{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54665/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54665","id":"gutenberg_54665","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54665","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Parapsychology"],"text":"THE LAW OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA\n\n\n\n\nBY DR. HUDSON.\n\n\n THE LAW OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA. 12mo $1.50\n\n A SCIENTIFIC DEMONSTRATION OF THE FUTURE LIFE. 12mo 1.50\n\n THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 12mo 1.50\n\n THE LAW OF MENTAL MEDICINE. 12mo $1.20 _net_\n\n THE EVOLUTION OF THE SOUL. 12mo 1.20 _net_\n\n\nA.C. MCCLURG & CO.\n\nCHICAGO.\n\n\n\n\n THE LAW\n\n OF\n\n PSYCHIC PHENOMENA\n\n A Working Hypothesis\n\n FOR THE\n\n SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF HYPNOTISM,\n SPIRITISM, MENTAL THERAPEUTICS,\n ETC.\n\n BY\n\n THOMSON JAY HUDSON, PH.D., LL.D.\n\n AUTHOR OF \"A SCIENTIFIC DEMONSTRATION OF THE FUTURE LIFE,\"\n \"THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN,\" ETC.\n\n [Illustration]\n\n SIXTIETH THOUSAND\n\n CHICAGO\n A.C. MCCLURG & CO.\n 1904\n\n\n\n\n COPYRIGHT\n BY A.C. MCCLURG AND CO.\n A.D. 1893\n\n\n UNIVERSITY PRESS, JOHN WILSON\n AND SON \u00b7 CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A.\n\n\n\n\nTO THE\n\nHonorable Lester L. Bond,\n\nTHE COMPANION OF MY YOUTH, THE STEADFAST FRIEND OF MY MANHOOD, MY\nMENTOR ALWAYS,\n\nTHIS VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED BY\n\n THE AUTHOR.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nI do not expect this book to stand upon its literary merits; for if it\nis unsound in principle, felicity of diction cannot save it, and if\nsound, homeliness of expression cannot destroy it. My primary object\nin offering it to the public is to assist in bringing Psychology\nwithin the domain of the exact sciences. That this has never been\naccomplished is owing to the fact that no successful attempt has been\nmade to formulate a working hypothesis sufficiently comprehensive to\nembrace all psychic phenomena. It has, however, long been felt by the\nablest thinkers of our time that all psychic manifestations of the\nhuman intellect, normal or abnormal, whether designated by the name\nof mesmerism, hypnotism, somnambulism, trance, spiritism, demonology,\nmiracle, mental therapeutics, genius, or insanity, are in some way\nrelated; and consequently, that they are to be referred to some general\nprinciple or law, which, once understood, will simplify and correlate\nthe whole subject-matter, and possibly remove it from the domain of\nthe supernatural. The London Society for Psychical Research, whose\nramifications extend all over the civilized world, was organized for\nthe purpose of making a systematic search for that law. The Society\nnumbers among its membership many of the ablest scientists now living.\nIts methods of investigation are purely scientific, and painstaking\nto the last degree, and its field embraces all psychic phenomena. It\nhas already accumulated and verified a vast array of facts of the most\ntranscendent interest and importance. In the mean time a large number\nof the ablest scientists of Europe and America have been pursuing\nindependent investigations in the phenomena of hypnotism. They too\nhave accumulated facts and discovered principles of vast importance,\nespecially in the field of mental therapeutics,--principles which also\nthrow a flood of light upon the general subject of Psychology.\n\nThis vast array of facts, thus accumulated and verified, and awaiting\nscientific classification and analysis, would seem to justify at least\na tentative effort to apply to them the processes of induction, to the\nend that the fundamental law of psychic phenomena may be discovered.\n\nIn the following pages I have attempted such a classification of\nverified phenomena, accounts of which I find in the literature current\non the subject; and I have tentatively formulated a working hypothesis\nfor the systematic study of all classes of psychic phenomena. It\nwill be observed that I have availed myself largely of the labors of\nothers, instead of confining myself to experimental researches of my\nown. I have done this for two reasons: _first_, that I might avoid the\naccusation of having conducted a series of experiments for the purpose\nof sustaining a pet theory of my own; and _second_, because I hold that\nsubstantial progress cannot be made in science until one is ready to\naccord due credit to human integrity, and to give due weight to human\ntestimony.\n\nIn conclusion, I desire to say that I claim no credit for this work,\nsave that which is due to an honest desire to promote the truth for its\nown sake. Sincerely believing in the correctness of my hypothesis, I\nhave not hesitated to follow it to its legitimate conclusion in every\nfield which I have entered. If at the close of the book I have seemed\nto trespass upon the forbidden field of theological discussion, it was\nnot for the purpose of sustaining any preconceived opinions of my own;\nfar from it. It was because I was irresistibly led to my conclusions by\nthe terms of my hypothesis and the inflexible logic of its application.\nI cannot but be aware that my conclusions sometimes oppose the\npreconceived opinions of others. But no one who accepts my hypothesis\nas the true one will be compelled more frequently than I have been to\nrenounce his former convictions.\n\n T.J.H.\n\n WASHINGTON, D.C.\n October 21, 1892.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n INTRODUCTORY.\n\n PAGE\n\n Necessity of a Working Hypothesis.--The Newtonian Hypothesis.--The\n Atomic Theory.--A Psychological Hypothesis\n necessary.--Theories of Hypnotism and Mesmerism.--Spiritism.--Mental\n Therapeutics.--Li\u00e9bault's Law of Suggestion.--Duality\n of Mind.--A Working Hypothesis for\n Psychology formulated.--Its Three Terms 19\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n DUALITY AND SUGGESTION.\n\n The Doctrine of the Trinity of Man.--The Greek Philosophy.--The Early\n Christian Fathers.--Hermetic Philosophy.--Swedenborg.--Duality in\n Modern Philosophy.--\"Objective\" and \"Subjective\" Minds.--Their\n Distinctive Differences and Modes of Operation.--The Subjective\n Mind a Distinct Entity.--Illustrations from Hypnotism.--Suggestion.\n --Auto-Suggestion.--Universality of the Law of Suggestion 27\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n REASONING POWERS OF THE TWO MINDS DIFFERENTIATED.\n\n The Subjective Mind incapable of Inductive Reasoning.--Its\n Processes always Deductive, or Syllogistic.--Its Premises\n the Result of Suggestion.--Illustrations by Hypnotism.--Hypnotic\n Interview with Socrates.--Reasons from an Assumed\n Major Premise.--Interview with a Philosophic Pig.--The\n Pig affirms the Doctrine of Reincarnation.--Dogmatism\n of Subjective Intelligence.--Incapable of Controversial\n Argument.--Persistency in following a Suggested Line of\n Thought 33\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n PERFECT MEMORY OF THE SUBJECTIVE MIND.\n\n Confirmed by Hypnotic Phenomena.--Opinions of Psychologists.--Sir\n William Hamilton's Views.--Observations of Dr. Rush.--Talent for\n Poetry and Music developed by Abnormal Conditions.--Talent for Drawing\n evolved by Madness.--Resuscitation of Knowledge in the\n Insane.--Extraordinary Feats of Memory during Illness.--A Forgotten\n Language recovered.--Whole Pages of Greek and Hebrew remembered by\n an Illiterate Servant Girl.--Speaking in Unknown Tongues\n explained.--The Result of the Operations of Natural Law 40\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n SUBJECTIVE MEMORY (_continued_).\n\n Practical Illustrations.--Reasons for Limitations of Subjective\n Power.--Its Practical Significance.--Its Application to the Solution of\n Problems of Insanity.--The Mental Phenomena of \"Genius.\"--Napoleon\n Bonaparte.--Shakspeare.--Poets.--Artists.--Macaulay's Estimate of Poets\n and Poetry.--Dangers of Subjective Control.--Lord Byron.--Socrates'\n Estimate of Poets.--His Recognition of the Subjective Element in Poetic\n Composition.--Occasional Inconveniences.--Unconscious\n Plagiarism.--Observations of Holmes.--Improvisation.--Solution\n of the Shakspeare-Bacon Problem.--The Subjective in Art.--Madness in\n Art.--Great Orators.--Webster.--Clay.--Patrick\n Henry.--Incidents.--Practical Conclusions 48\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n PERCEPTION OF THE FIXED LAWS OF NATURE.\n\n Three Sub-Classes of Mental Phenomena.--Mathematical\n Prodigies.--Musical Prodigies.--Measurement of Time.--Distinction\n between Results of Objective Education and\n Intuitive Perception.--Zerah Colburn, the Mathematical\n Prodigy.--The Lightning Calculator.--Blind Tom, the\n Musical Prodigy.--The Origin and Uses of Music.--East\n Indian Fakirs.--Measurement of Time.--The Power possessed\n by Animals.--Illustrative Incidents.--Hypnotic\n Subjects.--Jouffroy's Testimony.--Bernheim's Views.--Practical\n Observations.--The Normal Functions of Objective\n Intelligence.--The Limitations of Subjective Intelligence\n pertains to its Earthly State only.--Its Kinship to\n God demonstrated by its Limitations.--Omniscience cannot\n reason inductively.--Induction is Inquiry.--Perception the\n Attribute of Omniscience.--Conclusions regarding the\n Power of the Soul 62\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n EFFECTS OF ADVERSE SUGGESTION.\n\n The Subjective Mind incapable of Controversial Argument.--A\n Sceptical Audience demoralizes it.--The Presence of an\n Avowed Sceptic prevents Successful Exhibition of Subjective\n Phenomena.--Labouchere and Bishop.--The Royal\n Academy of Medicine.--Its Offer to Clairvoyants.--Failure\n to earn Reward.--Harmonious Conditions required by\n Spiritists.--The Seybert Commission.--Trance-speaking\n Mediums.--How demoralized.--Adverse Suggestion the\n Cause of Failure in all Cases.--Possible Lack of Telepathic\n Conditions in Bishop's Case.--General Conclusions.--Failure\n Consistent with Honesty of Mediums 75\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n HYPNOTISM AND MESMERISM.\n\n Warfare of the Schools.--History of the Science.--Mesmer's\n Career.--The Academicians.--The Successors of Mesmer.--The\n Royal Academy of Medicine.--Its Idiotic Prejudices.--Dr.\n Braid's Discovery.--Re-baptism of the Science.--Effects\n of Braid's Discoveries.--Li\u00e9bault's Theory of Suggestion.--The\n Nancy School and the Paris School compared.--The\n Fluidic Theory.--The Law of Suggestion the Greatest\n Discovery in Psychic Science.--The Significance of\n Braid's Discoveries not appreciated.--Hypnotism of Animals.--The\n Charcot School.--The Sources of its Errors.--Reform\n in Terminology suggested.--The Mesmeric Theory.--Braid's\n Processes not productive of Higher Phenomena.--Mesmerization\n of Animals.--Recapitulation of Points 81\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n HYPNOTISM AND MESMERISM (_continued_).\n\n Mesmeric Methods.--The Fluidic Theory.--Influence of the\n Mind of the Operator.--The Early Mesmerists.--Their\n Methods and their Effects.--Decadence of the Higher Phenomena\n under Braid's Methods.--The Causes explained.--Telepathic\n Powers developed by Mesmerism.--Mesmerism\n as a Therapeutic Agent.--Method of Operation recommended.--How\n to acquire the Power.--The Necessary\n Conditions of Success.--Will-Power explained.--The\n Fluidic Theory requires Revision.--Distinction between\n Mesmerism and Hypnotism sharply drawn.--Mesmerization\n of Animals distinguished from the Hypnotization of Animals.--Methods\n employed in each.--Tamers of Horses and Wild\n Beasts.--Dog-Trainers.--Primitive Man.--His Powers.--His\n Immunity from Harm.--Daniel.--The Adepts.--General\n Conclusions 105\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n HYPNOTISM AND CRIME.\n\n Platform Experiments misleading,--Their Utter Inutility as a\n Test.--So-called \"Tests\" described and explained.--Sexual\n Outrages impossible.--Auto-Suggestion protects the\n Virtuous.--A Willing Subject necessary.--Demonstrative\n Experiments.--Modern Authorities cited against Themselves.--Professor\n Gregory's Views.--The Elevated Moral\n Tone of Subjects when mesmerized.--Successful Suggestion\n of Suicide impossible.--The Three Normal Functions of\n the Subjective Mind.--Self-Preservation.--Propagation.--Preservation\n of Offspring.--Instinctive Auto-Suggestion.--Indifference\n on Near Approach of Death.--A Universal Law.--Illustrative\n Incidents.--Suggestive Criminal Abortion\n impossible.--Premonitions explained.--The D\u00e6mon of\n Socrates.--Clairaudience.--The Instinct of Death.--Hypnotism\n in Jurisprudence.--Testimony valueless.--Vital\n Secrets impossible to obtain.--Doctors must not monopolize\n the Forces of Nature.--The Folly of Adverse Legislation 122\n\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n PSYCHO-THERAPEUTICS.\n\n Historical Notes.--Mind Cure in Ancient Times.--Bible\n Accounts.--Miracles of the Church.--Healing by the King's\n Touch.--Views of Paracelsus and Pomponazzi.--Bernheim's\n Experiments.--The Modern Schools.--Their Theories.--The\n True Hypothesis applicable to All Systems.--Illustrations\n of the Theory.--Producing a Blister by Suggestion.--Bloody\n Stigmata.--Letters of Blood.--Objective Control of Subjective\n Mind.--Subjective Control of Bodily Functions.--The\n Necessary Mental Conditions.--The Precepts and\n Example of Christ.--Subjective Faith alone required.--Discussion\n of Various Systems.--Christian Science, etc.--General\n Conclusions 144\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n PSYCHO-THERAPEUTICS (_continued_).\n\n Methods classified in Two Divisions.--Mental and Oral\n Suggestions.--Absent Treatment.--Christian Scientists handicapped\n by Absurd Theories.--They claim too much.--The Use of Drugs.--Dangers\n arising from too Radical Change.--Importance of Favorable Mental\n Environment.--Mental Healing requires Mental Conditions.--Treatment\n by Hypnotism.--Bernheim's Methods.--Illustrative Cases.--The\n Practical Value of the System.--The Illogical Limitations\n of the Theory.--Potency of Telepathic Suggestion.--Researches\n of the Society for Psychical Research.--Mr. Gurney's Experiments.--They\n demonstrate the Theory of Effluent Emanations.--Diagnosis by\n Intuition.--Potency of Mesmerism.--Permanency of Cures.--Conditions\n necessary.--The Example of Jesus.--Self-Healing by Auto-suggestion 161\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n\n A NEW SYSTEM OF MENTAL THERAPEUTICS.\n\n Telepathy the Normal Means of Communication between Subjective\n Minds.--Perfect Passivity required for Therapeutic\n Suggestions.--Natural Sleep the Most Perfect State of\n Passivity.--Hypnotic Sleep and Natural Sleep identical.--Phenomena\n of Dreams.--Subjective Mind controllable by\n Suggestion during Natural Sleep.--Illustrative Incidents.--Passivity\n a Necessity on the Part of the Operator.--The Subjective Mind can\n be caused to convey Telepathic Messages during Sleep.--Illustrative\n Experiments 176\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n\n A NEW SYSTEM OF MENTAL THERAPEUTICS (_continued_).\n\n Recapitulation of Propositions.--Natural Sleep the Best Condition\n attainable both for Healer and Patient.--Demonstrative\n Experiments.--Healing at a Distance of One Thousand\n Miles.--Distance no Obstacle.--Space does not exist for\n the Subjective Mind.--Objective Habits of Thought the\n only Adverse Factor.--Diseases treated.--Strabismus\n cured.--Mode of Operation.--Not a Good Money-making\n Scheme.--It promotes the Health of the Healer.--A\n Method of Universal Utility.--Self-Healing its most Important\n Function.--The Power absolute.--Within the Reach\n of All.--Method of Self-Healing.--The Patient's Credulity\n not overtaxed.--The Example of Christ.--Material Remedies\n not to be ignored.--Advice to Christian Scientists.--The\n Control of Dreams.--Practical Conclusions 191\n\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n\n THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM.\n\n If a Man die, shall he live again?--The Problem not solved by\n Spiritistic Phenomena.--The Phenomena admitted.--Their Supernatural\n Origin denied.--Explained by the Hypothesis.--Subsidiary\n Hypothesis.--An Intelligent Dynamic Force.--Its\n Characteristics.--Limited by Medium's Intelligence.--It is\n controlled by Suggestion.--Phenomena fail in Presence of\n Scepticism.--Reasons.--Mediumistic Frauds.--The Primary Lesson\n in Spiritistic Investigation.--Mediums not necessarily\n dishonest.--Their Honest Belief in the Phenomena.--Suggestion\n explains all.--Illustrations from Hypnotism.--Convincing Character\n of Alleged Communications.--Telepathic Explanations.--General\n Conclusions 205\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI.\n\n THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM (_continued_).\n\n Various Classes of Phenomena.--Clairvoyance.--Its Field not yet\n clearly defined.--Telepathy invades its Ancient Domain.--Simple\n Experiments in Telepathy.--Their Significance.--Telepathic Power\n in Mediums.--Telepathic Visions.--A Typical S\u00e9ance.--Wonderful\n Exhibition of Telepathic Power.--An Affecting Interview of the\n Sitter with Himself.--Deductions.--Visions of Inanimate Things as\n well as of Deceased Persons.--Spirit of the Jack of\n Clubs.--Subjective Memory.--Spirit Identity.--Allan Kardec's\n Observations.--His Illogical Conclusions.--His Supreme\n Test.--Telepathic Explanation.--Four Ways of explaining his Test\n Case 219\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII.\n\n THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM (_continued_).\n\n Psychometry.--\"The Souls of Things.\"--Professor Denton's\n Experiments.--Wonderful Visions of the Ancient Environment of\n Geological Specimens.--A Piece of Mortar from Cicero's\n House.--Supposed Scientific Tests.--Explanation on Telepathic\n Principles.--Experiments in Hypnotism compared.--Clairvoyance\n and Telepathy.--Their Boundary Lines in\n Transit.--Clairaudience.--Definitions of the Term.--Socrates\n and his D\u00e6mon.--Modern Instances.--Mental\n Impressions.--Premonitions.--Their Unreliability.--Remarkable\n Examples of Clairaudience.--A Lawyer's Experience.--Subject\n to the Law of Suggestion.--Insanity sometimes results from\n Ignorance of the Cause.--Practical Suggestions 238\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM (_continued_).\n\n The Planchette.--Modifications.--Easily operated.--Automatic\n Writing.--Governed by the Universal Law.--The Planchette without\n Spirits.--The Planchette and Telepathy.--Trance.--Ancient and\n Modern Superstitions relating to Trance.--Religious Systems\n founded on Trance.--Visions.--Swedenborg.--Oriental\n Philosophy.--Its Slow Growth and Stupendous Proportions.--Spiritistic\n Philosophy.--Its Evolution.--All founded on Trance Visions, in\n Ignorance of the Law of Suggestion.--Cahagnet's Mesmeric\n Seers.--Their Revelations.--Objective and Subjective\n Visions.--Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.--Visions of the Holy\n Virgin.--The Physical and Mental Attitude of Prayer.--The Prayer of\n Faith.--Obsession.--Possession.--Casting out Devils.--Devils out\n of Fashion.--The Influence of Suggestion.--The Element of\n Telepathy.--Dual Personality.--Loss of Identity.--Characteristics.--The\n Case of Ansel Bourne.--Possible Explanation.--A Proof of the Dual\n Hypothesis.--Multiple Personality 251\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX.\n\n THE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM.\n\n The Intelligence manifested.--It is a Human Intelligence.--Inherent\n Probabilities.--Conditions requisite.--The Best\n Conditions.--A Living Organism necessary.--The Laws of Telepathy\n and Suggestion prevail.--Slate-Writing.--A Wonderful Slate-Writing\n S\u00e9ance.--Telepathic and Psycho-Physical Power displayed in\n Perfection.--Demonstration of its Mundane Origin.--An Unexpected\n Phenomenon.--Summary of Results.--Syllogism.--General\n Conclusions.--Spiritistic Phenomena do not constitute Valid\n Evidence of a Life beyond the Grave.--An Argument for Immortality 271\n\n\n CHAPTER XX.\n\n PHANTASMS OF THE DEAD.\n\n Ghosts.--Scientific Investigations.--Tentative Classification of\n Phenomena.--Power to create Phantasms demonstrated.--Investigations\n of the London Society for Psychical Research.--Spirit\n Photography.--Projection of the \"Astral Body.\"--Witches.--Conditions\n necessary.--The same in all Cases.--Spirit\n \"Materialization.\"--Magicians.--Ghosts the Creations of the\n Subjective Entity.--Eliphas Levi's Views.--Raising the\n Devil.--Crystal Visions.--Propositions established.--Embodied\n Thoughts.--Phantasms not Spirits.--Uniform Characteristics.--A New\n Classification.--Conditions of Objectivity and Persistency.--Haunted\n Houses.---No General Intelligence manifested.--D'Assier's\n Statements.--A Remarkable Case.--Ghosts Intensified Telepathic\n Visions.--Difference in Degree, not in Kind.--Ghosts not controllable\n by Suggestion.--Other Salient Peculiarities.--Ghosts\n neither prove nor disprove Immortality.--Mental Atmosphere\n of Houses.--Remarkable Cases.--Classification of Telepathic\n Phenomena.--Conclusions 286\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI.\n\n SUSPENDED ANIMATION AND PREMATURE BURIAL.\n\n Facts of Startling Import.--The Case of Washington Irving\n Bishop.--Other Instances of Suspended\n Animation.--Vampirism.--Catalepsy.--East Indian Fakirs buried\n alive for Months.--Fundamental Errors.--Catalepsy not a\n Disease.--A Recuperative Agent.--The Law of Suggestion governs\n the Phenomena.--Subjective Insensibility impossible.--Suggestion\n of Death deepens the Lethargy.--The Appalling Dangers of\n Catalepsy.--The Proper Treatment 309\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII.\n\n PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.\n\n The Normal Relations of the Objective and Subjective\n Faculties.--Their Distinctive Powers and Functions.--The\n Infinite Wisdom displayed in their Distribution.--It\n constitutes Man a Free Moral Agent.--Limitation of Subjective\n Powers and Responsibilities in this Life.--The Kinship of\n the Soul to God.--The Limitation of the Powers of the\n Objective Mind.--The Transcendent Powers of the Soul.--Errors\n of the Old\n Philosophers.--The Normal Functions of the Soul in Earthly\n Life.--Dangers of Abnormal Exercise of Subjective Power.--Nervous\n Disorders, Insanity, Imbecility, and Moral Degradation.--The\n Importance of a Knowledge of the Law of Suggestion.--Dangers\n of Mediumship.--Trance-Speakers.--Immoral Tendency of Ignorant\n Mediumship.--Tendency towards Free Love.--The Causes.--The\n Orientalists.--Their Greater Powers, and their Greater\n Facilities for Self-Delusion.--Practical Conclusions.--Warnings 321\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII.\n\n THE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS AND PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST.\n\n The Great Stumbling-Block, Unbelief in the Physical History\n of Christ.--Modern Science confirms the New Testament.--Internal\n Evidence of the Truth of the History of Jesus.--The\n Scientific Accuracy of His Statements.--The Exoteric\n and the Esoteric Doctrines.--Parables.--Esoteric Doctrines\n reserved for Modern Science to discover.--The Spirit of\n Truth.--Jesus the first to proclaim the Scientific Truth.--The\n Doctrine of Faith.--Healing the Sick.--Natural Law.--Faith\n essential then as now.--Illustrative Incidents.--Jairus'\n Daughter.--Seven Scientific Steps.--Secrecy enjoined.--Scientific\n Reasons.--Rediscovery of the Science of Mental Therapeutics in\n Modern Times.--Nothing discovered that Jesus did not know.--Absent\n Treatment.--The Power to heal transmitted to all Future\n Generations.--The Conditions.--Conclusions 338\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIV.\n\n THE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST (_continued_).\n\n The Word _Faith_ in its Application to Psychic Phenomena.--Its\n Definition.--An Epitome of the Law of Suggestion.--Subjective\n Faith only required.--Illustrative Incident.--The \"Spoken\n Word.\"--Jesus knew the Law, and always acted within its\n Limitations.--Intuitive Perception of the Laws of\n the Soul.--His Manhood and its Limitations.--Our Warranty\n of Title as Sons of God.--Christ constantly controlled\n by Reason.--His Subjective Powers subservient.--The\n Three Temptations illustrative.--The Great Lesson to\n Mankind.--The Normal Exercise of Subjective Power.--Simon\n the Sorcerer.--Miracle not a Necessary Explanation of the\n Power of Christ.--Conclusions 359\n\n\n CHAPTER XXV.\n\n THE SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST.\n\n The Necessity of Signs and Wonders.--Christ's Work was for\n All-Time.--His Consummate Wisdom.--Signs and Wonders\n as Evidence.--His Perception of Spiritual Laws.--The Perceptive\n Powers of the Soul.--Propositions.--Presumptive\n Evidence of His Knowledge of Spiritual Laws.--Condition\n precedent to Immortality.--Faith the Essential Condition.--The\n Declarations of Christ.--He meant just what He said.--The\n Doctrines of the Church.--Literal Extinction of the\n Soul through Unbelief.--Belief essential to Salvation.--Belief\n will not avert the Consequences of Sin.--Inherent\n Probabilities.--The Conscious Existence of the Soul.--The\n Law of Suggestion applied.--Scepticism constitutes a Fatal\n Suggestion.--Phenomena of Hypnotism illustrative.--Souls\n of Animals have no Conscious Existence; hence\n not Immortal.--Christ as a Saviour of Souls.--His Doctrine\n new to the World, but scientifically correct 374\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVI.\n\n THE MISSION OF CHRIST. FUTURE REWARDS AND\n PUNISHMENTS.\n\n The Success of Christ's Mission.--Chaotic State of Spiritual\n Philosophy in His Time.--The Various Doctrines in Vogue.--Jesus\n the first to simplify the Doctrine of Immortality.--He\n gave it a Definite Status in Philosophy.--The Doctrine\n of Future Rewards and Punishments.--God will \"Render\n to every Man according to his Deeds.\"--Spiritual Penalties\n for Violations of Spiritual Law.--The Sin against the Holy\n Ghost.--The Sin of Unbelief.--The Status of a Lost Soul.--Possible\n Reincarnation.--The Means of Punishment for\n Sin.--Affections.--Conscience.--Memory.--General\n Conclusions.--Scientific Basis of Christianity 389\n\n\n CHAPTER XXVII.\n\n DEDUCTIONS FROM VARIOUS ATTRIBUTES OF THE SOUL.\n\n The Question of Identity.--Consciousness and Memory.--Identity\n considered in Reference to Rewards and\n Punishments.--Conscience.--Conflicting Theories of\n Psychologists.--Education and Intuition.--Different Standards\n of Morality.--The Soul's Perception of the Eternal Principles\n of Right and Wrong.--The Instinct of Worship.--Its Abnormal\n Manifestations.--The Law of Suggestion.--Universality of\n the Sentiment of Worship.--Its Normal Manifestations.--Demonstrative\n of the Existence of a God of Love.--Old Arguments invalid.--Socrates\n and Paley.--Argument predicated on the Affectional\n Emotions.--Syllogistic Deductions.--The Divine Pedigree of Man 400\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nLAW OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n Necessity of a Working Hypothesis.--The Newtonian Hypothesis.--The\n Atomic Theory.--A Psychological Hypothesis necessary.--Theories\n of Hypnotism and Mesmerism.--Spiritism.--Mental\n Therapeutics.--Li\u00e9bault's Law of Suggestion.--Duality of Mind.--A\n Working Hypothesis for Psychology formulated.--Its Three Terms.\n\n\nSubstantial progress in any science is impossible in the absence\nof a working hypothesis which is universal in its application to\nthe phenomena pertaining to the subject-matter. Indeed, until such\nan hypothesis is discovered and formulated, no subject of human\ninvestigation can properly be said to be within the domain of the exact\nsciences. Thus, astronomy, previous to the promulgation of Kepler's\nLaws and the formulation of the Newtonian hypothesis of gravitation,\nwas in a state of chaos, and its votaries were hopelessly divided by\nconflicting theories. But the moment Newton promulgated his theorem a\nrevolution began which eventually involved the whole scientific world.\nAstronomy was rescued from the domain of empiricism, and became an\nexact science. What the Newtonian hypothesis did for astronomy, the\natomic theory has done for chemistry. It enables one skilled in that\nscience to practise it with a certainty of results in exact proportion\nto his knowledge of its principles and his skill in applying them to\nthe work in hand. He knows that if he can combine hydrogen and oxygen,\nin the proportion of two atoms of the former to one of the latter,\nwater will be the result. He knows that one atom, or part, of oxygen\nand one of carbon combined under heat will produce carbonic oxide,--a\npoisonous gas; that the addition of another atom, or part, of oxygen\nwill produce carbonic anhydride (dioxide),--a harmless gas; and so on\nthroughout the vast realm of chemical combinations.\n\nThe fact that the literal correctness of a given hypothesis is not\ndemonstrable except by results, in no wise militates against its\nvalue in the domain to which it belongs. Indeed, it would cease to\nbe a hypothesis the moment it were demonstrated. Newton's theorem\nis undemonstrable except from its results. Its correspondence,\nhowever, with every known fact, the facility with which astronomical\ncalculations can be made, and the precision with which every result can\nbe predicted, constitute a sufficient demonstration of its substantial\ncorrectness to inspire the absolute confidence of the scientific\nworld. No one would hesitate to act in the most important concerns of\nlife--nay, to stake his very existence--upon calculations based upon\nNewton's hypothesis. Yet there are not found wanting men who deny or\ndoubt its abstract correctness. Volumes have been written to disprove\nit. But as no one has yet discovered a fact or witnessed a phenomenon\noutside of its domain, the world refuses to surrender its convictions.\nWhen such a fact is discovered, then, and not till then, will there\narise a necessity for revising the \"Principia.\" It is a trite and true\nsaying that one antagonistic fact will destroy the value of the finest\ntheory ever evolved.\n\nIt is equally impossible to demonstrate the abstract correctness of\nthe atomic theory. An appeal to the evidence found in uniform results\nis all that is possible to one who would give a reason for the faith\nthat is in him. No one ever saw, felt, tasted, or smelled an atom.\nIt is beyond the reach of the senses; nor is it at all probable that\nscience or skill will ever be able to furnish instrumental aids capable\nof enabling man to take cognizance of the ultimate unit of matter. It\nexists for man only in hypothesis. Nevertheless, the fact remains,\nthat in all the wide range of human investigation there is not a more\nmagnificent generalization, nor one more useful to mankind in its\npractical results, than the atomic theory. Yet there are those who\ndoubt its abstract correctness, and labor to disprove the existence\nof the atom. If the ultimate object of chemical science were to\ndemonstrate the existence of the atom, or to seize it and harness it\nto the uses of mankind, it might be worth while to set the chemical\nfraternity right by demonstrating its non-existence. If the practice of\nchemistry on the basis of the theory were defective in its practical\nresults, or failed in universal application, it would then be the duty\nof scientists to discard it entirely, and to seek a better working\nhypothesis.\n\nThe most that can be said of any scientific hypothesis is, that whether\ntrue in the abstract or not, everything happens just as though it\nwere true. When this test of universality is applied, when no known\nfact remains that is unexplained by it, the world is justified in\nassuming it to be true, and in deducing from it even the most momentous\nconclusions. If, on the contrary, there is one fact pertaining to the\nsubject-matter under investigation which remains outside the domain\nof the hypothesis, or which is unexplained by it, it is indubitable\nevidence that the hypothesis is unsafe, untrue, and consequently\nworthless for all practical purposes of sound reasoning. Thus, Sir\nIsaac Newton, after having formulated his theorem, threw it aside as\nworthless, for a time, upon making the discovery that the moon, in its\nrelations with the earth, apparently did not come within the terms of\nhis hypothesis. His calculations were based upon the then accepted\nestimate of the length of a degree of latitude. This estimate having\nbeen corrected by the careful measurements of Picard, Newton revised\nhis figures, and found that the supposed discrepancy did not exist.\nThe last doubt in his mind having been thus set at rest, he gave to\nthe world a theorem which rendered possible substantial progress in\nastronomical science.\n\nIn the field of psychological investigation a satisfactory working\nhypothesis has never been formulated. That is to say, no theory has\nbeen advanced which embraces all psychological phenomena. Many theories\nhave been advanced, it is true, to account for the various classes of\nphenomena which have been observed. Some of them are very plausible and\nsatisfactory--to their authors--when applied to a particular class of\nfacts, but utterly fail when confronted with another class.\n\nThus, the students of the science of hypnotism are, and since the\ndays of Mesmer have been, hopelessly divided into schools which wage\nwar upon each other's theories, and dispute the correctness of each\nother's observations of facts. Mesmer's theory of fluidic emanations,\nwhich he termed \"animal magnetism,\" seemed to account for the facts\nwhich he observed, and is still held to be substantially true by many\nvotaries of this science. John Bovee Dods' electrical theory--positive\nlungs and negative blood--was sufficiently plausible in its day to\nattract many followers, as it afforded a satisfactory explanation of\nmany phenomena which came under his observation. Braid's physiological\nexplanation of certain classes of the phenomena afforded, in his time,\nmuch comfort to those who believe that there is nothing in man which\ncannot be weighed in a balance or carved with a scalpel. In our own\nday we find the school of the Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re, which holds that hypnotism\nis a disease of the nervous system, that its phenomena are explicable\non physiological principles, that the suggestions of the operator\nplay but a secondary _r\u00f4le_ in their production, and that they can be\nproduced, or successfully studied, only in diseased persons. On the\nother hand, the Nancy school of hypnotists holds that the science can\nbe studied with profit only in perfectly healthy persons, and from a\npurely psychological standpoint, and that suggestion is the all-potent\nfactor in the production of all hypnotic phenomena. All three of\nthe last-mentioned schools agree in ignoring the possibility of\nproducing the higher phenomena of hypnotism, known as clairvoyance and\nthought-transference, or mind-reading; whilst the earlier hypnotists\ndemonstrated both beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt. Indeed,\na committee of the ablest scientists of the Royal Academy of Medicine\nof France, after an investigation extending over a period of six years,\nreported that it had demonstrated the existence of such powers in the\nhuman mind.\n\nAnother large class of psychological phenomena, which has been\nproductive of more conflicting theories than any other, and which from\ntime immemorial has puzzled and appalled mankind, is by a large class\nof persons referred to the direct agency of the spirits of the dead.\nIt would require a volume to catalogue the various theories which have\nbeen advanced to account for this class of phenomena, and when done\nit would serve no useful purpose. It is safe to say, however, that\nno two individuals, whether believers or unbelievers in the generic\ndoctrine of spiritism, exactly agree as to the ultimate cause of the\nphenomena. The obvious reason is that no two persons have had exactly\nthe same experience, or have observed exactly the same phenomena. In\nthe absence of a working hypothesis applicable to all the infinite\nvariety of facts observed, it follows that each investigator must draw\nhis own conclusions from the limited field of his own experience. And\nwhen we take into consideration the important _r\u00f4le_ which passion\nand prejudice ever play in the minds of men when the solution of\nan undemonstrable problem is attempted, it is easy to see that a\nbewildering hodge-podge of heterogeneous opinions is inevitable.\n\nAnother class of phenomena, about which an infinite variety of\nopinions prevails, may be mentioned under the general head of mental\ntherapeutics. Under this generic title may be grouped the invocations\nof the gods by the Egyptian priests; the magic formulas of the\ndisciples of Esculapius; the sympathetic powder of Paracelsus; the\nking's touch for the cure of goitre; the wonderful cures at the tomb of\nDeacon Paris and at Lourdes; the miraculous power supposed to reside in\nthe relics of the saints; the equally miraculous cures of such men as\nGreatrakes, of Gassner, and of the Abbot Prince of Hohenlohe; and the\nno less wonderful healing power displayed by the modern systems known\nas mind cure, faith cure, Christian science, animal magnetism, and\nsuggestive therapeutics.\n\nOne fact, pregnant with importance, pertains to all these systems;\nand that is that marvellous cures are constantly effected through\ntheir agencies. To the casual observer it would seem to be almost\nself-evident that, underlying all, there must be some one principle\nwhich, once understood, would show them to be identical as to cause and\nmode of operation. Yet we find as many conflicting theories as there\nare systems, and as many private opinions as there are individuals who\naccept the facts. Some of the hypotheses gravely put forth in books are\nso bizarre as to excite only the pity or the ridicule of the judicious.\nOne notable example is found in that system, the basic theory of which\nis that matter has no existence, that nothing is real but mind, and\nthat, consequently, disease and pain, suffering and death, are mere\nhallucinations of morbid intellects. Other theories there are, which,\nif not equally absurd, are probably equally remote from the truth; and\neach treats the persons as well as the opinions of the others with\nthat virulent contumely which is the ever-present resort of him who\nwould force upon his neighbor the acceptance of his own undemonstrable\narticle of faith. Nevertheless, as before remarked, the fact remains\nthat each of these systems effects some most wonderful results in the\nway of curing certain diseases.\n\nWhat is true of the phenomena embraced under the general head of\nmental therapeutics is also true of the whole range of psychological\nphenomena; namely, the want of a working hypothesis which shall apply\nto all the facts that have been observed and authenticated.\n\nNo successful attempt has heretofore been made to supply this want;\nnor has success been possible until within a very recent period,\nfor the simple reason that previous to the discovery of certain\nfacts in psychological science, the scientific world was without the\nnecessary data from which a correct hypothesis could be formulated.\nThe researches of Professor Li\u00e9bault in the domain of hypnotism,\nseconded by those of his pupil, Professor Bernheim, have resulted\nin discoveries which throw a flood of light upon the whole field of\npsychological investigation. Their field of observation being confined\nto hypnotism, and chiefly to its employment as a therapeutic agent, it\nis not probable that either of those eminent scientists realized the\ntranscendent importance of their principal discovery, or perceived that\nit is applicable to psychological phenomena outside the domain of their\nspecial studies. The discovery is this: _that hypnotic subjects are\nconstantly amenable to the power of suggestion; that suggestion is the\nall-potent factor in the production of all hypnotic phenomena_. This\nproposition has been demonstrated to be true beyond the possibility\nof a reasonable doubt. In subsequent chapters of this book it will\nbe shown that this fact supplies the missing link in the chain of\npropositions necessary for a complete working hypothesis for the\nsubject under consideration.\n\nThe general propositions applicable to all phases of psychological\nphenomena are here only briefly stated, leaving the minor, or\nsubsidiary, propositions necessary for the elucidation of particular\nclasses and sub-classes of phenomena to be stated under their\nappropriate heads.\n\nThe first proposition relates to the dual character of man's mental\norganization. That is to say, man has, or appears to have, two minds,\neach endowed with separate and distinct attributes and powers; each\ncapable, under certain conditions, of independent action. It should\nbe clearly understood at the outset that for the purpose of arriving\nat a correct conclusion it is a matter of indifference whether we\nconsider that man is endowed with two distinct minds, or that his one\nmind possesses certain attributes and powers under some conditions,\nand certain other attributes and powers under other conditions. It\nis sufficient to know that everything happens just as though he were\nendowed with a dual mental organization.\n\nUnder the rules of correct reasoning, therefore, I have a right to\nassume that MAN HAS TWO MINDS; and the assumption is so stated, in\nits broadest terms, as the first proposition of my hypothesis. For\nconvenience I shall designate the one as the _objective_ mind, and\nthe other as the _subjective_ mind. These terms will be more fully\nexplained at the proper time.\n\nThe second proposition is, that THE SUBJECTIVE MIND IS CONSTANTLY\nAMENABLE TO CONTROL BY SUGGESTION.\n\nThe third, or subsidiary, proposition is, that THE SUBJECTIVE MIND IS\nINCAPABLE OF INDUCTIVE REASONING.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nDUALITY AND SUGGESTION.\n\n The Doctrine of the Trinity of Man.--The Greek\n Philosophy.--The Early Christian Fathers.--Hermetic\n Philosophy.--Swedenborg.--Duality in Modern\n Philosophy.--\"Objective\" and \"Subjective\" Minds.--Their\n Distinctive Differences and Modes of Operation.--The\n Subjective Mind a Distinct Entity.--Illustrations from\n Hypnotism.--Suggestion.--Auto-Suggestion.--Universality of the Law\n of Suggestion.\n\n\nThe broad idea that man is endowed with a dual mental organization is\nfar from being new. The essential truth of the proposition has been\nrecognized by philosophers of all ages and nations of the civilized\nworld. That man is a trinity, made up of \"body, soul, and spirit,\"\nwas a cardinal tenet in the faith of many ancient Greek philosophers,\nwho thus clearly recognized the dual character of man's mental or\nspiritual organization. Plato's idea of terrestrial man was that he is\na \"trinity of soul, soul-body, and earth-body.\" The mystic jargon of\nthe Hermetic philosophers discloses the same general idea. The \"salt,\nsulphur, and mercury\" of the ancient alchemists doubtless refers to man\nas being composed of a trinity of elements. The early Christian Fathers\nconfidently proclaimed the same doctrine, as is shown in the writings\nof Clement, Origen, Tatian, and other early exponents of Christian\ndoctrine.\n\nIndeed, it may be safely assumed that the conception of this\nfundamental truth was more or less clearly defined in the minds of\nall ancient philosophers, both Christian and pagan. It is the basis\nof their conception of God as a Trinity in his personality, modes\nof existence, and manifestations,--a conception of which Schelling\nsays: \"The philosophy of mythology proves that a trinity of divine\npotentialities is the root from which have grown the religious ideas of\nall nations of any importance that are known to us.\"\n\nIn later times, Swedenborg, believing himself to be divinely inspired,\ndeclared that \"There appertain to every man an internal man, a rational\nman, and an external man, which is properly called the natural man.\"\nAgain, he tells us that there are three natures, or degrees of life, in\nman,--\"the natural, the spiritual, and the celestial.\"\n\nOf modern writers who accept the dual theory, Professor Wigan, Dr.\nBrown-S\u00e9quard, and Professor Proctor are notable examples. Numerous\nfacts are cited by these writers, demonstrating the broad fact of\nduality of mind, although their theory of causation, based on cerebral\nanatomy, will not bear a moment's examination in the light of the facts\nof hypnotic science.\n\nIn more recent years[1] the doctrine of duality of mind is beginning\nto be more clearly defined, and it may now be said to constitute a\ncardinal principle in the philosophy of many of the ablest exponents of\nthe new psychology.\n\nThousands of examples might be cited to show that in all the ages the\ntruth has been dimly recognized by men of all civilized races and in\nall conditions of life. Indeed, it may be safely predicated of every\nman of intelligence and refinement that he has often felt within\nhimself an intelligence not the result of education, a perception of\ntruth independent of the testimony of his bodily senses.\n\nIt is natural to suppose that a proposition, the substantial\ncorrectness of which has been so widely recognized, must not only\npossess a solid basis of truth, but must, if clearly understood,\npossess a veritable significance of the utmost importance to mankind.\n\nHitherto, however, no successful attempt has been made to define\nclearly the nature of the two elements which constitute the dual\nmind; nor has the fact been recognized that the two minds possess\ndistinctive characteristics. It is a fact, nevertheless, that the line\nof demarcation between the two is clearly defined; that their functions\nare essentially unlike; that each is endowed with separate and distinct\nattributes and powers; and that each is capable, under certain\nconditions and limitations, of independent action.\n\nFor want of a better nomenclature, I shall distinguish the two by\ndesignating the one as _objective_, and the other as _subjective_.\nIn doing so the commonly received definitions of the two words will\nbe slightly modified and extended; but inasmuch as they more nearly\nexpress my exact meaning than any others that occur to me, I prefer to\nuse them rather than attempt to coin new ones.\n\nIn general terms the difference between man's two minds may be stated\nas follows:--\n\nThe objective mind takes cognizance of the objective world. Its media\nof observation are the five physical senses. It is the outgrowth of\nman's physical necessities. It is his guide in his struggle with his\nmaterial environment. Its highest function is that of reasoning.\n\nThe subjective mind takes cognizance of its environment by means\nindependent of the physical senses. It perceives by intuition. It is\nthe seat of the emotions, and the storehouse of memory. It performs\nits highest functions when the objective senses are in abeyance. In a\nword, it is that intelligence which makes itself manifest in a hypnotic\nsubject when he is in a state of somnambulism.