66

up and said that the Spiritualists had called him a medium, but that he had never called himself one, or an ex-medium." I replied, "I have bills in my possession in which you describe yourself as an 'ex-medium; but you have not answered the question. I don't care what the Spiritualists called you. Were you a medium or not?" Driven thus into a corner he replied that he was a medium, but that Spiritualism was still not true, because the effects that he experienced were not produced by spirits. "Why," said I, "You don't appear to know the meaning of the word medium; you had better go home and consult a dictionary. A medium is the channel through which one agent acts upon another—a vehicle of transmission. If you were a medium and not of spiritual agency, what then were you a medium of?" I need hardly say that I got no reply to this direct question. As I was leaving the Hall, the editor of the Leigh Chronicle came up to me, and said, "Look here, that man said, he never called himself an 'ex-medium.' Here is a photograph which he has given me this very night, on the back of which he so describes himself." And sure enough there it was: "R. J. Lees, ex-medium," in his own handwriting, probably written just before coming to the meeting, where he declared he had never called himself an "ex-medium" at all.

On the following evening Mr. Lees was again present. In this lecture, while dealing with the objections urged against Spiritualism, I took occasion to notice a statement that Mr. Lees had made in the town, but without referring to him personally, to the effect that the lunatic asylums of America were filled to overflowing with Spiritualists, the inference to be drawn from which fact was of course that Spiritualism was a most fruitful source of insanity. I said I would characterise this statement by using the plainest words that I could employ. It was simply an audacious lie. Spiritualists had perhaps furnished a fewer number of inmates of lunatic asylums than any class of people that could be named. A man might of course go mad on the question of Spiritualism as he might on that of religion. Undue and excessive attention to one subject, whatever might be its nature, frequently produced insanity; but the number of Spiritualists who had gone mad was remarkably small. It had been suggested by the chairman at the commencement of this lecture that it would be better to allow Mr. Lees to have ten minutes at the close to say what he had got to say on the subject. I was perfectly agreeable to this and consequently after the lecture, which was most enthusiastically received, Mr. Lees was called upon to give his objections to Spiritualism. When he got up, which he did somewhat reluctantly, he complained that ten minutes was too short a time to deal with so large a question,

but curiously enough he got through all he had to say and sat down before the ten minutes had expired. His principal arguments were that spirits contradicted each other and said what was not true, and that spiritual beings could not act on material things. I replied that I hardly saw how the fact of the messages being contradictory could prove there were no spirits, else the statements made by Mr. Lees would prove that he didn't exist. I fancied that I had seen contradictory statements made, and heard lies told by human beings in the flesh very often, and I did not see why human beings out of the flesh could not be guilty of the same fault. As to the statement that spiritual beings couldn't act on matter, I was certainly very much astonished to hear that assertion from a gentleman who came to that town I believed by the invitation of the Young Men's Christian Association. I might beg to draw their attention to a very old book in which Christians were usually supposed to have some faith, and in the pages of which several accounts would be found of spiritual beings acting directly on matter. There was a case in which an angel rolled back a stone from the door of a well-known sepulchre, and there was a case in which a spirit took Ezekiel by the hair of his head and carried him a long distance to Jerusalem. Several other instances of a similar kind I pointed out as being described in the Bible and asked whether Mr. Lees disbelieved these, and if so what the Young Men's Christian Association thought of him? When I had sat down and the applause which was long and loud had subsided, a gentleman rose, whose name I afterwards learned was Norbury, and stated that he was a member of the Young Men's Christian Association, and in that capacity he begged to repudiate all connection with Mr. Lees, and said that he did not consider the Young Men's Christian Association at all honoured by being · associated with such a man. To this I replied that I was very glad to hear it, for as I was myself frequently in the habit of lecturing for Young Men's Christian Associations, and had a very high opinion of the work in which they were engaged, I was sorry to find that they had lent any countenance to such a man as the "ex-medium." On a vote of thanks afterwards being proposed to me it was seconded by Mr. Lees, who proceeded to speak in most eulogistic terms of the lecture I had delivered and of my ability in general, which certainly did strike me as somewhat novel. The lectures were tolerably well attended and were admirably received. A long report of them extending over more than three columns appeared in the Leigh Chronicle of the Saturday following.

From the same paper of a week later I learn that Mr. Lees gave his lecture in reply to me, and in doing so indulged in a

