will save what there is of truth in the old beliefs, and rear a more enlightened philosophy of life.

The history of religion will never be so written until the human intellect can grasp the subtle influence of causes in the domain of the moral and intellectual. However revolting the Martyrdom [3] of man may seem in the light that is to the best that could have been, it will be found to be true. Gregg⁷ in his "Enigmas of Life"⁸ has a fine thought. He says that the trouble with our God is that we have made him impossible. We suppose him to be omnipotent, when we have no warrant for it. He would rather believe that God is himself limited; is continually refining the forces of nature both material and spiritual. In other words, is a progressive God; is evolution.

The bible presents a perfect God brooding over chaos. In the cumulative forces of nature, if not in reason, such a God is an impossibility. Of course, I am, not speaking of a personal deity, but the creative power of the universe.

Let me give it to you as it is given to me by my guides: God is all soul, working upon matter all intelligence is God, and we are God. God manifests itself in all things, not as he is, but according to the properties of the thing manifested upon. He is God in the savage — the soul — and in Goethe⁹ — in the former intelligence is turned to brutish things, in the latter to the intellectual. There is no such thing as a separate intelligence according to our acceptation of the term. But each appropriates as much as he can assimilate to himself. This theory is scientific, for upon any other we would be making something out of nothing. We would make intelligence, or we would be drawing upon nothing for our own supply.[4] Does this idea destroy identity? No. In the other world we shall again have material bodies — only in a finer sense — to be acted upon, and have all our faculties, or perceptions rather, will be improved. All there is of us is merely perception. We create nothing that endures. Truths are discovered we say. How? They are perceptions, according to the nature of the rapport, its ultimate relations with the all-soul, which embraces all-truth, but by a natural ^law can give only according to the demands made upon it.

This law is a measure illustrated by spirit-control. Spirit is impalpable to us mortals as soul is in turn impalpable to spirit, or, to use a better definition, spirit matter. Yet spirit acts upon matter. In my passive moments my mind is flooded by ideas from the other world, and I converse with the unseen, without speech as positively as I do with my fellow men. If thought was a creation instead of a perception — ponder this idea well — how could they act upon me. So thought evolved from matter? You will answer "no". From spirit, which is but another form of matter? Again, so then it must be a distinct property. If we have it not, how can we individualize it? No, there is a common reservoir from which we call all supplies according to our capabilities to perceive, and or receive. The difference between the molusk and the man is one of perception. ^{The former} lacks faculties. Does the eye create what it perceives? Yet if there were nothing it could see nothing and ^still yet be. So we might now[5] have our faculties, and if they were not acted upon, they would be void, as the bible says the world was before God smiled upon it. This idea of God in man is a scientific one, and when the world gets ready to receive it, will be grand in its operation. When we are told that we are at the mercy of a common God, who answers prayers, and bestows favors, makes any discrimination whatsoever, the philosophical human intellect rebels. In other words, God rebels at his own caricature. But when we come to believe that we can all draw from an inexhaustible common source, not by favor of belief, but by a cultivation of our perceptive faculties, there is, indeed, an incentive. And yet this is but an old truth restated, that God is omnipotent. What is progress in the other world? A refining of the matter composing spirit; getting more and more in support with the all-soul. This they can do as well in a rock, on this earth, as among the stars where in our fancy they abide. It is difficult for us to perceive that a stone is permeated by the same intelligence that we are; — though it may not have an identity and come in rapport with it for lack of perceptive faculties — yet it is no more difficult than to understand how we perceive, or think, or do anything outside of the domain of the purely material.[6] This gives us a God whom we can reconcile with the facts of nature and experience, as revealed for instance in "The Martyrdom of Man". If there ^is a dual intelligence in the world — counting all mankind as one — it would be reasonable to assume a God of the bible taking note of us as individuals. But facts prove that he does not take note of us, but governs us en masse by conductions[?]. If there were not evil in the world — hardships — we would stand still. We could perceive or receive so much and no more. But evil goads us to the development of new perceptions, creates them as it were. All births are painful.