\n\nIn this state many of the most wonderful feats of the subjective mind\nare performed. It sees without the use of the natural organs of vision;\nand in this, as in many other grades, or degrees, of the hypnotic\nstate, it can be made, apparently, to leave the body, and travel to\ndistant lands and bring back intelligence, oftentimes of the most exact\nand truthful character. It also has the power to read the thoughts of\nothers, even to the minutest details; to read the contents of sealed\nenvelopes and of closed books. In short, it is the subjective mind\nthat possesses what is popularly designated as clairvoyant power, and\nthe ability to apprehend the thoughts of others without the aid of the\nordinary, objective means of communication.\n\nIn point of fact, that which, for convenience, I have chosen to\ndesignate as the subjective mind, appears to be a separate and distinct\nentity; and the real distinctive difference between the two minds seems\nto consist in the fact that the \"objective mind\" is merely the function\nof the physical brain, while the \"subjective mind\" is a distinct\nentity, possessing independent powers and functions, having a mental\norganization of its own, and being capable of sustaining an existence\nindependently of the body. In other words, it is the soul. The reader\nwould do well to bear this distinction clearly in mind as we proceed.\n\nOne of the most important, as well as one of the most striking,\npoints of difference between the two minds, relates to the subject of\nsuggestion. It is in this that the researches of the modern hypnotists\ngive us the most important aid. Whether we agree with the Paris school\nin giving to suggestion a secondary place among the causes of hypnotic\nphenomena, or with the Nancy school in ascribing all the phenomena to\nthe potentiality of suggestion, there can be no doubt of the fact that\nwhen suggestion is actively and intelligently employed, it is always\neffective. The following propositions, therefore, will not be disputed\nby any intelligent student of hypnotism:--\n\n1. That the objective mind, or, let us say, man in his normal\ncondition, is not controllable, against reason, positive knowledge, or\nthe evidence of his senses, by the suggestions of another.\n\n2. That the subjective mind, or man in the hypnotic state, is\nunqualifiedly and constantly amenable to the power of suggestion.\n\nThat is to say, the subjective mind accepts, without hesitation or\ndoubt, every statement that is made to it, no matter how absurd or\nincongruous or contrary to the objective experience of the individual.\nIf a subject is told that he is a dog, he will instantly accept the\nsuggestion, and, to the limit of physical possibility, act the part\nsuggested. If he is told that he is the President of the United States,\nhe will act the part with wonderful fidelity to life. If he is told\nthat he is in the presence of angels, he will be profoundly moved to\nacts of devotion. If the presence of devils is suggested, his terror\nwill be instant, and painful to behold. He may be thrown into a state\nof intoxication by being caused to drink a glass of water under the\nimpression that it is brandy; or he may be restored to sobriety by\nthe administration of brandy, under the guise of an antidote to\ndrunkenness. If told that he is in a high fever, his pulse will become\nrapid, his face flushed, and his temperature increased. In short, he\nmay be made to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste anything, in obedience\nto suggestion. He may be raised to the highest degree of mental or\nphysical exaltation by the same power, or be plunged by it into the\nlethargic or cataleptic condition, simulating death.\n\nThese are fundamental facts, known and acknowledged by every student\nof the science of hypnotism. There is another principle, however,\nwhich must be mentioned in this connection, which is apparently not\nso well understood by hypnotists generally. I refer to the phenomenon\nof auto-suggestion. Professor Bernheim and others have recognized its\nexistence, and its power to modify the results of experiments in one\nclass of hypnotic phenomena, but apparently have failed to appreciate\nits full significance. It is, in fact, of coextensive importance with\nthe general principle, or law, of suggestion, and is an essential part\nof it. It modifies every phenomenon, and sometimes seems to form an\nexception to the general law. Properly understood, however, it will be\nseen, not only to emphasize that law, but to harmonize all the facts\nwhich form apparent exceptions to it.\n\nThe two minds being possessed of independent powers and functions,\nit follows as a necessary corollary that the subjective mind of an\nindividual is as amenable to the control of his own objective mind\nas to the objective mind of another. This we find to be true in a\nthousand ways. For instance, it is well known that a person cannot be\nhypnotized against his will. As the hypnotic condition is usually\ninduced by the suggestion of the operator, his failure is due to the\ncontrary auto-suggestion of the subject. Again, if the subject submits\nto be hypnotized, but resolves beforehand that he will not submit to\ncertain anticipated experiments, the experiments are sure to fail. One\nof the finest hypnotic subjects known to the writer would never allow\nhimself to be placed in a position before a company which he would\nshrink from in his normal condition. He was possessed of a remarkable\ndignity of character, and was highly sensitive to ridicule; and this\nsensitiveness stepped in to his defence, and rendered abortive every\nattempt to cause him to place himself in a ridiculous attitude. Again,\nif a hypnotic subject is conscientiously opposed to the use of strong\ndrink, no amount of persuasion on the part of the operator can induce\nhim to violate his settled principles. And so on, through all the\nvarying phases of hypnotic phenomena, auto-suggestion plays its subtle\n_r\u00f4le_, often confounding the operator by resistance where he expected\npassive obedience. It does not militate against the force of the rule\nthat suggestion is the all-controlling power which moves the subjective\nmind. On the contrary, it confirms it, demonstrates its never-failing\naccuracy. It shows, however, that the stronger suggestion must always\nprevail. It demonstrates, moreover, that the hypnotic subject is not\nthe passive, unreasoning, and irresponsible automaton which hypnotists,\nancient and modern, have believed him to be.\n\nAs this is one of the most important branches of the whole subject\nof psychological phenomena, it will be more fully treated when the\nvarious divisions of the subject to which the principle is applicable\nare reached. In the mean time, the student should not for a moment lose\nsight of this one fundamental fact, that the subjective mind is always\namenable to the power of suggestion by the objective mind, either that\nof the individual himself, or that of another who has, for the time\nbeing, assumed control.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 1: Since the above was written, Du Prel's able and\ninteresting work, entitled \"The Philosophy of Mysticism,\" has appeared,\nin which the dual theory is demonstrated beyond question by reference\nto the phenomena of dreams.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nREASONING POWERS OF THE TWO MINDS DIFFERENTIATED.\n\n The Subjective Mind incapable of Inductive Reasoning.--Its\n Processes always Deductive or Syllogistic.--Its Premises the Result\n of Suggestion.--Illustrations by Hypnotism.--Hypnotic Interview\n with Socrates.--Reasons from an Assumed Major Premise.--Interview\n with a Philosophic Pig.--The Pig affirms the Doctrine of\n Reincarnation.--Dogmatism of Subjective Intelligence.--Incapable of\n Controversial Argument.--Persistency in following a Suggested Line\n of Thought.\n\n\nOne of the most important distinctions between the objective and\nsubjective minds pertains to the function of reason. That there is\na radical difference in their powers and methods of reasoning is a\nfact which has not been noted by any psychologist who has written on\nthe subject. It is, nevertheless, a proposition which will be readily\nconceded to be essentially true by every observer when his attention is\nonce called to it. The propositions may be briefly stated as follows:--\n\n1. The objective mind is capable of reasoning by all\nmethods,--inductive and deductive, analytic and synthetic.\n\n2. The subjective mind is incapable of inductive reasoning.\n\nLet it here be understood that this proposition refers to the powers\nand functions of the purely subjective mind, as exhibited in the mental\noperations of persons in a state of profound hypnotism, or trance. The\nprodigious intellectual feats of persons in that condition have been a\nsource of amazement in all the ages; but the striking peculiarity noted\nabove appears to have been lost sight of in admiration of the other\nqualities exhibited. In other words, it has never been noted that their\nreasoning is always deductive, or syllogistic. The subjective mind\nnever classifies a series of known facts, and reasons from them up to\ngeneral principles; but, given a general principle to start with, it\nwill reason deductively from that down to all legitimate inferences,\nwith a marvellous cogency and power. Place a man of intelligence and\ncultivation in the hypnotic state, and give him a premise, say in\nthe form of a statement of a general principle of philosophy, and no\nmatter what may have been his opinions in his normal condition, he\nwill unhesitatingly, in obedience to the power of suggestion, assume\nthe correctness of the proposition; and if given an opportunity to\ndiscuss the question, will proceed to deduce therefrom the details of\na whole system of philosophy. Every conclusion will be so clearly and\nlogically deducible from the major premise, and withal so plausible and\nconsistent, that the listener will almost forget that the premise was\nassumed. To illustrate:--\n\nThe writer once saw Professor Carpenter, of Boston, place a young\ngentleman in the hypnotic state at a private gathering in the city\nof Washington. The company was composed of highly cultivated ladies\nand gentlemen of all shades of religious belief; and the young man\nhimself--who will be designated as C--was a cultured gentleman,\npossessed a decided taste for philosophical studies, and was a graduate\nof a leading college. In his normal condition he was liberal in his\nviews on religious subjects, and, though always unprejudiced and open\nto conviction, was a decided unbeliever in modern spiritism. Knowing\nhis love of the classics and his familiarity with the works of the\nGreek philosophers, the professor asked him how he should like to have\na personal interview with Socrates.\n\n\"I should esteem it a great privilege, if Socrates were alive,\"\nanswered C.\n\n\"It is true that Socrates is dead,\" replied the professor; \"but I can\ninvoke his spirit and introduce you to him. There he stands now,\"\nexclaimed the professor, pointing towards a corner of the room.\n\nC looked in the direction indicated, and at once arose, with a look of\nthe most reverential awe depicted on his countenance. The professor\nwent through the ceremonial of a formal presentation, and C, almost\nspeechless with embarrassment, bowed with the most profound reverence,\nand offered the supposed spirit a chair. Upon being assured by the\nprofessor that Socrates was willing and anxious to answer any question\nthat might be put to him, C at once began a series of questions,\nhesitatingly and with evident embarrassment at first; but, gathering\ncourage as he proceeded, he catechised the Greek philosopher for over\ntwo hours, interpreting the answers to the professor as he received\nthem. His questions embraced the whole cosmogony of the universe and\na wide range of spiritual philosophy. They were remarkable for their\npertinency, and the answers were no less remarkable for their clear-cut\nand sententious character, and were couched in the most elegant and\nlofty diction, such as Socrates himself might be supposed to employ.\nBut the most remarkable of all was the wonderful system of spiritual\nphilosophy evolved. It was so clear, so plausible, and so perfectly\nconsistent with itself and the known laws of Nature that the company\nsat spell-bound through it all, each one almost persuaded, for the time\nbeing, that he was listening to a voice from the other world. Indeed,\nso profound was the impression that some of them--not spiritists,\nbut members of the Christian Church--then and there announced their\nconviction that C was actually conversing either with the spirit of\nSocrates or with some equally high intelligence.\n\nAt subsequent gatherings other pretended spirits were called up,\namong them some of the more modern philosophers, and one or two who\ncould not be dignified with that title. When a modern spirit was\ninvoked, the whole manner of C changed. He was more at his ease, and\nthe conversation on both sides assumed a purely nineteenth-century\ntone. But the philosophy was the same; there was never a lapse or\nan inconsistency. With the introduction of every new spirit there\nwas a decided change of diction and character and general style of\nconversation, and each one was always the same, whenever reintroduced.\nIf the persons themselves had been present, their distinctive\npeculiarities could not have been more marked; but if all that was said\ncould have been printed in a book _verbatim_, it would have formed one\nof the grandest and most coherent systems of spiritual philosophy ever\nconceived by the brain of man, and its only blemish would have been the\nfrequent change of the style of diction.\n\nIt must not be forgotten that C was not a spiritist, and that the whole\nbent of his mind inclined to materialism. He frequently expressed\nthe most profound astonishment at the replies he received. This was\nheld to be an evidence that the replies were not evolved from his own\ninner consciousness. Indeed, it was strenuously urged by some of the\ncompany present that he must have been talking with an independent\nintelligence, else his answers would have coincided with his own\nbelief while in his normal condition. The conclusive answer to that\nproposition is this: He was in the subjective state. He had been told\nthat he was talking face to face with a disembodied spirit of superior\nintelligence. He believed the statement implicitly, in obedience to the\nlaw of suggestion. He saw, or thought he saw, a disembodied spirit.\nThe inference, for him, was irresistible that this was a demonstration\nof the truth of spiritism; that being assumed, the rest followed as a\nnatural inference. He was, then, simply reasoning deductively from an\nassumed major premise, thrust upon him, as it were, by the irresistible\nforce of a positive suggestion. His reasoning was perfect of its kind,\nthere was not a flaw in it; but it was purely syllogistic, from general\nprinciples to particular facts.\n\nIt will doubtless be said that this does not prove that he was not in\nactual converse with a spirit. True; and if the conversation had been\nconfined to purely philosophical subjects, its exalted character would\nhave furnished plausible grounds for a belief that he was actually\nin communion with the inhabitants of a world where pure intelligence\nreigns supreme. But test questions were put to one of the supposed\nspirits, with a view of determining this point. One of them was asked\nwhere he died. His reply was, \"In a little town near Boston.\" The fact\nis that he had lived in a little town near Boston, and the somnambulist\nknew it. But he died in a foreign land,--a fact which the somnambulist\ndid not know. C was subsequently, when in his normal condition,\ninformed of the failure of this test question, and was told at the same\ntime what the facts were concerning the circumstances of the death of\nthe gentleman whose spirit was invoked. He was amused at the failure,\nas well as at the credulity of those who had believed that he had been\nin conversation with spirits; but at a subsequent sitting he was again\ninformed that the same spirit was present, and he at once manifested\nthe most profound indignation because of the deception which had been\npractised upon him by the said spirit, and demanded an explanation of\nthe falsehood which he had told concerning the place of his death.\nThen was exhibited one of the most curious phases of subjective\nintelligence. The spirit launched out into a philosophical disquisition\non the subject of spirit communion, and defined the limitations of\nspiritual intercourse with the inhabitants of this earth in such a\nphilosophical and plausible manner that not only was the young man\nmollified, but the spiritists present felt that they had scored a\ntriumph, and had at last heard an authoritative explanation of the fact\nthat spirits are limited in their knowledge of their own antecedents by\nthat of the medium through whom they communicate.\n\nFor the benefit of those who will say that there is, after all,\nno proof that C was not in actual communication with a superior\nintelligence, it must be stated that at a subsequent s\u00e9ance he was\nintroduced to a very learned and very philosophical pig, who spoke all\nthe modern languages with which C was acquainted, and appeared to know\nas much about spiritual philosophy as did the ancient Greek. C had been\ntold that the pig was a reincarnation of a Hindoo priest whose \"karma\"\nhad been a little off color, but who retained a perfect recollection\nof his former incarnation, and had not forgotten his learning. It is\nperhaps unnecessary to say that the pig was able to, and did, give a\nvery learned and eminently satisfactory exposition of the doctrine of\nreincarnation and of Hindoo philosophy in general. As C was then fresh\nfrom his reading of some modern theosophical works, he was apparently\nmuch gratified to find that they were in substantial accord with the\nviews of the pig.\n\nThe inference to be drawn from these facts is obvious and irresistible:\nthe subjective mind of the young man accepted the suggestion of the\noperator as an absolute verity. The deductions from the premises thus\ngiven were evolved from his own inner consciousness. But that he\nbelieved them to have been imparted to him by a spirit, is as certain\nas that he believed that he saw a spirit.\n\nIt must not be understood from the statement of the general proposition\nregarding the subjective processes of reasoning that persons in the\nsubjective state necessarily go through the forms of syllogistic\nreasoning. On the contrary, they seldom, if ever, employ the forms of\nthe syllogism, and it is rare that their discourses are argumentative.\nThey are generally, in fact, dogmatic to the last degree. It never\nseems to occur to them that what they state to be a fact can possibly\nbe, in the slightest degree, doubtful. A doubt, expressed or implied,\nof their perfect integrity, of the correctness of their statements, or\nof the genuineness of the phenomena which is being exhibited through\nthem, invariably results in confusion and distress of mind. Hence they\nare incapable of controversial argument,--a fact which constitutes\nanother important distinction between the objective and subjective\nminds. To traverse openly the statements of a person in the subjective\nstate, is certain to restore him to the normal condition, often with\na severe nervous shock. The explanation of these facts is easy to\nfind in the constant amenability of the subjective mind to the power\nof suggestion. They are speaking or acting from the standpoint of one\nsuggestion, and to controvert it is to offer a counter suggestion which\nis equally potent with the first. The result is, and must necessarily\nbe, utter confusion of mind and nervous excitement on the part of the\nsubject. These facts have an important bearing upon many psychological\nphenomena, and will be adverted to more at length in future chapters,\nmy present purpose being merely to impress upon the reader's mind the\ngeneral principles governing subjective mental phenomena.\n\nIt will be seen from the foregoing that when it is stated that the\nsubjective mind reasons deductively, the results of its reasoning\nprocesses are referred to rather than its forms. That is to say, whilst\nit may not employ the forms of the syllogism, its conclusions are\nsyllogistically correct,--are logically deducible from the premises\nimparted to it by suggestion. This peculiarity seems to arise from,\nor to be the necessary result of, the persistency with which the\nsubjective mind will follow every idea suggested. It is well known\nto hypnotists that when an idea is suggested to a subject, no matter\nof how trivial a character, he will persist in following that idea\nto its ultimate conclusion, or until the operator releases him from\nthe impression. For instance, if a hypnotist suggests to one of his\nsubjects that his back itches, to another that his nose bleeds, to\nanother that he is a marble statue, to another that he is an animal,\netc., each one will follow out the line of his particular impression,\nregardless of the presence of others, and totally oblivious to all his\nsurroundings which do not pertain to his idea; and he will persist in\ndoing so until the impression is removed by the same power by which it\nwas created. The same principle prevails when a thought is suggested\nand the subject is invited to deliver a discourse thereon. He will\naccept the suggestion as his major premise; and whatever there is\nwithin the range of his own knowledge or experience, whatever he has\nseen, heard, or read, which confirms or illustrates that idea, he has\nat his command and effectually uses it, but is apparently totally\noblivious to all facts or ideas which do not confirm, and are not\nin accord with, the one central idea. It is obvious that inductive\nreasoning, under such conditions, is out of the question.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nPERFECT MEMORY OF THE SUBJECTIVE MIND.\n\n Confirmed by Hypnotic Phenomena.--Opinions of Psychologists.--Sir\n William Hamilton's Views.---Observations of Dr. Rush.--Talent for\n Poetry and Music developed by Abnormal Conditions.--Talent for\n Drawing evolved by Madness.--Resuscitation of Knowledge in the\n Insane.--Extraordinary Feats of Memory during Illness.--A Forgotten\n language recovered.--Whole Pages of Greek and Hebrew remembered\n by an Illiterate Servant Girl.--Speaking in Unknown Tongues\n explained.--The Result of the Operations of Natural Law.\n\n\nOne of the most striking and important peculiarities of the subjective\nmind, as distinguished from the objective, consists in its prodigious\nmemory. It would perhaps be hazardous to say that the memory of the\nsubjective mind is perfect, but there is good ground for believing that\nsuch a proposition would be substantially true. It must be understood\nthat this remark applies only to the most profoundly subjective state\nand to the most favorable conditions. In all degrees of hypnotic sleep,\nhowever, the exaltation of the memory is one of the most pronounced\nof the attendant phenomena. This has been observed by all hypnotists,\nespecially by those who make their experiments with a view of studying\nthe mental action of the subject. Psychologists of all shades of belief\nhave recognized the phenomena, and many have declared their conviction\nthat the minutest details of acquired knowledge are recorded upon the\ntablets of the mind, and that they only require favorable conditions to\nreveal their treasures.\n\nSir William Hamilton, in his \"Lectures on Metaphysics,\" page 236,\ndesignates the phenomenon as \"latent memory.\" He says:--\n\n \"The evidence on this point shows that the mind frequently contains\n whole systems of knowledge, which, though in our normal state\n they have faded into absolute oblivion, may, in certain abnormal\n states--as madness, febrile delirium, somnambulism, catalepsy,\n etc.--flash out into luminous consciousness, and even throw into\n the shade of unconsciousness those other systems by which they\n had, for a long period, been eclipsed, and even extinguished. For\n example, there are cases in which the extinct memory of whole\n languages was suddenly restored; and, what is even still more\n remarkable, in which the faculty was exhibited of accurately\n repeating, in known or unknown tongues, passages which were never\n within the grasp of conscious memory in the normal state.\"\n\nSir William then proceeds to quote, with approval, a few cases which\nillustrate the general principle. The first is on the authority of Dr.\nRush, a celebrated American physician:\n\n \"The records of the wit and cunning of madmen,\" says the doctor,\n \"are numerous in every country. Talents for eloquence, poetry,\n music, and painting, and uncommon ingenuity in several of the\n mechanical arts, are often evolved in this state of madness. A\n gentleman whom I attended in an hospital in the year 1810, often\n delighted as well as astonished the patients and officers of our\n hospital by his displays of oratory in preaching from a table in\n the hospital yard every Sunday. A female patient of mine who became\n insane, after parturition, in the year 1807, sang hymns and songs\n of her own composition during the latter stage of her illness,\n with a tone of voice so soft and pleasant that I hung upon it with\n delight every time I visited her. She had never discovered a talent\n for poetry or music in any previous part of her life. Two instances\n of a talent for drawing, evolved by madness, have occurred within\n my knowledge. And where is the hospital for mad people in which\n elegant and completely rigged ships and curious pieces of machinery\n have not been exhibited by persons who never discovered the least\n turn for a mechanical art previous to their derangement?\n\n \"Sometimes we observe in mad people an unexpected resuscitation\n of knowledge; hence we hear them describe past events, and speak\n in ancient or modern languages, or repeat long and interesting\n passages from books, none of which, we are sure, they were capable\n of recollecting in the natural and healthy state of their mind.\"[2]\n\nIt must be remembered that when these events occurred, the profession\nknew little of the phenomena of hypnotism. In the light of present\nknowledge on that subject it is easy to understand that the phenomena\nhere recorded are referable to one common origin, whatever may have\nbeen the proximate cause of their manifestation. There are many ways by\nwhich the subjective mind may be caused to become active and dominant\nbesides deliberately producing hypnotic sleep. Diseases of various\nkinds, particularly those of the brain or nervous system, and intense\nfebrile excitement, are frequently causes of the total or partial\nsuspension of the functions of the objective mind, and of exciting the\nsubjective mind to intense activity.\n\nThe next case quoted by Sir William is from \"Recollections of the\nValley of the Mississippi,\" by an American clergyman named Flint:--\n\n \"I am aware,\" he remarks, \"that every sufferer in this way is apt\n to think his own case extraordinary. My physicians agreed with all\n who saw me that my case was so. As very few live to record the\n issue of a sickness like mine, and as you have requested me, and\n as I have promised, to be particular, I will relate some of the\n circumstances of this disease. And it is in my view desirable,\n in the bitter agony of such diseases, that more of the symptoms,\n sensations, and sufferings should have been recorded than have\n been; and that others in similar predicaments may know that some\n before them have had sufferings like theirs, and have survived\n them. I had had a fever before, and had risen, and been dressed\n every day. But in this, with the first day I was prostrated to\n infantine weakness, and felt, with its first attack, that it was a\n thing very different from what I had yet experienced.\n\n \"Paroxysms of derangement occurred the third day, and this was to\n me a new state of mind. That state of disease in which partial\n derangement is mixed with a consciousness generally sound, and\n sensibility preternaturally excited, I should suppose the most\n distressing of all its forms. At the same time that I was unable\n to recognize my friends, I was informed that my memory was more\n than ordinarily exact and retentive, and that I repeated whole\n passages in the different languages which I knew, with entire\n accuracy. I recited, without losing or misplacing a word, a passage\n of poetry which I could not so repeat after I recovered my health.\"\n\nThe following more curious case is given by Lord Monboddo in his\n\"Ancient Metaphysics\":[3]--\n\n \"It was communicated in a letter from the late Mr. Hans Stanley,\n a gentleman well known both to the learned and political world,\n who did me the honor to correspond with me upon the subject of my\n first volume of Metaphysics. I will give it in the words of that\n gentleman. He introduces it by saying that it is an extraordinary\n fact in the history of mind, which he believes stands single,\n and for which he does not pretend to account; then he goes on to\n narrate it: 'About six-and-twenty years ago, when I was in France,\n I had an intimacy in the family of the late Mar\u00e9chal de Montmorenci\n de Laval. His son, the Comte de Laval, was married to Mademoiselle\n de Manpeaux, the daughter of a lieutenant-general of that name, and\n the niece of the late chancellor. This gentleman was killed at the\n battle of Hastenbeck. His widow survived him some years, but is\n since dead.\n\n \"'The following fact comes from her own mouth; she has told it\n me repeatedly. She was a woman of perfect veracity and very good\n sense. She appealed to her servants and family for the truth.\n Nor did she, indeed, seem to be sensible that the matter was so\n extraordinary as it appeared to me. I wrote it down at the time,\n and I have the memorandum among some of my papers.\n\n \"'The Comtesse de Laval had been observed, by servants who sat up\n with her on account of some indisposition, to talk in her sleep\n a language that none of them understood; nor were they sure, or,\n indeed, herself able to guess, upon the sounds being repeated to\n her, whether it was or was not gibberish.\n\n \"'Upon her lying-in of one of her children she was attended by a\n nurse who was of the province of Brittany, and who immediately knew\n the meaning of what she said, it being in the idiom of the natives\n of that country; but she herself when awake did not understand a\n single syllable of what she had uttered in her sleep, upon its\n being retold her.\n\n \"'She was born in that province, and had been nursed in a family\n where nothing but that language was spoken; so that in her first\n infancy she had known it, and no other; but when she returned to\n her parents, she had no opportunity of keeping up the use of it;\n and, as I have before said, she did not understand a word of Breton\n when awake, though she spoke it in her sleep.\n\n \"'I need not say that the Comtesse de Laval never said or imagined\n that she used any words of the Breton idiom, more than were\n necessary to express those ideas that are within the compass of a\n child's knowledge of objects.'\"\n\nA highly interesting case is given by Mr. Coleridge in his \"Biographia\nLiteraria.\"[4]\n\n \"It occurred,\" says Mr. Coleridge, \"in a Roman Catholic town in\n Germany, a year or two before my arrival at G\u00f6ttingen, and had\n not then ceased to be a frequent subject of conversation. A young\n woman of four or five and twenty, who could neither read nor write,\n was seized with a nervous fever, during which, according to the\n asseverations of all the priests and monks of the neighborhood, she\n became possessed, and as it appeared, by a very learned devil. She\n continued incessantly talking Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, in very\n pompous tones, and with most distinct enunciation. This possession\n was rendered more probable by the known fact that she was, or\n had been, a heretic. Voltaire humorously advises the devil to\n decline all acquaintance with medical men; and it would have been\n more to his reputation if he had taken this advice in the present\n instance. The case had attracted the particular attention of a\n young physician, and by his statement many eminent physiologists\n and psychologists visited the town and cross-examined the case\n on the spot. Sheets full of her ravings were taken down from her\n own mouth, and were found to consist of sentences, coherent and\n intelligible each for itself, but with little or no connection with\n each other. Of the Hebrew, a small portion only could be traced to\n the Bible; the remainder seemed to be in the Rabbinical dialect.\n All trick or conspiracy was out of the question. Not only had the\n young woman ever been a harmless, simple creature, but she was\n evidently laboring under a nervous fever. In the town in which\n she had been resident for many years as a servant in different\n families, no solution presented itself. The young physician,\n however, determined to trace her past life step by step; for the\n patient herself was incapable of returning a rational answer. He\n at length succeeded in discovering the place where her parents had\n lived; travelled thither, found them dead, but an uncle surviving;\n and from him learned that the patient had been charitably taken by\n an old Protestant pastor at nine years old, and had remained with\n him some years, even till the old man's death. Of this pastor the\n uncle knew nothing, but that he was a very good man. With great\n difficulty, and after much search, our young medical philosopher\n discovered a niece of the pastor's who had lived with him as his\n housekeeper, and had inherited his effects. She remembered the\n girl; related that her venerable uncle had been too indulgent, and\n could not bear to hear the girl scolded; that she was willing to\n have kept her, but that, after her parent's death, the girl herself\n refused to stay. Anxious inquiries were then, of course, made\n concerning the pastor's habits; and the solution of the phenomenon\n was soon obtained. For it appeared that it had been the old man's\n custom for years to walk up and down a passage of his house into\n which the kitchen-door opened, and to read to himself, with a loud\n voice, out of his favorite books. A considerable number of these\n were still in the niece's possession. She added that he was a very\n learned man and a great Hebraist. Among the books were found a\n collection of Rabbinical writings, together with several of the\n Greek and Latin Fathers; and the physician succeeded in identifying\n so many passages with those taken down at the young woman's bedside\n that no doubt could remain in any rational mind concerning the true\n origin of the impressions made on her nervous system.\"\n\nThe reader will not fail to observe that in all these cases the\nsubjects reproduced simply what they had seen, heard, or read. The\nimpressions upon the objective mind, particularly in the case related\nby Coleridge, must have been superficial to the last degree; but the\nresult demonstrated that the record upon the tablets of the subjective\nmind was ineffaceable.\n\nThese are not isolated cases. Thousands of similar phenomena have been\nrecorded by the most trustworthy of observers. Their significance\ncannot be mistaken. In their light the wonderful mental feats of\ntrance-speakers are easily explicable, without invoking the aid of\na supernatural agency. Speaking \"in unknown tongues\" is seen to be\nmerely a feat of subjective memory.\n\nWhen we consider what a prodigy of learning the average man would be if\nhe could have at his command all that he had ever seen, heard, or read;\nwhen we remember that the subjective mind does record, and does have\nat its command, all the experiences of the individual, and that, under\ncertain abnormal conditions, in obedience to the initial impulse of\nsuggestion, all its treasures are instantly available,--we may marvel\nat the wonderful gifts with which the human mind is endowed; but we\nmay rest assured that the phenomena displayed are the results of the\noperations of natural law.\n\nThe reader should distinctly bear in mind that there is a wide\ndistinction between objective and subjective memory. The former is\none of the functions of the brain, and, as has been shown by recent\ninvestigations, has an absolute localization in the cerebral cortex;\nand the different varieties of memory, such as visual memory, auditory\nmemory, memory of speech, etc., can be destroyed by localized disease\nor by a surgical operation. Subjective memory, on the other hand,\nappears to be an inherent power, and free from anatomical relations; or\nat least it does not appear to depend upon the healthy condition of the\nbrain for its power of manifestation. On the contrary, the foregoing\nfacts demonstrate the proposition that abnormal conditions of the brain\nare often productive of the most striking exhibitions of subjective\nmemory. The late Dr. George M. Beard of New York, who was the first\nAmerican scientist clearly to recognize the scientific importance of\nthe phenomena of hypnotism, who was the formulator of the \"Six Sources\nof Error\" which beset the pathway of the investigator of that science,\nand the one who did more than any other American of his time to place\nthe study of hypnotic phenomena on a scientific basis, evinces a clear\nrecognition of this distinction when he says:--\n\n \"To attempt to build up a theory of trance [hypnotic phenomena]\n on a basis of cerebral anatomy is to attempt the impossible. All\n theories of trance based on cerebral anatomy or physiology--such as\n suspension of the activity of the cortex, or half the brain--break\n down at once when brought face to face with the facts.\"[5]\n\nAll the facts of hypnotism show that the more quiescent the objective\nfaculties become, or, in other words, the more perfectly the functions\nof the brain are suspended, the more exalted are the manifestations\nof the subjective mind. Indeed, the whole history of subjective\nphenomena goes to show that the nearer the body approaches the\ncondition of death, the stronger become the demonstrations of the\npowers of the soul. The irresistible inference is that when the soul\nis freed entirely from its trammels of flesh, its powers will attain\nperfection, its memory will be absolute. Of this more will be said in\nits proper place. In the mean time, it may be proper here to remark\nthat subjective memory appears to be the only kind or quality of\nmemory which deserves that appellation; it is the only memory which is\nabsolute. The memory of the objective mind, comparatively speaking, is\nmore properly designated as recollection. The distinction here sought\nto be made can be formulated in no better language than that employed\nby Locke in defining the scope and meaning of the two words: \"When\nan idea again recurs without the operation of the like object on the\nexternal sensory, it is _remembrance_; if it be sought after by the\nmind, and with pain and endeavor found, and brought again into view, it\nis _recollection_.\"[6]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 2: Beasley on the Mind, p. 474.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Vol. ii. p. 217.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Vol. i. p. 117 (edit. 1847).]\n\n[Footnote 5: Nature and Phenomena of Trance (\"Hypnotism\" or\n\"Somnambulism\"), p. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Essays Concerning Human Understanding, vol. i. p. 213.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nSUBJECTIVE MEMORY (_continued_).\n\n Practical Illustrations.--Reasons for Limitations of\n Subjective Power.--Its Practical Significance.--Its\n Application to the Solution of Problems of\n Insanity.--The Mental Phenomena of \"Genius.\"--Napoleon\n Bonaparte.--Shakspeare.--Poets.--Artists.--Macaulay's Estimate\n of Poets and Poetry.--Dangers of Subjective Control.--Lord\n Byron.--Socrates' Estimate of Poets.--His Recognition of\n the Subjective Element in Poetic Composition.--Occasional\n Inconveniences.--Unconscious Plagiarism.--Observations of\n Holmes.--Improvisation.--Solution of the Shakspeare-Bacon\n Problem.--The Subjective in Art.--Madness in Art.--Great\n Orators.--Webster.--Clay.--Patrick Henry.--Incidents.--Practical\n Conclusions.\n\n\nIt is thought that the facts related in the preceding chapter\nare sufficient to demonstrate the substantial correctness of the\nproposition that the memory of the subjective mind is practically\nperfect. Before leaving this branch of the subject, however, and\nproceeding to detail other peculiarities which distinguish the two\nminds, it is deemed proper to offer a few practical illustrations\nof the principles involved, drawn from common observation, and\nincidentally to apply those principles to the solution of various\nproblems of every-day experience. It will be remembered that thus far\nwe have confined our observations to the operations of the subjective\nmind when the subject is in a diseased or in a deeply hypnotic\ncondition, with the objective senses in complete abeyance. This has\nbeen done for the purpose of more clearly illustrating the fundamental\npropositions. The phenomena of purely subjective mental action, are,\nhowever, of little practical importance to mankind when compared with\nthe action of the subjective mind modified by the co-ordinate power of\nthe objective intelligence.\n\nIt is not to be supposed that an All-wise Providence has placed\nwithin the human frame a separate entity, endowed with such wonderful\npowers as we have seen that it possesses, and hedged about by the\nlimitations with which we know it to be environed, without so ordaining\nits relations with man's objective intelligence as to render it of\npractical value to the human race in its struggle with its physical\nenvironment. It might at first glance seem incongruous to suppose that\nthe subjective mind could be at once the storehouse of memory and\nthe source of inspiration, limited as to its methods and powers of\nreasoning, and at the same time subject to the imperial control of the\nobjective mind. A moment's reflection, however, will show that in the\nvery nature of things it must necessarily be true. \"A house divided\nagainst itself cannot stand.\" There must be a controlling power in\nevery well-regulated household, municipality, nation, or organism.\nThere is a positive and a negative force in the greatest physical power\nknown to mankind. There is a male and a female element in every race\nand order of created organisms; and those philosophers who hold that\nthere appertain to every man a male and a female element have dimly\nrecognized the duality of man's mental organization.\n\nWhy it is that the objective mind has been invested with the\ncontrolling influence, limited as are its resources and feeble as are\nits powers, is a question upon which it would be idle to speculate.\nIt profits us only to know the fact and to study its practical\nsignificance, without wasting our energies in seeking to know the\nultimate cause. We may rest assured that in this, as in all other laws\nof Nature, we shall find infinite wisdom.\n\nIf any one doubts the wisdom of investing the objective mind with\nthe controlling power in the dual organization, let him visit a\nmadhouse. There he will see all shades and degrees of subjective\ncontrol. There he will see men whose objective minds have completely\nabdicated the throne, and whose subjective minds are in pursuit of one\nidea,--controlled by one dominant impression, which subordinates all\nothers. These are the monomaniacs,--the victims of false suggestions.\nThese suggestions may be given from without, in a thousand different\nways which will be readily recognized by the student of insanity, or\nby auto-suggestion. Long and intense concentration of mind upon one\nsubject, and inordinate egotism, will be readily recognized as striking\nillustrations of the power of auto-suggestion as a factor in monomania.\nThe maniac is one whose objective mind is disorganized by disease\nof its organ, the brain; the result being distortion of objective\nimpressions, and consequent false suggestions to the subjective mind.\n\nThose who study the subject from this standpoint will find an easy\nsolution to many an obscure problem. The subject is here adverted to\nmerely to show the consequences arising from allowing the subjective\nmind to usurp complete control of the mental organization. It will\nbe readily seen that human society, outside of lunatic asylums,\nconstantly furnishes numerous examples of abnormal subjective control.\nSo generally is this fact recognized that it has passed into a proverb\nthat \"every man is insane on some subject.\"\n\nThe question arises, What part does the subjective mind play in\nthe normal operation of the human intellect? This question may be\nanswered in a general way by saying that the most perfect exhibition\nof intellectual power is the result of the synchronous action of the\nobjective and subjective minds. When this is seen in its perfection\nthe world names it _genius_. In this condition the individual has the\nbenefit of all the reasoning powers of the objective mind, combined\nwith the perfect memory of the subjective mind and its marvellous power\nof syllogistic arrangement of its resources. In short, all the elements\nof intellectual power are then in a state of intense and harmonious\nactivity. This condition may be perfectly normal, though it is rarely\nseen in its perfection. Probably the most striking examples which\nhistory affords were Napoleon Bonaparte and Shakspeare. The intelligent\nstudent of the history of their lives and work will not fail to recall\na thousand incidents which illustrate the truth of this proposition.\nTrue genius is undoubtedly the result of the synchronous action of the\ntwo minds, neither unduly predominating or usurping the powers and\nfunctions of the other. When the subjective is allowed to dominate, the\nresultant acts of the individual are denominated \"the eccentricities of\ngenius.\" When the subjective usurps complete control, the individual\ngoes insane.\n\nThere are certain classes of persons whose intellectual labors are\ncharacterized by subjective activity in a very marked degree. Poets\nand artists are the most conspicuous examples. So marked is the\npeculiarity of the poetic mind in this respect that it has become\nalmost proverbial. Lord Macaulay, in his Essay on Milton, uses language\nwhich shows that he clearly recognized the subjective element in all\ntrue poetry. He says:--\n\n \"Perhaps no man can be a poet, or can even enjoy poetry, without\n a certain unsoundness of mind,--if anything which gives so much\n pleasure ought to be called unsoundness. By poetry we mean not, of\n course, all writing in verse, nor even all good writing in verse.\n Our definition excludes many metrical compositions which on other\n grounds deserve the highest praise. By poetry we mean the art of\n employing words in such a manner as to produce an illusion on the\n imagination; the art of doing by means of words what the painter\n does by means of colors. Thus the greatest of poets has described\n it, in lines universally admired for the vigor and felicity of\n their diction, and still more valuable on account of the just\n notion which they convey of the art in which he excelled.