on the late indefensible assassination of Julius Caesar.  If nobody has any right to judge of Spiritualism except a man who has been to a seance, the results, logically speaking, are rather serious:  it would almost seem as if nobody had any right to judge of Christianity who had not been to the first meeting at Pentecost.  Which would be dreadful.  I conceive myself capable of forming my opinion of Spiritualism without seeing spirits, just as I form my opinion of the Japanese War without seeing the Japanese, or my opinion of American millionaires without (thank God) seeing an American millionaire.  Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed:  a passage which some have considered as a prophecy of modern journalism.

But my correspondent’s second objection is more important.  He charges me with actually ignoring the value of communication (if it exists) between this world and the next.  I do not ignore it.  But I do say this—­That a different principle attaches to investigation in this spiritual field from investigation in any other.  If a man baits a line for fish, the fish will come, even if he declares there are no such things as fishes.  If a man limes a twig for birds, the birds will be caught, even if he thinks it superstitious to believe in birds at all.  But a man cannot bait a line for souls.  A man cannot lime a twig to catch gods.  All wise schools have agreed that this latter capture depends to some extent on the faith of the capturer.  So it comes to this:  If you have no faith in the spirits your appeal is in vain; and if you have—­is it needed?  If you do not believe, you cannot.  If you do—­you will not.

That is the real distinction between investigation in this department and investigation in any other.  The priest calls to the goddess, for the same reason that a man calls to his wife, because he knows she is there.  If a man kept on shouting out very loud the single word “Maria,” merely with the object of discovering whether if he did it long enough some woman of that name would come and marry him, he would be more or less in the position of the modern spiritualist.  The old religionist cried out for his God.  The new religionist cries out for some god to be his.  The whole point of religion as it has hitherto existed in the world was that you knew all about your gods, even before you saw them, if indeed you ever did.  Spiritualism seems to me absolutely right on all its mystical side.  The supernatural part of it seems to me quite natural.  The incredible part of it seems to me obviously true.  But I think it so far dangerous or unsatisfactory that it is in some degree scientific.  It inquires whether its gods are worth inquiring into.  A man (of a certain age) may look into the eyes of his lady-love to see that they are beautiful.  But no normal lady will allow that young man to look into her eyes to see whether they are beautiful.  The same vanity and idiosyncrasy has been generally observed in gods.  Praise them; or leave them alone; but do not look for them unless you know they are there.  Do not look for them unless you want them.  It annoys them very much.