good many reckless statements. He said he had seen Dr. Lynn perform feats in every sense "equal to those performed by the Spiritualists, and perhaps superior." This is utterly untrue, and Dr. Lynn has himself again and again admitted to me his inability to do anything more than give a crude imitation of the spiritual manifestations. Dr. Lynn is known to me intimately, he is the cleverest conjuror living, and withal a man of honour and a gentleman; and were he appealed to he would not for one moment defend the preposterous statement made about him by Mr. Lees. But suppose it were so? Does not Mr. Lees see that the argument is as powerful against his own pretended mediumship as against that of the Spiritualists, seeing that he even now claims to get manifestations by some sort of occult power. He denied, too, that Mr. Crookes was a Spiritualist, whereas Mr. Crookes does not hesitate to speak of himself as a believer in Spiritualism, as may be seen from his recent speech at the meeting of the British Association at Glasgow. Of myself personally, Mr. Lees said I was first "a Congregationalist, afterwards an Atheist, and subsequently a Spiritualist," and that consequently I had "changed three times." Now I most certainly never was a Congregationalist unless I might be considered one now, and in the strict sense of the word was never an Atheist. Even if I had, however, it is difficult to see where the three changes can be brought in, since I remain a Spiritualist, and must be considered to have commenced with one of the shades of thought referred to as soon as I was capable of forming any opinion. But if it were true, that I had changed three times, I have yet to learn that that is either a crime or a disadvantage. The statements made in my lecture were wilfully misrepresented. Take the following, which I copy from the Leigh Chronicle:"Dr. Sexton contended that this was the lowest sphere of existence, and that Spiritualism recognized the grand doctrine of progress. At that rate if there were no punishment hereafter, but a system of progress, a man might be a liar, thief or murderer in this world without fear." When and where did I contend for any such preposterous theory as this? I have never stated that the present was the lowest sphere of existence, because I am very far from thinking that it is; and to make me represent that liars, thieves and murderers will share the same fate hereafter as the virtuous and the good is a mendacious calumny. Why, I have been again and again blamed by Progressionalists for speaking so frequently of the hells; and of the reality of these hells I have no kind of doubt whatever. However, I suppose I must take the most charitable view of the question. and conclude that Mr. Lees has given himself no trouble to learn what my opinions are. He significantly remarked in his lecture

แ

that "he considered Dr. Sexton's reasoning beautiful, if you could but understand it." Well, I daresay there are many people who could not understand it—a misfortune which all public teachers have to contend with. I supply arguments but can't, unfortunately, furnish my hearers with brains. Amongst other misrepresentations may be mentioned the statement that Dr. Randolph and Dr. Potter (America) were formerly Spiritualists, but after examining it left it, having found it out to be a delusion." Now, Dr. Randolph died only last year, as firm a believer in Spiritualism as he had ever been in his life. The statement about the lunatic asylums again turns up and Mr. Lees being pressed for his authority falls back upon a reckless assertion of Mr. David King of Birmingham. And upon such evidence as this it is, this man goes about the country repeating false and slanderous statements respecting Spiritualists. Probably if David King were asked for his authority he would refer to Mr. Lees. The Baptist minister who took the chair, has about as strange a notion of evidence as the "ex-medium" himself. He remarked, "As regards Mr. David King, I know him as being second to none as a good Christian, and if we had this statement corroborated by Mr. King, so far as I am concerned I should take it as satisfactory." What would Mr. Wareing think of a person who went through the country slandering the Baptists, and who when asked for the authority upon which he made his statements should refer to some bitter opponent of that denomination. Nor is the truthfulness of Mr. David King all that is requisite in this case, we must know the evidence on which he makes the assertion. Suffice it to say that it is as reckless and false a slander as ever went forth to the world.

On Sunday, September 3rd, I preached two sermons in the Free Christian Church, Swindon, for my friend Mr. Young, who is away from home. The congregations were large, and I think good was done. A long report appeared in the Swindon Express, which will be found in another part of the Magazine.

The announcement that I would preach two sermons in the Rev. Dr. Thomas' Church, Clapham Road, on Sunday the 10th, and that I would describe the course of thought which had led me to renounce infidelity and return to Christ, brought large numbers of people together, some of whom came long distances. In the morning the church was well filled, and in the evening it was crowded. I need not here say anything respecting the line of argument that I adopted, as the sermons themselves are published and may be had at 75, Fleet Street. Reports of them appeared in most of the religious papers, the one from the Christian World is printed on another page. Some of the secular papers also gave notices, with of course, adverse criticism. In the Secular

Chronicle, edited by Mrs. Harriet Law, is an article devoted to the subject, headed "In Church," and commencing, "Little did we think it would ever be our fate to chronicle a discourse of Dr. Sexton's under this heading, at least until the pulpit becomes as free as the secular platform, when we might expect to see him vindicating our principles. But destiny has ordained it otherwise." The article is ably written, and the criticism which it contains fair as far as it goes. It would have been better, however, for Mrs. Law to have waited until she had the discourses in print before she proceeded to discuss them, since she would then have seen that her replies do not meet the question at issue.

Next month I shall be in Lancashire, having to preach on two Sundays at the New Jerusalem Church, Peter Street, Manchester, and on another in the Congregational Chapel, Darwen. On the 29th I shall preach two more sermons in Augustine Independent Church, Clapham, London.

London, September 16th, 1876.

GEO. SEXTON.

DR. SLADE.

DR. SLADE is taking the place so long vacated by D. D. Home. Visible phenomena are seen, not from the pit, box, or gallery of a theatre; at a convenient distance from the operators and machinery to simulate the good and the true, but seen in the ordinary parlour, at an ordinary table without cover. In Mr. Home's case, he refused to take fees, and as a rule the sittings were in the evening in the quiet of domestic life; but in Dr. Slade's case, it is any time during the day, in one of the rooms he occupies at a boarding house. The fee of twenty shillings is charged, and he prefers that only one person be present in the large room he uses. No time is lost; as soon as the visitor sits down the incidents commence, are continued, and in say fifteen minutes are ended. You are then bowed out and the Doctor sits down in the front room waiting the coming of some one else, who doubtless will in his turn, have something like the same phenomena which show that an intelligent ghost with power is at work. The narrative of my personal seeings and hearings will to many be useful.

Dr. Slade and I sat on chairs at an ordinary parlour table. An ordinary school slate was on it which he took up, gave me,