\n\n \"'As imagination bodies forth\n The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen\n Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing\n A local habitation and a name.'\n\n \"These are the fruits of the 'fine frenzy' which he ascribes to\n the poet,--a fine frenzy doubtless, but still a frenzy. Truth,\n indeed, is essential to poetry, but it is the truth of madness. The\n reasonings are just, but the premises are false. After the first\n suppositions have been made, everything ought to be consistent; but\n those first suppositions require a degree of credulity which almost\n amounts to a partial and temporary derangement of the intellect.\n Hence, of all people, children are the most imaginative. They\n abandon themselves without reserve to every illusion. Every image\n which is strongly presented to their mental eye produces on them\n the effect of reality. No man, whatever his sensibility may be, is\n ever affected by Hamlet or Lear as a little girl is affected by the\n story of poor Red-Riding-Hood. She knows that it is all false, that\n wolves cannot speak, that there are no wolves in England. Yet in\n spite of her knowledge she believes; she weeps; she trembles; she\n dares not go into a dark room, lest she should feel the teeth of\n the monster at her throat. Such is the despotism of the imagination\n over uncivilized minds.\"\n\nIn other words, such is the despotism of suggestion over the subjective\nmind. No truer statement of the methods of subjective mental action\ncould be written. \"The reasonings are just, but the premises are\nfalse,\" says Macaulay. True, the deductive reasonings of the subjective\nmind are always just, logical, syllogistically perfect, and are equally\nso whether the premises are false or true.\n\nMacaulay's remark concerning children is eminently philosophical and\ntrue to nature. Children are almost purely subjective; and no one\nneeds to be told how completely a suggestion, true or false, will take\ncontrol of their minds. This is seen in perfection when children are\nplaying games in which one of them is supposed to be a wild beast. The\nothers will flee in affected terror from the beast; but the affectation\noften becomes a real emotion, and tears, and sometimes convulsions,\nresult from their fright.\n\nThe remark elsewhere made regarding the eccentricities of genius\napplies in a marked degree to poets. It is probable that in all the\ngreater poets the subjective mind often predominates. Certainly the\nsubjective element is dominant in their works. The career of Lord Byron\nis at once a splendid illustration of the marvellous powers and the\ninexhaustible resources of the subjective mind in a man of learning and\ncultivation, and a sad commentary on the folly and danger of allowing\nthe subjective mind to usurp control of the dual mental organization.\n\nMany of the poems of Coleridge furnish striking examples of the\ndominance of the subjective in poetry. His readers will readily recall\nthe celebrated fragment entitled \"Kubla Khan; or, a Vision in a Dream,\"\nbeginning as follows:--\n\n \"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan\n A stately pleasure-dome decree,--\n Where Alph, the sacred river, ran\n Through caverns measureless to man\n Down to a sunless sea.\"\n\nIt is unfortunately true that the subjective condition in his case was\noften brought about by artificial means; and it is expressly stated in\na prefatory note to \"Kubla Khan\" that this fragment was written while\nunder the influence of an anodyne. As an illustration of the principle\nunder consideration it is, however, none the less valuable; while the\ncareer of the gifted but unfortunate poet should serve as a warning\nagainst the practices in which he indulged.\n\nMacaulay further remarks:--\n\n \"In an enlightened age there will be much intelligence, much\n science, much philosophy, abundance of just classification and\n subtle analysis, abundance of wit and eloquence, abundance of\n verses,--and even of good ones,--but little poetry. Men will judge\n and compare; but they will not create.\"[7]\n\nIn other words, this is an age of purely objective cultivation. All our\npowers of inductive reasoning are strained to their highest tension in\nan effort to penetrate the secrets of physical Nature, and to harness\nher dynamic forces. Meantime, the normal exercise of that co-ordinate\npower in our mental structure is fast falling into desuetude, and its\nmanifestations, not being understood, are relegated to the domain of\nsuperstition.\n\nSocrates, in his Apology to the Athenians, seems to have entertained\nopinions in regard to poets similar to those of Lord Macaulay. In his\nsearch for wiser men than himself he went first to the politicians.\nFailing there, he went to the poets, with the following result:--\n\n \"Taking up, therefore, some of their poems, which appeared to me\n most elaborately finished, I questioned them as to their meaning,\n that at the same time I might learn something from them. I am\n ashamed, O Athenians, to tell you the truth; however, it must be\n told. For, in a word, almost all who were present could have given\n a better account of them than those by whom they had been composed.\n I soon discovered this, therefore, with regard to the poets, that\n they do not effect their object by wisdom, but by a certain natural\n inspiration, and under the influence of enthusiasm, like prophets\n and seers; for these also say many fine things, but they understand\n nothing that they say.\"\n\nWords could not express more clearly the recognition of the subjective\nelement in poetic composition; and it exactly accords with Macaulay's\nidea regarding the poets and the poetry of the ancient days.\n\nThe subjective mind once recognized as a factor in the mental powers\nof the poet, it follows that its resources are all at his command.\nIts perfect memory, its instant command of all the acquired knowledge\nof the individual, however superficially attained or imperfectly\nremembered, objectively, is a source of stupendous power. But, like\nall other gifts of nature, it is liable at times to be a source of\ninconvenience; for it sometimes happens that in ordinary composition a\nperson will unconsciously reproduce, _verbatim_, some long-forgotten\nexpressions, perhaps a whole stanza, or even an entire poem. It may,\nperchance, be of his own composition; but it is just as likely to be\nsomething that he has read years before and forgotten, objectively, as\nsoon as read. In this way many persons have subjected themselves to the\ncharge of plagiarism, when they were totally unconscious of guilt.\nMany of the great poets have been accused of minor plagiarisms, and\nmuch inconsiderate criticism has been the result. Oliver Wendell Holmes\nmentions unconscious reproduction as one of the besetting annoyances\nof a poet's experience. \"It is impossible to tell,\" he says, \"in many\ncases, whether a comparison which suddenly suggests itself is a new\nconception or a recollection. I told you the other day that I never\nwrote a line of verse that seemed to me comparatively good, but it\nappeared old at once, and often as if it had been borrowed.\"[8]\n\nA certain class of trance-speaking mediums, so called, are often called\nupon to improvise poems, the subject being suggested by some one in the\naudience. Often a very creditable performance is the result; but it\nmore frequently happens that they reproduce something that they have\nread.\n\nSometimes whole poems are thus reproduced by persons in an apparently\nnormal condition. This accounts for the frequent disputes concerning\nthe authorship of popular verses. Instances of this kind are fresh\nin the minds of most readers, as, for example, a recent controversy\nbetween two well-known writers relative to the authorship of the poem\nbeginning, \"Laugh, and the world laughs with you.\" The circumstances\nof such coincidences often preclude the possibility of either claimant\ndeliberately plagiarizing the work, or telling a falsehood concerning\nits authorship. Yet nothing is more certain than that one of them is\nnot its author. Possibly neither is entitled to that credit. When, in\nthe nature of things, it is impossible for either to prove the fact\nof authorship, and when the evidence on both sides is about equally\nbalanced, we may never know the exact truth; but as the theory of\nunconscious subjective reproduction is consistent with the literary\nhonesty of both, it may well be accepted as the true one, aside from\nthe inherent probability of its correctness.\n\nThe solution of the great question as to the authorship of Shakspeare's\nworks may be found in this hypothesis. The advocates of the Baconian\ntheory tell us that Shakspeare was an unlearned man. This is true\nso far as high scholastic attainments are concerned; but it is also\nknown that he was a man of extensive reading, and was the companion of\nmany of the great men of his time, among whom were Bacon, Ben Jonson,\nDrayton, Beaumont, Fletcher, and others. It is in evidence that the\nMermaid Tavern was the scene of many an encounter of wit and learning\nbetween these worthies. In this way he was brought into constant\ncontact with the brightest minds of the Elizabethan age. He was not\nonly familiar with their works, but he had also the benefit of their\nconversation,--which familiarized him with their thoughts and modes\nof expression,--and of close personal relations with them in their\nconvivial moods, when wit and eloquence, learning and philosophy,\nflowed as freely as their wine.\n\nThe internal evidence of his works shows that Shakspeare's mind,\ncompared with that of any other poet whose writings are known, was\nthe most harmoniously developed. In other words, his objective and\nsubjective faculties were exquisitely balanced. When this fact is\nconsidered in the light of what has been said of the marvellous\npowers of subjective memory, and in connection with his intellectual\nenvironment, the source of his power and inspiration becomes apparent.\nIn his moments of inspiration--and he seems always to have been\ninspired when writing--he had the benefit of a perfect memory and a\nlogical comprehension of all that had been imparted by the brightest\nminds of the most marvellous literary and philosophical age in the\nhistory of mankind. Is it any wonder that he was able to strike a\nresponsive chord in every human breast, to run the gamut of every human\nemotion, to portray every shade of human character, and to embellish\nhis work with all the wit and learning of his day and generation?\n\nArtists constitute another class in whom the subjective faculties\nare largely cultivated, and are often predominant. Indeed, no man\ncan become a true artist whose subjective mind is not cultivated to\na high degree of activity. One may become a good draughtsman, or\nlearn to delineate a figure with accuracy, or to draw a landscape\nwith photographic fidelity to objective nature, and in faultless\nperspective, by the cultivation of the objective faculties alone;\nbut his work will lack that subtle something, that name-less charm,\nwhich causes a canvas to glow with beauty, and each particular figure\nto become instinct with life and action. No artist can successfully\ncompose a picture who cannot see \"in his mind's eye\" the perfected\npicture before he touches his pencil to canvas; and just in proportion\nto his cultivation of the subjective faculties will he be able thus\nto see his picture. Of course these remarks will be understood to\npresuppose an objective art education. No man, by the mere cultivation\nor exercise of his subjective faculties, can become a great artist, any\nmore than an ignoramus, by going into a hypnotic trance, can speak the\nlanguage of a Webster. All statements to the contrary are merely the\nexaggerations of inaccurate observers. Genius in art, as in everything\nelse, is the result of the harmonious cultivation and synchronous\naction of both characteristics of the dual mind.\n\nIn art, as in poetry, the undue predominance of the subjective mind\nis apt to work disastrously. No better illustration of this is now\nrecalled than is furnished by the works of Fuseli or of Blake:--\n\n \"Look,\" says Dendy,[9] \"on those splendid illustrations of the\n Gothic poets by the eccentric, the half-mad Fuseli. Look on the\n wild pencillings of Blake, another poet-painter, and you will be\n assured that they were ghost-seers. An intimate friend of Blake has\n told me the strangest tales of his visions. In one of his reveries\n he witnessed the whole ceremony of a fairy's funeral, which he\n peopled with mourners and mutes, and described with high poetic\n beauty. He was engaged, in one of these moods, in painting King\n Edward I., who was sitting to him for his picture. While they were\n conversing, Wallace suddenly presented himself on the field, and\n by this uncourteous intrusion marred the studies of the painter for\n that day.... Blake was a visionary,\" continues our author, \"and\n thought his fancies real; he was mad.\"\n\nThe writer once knew an artist who had the power to enter the\nsubjective condition at will; and in this state he could cause his\nvisions to be projected upon the canvas before him. He declared that\nhis mental pictures thus formed were perfect in detail and color, and\nall that he had to do to fix them was to paint the corresponding colors\nover the subjective picture. He, too, thought his fancies real; he\nbelieved that spirits projected the pictures upon the canvas.\n\nThe foregoing cases represent a class of artists whose subjective\nfaculties are uncontrolled by the objective mind,--an abnormal\ncondition, which, if it found expression in words instead of pigments,\nwould stamp the subject as a candidate for the lunatic asylum.\n\nFortunately, most artists have their fancies more under control; or,\nmore properly speaking, they are aware that their visions are evoked\nby their own volition. This power varies with different individuals,\nbut all true artists possess it in a greater or less degree. An\nextraordinary manifestation of this power is reported by Combe. The\nartist was noted for the rapidity of his work, and was extremely\npopular on account of the fidelity of his portraits, and especially\nbecause he never required more than one sitting of his patron. His\nmethod, as divulged by himself, was as follows:--\n\n \"When a sitter came, I looked attentively on him for half an hour,\n sketching from time to time on the canvas. I did not require a\n longer sitting. I removed the canvas and passed to another person.\n When I wished to continue the first portrait, I recalled the man\n to my mind. I placed him on the chair, where I perceived him as\n distinctly as though really there, and, I may add, in form and\n color more decidedly brilliant. I looked from time to time at the\n imaginary figure, and went on painting, occasionally stopping to\n examine the picture exactly as though the original were before me;\n whenever I looked towards the chair I saw the man.\"\n\nIn this way he was enabled to paint over three hundred portraits in one\nyear.\n\nIt is seldom that subjective power is manifested in this particular\nmanner. It may be added, however, that, given an artist for a subject,\nthe same phenomena can be reproduced at will by the ordinary processes\nof hypnotism. The most common manifestations of the power are not so\neasily recognized or distinguished from ordinary mental activity; but\nevery artist will bear witness that there are times when he works\nwith extraordinary ease and rapidity, when the work almost seems to\ndo itself, when there seems to be a force outside of himself which\nimpels him on, when, to use the common expression to define the mental\ncondition, he feels that he is \"inspired.\" It is then that the artist\ndoes his best work. It is under these mental conditions that his work\nis characterized by that subtle, indefinite charm vaguely expressed by\nthe word \"feeling.\"\n\nAnother class of persons who possess the faculty of evoking at will the\npowers of the subjective mind are the great orators, such as Patrick\nHenry, Charles Phillips the Irish orator, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster,\nand many others, to say nothing of that numerous class of purely\nsubjective orators known to spiritists as trance, or inspirational,\nspeakers. The student of the life of Patrick Henry will not fail to\nsee that his whole history is an illustration of the pertinency of\nthese remarks. It is related of Clay that on one occasion he was\nunexpectedly called upon to answer an opponent who had addressed the\nSenate on a question in which Clay was deeply interested. The latter\nfelt too unwell to reply at length. It seemed imperative, however,\nthat he should say something; and he exacted a promise from a friend,\nwho sat behind him, that he would stop him at the end of ten minutes.\nAccordingly, at the expiration of the prescribed time the friend\ngently pulled the skirts of Mr. Clay's coat. No attention was paid\nto the hint, and after a brief time it was repeated a little more\nemphatically. Still Clay paid no attention, and it was again repeated.\nThen a pin was brought into requisition; but Clay was by that time\nthoroughly aroused, and was pouring forth a torrent of eloquence.\nThe pin was inserted deeper and deeper into the orator's leg without\neliciting any response, until his friend gave it up in despair. Finally\nMr. Clay happened to glance at the clock, and saw that he had been\nspeaking two hours; whereupon he fell back into his friend's arms,\ncompletely overcome by exhaustion, upbraiding his friend severely for\nnot stopping him at the time prescribed.\n\nThe fact that Mr. Clay, on that occasion, made one of the ablest\nspeeches of his life, two hours in length, at a time when he felt\nalmost too ill to rise to his feet, and that his body at the time was\nin a condition of perfect anesthesia, is a splendid illustration of the\nsynchronous action of the two minds, and also of the perfect control\nexercised by the subjective mind over the functions and sensations of\nthe body.\n\nThere is, perhaps, no better description on record of the sensations\nof a speaker, when the synchronous action of the two minds is\nperfect, than that given by Daniel Webster. A friend had asked him\nhow it happened that he was able, without preparation, to make such a\nmagnificent effort when he replied to Hayne. The reply was (quoting\nfrom memory) substantially as follows: \"In the first place, I have made\nthe Constitution of the United States the study of my life; and on\nthat occasion it seemed to me that all that I had ever heard or read\non the subject under discussion was passing like a panorama before me,\narranged in perfectly logical order and sequence, and that all I had to\ndo was to cull a thunderbolt and hurl it at him.\"\n\nTwo important conclusions are deducible from the premises here\nlaid down. The first is that it is essential to the highest mental\ndevelopment that the objective and subjective faculties be cultivated\nharmoniously, if the latter are cultivated at all.\n\nThe second conclusion is of the most transcendent interest and\nimportance. It is that the subjective mind should never be allowed to\nusurp control of the dual mental organization. Important as are its\nfunctions and transcendent as are its powers, it is hedged about with\nsuch limitations that it must be subjected to the imperial control of\nthe objective mind, which alone is endowed with the power to reason by\nall methods.\n\nTo sum up in a few words: To believe in the reality of subjective\nvisions is to give the subjective mind control of the dual mental\norganization; and to give the subjective mind such control is for\nReason to abdicate her throne. The suggestions of the subjective mind\nthen become the controlling power. The result, in its mildest form of\nmanifestation, is a mind filled with the grossest superstitions,--a\nmind which, like the untutored mind of the savage, \"sees God in clouds,\nand hears him in the wind.\" Its ultimate form of manifestation is\ninsanity.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 7: Scott's poems are good illustrations. They are not ranked\nas first class for the sole reason that they are too objective.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Philosophy of Mystery, p. 93.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nPERCEPTION OF THE FIXED LAWS OF NATURE.\n\n Three Sub-classes of Mental Phenomena.--Mathematical\n Prodigies.--Musical Prodigies.--Measurement of Time.--Distinction\n between Results of Objective Education and Intuitive\n Perception.--Zerah Colburn, the Mathematical Prodigy.--The\n Lightning Calculator.--Blind Tom, the Musical Prodigy.--The\n Origin and Uses of Music.--East Indian Fakirs.--Measurement\n of Time.--The Power possessed by Animals.--Illustrative\n Incidents.--Hypnotic Subjects.--Jouffroy's Testimony.--Bernheim's\n Views.--Practical Observations.--The Normal Functions of Objective\n Intelligence.--The Limitations of Subjective Intelligence pertain\n to its Earthly State only.--Its Kinship to God demonstrated by its\n Limitations.--Omniscience cannot reason inductively.--Induction is\n Inquiry.--Perception the Attribute of Omniscience.--Conclusions\n regarding the Power of the Soul.\n\n\nThere are three other sub-classes of subjective mental phenomena which\nmust be grouped by themselves, inasmuch as they are governed by a\nlaw which does not pertain to the classes mentioned in the preceding\nchapter, although there are some characteristics which are common to\nthem all. The first of these classes of phenomena is manifested in\nmathematical prodigies; the second in musical prodigies; and the third\npertains to the measurement of time.\n\nThe important distinction to be observed between the phenomena\ndescribed in the preceding chapter and those pertaining to mathematics,\nmusic, and the measurement of time, consists in the fact that in the\nformer everything depends upon objective education, whilst the latter\nare apparently produced by the exercise of inherent powers of the\nsubjective mind.\n\nIn order not to be misunderstood it must be here stated that on all\nsubjects of human knowledge not governed by fixed laws, the subjective\nmind is dependent for its information upon objective education.\nIn other words, it knows only what has been imparted to it by and\nthrough the objective senses or the operations of the objective mind.\nThus, its knowledge of the contents of books can only be acquired by\nobjective methods of education. Its wonderful powers of acquiring and\nassimilating such knowledge are due to its perfect memory of all that\nhas been imparted to it by objective education, aided by its powers\nof memory and of logical arrangement of the subject-matter. Leaving\nclairvoyance and thought-transference out of consideration for the\npresent, the principle may be stated thus: The subjective mind cannot\nknow, by intuition, the name of a person, or a geographical location,\nor a fact in human history. But it does know, by intuition, that two\nand two make four.\n\nNo one without an objective education can, by the development of the\nsubjective faculties alone, become a great poet, or a great artist,\nor a great orator, or a great statesman. But he may be a great\nmathematician or a great musician, independently of objective education\nor training, by the development of the subjective faculties alone.\nMany facts are on record which demonstrate this proposition. Hundreds\nof instances might be cited showing to what a prodigious extent the\nmathematical and musical faculties can be developed in persons, not\nonly without objective training, but, in some instances, without a\nbrain capable of receiving any considerable objective education.\n\nMathematical prodigies of the character mentioned are numerous; one\nof the most remarkable was the famous Zerah Colburn. The following\naccount of his early career, published when he was yet under eight\nyears of age, is taken from the \"Annual Register\" of 1812, an English\npublication, and will serve to illustrate the proposition:\n\n \"The attention of the philosophical world has been lately attracted\n by the most singular phenomenon in the history of human mind that\n perhaps ever existed. It is the case of a child, under eight years\n of age, who, without any previous knowledge of the common rules of\n arithmetic, or even of the use and power of the Arabic numerals,\n and without having given any attention to the subject, possesses,\n as if by intuition, the singular faculty of solving a great variety\n of arithmetical questions by the mere operation of the mind, and\n without the usual assistance of any visible symbol or contrivance.\n\n \"The name of the child is Zerah Colburn, who was born at Cabut\n (a town lying at the head of the Onion River, in Vermont, in the\n United States of America), on the 1st of September, 1804. About two\n years ago,--August, 1810,--although at that time not six years of\n age, he first began to show these wonderful powers of calculation\n which have since so much attracted the attention and excited the\n astonishment of every person who has witnessed his extraordinary\n abilities. The discovery was made by accident. His father, who had\n not given him any other instruction than such as was to be obtained\n at a small school established in that unfrequented and remote\n part of the country, and which did not include either writing\n or ciphering, was much surprised one day to hear him repeating\n the products of several numbers. Struck with amazement at the\n circumstance, he proposed a variety of arithmetical questions to\n him, all of which the child solved with remarkable facility and\n correctness. The news of the infant prodigy was soon circulated\n through the neighborhood, and many persons came from distant parts\n to witness so singular a circumstance. The father, encouraged by\n the unanimous opinion of all who came to see him, was induced to\n undertake with this child the tour of the United States. They were\n everywhere received with the most flattering expressions, and in\n several towns which they visited, various plans were suggested to\n educate and bring up the child free from all expense to his family.\n Yielding, however, to the pressing solicitations of his friends,\n and urged by the most respectable and powerful recommendations, as\n well as by a view to his son's more complete education, the father\n has brought the child to this country, where they arrived on the\n 12th of May last; and the inhabitants of this metropolis have for\n the last three months had an opportunity of seeing and examining\n this wonderful phenomenon, and verifying the reports that have\n been circulated respecting him. Many persons of the first eminence\n for their knowledge in mathematics, and well known for their\n philosophical inquiries, have made a point of seeing and conversing\n with him, and they have all been struck with astonishment at his\n extraordinary powers. It is correctly true, as stated of him, that\n he will not only determine with the greatest facility and despatch\n the exact number of minutes or seconds in any given period of\n time, but will also solve any other question of a similar kind.\n He will tell the exact product arising from the multiplication of\n any number consisting of two, three, or four figures by any other\n number consisting of the like number of figures; or any number\n consisting of six or seven places of figures being proposed, he\n will determine with equal expedition and ease all the factors of\n which it is composed. This singular faculty consequently extends\n not only to the raising of powers, but to the extraction of the\n square and cube roots of the number proposed, and likewise to the\n means of determining whether it is a prime number (or a number\n incapable of division by any other number); for which case there\n does not exist at present any general rule amongst mathematicians.\n All these and a variety of other questions connected therewith are\n answered by this child with such promptness and accuracy (and in\n the midst of his juvenile pursuits) as to astonish every person who\n has visited him.\n\n \"At a meeting of his friends, which was held for the purpose of\n concerting the best methods of promoting the views of the father,\n this child undertook and completely succeeded in raising the\n number 8 progressively up to the sixteenth power. And in naming\n the last result, viz., 281,474,976,710,656! he was right in every\n figure. He was then tried as to other numbers consisting of one\n figure, all of which he raised (by actual multiplication, and\n not by memory) as high as the tenth power, with so much facility\n and despatch that the person appointed to take down the results\n was obliged to enjoin him not to be so rapid. With respect to\n numbers consisting of two figures, he would raise some of them to\n the sixth, seventh, and eighth power, but not always with equal\n facility; for the larger the products became, the more difficult he\n found it to proceed. He was asked the square root of 106,929; and\n before the number could be written down, he immediately answered,\n 327. He was then required to name the cube root of 268,336,125; and\n with equal facility and promptness he replied, 645. Various other\n questions of a similar nature, respecting the roots and powers\n of very high numbers, were proposed by several of the gentlemen\n present, to all of which he answered in a similar manner. One of\n the party requested him to name the factors which produced the\n number 247,483: this he immediately did by mentioning the numbers\n 941 and 263,--which, indeed, are the only two numbers that will\n produce it. Another of them proposed 171,395, and he named the\n following factors as the only ones, viz., 5 \u00d7 34,279, 7 \u00d7 24,485,\n 59 \u00d7 2,905, 83 \u00d7 2,065, 35 \u00d7 4,897, 295 \u00d7 581, and 413 \u00d7 415. He\n was then asked to give the factors of 36,083; but he immediately\n replied that it had none,--which in fact was the case, as 36,083\n is a prime number. Other numbers were indiscriminately proposed\n to him, and he always succeeded in giving the correct factors,\n except in the case of prime numbers, which he discovered almost as\n soon as proposed. One of the gentlemen asked him how many minutes\n there were in forty-eight years; and before the question could be\n written down he replied, 25,228,800; and instantly added that the\n number of seconds in the same period was 1,513,728,000. Various\n questions of the like kind were put to him, and to all of them he\n answered with equal facility and promptitude, so as to astonish\n every one present, and to excite a desire that so extraordinary a\n faculty should, if possible, be rendered more extensive and useful.\n It was the wish of the gentlemen present to obtain a knowledge of\n the method by which the child was enabled to answer with so much\n facility and correctness the questions thus put to him; but to all\n their inquiries on the subject (and he was closely examined on this\n point) he was unable to give them any information. He persistently\n declared (and every observation that was made seemed to justify\n the assertion) that he did not know how the answer came into his\n mind. In the act of multiplying two numbers together, and in the\n raising of powers, it was evident, not only from the motion of his\n lips, but also from some singular facts which will be hereafter\n mentioned, that some operations were going forward in his mind; yet\n that operation could not, from the readiness with which the answers\n were furnished, be at all allied to the usual mode of proceeding\n with such subjects; and moreover he is entirely ignorant of the\n common rules of arithmetic, and cannot perform upon paper a simple\n sum in multiplication or division. But in the extraction of roots\n and in mentioning the factors of high numbers, it does not appear\n that any operation can take place, since he will give the answer\n immediately, or in a very few seconds, where it would require,\n according to the ordinary method of solution, a very difficult and\n laborious calculation; and, moreover, the knowledge of a prime\n number cannot be obtained by any known rule.\n\n \"It must be evident, from what has here been stated, that the\n singular faculty which this child possesses is not altogether\n dependent on his memory. In the multiplication of numbers and in\n the raising of powers, he is doubtless considerably assisted by\n that remarkable quality of the mind; and in this respect he might\n be considered as bearing some resemblance (if the difference\n of age did not prevent the justness of the comparison) to the\n celebrated Jedidiah Buxton, and other persons of similar note. But\n in the extraction of the roots of numbers and in determining their\n factors (if any), it is clear to all those who have witnessed the\n astonishing quickness and accuracy of this child that the memory\n has nothing to do with the process. And in this particular point\n consists the remarkable difference between the present and all\n former instances of an apparently similar kind.\"\n\nThe latter remark above quoted would not apply to the present day, for\nmany parallel cases have been reported within the present decade.\n\nIt was hoped that the powers of this child would develop by education;\nand for this purpose he was placed in school and trained in objective\nmethods of mathematical calculation. It was believed that when his\nmind became mature he would be able to impart to others the process\nby which his calculations were made. But his friends were doomed to\ndisappointment. His powers did not improve by objective training. On\nthe contrary, they deteriorated just in proportion to his efforts\nin that direction, and his pupils derived no benefit from the\nextraordinary faculties with which he was endowed. This has been the\ninvariable rule in such cases.\n\nA few years ago a gentleman travelled through this country teaching\narithmetic. He was known as the \"lightning calculator.\" His powers were\nindeed marvellous. He could add a column of as many numbers as could\nbe written on a sheet of legal cap, by casting an instantaneous glance\nupon the page; but he succeeded no better as a teacher than thousands\nof others who could not add a column of numbers without reading every\nfigure by the usual laborious, objective process. He could give no\nexplanation of his powers other than that he possessed extraordinary\nquickness of vision. But any one who is sufficiently acquainted with\nthe elements of optical laws to be aware that in the light of a flash\nof lightning a drop of falling rain appears to be suspended motionless\nin the air, knows that objective vision is not capable of such rapid\ntransition as to enable one to see at a glance each particular figure\nin a column of a hundred numbers. When to this is added the labor\nof calculating the relation and aggregate values of the numbers,\nthe conclusion is inevitable that such powers are not given to our\nobjective senses, but must be inherent in the human soul, and beyond\nthe range of objective explanation or comprehension.\n\nMusical prodigies furnish further illustrations of the principle\ninvolved. Of these the most remarkable is the negro idiot, known\nas Blind Tom. This person was not only blind from birth, but was\nlittle above the brute creation in point of objective intelligence or\ncapacity to receive objective instruction. Yet his musical capacity\nwas prodigious. Almost in his infancy it was discovered that he could\nreproduce on the piano any piece of music that he had ever heard. A\npiece of music, however long or difficult, once heard, seemed to be\nfixed indelibly in his memory, and usually could be reproduced with\na surprising degree of accuracy. His capacity for improvisation was\nequally great, and a discordant note rarely, if ever, marred the\nharmony of his measures.\n\nThese well known facts of Blind Tom's history furnish complete\nillustrations,--first of the perfection of subjective memory; and\nsecond, of the inherent power of the subjective mind to grasp the\nlaws of harmony of sounds; and that, too, independently of objective\neducation.\n\nMusic belongs to the realm of the subjective; it is a passion of the\nhuman soul, and it may be safely affirmed that all really good music\nis the direct product of the subjective mind. It is true that there is\nmuch so-called music to be heard which is the product of the objective\nintelligence. But no one can fail to recognize its origin, from its\nhard, mechanical, soulless character and quality. It bears the same\nrelation to the product of the subjective mind that mere rhyme does\nto the poetry of a Milton. Music is at once the legitimate offspring\nof the subjective mind and one of the most potent means of inducing\nthe subjective condition. It is a well-known practice of so-called\n\"spiritual mediums\" to have music at their s\u00e9ances, for the ostensible\npurpose of securing the \"harmonious conditions\" necessary to insure a\nsuccessful performance. Their theory is that the music harmonizes the\naudience, and that by a reflex action the medium is favorably affected.\nIt is probable that such would be the effect to a limited extent, but\nthe greatest effect is direct and positive upon the medium.\n\nThe East Indian fakirs invariably invoke the aid of music to enable\nthem to enter the subjective state when they are about to give an\nexhibition of occult power. In fact, the power of music over the\nsubjective mind is practically unlimited. It speaks the universal\nlanguage of the soul, and is comprehended alike by prince and by\npeasant. It is the most powerful auxiliary of love, of religion, and of\nwar. It nerves the soldier to deeds of heroism, and soothes his dying\nmoments. It inspires alike the devotee of pleasure and the worshipper\nof God. But whilst it interprets every human emotion and embodies the\ninward feelings of which all other arts can but exhibit the outward\neffect, its laws are as fixed and immutable as the laws of mathematics.\n\nThe next subdivision or branch of the subject pertains to the faculty\nof measuring the lapse of time. This power is inherent in the\nsubjective mind, and in that alone; the objective mind, _per se_,\ndoes not possess it. The only means by which the objective mind can\nmeasure time is by the exercise of the physical senses, either in the\nobservation of the motions of the heavenly bodies, or of some other\nphysical object or phenomenon which objective experience has shown to\nbe a safe criterion upon which to base an estimate.\n\nThe subjective mind, on the other hand, possesses an inherent power\nin that direction, independent of objective aids or the exercise\nof reason. It is possessed by man in common with many of the brute\ncreation. It is strikingly exhibited in dogs, horses, and other\ndomestic animals accustomed to regular hours of employment.\n\nA friend of the writer once owned a large plantation in one of the\nSouthwestern States, upon which he worked a large number of mules.\nThey were regularly employed on week-days, but on Sundays they were\nturned into a corral and allowed to rest. On regular work-days they\nwere tractable and easily handled; but if one was wanted for a Sunday\nexcursion it was with the greatest difficulty that he could be caught\nor made to perform any labor whatever.\n\nAn English gentleman, well known to the writer, relates a curious\nanecdote of a dog which was raised in his family. After the dog had\ncome to maturity, one of the sons married and set up an establishment\nabout three miles from the parental mansion. It was the habit of the\nfamily to see that the dog was fed regularly, immediately after each\nmeal, with the scraps from the table. At the home mansion the Sunday\ndinner-hour was the same as on week-days, but was just two hours\nearlier than that adopted at the son's establishment. This fact the\ndog by some means became acquainted with, and he never failed to take\nadvantage of the information. Every Sunday he would wait patiently for\nthe home dinner; and having finished it, he would promptly take his\ndeparture, and never failed to put in an appearance at the son's house\non time for dinner, where he was sure to be welcomed and entertained as\nan honored guest. On week-days the dinner-hour at the two houses was\nthe same, and consequently he never made a pilgrimage in search of an\nextra meal on any day but Sunday.\n\nA favorite mastiff in the family of the writer has taken upon himself\nthe regulation of the household affairs. He awakens the family in the\nmorning at a certain hour, and insists upon promptitude in rising. At\nprecisely twelve o'clock he notifies the family that it is time to feed\nthe horse, and will give no one any peace until his friend's wants are\nsupplied. His own meal seems to be a secondary consideration. At three\no'clock he notifies his mistress that it is time to visit the kitchen\nand give directions for preparing dinner. It is not because he expects\nto be fed at that time, for he is never fed until the family have\ndined, two hours later. At nine o'clock he rises from his rug on the\nlibrary floor, and insists upon a visit to the kitchen for a lunch. It\nis rare that he varies five minutes from the regular hours above noted,\nbut is generally within a minute.\n\nThis power is exhibited in its perfection in hypnotic subjects and in\nordinary sleep. It is that faculty which enables one to awake at an\nappointed hour in the night, when, before going to sleep, he has made\na firm resolution to do so. M. Jouffroy, one of the most celebrated\nphilosophers of France, in speaking of this subject says:--\n\n \"I have this power in perfection, but I notice that I lose it if\n I depend on any one calling me. In this latter case my mind does\n not take the trouble of reasoning the time or of listening to the\n clock. But in the former it is necessary that it do so, otherwise\n the phenomenon is inexplicable. Every one has made or can make this\n experiment.\"\n\nM. Jouffroy is doubtless mistaken in supposing that the mind is\nnecessarily employed in watching the clock; for the experiment is just\nas successful in the absence of any timepiece. Besides, the fact that\nanimals possess the faculty shows that it is an inherent attribute of\nthe subjective mind. It is the lapse of time that is noted by men as\nwell as by animals, and is wholly independent of artificial methods\nor instruments for marking the divisions of time. Every one possesses\nthis faculty in a greater or less degree, and the subject need not,\ntherefore, be enlarged upon.\n\nAs before intimated, hypnotic subjects possess in a very remarkable\ndegree the faculty of noting the lapse of time. On this subject\nProfessor Bernheim[10] says:--\n\n \"If a somnambulist is made to promise during his sleep that he will\n come back on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, he\n will almost surely return on the day and at the hour, although he\n has no remembrance of his promise when he wakes up. I made A say\n that he would come back to me in thirteen days, at ten o'clock in\n the morning. He remembered nothing when he waked. On the thirteenth\n day, at ten o'clock in the morning, he appeared, having come three\n kilometres from his house to the hospital. He had been working in\n the foundries all night, went to bed at six in the morning, and\n woke up at nine with the idea that he had to come to the hospital\n to see me. He told me that he had had no such idea on the preceding\n days, and did not know that he had to come to see me. It came into\n his head just at the time when he ought to carry it out.\"\n\nIt is also well known to all hypnotists that subjects in a hypnotic\nsleep will awaken at any hour prescribed to them by the operator,\nseldom varying more than five minutes from the time set, even when the\nsleep is prolonged for hours. If the subject is commanded to sleep,\nsay, ten or fifteen minutes, he will generally awaken exactly on\ntime. This fact also is universally recognized by those familiar with\nhypnotic phenomena, and the subject need not be further illustrated.\n\nIn concluding this chapter, it is impossible to refrain from indulging\nin a few general observations regarding the conclusions derivable from\nthe peculiar characteristics of the subjective intelligence thus far\nnoted. We have seen that certain phenomena depend for their perfect\ndevelopment upon objective education, and that certain other phenomena\nare exhibited in perfection independent of objective education.\nIn other words, certain powers are inherent in the subjective\nintelligence. These powers appear to pertain to the comprehension of\nthe laws of Nature. We have seen that, under certain conditions, the\nsubjective mind comprehends by intuition the laws of mathematics. It\ncomprehends the laws of harmony of sounds, independently of objective\neducation. By true artists the laws of the harmony of colors are also\nperceived intuitively.[11] These facts have been again and again\ndemonstrated. It would seem, therefore, to be a just conclusion that\nthe subjective mind, untrammelled by its objective environment, will be\nenabled to comprehend all the laws of Nature, to perceive, to know all\ntruth, independent of the slow, laborious process of induction.\n\nWe are so accustomed to boast of the \"god-like reason\" with which man\nis endowed, that the proposition that the subjective mind--the soul--of\nman is incapable of exercising that function, in what we regard as the\nhighest form of reasoning, seems, at first glance, to be a limitation\nof the intellectual power of the soul, and inconsistent with what we\nhave been accustomed to regard as the highest attributes of human\nintelligence. But a moment's reflection will develop the fact that this\napparent limitation of intellectual power is, in reality, a god-like\nattribute of mind. God himself cannot reason inductively. Inductive\nreasoning presupposes an inquiry, a search after knowledge, an effort\nto arrive at correct conclusions regarding something of which we are\nignorant. To suppose God to be an inquirer, a seeker after knowledge,\nby finite processes of reasoning, is a conception of the Deity which\nnegatives his omniscience, and measures Infinite Intelligence by purely\nfinite standards. For our boasted \"god-like reason\" is of the earth,\nearthy. It is the noblest attribute of the finite mind, it is true,\nbut it is essentially finite. It is the outgrowth of our objective\nexistence. It is our safest guide in the walks of earthly life. It\nis our faithful monitor and guardian in our daily struggle with our\nphysical environment. It is our most reliable auxiliary in our efforts\nto penetrate the secrets of Nature, and wrest from her the means of\nsubsistence. But its functions cease with the necessities which called\nit into existence; for it will be no longer useful when the physical\nform has perished, and the veil is lifted which hides from mortal eyes\nthat world where all truth is revealed. Then it is that the soul--the\nsubjective mind--will perform its normal functions, untrammelled by\nthe physical form which imprisons it and binds it to earth, and in its\nnative realm of truth, unimpeded by the laborious processes of finite\nreasoning, it will imbibe all truth from its Eternal Source.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 10: Suggestive Therapeutics, p. 37.]