The Epworth Phenomena | Page 6

in line with modern findings, as in the case of the clairvoyant scryer, who used a looking-glass and apparently described a murder accurately. But the scryer was a young boy, and therefore perhaps naughty, like. Mr. Podmore's little girls, so we cannot accept him entirely at his own valuation. Indeed Wesley himself, while not dismissing the story, shows a Wisely non-committal attitude. But there are cases of crystal - gazing on record which are equally extraordinary, and the account may be true enough. I know of some unpublished cases which are even more extraordinary, two of the scryers (personally known to me, and far from being "mediums") seeing the same thing at the same time in the crystal. Collective hallucination, perhaps. But the thing seen was true. I do not understand this, and am hardly prepared to say that I believe it; though in any ordinary matter I should accept the word of these two men without hesitation. But, as John Wesley says, "What is it which I do comprehend, even of the things which I see daily? Truly not
"'The smallest grain of sand nor spire of grass,"'
and incomprehensibility therefore is no logical ground for disbelief. Psychologically, it is; for we must know the modus, or, in other words, must link up the new facts with others already accepted. And this is now coming about, through the work of many investigators. Myers said that in Consequence, of the corroborations of psychical research, everyone a century hence will believe in the Resurrection of Christ; whereas, without those corroborations, a century hence no one would have believed it. It may be that something of the sort way be true with regard to many now only half-believed historical narratives of the kind presented in this volume.
J. ARTHUR HILL.

THE EPWORTH PHENOMENA
FOREWORD
Most if not all of Wesley's biographers agree that what has come generally to be known as "The Epworth Case" is one of the best authenticated and related instances of supernormal happenings in the history of psychical research. Even Mr. Frank Podmore admits that "this is at once the most fully authenticated case in the literature of the subject and the most instructive for those that read with understanding"; and in Dr Fitchett's opinion "the evidence, if it were given in a court of law, and in a trial for murder, would suffice to hang any man."
Although in Professor Winchester's opinion the family were naturally somewhat too ready to ascribe the happenings to supernatural agency, yet he admits that it is difficult to explain the phenomena attested by so many trustworthy persons, and extending over so long a period, by the hypothesis of pure hallucination or by trickery. There seems to be only one defect in the evidence-the absence of any direct testimony from Miss Hetty Wesley, who seemingly played such a prominent part in the manifestations. In Letter XII Miss Susannah Wesley distinctly states that her "sisters Emilia and Hetty write so particularly about it." A lengthy letter from Emilia (Letter XI) immediately precedes this communication, but there is no letter in the whole series from Hetty. It does not seem probable that so careful and methodical a man as John Wesley would have mislaid any communication from this sister, or, if he had done so, have failed to draw attention to the fact. There, however, the omission must remain without explanation.
The Epworth incident had, undoubtedly, a great influence upon John Wesley, and may have been, as Canon Overton believes, "to some extent answerable for a marked feature of Wesley's character-his love of the marvellous, and his intense belief in the reality of apparitions and of witchcraft." It may have stimulated this love of the marvellous, which seems to be shared in a greater or lesser degree by the whole of the human family, but it did not engender it, for, as a casual observation of the document will prove, it was already implanted. And although Coleridge discovered in the Wesley family "an angry and damnatory predetermination" to believe in the ghost-certainly an erroneous judgment-yet it cannot be claimed for Wesley that he was more credulous, or even as credulous, as Samuel Johnson, who would make an appointment to meet a ghost in the crypt of St Sepulchre's Church. We have it on record that Dr Johnson was angry Hwith John Wesley for not following up the scent of a ghost story with proper spirit and perseverance. Coleridge's contention that "the noises were purely subjective, and partook of the nature of a contagious nervous disease," may perhaps be described as ultra-Podmorean, and is, in Dr Fitchett's opinion, "an explanation which respect for a great name need not prevent any one from calling childish."
John Wesley, however, cannot be claimed as a scientific investigator or observer. His attitude frequently borders on the credulous, and his