This general law of good working up thorough evil, which we are just beginning to perceive, is not so new, we may surmise, to the perceptions of enlightened spirits, and thus while working in harmony with the law we get an inkling of the revelations that have hitherto been made, not by God, but by intelligences like ourselves, yet different in that they have better[?] perceptions. God never teaches by revelations. Men do. God is not didactic. But the same law that impells us to civilize the savage, impells spirits to teach us. Now if you had a savage tribe to educate, how would you go about it. Give them the unadulterated truth as you perceive it? No, you would teach them by symbols, resemblances, approximates, and leave it to time to work the changes to a clear perception. So the spirit world teaches us. If you will study the history of man, as that history should be studied, you will find that even[7] such meagre revelations as have been vouchsafed to us have always been ahead of their time. Then interaction ensued. The truth worked upon us and we worked upon the truth. Thus the faculty to perceive it was created, and as soon as human nature had assimilated with it, or approximated it, another was given. But races differ and hence there are special revelations for different people. ^{*see supplemental page.}

Look at the world at the time of the birth of Christianity. It had as sublime a code of morals in its stoicism as we today, but did that awaken the conscience. Sacky¹⁰ calls attention to the fact that the Romans knew no such feeling as remorse. That faculty, or perception, was awakened by Christianity, but it had to run its course of evil before it could become the good it is now. Human nature was not prepared for it, and sent its thousands into the desert, to the tops of pillars, and to all sorts of extravagances for no cause we ever think now. And yet the very fact that it came to pass, shows there was cause then. Gradually this conscience became regulated, and now it has resolved itself into a system of ethics.

Spiritualism has this same ^destructive element in it. It has in it that which would fill our madhouses, if given free play. The mere notion that we are surrounded by spirit., though unseen, is terrifying to many people. The subject must be introduced gradually and rationally, and could only be introduced in a rational age. It has come now, but is given in homeopathic quantities, with frequent reactions. It would not be well if this[8] world took to this thing too seriously. Hence the spirits themselves take frequent occasion to throw ridicule upon it. That is their way of checking a too rapid growth. And it serves another purpose. ^Spiritualism It means a complete revolution in our thoughts, our ideas and our mode of life. A complete overturning of all there is. Think of it, both, religion and science, the two governing factors of our lives, will be completely changed from their base upward. Tyndall¹¹ says: "matter creates thought." Spiritualism says "spirit acts on matter, as matter is dead," yet[?] now if the world awakened to an appreciation of the coming change, before that change was strong enough to defend itself it would be ruthlessly crushed. Do you not know this from your own 4 periods[?] would Carpenter,¹² for instance, a brother scientist, show you any mercy? Would not the church rise en masse today, all the sects making common cause, if they but appreciated what spiritualism is even today. But they are kept in good humor, with "nonsense", "bosh", "drivel", "the quintessence of lunacy", until the baby shall be man. So long as scientists and churchmen pity us, there is no danger from ^them. The time will come when they will fear us, and then a desperate struggle will ensue, for even this intelligent age is not prepared for all truths, and there are yet dark holes of humanity that have not heard the word "spiritualism." These will obey the priest[9]

Now you will say, "agreed that I grant your proposition as probable theory as plausible, only what facts have you to substantiate them with?" I answer: these are not generalities "evolved out of my own consciousness"; neither do I claim for then — to any appreciable extent at least — as revelations from the spirit world, but they are based on careful induction, the result of observations during an experience that few can boast.

To begin with myself. I am a living example of the theory advocated or demonstrated in "The Martyrdom of Life". I am literally developing through evil. No sooner do I conquer one passion then another is evoked in me, and so I running[?] through the entire gamut of feeling. This for discipline. I have qualities developed in me today that I did not dream of two years ago. My friends frequently refer to changes in me. They teach altogether by anthithesis. To produce a pure state of mind they began by filling it with obscurity, the struggle to search these impressions was terrible. It sometimes brought me to the brink of despair. But how those conflicts have strengthened me! But some day I shall need all the strength I am now acquiring.[10]