\n\n[Footnote 11: It must be here remarked that although the laws\npertaining to the harmony of colors may be comprehended by intuition,\nyet an objective education is necessary to enable the artist to\ncombine the necessary pigments to produce the colors on canvas, and to\nperform the other mechanical labor necessary to place the paints upon\nthe canvas in such relations as to produce a picture. When this is\nacquired, intuition will do the rest.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nEFFECTS OF ADVERSE SUGGESTION.\n\n The Subjective Mind Incapable of Controversial Argument.--A\n Sceptical Audience demoralizes it.--The Presence of an\n Avowed Sceptic prevents Successful Exhibition of Subjective\n Phenomena.--Labouchere and Bishop.--The Royal Academy of\n Medicine.--Its Offer to Clairvoyants.--Failure to earn\n Reward.--Harmonious Conditions required by Spiritists.--The Seybert\n Commission.--Trance-Speaking Mediums.--How demoralized.--Adverse\n Suggestion the Cause of Failure in All Cases.--Possible\n Lack of Telepathic Conditions in Bishop's Case.--General\n Conclusions.--Failure Consistent with Honesty of Mediums.\n\n\nAnother important peculiarity of the subjective mind is that it is\nincapable of controversial argument. This subject has been briefly\nalluded to in a former chapter; but it is of so much importance that a\nmore extended consideration of it is demanded, inasmuch as it affords\na clear explanation of various phenomena which have never yet been\nsatisfactorily accounted for. It is well known among hypnotists that it\nis very difficult, if not impossible, to make satisfactory experiments\nwith a subject in the presence of a sceptical audience. Especially\nis this true if the scepticism is open, avowed, and aggressive.\nIt is also well known that, when a subject is in a state of lucid\nsomnambulism, no satisfactory results can be obtained if any one\ndisputes him, or attempts an argument, or accuses him of shamming, or\nof a want of good faith. Such a course always results in great distress\nof mind on the part of the subject, and generally in restoring him\nto normal consciousness. In the higher phases of hypnotic phenomena\nthis peculiarity is still more marked. In exhibiting the phenomena of\nclairvoyance and thought-transference, or mind-reading, it is next to\nimpossible to obtain good results in the presence of an avowed sceptic.\nThe controversy between Washington Irving Bishop and Mr. Labouchere is\nfresh in the minds of most readers. Mr. Bishop was giving successful\nexhibitions of his wonderful powers in public assemblies and in private\ncircles in London. He had demonstrated again and again his power to\nread the thoughts of others and to decipher the contents of sealed\nenvelopes under the strictest test conditions, in the presence of many\ncompetent and trustworthy observers. In the height of his success Mr.\nLabouchere came out in his paper and denounced the whole thing as a\nhumbug. To prove his sincerity he placed a Bank of England note for a\nlarge amount in a sealed envelope, and offered to give it to Mr. Bishop\nif he should correctly read the number. Repeated trials to do so ended\nin dismal failure. It was a feat that he had successfully performed a\nthousand times before, and many times afterwards. But the number on\nthat particular bank-note he never could decipher.\n\nIn 1831 the Royal Academy of Medicine of France appointed a commission\nto investigate the subject of animal magnetism. The commission was\ncomposed of some of the ablest scientists of the Academy, and it\nprosecuted its investigations until 1837, when it made its report.\nAmongst other things it announced that it had demonstrated the fact\nthat some mesmeric subjects possessed clairvoyant power; that such\nsubjects could, with their eyes \"exactly closed by the fingers,\"\ndistinguish objects, tell the color and number of cards, and read lines\nof a book opened at a chance page. Without entering into the details\nof the controversy that followed this report, it is sufficient to say\nthat a standing offer of a large sum of money was made to any one who\nshould demonstrate the reality of clairvoyant power in the presence of\na committee appointed for the purpose. It is said that many attempts\nhave been made by good clairvoyants to earn this money, but every\nattempt has ended in total failure. Volumes might be written detailing\nsuch tests and such failures.\n\nExhibitions of the phenomena of spiritism are constantly liable to\nutter failure in the presence of avowed sceptics. Every one who has\nattended a \"spiritual\" s\u00e9ance is aware of the strict regard paid\nto securing \"harmonious conditions;\" and all know how dismal is\nthe failure when such conditions cannot be obtained. It frequently\nhappens that some one will inadvertently remark that \"spirits never\ncome when I am around;\" and in nine such cases out of ten the s\u00e9ance\nwill end in failure when such a remark is made. Any argument against\nspiritism, especially if addressed to the medium, or any controversy on\nthe subject in his presence, will destroy all chance of a successful\nexhibition. Investigating committees nearly always fail to observe the\npromised phenomena when the character and objects of the committee\nare known to the medium. Thus, the Seybert Commission, a majority of\nwhose members were pronounced sceptics, utterly failed to witness any\nphenomena which might not be produced by legerdemain. In their report\nthey take occasion to say:--\n\n \"Our experience has been ... that as soon as an investigation,\n worthy of the name, begins, all manifestations of spiritist power\n cease.... Even the very spirit of investigation, or of incredulity,\n seems to exercise a chilling effect and prevents a successful\n manifestation.\"[12]\n\nIt will be observed that the last sentence betrays the fact that\nthe writer regards \"the spirit of investigation\" and \"the spirit of\nincredulity\" as synonymous terms. It is certain that the Seybert\nCommission as a body did so regard them, and made no effort to conceal\nthe fact from the mediums who submitted to be examined. Every medium\nwhom they examined was made fully aware of the incredulity of the\nmajority of the Commission, and thus every effort to produce the\nphenomena failed.\n\nThe same peculiarity is observed in trance-speaking mediums, especially\nin those who speak in a purely subjective condition. No matter how\ngreat is their flow of eloquence, or how perfect their command of\ntheir subject, they utterly break down when confronted by an adverse\nargument. So well is this peculiarity known that their friends never\nsuffer them to be interrupted.\n\nIt would be useless to multiply instances of this character. It is\nsufficiently evident from what has been said that one invariable result\nfollows the one condition. In the investigation of physical phenomena\nthe scientific observer would not hesitate to concede that where a\nmarked result invariably follows a given condition, the two must\nsustain towards each other the relation of cause and effect. It will\nnot be difficult to establish that relation in this case; and that,\ntoo, on principles consistent with the supposition of the absolute\nintegrity of all concerned.\n\nIt is, in fact, but another striking illustration of the fundamental\nprinciples laid down in preceding chapters of this book. It\ndemonstrates more completely than almost any other phenomenon the\nabsolute amenability of the subjective mind to the power of suggestion.\nIt will not be gainsaid that all the phenomena mentioned--clairvoyance,\nthought-transference, hypnotism, and mediumship--are embraced under the\none generic title, subjective or hypnotic; they are therefore governed\nby the same general laws.\n\nThe hypnotic subject who is in the presence of an openly sceptical\naudience, and who hears some one declare that the subject is shamming,\ninstantly seizes upon the declaration; and it is to him a suggestion\nthat is as potent as the one which induced the hypnotic condition.\nThe suggestion of the operator is thus neutralized, so to speak, by a\ncounter-suggestion, which reduces the subject at once to his normal\ncondition. In such a case the subject cannot be again hypnotized\nso long as the sceptic is present; his very presence is a standing\nsuggestion of the unreality of the hypnotic condition which cannot be\novercome by the operator.\n\nIn the case of Bishop, the mind-reader, the same principle applies with\nequal force. The mental state which enabled him to read the contents\nof a sealed envelope was self-induced. It was a partially hypnotic\ncondition, induced by auto-suggestion. When Labouchere's envelope\nwas presented to him, the very manner of presenting it--the offer of\nits contents as a gift if he would read the number of the bank-note\nwithin--was a defiance of his power. It was a suggestion of the most\nemphatic character and potency that, do what he would, he could not\nread the contents of that envelope. Again, the anxiety engendered in\nthe mind of the clairvoyant was another factor which added force to the\nsuggestion. The offer was not only defiant, it was even public. The\nwhole civilized world was apprised of the controversy. The professional\nreputation of the man was at stake. His future career depended upon his\nsuccess; and every dollar of value in that note not only added to his\nanxiety to win the prize, but contributed its force to the suggestion\nthat he could not succeed.\n\nThere is, however, another factor which should be considered in\nBishop's case, and which may account for his failure on other grounds\nthan adverse suggestion. Bishop was a professional mind-reader, and,\nas I understand it, did not profess to have independent clairvoyant\npowers. If, therefore, no one knew the number of the bank-note, it\nis obvious that failure was inevitable, for the reason that the\nfundamental conditions of success were absent. There was no mind in\npossession of the number, and there was no mind to read. It was,\ntherefore, not a fair test of his professed powers in any view of the\ncase. But if Labouchere did know the number of the note, the failure\nwas easily accounted for, as before remarked, on the principle of\nadverse suggestion.\n\nIt is obvious that the principle of adverse suggestion applies to all\nphases and conditions of subjective mental activity; and the necessity\nfor harmonious conditions, so constantly insisted upon by spiritists\nas a condition precedent to the production of their peculiar forms of\nhypnotic phenomena, is seen to be a scientific fact of immense value\nand significance, and not a mere subterfuge to enable them to practice\na fraud and impose on the credulity of their auditors.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 12: Seybert Commission, Report, p. 15.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nHYPNOTISM AND MESMERISM.\n\n Warfare of the Schools.--History of the Science.--Mesmer's\n Career.--The Academicians.--The Successors of Mesmer.--The Royal\n Academy of Medicine.--Its Idiotic Prejudices.--Dr. Braid's\n Discovery.--Re-baptism of the Science.--Effects of Braid's\n Discoveries.--Li\u00e9bault's Theory of Suggestion.--The Nancy School\n and the Paris School compared.--The Fluidic Theory.--The Law\n of Suggestion the Greatest Discovery in Psychic Science.--The\n Significance of Braid's Discoveries not Appreciated.--Hypnotism of\n Animals.--The Charcot School.--The Sources of its Errors.--Reform\n in Terminology suggested.--The Mesmeric Theory.--Braid's\n Processes not productive of Higher Phenomena--Mesmerization of\n Animals.--Recapitulation of Points.\n\n\nThus far little has been said regarding the light which has been shed\nupon the subject under consideration by the discoveries of modern\nscience. The more important of these discoveries having resulted from\ninvestigations of the subject of hypnotism, it will be necessary\nbriefly to review the more salient features of that science, and to\ntrace its progress from the time of Mesmer down to the present day.\n\nSince the time when Mesmer first brought his discoveries to the\nattention of the scientific world the students of the phenomena which\nhe evoked have been hopelessly at variance. That they should entertain\ndiverse theories regarding the cause of phenomena so strange and full\nof mystery is natural. That they should, in the absence of knowledge of\nthe subject, abuse and vilify each other because of their differences\nof opinion, was to be expected. Hatred of our neighbor because his\nproblematical theories do not agree with our undemonstrable hypotheses\nis, unfortunately, one of the salient weaknesses of human nature.\n\nIt is, however, comparatively rare that scientific investigators\ndisagree regarding the demonstrable facts pertaining to a subject\nunder investigation. Yet this is the condition in which we find the\nscience of hypnotism after more than a century of research by some of\nthe ablest scientists of the world. They are divided into schools,\nto-day, as they were in the infancy of the science. Indeed, the science\nis still in its infancy. Facts have accumulated, it is true; and they\nwill be found to be of infinite advantage to some future investigator\nwhose mind is capable of rising above the prejudices which characterize\nthe different schools, and of assimilating and harmonizing their\ndemonstrated facts into one comprehensive system.\n\nThus far the different schools have distrusted or denied each other's\nfacts, and waged war upon each other's theories. The most carefully\nconducted experiments of one school will, in the hands of the other,\nproduce opposite results. Hence each experimenter is irresistibly led\nto distrust the scientific accuracy of the methods employed by others,\nor to admit their integrity only at the expense of their intelligence.\nIn the mean time each school has conducted its experiments seemingly\nby the most rigid scientific methods and with conscientious fidelity\nto truth; but the results of each apparently disprove the conclusions\nof all the others. Hence it is that, in the bibliography of hypnotism,\nwe find an immense mass of well-authenticated facts which, tried\nby the standards of any one of the different schools, appears like\nan appalling hodge-podge of falsehood and delusion, chicanery and\nsuperstition. Indeed, no other science, since the dawn of creation,\nhas suffered so much at the hands of ignorance and superstition as\nthe science under discussion. Its ancient history is the record of\nthe supernatural in all the nations of the earth. Its phenomena have\nbeen the foundation of all the religions and all the superstitions of\nancient times. Its modern history has also been largely a record of\nsuperstitious belief, fostered by chicanery and ignorance; the nature\nof the phenomena being such that in the hands alike of honest ignorance\nand conscious fraud they may be made to sanction every belief, confirm\nevery dogma, and foster every superstition. It was these facts which\ndrove scientific men from the field of investigation in the early\nmodern history of the science. Mesmer himself, in the light of modern\nknowledge of the subject, is apt to be accused of charlatanism;\nbut, as we shall see further on, he is entitled, in common with all\ninvestigators, to the largest measure of charity.\n\nAs before remarked, the facts of hypnotism obtained by the\nexperimenters of the different schools appear to contradict each\nother. This, however, is obviously only an apparent contradiction, for\nit is axiomatic that no one fact in Nature is inconsistent with any\nother fact. It follows that there must be some underlying principle or\nprinciples, heretofore overlooked, which will harmonize the facts. It\nis the purpose of this chapter to outline a few fundamental principles\nwhich, properly understood, will enable the student of hypnotism to\nreconcile many seeming inconsistencies. An understanding of the salient\npoints of difference between the various schools can best be conveyed\nby briefly outlining the modern history of the science.\n\nMesmer is entitled to the credit of having first brought the subject to\nthe attention of the scientific world, although probably his attention\nwas attracted to it by the writings of Paracelsus and Van Helmont. In\nthe early part of his career he was deeply interested in the study of\nastrology, and he fancied that the planets somehow exerted an influence\non the health of human beings. He at first thought that this influence\nwas electrical, but afterwards referred it to magnetism. At that time\nhis cures were effected by stroking the diseased bodies with artificial\nmagnets. He achieved considerable success by such means, and published\na work in 1766 entitled \"De Planetarum Influxa.\" In 1776, however, he\nmet Gassner, a Catholic priest who had achieved great notoriety by\ncuring disease by manipulation, without the use of any other means.\nMesmer then threw away his magnets, and evolved the theory of \"animal\nmagnetism.\" This he held to be a fluid which pervades the universe, but\nis most active in the human nervous organization, and enables one man,\ncharged with the fluid, to exert a powerful influence over another.\n\nTwo years after meeting Gassner he went to Paris, and at once threw\nthat capital into the wildest excitement by the marvellous effects\nof his manipulations. He was treated with contumely by the medical\nprofession; but the people flocked to him, and many wonderful cures\nwere effected. His methods, in the light of present knowledge, smack\nof charlatanism; but that he believed in himself was demonstrated by\nhis earnest demand for an investigation. This the Government consented\nto, and a commission, composed of physicians and members of the Academy\nof Sciences, was appointed, of which Benjamin Franklin was a member.\nThe report admitted the leading facts claimed by Mesmer, but held\nthat there was no evidence to prove the correctness of his magnetic\nfluid theory, and referred the wonderful effects witnessed to the\n\"imagination\" of the patients. Their conclusion was that the subject\nwas not worthy of further scientific investigation.\n\nIt is difficult at this day to conceive by what process of reasoning\nthat learned body could arrive at such a conclusion. They admitted\nthe existence of a motive force capable of controlling man's physical\norganization, that this force is amenable to control by man, and that\nthis control is capable of being reduced to an art. Then they proceed\nto announce a discovery of their own,--a discovery, by the way, which\nturns out to be the most important which modern science had, at that\ntime, contributed to the solution of the great problem. They discovered\nthat the phenomena were purely subjective, thereby demonstrating the\npower of mind over matter. If they had stopped there, or if they had\nconcluded that this wonderful force was worthy of the most searching\nscientific investigation, they would have been entitled to the\ngratitude of all mankind, and the science would have been at once\nwrested from the hands of ignorance and empiricism. That they should\ncontent themselves with disproving Mesmer's theory of causation, and,\nafter having themselves made a discovery of the true cause, should\nannounce that their own discovery was not worth the trouble of further\ninvestigation, is inexplicable.\n\nSoon after this, Mesmer was driven into exile, followed by the\nexecrations of a majority of the medical profession, and died in 1815.\nHe left many disciples, a majority of whom were shallow empirics, and\nmesmerism was brought still further into disrepute. There were a few\nable and scientific men, however, who still pursued the investigation,\namong whom were the Marquis de Puys\u00e9gur, Deleuze, and others. These\ngentlemen revolutionized the art by first causing their subjects to\nsleep by means of gentle manipulation, instead of surrounding them\nwith mysticism in dimly lighted apartments filled with sweet odors\nand the strains of soft and mysterious music, as was the practice of\nMesmer. They developed in their subjects the power of clairvoyance,\nand demonstrated it in a thousand ways. They caused them to obey\nmental orders as readily as if the orders were spoken. They healed the\nsick, caused the lame to walk, and the blind to see. In short, they\nso far revived the interest in the subject that the Royal Academy of\nMedicine, in France, felt compelled to order a new investigation. This\nwas done in 1825. A committee was appointed, composed of the ablest\nand most cautious scientists in their body. For nearly six years that\ncommittee pursued its investigations, and in 1831 it submitted its\nreport. It would be tedious to enumerate all the conclusions at which\nit arrived. Its principal efforts were directed to the determination\nof the therapeutic value of mesmerism. It confirmed much that had\nbeen claimed for it in that respect, and demonstrated the power of\nclairvoyance, by indubitable tests. It also confirmed the claim that\npersons could be magnetized at a distance as well as by contact,\nalthough there is nothing in the report which shows how far the\npossibilities of suggestion were removed in that class of experiments.\nIndeed, in deference to truth it must be here remarked that mesmerists\nat that time had but a faint and undefined notion of the subtle _r\u00f4le_\nwhich suggestion plays in all psychological phenomena. Hence it follows\nthat in examining the record of experiments in the higher phenomena of\nhypnotism we must make due allowance for possible error in all cases\nwhere the nature of the experiments does not preclude the possibility\nof suggestion having influenced the result, or where the possibilities\nof suggestion have not been intelligently eliminated.\n\nThe effect of this report was instantaneous and remarkable. The\nadvocates of magnetism as a therapeutic agent, and the believers\nin the occult features of the phenomena, such as clairvoyance and\nthought-transference, had scored a triumph. But it served only to\nexasperate the average scientist and to intensify his prejudices.\nThe Academy refused to dignify the report by printing it, and it\nrests to-day in silent oblivion in the manuscript archives of the\ninstitution. Another committee was soon after appointed, headed by a\nmember who had openly sworn hostility to the doctrine. The result was\nwhat might have been expected. After the examination of two subjects\nunder circumstances which, in the light of what is now known, rendered\nfailure inevitable, the committee made a very undignified report,\nannouncing the failure to produce the occult phenomena promised,\nand impugning the intelligence of the former committee. Strange and\nillogical as it may seem, the later report, which proved nothing, which\nwas confined to an announcement of merely negative results, which\nsimply showed that the committee did not witness certain promised\nphenomena, was accepted by the average scientist as containing the\ngospel of hypnotism, as against the report of the earlier committee,\nwhich, after five years of laborious research, announced that it had\nwitnessed the phenomena in question and demonstrated their reality.\n\nFor some years subsequent to this the investigation of the subject\nwas confined to its psychological and therapeutic features; but\nevery scientist who dabbled in it was tabooed by the majority of his\nassociates. Many able works were produced on the subject, but none of\nthem attracted the attention of the academicians until Dr. Braid, of\nManchester, undertook to demonstrate the theory that the hypothetical\nmagnetic fluid had nothing to do with the production of the phenomena.\nBraid discovered that by placing a bright object before the eyes of the\nsubject, and causing him to gaze upon it with persistent attention,\nhe could be thrown into the hypnotic sleep, during which many of the\nwell-known phenomena ascribed to magnetism could be produced. This\nseemed to point to the possibility of a physiological explanation of\nthe subject-matter. It attracted the attention of the scientists,\nand thus to Braid belongs the credit of causing the subject to be at\nlast acknowledged as being within the domain of the exact sciences.\nThe academicians were now mollified. The pet theory of the mesmerists\nappeared to have been demolished. The method was simple and easily\napplied. The phenomena of thought-transference could not be produced\nby its methods. It promised a physiological explanation; and, best of\nall, it had been given a new name. It had received many names before\nBraid undertook the task of rechristening it; but, with the exception\nof \"mesmerism,\" each was objectionable, because it implied a theory\nof causation. The name \"mesmerism\" was obviously improper, because\nMesmer was neither the discoverer of the force, nor the inventor of the\npractical method of evoking it. \"Animal magnetism\" implied Mesmer's\ntheory of magnetic currents. \"Mental or animal electricity\" implied\npractically the same theory. \"Neurology\" indicated the science of\nthe nervous system. \"Patheism\" (from the Greek radical signifying\ndisease or suffering) and \"etherology\" (which means the science of the\nrefined part of the atmosphere) were equally meaningless as applied\nto the subject. \"Psycodunamy\" signified the power of the soul; and\n\"electro-biology\" was American, and not to be tolerated. But when\nBraid denominated it \"hypnotism,\"--from the Greek word signifying\nsleep,--it was hailed as a compromise sufficiently noncommittal to\nentitle it to recognition, and \"hypnotism\" it will be called until some\nacademician drags to light the ultimate cause of all things.\n\nBraid has been accorded a great deal of credit for his original\nresearches and discoveries, but it is questionable whether he has\nnot been the indirect means of retarding the true progress of the\nscience. It is a remarkable fact that since his method of hypnotizing\nhas been generally adopted, the higher phenomena, such as clairvoyance\nand thought-transference, have fallen into disrepute, and are now\nrarely produced. Indeed, it may be said to be practically a lost art,\nconsidered as a result of hypnotic processes. The cause of this will\nreceive attention hereafter. Braid could not cause his subjects to obey\nhis mental orders, and he disbelieved in the power of clairvoyance. He\nacknowledged that some of his subjects could tell the shape of what\nwas \"held at an inch and a half from the skin, on the back of the\nneck, crown of the head, arm, or hand, or other parts of the body,\"\nbut held that \"it is from feeling they do so.\"[13] He demonstrated the\nextreme sensitiveness of one subject by causing her to obey the motion\nof a glass funnel held in his hand, at a distance of fifteen feet.[14]\nTruly, a remarkable case of \"feeling.\"\n\nBraid is entitled to great credit for the discovery that the hypnotic\nstate can be induced independently of the presence or co-operation of\nanother person. Further than that, his work is practically valueless,\nfor the reason that he never understood the power or influence of\nsuggestion. It is therefore manifestly impossible to determine the\nvalue of any experiment of his, except in cases the nature of which\nprecludes the possibility of suggestion being employed, or in cases\nwhere it was expressly eliminated.\n\nTwo facts, however, seem to have been demonstrated by his experiments,\nboth of which are of the utmost importance:\n\n1. That the hypnotic sleep can be induced independently of personal\ncontact with, or the personal influence of, another.\n\n2. That the sleep can be induced by his method without the aid of\nsuggestion.\n\nThe mistake which his followers have made is in jumping to the\nconclusion that because one of the primary conditions of hypnotic\nphenomena can be induced without the aid of the magnetic hypothesis,\ntherefore the magnetic hypothesis is necessarily incorrect. The same\nlogic would induce a man who for the first time sees a railroad\ntrain in motion to conclude that any other method of locomotion is\nimpracticable. Braid himself was not so illogical; for he expressly\nsays that he does not consider the methods identical, but does\n\"consider the condition of the nervous system induced by both modes to\nbe analogous.\"\n\nAnother mistake, shared in common by both the modern schools of\nhypnotists, is the failure to appreciate the significance of the fact\nthat by Braid's method the hypnotic condition can be induced without\nthe aid of suggestion. One school ignores the fact altogether, or\nconsiders it of doubtful verity, and the other regards it merely as\nan evidence that suggestion plays a secondary _r\u00f4le_ in hypnotic\nphenomena. That both are to some extent wrong will appear at the proper\ntime, as will also the fact of the failure of all the schools to grasp\nits real significance.\n\nFor some years after the appearance of Braid's book there was but\nlittle, if any, progress made in the science. His methods, however,\nwere generally adopted, but the value of his discovery was not\nappreciated by his own countrymen; and it was not until the Continental\nscientists extended his researches that he obtained substantial\nrecognition. Li\u00e9bault was the first to confirm his experiments, and in\n1866 he published a work, in which he advanced much that was new in\nfact and theory. He was, in fact, the founder of what is now known as\nthe Nancy school of hypnotism. Many prominent scientists have followed\nhim, and many able works have been produced, prominent among which\nmay be mentioned \"Suggestive Therapeutics,\" by Professor Bernheim, and\n\"Hypnotism,\" by Albert Moll, of Berlin.\n\nProfessor Charcot, of the Paris Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re, is also the founder of a\nschool of hypnotism, which is generally known as the Paris school, or\nschool of the Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re. Charcot's great reputation as a scientist\nobtained for him many followers at first, prominent among whom are\nBinet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, whose joint work, entitled \"Animal Magnetism,\" has been\nwidely read both in Europe and America.\n\nThese schools differ widely both in theory and practice, their only\npoint of union being their utter contempt for the theory and practice\nof what must still be known, for want of a better term, as the mesmeric\nschool.\n\nThese three schools represent the grand divisions which it will\nbe necessary to recognize in the discussion of the subject under\nconsideration.\n\nThe leading points of difference between the three schools may be\nbriefly stated as follows:--\n\n1. The theory of the Nancy school is that the different physiological\nconditions characterizing the hypnotic state are determined by mental\naction alone; that the phenomena can best be produced in persons of\nsound physical health and perfect mental balance; and that this mental\naction and the consequent physical and psychological phenomena are the\nresult, in all cases, of some form of suggestion.\n\n2. The Paris school holds that hypnotism is the result of an abnormal\nor diseased condition of the nerves; that a great number of the\nphenomena can be produced independently of suggestion in any form;\nthat the true hypnotic condition can be produced only in persons whose\nnerves are diseased; and that the whole subject is explicable on the\nbasis of cerebral anatomy or physiology.\n\n3. The mesmerists hold to the fluidic theory of Mesmer: that the\nhypnotic condition is induced, independent of suggestion, by passes\nmade by the operator over the subject, accompanied by intense\nconcentration of mind and will on the part of the former; that from\nhim flows a subtle fluid which impinges upon the subject wherever it\nis directed, and produces therapeutic or other effects in obedience\nto the will of the operator; that these effects can best be produced\nby personal contact; but that they can be produced at a distance and\nwithout the knowledge of the subject, and independently of suggestion.\n\nIn discussing the merits of these several schools, it is perhaps\nsuperfluous to say that it is self-evident that neither school can be\nentirely right. Each presents an array of facts which seems to support\nits theory; but as the theories are irreconcilable, and the facts\napparently contradict each other, it follows that some fundamental\nprinciple underlying the whole subject-matter has been overlooked. It\nis the purpose of this book to suggest a possible way to the discovery\nof the principle,--the missing link which will unite the chain and bind\nthe facts of psychological science into one harmonious whole.\n\nThe Nancy school of hypnotism is entitled to the credit of having made\nthe most important discovery in psychological science. The fact that\nthe subjective mind is constantly amenable to control by the power of\nsuggestion, constitutes the grand principle in psychological science,\nwhich, when properly appreciated and applied, will solve every problem\nand illuminate every obscurity in the labyrinthian science of the\nhuman soul, so far as it will ever be possible for finite intelligence\nto penetrate it. It is safe to say that in all the broad realm of\npsychological science there is not a phenomenon upon which it will not\nshed light. It is no discredit to that school to say that its leaders\nand teachers do not yet seem to comprehend the profound significance of\ntheir discovery, and that in one direction they have extended it too\nfar. It is the latter proposition which will first receive attention.\n\nThey hold, very correctly, that all the phenomena of hypnotism,\nsubsequent to the induction of the hypnotic condition, are due to\nthe power of suggestion in some form. That this is true, admits of\nno possible doubt. They also find by experiment that the hypnotic\ncondition can be induced simply by the power of suggestion. Their\nconclusion is that suggestion is a necessary factor in the induction\nof the hypnotic condition. That this is not true can be very readily\ndemonstrated by reference to a few well-known and admitted facts. One\nof the first discoveries made by Braid was that by his methods the\nhypnotic condition could be induced in persons who had never seen or\nheard of hypnotic phenomena.\n\nThe following passage from that learned author seems to have been\noverlooked by those of his commentators who seek for evidence in his\nexperiments to prove that suggestion is a necessary factor in the\ninduction of the hypnotic condition:--\n\n \"In order to prove my position still more clearly, I called up\n one of my men-servants, who knew nothing of mesmerism, and gave\n him such directions as were calculated to impress his mind with\n the idea that his fixed attention was merely for the purpose of\n watching a chemical experiment in the preparation of some medicine,\n and being familiar with such, he could feel no alarm. In two\n minutes and a half his eyelids closed slowly with a vibrating\n motion, his chin fell on his breast, he gave a deep sigh, and\n instantly was in a profound sleep, breathing loudly.... In about\n one minute after his profound sleep I aroused him and pretended\n to chide him for being so careless, said he ought to be ashamed\n of himself for not being able to attend to my instructions for\n three minutes without falling asleep, and ordered him downstairs.\n In a short time I recalled this young man, and desired him to sit\n down once more, but to be careful not to go to sleep again, as\n on the former occasion. He sat down with this intention; but at\n the expiration of two minutes and a half his eyelids closed, and\n exactly the same phenomena as in the former experiment ensued.\"[15]\n\nNow, whilst it is true that Braid did not realize the supreme potency\nof suggestion as it is now understood by the Nancy school, he did\nintelligently eliminate it in the experiment above related. It was his\npurpose to demonstrate his theory that \"the phenomena of mesmerism were\nto be accounted for on the principle of a derangement of the state of\nthe cerebro-spinal centres, and of the circulatory and respiratory and\nmuscular systems.\"[16] In other words, he was seeking to demonstrate\nhis theory that the phenomena of mesmerism are attributable to a\nphysical rather than a mental cause. Hence his care to select a subject\nwho knew nothing of what was expected of him.\n\nBraid relates another circumstance equally demonstrative of the\nproposition that suggestion is not a necessary factor in the induction\nof the hypnotic state. He says:--\n\n \"After my lecture at the Hanover Square Rooms, London, on the 1st\n of March, 1842, a gentleman told Mr. Walker, who was along with\n me, that he was most anxious to see me, that I might try whether I\n could hypnotize him. He said both himself and friends were anxious\n he should be affected, but that neither Lafontaine nor others who\n had tried him could succeed. Mr. Walker said, 'If that is what\n you want, as Mr. Braid is engaged otherwise, sit down, and I will\n hypnotize you myself in a minute.' When I went into the room, I\n observed what was going on, the gentleman sitting staring at Mr.\n Walker's finger, who was standing a little to the right of the\n patient, with his eyes fixed steadily on those of the latter. I\n passed on and attended to something else; and when I returned a\n little after, I found Mr. Walker standing in the same position,\n _fast asleep, his arm and finger in a state of cataleptiform\n rigidity_, and the patient wide awake and staring at the finger all\n the while.\"[17]\n\nThis is a clear case of the induction of the hypnotic condition\nwithout the aid of suggestion. Mr. Walker had no thought of going\ninto the state himself, but was intent on hypnotizing the patient.\nThe suggestion in his mind was, therefore, in the opposite direction.\nHe had, however, inadvertently placed himself in the proper attitude,\nand so concentrated his gaze as to induce the state, and that directly\ncontrary to his auto-suggestion.\n\nThese two instances have been cited from Braid for the reason that\n(1) he was the discoverer of the method of hypnotizing by causing the\nsubject to gaze steadily upon an object; and (2) he was not attempting\nto prove or disprove the theory of suggestion. His testimony is\nobviously all the more reliable for that reason, for one is prone to\ndistrust the verity of experiments made for the purpose of sustaining a\ntheory. Many facts have been recorded which demonstrate the proposition\nthat by Braid's method the hypnotic state can be induced independently\nof suggestion. One class only of such facts needs to be cited to\nconvince the most sceptical.\n\nI allude to religious devotees, who are often thrown into the hypnotic\nstate, even to the degree of ecstasy, by gazing upon the crucifix, or\nupon pictures of the Holy Virgin or of the saints. The Catholic clergy\nwould seem to have a dim perception of the principle involved when they\nelevate the cross above the eyes of those in whom they wish to excite\ndevotional enthusiasm. Be that as it may, the fact is of scientific\nvalue to the investigator of psychological phenomena. The natural\nattitude of prayer--the eyes raised towards heaven--is certainly not\nonly conducive to devotional feeling, but, in emotional natures, to a\nstate at least cognate to hypnotism, if not identical with it. Hence\nthe subjective hallucinations which often result from the long and\nearnest prayers of religious enthusiasts.\n\nMore conclusive still is the fact that animals can be hypnotized.\nAlbert Moll, who is one of the ablest, and certainly one of the most\nunprejudiced, of modern scientific writers on the subject of hypnotism,\nwriting from the standpoint of the Nancy school, makes the following\nobservations on the subject of hypnotizing animals:--\n\n \"States resembling, or perhaps identical with, hypnosis, are\n also found in animals, and can easily be experimentally induced.\n The first experiments of this kind are referred to by the Jesuit\n Kircher,--the so-called _experimentum mirabile Kircheri_. Kircher\n described these experiments in 1646; but according to Preyer, the\n experiment had been made by Schwenter several years earlier. The\n most striking of these experiments, which are being continued in\n the present day, is as follows: A hen is held down on the ground;\n the head in particular is pressed down. A chalk line is then drawn\n on the ground, starting from the bird's beak. The hen will remain\n motionless. Kircher ascribes this to the animal's imagination;\n he said that it imagined that it was fastened, and consequently\n did not try to move. Czermak repeated the experiment on different\n animals, and announced in 1872 that a hypnotic state could be\n induced in other animals besides the hen. Preyer shortly after\n began to interest himself in the question, and made a series of\n experiments like Czermak's. Preyer, however, distinguishes two\n states in animals,--catalepsy, which is the effect of fear; and the\n hypnotic state. Heubel, Richet, Danilewsky, and Rieger, besides the\n authors mentioned above, have occupied themselves with the question.\n\n \"Most of the experiments have been made with frogs, crayfish,\n guinea-pigs, and birds. I have made many with frogs. This much is\n certain: many animals will remain motionless in any position in\n which they have been held by force for a time. There are various\n opinions as to the meaning of this. Preyer thinks many of these\n states are paralyses from fright, or catalepsy, produced by a\n sudden peripheral stimulus. In any case they vividly recall the\n catalepsy of the Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re, also caused by a strong external\n stimulus.\"[18]\n\nThe experiments of Kircher, above mentioned, were undertaken with a\nview of demonstrating his theory that animals possessed great powers of\nimagination. The chalk mark, he held, represented to the imagination\nof the hen a string with which she supposed herself to be bound. In\nhis day, of course, nothing was known of hypnotism. It has since been\ndemonstrated that the chalk mark has nothing to do with the production\nof the phenomenon. The same result follows when the chalk mark is\nomitted. The writer has hypnotized a pet rooster by Braid's method\nwithout using any violence whatever, or even touching the fowl. He was\nexceedingly tame, and it was only necessary to hold a small object\ndirectly before his eyes; when his attention was attracted, he would\ngaze steadily upon it, and in a very few minutes would go fast asleep.\nThis could not have been a catalepsy caused by fright, nor could it\nhave been the result of a belief in his inability to move, nor a\nperipheral stimulus caused by friction against the skin, nor could\nit have been suggestion. In fact, there is no legitimate conclusion\napparent except that it was a true hypnosis, identical with that\nproduced on human beings by Braid's methods.\n\nThis branch of the subject has been dwelt upon somewhat at length,\nnot merely for the purpose of showing that the adherents of the Nancy\nschool carry the doctrine of suggestion too far, but because it is an\nimportant point in the study of the subject, and throws a flood of\nlight upon many important and perplexing problems, as will be seen\nhereafter. The principle to be borne in mind is this: hypnosis can be\nproduced by Braid's method either with or without the aid of suggestion.\n\nThis does not militate in the slightest degree against the doctrine of\nsuggestion when its powers and limitations are properly understood.\nIt still remains true that all hypnotic phenomena subsequent to the\ninduction of the condition are the result of suggestion in some\nform. This is the grand discovery of the Nancy school; and when it\nis once appreciated and understood, it will be found to constitute\nthe master-key which will unlock the secrets of every psychological\nmystery. That it is unqualifiedly true no longer admits of serious\ndoubt; it is acknowledged by nearly every scientist in the civilized\nworld who has given the subject intelligent attention. It is true\nthat the great name of Charcot has commanded a following; but however\nvaluable may have been his observations in the infancy of the science,\nit has become obvious to most of his former followers that his\nfundamental hypothesis is defective, and that his conclusions are\ntherefore necessarily unreliable.\n\nThe discussion of the merits of the Paris school will be brief, and\nwill be chiefly confined to a statement of the reasons for considering\nits experiments and conclusions unreliable, and to pointing out a few\nof the more obvious sources of its errors.\n\nThe first source of error lies in the fact that the experiments of\nthis school are made almost exclusively upon hysterical women. The\nassumption is that hypnotism is a nervous disease, and that the disease\nis found in its most pronounced form in hysterical subjects. That this\nproposition is unqualifiedly wrong is positively known to every student\nof hypnotism outside the Paris school, and needs no further refutation\nthan the bare statement that the experience of all other schools goes\nto demonstrate the fact that the best hypnotic subjects are perfectly\nhealthy persons.\n\nAnother source of error lies in the fact that they ignore suggestion\nas a necessary factor in the production of hypnotic phenomena. Of\ncourse they are aware of the potency of suggestion when purposely\nand intelligently employed; but they hold that very many of the most\nimportant of the phenomena can be produced without its aid. These,\nhowever, are principally physical effects, such as causing any muscle\nof the body to contract by pressing upon the corresponding nerve, and\nthen releasing the tension by exciting the antagonistic muscle. The\ncondition necessary for the production of this phenomenon is called\nby Charcot, \"neuro-muscular hyperexcitability.\" In the able and\ninteresting work by Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, pupils of Charcot, a chapter is\ndevoted to this branch of the subject. They record, with a scientific\nexactitude that is very edifying, many curious results in the way\nof causing contracture of various muscles by kneading, pressure,\npercussion, etc., releasing the tension by exciting the opposing\nmuscles, and transferring the contractures from one muscle to another\nby the magnet. Then, with an ingenuousness that is truly charming, they\nadd, as a \"singular fact,\" that \"contractures can be easily produced in\nmany hysterical patients in their waking state, either by kneading the\nmuscles, by pressure on the nerves, or by striking the tendons. These\ncontractures in the waking state are, indeed, of the same nature as\nthose which occur during lethargy, since they yield to the excitement\nof the antagonistic muscles, and may be transferred by the magnet.\"\n\nAfter this admission it seems superfluous to remark that this class of\nexperiments prove nothing more than that the state of neuro-muscular\nhyperexcitability is a pathological symptom common to hysterical\npatients, whether in the waking state or in hypnotic lethargy. They\ncertainly prove nothing which can be construed as characteristic of\nhypnotism; and the Nancy school wastes its time in demonstrating that\nthe symptoms cannot be reproduced in healthy persons except by the aid\nof suggestion.\n\nAnother serious error into which the Charcot school has fallen in\nits effort to eliminate the effects of suggestion consists in the\nassumption that subjects in the lethargic state know nothing of what\nis passing around them, either objectively or subjectively. No greater\nmistake is possible. _The subjective mind never sleeps._ No matter how\nprofound the lethargy, it is ever alert, and comprehends instantly,\nwith preternatural acuteness, everything that occurs. Professor\nBernheim, in the preface to \"Suggestive Therapeutics,\" makes the same\nassertion. He says:--\n\n \"One should first be aware of the fact that in all degrees of\n hypnosis the subject hears and understands everything, even\n though he may appear inert and passive. Sometimes the senses are\n particularly sharp in this state of special concentration, as if\n all the nervous activity were accumulated in the organ of which the\n attention is solicited.\"\n\nThe state of lethargy is that in which Charcot supposes his subjects to\nbe incapable of receiving a suggestion. Acting upon that hypothesis,\nit is not astonishing that he should deceive himself as well as the\nstudents and spectators attending his clinic. He believes that they\nhear nothing when they hear everything. It is easy to see how every\nsuggested phenomenon is promptly produced under such conditions.\nBut there is one phenomenon of which the learned professor fails to\nnote the significance, and that is, that, no matter how profound the\nlethargy, his subject promptly awakens at the word of command.\n\nThe simple truth regarding the experiments of the Paris school is in a\nnutshell. Its fundamental error lies in the assumption that hypnosis\nhas a purely physical origin, and that the phenomena are explicable\non physiological principles. The phenomena which can be produced\nindependently of suggestion are purely physical, and depend upon the\nphysical condition of neuro-muscular hyperexcitability. That this is\ntrue is shown by the fact that the physical phenomena produced by\nCharcot upon his hysterical patients cannot be produced on healthy\nsubjects without the aid of suggestion. But such experiments do not\nproperly belong to the domain of psychic science proper, but rather\nto the Bradian system of physical manipulation. This is as much as\nconfessed by Binet and F\u00e9r\u00e9, when they divulge the fact that the\nphysical phenomena in question can be produced on hysterical patients\nin their waking condition.\n\nAnother prolific source of error which besets the pathway of the Paris\nschool consists in its disbelief in, and consequent disregard of,\nthe possibility that its subjects may be possessed of clairvoyant or\ntelepathic powers. That this frequently happens, especially in subjects\nof the character employed by Charcot and his coadjutors, admits of no\npossible doubt in the minds of those who have studied the higher phases\nof hypnotic science. The London Society for Psychical Research has\ndemonstrated beyond all question the fact that telepathy is a power\npossessed by many; and the early mesmerists have shown conclusively\nthat the hypnotic condition is the one of all others the most favorable\nfor the development and exhibition of that power. This subject will be\ndwelt upon more at length in its proper place. It is sufficient for\npresent purposes to remark that no line of experiments in hypnotism,\nin which telepathy and clairvoyance are ignored as possible factors,\ncan be held to be demonstrative of any proposition or theory whatever.\nBut whatever of pathological value or interest may be attached to the\nphysical phenomena evoked by the Paris school, they certainly shed no\nlight upon psychological science, nor do they properly belong to that\ndomain.\n\nAnd just here I wish to suggest a reform in the nomenclature of the\nscience under consideration. The word \"hypnotism\" was adopted by Braid\nat a time when he regarded himself as the discoverer of a principle\nwhich embraced the whole science of induced sleep. It is from the\nGreek word \"hypnos,\" which broadly signifies sleep. But, without some\nqualifying word, it is too broad, inasmuch as the system to which Braid\napplied it is now known to be but one of many processes of inducing\nsleep. He imagined that he had discovered a full explanation of all\npsychic phenomena of the class then known as mesmeric; whereas he\nhad only discovered the one fact that the sleep could be induced by\nproducing an abnormal physical condition of certain nerve-centres. It\nwas a very important discovery, for psychic science would be incomplete\nwithout it; but it does not constitute the whole science. It does,\nhowever, explain many phenomena otherwise inexplicable, and marks a\nline of distinction which could not otherwise be drawn. The methods of\nthe Charcot school are essentially Braidian, and hence its results are\nlimited largely to physical phenomena, and its conclusions necessarily\npertain to physical science.\n\nThe Nancy school, on the other hand, produces all its phenomena by\noral suggestion, and ignores the fact that the sleep can be induced in\nthe absence of any form of suggestion. It repudiates Braid's method of\ninducing it as unnecessary, and also as injurious, in that the physical\ndisturbance of the nerve-centres unduly excites the patient.\n\nThe mesmeric school differs from both the others in methods and theory,\nas we shall see further on.\n\nIt seems necessary, therefore, that the terminology of the science\nshould be changed so as clearly to define the theoretical differences\nof the three schools. It is obvious, however, that the terminology\ncannot be based on results, for they are inextricably intermingled.\nThus, the Braidian or Charcot operator might accidentally produce\npsychic phenomena identical with that produced by the mesmerists, and\n_vice versa_. And so might the suggestive school. Indeed, the writings\nof both schools occasionally betray the fact that they sometimes catch\nglimpses of something in their patients which defies chemical analysis,\nand cannot be carved with the scalpel.\n\nThe terminology must, therefore, refer to the methods of inducing the\nsubjective state. If the word \"hypnotism\" is to be retained because it\nembraces all degrees of induced sleep by whatsoever process it may have\nbeen induced, it would seem proper to designate the Braidian process\nas _physical hypnotism_, the Nancy process as _suggestive hypnotism_,\nand the mesmeric process as _magnetic_, or _fluidic_, _hypnotism_.\n\nI merely throw this out as a suggestion to be considered by future\nwriters on the subject. For my own purposes I shall hereafter employ\nthe word \"hypnotism\" to define the Braidian and suggestive processes as\ndistinguished from all others when these are contrasted, while the word\n\"mesmerism\" will be employed as it is generally understood. When they\nare not contrasted, \"hypnotism\" will be used as a generic term.\n\nLast in the order of mention, but really first in importance, is the\nschool of mesmerism. The theory of the mesmerists has undergone little,\nif any, modification since it was first promulgated by Mesmer himself.\nIt is, as before stated, that there exists in man a subtle fluid, in\nthe nature of magnetism, which, by means of passes over the head and\nbody of the subject, accompanied by intense concentration of mind and\nwill on the part of the operator, can be made to flow from the ends\nof his fingers and impinge upon the subject, producing sleep and all\nthe varied subsequent phenomena at the will of the operator. In the\nearly days of mesmerism suggestion was ignored as a possible factor in\nthe production of the phenomena, this law not having been discovered\nprevious to the experiments of Li\u00e9bault. The same is practically true\nto-day. Mesmerism has made very little progress within the last half\ncentury. Its votaries cling to the old theories with a pertinacity\nproportioned to the opposition encountered at the hands of the\nhypnotists. On the whole, the progress of mesmeric science, _per se_,\nhas been backward since the discoveries of Braid,--not because Braid\ndisproved the fluidic theory, for he did not disprove it, nor did he\nclaim to have done so, but for reasons which will appear in their\nproper place.\n\nSuggestion is now, as before the discoveries of Li\u00e9bault, ignored\nby mesmerists as a necessary factor either in the induction of the\nmesmeric condition, or in the production of the subsequent phenomena.\nIn this they are partly right and partly wrong. Suggestion, in the\nordinary acceptation of the term,--that is, oral suggestion,--is not\nan indispensable factor in the induction of the condition. This is\nshown in a great variety of ways. One fact alone demonstrates the\nprinciple, and that is, that subjects who have been often mesmerized\nby a particular individual can be by him thrown into that state, under\ncertain favorable conditions, even though the two may be many miles\napart. Account is not taken in this of the many experiments of the old\nmesmerists, who previously informed their subjects of the intended\nexperiment. But many instances might be cited where this has been\naccomplished under test conditions, the element of suggestion being\ncarefully eliminated. The writer has mesmerized a subject at a distance\nof three hundred miles, and that under conditions which rendered oral\nor objective suggestion impossible. Particular instances will not be\ncited here, for the reason that in subsequent chapters of this book the\nprinciple involved will be rendered so plain that further proofs would\nbe superfluous. A further demonstration of this principle lies in the\nfact that children, too young to understand what is expected of them,\nand animals of various kinds, can be mesmerized. This is abundantly\nproved by the experiments of Wilson, who, as early as 1839, mesmerized\nelephants, horses, wolves, and other animals in London. Obersteimer\nstates that in Austria the law requires army horses to be mesmerized\nfor the purpose of shoeing them. This process was introduced by a\ncavalry officer named Balassa, and hence it has been termed and is now\nknown as \"the _Balassiren_ of horses\" (Moll). This is the secret of\nthe celebrated horse-tamers, Sullivan and Rarey. By their methods the\nwildest colts and the most vicious horses could be subdued in an hour.\nMesmerism is the power exerted by the lion-tamer and the snake-charmer.\nThe power is often exerted unconsciously,--that is, without a knowledge\non the part of the operator of the source of his power.\n\nThe mesmerists of the present day are not, of course, ignorant or\nunmindful of the potency of suggestion in the production of mesmeric\nphenomena subsequent to the induction of the condition. But, like the\nParis school of hypnotists, they hold that suggestion plays a secondary\n_r\u00f4le_ in the production of many of the phenomena. That they are wrong\nin this will more fully appear in subsequent chapters of this book.\n\nThe points of difference between the three schools of this science\nhave now been reviewed, and the theories of each briefly stated. It is\nfound,--\n\n1. That the Nancy school attributes all the phenomena, including the\ninduction of the state, to the power of suggestion, and that it is to\nthe psychic powers and attributes of man alone that we must look for an\nexplanation.\n\n2. The Paris school, on the other hand, ignores suggestion as a\nnecessary factor either in the induction of the state or in the\nproduction of subsequent phenomena, and seeks an explanation of the\nsubject-matter on the bases of physiology and cerebral anatomy.\n\n3. The mesmerists ignore suggestion as a necessary factor at any stage\nof their experiments, and explain the whole on the magnetic fluid\ntheory.\n\nWe also find three distinct methods of inducing the sleep; and as it is\nof the utmost importance to bear the different methods in mind, they\nwill be here restated:--\n\nThe Nancy school, true to its theory, employs suggestion alone to\ninduce the condition. Passes are sometimes made over its subjects after\nthe manner of the mesmerists, but only with a view of giving an air of\nmystery to the proceedings, and thus adding potency to the suggestion.\n\nThe Paris school employs physical means to induce the state almost\nexclusively. They are practically the same as those employed by\nBraid, namely, causing the subject to gaze steadily at a bright\nobject,--although many variations of the method have been introduced,\nsuch as flashing an electric light in the eyes of the subject, striking\na gong without warning close to his ears, or by some peripheral\nexcitation, such as rubbing the scalp, etc.\n\nThe mesmeric method proper consists in making passes from the head\ndownwards, gazing fixedly into the subject's eyes, and concentrating\nthe mind upon the work in hand, strongly willing the subject to sleep.\nIt is true that many of the so-called mesmerists now employ Braid's\nmethod entirely, and others depend largely upon suggestion. But the\ntrue mesmeric method is as has been stated.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 13: Braid on Hypnotism, p. 37, _note_.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 15: Neurypnology, p. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Neurypnology, p. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Ibid., p. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Moll on Hypnotism, p. 213.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nHYPNOTISM AND MESMERISM (_continued_).\n\n Mesmeric Methods.--The Fluidic Theory.--Influence of the Mind\n of the Operator.--The Early Mesmerists.--Their Methods and\n their Effects.--Decadence of the Higher Phenomena under Braid's\n Methods.--The Causes explained.--Telepathic Powers developed\n by Mesmerism.--Mesmerism as a Therapeutic Agent.--Method of\n Operation recommended.--How to acquire the Power.--The Necessary\n Conditions of Success.--Will Power explained.--The Fluidic Theory\n requires Revision.--Distinction between Mesmerism and Hypnotism\n sharply drawn.--Mesmerization of Animals distinguished from the\n Hypnotization of Animals.--Methods employed in Each.--Tamers\n of Horses and Wild Beasts.--Dog-Trainers.--Primitive Man.--His\n Powers.--His Immunity from Harm.--Daniel.--The Adepts.--General\n Conclusions.\n\n\nThat the magnetic hypothesis of the mesmerists has many facts to\nsustain it cannot be denied. The experience of thousands goes to show\nthat when passes are made over them, even at a distance of several\nfeet, a sensation is felt akin to a gentle shock of electricity, which\nproduces a remarkably soothing effect upon the nervous system, and\neventually produces the mesmeric sleep. It is also known that when\npatients are mesmerized for therapeutic purposes, and passes are made\nover the affected part, the same soothing effect is produced, and pain\nis relieved. In fact, if we consider mesmerism solely as a therapeutic\nagent, and study it from that standpoint alone, the fluidic hypothesis\nis perhaps as good as any. But when we come to study mesmeric\nphenomena as a part, and only a very small part, of a grand system of\npsychological science; when we examine it in its relations to other\nphenomena of a cognate character,--it is found that the fluidic theory\nshould be received with some qualification.\n\nThe first thought which strikes the observer is that, admitting the\nfluidic theory to be substantially correct, the fluid is directed and\ncontrolled entirely by the mind of the operator. It is well known that\npasses effect little or nothing if the attention of the operator is\ndistracted, from any cause whatever. The subject may be put to sleep,\nit is true, solely by the power of suggestion; but the peculiar effects\nof mesmerism, as distinguished from those of hypnotism, will be found\nwanting. The effects here alluded to consist mainly of the development\nof the higher phenomena, such as clairvoyance and telepathy.\n\nIt is well known that the early mesmerists constantly and habitually\ndeveloped telepathic powers in their subjects. Causing their subjects\nto obey mental orders was a common platform experiment half a century\nago. These experiments were often made, under test conditions, by the\nmost careful and conscientious scientists, and the results are recorded\nin the many volumes on the subject written at the time. Many of these\nworks were written by scientists whose methods of investigation were\npainstaking and accurate to the last degree. In the light of the\ndevelopments of modern science, in the light of the demonstrations,\nby the members of the London Society for the Promotion of Psychical\nResearch, of the existence of telepathic power, we cannot read the\nworks of the old mesmerists without having the conviction forced upon\nus that telepathy was developed by their experiments to a degree almost\nunknown at the present day. Why it is that the power to develop that\nphenomenon by mesmerists has been lost or has fallen into desuetude,\nis a question of the gravest scientific interest and importance. The\nhostility and ridicule of the academicians undoubtedly had its effect\non many minds, and caused many scientific investigators to shrink\nfrom publicly avowing their convictions or the results of their\ninvestigations. But that does not account for the fact that mesmerists,\nwho believe in the verity of the phenomena, are rarely able to produce\nit at the present day.\n\nThe first question which presents itself is one of dates. When did\nthe higher phenomena show the first signs of decadence? A moment's\nreflection will fix it at or about the date of the promulgation of the\ntheories of Dr. Braid. It is a historic fact, well known to all who\nhave watched the progress of hypnotic science, that as soon as it was\nfound that the mesmeric or hypnotic sleep could be induced by causing\nthe subject to gaze upon a bright object held before his eyes, all\nother methods were practically abandoned. It was much easier to hold an\nobject before the subject's eyes for a few minutes, with the mind at\nrest, than to make passes over him for an indefinite length of time,\naccompanying the passes by fixity of gaze and intense concentration of\nmind. The important point to bear in mind right here is the fact that\nin the old mesmeric method, fixity of gaze and concentration of will on\nthe part of the operator, were considered indispensable to success. It\nseems clear, then, that it is to this change of methods that we must\nlook for an explanation of the change in results. That being conceded,\nwe must inquire how the conditions were changed by the change of\nmethods. What effects, if any, either in the condition of the subject\nor of the operator, or in both, are missing when the new methods are\napplied?\n\nIt is now necessary to recall to mind the fact (1) that Braid\ndemonstrated that suggestion is not a necessary factor in the induction\nof the hypnotic state; and (2) that steadily gazing upon an object\nwill induce the condition in a more or less marked degree, whether the\nsubject is expecting the result or not. The intelligent student will so\nreadily recall thousands of facts demonstrating this proposition that\nit is safe to set it down as an axiom in hypnotic science that intense\ngazing upon an object, accompanied by concentration of mind, will\ndisplace the threshold of consciousness to a greater or less extent,\ndepending upon the mental characteristics of the individual and the\ncircumstances surrounding him. The subjective powers are thus brought\ninto play. The subjective mind is released, or elevated above the\nthreshold of consciousness, and performs its functions independently\nof, or synchronously with, the objective mind, just in proportion to\nthe degree of hypnosis induced. It may be only in a slight degree, it\nmay be imperceptible to those surrounding him, or it may reach a state\nof complete hypnosis, as in the cases mentioned by Braid; but certain\nit is that the subjective powers will be evoked in exact proportion to\nthe degree of causation. The conclusion is obvious and irresistible\nthat when a mesmerist employs the old methods of inducing the\nsubjective state,--passes, fixed gazing, and mental concentration,--_he\nhypnotizes himself by the same act by which he mesmerizes the subject_.\n\nThe far-reaching significance of this fact will be instantly apparent\nto those who are aware that telepathy is the normal means of\ncommunication between two subjective minds, and that it is only between\nsubjective minds that telepathy can be employed. The objective mind\nhas no part or lot in telepathy until the threshold of consciousness\nis displaced so as to enable the objective mind to take cognizance of\nthe message. It will be understood, therefore, that when the subject is\nmesmerized, and all his objective senses are in complete abeyance, and\nthe operator with whom he is _en rapport_ is in a partially subjective\nstate, the conditions exist which render possible the exhibition of\ntelepathic powers.\n\nThis is what was meant when it was said in an earlier chapter of this\nbook that the discoveries of Braid had really served to retard the\nprogress of hypnotic science; not because his discoveries are not of\nthe utmost practical value, but because much of their true significance\nhas been misunderstood. The fact that persons can be hypnotized by his\nmethods, and that many of the phenomena common to mesmerism can be\nproduced by that means, is a fact of vast importance; but it is only\none link in the great chain, and not the whole chain, as his followers\nwould have us believe. The later discovery of the law of suggestion\nwas also of the most transcendent interest and importance; but it\nis not the whole law of psychic science. This, too, has helped to\nretard the progress of the science in its higher branches. When it was\ndiscovered that suggestion by itself could induce the hypnotic state,\nBraid's methods were in turn abandoned by students of the science.\nThis was partly because it was easier than Braid's method, and partly\nbecause it produced less physical and mental excitement, and hence, for\ntherapeutic purposes, was less liable to excite the patient unduly. But\nthe fact remains that neither by Braidism nor by the suggestive method\ncan the subject ordinarily be made to respond telepathically. It is\ntrue that there might be exceptions to the rule. If, for instance, the\noperator in employing either of the methods should come in physical\ncontact with the subject, and should at the same time happen to\nconcentrate his gaze upon some object for a length of time, and fix\nhis mind upon the work in hand, he would be very likely to come into\ntelepathic communication with the subject. That this has often happened\nthere can be no doubt; and it constitutes one of the possible sources\nof error which lie in the pathway both of the Paris and the Nancy\nschools. It is perhaps superfluous to remark that the higher phenomena\nof hypnotism can only be developed with certainty of results by\nthrowing aside our prejudices against the fluidic theory, and employing\nthe old mesmeric methods.\n\nIn this connection it is deemed proper to offer a few suggestions as to\nthe best methods to be employed for producing mesmeric effects, either\nfor therapeutic or for any other purposes.\n\nIt is recommended, for several reasons, that the mesmeric passes be\nemployed. First, they are so generally believed to be necessary that\nthey greatly assist by way of suggestion. Secondly, they are a great\nassistance to the operator, as they enable him more effectually to\nconcentrate his mind upon the work in hand, and to fix his attention\nupon the parts which he desires to affect. Thirdly, they operate as a\nsuggestion to the operator himself, which is as necessary and as potent\nto effect the object sought as is suggestion to the subject. Fourthly,\nwhether the fluidic theory is correct or not, the power, whatever it\nis, appears to flow from the fingers; and, inasmuch as it appears to do\nso, the effect, both upon the mind of the operator and of the subject,\nis the same as if it were so,--the great _desideratum_ being the\nconfidence of both.\n\nThe most important point to be gained, however, is self-confidence\nin the mind of the operator. Without that no greater results can\nbe produced by mesmeric methods than by the process of simple oral\nsuggestion. The latter affects the mind of the subject alone, and\nall the subsequent effects are due solely to the action of his mind.\nMesmeric methods, on the other hand, if properly applied, supplement\nthe effects of oral suggestion by a constant force emanating from the\nsubjective mind of the operator. In order to evoke that force it is\nnecessary for the operator to inspire his own subjective mind with\nconfidence. This can be done by the simple process of auto-suggestion.\nThe power to do this does not depend upon his objective belief. The\npower to control subjective belief is inherent in the objective mind;\nand that control can be made absolute, even in direct contradiction\nto objective belief. If, therefore, the mesmeric operator doubts his\npower over his subject, he can, nevertheless, exert all the necessary\nforce simply by reiterated affirmation to himself that he possesses\nthat power. This affirmation need not, and perhaps should not, be\nuttered aloud. But it should be constantly reiterated mentally while\nthe passes are being made; and if in addition to this he concentrates\nhis gaze upon the open or closed eyes of the subject, or upon any part\nof the head or face, the effect will be all the more powerful. Whatever\neffect is desired should be formulated in the mind of the operator,\nand reiterated with persistency until it is produced. The principle\ninvolved is obvious, and easily understood. The subject is passive, and\nreceptive of subjective mental impressions. The subjective mind of\nthe operator is charged with faith and confidence by auto-suggestion.\nThat faith is impressed telepathically upon the subjective mind of the\npatient; and even though his objective belief may not coincide with\nthe subjective impression thus received, the latter obtains control\nunconsciously to the subject, and the end is accomplished.\n\nThe power to mesmerize by this method is within the reach of any\none with sufficient intelligence to understand the directions, and\nsufficient mental balance to follow them with persistency; provided\nalways the subject is willing to be mesmerized, and is possessed of\nthe requisite mental equilibrium to enable him to become passive and\nreceptive.\n\nAll mesmerists and all hypnotists agree in holding that self-confidence\nis a necessary part of the mental equipment of the successful operator.\nThis is true. It is also true that the possession of the requisite\nconfidence is the one thing which distinguishes the successful from the\nunsuccessful operator. The foregoing remarks show how that confidence\ncan be commanded, in spite of objective unbelief.\n\nMuch has been said by mesmerists about the exertion of \"will power;\"\nbut no one has ever explained just how that power is to be exerted, or\nin what it consists. Most people seem to imagine that it is exercised\nby compressing the lips, corrugating the brows, and assuming a fierce,\ndetermined, not to say piratical, aspect. It is perhaps needless to\nremark that the attitude of mind indicated by such an aspect is the\nfarthest possible from that which is required for the successful\nexercise of so-called will power. It requires no mental or nervous\nstrain to exert that power. On the contrary, a calm serenity of mind\nis indispensable. When that is acquired, the only other requisites are\nconfidence and an earnest desire to bring about the results sought.\nThat these three requisites can easily be acquired by any one of common\nintelligence has already been shown.\n\nFrom what has been said it seems evident that the force developed by\nmesmeric manipulations has its origin in mental action. That that is\nthe motive power is certain. Whether this mental action creates or\ndevelops a fluid akin to magnetism, is a question which may never be\nsolved. Nor is it deemed important that it should be; and it may be\nas well to class it at once among the many things unknowable, as to\nwaste valuable time in a vain effort to wrest the secret from Nature.\nElectricity is known as a great force in physical nature; and it is\nharnessed and made to perform many services to mankind. Like all the\ngreat forces of nature, it is invisible, except through its effects,\nand it defies analysis. It will never be known to man except as one\nof the great correlated forces. It is equally impossible to know just\nwhat the force is which emanates from the mesmerist and controls his\nsubject. We know that it exists, and that it can be utilized, and that\nis all. Whether it is a fluid or not is as impossible to know with\ncertainty as it is to know what electricity is made of, if we should\ndetermine it to be a substance.\n\nFor some purposes, as has been remarked, the fluidic hypothesis is as\ngood as any, and for such purposes it may be provisionally accepted.\nBut the question is, Will that hypothesis apply to all the phenomena?\nIf that question is answered in the negative, it demonstrates its\nincorrectness, and it becomes imperative that it should be abandoned.\nWhen mesmeric passes are made over a patient, a fluid appears to\nemanate from the hands of the operator. An effluence of some kind\ncertainly does come from that source, and one that is perceptible to\nthe physical senses of the patient. Is it not a fact, nevertheless,\nthat the passes are principally useful as a means of controlling the\nminds both of the subject and the operator? There are many facts which\nseem to point unmistakably in that direction. The one fact alone\nthat persons can be mesmerized at a distance, seems conclusive. No\npasses are then made, and yet all the effects of personal contact are\nproduced. Thousands of persons have been healed at a distance, by\nsimple concentration of mind on the part of the operator, the patient\nknowing absolutely nothing of the proposed experiment. This branch\nof the subject will be more fully treated in a future chapter on\npsycho-therapeutics. It is sufficient to remark now that the method\nof healing here indicated is, when intelligently applied, the most\neffective of all systems of mental therapeutics. And the significant\nfact is that in the majority of cases the best results are produced\nwhen the patient is kept in absolute ignorance of what is being done\nfor him. The reason for this will more fully appear as we proceed.\n\nAgain, the manner of mesmerizing animals is proof positive that the\nsuccessful exercise of mesmeric power is not dependent upon passes made\nby the hand of the operator, for the usual method is to gaze steadily\ninto the eyes of the animal.\n\nAnd this brings us to the discussion of some important distinctions\npertaining to the mesmerization of animals, which seem not to have\nbeen observed by the investigators of that subject, but which show\nmore clearly than almost anything else the line of distinction between\nhypnotism and mesmerism.\n\nThe intelligent reader will not have failed to observe that the effect\nproduced upon hens, frogs, crayfish, guinea-pigs, and birds is purely\nhypnotic. The methods employed are Braid's. That is to say, they are\npurely physical, sometimes produced by sudden peripheral stimulus,\nas in flashing a Drummond light in the eyes of a cock (Richer). But\nin general the external stimulus used with animals is tactile, as in\nseizing them (Moll); or in causing them to gaze upon an object, as in\nKircher's method of hypnotizing a cock; or in gently stroking the back,\nas in hypnotizing a frog or a crayfish. Each of these methods may be\nclassified as a hypnotic process, and the full equivalent of the method\ndiscovered by Braid. The effect is also purely hypnotic; that is to\nsay, sleep is induced, varying in degree from a light slumber to a\nprofound lethargy.\n\nOn the other hand, such animals as horses, wild beasts, etc., may be\nmesmerized, but not hypnotized. The processes are purely mesmeric, and\ngenerally consist in gazing into the animal's eyes. The effect is\nsimply to render the animal docile, and obedient to the will of the\noperator. No one was ever able to put an animal to sleep by gazing into\nits eyes; but the most ferocious of the animal tribe may be tamed and\nsubjected to the dominion of man by that simple process. A celebrated\nhorse-tamer, who travelled through this country a few years ago, was\nin the habit of astonishing and amusing his audiences by selecting\nthe wildest horse present, walking up to him, gazing into his eyes\n(apparently) for a few moments, and walking away, when the horse would\nfollow him wherever he went, apparently as perfectly fascinated as any\nhypnotic or mesmeric subject was ever fascinated by a professional\nmesmerist. A close observation of the horse-tamer's methods revealed\nthe fact that he simply rolled his eyes upward and inward, precisely\nas Braid compelled his subjects to do by holding a bright object\nbefore their eyes. He did not gaze into the eyes of the horse at all,\nbut simply held himself in that attitude for a few moments, in close\nproximity to the horse's head, when the object was accomplished, and\nthe horse became obedient to every command that it was capable of\ncomprehending. It is probable that the horse-tamer knew as little of\nthe secret of his power as did the horse. The tamers of wild beasts\nproceed in the same manner, and probably with as little knowledge of\nthe principles underlying the method.\n\nNow, the question arises, What is the effect thus produced on the\nanimal? It is certainly not hypnotized by being compelled to gaze\ninto the eyes of the operator, for sufficient time is not given to\n\"fatigue the muscles of the eye.\" Besides, the animal cannot be\ncompelled to gaze at anything. Is not the primary effect--hypnotic or\nmesmeric--produced, not directly upon the animal, but upon the man\nhimself? It seems clear that this is the true solution of the problem.\nBraid has taught us that by steadily gazing at any object a man can\nhypnotize himself without knowing, or having it suggested to him, that\nit is possible for him to do so. The man, then, is partially hypnotized\nby gazing into the animal's eyes. The threshold of his consciousness\nis thus displaced. His subjective powers are brought into play, and\nin that condition his subjective mind is _en rapport_ with that of\nthe animal. The mind of the animal, being almost purely subjective,\nis thus dominated by the imperious will of his master,--man. That\ntelepathy is the normal means of communication between animals cannot\nbe doubted by any one who has observed their habits with intelligence.\nThat man has the power, under certain conditions, to enter into\ntelepathic communication with animals, there are thousands of facts to\ndemonstrate. In a recent English work on the training of dogs,[19] this\nsubject is alluded to in the following language:--\n\n \"As I before remarked, a man to be a first-rate dog-breaker must\n have lots of animal magnetism. Now, I do not doubt that in nearly\n every man who is born into the world this faculty exists to a\n greater or less extent. It is the force of will that develops it;\n and the more it is developed, the stronger it becomes. While, on\n the other hand, if the will is naturally weak, and no other pains\n are taken to strengthen it, it falls into abeyance, and in time, I\n think, is utterly lost,--and that sometimes beyond recall.\n\n \"That there is such a power as this, no one who has ever had any\n experience with animals will attempt to deny. Take the horse, for\n instance. This is the easiest subject on which to exert the power,\n simply because the rider, and even the driver, is in closer contact\n with it than with any other animal.\n\n \"As an example, take two somewhat timid, highly bred young horses,\n and put them side by side at the tail of a flying pack of hounds.\n Both their riders are equally good men as far as nerve, hands, and\n seat are concerned; but the one is a cut-and-thrust, whip-and-spur\n sort of fellow, while the other is a cool, quiet, deliberate\n customer, of sweet manners but iron will. As they cross the first\n half-a-dozen flying fences, side by side, it wants a keen eye to\n mark any difference in the execution. The difference, as a rule,\n will consist only in the different ways in which the horses land\n after their jumps,--the one will pitch a little heavily, a little\n 'abroad,' a little as if he got there somehow, but did not quite\n know how; whilst the other will land lightly, exactly in the right\n spot, and precisely as if the two partners were one.\n\n \"How comes this? One horse is being steered by physical power and\n science only; the other by a wonderful force, which joins together\n in one two minds and two bodies.\n\n \"Now, see the test. Yonder waves a line of willows, and both riders\n know that the biggest and nastiest water jump in the county is\n ahead of them. Both equally mean to get over; but if they do, it\n will be in two different fashions: the one will compel his horse\n to jump it by sheer physical force; the other will jump it, if\n it is jumpable at all, as the 'senior partner' of the animal he\n bestrides. Down they go, sixty yards apart, and each, say, has\n picked a place which it is only just possible for a horse to\n cover; neither horse can turn his head; for, at the last stride,\n the velvet hands have become grips of iron. Splash goes Number 1;\n he went as far as he could: but that last two feet wanted just an\n impetus which was absent. How about Number 2? The rider has fixed\n his eye, and his mind with it, on yonder grassy spot on the other\n side of the water, and, sure enough, the fore-feet are simply\n 'lifted' into it by something inward, not outward; but only the\n fore-feet. Still, the calculation of the strung-up mind has entered\n into that, the stirrups have been cast loose in the 'fly,' and the\n moment the hoofs touch the bank, the rider is over his horse's\n head, with reins in hand; a second more, the horse is beside him;\n yet another, and they are away forward, without losing more than a\n minute.\n\n \"Assheton Smith expressed in _some_ manner--but only in _some_\n manner--what I mean in his well-known dictum, 'Throw your heart\n over a fence, and your horse is sure to follow.'\n\n \"I could give hundreds of instances and anecdotes of this magnetic\n power of the rider over the horse, but one will suffice to prove my\n point.\n\n \"I was out for a ride one day with an argumentative friend along\n the road, and was on a very celebrated old hunter that had been\n my friend and partner for many a season. We were talking on this\n subject, and my friend scoffed at the very idea of such a thing as\n a sort of visionary nonsense. A hundred yards ahead there was an\n intersecting cross-road, at right angles to that on which we were\n riding. I pulled up my horse.\n\n \"'Now,' I said, 'look here; I will prove my theory to you. Choose\n and tell me which of these roads my horse shall take. You shall\n ride three lengths behind me; I will throw the reins on his neck,\n and I will bet you a sovereign he goes the way I will him; and\n you shall be the judge whether it is possible for me to have\n influenced him by any word, touch, or sign,--only, you must keep at\n a walk, and not utter a word or a sound.'\n\n \"He made the bet, and fixed on the right hand cross-road as being\n the one he knew very well the horse had never been before, whilst\n the two others were both roads to 'meets.'\n\n \"I simply fixed my eyes and my will on the road, and when the horse\n arrived at the spot, he turned down with the same alacrity as if\n his stable had been in full view.\n\n \"I need not say that I have many times tried the same experiment,\n and that with many variations and many different horses, and\n hardly ever failed,--indeed, on American prairies I have found the\n habit once or twice a dangerous nuisance, inasmuch as the then\n involuntary exercise of the power has, when I have been myself\n lost, influenced the horse to go the wrong way, because I was\n thinking it was the right one, whereas, if he had been let alone,\n he would not have made a mistake.\n\n \"Now, this magnetic power can be used with dogs, only in an\n inferior degree to horses.\"\n\nThe author then goes on to relate numerous instances, some of them\ntruly marvellous, in which he demonstrated his power over dogs. He was\nevidently intelligently conscious of his power, but did not know the\nconditions necessary to enable him to exercise it with uniform potency.\n\nThe most striking manifestations of the force under consideration are\nby professional tamers of wild beasts. The reason of this lies in the\nsimple fact that they uniformly employ the means necessary to its\ndevelopment,--namely, fixing their eyes upon those of the beast. This\nis the traditional method. Its potency has been recognized for ages,\nalthough the philosophical principles underlying it have never been\nunderstood.\n\nThe conditions necessary for the exercise of this power are: first, the\nsubjective, or partially subjective, condition of the operator; and\nsecondly, his perfect faith and confidence in his power. The first is\neasily attained by the simple process developed by Braid. The second\ncomes from successful practice, but may be commanded by the power of\nauto-suggestion, as I have already shown.\n\nHistory is full of instances going to show that man, in the subjective\ncondition, is always safe from harm by wild animals. The subjective\npowers of primitive man were undoubtedly far superior to any now\npossessed by any one save, perhaps, the East Indian adepts. Before the\ndevelopment of objective means of communication in the form of speech,\nhis ideas were conveyed to his fellows by telepathy. And just in\nproportion to the development of objective means of communication did\nhe cease to employ, and finally lose, his primitive methods and powers.\nGod gave him dominion over the beasts of the field and the fowls of the\nair. In his primitive condition he was destitute of effective weapons\nof offence or defence, such as have been evolved during the long ages\nof a later civilization. He was surrounded by a monstrous fauna,\ncapable of annihilating the present race of civilized mankind, could it\nbe suddenly resurrected and turned loose in its old numbers and haunts.\nIn what consisted the power of primitive man to assert and maintain\nhis God-given dominion over the monsters of his day and generation? It\nmust have been the same power which is now exceptionally exercised by\nthe artificial displacement of the threshold of consciousness, thus\ndeveloping in a small degree his long dormant subjective powers. His\ndominion was then a true one, all-potent, and far more perfect and\neffective than it is to-day, with all the appliances of civilization at\nhis command.\n\nFacts of record are not wanting to sustain the proposition that man\nin a subjective, or partially subjective, condition is safe from the\nattacks of wild beasts. One of the first recorded instances, and the\none most familiar, is the story of Daniel. Daniel was a prophet,--a\nseer. At this day he would be known in some circles as a spiritual\nmedium; in others, as a mind-reader, a clairvoyant, etc.,---according\nto the conception of each individual as to the origin of his powers. In\nother words, he was a man possessed of great subjective powers. He was\nnaturally and habitually in that state in which, in modern parlance,\nthe threshold of his consciousness was displaced, and the powers of his\nsoul were developed. In this state he was thrown into the lions' den,\nwith the result recorded. The sceptic as to the divine authenticity of\nthe Scriptures can readily accept this story as literally true when he\nrecalls the experiments made in Paris a few years ago. In that city a\nyoung lady was hypnotized and placed in a den of lions. The object of\nthe experiment is not now recalled; but the result was just the same as\nthat recorded of the ancient prophet. She had no fear of the lions, and\nthe lions paid not the slightest attention to her.\n\nThe adepts of India, and even the inferior priests of the Buddhistic\nfaith, often display their power by entering the jungles, so infested\nby man-eating tigers that an ordinary man would not live an hour, and\nremain there all night, with no weapons of defence save the God-given\npowers of the soul.\n\nThe power of idiots, and persons afflicted with certain forms of\ninsanity, to tame and subdue animals has often been remarked. In such\npersons the objective mind is either wholly or partially in abeyance,\nand the subjective mind is proportionally active. Their immunity from\nharm by animals, however ferocious, is proverbial.\n\nVolumes might be filled with facts showing the power of the subjective\nmind of man over animals; but enough has been said to demonstrate\nthe fact that the power exists, and that under certain well-defined\nconditions it can be exercised by any person of ordinary intelligence.\n\nIt is believed that enough has been said to show the source of the\npower developed by mesmeric processes, as distinguished from the\nresults of hypnotism. It has been seen that the primary source of power\nis in the mesmerist, that it is developed by processes which place him\nin the same condition as, or in a condition cognate to, that in which\nthe subject himself is placed, and that when these conditions exist,\nand just in proportion to the perfection of these conditions, can the\nphenomena of telepathy, clairvoyance, and all the higher phenomena of\nsubjective activity be produced.\n\nThe difference between the effects of mesmerism on man and animals is\none of degree only; and the difference of degree is determined only\nby their difference in intelligence. The laws are the same. When a\nman is mesmerized, his subjective mind may be stimulated to activity,\nwhether his objective mind is completely in abeyance or not. If it is\ncompletely in abeyance, the subjective phenomena will be all the more\npronounced and complete. But when an animal is put to sleep, little\nor no subjective phenomena can be exhibited, for the simple reason\nthat he has not the power of speech, and his intelligence is otherwise\nlimited. The same law also governs the production of hypnotic phenomena\nin men and animals alike. An animal can be put to sleep by hypnotic\nprocesses; but he cannot be made to exhibit subjective phenomena during\nthat sleep, owing solely to the limitations of his intelligence. He is\nnot capable of receiving and understanding a suggestion. Besides, in\nhypnotism, as has been shown, there is no telepathic rapport existing\nbetween the operator and the subject. Consequently the phenomena which\nmay be exhibited through or by means of mesmeric processes, which grow\nout of telepathic rapport, cannot be exhibited in hypnotism.\n\nIt may be thought that the laws governing the production of mesmeric\nphenomena show that the law of suggestion is, after all, limited in\nits scope and application. This is not true, except in the sense that\nsuggestion, as has already been shown, is not a necessary element\nin the induction of the hypnotic state. The proposition that the\nsubjective mind is constantly amenable to control by suggestion\nis not affected in the slightest degree by mesmeric phenomena. On\nthe contrary, they distinctly prove the universality of that law.