Why is it that mediums have a particular "control." and why are these controls untutored Indians, or Chinese, or Germans, or Frenchmen, or anything rather than men or women who speak the English language. Frequently the controls are little children, or, at any rate they are represented[?] as such? Have you ever given this peculiarity a thought? I have, and it accords with my theory that this whole subject is carefully managed on the other side. I have had experience with probably 50 test mediums, and not one of them has an English speaking control. Public speakers have, but there a strict line is drawn, and you get no tests from them. They will only deal in glittering generalities. But sometimes these speaking mediums so intelligently controlled also give tests at their rooms, but always with an inferior control. For that phase I frequently visit a medium controlled by an Indian, who pretended to great stupidity at first. The moment I pressed a question home to him that he did not want to know, it was: "me no understand you; me no understand English much, me stupid Injun." I began to speculate: "If our friends want as to know the truth why don't they give us intelligent English speaking controls." By and By, this theory occurred to me and I went boldly for the Indian telling him his subterfuges were lost on me, and then he acknowledged that his ignorance was a mere devise, and now when I am alone with him he talks as good English as anybody, but the moment a third person enters the room he "tips me the wink" and falls back on his gibberish.[11] The explanation is that an Indian can feign ignorance when an English speaking white man cant. It is an easy way of evading the answering of questions that had better be left unanswered at this stage of proceedings.

Now it is also a fact that no medium is controlled except[?] that control is assisted by a band[?], for a battery. Is it reasonable to suppose that these bands are exclusively composed of idiots, or would lead themselves to these things without a purpose.

Before a spirit is given in charge of a medium, that spirit must learn the "laws of control". Of this fact I have been informed very frequently. Now what are these laws? Do they pertain to the merely physical? I doubt it. They are inducted into the mysteries of the councils having governing the whole phenomena known as modern spiritualism. They are taught in a general way what to say as what to leave unsaid. Any you will find by introspection[?] that communications have very much improved during the past few years. We daily get more light, because we can bear more.

Do you imagine that materializations are a ^late new discovery in the spirit world? What was Christ's resurrection but materialization. Renan¹³ can not be accused of sending spiritual conditions to order, but in his "origins of christianity".¹⁴ — I think the "Life of Jesus" — in order to throw ridicule upon the assumption that Christ appeared, and to prove that[12] it was a hallucination, he describes precisely the conditions necessary to obtain materialization nowadays. Mediums have been in all ages of the world, and they have always been used to serve the spirits in their own way. Reade admits that the Oracle of Delphi,¹⁵ which he regards as a superstition, had much to do with the greatness of the Greeks. A remarkable admission. At that period mediumship was very exclusive. So it was among all ancients. A few great minds there were, but the people were babes, and hence could not be instructed[?] with these wonderful phenomena. Why was spiritualism first brought in America? Was it an accident? Had there not been persons with mediumship powers before then for [one word illeg]? It was introduced here because the American character was adapted for it; because the American enjoyed absolute religious freedom. Because here there is no state church. It also came when scientific rationalism began its wonderful career. Evolution and rationalism go hand in hand, and one day will meet.

I have burdened you with all this because I am very anxious you should take this view of the matter; you cannot make progress unless you adopt it.

Very truly yours

Frederick F. Cook [signature][13]

* since finding this letter I have read the last the last pages of the Martyrdom, & find that Reade agrees with me about the God idea, though he denies life hereafter. He says:

"then our element shall be dispersed and all is at an end (at death.) All is at an end for the unity[?] and all is at an end for the atom, and all is at an end for the speck of flesh and blood with the little speck of instinct [perception] which it calls its mind; but all is not at an end for the actual man, the true Being, the glorious one. We teach that the soul is immortal; we teach that there is a future life; we teach that there is a heaven in the ages far away; but not as simple carporeales[?]; not for as dots of animated jelly, but for the one of whom we are the elements, and, who, though we perish, never dies, but flows from period to period, and by the united efforts of simple molecules called men, or of those cell groups called nations, is raised towards the divine power which he will finally attain".[14]

P.S. There is nothing worth writing about that artesian well. I saw Mr. Shufeldt,¹⁶ and he promised me to write to you, giving full particulars, such as they are, but they are of no value.

F F Cook