\nSuggestion is not necessarily limited to oral communication. Nor is\nit necessarily a communication which can be taken cognizance of by\nmeans of any of the objective senses. Telepathic communication is\njust as much a suggestion to the subjective mind as is oral speech.\nIndeed, telepathic suggestion is often far more effective than\nobjective language, as will be clearly shown in a future chapter on\nthe subject of psycho-therapeutics. Hence the power to mesmerize at\na distance. In such cases, however, it seems to be necessary that the\noperator and subject should be by some means brought into telepathic\nrapport. When that has been done, especially when the rapport has been\nestablished by the subject having been previously mesmerized by the\nsame operator, it is perfectly easy to mesmerize at a distance. In such\na case no previous arrangement is necessary. The suggestion is then\npurely mental. But it is suggestion, nevertheless, and demonstrates\nthe universality of the law. Numerous instances of the exercise of\nthis power by purely telepathic methods are cited in the able work on\nHypnotism by Professor Bj\u00f6rnstrom, to which the reader is referred for\nparticulars.\n\nOne further remark should be made regarding the power to mesmerize at\na distance, and that is, that it depends solely upon the faith and\nconfidence of the operator. Distance, or space, as it is cognized by\nour objective senses, does not appear to exist for the subjective mind.\nThere is, therefore, nothing in distance, _per se_, to prevent the\nfull effects of mesmeric power from being felt at the antipodes just\nas plainly and effectively as it is in the same room. We are, however,\nso in the habit of regarding distance as an adverse element that it is\ndifficult to overcome the adverse suggestion that it conveys. When this\nprinciple is once understood and fully realized, there will be nothing\nto prevent an operator from exercising his power at any distance he may\ndesire.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 19: Scientific Education of Dogs. By H.H. London. p. 85.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nHYPNOTISM AND CRIME.\n\n Platform Experiments misleading.--Their Utter Inutility as a\n Test.--So-called \"Tests\" described and explained.--Sexual Outrages\n impossible.--Auto-suggestion protects the Virtuous.--A Willing\n Subject necessary.--Demonstrative Experiments.--Modern Authorities\n cited against themselves.--Professor Gregory's Views.--The Elevated\n Moral Tone of Subjects when mesmerized.--Successful Suggestion\n of Suicide impossible.--The Three Normal Functions of the\n Subjective Mind.--Self-Preservation.--Propagation.--Preservation\n of Offspring.--Instinctive Auto-suggestion.--Indifference\n on Near Approach of Death.--A Universal Law.--Illustrative\n Incidents.--Suggestive Criminal Abortion impossible.--Premonitions\n explained.--The D\u00e6mon of Socrates.--Clairaudience.--The Instinct of\n Death.--Hypnotism in Jurisprudence.--Testimony Valueless.--Vital\n Secrets impossible to obtain.--Doctors must not monopolize the\n Forces of Nature.--The Folly of Adverse Legislation.\n\n\nBefore leaving the subject of hypnotism, I deem it proper to say a\nfew words on one of its branches which is just now attracting the\nattention alike of students of the science and the public at large.\nThe idea is being very generally promulgated among the people that\nthe ability of one man to mesmerize or hypnotize another implies the\npossession of a very dangerous power, and one which, in the hands of\nan unscrupulous man, may be used for criminal purposes. It is perhaps\nnot strange that such an idea should prevail among those who have not\nstudied the science except by observation of platform experiments,\nwhich are designed rather to amuse than to instruct. There is something\nso mysterious in the whole subject, viewed from the standpoint of an\naudience assembled to witness experiments of this character, that it\nwould be strange indeed if the average man were not impressed with\nan indefinable dread of the power of the hypnotist. He sees him, by\nmeans of certain mysterious manipulations, throw his subject into\na profound sleep, and awaken him by a snap of the fingers. He sees\nthe subject impressed with all manner of incongruous ideas,--made to\nbelieve that he is Diogenes, or a dog, at the will of the operator.\nHe is made to ride an imaginary horse-race, astride a deal table,\nor to go in swimming on the bare floor. He is made to see angels or\ndevils; to wander in the Elysian fields of paradise, or to scorch\nin the sulphurous fires of hell; to feel pain or pleasure, joy or\nsorrow,--all at the caprice of the man in whose power he has placed\nhimself. All this, and much more, can be seen at public exhibitions\nof hypnotism, and under conditions that leave no doubt in the mind\nof the observer, of the genuineness of the phenomena. He sees his\nfriends, for whose integrity he can vouch, go upon the platform and\nbecome subject to the same mysterious power. Still doubting, he may go\nupon the stage himself, only to find that he is amenable to the same\nsubtle influence, controllable by some power that is to him agreeable,\nyet mysterious, indefinable, incomprehensible. At first he perfectly\ncomprehends all his objective surroundings, remembers afterwards\nall that took place, and very likely fancies that he obeyed the\nsuggestions of the hypnotist merely to please him and to avoid doing\nanything to mar the harmony of the occasion. Later on he learns that\nhis supposed complacency was really an irresistible impulse to obey\nthe will of the hypnotist. As the experiments proceed he experiences\nthe sensation of double consciousness. He is told that in his hand he\nholds a delicious fruit,--a strawberry, perhaps. He is still possessed\nof sufficient objective consciousness to know that there is really no\nstrawberry in his hand, and yet he sees it plainly, feels it, smells\nit, tastes it, and experiences all the satisfaction incident to having\nactually eaten the fruit. He is able to converse rationally on the\nsubject, and to express his amazement at the vividness and apparent\nreality of the subjective sensation. After a few repetitions of the\nexperiments he loses all consciousness of his objective environment,\nyields unquestioning obedience to the suggestions of the hypnotist,\nand retains no recollection, after he is awakened, of what occurred\nwhen he was in the somnambulic condition. His friends inform him of\nthe many wonderful things which occurred, of his ready obedience to\nall suggestions,--how he made a speech far transcending his natural\nabilities, under the influence of a suggestion that he was Daniel\nWebster; how he flapped his wings and crowed when told that he was a\ncock; and so on through the _r\u00e9pertoire_ of platform experiments. He\nis now strongly impressed with the idea that he was controlled by a\npower that he could under no circumstances resist. But, wishing to\npursue his investigations further, he resolves to test the question\nwhether this power can be employed for criminal purposes. A few friends\nare called together, a hypnotist is employed, and a few well-trained\nsubjects are invited to give a private exhibition for the benefit of\n\"science.\" In order to give the proposed psychological experiment an\nundoubted scientific value, a few doctors of physic are invited to\nbe present,--not because they know anything about psychology or of\nhypnotism, but because it is well known that they have heard something\nabout the latter science, particularly that it has been found to be a\ngreat therapeutic agent, and they are just now deeply interested in\nproving that hypnotism, in the hands of any one outside of the medical\nprofession, must necessarily be employed for the perpetration of crime.\n\nWe will now suppose that the guests are assembled and the experiments\nare about to be made. The question is freely discussed in the presence\nof the subjects, each one of whom is duly impressed with the idea that\nhe is about to become the instrument of science for the elucidation\nand definite settlement of the great problem of the age. The subject\nis now duly hypnotized, and the inevitable paper dagger is placed in\nhis hands. An imaginary man in a distant part of the room is pointed\nout, and the subject is informed that the said man is his mortal\nenemy; and he is duly advised that the best thing he can do under the\ncircumstances is to proceed to slaughter the enemy aforesaid. This\nhe has no hesitation in doing, and he proceeds to do it with great\ndramatic effect. He sneaks up to his victim in the style of the last\nheavy villain he has seen on the stage, and plunges the imaginary\ndagger into the hypothetical man, amidst the applause of the assembled\nvillage wisdom.\n\nThe next subject is duly hypnotized, and informed that he is a noted\npickpocket. The guests are pointed out as a good crowd to work for\n\"wipers,\" or whatever is thieves' slang for pocket-handkerchiefs. The\nsubject accepts the suggestion at once, and, with much show of cunning,\nproceeds to relieve the guests of whatever is within his reach.\n\nThe next subject is advised that he is an accomplished burglar, and\nthat a neighboring house is overflowing with plunder. He enters into\nthe spirit of the suggestion with great alacrity, and a committee is\nduly appointed to accompany him to the scene of pillage. The neighbor\nis, meantime, apprised of the proposed burglary, and every facility\nis afforded, in the interest of \"science.\" (The reader will remember\nthat actual occurrences are being described.) The burglary is completed\nwith great skill and promptitude, and a miscellaneous collection of\nvaluables is brought away and equitably divided with the hypnotist.\n\nThe above are fair samples of the \"scientific\" experiments which\nare just now being largely indulged in, and which are believed to\ndemonstrate the possibility of employing hypnotism as an instrument of\ncrime. \"If the average subject,\" it is argued, \"in a state of profound\nhypnotic sleep, is so amenable to the power of suggestion as to plunge\na paper dagger into an imaginary enemy at the bidding of a hypnotist,\nit follows that a criminal hypnotist possesses unlimited power to\ncause any one of his subjects to plunge a real dagger into any victim\nwhom the hypnotist may select for slaughter.\" If the conclusions\nwere correct, the power would be indeed formidable, and, in the hands\nof unscrupulous men, dangerous. Much has been written on the subject\nof the possibility of sexual outrage by means of hypnotism, and a\nfew cases are reported in the books. None of them, however, bear the\nunmistakable stamp of genuineness, and most of them bear internal\nevidence of fraud. The best authorities on the subject are now free to\nconfess to very grave doubts, at least, of the possibility of crime\nbeing instigated by this means. Thus, Moll,[20] one of the latest and\ncertainly one of the ablest writers on the subject, has the following:--\n\n \"There are important differences of opinion about the offences\n which hypnotic subjects may be caused to commit. Li\u00e9geois, who\n has discussed the legal side of the question of hypnotism in a\n scientific manner, thinks this danger very great, while Gilles de\n la Tourette, Pierre Janet, Benedikt, and others, deny it altogether.\n\n \"There is no doubt that subjects may be induced to commit all\n sorts of imaginary crimes in one's study. I have made hardly any\n such suggestions, and have small experience on the point. In any\n case, a repetition of them is superfluous. If the conditions of\n the experiment are not changed, it is useless to repeat it merely\n to confirm what we already know. And these criminal suggestions\n are not altogether pleasant. I certainly do not believe that they\n injure the moral state of the subject, for the suggestion may be\n negatived and forgotten. But these laboratory experiments prove\n nothing, because some trace of consciousness always remains to tell\n the subject he is playing a comedy (Franck Delboeuf), consequently\n he will offer a slighter resistance. He will more readily try to\n commit a murder with a piece of paper than with a real dagger,\n because, as we have seen, he almost always dimly realizes his real\n situation. These experiments, carried out by Li\u00e9geois, Foreaux, and\n others in their studies do not, therefore, prove danger.\"\n\nSuch experiments prove nothing, simply because they are experiments.\nThe subject knows that he is among his friends. He has confidence\nin the integrity of the hypnotist. He is most likely aware of the\nnature of the proposed experiments. He enters into the spirit of the\noccasion, resolved to accept every suggestion offered, and to carry\nout his part of the programme in the best style, knowing that no\npossible harm can befall him. Moreover, he knows that if he performs\nhis part to the satisfaction of his auditors, he will receive their\napplause; and applause to the subjective mind is as sweet incense. For,\nbe it known, the average hypnotic subject is inordinately vain of his\naccomplishments.\n\nAll those considerations are, however, merely negative evidence\nagainst the supposition that the innocent hypnotic subject can be made\nthe instrument of crime, or the victim of criminal assault against\nhis will. These experiments prove nothing, that is all. Nor do they\ndisprove anything. We must, therefore, look elsewhere for positive\nevidence to demonstrate the impossibility of making the innocent\nsubject the instrument or the victim of crime. This evidence is not\ndifficult to find.\n\nIt will be unnecessary to travel outside the domain of admitted,\nrecorded, and demonstrated facts in order to prove the utter\nimpossibility of victimizing virtue and innocence by means of\nhypnotism. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how any one who\nrecognizes the law of suggestion, and its universal application to\npsychological phenomena, can believe for one moment that hypnotism can\nbe made the instrument of crime. Yet we find disciples of the Nancy\nschool who seem to imagine that to hold that it cannot be so employed\nis equivalent to an admission that the law of suggestion is not of\nuniversal application. The fact is that just the contrary is true. It\nis one of the strongest demonstrations of the universality of the law\nthat hypnotism cannot be so employed.\n\nThe first proposition in the line of the argument is that when two\ncontrary suggestions are offered to the hypnotic subject, the strongest\nmust prevail. It needs no argument to sustain this proposition; it is\nself-evident.\n\nThe next proposition, almost equally plain, is that auto-suggestion as\na factor in hypnotism is equal in potency, other things being equal,\nwith the suggestion of another.\n\nAuto-suggestion is now recognized as a factor in hypnotism by all\nfollowers of the Nancy school. Professor Bernheim mentions it as an\nobstacle in the way of the cure of some of his patients. One case that\nhe mentions was that of a young girl suffering from a tibio-tarsal\nsprain. \"I tried to hypnotize her,\" says Bernheim; \"she gave herself\nup to it with bad grace, saying that it would do no good. I succeeded,\nhowever, in putting her into a deep enough sleep two or three times.\nBut the painful contracture persisted: she seemed to take a malicious\ndelight in proving to the other patients in the service that it did\nno good, _that she always felt worse_.... The inrooted idea, _the\nunconscious auto-suggestion_, is such that nothing can pull it up\nagain. When the treatment was begun, she seemed to be convinced that\nhypnotism could not cure her. Is it this idea, so deeply rooted in her\nbrain, which neutralizes our efforts and her own wish to be cured?\"[21]\n\nMoll, more distinctly than Bernheim, recognizes the power of\nauto-suggestion as a potent factor which must always be taken into\naccount in conducting experiments; although he, like Bernheim,\nstrangely forgets to take it into account when he discusses hypnotism\nin its relations to crime. The following passage, for instance, should\nhave been incorporated in his chapter on the Legal Aspects of Hypnotism:\n\n \"Expressions of the will which spring from the individual character\n of the patient are of the deepest psychological interest. The\n more an action is repulsive to his disposition, the stronger is\n his resistance (Forel). Habit and education play a large part\n here; it is generally very difficult successfully to suggest\n anything that is opposed to the confirmed habits of the subject.\n For instance, suggestions are made with success to a devout\n Catholic; but directly the suggestion conflicts with his creed,\n it will not be accepted. The surroundings play a part also. A\n subject will frequently decline a suggestion that will make him\n appear ridiculous. A woman whom I easily put into cataleptic\n postures, and who made suggested movements, could not be induced\n to put out her tongue at the spectators. In another such case I\n succeeded, but only after repeated suggestions. The manner of\n making the suggestion has an influence. In some cases it must\n be often repeated before it succeeds; other subjects interpret\n the repetition of the suggestion as a sign of the experimenter's\n incapacity, and of their own ability to resist. Thus it is\n necessary to take character into account. It is often easier to\n induce some action by suggesting each separate movement than by\n suggesting the whole action at once (Bleuler). For example, if\n the subject is to fetch a book from the table, the movements may\n be suggested in turn: first the lifting, then the steps, etc.\n (Bleuler.)\n\n \"It is interesting to observe the way in which resistance is\n expressed, both in hypnotic and post-hypnotic suggestion. I myself\n have observed the interesting phenomenon that subjects have asked\n to be awakened when a suggestion displeased them.\n\n \"Exactly the same resistance is sometimes offered to a\n post-hypnotic suggestion. It is possible in such a case that the\n subject, even in the hypnotic state, will decline to accept the\n suggestion. Many carry out only the suggestions to which they have\n assented (Pierre Janet).\n\n \"Pitres relates an interesting case of a girl who would not allow\n him to awake her, because he had suggested that on waking she would\n not be able to speak. She positively declared that she would not\n wake until he gave up his suggestion. But even when the suggestion\n is accepted as such, a decided resistance is often expressed during\n its post-hypnotic execution. This shows itself as often in slow\n and lingering movements as in a decided refusal to perform the act\n at all. The more repugnant the acting, the more likely is it to be\n omitted.\"[22]\n\nThousands of experiments are daily being made which demonstrate the\nimpossibility of controlling the hypnotic subject so far as to cause\nhim to do that which he believes or knows to be wrong. A common\nplatform experiment is that of causing subjects to get drunk on water,\nunder the suggestion that it is whiskey. It frequently happens that\none or more of the subjects are conscientiously opposed to the use\nof strong drink as a beverage. Such persons invariably decline, in\nthe most emphatic manner, to indulge in the proposed debauch. Like\nall such experiments on the stage before a mixed audience, they are\npassed by as simply amusing, and no lesson is learned from them. The\nintelligent student, however, cannot fail to see the far-reaching\nsignificance of the refusal of a subject to violate his temperance\nprinciples. Again, every platform experimenter knows that whilst he can\ncause a crowd of his subjects to go in swimming in imaginary waters, he\ncan never induce them to divest themselves of their clothing beyond the\nlimits of decency. Some cannot even be made to take off their coats in\npresence of the audience. Others will decline to accept any suggestion,\nthe pursuance of which would cause them to appear ridiculous.\n\nAgain, it is well known to hypnotists that an attempt to contradict or\nargue with a subject in the hypnotic state invariably distresses him,\nand persistency in such a course awakens him, often with a nervous\nshock. A conflict of suggestions invariably causes confusion in the\nsubjective mind, and generally results in restoring the subject to\nnormal consciousness.\n\nNow, what is an auto-suggestion? In its broad signification it embraces\nnot only the assertions of the objective mind of an individual,\naddressed to his own subjective mind, but also the habits of thought\nof the individual, and the settled principles and convictions of his\nwhole life; and the more deeply rooted are those habits of thought,\nprinciples, and convictions, the stronger and more potent are the\nauto-suggestions, and the more difficult they are to overcome by\nthe contrary suggestions of another. It is, in fact, impossible for\na hypnotist to impress a suggestion so strongly upon a subject as\nto cause him actually to perform an act in violation of the settled\nprinciples of his life. If this were not true, suggestion would mean\nnothing; it would have no place in psychological science, because it\nwould not be a law of universal application. The strongest suggestion\nmust prevail.\n\nIt will thus be seen that the question as to whether hypnotism can be\nsuccessfully employed for criminal purposes, must be determined in\neach individual case by the character of the persons engaged in the\nexperiment. If the subject is a criminal character, he might follow\nthe suggestions of a criminal hypnotist, and actually perpetrate a\ncrime. In such a case, a resort to hypnotism for criminal purposes\nwould be unnecessary, and no possible advantage could be gained by its\nemployment.\n\nIt is obvious that the same rule applies to sexual crimes; and it may\nbe set down as a maxim in hypnotic science that no virtuous woman\never was, or ever can be, successfully assaulted while in a hypnotic\ncondition. This is a corollary of the demonstrated propositions which\nprecede it; and it admits of no exception or qualification.\n\nA virtuous woman is, indeed, in less danger of successful assault while\nin that state than she is in her normal condition, for the simple\nreason that hypnotic subjects are always endowed with a physical\nstrength far superior to that possessed in the normal condition.\nBesides, it is the observation of every successful hypnotist that\nthe moral tone of the hypnotic subject, while in that condition, is\nalways elevated. On this subject we will let the late Professor Gregory\nspeak:--\n\n \"When the sleeper has become fully asleep, so as to answer\n questions readily without waking, there is almost always observed\n a remarkable change in the countenance, the manner, and the voice.\n On falling asleep at first, he looks, perhaps, drowsy and heavy,\n like a person dozing in church, or at table when overcome by\n fatigue, or stupefied by excess in wine, or by the foul air of a\n crowded apartment; but when spoken to, he usually brightens up,\n and although the eyes be closed, yet the expression becomes highly\n intelligent, quite as much so as if he saw. His whole manner seems\n to undergo a refinement which, in the higher stages, reaches a\n most striking point, insomuch that we see, as it were, before us\n a person of a much more elevated character than the same sleeper\n seems to be when awake. It would seem as if the lower, or animal,\n propensities were laid to rest, while the intellect and higher\n sentiments shone forth with a lustre that is undiminished by aught\n that is mean or common. This is particularly seen in women of\n natural refinement and high sentiments; but it is also seen in\n men of the same stamp, and more or less in all. In the highest\n stages of the mesmeric sleep the countenance often acquires the\n most lovely expression, surpassing all that the great artists have\n given to the Virgin Mary or to angels, and which may fitly be\n called heavenly, for it involuntarily suggests to our minds the\n moral and intellectual beauty which alone seems consistent with our\n views of heaven. As to the voice, I have never seen one person in\n the true mesmeric sleep who did not speak in a tone quite distinct\n from the ordinary voice of the sleeper. It is invariably, so far\n as I have observed, softer and more gentle, well corresponding\n to the elevated and mild expression of the face. It has often a\n plaintive and touching character, especially when the sleeper\n speaks of departed friends or relations. In the highest stages it\n has a character quite new, and in perfect accordance with the pure\n and lovely smile of the countenance, which beams on the observer,\n in spite of the closed eyes, like a ray of heaven's own light and\n beauty. I speak here of that which I have often seen, and I would\n say that, as a general rule, the sleeper, when in his ordinary\n state and when in the deep mesmeric sleep, appears not like the\n same, but like two different individuals. And it is not wonderful\n that it should be so. For the sleeper, in the mesmeric state, has\n a consciousness quite separate and distinct from his ordinary\n consciousness; he is, in fact, if not a different individual, yet\n the same individual in a different and distinct phase of his being,\n and that phase a higher one.\"[23]\n\nProfessor Gregory's experience and observation have been those of every\nhypnotist and mesmerist whose works have been examined. There is,\nindeed, an ineffable and indescribable something which overspreads the\ncountenance of the virtuous woman while she is in the hypnotic state,\nwhich disarms passion, and affects the beholder with a feeling that he\nhas something seen of heaven. He knows that the physical senses are\nasleep, and he feels that the soul is shining forth in all its majesty\nand purity, untainted by any thought that is gross, any emotion that is\nimpure.\n\nOne of the assertions most confidently made by those who hold that\ncrime is the necessary result of hypnotic experiment, outside of the\nmedical profession, is that a hypnotic subject can be made to commit\nsuicide by suggesting to him the propriety of so doing. There is, if\npossible, even less foundation for this supposition than there is for\nany other in the whole catalogue. The reason of this will be obvious\nwhen we take into consideration some of the distinctive attributes of\nthe subjective mind. It will not be disputed that the attribute of\nthe subjective mind, which is known as intuition when applied to man,\ncorresponds exactly with what we call instinct when applied to animals.\nNow, there are three primary functions, or, let us say, instincts,\nof the subjective mind, which are common to men and the whole animal\ncreation. The first pertains to the preservation of the life of\nthe individual, and is called, in common parlance, the instinct of\nself-preservation. This is admittedly the strongest instinct of animal\nnature. The second, in the order of strength and of universality, is\nthe instinct of reproduction. The third pertains to the preservation\nof human life generally, and of one's offspring particularly. Each\npertains to the perpetuity of the race. The first and second are\nuniversal, and the third is practically so; the only exceptions being\nin rare cases of individual idiosyncrasy, or in a very low order of\nanimal life. The potency of these instincts is too well known to\nrequire comment.\n\nThere is one peculiarity, however, pertaining to subjective activity\nwhen the life of the individual is in danger, or that of offspring\nis imperilled, that is not so generally appreciated. In such cases\nthe subjective mind takes prompt possession of the individual, and\nevery act is subjective as long as active exertion is required to\npreserve the imperilled life. That this is true is shown, first, by\nthe preternatural strength with which the person is endowed under such\ncircumstances; second, by the total absence of fear; and third, by the\nwonderful presence of mind displayed in the instantaneous adaptation\nof every means to its proper end, and in doing exactly the right thing\nat the right time. Comment is often made on the wonderful \"presence of\nmind\" displayed by persons in great peril when instantaneous action is\nrequired, and there is no time for reflection or reasoning out a plan\nof action or defence. This presence of mind, so called, is nothing\nmore or less than subjective activity, or, in other words, instinctive\naction, the objective faculties being in almost complete abeyance for\nthe time being. That this is true is further shown by the fact that a\nperson in imminent and deadly peril will often emerge from the very\njaws of death with nerves unshaken, the coolest and most collected\nperson present. This is often mistaken for courage. It has, however,\nnothing whatever to do with the question of personal bravery. The\nveriest coward will, under circumstances of unavoidable danger, act\nwith the same coolness, and evince the same presence of mind, as the\nbravest man. The most timid woman will fight like a demon, and display\npreternatural strength and courage, for the preservation of her own\nlife or that of her offspring. The action is instinctive. In other\nwords, it is the normal function of the subjective entity.\n\nThe condition of the person at such times is akin to, if not identical\nwith, the state of hypnotism or partial hypnotism. It may be that\nthe objective and subjective faculties act at such times in perfect\nsynchronism; but certain it is that every evidence of subjective\nactivity is present, even the phenomenon of anesthesia. This is shown\nby the fact that at such times the body feels no pain, no matter how\nsevere the injury. The universal testimony of soldiers who have been\nin battle is to the effect that the time when fear is experienced is\njust before the action commences. When the first gun is fired, all fear\nvanishes, and the soldier often performs feats of the most desperate\nvalor and evinces the most reckless courage. If wounded, he feels\nnothing until the battle is over and all excitement is gone. It is a\nmerciful provision of nature that the nearer we approach death, the\nless we fear it. This law is universal. It is only in the vigor of\nyouth and manhood that death is looked upon with horror. The aged view\nits near approach with calm serenity. The convicted murderer, as long\nas there is hope of pardon, reprieve, escape, or commutation of the\ndeath-penalty, evinces the utmost dread of the scaffold; but when the\ndeath-penalty is pronounced, and all hope has fled, he often evinces\nthe utmost indifference, welcomes the day of his execution, and marches\nto the scaffold without a tremor. The newspapers speak with wonder and\nadmiration of his courage, and the universal verdict is that he was\na brave man, and \"died game.\" The truth is that the universal law of\nwhich we speak, that merciful provision of nature which nerves alike\nthe brave man and the coward, steps in to his defence, his objective\nsenses are benumbed, and he submits to the inevitable change without\nfear and without pain.\n\nThe testimony of Dr. Livingstone is to the same effect. He was once\nseized by a lion when hunting in the jungles of Africa, and carried\nsome distance, his body between the lion's jaws. When death seemed\ninevitable, he testifies that all fear left him, and a delicious\nlanguor stole over his senses. The grasp of the lion's jaws caused no\npain, and he felt fully resigned to his fate. A fortunate shot from the\ngun of one of his companions released him, and he was rescued.\n\nThis, however, is a digression. The main point which it is desired to\nenforce is, first, that the strongest instinct in mankind is that of\nself-preservation; and second, that this instinct, this strong desire\nto preserve the life of the body, constitutes a subjective, or an\ninstinctive, auto-suggestion of such supreme potency that no suggestion\nfrom another, nor any objective auto-suggestion, could possibly\novercome it. The inevitable conclusion is that suicide is certainly not\na crime which can be successfully instigated by means of hypnotism.\n\nCriminal abortion is another of the crimes which, the people are\ntold, can be performed by means of hypnotic suggestion. The inherent\nabsurdity of this statement is almost as great as that suicide can\nbe successfully instigated by such means. It is here that another\nstrong instinct prevails against a suggestion of that character,\nnamely, the desire inherent in the soul of the mother to preserve her\noffspring. It is possibly true that conception could be prevented by\nhypnotic suggestion, and it may be true that barrenness is sometimes\ncaused by unconscious auto-suggestion; but a very different state\nof affairs exists after the foetus is once formed. The instinctive\ndesire to preserve the life that exists, constitutes an instinctive\nauto-suggestion which no suggestion from another, nor even the\nobjective auto-suggestion of the mother, could prevail against.\n\nIt may be safely set down, therefore, as a fundamental truth of\nhypnotic science that the auto-suggestion most difficult to overcome\nis that which originates in the normal action of the subjective\nmind,--otherwise, instinctive auto-suggestion.\n\nThe same line of reasoning applies, though with somewhat diminished\nforce, to the commission of other crimes. We will suppose the most\nfavorable condition possible for procuring the commission of a capital\ncrime; namely, a criminal hypnotist in control of a criminal subject.\nThe disposition of the subject might not stand in the way; there might\nbe no auto-suggestion against the commission of crime in the habits\nand principles of the life of the subject; and yet the instinct of\nself-preservation would have its weight and influence in suggesting to\nhim that the commission of a murder would imperil his own life. Such a\nconsideration would operate as potently in the hypnotic condition as it\nwould in the normal state. It would be an instinctive auto-suggestion,\njust the same as in the case of suicide, although it would operate\nindirectly in one case, and directly in the other. The deductive\nreasoning of the subjective mind, as we have seen in preceding\nchapters, is perfect; and in the case supposed, the subject would\ninstantaneously reason from the proposed crime to its consequences to\nhimself. The same law would operate in preventing the commission of\ncrimes of less magnitude, with a resistance decreased in proportion\nto the nature of the offence. But it would, in all cases, be a factor\nof great importance in the prevention of crime; for the subjective\nmind is ever alert where the safety and well-being of the individual\nare concerned. This law is universal, and has often been manifested\nin the most striking manner. Premonitions of impending danger, so\noften felt and recorded, are manifestations of the constant solicitude\nof the subjective entity for the welfare of the individual. It is\ncomparatively rare that these subjective impressions are brought above\nthe threshold of consciousness; but this is largely due to the habits\nof thought of mankind at the present day. Generally such impressions\nare disregarded, and in this sceptical and materialistic age are often\nrelegated to the domain of superstition. When they are felt and acted\nupon, they are generally attributed to a supernatural source. The d\u00e6mon\nof Socrates is a strong case in point. He believed himself to have\nbeen constantly attended by a familiar spirit, whose voice he could\nhear, and whose admonitions were always wise. That he did hear voices\nthere can, in the light of modern science, be little doubt. It is\nnoteworthy, however, that the voice was generally one of warning, and\nthat its strongest manifestations were made when his personal safety\nor his personal well-being was involved. The explanation, in pursuance\nof the hypothesis under discussion in this book, is not difficult.\nHe was endowed with that rare faculty which, in one way or another,\nbelongs to all men of true genius, and which enabled him to draw from\nthe storehouse of subjective knowledge. In his case the threshold of\nconsciousness was so easily displaced that his subjective mind was able\nat will to communicate with his objective mind in words audible to his\nsenses. This phenomenon is known to spiritists as clairaudience. As\nbefore remarked, this voice was generally one of warning, and was the\ndirect manifestation of that strongest instinct of the human soul,--the\ninstinct of self-preservation.\n\nTo this the classical student will doubtless interpose the objection\nthat the d\u00e6mon failed to warn the philosopher in the hour of his\ndirest need; it failed to admonish him against that course of conduct\nwhich led to inevitable death. Socrates was accustomed to construe\nthe silence of the d\u00e6mon as an approval of his conduct; and when the\ndecisive moment arrived when he could have saved himself had he chosen\nto do so, the divine voice was silent. Only once did it interpose its\nwarning, and that was to prevent him from preparing a speech which\nmight have saved him from the hemlock.\n\nThe explanation of this failure may be found in the experience of all\nmankind. This instinctive clinging to life weakens with advancing\nyears, and appears to cease altogether the moment a man's career of\nusefulness in life has ended. This is the experience of every-day life.\nMen grow rich, and in the full vigor of a green old age retire from\nbusiness, hoping to enjoy many years of rest. The result is, generally,\ndeath in a very short time. An old man thrown out of employment,\nwith nothing to hope for in the future, lies down and dies. Another,\nlosing his aged companion, follows within a few days or weeks. Another\nlives only to see his children married and settled, and when that is\naccomplished, cheerfully lets go his hold on life. In fact, it seems to\nbe as much an instinct to die, when one's usefulness is ended, as to\ncling to life as long as there is something to do to contribute to the\ngeneral welfare.\n\nSocrates was an old man. He had lived a long and useful life, but his\ncareer of usefulness was ended; for the authorities of the State had\ndecided that his teachings were impious, and corrupting to youth. Had\nhe lived, it would have been at the price of dishonor, his compensation\na miserable old age. Besides, his doctrine that death is not an evil,\ntogether with his lofty sentiments regarding the duty of the citizen to\nthe commonwealth,--a duty which he maintained could be performed in his\ncase only by submitting to its decrees and carrying into execution its\njudgments,--constituted a potential element of auto-suggestion which\nmust be considered in estimating the psychological features of his\ncase. He felt that the principles of his whole life would be violated\nby any attempt to escape or evade the penalty which had been decreed\nagainst him; and he spent his last hours in an effort to convince\nhis friends that the death of the body is not an evil, when life is\npurchased at the price of dishonor. He felt that the philosophy which\nit had been the business of his life to teach, could only be vindicated\nby his death, at the time and in the manner decreed by the State. The\nsupreme moment had arrived; the instinct of death was upon him; and,\nin philosophical communion with his followers, he calmly drank the\nhemlock, and died the death of a philosopher.\n\nThe value of testimony in criminal cases, obtained by means of\nhypnotism, has been very freely discussed by those who have given\ntheir attention to the legal aspect of the question. Assuming that a\nperson has been hypnotized, and caused to commit a crime, the question\nnaturally arises, What means are at hand to convict the guilty party?\nHow is evidence to be obtained, and what is its value when obtained?\nAs it has been shown to be a practical impossibility to procure the\ncommission of crime by means of hypnotic suggestion, it will be\nunnecessary and unprofitable to discuss the question at great length,\nand it will be dismissed after the presentation of the vital point. It\nis obvious that when it is demonstrated that evidence is unreliable,\nand necessarily unworthy of credence, it is useless to discuss the ways\nand means of obtaining such evidence for use in a court of justice. The\nintricate maze of metaphysical disquisition in which this question has\nbeen so ably obscured by writers on the subject, will not be entered.\nIt is sufficient to know that no testimony obtained from a subject in\na state of hypnotism, relating to any vital question which involves\nthe guilt or innocence of himself or his friends, is of any value\nwhatever. It is a popular belief, handed down through the ages, that\na somnambulic subject will always tell the truth, and that all the\nsecrets of a sleep-walker can be obtained from him for the asking. This\nbelief has also been held regarding the hypnotic subject; and it is\nupon this assumption that the hypothetical value of his testimony in\ncriminal jurisprudence depends. It is true that, on ordinary questions,\nthe truth is always uppermost in the subjective mind. A hypnotic\nsubject will often say, during the hypnotic sleep, that which he would\nnot say in his waking moments. Nevertheless, he never betrays a vital\nsecret. The reason is obvious to those who have followed the line\nof argument in the preceding pages of this chapter. The instinct of\nself-preservation, always alert to avert any danger which threatens\nthe individual, steps in to his defence. Instinctive auto-suggestion\nhere plays its subtle _r\u00f4le_, and no suggestion from another can\nprevail against it. If the defence involves falsehood, a falsehood will\nbe told, without the slightest hesitation; and it will be told with\npreternatural acumen, and with such plausible circumstantiality of\ndetail as to deceive the very elect. Neither will there be any variance\nor shadow of turning after repeated experiments, for the memory of the\nsubjective mind is perfect.\n\nThis rule holds good, not only with regard to secrets which involve\nthe personal safety of the individual, but in all matters pertaining\nto his material interests, his reputation, or the interests of his\nfriends, whose secrets are confided to his care. That this is true is\npresumptively proved by the fact that in all the years during which the\nscience of hypnotism has been practised, no one has ever been known to\nbetray the secrets of any society or order. The attempt has often been\nmade, but it has never succeeded. The truth of this assertion can be\ndemonstrated at any time by experiment.\n\nSuch an experiment has a greater evidential value in establishing the\nrule than almost any other laboratory experiment. A subject might\nplunge a paper dagger into an imaginary man, or he might draw a check,\nsign a note, a contract, or a deed, in obedience to experimental\nsuggestions, when he would not commit a real crime, or sign away his\nbirthright, in obedience to criminal suggestion. But when a subject\nis asked to betray the secrets of a society to which he belongs,\nit is quite a different matter. In the one case a compliance with\nthe suggestion proves nothing, simply because it is a laboratory\nexperiment. In the other case his refusal to comply with the suggestion\nproves everything, because his betrayal of such a secret in the\nlaboratory is just as vital as to betray it elsewhere.\n\nIt is obvious, therefore, that the testimony of a hypnotized subject in\na court of justice can possess no evidential value whatever. Not one of\nthe conditions would be present which give weight to human testimony.\nThe subject could not be punished for perjury if he swore falsely. In\nmatters of indifference to him he would be in constant danger of being\nswayed by the artful or accidental suggestion of another. A false\npremise suggested to him at the start would color and pervert his whole\ntestimony. A cross-examination would utterly confuse him, and almost\ninevitably restore him to normal consciousness. On questions of vital\ninterest to himself, auto-suggestion would cause him to resort to\nfalsehood if the truth would militate against him.\n\nIt is thought that enough has been said to show that the dangers\nattending the practice of hypnotism have been grossly exaggerated, and\nthat the sources of danger, which the people are so persistently warned\nagainst, have no existence in fact. The premises laid down will not be\ngainsaid by any who understand the law of suggestion. The conclusions\nare inevitable. The law of auto-suggestion has been recognized by\nContinental writers, as has been shown by extracts from their books;\nbut they have failed to carry it to its legitimate conclusion when\ntreating the subject of the legal aspects of hypnotism. It is perhaps\nnot strange that they should fail in this respect, in view of the\nvital interest which physicians have in hypnotism as a therapeutic\nagent. But they should remember that the subject is also of vital\ninterest to students of psychology, and that it is only by a study of\nits psychological aspects that hypnotism can be intelligently applied\nto the cure of disease. That the phenomena displayed through its\nagency possess a significance which far transcends that which attaches\nto it as a substitute for pills, is a proposition which will not be\ndisputed, even by those who seek to monopolize its forces. It is hoped,\ntherefore, that the psychological student will be graciously permitted\nto pursue his studies at least until it is shown that physicians enjoy\nsuch a monopoly of the cardinal virtues that it is unsafe to intrust\nthe forces of nature in the hands of others.\n\nIn the mean time the world at large will continue to believe that the\nlaws of hypnotism are no exception to the rule that the forces of\nnature, when once understood, are designed for the highest good of\nmankind; and they will continue to demand that those forces shall not\nbe monopolized by any man, or set of men, body politic, or corporation.\n\nFrom what has been said, the supreme folly of legislation to prohibit\nexperiments in hypnotism is manifest. No one will deny that when a\nhypnotist permits himself to exercise his art in private he is in\npossession of opportunities which, under other conditions, might give\nhim an undue advantage over a subject of the opposite sex; but, from\nthe very nature of things, that advantage is infinitely less than\nthat enjoyed by physicians in their habitual intercourse with their\npatients. Until it is shown that physicians never take advantage of\ntheir confidential relations with their patients; until it is shown\nthat physicians are exempt from human passions and frailties; or,\nat least, until it is shown that physicians are more platonic in\ntheir emotions than the ordinary run of human beings,--the world\nwill continue to regard their demand that the study of experimental\npsychology shall be restricted by legislation to the medical\nprofession, as an exhibition of monumental impudence. It cannot be\nforgotten that it was the medical profession that drove Mesmer into\na dishonored exile and a premature grave for the sole reason that\nhe healed the sick without the use of pills. The faculty ridiculed,\nproscribed, and ostracized every medical man who dared to conduct an\nhonest investigation of mesmeric phenomena. And now that the scientists\nof Europe are compelled to admit the therapeutic value of the science,\nthey are instant in demand that no one but physicians shall be\npermitted to make experiments. It is perhaps natural and right that the\ntreatment of disease by means of drugs should be restricted to those\nwho are educated in the proper use of drugs; but the employment of\npsychic powers and remedies rests upon an entirely different footing.\nTheir demand that hypnotism be reserved for their exclusive use rests\nnot upon their knowledge of its laws, but is founded upon their wilful\nignorance of the fundamental principles which underlie the science.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 20: Hypnotism, p. 337.]\n\n[Footnote 21: Suggestive Therapeutics, p. 214.]\n\n[Footnote 22: Hypnotism, p. 171.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Gregory on Animal Magnetism, p. 4.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nPSYCHO-THERAPEUTICS.\n\n Historical Notes.--Mind Cure in Ancient Times.--Bible\n Accounts.--Miracles of the Church.--Healing by the King's\n Touch.--Views of Paracelsus and Pomponazzi.--Bernheim's\n Experiments.--The Modern Schools.--Their Theories.--The\n True Hypothesis applicable to all Systems.--Illustrations\n of the Theory.--Producing a Blister by Suggestion.--Bloody\n Stigmata.--Letters of Blood.--Objective Control of Subjective\n Mind.--Subjective Control of Bodily Functions.--The Necessary\n Mental Conditions.--The Precepts and Example of Christ.--Subjective\n Faith alone required.--Discussion of Various Systems.--Christian\n Science, etc.--General Conclusions.\n\n\nIn the whole range of psychological research there is no branch of the\nstudy of such transcendent practical interest and importance to the\nworld as that which pertains to its application to the cure of disease.\nThat there resides in mankind a psychic power over the functions and\nsensations of the body, and that that power can be invoked at will,\nunder certain conditions, and applied to the alleviation of human\nsuffering, no longer admits of a rational doubt. The history of all\nnations presents an unbroken line of testimony in support of the truth\nof this proposition. In the infancy of the world the power of secretly\ninfluencing men for good or evil, including the healing of the sick,\nwas possessed by the priests and saints of all nations. Healing of the\nsick was supposed to be a power derived directly from God, and it was\nexerted by means of prayers and ceremonies, laying on of hands and\nincantations, amulets and talismans, rings, relics, and images, and the\nknowledge of it was transmitted with the sacred mysteries.\n\nNumerous examples of the practice of healing by the touch and by the\nlaying on of hands are related in the Old Testament. Moses was directed\nby the Lord to transmit his power and honor to Joshua by the laying on\nof hands. Elijah healed the dead child by stretching himself upon the\nbody and calling upon the name of the Lord, and Elisha raised the dead\nson of the Shunammite woman by the same means. It was even supposed\nthat the power survived his death. The New Testament is full of\nexamples of the most striking character, and the promise of the Master\nto those who believe,--\"In my name shall they cast out devils; they\nshall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they\ndrink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay their\nhands on the sick, and they shall recover,\"--applies to all mankind\nto-day as well as to his followers upon whom he had conferred his power\nin person. That this power was transmitted to future generations, and\nthat the saints and others regarded it as the heritage of the Church\nand employed it with humble faith, in imitation of the Master, for the\ngood of mankind, is shown by numerous examples. While the chroniclers\nhave undoubtedly embellished many actual cures and recited many\nfictitious ones, the fact that the saints and others possessed healing\npowers cannot be questioned. Thus, Saint Patrick, the Irish apostle,\nhealed the blind by laying on his hands.\n\n \"Saint Bernard,\" says Ennemoser, \"is said to have restored eleven\n blind persons to sight, and eighteen lame persons to the use of\n their limbs in one day at Constance. At Cologne he healed twelve\n lame, caused three dumb persons to speak, ten who were deaf to\n hear, and, when he himself was ill, Saint Lawrence and Saint\n Benedict appeared to him, and cured him by touching the affected\n part. Even his plates and dishes are said to have cured sickness\n after his death! The miracles of Saints Margaret, Katherine,\n Hildegarde, and especially the miraculous cures of the two holy\n martyrs, Cosmos and Damianus, belong to this class. Among others,\n they freed the Emperor Justinian from an incurable sickness. Saint\n Odilia embraced in her arms a leper who was shunned by all men,\n warmed him, and restored him to health.\n\n \"Remarkable above all others are those cases where persons who were\n at the point of death have recovered by holy baptism or extreme\n unction. The Emperor Constantine is one of the most singular\n examples. Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, had the power of assuaging colic\n and affections of the spleen by laying the patients on their backs\n and passing his great toe over them. The Emperor Vespasian cured\n nervous affections, lameness, and blindness, solely by the laying\n on of his hands. According to Coelius Spartianus, Hadrian cured\n those afflicted with dropsy by touching them with the points of\n his fingers, and recovered himself from a violent fever by similar\n treatment. King Olaf healed Egill on the spot by merely laying\n his hands upon him and singing proverbs. The kings of England and\n France cured diseases of the throat by touch. It is said that the\n pious Edward the Confessor, and, in France, that Philip the First\n were the first who possessed this power. In England the disease was\n therefore called 'king's evil.' In France this power was retained\n till within a recent period. Among German princes this curative\n power was ascribed to the Counts of Hapsburg, and also that they\n were able to cure stammering by a kiss. Pliny says, 'There are men\n whose whole bodies possess medicinal properties,--as the Marsi,\n the Psyli, and others, who cure the bite of serpents merely by the\n touch.' This he remarks especially of the island of Cyprus, and\n later travellers confirm these cures by the touch. In later times\n the Salmadores and Ensalmadores of Spain became very celebrated,\n who healed almost all diseases by prayer, laying on of the hands,\n and by the breath. In Ireland, Valentine Greatrakes cured at first\n king's evil by his hands; later, fever, wounds, tumors, gout, and\n at length all diseases. In the seventeenth century the gardener\n Levret and the notorious Streeper performed cures in London by\n stroking with the hand. In a similar manner cures were performed\n by Michael Medina and the Child of Salamanca; also Marcellus\n Empiricus. Richter, an innkeeper at Royen, in Silicia, cured, in\n the years 1817, 1818, many thousands of sick persons in the open\n fields by touching them with his hands. Under the popes, laying on\n of the hands was called 'chirothesy.'\"\n\nAgain, Ennemoser says:--\n\n \"As regards the resemblance which the science bears to magnetism,\n it is certain that not only were the ancients acquainted with an\n artificial method of treating disease, but also with somnambulism\n itself. Among others, Agrippa von Nettesheim speaks of this\n plainly when he says, in his 'Occulta Philosophia' (page 451):\n 'There is a science, known to but very few, of illuminating and\n instructing the mind, so that at one step it is raised from the\n darkness of ignorance to the light of wisdom. This is produced\n principally by a species of artificial sleep, in which a man\n forgets the present, and, as it were, perceives the future through\n divine inspiration. Unbelieving and wicked persons can also be\n deprived of this power by secret means.'\"\n\nComing down to more recent times, we find that cures, seemingly\nmiraculous, are as common to-day as at any period of the world's\nhistory. In fact, one unbroken line of such phenomena is presented to\nthe student of psycho-therapeutics, which extends from the earliest\nperiod of recorded history to the present time. At no time in the\nworld's history has there been such a widespread interest in the\nsubject as now; and the hopeful feature is that the subject is no\nlonger relegated to the domain of superstition, but is being studied by\nall classes of people, from the ablest scientists down to the humblest\npeasant. The result is that theories almost innumerable have been\nadvanced to account for what all admit to be a fact, namely, that there\nexists a power to alleviate human suffering, which lies not within the\ndomain of material science, but which can be invoked at the will of man\nand controlled by human intelligence.\n\nIt would be tedious and unprofitable to discuss at length the numerous\ntheories advanced by the different sects and schools which have an\nexistence to-day. It is sufficient to know that all these schools\neffect cures of the most wonderful character, many of them taking rank\nwith the miracles of the Master. This one fact stands out prominent\nand significant, namely, that the theories advanced to account for the\nphenomena seem to have no effect upon the power invoked.\n\nParacelsus stated what is now an obvious scientific fact when he\nuttered these words:--\n\n \"Whether the object of your faith be real or false, you will\n nevertheless obtain the same effects. Thus, if I believe in Saint\n Peter's statue as I should have believed in Saint Peter himself,\n I shall obtain the same effects that I should have obtained from\n Saint Peter. But that is superstition. Faith, however, produces\n miracles; and whether it is a true or a false faith, it will always\n produce the same wonders.\"\n\nMuch to the same effect are the words uttered in the sixteenth century\nby Pomponazzi:--\n\n \"We can easily conceive the marvellous effects which confidence\n and imagination can produce, particularly when both qualities are\n reciprocated between the subjects and the person who influences\n them. The cures attributed to the influence of certain relics\n are the effect of this imagination and confidence. Quacks and\n philosophers know that if the bones of any skeleton were put in\n place of the saint's bones, the sick would none the less experience\n beneficial effects, if they believed that they were near veritable\n relics.\"\n\nBernheim,[24] quoting the foregoing passages, follows with a story,\nrelated by Sobernheim, of a man with a paralysis of the tongue which\nhad yielded to no form of treatment, who put himself under a certain\ndoctor's care. The doctor wished to try an instrument of his own\ninvention, with which he promised himself to get excellent results.\nBefore performing the operation, he introduced a pocket thermometer\ninto the patient's mouth. The patient imagined it to be the instrument\nwhich was to save him. In a few minutes he cried out joyfully that he\ncould once more move his tongue freely.\n\n \"Among our cases,\" continues Bernheim, \"facts of the same sort\n will be found. A young girl came into my service, having suffered\n from complete nervous aphonia for nearly four weeks. After making\n sure of the diagnosis, I told my students that nervous aphonia\n sometimes yielded instantly to electricity, which might act simply\n by its suggestive influence. I sent for the induction apparatus.\n Before using it I wanted to try simple suggestion by affirmation.\n I applied my hand over the larynx and moved it a little, and said,\n 'Now you can speak aloud.' In an instant I made her say 'a,' then\n 'b,' then 'Maria.' She continued to speak distinctly; the aphonia\n had disappeared.\n\n \"'The \"Biblioth\u00e8que choisie de M\u00e9decine,\"' says Hack Tuke, 'gives\n a typical example of the influence exercised by the imagination\n over intestinal action during sleep. The daughter of the consul at\n Hanover, aged eighteen, intended to use rhubarb, for which she had\n a particular dislike, on a following day. She dreamed that she had\n taken the abhorred dose. Influenced by this imaginary rhubarb, she\n waked up, and had five or six easy evacuations.'\n\n \"The same result is seen in a case reported by Demangeon.[25]\n 'A monk intended to purge himself on a certain morning. On the\n night previous he dreamed that he had taken the medicine, and\n consequently waked up to yield to nature's demands. He had eight\n movements.'\n\n \"But among all the moral causes which, appealing to the\n imagination, set the cerebral mechanism of possible causes at work,\n none is so efficacious as religious faith. Numbers of authentic\n cures have certainly been due to it.\n\n \"The Princess of Schwartzenburg had suffered for eight years from\n a paraplegia for which the most celebrated doctors in Germany and\n France had been consulted. In 1821 the Prince of Hohenlohe, who had\n been a priest since 1815, brought a peasant to the princess, who\n had convinced the young prince of the power of prayer in curing\n disease. The mechanical apparatus, which had been used by Dr. Heine\n for several months to overcome the contracture of the limbs, was\n removed. The prince asked the paralytic to join her faith both to\n his and the peasant's. 'Do you believe you are already helped?'\n 'Oh, yes, I believe so most sincerely!' 'Well, rise and walk.' At\n these words the princess rose and walked around the room several\n times, and tried going up and down stairs. The next day she went to\n church, and from this time on she had the use of her limbs.\"[26]\n\nBernheim then proceeds to give a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of some of the histories\nof cures which took place at Lourdes, where thousands flock annually\nto partake of the healing waters of the famous grotto. The history\nof that wonderful place is too well known to need repetition here.\nIt is sufficient to say that thousands of cures have been effected\nthere through prayer and religious faith, and the cures are as well\nauthenticated as any fact in history or science.\n\nThe most prominent and important methods of healing the sick now in\nvogue may be briefly summarized as follows:\n\n1. _Prayer and religious faith_, as exemplified in the cures performed\nat Lourdes and at other holy shrines. To this class also belong the\ncures effected by prayer alone, the system being properly known in this\ncountry as the Faith Cure and the Prayer Cure.\n\n2. _The Mind Cure_,--\"a professed method of healing which rests upon\nthe suppositions that all diseased states of the body are due to\nabnormal conditions of the mind, and that the latter (and thus the\nformer) can be cured by the direct action of the mind of the healer\nupon the mind of the patient.\"[27]\n\n3. _Christian Science._--This method of healing rests upon the\nassumption of the unreality of matter. This assumed as a major premise,\nit follows that our bodies are unreal, and, consequently, there is no\nsuch thing as disease, the latter existing only in the mind, which is\nthe only real thing in existence.\n\n4. _Spiritism_, which is a system of healing based on the supposed\ninterposition of spirits of the dead, operating directly, or indirectly\nthrough a medium, upon the patient.\n\n5. _Mesmerism._--This includes all the systems of healing founded on\nthe supposition that there exists in man a fluid which can be projected\nupon another, at the will of the operator, with the effect of healing\ndisease by the therapeutic action of the fluid upon the diseased\norganism.\n\n6. _Suggestive Hypnotism._--This method of healing rests upon the law\nthat persons in the hypnotic condition are constantly controllable by\nthe power of suggestion, and that by this means pain is suppressed,\nfunction modified, fever calmed, secretion and excretion encouraged,\netc., and thus nature, the healer, is permitted to do the work of\nrestoration.\n\nEach of these schools is subdivided into sects, entertaining modified\ntheories of causation, and employing modified processes of applying\nthe force at their command. There is but one thing common to them all,\nand that is that they all cure diseases.\n\nWe have, then, six different systems of psycho-therapeutics, based upon\nas many different theories, differing as widely as the poles, and each\npresenting indubitable evidence of being able to perform cures which in\nany age but the present would have been called miraculous.\n\nThe most obvious conclusion which strikes the scientific mind is that\nthere must be some underlying principle which is common to them all. It\nis the task of science to discover that principle.\n\nIt will now be in order to recall to the mind of the reader, once more,\nthe fundamental propositions of the hypothesis under consideration.\nThey are,--\n\nFirst, that man is possessed of two minds, which we have distinguished\nby designating one as the objective mind, and the other as the\nsubjective mind.\n\nSecondly, that the subjective mind is constantly amenable to control by\nthe power of suggestion.\n\nThese propositions having been established, at least provisionally,\nby the facts shown in the foregoing chapters, it now remains to\npresent a subsidiary proposition, which pertains to the subject of\npsycho-therapeutics, namely:--\n\n_The subjective mind has absolute control of the functions, conditions,\nand sensations of the body._\n\nThis proposition seems almost self-evident, and will receive the\ninstant assent of all who are familiar with the simplest phenomena of\nhypnotism. It is well known, and no one at all acquainted with hypnotic\nphenomena now disputes the fact, that perfect anesthesia can be\nproduced at the will of the operator simply by suggestion. Hundreds of\ncases are recorded where the most severe surgical operations have been\nperformed without pain upon patients in the hypnotic condition. The\nfact can be verified at any time by experiment on almost any hypnotic\nsubject, and in case of particularly sensitive subjects the phenomena\ncan be produced in the waking condition. How the subjective mind\ncontrols the functions and sensations of the body, mortal man may never\nknow. It is certain that the problem cannot be solved by reference to\nphysiology or cerebral anatomy. It is simply a scientific fact which we\nmust accept because it is susceptible of demonstration, and not because\nits ultimate cause can be explained.\n\nThe three foregoing fundamental propositions cover the whole domain of\npsycho-therapeutics, and constitute the basis of explanation of all\nphenomena pertaining thereto.\n\nIt seems almost superfluous to adduce facts to illustrate the wonderful\npower which the subjective mind possesses over the functions of the\nbody, beyond reminding the reader of the well-known facts above\nmentioned regarding the production of the phenomena of anesthesia by\nsuggestion. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that the production\nof anesthesia in a healthy subject is a demonstration of subjective\npower which implies far more than appears upon the surface. The normal\ncondition of the body is that of perfect health, with all the senses\nperforming their legitimate functions. The production of anesthesia\nin a normal organism is, therefore, the production of an abnormal\ncondition. On the other hand, the production of anesthesia in a\ndiseased organism implies the restoration of the normal condition,\nthat is, a condition of freedom from pain. In this, all the forces of\nnature unite to assist. And as every force in nature follows the lines\nof least resistance, it follows that it is much easier to cure diseases\nby mental processes than it is to create them; provided always that we\nunderstand the _modus operandi_.\n\nIt is well known that the symptoms of almost any disease can be induced\nin hypnotic subjects by suggestion. Thus, partial or total paralysis\ncan be produced; fever can be brought on, with all the attendant\nsymptoms, such as rapid pulse and high temperature, flushed face,\netc.; or chills, accompanied by a temperature abnormally low; or the\nmost severe pains can be produced in any part of the body or limbs.\nAll these facts are well known, and still more wonderful facts are\nstated in all the recent scientific works on hypnotism. For instance,\nBernheim states that he has been able to produce a blister on the back\nof a patient by applying a postage-stamp and suggesting to the patient\nthat it was a fly-plaster. This is confirmed by the experiments of Moll\nand many others, leaving no doubt of the fact that structural changes\nare a possible result of oral suggestion. On this subject Bernheim\nmakes the following observations:--\n\n \"Finally, hemorrhages and bloody stigmata may be induced in certain\n subjects by means of suggestion.\n\n \"MM. Bourru and Burot of Rochefort have experimented on this\n subject with a young marine, a case of hystero-epilepsy. M. Bourru\n put him into the somnambulistic condition, and gave him the\n following suggestion: 'At four o'clock this afternoon, after the\n hypnosis, you will come into my office, sit down in the arm-chair,\n cross your arms upon your breast, and your nose will begin to\n bleed.' At the hour appointed the young man did as directed.\n Several drops of blood came from the left nostril.\n\n \"On another occasion the same investigator traced the patient's\n name on both his forearms with the dull point of an instrument.\n Then, when the patient was in the somnambulistic condition, he\n said, 'At four o'clock this afternoon you will go to sleep, and\n your arms will bleed along the lines which I have traced, and your\n name will appear written on your arms in letters of blood.' He was\n watched at four o'clock and seen to fall asleep. On the left arm\n the letters stood out in bright red relief, and in several places\n there were drops of blood. The letters were still visible three\n months afterwards, although they had grown gradually faint.\n\n \"Dr. Mabille, director of the Insane Asylum at Lafond, near\n Rochelle, a former pupil of excellent standing, repeated the\n experiment made upon the subject at Rochefort, after he was removed\n to the asylum, and confirmed it. He obtained instant hemorrhage\n over a determined region of the body. He also induced an attack\n of spontaneous somnambulism, in which the patient, doubting his\n personality, so to speak, suggested to himself the hemorrhagic\n stigmata on the arm, thus repeating the marvellous phenomena of the\n famous stigmatized auto-suggestionist, Louis Lateau.\n\n \"These facts, then, seem to prove that suggestion may act upon\n the cardiac function and upon the vaso-motor system. Phenomena\n of this order, however, rarely occur. They are exceptional,\n and are obtained in certain subjects only. I have in vain tried\n to reproduce them in many cases. These facts are sufficient to\n prove, however, that when in a condition of special psychical\n concentration, the brain can influence even the organic functions,\n which in the normal state seem but slightly amenable to the\n will.\"[28]\n\nThese facts demonstrate at once the correctness of two of the\nfundamental propositions before stated; namely, the constant\namenability of the subjective mind to the power of suggestion, and the\nperfect control which the subjective mind exercises over the functions,\nsensations, and conditions of the body. All the foregoing phenomena\nrepresent abnormal conditions induced by suggestion, and are, as before\nstated, all the more conclusive proofs of the potency of the force\ninvoked.\n\nIf, therefore, there exists in man a power which, in obedience to the\nsuggestion of another, is capable of producing abnormal conditions in\ndefiance of the natural instincts and desires of all animal creation,\nhow much more potent must be a suggestion which operates in harmony\nwith the natural instinctive desire of the patient for the restoration\nof normal conditions, and with the constant effort of nature to\nbring about that result! At the risk of repetition, the self-evident\nproposition will be restated, that the instinct of self-preservation is\nthe strongest instinct of our nature, and constitutes a most potent,\never-present, and constantly operative auto-suggestion, inherent\nin our very nature. It is obvious that any outside suggestion must\noperate with all the greater potentiality when it is directed on\nlines in harmony with instinctive auto-suggestion. It follows that\nnormal conditions can be restored with greater ease and certainty,\nother things being equal, than abnormal conditions can be induced.\nAnd thus it is that by the practice of each of the various systems\nof psycho-therapeutics we find that the most marvellous cures are\neffected, and are again reminded of the words of Paracelsus: \"Whether\nthe object of your faith be real or false, you will nevertheless obtain\nthe same effects.\"\n\nThis brings us to the discussion of the essential mental\ncondition prerequisite to the success of every experiment in\npsycho-therapeutics,--faith.\n\nThat faith is the essential prerequisite to the successful exercise of\npsychic power is a proposition which has received the sanction of the\nconcurrent experience of all the ages. Christ himself did not hesitate\nto acknowledge his inability to heal the sick in the absence of that\ncondition precedent, which he held to be essential, not only to the\nenjoyment of the blessings which he so freely bestowed in this world,\nbut to the attainment of eternal life. \"Oh, ye of little faith,\" was\nhis reproof to his followers when they returned to him and announced\nthe decrease of their powers to heal the sick; thus proving that he\nregarded faith as an essential element of success, not only in the\npatient, but in the healer also.\n\nIf the Great Healer thus acknowledged a limitation of his powers, how\ncan we, his humble followers, hope to transcend the immutable law by\nwhich he was governed?\n\n\"Why is it that our belief has anything to do with the exercise of the\nhealing power?\" is a question often asked. To this the obvious and only\nreply is that the healing power, being a mental, or psychic, force,\nis necessarily governed by mental conditions. Just why faith is the\nnecessary mental attitude of the patient can never be answered until we\nare able to fathom the ultimate cause of all things. The experience of\nall the ages shows it to be a fact, and we must accept it as such, and\ncontent ourselves with an effort to ascertain its relations to other\nfacts, and, if possible, to define its limitations and ascertain the\nmeans of commanding it at will.\n\nIt is safe to say that the statement of the fact under consideration\nhas done more to retard the progress of the science of psychic healing\nthan all other things combined. The sceptic at once concludes that,\nwhatever good the system may do to credulous people, it can never be\nof benefit to him, because he \"does not believe in such things.\"\nAnd it is just here that the mistake is made,--a mistake that is\nmost natural in the present state of psychic knowledge, and one that\nis all but universal. It consists in the assumption that the faith\nof the objective mind has anything to do with the requisite mental\nattitude. The reader is again requested to call to mind the fundamental\npropositions of the hypothesis under discussion, namely, the dual\npersonality and the power of suggestion.\n\nIt follows from the propositions of our hypothesis, which need not be\nhere repeated at length, that the subjective mind of an individual is\nas amenable to control by the suggestions of his own objective mind as\nit is by the suggestions of another. The law is the same. It follows\nthat, whatever may be the objective belief of the patient, if he will\nassume to have faith, actively or passively, the subjective mind will\nbe controlled by the suggestion, and the desired result will follow.\n\n_The faith required for therapeutic purposes is a purely subjective\nfaith, and is attainable upon the cessation of active opposition on\nthe part of the objective mind._ And this is why it is that, under all\nsystems of mental therapeutics, the perfect passivity of the patient\nis insisted upon as the first essential condition. Of course, it is\ndesirable to secure the concurrent faith both of the objective and\nsubjective minds; but it is not essential, if the patient will in good\nfaith make the necessary auto-suggestion, as above mentioned, either in\nwords, or by submitting passively to the suggestions of the healer.\n\nIt is foreign to the purpose of this book to discuss at length the\nvarious systems of mental therapeutics further than is necessary for\nthe elucidation of our hypothesis. The theories upon which the several\nsystems are founded will not, therefore, be commented upon, _pro_\nor _con_, except where they furnish striking illustrations of the\nprinciples herein advanced.\n\nChristian science, so called, furnishes a very striking example of the\nprinciple involved in the proposition that the requisite subjective\nfaith may be acquired without the concurrence of objective belief, and\neven in defiance of objective reason. That system is based upon the\nassumption that matter has no real existence; consequently we have no\nbodies, and hence no disease of the body is possible. It is not known\nwhether the worthy lady founder of the school ever stopped to reduce\nher foundation principles to the form of a syllogism. It is presumed\nnot, for otherwise their intense, monumental, and aggressive absurdity\nwould have become as apparent to her as it is to others. Let us see how\nthey look in the form of a syllogism:--\n\nMatter has no existence. Our bodies are composed of matter. Therefore\nour bodies have no existence.\n\nIt follows, of course, that disease cannot exist in a non-existent body.\n\nThat the above embraces the basis of the system called Christian\nscience no one who has read the works of its founder will deny. Of\ncourse, no serious argument can be adduced against such a self-evident\nabsurdity. Nevertheless, there are two facts connected with this system\nwhich stand out in bold relief: One is that it numbers its followers\nby the hundred thousand; and the other is that the cures effected by\nits practitioners are of daily occurrence and of the most marvellous\ncharacter.\n\nThe first of these facts demonstrates the truth of the trite saying\nthat any system of belief, if earnestly advocated, will find plenty\nof followers. The second shows in the most conclusive manner that the\nfaith of the objective mind is not a necessary factor in the cure of\ndisease by psychic processes.\n\nIt seems obvious that no greater demand could be made upon the\nresources of our credulity than to tell us that all that is visible\nor tangible to our objective senses has no real existence. And yet\nthat is what the patient of Christian science is invited to believe\nas a condition precedent to his recovery. Of course he feels at first\nthat his intelligence is insulted, and he protests against such a\npalpable absurdity. But he is quieted by soothing words, and is told\nto get himself into a perfectly passive condition, to say nothing\nand to think of nothing for the time being. In some cases patients\nare advised to hold themselves in the mental attitude of denying the\npossible existence of disease. The essential condition of passivity\nbeing acquired by the patient, the healer also becomes passive, and\nassumes the mental attitude of denying the existence of disease in the\npatient,--or elsewhere, for that matter,--and affirms with constant\niteration the condition of perfect healthfulness. After a s\u00e9ance of\nthis kind, lasting perhaps half-an-hour, the patient almost inevitably\nfinds immense relief, and often feels himself completely restored to\nhealth. To say that the patient is surprised, is but feebly to convey\nhis impressions; he is confounded. The healer triumphantly asks, \"What\ndo you think of my theory now?\" It is of little use for him to reply\nthat he does not see that the theory is necessarily correct because he\nwas healed. Most likely he fails to think of that, in his gratitude for\nrestored health. But if he does, he is met by the triumphant response,\n\"By their fruits ye shall know them.\" To the average mind, untrained to\nhabits of logical reasoning, that settles the question; and Christian\nscience has scored a triumph and secured a follower. He may not be able\nto see quite clearly the logical sequences involved, he may be even\ndoubtful whether the theory is necessarily correct; but not being able\nto formulate his objections, he contents himself with the thought that\nhe is not yet far enough advanced in \"science\" to understand that which\nseems so clear to the mind of his teacher. In any event, he ceases\nto antagonize the theory by any process of reasoning, and eventually\nbelieves, objectively as well as subjectively, in the substantial\ncorrectness of the fundamental theory. In the mean time it is easy to\nsee that his subjective faith has been made perfect by his passivity\nunder treatment, and that his objective faith has been confirmed by his\nrestoration to health.\n\nIn all systems of healing, the processes, or rather the conditions, are\nessentially the same, the first essential condition, as before stated,\nbeing the perfect passivity and receptivity of the patient. That is\nalways insisted upon, and it is the essential prerequisite, be the\ntheory and method of operation what they may. The rest is accomplished\nby suggestion. Thus, the whole science of mental healing may be\nexpressed in two words,--passivity, and suggestion.\n\nBy passivity the patient becomes receptive of subjective impressions.\nHe becomes partially hypnotic, and sometimes wholly so. The more\nperfectly he is hypnotized, the surer the favorable result. But, in\nany case, perfect passivity is sure to bring about a good result.\nIn the Christian science methods the healer also becomes passive,\nand partially self-hypnotized. And this constitutes the difference\nbetween individual healers by that method. The more easily the healer\ncan hypnotize himself, and the more perfect that condition, the more\npowerful will be the effect on the patient. The reason is this:\nthe suggestions to the subjective mind of the patient are conveyed\ntelepathically from the subjective mind of the healer. In order to\nproduce that effect in perfection, it becomes necessary both for\npatient and healer to be in a partially hypnotic condition. The\ntwo subjective minds are then _en rapport_. The subjective mind of\nthe healer, being properly instructed beforehand, then conveys the\nnecessary suggestions to the subjective mind of the patient. The\nlatter, being necessarily controlled by such suggestion, exercises\nits functions in accordance therewith; and having absolute control of\nthe sensations, functions, and conditions of the body, it exercises\nthat control; and the result is that pain is relieved, and the normal\ncondition of health is restored.\n\nIt is not, however, always necessary that either the patient or the\nhealer should become even partially hypnotized, provided the requisite\nfaith or confidence is established in the subjective mind of the\npatient. In such a case, however, it requires a concurrence both of\nobjective and subjective faith to produce the best results.\n\nIt has been claimed by some mental healers that faith on the part of\nthe patient is not an essential prerequisite to successful healing.\nDoubtless some of the more ignorant ones believe that statement. But\nan observation of the methods of treatment employed by some who make\nthis claim leads one to suppose that the statement often made to their\npatients that faith is unnecessary is rather a cunning evasion of the\ntruth for the very purpose of inspiring faith. Thus, a patient enters\nthe sanctum of a mental healer, and begins by saying, \"I understand\nthat it is necessary that your patients have faith before they can be\nhealed. If that is the case, I never can be healed by mental treatment,\nfor I am utterly sceptical on the subject.\" To which the ready reply\nis, \"Faith is unnecessary under my system. I do not care what you\nbelieve, for I can heal you, however sceptical you may be.\" This is\ngenerally satisfactory to the sceptic. He brightens with hope, and\nsubmits to the treatment, full of the faith that he is to be healed\nwithout faith. It is superfluous to add that by this stroke of policy\nthe healer has inspired the patient with all the faith required,\nnamely, the faith of his subjective mind. I will not animadvert upon\nthe propriety of this course, though I cannot help but contrast it with\nthat of the Great Healer, who never descended to falsehood, even to the\nend that good might come. He always told his followers frankly that\nfaith was essential; and his words are as true to-day as they were when\nhe proclaimed to mankind that great secret of occult power. Jesus was\nthe first to proclaim the great law of faith; and when he uttered that\none word, he epitomized the whole science of psycho-therapeutics.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 24: Suggestive Therapeutics, p. 197.]\n\n[Footnote 25: De l'Imagination, 1879.]\n\n[Footnote 26: Charpignon.]\n\n[Footnote 27: Century Dictionary.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Suggestive Therapeutics, pp. 36, 37.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nPSYCHO-THERAPEUTICS (_continued_).\n\n Methods classified in Two Divisions.--Mental and Oral\n Suggestions.--Absent Treatment.--Christian Scientists\n handicapped by Absurd Theories.--They claim too much.--The Use\n of Drugs.--Dangers arising from too Radical Change.--Importance\n of Favorable Mental Environment.--Mental Healing requires\n Mental Conditions.--Treatment by Hypnotism.--Bernheim's\n Methods.--Illustrative Cases.--The Practical Value of the\n System.--The Illogical Limitations of the Theory.--Potency of\n Telepathic Suggestion.--Researches of the Society for Psychical\n Research.--Mr. Gurney's Experiments.--They demonstrate the Theory\n of Effluent Emanations.--Diagnosis by Intuition.--Potency of\n Mesmerism.--Permanency of Cures.--Conditions necessary.--The\n Example of Jesus.--Self-healing by Auto-suggestion.\n\n\nThe science of mental therapeutics may be classed in two general\ndivisions, which are distinguished by the different methods of\noperation. The same general principle underlies both, but the results\nare attained by different modes of procedure.\n\nThe first method is by passivity on the part of the patient, and mental\nsuggestion by the healer.\n\nThe second is by passivity on the part of the patient, and oral\nsuggestion by the healer.\n\nIn ordinary practice both methods are used; that is to say, the oral\nsuggestionist often unconsciously telepaths a mental suggestion to the\nsubjective mind of the patient. If he thoroughly believes the truth\nof his own suggestions, the telepathic effect is sure to follow, and\nalways to the manifest advantage of the patient. This is why it is that\nin all works on hypnotism and mesmerism the value and importance of\nself-confidence on the part of the healer, or, in other words, belief\nin his own suggestions, is so strenuously insisted upon. Practice and\nexperience have demonstrated the fact, but no writer on the subject\nattempts to give a scientific explanation of it. But when it is known\nthat telepathy is the normal method of communication between subjective\nminds, and that in healing by mental processes it is constantly\nemployed, consciously or unconsciously to the persons, the explanation\nis obvious.\n\nAgain, where mental suggestion is chiefly relied upon, the healer\nusually begins operations by making oral suggestions. Thus, the\nChristian scientist begins by carefully educating his patient in the\nfundamental doctrines of the school, and explaining the effects which\nare expected to follow the treatment. The mind is thus prepared by\noral suggestions to receive the necessary mental impressions when the\ntreatment proper begins. The most effective method of healing employed\nby that school consists in what it denominates \"absent treatment.\"\nThis is effected by purely telepathic means. The patient is absent,\nand often knows nothing, objectively, of what is being done for him.\nThe healer sits alone and becomes passive; or, in other words, becomes\npartially self-hypnotized, and addresses the patient mentally, and\nproceeds to argue the question with him. The condition of health is\nstrongly asserted and insisted upon, and the possibility of disease\nas strenuously denied. The advantages of this means of treatment are\nobvious. The telepathic suggestions are made solely to the subjective\nmind of the patient, and do not rise above the threshold of his\nconsciousness. The subjective mind, being constantly amenable to\ncontrol by the power of suggestion, accepts the suggestions offered,\nand, having in its turn perfect control of the functions and conditions\nof the body, it proceeds to re-establish the condition of health.\nIn other words, it abandons the abnormal idea of disease; and, in\nobedience to the telepathic suggestions of the healer, it seizes upon\nthe normal idea of health. It will readily be seen that by this method\nof treatment the patient is placed in the best possible condition for\nthe reception of healthful suggestions. He is necessarily in a passive\ncondition. That is, being unconscious, objectively, of the mental\nsuggestions which are being made to his subjective mind, he is not\nhandicapped by antagonistic auto-suggestions arising from objective\ndoubt of the power of the healer, or of the correctness of his\ntheories. The latter is the most serious obstacle which the Christian\nscientist has to contend with; and it is safe to say that if his school\nhad not been handicapped by a theory which shocks the common-sense of\nthe average man, its sphere of usefulness would have been much larger\nthan it is now. The school is doing a great and noble work as it is,\nbut it is chiefly among those who are credulous enough to disbelieve\nthe evidence of their own senses. There is, however, a large and\ngrowing class of people, calling themselves Christian scientists, who\nignore the fundamental absurdities of the theory of the founder of\nthe sect, and content themselves with the knowledge that the practice\nproduces good results. Each one of these formulates a theory of his\nown, and each one finds that, measured by the standard of results, his\ntheory is correct. The obvious conclusion is that one theory is as good\nas another, provided always that the mode of operation under it does\nnot depart, in any essential particular, from the standard, and that\nthe operator has the requisite faith in his own theory and practice.\n\nAnother circumstance which handicaps the enthusiastic votaries of\neach of the schools consists in the tendency of all reformers to\nclaim too much for their systems. Forgetting that they have to deal\nwith a generation of people with a hereditary belief in the power of\nmedicines to cure disease, a people whose habits of life and thought\nare materialistic to the last degree, they expect to change that\nbelief instantaneously, and cause the new method to take the place\nof the old in all cases and under all circumstances. In other words,\nthey expect to cure all diseases by mental methods alone, and they\nseek to prohibit their patients from employing any other physician\nor using any medicines whatever. This is wrong in theory and often\ndangerous in practice. It may be true, and doubtless is, that one\ngreat source of the power of drugs to heal disease is attributable\nto the mental impression created upon the mind of the patient at\nthe time the drug is administered. This being true, it follows that\nwhen a patient believes in drugs, drugs should be administered. If\nChristian science or any other mental method of healing can then be\nmade available as an auxiliary, it should be employed. But this is just\nwhat the ultra-reformers refuse to do. They insist upon the discharge\nof the family physician, and the destruction of all the medicines\nin the house, before they will undertake to effect a cure by mental\nprocesses. It frequently happens that the patient is not sufficiently\nwell grounded in the new faith, or is afflicted with some disease not\nreadily reached by mental processes, and dies on their hands, when\nperhaps he might have been saved by the combined efforts of the family\ndoctor and the Christian scientist. Be that as it may, when the patient\ndies under such circumstances, the Christian scientist must needs bear\nthe brunt of popular condemnation. It goes without saying that one\nsuch case does more to retard the progress of mental therapeutics in\npopular estimation than a thousand miraculous cures can do to promote\nit. Again, much harm is done to the cause of mental healing by claiming\nfor it too wide a field of usefulness. Theoretically, all the diseases\nwhich flesh is heir to are curable by mental processes. Practically,\nthe range of its usefulness is comparatively limited. The lines of its\nfield are not clearly defined, however, for the reason that so much\ndepends on the idiosyncrasies of each individual patient. A disease\nwhich can be cured in one case refuses to yield in another, the mental\nattitudes of the patients not being the same. Besides, the mental\nenvironment of the patient has much to do with his amenability to\ncontrol by mental processes. In an atmosphere of incredulity, doubt,\nand prejudice, a patient stands little chance of being benefited,\nhowever strong may be his own faith in mental therapeutics. Every\ndoubt existing in the minds of those surrounding him is inevitably\nconveyed telepathically to his subjective mind, and operates as an\nadverse suggestion of irresistible potentiality. It requires a very\nstrong will, perfect faith, and constant affirmative auto-suggestion\non the part of the patient to overcome the adverse influence of an\nenvironment of incredulity and doubt, even though no word of that doubt\nis expressed in presence of the patient. It goes without saying that\nit is next to impossible for a sick person to possess the necessary\nmental force to overcome such adverse conditions. Obviously, the mental\nhealer who undertakes a case under such circumstances, procures the\ndischarge of the family physician, and prohibits the patient from using\nmedicines, assumes a very grave responsibility, and does so at the risk\nof the patient's life and his own reputation.\n\nSuccess in mental healing depends upon proper mental conditions, just\nas success in healing by physical agencies depends upon proper physical\nconditions. This is a self-evident proposition, which the average\nmental healer is slow to understand and appreciate.\n\nThe success of the physician depends as largely upon his knowledge\nof the idiosyncrasies of his patient, his personal habits, his mode\nof living, his susceptibility to the influence of medicines, etc.,\nas upon a correct diagnosis and medicinal treatment of the disease.\nIn like manner the success of the mental healer depends largely upon\nhis knowledge of his patient's habits of thought, his beliefs, his\nprejudices, and, above all, his mental environment.\n\nThese remarks apply to all methods of mental healing; and, for\nthe purposes of this book, Christian science may be taken as a\nrepresentative of all systems of healing by mental suggestion, as\ndistinguished from oral suggestion.\n\nHypnotism, as practised by the Nancy school, may stand as the\nrepresentative of mental treatment of disease by purely oral\nsuggestion. The following extract from Professor Bernheim's able work\non \"Suggestive Therapeutics\" (chapter i.) embraces the essential\nfeatures of the methods of inducing sleep practised by that school:\n\n \"I begin by saying to the patient that I believe benefit is to\n be derived from the use of suggestive therapeutics; that it is\n possible to cure or to relieve him by hypnotism; that there is\n nothing either hurtful or strange about it; that it is an _ordinary\n sleep_, or torpor, which can be induced in every one, and that this\n quiet, beneficial condition restores the equilibrium of the nervous\n system, etc. If necessary, I hypnotize one or two subjects in his\n presence, in order to show him that there is nothing painful in\n this condition, and that it is not accompanied with any unusual\n sensation. When I have thus banished from his mind the idea of\n magnetism and the somewhat mysterious fear that attaches to that\n unknown condition, above all when he has seen patients cured or\n benefited by the means in question, he is no longer suspicious, but\n gives himself up. Then I say, 'Look at me, and think of nothing\n but sleep. Your eyelids begin to feel heavy, your eyes tired. They\n begin to wink, they are getting moist, you cannot see distinctly.\n They are closed.' Some patients close their eyes and are asleep\n immediately. With others, I have to repeat, lay more stress on\n what I say, and even make gestures. It makes little difference\n what sort of gesture is made. I hold two fingers of my right hand\n before the patient's eyes and ask him to look at them, or pass both\n hands several times before his eyes, or persuade him to fix his\n eyes upon mine, endeavoring, at the same time, to concentrate his\n attention upon the idea of sleep. I say, 'Your lids are closing,\n you cannot open them again. Your arms feel heavy, so do your\n legs. You cannot feel anything. Your hands are motionless. You\n see nothing, you are going to sleep.' And I add, in a commanding\n tone, 'Sleep.' This word often turns the balance. The eyes close,\n and the patient sleeps, or is at least influenced. I use the word\n 'sleep,' in order to obtain as far as possible over the patients\n a suggestive influence which shall bring about sleep, or a state\n closely approaching it; for sleep, properly so called, does not\n always occur. If the patients have no inclination to sleep, and\n show no drowsiness, I take care to say that sleep is not essential;\n that the hypnotic influence, whence comes the benefit, may exist\n without sleep; that many patients are hypnotized, although they do\n not sleep.\n\n \"If the patient does not shut his eyes or keep them shut, I do\n not require them to be fixed on mine, or on my fingers, for any\n length of time, for it sometimes happens that they remain wide open\n indefinitely, and instead of the idea of sleep being conceived,\n only a rigid fixation of the eyes results. In this case, closure\n of the eyes by the operator succeeds better. After keeping them\n fixed one or two minutes, I push the eyelids down, or stretch them\n slowly over the eyes, gradually closing them more and more, and\n so imitating the process of natural sleep. Finally, I keep them\n closed, repeating the suggestion, 'Your lids are stuck together,\n you cannot open them. The need of sleep becomes greater and\n greater, you can no longer resist.' I lower my voice gradually,\n repeating the command, 'Sleep,' and it is very seldom that more\n than three minutes pass before sleep or some degree of hypnotic\n influence is obtained. It is sleep by suggestion,--a type of sleep\n which I insinuate into the brain.\n\n \"Passes or gazing at the eyes or fingers of the operator are only\n useful in concentrating the attention; they are not absolutely\n essential.\n\n \"As soon as they are able to pay attention and understand, children\n are, as a rule, very quickly and very easily hypnotized. It often\n suffices to close their eyes, to hold them shut a few moments, to\n tell them to sleep, and then to state that they are asleep.\n\n \"Some adults go to sleep just as readily by simple closure of the\n eyes. I often proceed immediately, without making use of passes\n or fixation, by shutting the eyelids, gently holding them closed,\n asking the patient to keep them together, and suggesting at the\n same time the phenomena of sleep. Some of them fall rapidly into a\n more or less deep sleep. Others offer more resistance. I sometimes\n succeed by keeping the eyes closed for some time, commanding\n silence and quiet, talking continuously, and repeating the same\n formulas: 'You feel a sort of drowsiness, a torpor; your arms and\n legs are motionless. Your eyelids are warm. Your nervous system is\n quiet; you have no will. Your eyes remain closed. Sleep is coming.'\n etc. After keeping up this auditory suggestion for several minutes,\n I remove my fingers. The eyes remain closed. I raise the patient's\n arms; they remain uplifted. We have induced cataleptic sleep.\"\n\nHaving succeeded in inducing sleep, or getting the patient in a passive\nand receptive condition, the operator then proceeds to suggest the\nidea of recovery from the disease with which he is afflicted. On this\nsubject the author speaks as follows:--\n\n \"_The patient is put to sleep by means of suggestion_; that is, by\n making the idea of sleep penetrate the mind. He is _treated by\n means of suggestion_; that is, by making the idea of cure penetrate\n the mind. The subject being hypnotized, M. Li\u00e9bault's method\n consists in _affirming in a loud voice the disappearance of his\n symptoms_.\n\n \"We try to make him believe that these symptoms no longer exist,\n or that they will disappear, the pain will vanish; that the\n feeling will come back to his limbs; that the muscular strength\n will increase; and that his appetite will come back. We profit\n by the special psychical receptivity created by the hypnosis, by\n the cerebral docility, by the exalted ideo-motor, ideo-sensitive,\n ideo-sensorial reflex activity, in order to provoke useful\n reflexes, to persuade the brain to do what it can to transform the\n accepted idea into reality.\n\n \"Such is the method of therapeutic-suggestion of which M. Li\u00e9bault\n is the founder. He was the first clearly to establish that the\n cures obtained by the old magnetizers, and even by Braid's hypnotic\n operations, are not the work either of a mysterious fluid or of\n physiological modifications due to special manipulations, but the\n work of suggestion alone. The whole system of magnetic medicine is\n only the medicine of the imagination; the imagination is put into\n such a condition by the hypnosis that it cannot escape from the\n suggestion.\n\n \"M. Li\u00e9bault's method was ignored a long time, even by the\n physicians at Nancy. In 1884 Charles Richet was satisfied to\n say that magnetism often has advantages, that it calms nervous\n agitation, and that it may cure or benefit certain insomnias.\n\n \"Since 1882 I have experimented with the suggestive method which I\n have seen used by M. Li\u00e9bault, though timidly at first, and without\n any confidence. To-day it is daily used in my clinic; I practise it\n before my students; perhaps no day passes in which I do not show\n them some functional trouble, pain, paresis, uneasiness, insomnia,\n either moderated or instantly suppressed by suggestion.\n\n \"For example: a child is brought to me with a pain like muscular\n rheumatism in its arm, dating back four or five days. The arm is\n painful to pressure; the child cannot lift it to its head. I say\n to him, 'Shut your eyes, my child, and go to sleep.' I hold his\n eyelids closed, and go on talking to him. 'You are asleep, and you\n will keep on sleeping until I tell you to wake up. You are sleeping\n very well, as if you were in your bed. You are perfectly well and\n comfortable; your arms and legs and your whole body are asleep,\n and you cannot move.' I take my fingers off his eyelids, and\n they remain closed; I put his arms up, and they remain so. Then,\n touching the painful arm, I say, 'The pain has gone away. You have\n no more pain anywhere; you can move your arm without any pain; and\n when you wake up you will not feel any more pain. It will not come\n back any more.' In order to increase the force of the suggestion by\n embodying it, so to speak, in a material sensation, following M.\n Li\u00e9bault's example I suggest a feeling of warmth _loco dolente_.\n The heat takes the place of the pain. I say to the child, 'You feel\n that your arm is warm; the warmth increases, and you have no more\n pain.'\n\n \"I wake the child in a few minutes; he remembers nothing; the sleep\n has been profound. The pain has almost completely disappeared; the\n child lifts the arm easily to his head. I see the father on the\n days following: he is the postman who brings my letters. He tells\n me that the pain has disappeared completely, and there has been no\n return of it.\n\n \"Here, again, is a man twenty-six years old, a workman in the\n foundries. For a year he has experienced a painful feeling of\n constriction over the epigastrium, also a pain in the corresponding\n region of the back, which was the result of an effort made in\n bending an iron bar. The sensation is continuous, and increases\n when he has worked for some hours. For six months he has been\n able to sleep only by pressing his epigastrium with his hand.\n I hypnotize him. In the first s\u00e9ance I can induce only simple\n drowsiness; he wakes spontaneously; the pain continues. I hypnotize\n him a second time, telling him that he will sleep more deeply,\n and that he will remember nothing when he wakes. Catalepsy is not\n present. I wake him in a few minutes; he does not remember that I\n spoke to him, that I assured him that the pain had disappeared. It\n has completely disappeared; he no longer feels any constriction. I\n do not know whether it has reappeared.\"[29]\n\nThe foregoing extracts present the gist of the methods employed by the\nNancy school of hypnotism. The hypnotic condition is induced solely by\noral suggestion, and the disease is removed by the same means. There\ncan be no doubt of the efficacy of the method, thousands of successful\nexperiments having been made by the author and his colleagues. These\nexperiments have demonstrated the existence of a power in man to\ncontrol by purely mental processes,--the functions and conditions of\nthe human body. They have thus laid the foundation of a system of\nmental therapeutics which must eventually prove of great value to\nmankind. But they have done more. They have demonstrated a principle\nwhich reaches out far beyond the realm of therapeutics, and covers all\nthe vast field of psychological research. They have demonstrated the\nconstant amenability of the subjective mind to control by the power\nof suggestion. It is not surprising that those who have discovered\nthis great principle should insist upon its applicability to every\nphenomenon within the range of their investigations; but it is strange\nthat they should fail to recognize a co-ordinate power governed by\nthe same law, within the same field of operations. Yet this is true\nof the modern scientific school of hypnotism to-day. The Nancy school\nbelieves in the power of suggestion, but confines its faith to oral\nsuggestion. Having demonstrated that _oral_ suggestion is efficacious\nin the production of psychic phenomena, they hold that _mental_\nsuggestion has no power in the same direction. Having demonstrated that\ncertain phenomena can be induced independently of any so-called fluidic\nemanation or effluence from the hypnotist, they hold that no fluidic\nemanation is possible. These conclusions are not only illogical, they\nare demonstrably incorrect. The Christian scientists are constantly\ndemonstrating the potency of purely telepathic suggestion by what\nthey denominate \"absent treatment;\" _i.e._, treatment of sick persons\nwithout the knowledge of the patients. That there is a power emanating\nfrom the operator who hypnotizes by means of mesmeric passes, seems\nto be very well authenticated by the experiments recorded by the\nold mesmerists. It must be admitted, however, that many of their\nexperiments do not conclusively prove anything, for the reason that\nthey were made before suggestion as a constant factor in hypnotism had\nbeen demonstrated. Recent experiments by members of the London Society\nfor Psychical Research have, however, now placed that question beyond\na doubt. Their methods of investigation are purely scientific, and\nwere made with a full knowledge and appreciation of the principle of\nsuggestion, and of the distinction between mesmerism and hypnotism.\n\nIn an account of some experiments in mesmerism, written by Mr. Edmund\nGurney, and recorded in vol. ii. pp. 201-205, of the Proceedings of the\nSociety referred to, a very interesting experiment is mentioned, which\ndemonstrates the fact that there is an effluence emanating from the\nmesmerizer which is capable of producing very marked physical effects\nupon the subject. In this case the subject was blindfolded and allowed\nto remain in his normal condition during the whole of the experiment.\nHis hands were then spread out upon a table before him, his fingers\nwide apart. The mesmerizer then made passes over one of the fingers,\ntaking care not to move his hand near enough to the subject's finger\nto cause a perceptible movement of the atmosphere, or to give any\nindication in any other way which finger was being mesmerized. The\nresult was, in every instance, the production of local an\u00e6sthesia in\nthe finger operated upon, and in no other.\n\nOral suggestion, or any other form of physical suggestion, was here out\nof the question; and telepathic suggestion was extremely improbable,\nin view of the fact that the subject was in his normal condition, and\nconsequently not in subjective rapport with the operator. A further\nexperiment was then tried, with a view of ascertaining whether it was\nnecessary for the mesmerist to know which finger he was operating upon.\nTo that end, the operator's hand was guided by the hand of a third\nparty while the passes were being made; and it was found that the\nselected finger was unaffected, when the operator did not know which\none it was.\n\nThe first of these experiments demonstrates the fact that there is an\neffluence emanating from the mesmerist; and the second demonstrates the\nfact that this effluence is directed by his will.\n\nWhat this effluence is, man may never know. That it is a vital fact in\npsychic phenomena is certain. Like many other subtle forces of nature,\nit defies analysis. That it exists, and that under certain conditions\nnot yet very clearly defined it can be controlled by the conscious\nintelligence of man, is as certain as the existence of electricity. Its\nsource is undoubtedly the subjective mind, and it is identical with\nthat force which, under other conditions, reappears in the form of\nso-called spirit-rappings, table-tipping, etc.\n\nSpace will not permit the reproduction of further account of the\nexperiments of the Society for Psychical Research and the reader is\nreferred to their Proceedings for fuller information. It must suffice\nto say that the experiments referred to are completely demonstrative,\nnot only of the fact that an effluence does emanate from the mesmeric\noperator, but that under mesmeric conditions telepathic suggestion is\nas potent as are the oral suggestions of the hypnotists.\n\nThese facts are beginning to be recognized even by the scientists of\nEurope, thanks to the carefully conducted experiments of the Society\nfor Psychical Research. Professor Li\u00e9bault himself, the discoverer\nof the law of suggestion, now freely admits the fact that a specific\ninfluence is sometimes exerted by the mesmerizer upon his subject,\nwhich does not arise from oral suggestion. In fact, this doctrine must\nsoon be, if it is not now, one of the recognized principles of psychic\nscience.\n\nIt will thus be seen that healing by mesmerism is a process clearly\ndistinct from healing by hypnotism. The latter depends for its\neffects wholly upon oral suggestion and the unaided power of the\nsubjective mind of the patient over the functions and conditions of\nhis body; whereas the mesmeric healer exerts a positive force of great\npotentiality upon the body of the patient, filling it with vitality, in\naddition to the oral suggestion of the hypnotist. Not only so, but when\npurely mesmeric methods are employed,--that is, when the mesmerist is\nin subjective rapport with his patient, as fully explained in a former\nchapter,--he is in a condition to convey suggestions telepathically\nwith as much certainty and potency as he could orally. In point of\nfact, telepathic suggestions by a genuine mesmerist are often far more\nefficacious than the oral suggestions of a hypnotist, for the simple\nreason that the mesmerist, being in a partially subjective condition\nhimself, is able to perceive by intuition the true condition of the\npatient. In other words, the intuitive, or subjective, diagnosis of an\nintelligent mesmerist, supposing always the true mesmeric conditions\nto be present, is far more likely to be correct than the objective\ndiagnosis of the hypnotist. For, be it known, it is just as necessary\nfor the mental healer, whatever may be his processes or his theory,\nto be able to make a correct diagnosis of a case as it is for the\nallopathic physician. The reason is the same in both cases. The efforts\nof the healer must necessarily be exerted in the right direction, or\nthey will be futile. Hence it is that, other things being equal, the\nmost intelligent mental healer is always the most successful.\n\nTaking it for granted, then, that there is a fluidic emanation, or\neffluence, proceeding from the mesmerist and impinging upon the\npatient, it follows that there is a positive dynamic force exerted\nupon the patient, either for good or evil, by the employment of\nmesmeric methods. That its effects are salutary when properly used for\ntherapeutic purposes is proved by the concurrent testimony of all who\nhave intelligently made the experiment, from the days of Paracelsus\ndown to the present time.\n\nFrom this it would appear that mesmerism must be the most powerful, in\nits immediate effects, of any of the known methods of mental healing.\nIt combines oral suggestion with mental suggestion, and employs in\naddition that mysterious psycho-physical force, or effluence, popularly\nknown as animal magnetism.\n\nBefore leaving this branch of the subject, a few remarks will be in\norder regarding the relative value of the different systems of mental\nhealing now in vogue. It has frequently been charged that healing\nby hypnotism and mesmerism is not lasting in its effects,--that no\npermanent cure is ever made by these methods. It must be admitted that\nthere is some ground for these statements, although so sweeping a\ncharge is by no means justifiable. It is true that in many instances\npatients who have been cured by hypnotism and mesmerism have suffered\na relapse, and in some cases the relapse has been worse than was the\noriginal sickness. This of itself constitutes no valid objection to\nthe means of cure; for it must be admitted that under no system of\ntreatment is a patient free from the danger of a relapse or of a\nrecurrence of the disease at some future time. There is, however, this\nto be said in regard to hypnotic or mesmeric treatment which does not\napply with the same force to healing by medicines. The success of\nmental methods of treatment depending, as it does, upon the mental\ncondition of the patient and upon the mental impressions made upon\nhim, it follows that if the mental impressions are not permanent, the\ncure may not be permanent. Hence it often happens that a patient,\nelated by the success of hypnotic treatment in his case, relates the\ncircumstances to his friends, especially to his sceptical associates,\nonly to meet with a storm of ridicule, or at least with expressions\nof incredulity or doubt. In such a mental environment his subjective\nmind inevitably takes hold of the adverse suggestions, and without\nbeing objectively conscious of it, he has lost faith, the citadel of\nhis defence is broken down, and if his disease had a mental origin,\nhe is open to another attack more severe and serious perhaps than the\nfirst. That Christ was fully alive to this danger is shown by the fact\nthat when he healed a person in private, he rarely failed to place the\nsolemn injunction upon him, \"See thou tell no man.\" No recorded words\nthat the Master ever uttered display a more profound knowledge of the\nunderlying principles of mental healing than these. Modern healers\nare not so modest, nor do they seem to understand the prime necessity\nfor seeing to it that their patients are kept in a proper frame of\nmind in reference to their disease and the means employed to cure\nthem. The general principle of auto-suggestion is recognized by all\nscientific hypnotists of the present day; but they fail to recognize\nits extreme importance as a therapeutic agent. Properly understood\nand applied, auto-suggestion supplies a means of enabling every one\nto heal himself, or at least to hold himself in the proper mental\nattitude to make permanent the good effects of hypnotic treatment by\nothers. Many of the pains and ills to which the average man is subject\ncan be cured by this means, and it should be the first care of every\nhypnotist to instruct his patients in this branch of the science.\nIn this respect the Christian scientists are far in advance of the\nhypnotists and mesmerists. They teach their patients how to help\nthemselves. They organize them into classes, deliver lectures, and give\nminute instructions how to treat themselves, as well as how to treat\nothers. Without knowing it, they in effect teach their patients the\nmethods of auto-suggestion. Without having the remotest conception of\nthe real principles which underlie their so-called \"science,\" they have\nsomehow stumbled upon the machinery of mental therapeutics. To do them\nfull justice, it must be said that they employ the machinery to good\npurpose. They do much good and little harm, and the little harm they\ndo, generally arises from over confidence in the universal efficacy of\ntheir methods.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 29: Suggestive Therapeutics, p. 206.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nA NEW SYSTEM OF MENTAL THERAPEUTICS.\n\n Telepathy the Normal Means of Communication between\n Subjective Minds.--Perfect Passivity required for Therapeutic\n Suggestions.--Natural Sleep the most Perfect State of\n Passivity.--Hypnotic Sleep and Natural Sleep identical.--Phenomena\n of Dreams.--Subjective Mind controllable by Suggestion during\n Natural Sleep.--Illustrative Incidents.--Passivity a Necessity on\n the Part of the Operator.--The Subjective Mind can be caused to\n convey Telepathic Messages during Sleep.--Illustrative Experiments.\n\n\nThe science of psycho-therapeutics is yet in its infancy. Thus far just\nenough has been learned to stimulate research. It has been demonstrated\nthat there is a psychic power inherent in man which can be employed for\nthe amelioration of his own physical condition, as well as that of his\nfellows. When this is said, nearly all the ground covered by present\nknowledge has been embraced. It is true that many wonderful cures have\nbeen effected, many marvellous phenomena developed. Nevertheless, all\nare groping in the dark, with only an occasional glimmering of distant\nlight shed upon the subject; and this light serves principally to show\nhow little is now known, compared with what there is yet to learn.\n\nIn one view of the situation, however, it may be said that much has\nalready been accomplished. In the conflict of theoretical discussion,\nand by means of the various and seemingly conflicting methods of\noperation, certain laws have been discovered which may serve as a basis\nfor new experiments and new discoveries. It is the province of science\nto collate those laws and to classify the facts whereever found, and\nfrom them to try to reason up to the general principles involved. When\nthis is done, fearlessly and conscientiously, a decided step in advance\nwill have been made. Some new law may then be discovered, or at least\nsome new method of operation may be developed, which shall add to the\ngeneral stock of knowledge of the science, and enlarge its field of\nusefulness.\n\nIt is the object of the writer to offer a few observations in this\nchapter, in a direction believed to be substantially new, and briefly\nto present some conclusions at which he has arrived from a careful\nexamination of premises which seem to have been well established by the\nexperiments of others. Before doing so it will be necessary first to\nstate the premises upon which the conclusions are based; and in doing\nthis, care will be taken not to travel outside of well-authenticated\nexperiments.\n\nThe first proposition is, that there is inherent in mankind the\npower to communicate thoughts to others independently of objective\nmeans of communication. The truth of this general proposition has\nbeen so thoroughly demonstrated by the experiments of members of the\nLondon Society for Psychical Research that time and space will not\nbe wasted in its further elucidation. For a full treatment of the\nsubject the reader is referred to \"Phantasms of the Living,\" in which\nthe results of the researches of that Society are ably set forth\nby Messrs. Edmund Gurney, F.W. H. Myers, and Frank Podmore. It is\nhardly necessary to remind the intelligent reader that the methods\nof investigation employed by these able and indefatigable laborers\nin the field of psychical research are purely scientific, and their\nworks are singularly free from manifestations of prejudice or of\nunreasoning scepticism on the one hand, and of credulity on the other.\nIt is confidently assumed, therefore, that the power of telepathic\ncommunication is as thoroughly established as any fact in nature.\n\nNow, telepathy is primarily the communion of subjective minds, or\nrather it is the normal means of communication between subjective\nminds. The reason of the apparent rarity of its manifestation is\nthat it requires exceptional conditions to bring its results above\nthe threshold of consciousness. There is every reason to believe that\nthe souls, or subjective minds, of men can and do habitually hold\ncommunion with one another when not the remotest perception of the fact\nis communicated to the objective intelligence. It may be that such\ncommunion is not general among men; but it is certain that it is held\nbetween those who, from any cause, are _en rapport_. The facts recorded\nby the Society for Psychical Research demonstrate that proposition.\nThus, near relatives are oftenest found to be in communion, as is\nshown by the comparative frequency of telepathic communications\nbetween relatives, giving warning of sickness or of death. Next in\nfrequency are communications between intimate friends. Communications\nof this character between comparative strangers are apparently rare.\nOf course the only means we have of judging of these things is by the\nrecord of those cases in which the communications have been brought to\nthe objective consciousness of the percipients. From these cases it\nseems fair to infer that the subjective minds of those who are deeply\ninterested in one another are in habitual communion, especially when\nthe personal interest or welfare of either agent or percipient is at\nstake. Be this as it may, it is certain that telepathic communication\ncan be established at will by the conscious effort of one or both of\nthe parties, even between strangers. The experiments of the Society\nabove named have demonstrated this fact. It will be assumed, therefore,\nfor the purposes of this argument that telepathic communion can be\nestablished between two subjective minds at the will of either. The\nfact may not be perceived by the subject, for it may not rise above the\nthreshold of his objective consciousness. But for therapeutic purposes\nit is not necessary that the patient should know, objectively, that\nanything is being done for him. Indeed, it is often better that he\nshould not know it, for reasons set forth in a former chapter.\n\nThe second proposition is that a state of perfect passivity on the part\nof the percipient is the most favorable condition for the reception\nof telepathic impressions or communications. It needs no argument to\nestablish the truth of this proposition. It is universally known to be\ntrue, by all who have given the slightest attention to psychological\nscience, that passivity on the part of the subject is the primary\ncondition necessary for the production of any psychic phenomenon.\nPassivity simply means the suspension of the functions of the objective\nmind for the time being, for the purpose of allowing the subjective\nmind to receive impressions and to act upon them. The more perfectly\nthe objective intelligence can be held in abeyance, the more perfectly\nwill the subjective mind perform its functions. This is why a state\nof profound hypnotism is the most favorable for the reception of\nsuggestions, either oral or mental. That this is more especially true\nof mental suggestions is shown by all experiments in mesmerism. It may,\ntherefore, be safely assumed that the most favorable condition in which\na patient can be placed for the reception of telepathic suggestions\nfor therapeutic purposes is the condition wherein the functions of his\nobjective intelligence are, for the time being, entirely suspended.\n\nThe third proposition is that _there is nothing to differentiate\nhypnotic sleep from natural sleep_. Startling as this proposition may\nappear to the superficial observer, it is fully concurred in both by M.\nLi\u00e9bault and Professor Bernheim.\n\n \"There is no fundamental difference,\" says the latter,[30] \"between\n spontaneous and induced sleep. M. Li\u00e9bault has very wisely\n established this fact. The spontaneous sleeper is in relationship\n with himself alone; the idea which occupies his mind just before\n going to sleep, the impressions which the sensitive and sensorial\n nerves of the periphery continue to transmit to the brain, and the\n stimuli coming from the viscera, become the point of departure for\n the incoherent images and impressions which constitute dreams. Have\n those who deny the psychical phenomena of hypnotism, or who only\n admit them in cases of diseased nervous temperament, ever reflected\n upon what occurs in normal sleep, in which the best-balanced mind\n is carried by the current, in which the faculties are dissociated,\n in which the most singular ideas and the most fantastic conceptions\n obtrude? Poor human reason is carried away, the proudest mind\n yields to hallucinations, and during this sleep--that is to say,\n during a quarter of its existence--becomes the plaything of the\n dreams which imagination calls forth.\n\n \"In induced sleep the subject's mind retains the memory of the\n person who has put him to sleep, whence the hypnotizer's power\n of playing upon his imagination, of suggesting dreams, and of\n directing the acts which are no longer controlled by the weakened\n or absent will.\"\n\nThere are, in fact, many analogies between the phenomena of normal\nsleep and the phenomena of hypnotism. For instance, it is well known\nthat the recollection of what occurred during hypnotic sleep is in\nexact inverse proportion to the depth of the sleep. If the sleep\nis light, the remembrance of the subject is perfect. If the sleep\nis profound, he remembers nothing, no matter what the character of\nthe scenes he may have passed through. The same is true of dreams.\nWe remember only those dreams which occur during the period when we\nare just going to sleep or are just awakening. Profound sleep is\ndreamless, so far as the recollection of the sleeper informs him.\nNevertheless, it is certain that we dream continuously during sleep.\nThe subjective mind is ever awake during the sleep of the body, and\nalways active. Our dreams are often incoherent and absurd, for the\nreason that they are generally invoked by peripheral impressions.\nThese impressions constitute suggestions which the subjective mind, in\nobedience to the universal law, accepts as true; and it always deduces\nthe legitimate conclusions therefrom. For instance, it is probably\nwithin the experience of every reader that an accidental removal of\nthe bed-clothing during a cold night will cause the sleeper to dream\nof wading through snow, or of sleigh-riding. And the dream will be\npleasant or otherwise just in accordance with the character of the\nother attendant peripheral impressions. If the dreamer is in good\nhealth he will dream of pleasant winter scenes and experiences. If his\nstomach is out of order, or overloaded, he will have a nightmare, with\na winter setting of ice and snow and all that is disagreeable, dank,\nand dismal.\n\nAs we have seen in the preceding chapters, the subjective mind reasons\ndeductively only from premises that are suggested to it, whether the\nsuggestions are imparted to it by its physical environment, as in\nsleep, or by oral suggestion, as in hypnotism, or telepathically, as\nin the higher forms of mesmerism. Its deductions are always logical,\nwhether the premises are true or false. Hence the absurdity of many\nof our dreams; they are merely deductions from false premises. The\nsuggestions or impressions imparted to us during sleep being the result\nof accidental surroundings and stimuli, modified by the state of our\nhealth, our mental work during the day, and a thousand other things\nof which we can have no knowledge, and which are beyond our control,\nare necessarily of a heterogeneous character; and the deductions from\nsuch premises must of necessity be incoherent and fantastic to the last\ndegree.\n\nIt is obvious, therefore, that the subjective mind is amenable to\ncontrol by suggestion during natural sleep just the same as it is\nduring hypnotic, or induced, sleep. It might not be unprofitable in\nthis connection to enter into a general inquiry as to how far it would\nbe possible to control our dreams by auto-suggestion, and thus obviate\nthe discomforts incident to unpleasant nocturnal hallucinations. But\nas we are now engaged in a specific inquiry into the question of how\nfar the subjective mind can be influenced for therapeutic purposes, the\ngeneral field of speculation must be left for others. It is sufficient\nfor present purposes to establish the proposition that the subjective\nmind is controllable by the power of suggestion during natural sleep.\n\nRecurring in this connection to the preceding proposition, that \"a\nstate of perfect passivity on the part of the patient is the most\nfavorable condition for the reception of telepathic impressions or\ncommunications for therapeutic purposes,\" the conclusion is obvious\nthat the condition of natural sleep, being the most perfectly passive\ncondition imaginable, must of necessity be the most favorable\ncondition for the reception of telepathic suggestions for therapeutic\npurposes. It is especially adapted for the conveyance of therapeutic\nsuggestions, for the reason that for such purposes it is not necessary\nthat the suggestions or impressions should rise above the threshold of\nthe patient's consciousness. Indeed, as we have before observed, it is\nbetter that they should not. The object being merely the restoration of\nhealth, it is not necessary that the objective mind should feel, or be\nconscious of, the impressions or suggestions made. It is precisely as\nit is in hypnotism; the suggestions, whether oral or telepathic, are\nmade to the subjective intelligence; and, in case of profound hypnotic\nsleep, the objective mind retains no recollection of the suggestions.\nIn either case the subjective mind is the one addressed; and that,\nbeing the central power in control of the functions and conditions of\nthe body, accepts the suggestions and acts accordingly.\n\nThere are not wanting facts which show clearly that the power exists to\nconvey telepathic messages to sleeping persons, causing them to dream\nof the things that the agent desires. As long ago as 1819, Councillor\nH.M. Wesermann, of D\u00fcsseldorf, recorded, in the \"Archiv f\u00fcr den\nthierischen Magnetismus,\"[31] a few experiments of his own which show\nthis to be true. The following items are reproduced in \"Phantasms of\nthe Living,\"[32] from the original article above mentioned:--\n\n \"_First Experiment, at a Distance of Five Miles._--I endeavored\n to acquaint my friend, the Hofkammerrath G. (whom I had not seen,\n with whom I had not spoken, and to whom I had not written for\n thirteen years), with the fact of my intended visit, by presenting\n my form to him in his sleep, through the force of my will. When I\n unexpectedly went to him on the following evening, he evinced his\n astonishment at having seen me in a dream on the preceding night.\n\n \"_Second Experiment, at a Distance of Three Miles._--Madame W., in\n her sleep, was to hear a conversation between me and two other\n persons, relating to a certain secret; and when I visited her on\n the third day, she told me all that had been said, and showed her\n astonishment at this remarkable dream.\n\n \"_Third Experiment, at a Distance of One Mile._--An aged person in\n G---- was to see in a dream the funeral procession of my deceased\n friend S.; and when I visited her on the next day, her first words\n were that she had in her sleep seen a funeral procession, and on\n inquiry had learned that I was the corpse. Here there was a slight\n error.\n\n \"_Fourth Experiment, at a Distance of One-Eighth of a Mile._--Herr\n Doctor B. desired a trial to convince him, whereupon I represented\n to him a nocturnal street-brawl. He saw it in a dream, to his great\n astonishment. (This means, presumably, that he was astonished when\n he found that the actual subject of his dream was what Wesermann\n had been endeavoring to impress on him.)\"\n\nIt would thus seem to be reasonably well established that the state\nof natural sleep is the best possible condition for the reception of\ntelepathic suggestions for therapeutic purposes.\n\nThe next inquiry in order is, therefore, as to what is the best means\nof conveying telepathic suggestion to the sleeping patient. In a\nprevious chapter it has been shown that a successful mesmerizer must\nnecessarily be in a partially subjective condition himself in order\nto produce the higher phenomena of mesmerism. It may, it is thought,\nbe safely assumed that the phenomenon of thought-transference cannot\nbe produced under any other conditions. Indeed, it stands to reason\nthat, inasmuch as it is the subjective mind of the percipient that is\nimpressed, the message must proceed from the subjective mind of the\nagent. In other words, it is reasonable to suppose that, the subjective\nor passive condition being a necessity on the part of the percipient\nor subject, an analogous condition is a necessity on the part of the\nagent or operator. This fact is shown, not only in mesmerism, but in\nthe methods of Christian scientists. The mesmerist, as we have seen,\nquietly fixes his gaze upon the subject and concentrates his mind\nand will upon the work in hand, and thus, unknowingly, it may be,\npartially hypnotizes himself. The Christian scientist sits quietly by\nthe patient and concentrates his mind, in like manner, upon the central\nidea of curing the patient. And, in either case, just in proportion\nto the ability of the operator to get himself into the subjective\ncondition will he succeed in accomplishing his object, whether it is\nthe production of the higher phenomena of mesmerism, or the healing of\nthe sick by telepathic suggestion.\n\nIf, then, the passive, or subjective, condition of the agent is\nnecessary for the successful transmission of telepathic suggestions or\ncommunications, or if it is the _best_ condition for such a purpose, it\nfollows that the more perfectly that condition is attained, the more\nsuccessful will be the experiment. As before observed, the condition\nof natural sleep is manifestly the most perfectly passive condition\nattainable. It is necessarily perfect, for all the objective senses are\nlocked in slumber, and the subjective mind is free to act in accordance\nwith the laws which govern it. Those laws are, it is true, at present\nbut little understood; but this much has been demonstrated, namely,\nthat the subjective mind is controllable by the mysterious power of\nsuggestion, and is always most active during sleep.\n\nTheoretically, then, we find that the most perfect condition either\nfor the conveyance or the reception of telepathic impressions or\ncommunications is that of natural sleep. The only question that remains\nto be settled is whether it is possible for the agent or operator so to\ncontrol his own subjective mind during his bodily sleep as to compel or\ninduce it to convey the desired message to the sub-consciousness of the\npatient. To settle this question, we must again have recourse to the\nrecord of the labors and researches of the London Society for Psychical\nResearch. It might well be inferred that this power must necessarily\nbe possessed, when we take into consideration the general law of\nsuggestion, coupled with the fact that the subjective mind is perfectly\namenable to control by auto-suggestion. If the law of suggestion is\nvalid and universal, the conclusion is irresistible that this power\nis inherent in man, even without one experimental fact to sustain it.\nFortunately, we are not left to conjecture in regard to this important\nquestion. The literature of psychical experiment is full of facts which\nare demonstrative. Some of the experiments recorded in \"Phantasms of\nthe Living\" show that a vastly greater power exists in this direction\nthan would be required to convey a simple therapeutic suggestion to a\nsleeping patient. The following experiments are recorded in \"Phantasms\nof the Living.\"[33] In the first case, the Rev. W. Stainton Moses was\nthe percipient, and he corroborates the following account, written by\nthe agent:--\n\n \"One evening I resolved to appear to Z at some miles' distance.\n I did not inform him beforehand of the intended experiment,\n but retired to rest shortly before midnight with thoughts\n intently fixed on Z, with whose room and surroundings I was\n quite unacquainted. I soon fell asleep, and awoke next morning\n unconscious of anything having taken place. On seeing Z, a few\n days afterwards, I inquired, 'Did anything happen at your rooms\n on Saturday night?' 'Yes,' replied he, 'a great deal happened. I\n had been sitting over the fire with M, smoking and chatting. About\n 12.30 he rose to leave, and I let him out myself. I returned to\n the fire to finish my pipe, when I saw you sitting in the chair\n just vacated by him. I looked intently at you, and then took up a\n newspaper to assure myself I was not dreaming; but on laying it\n down I saw you still there. While I gazed, without speaking, you\n faded away.'\"\n\nThe next case was recorded by the agent, Mr. S.H.B., at the time of the\noccurrence, and his account of it is duly verified by the percipients.\nIt is as follows:--\n\n On a certain Sunday evening in November, 1881, having been reading\n of the great power which the human will is capable of exercising,\n I determined, with the whole force of my being, that I would be\n present in spirit in the front bed-room on the second floor of\n a house situated at 22 Hogarth Road, Kensington, in which room\n slept two ladies of my acquaintance,--namely, Miss L.S.V. and\n Miss E.C.V., aged respectively twenty-five and eleven years. I was\n living at this time at 23 Kildare Gardens, a distance of about\n three miles from Hogarth Road; and I had not mentioned in any way\n my intention of trying this experiment to either of the above\n ladies, for the simple reason that it was only on retiring to rest\n upon this Sunday night that I made up my mind to do so. The time\n at which I determined I would be there was one o'clock in the\n morning; and I also had a strong intention of making my presence\n perceptible. On the following Thursday I went to see the ladies in\n question, and, in the course of conversation (without any allusion\n to the subject on my part), the elder one told me that on the\n previous Sunday night she had been much terrified by perceiving me\n standing by her bedside, and that she screamed when the apparition\n advanced towards her, and awoke her little sister, who saw me also.\n\n I asked her if she was awake at the time, and she replied most\n decidedly in the affirmative; and upon my inquiring the time of the\n occurrence, she replied, \"About one o'clock in the morning.\"\n\n This lady, at my request, wrote down a statement of the event, and\n signed it.\n\n This was the first occasion upon which I tried an experiment of\n this kind, and its complete success startled me very much. Besides\n exercising my power of volition very strongly, I put forth an\n effort which I cannot find words to describe. I was conscious of a\n mysterious influence of some sort permeating in my body, and had\n a distinct impression that I was exercising some force with which\n I had been hitherto unacquainted, but which I can now at certain\n times set in motion at will. S.H.B.\n\nThe next case of Mr. S.H.B.'s is different in this respect, that the\npercipient was not consciously present to the agent's mind on the night\nthat he made his attempt:--\n\n On Friday, Dec. 1, 1882, at 9.30 P.M., I went into a room alone and\n sat by the fireside, and endeavored so strongly to fix my mind upon\n the interior of a house at Kew (namely, Clarence Road), in which\n resided Miss V. and her two sisters, that I seemed to be actually\n in the house.\n\n During this experiment I must have fallen into a mesmeric sleep,\n for although I was conscious, I could not move my limbs. I did not\n seem to have lost the power of moving them, but I could not make\n the effort to do so; and my hands, which lay loosely on my knees,\n about six inches apart, felt involuntarily drawn together, and\n seemed to meet, although I was conscious that they did not move.\n\n At 10 P.M. I regained my normal state by an effort of the will,\n and then took a pencil and wrote down on a sheet of note-paper the\n foregoing statements.\n\n When I went to bed on this same night I determined that I would be\n in the front bed-room of the above-mentioned house at 12 P.M., and\n remain there until I had made my spiritual presence perceptible to\n the inmates of that room.\n\n On the next day (Saturday) I went to Kew to spend the evening,\n and met there a married sister of Miss V. (namely, Mrs. L.). This\n lady I had only met once before, and then it was at a ball two\n years previous to the above date. We were both in fancy dress at\n the time, and as we did not exchange more than half-a-dozen words,\n this lady would naturally have lost any vivid recollection of my\n appearance, even if she had remarked it.\n\n In the course of conversation (although I did not think for a\n moment of asking her any questions on such a subject) she told\n me that on the previous night she had seen me distinctly upon\n two occasions. She had spent the night at Clarence Road, and had\n slept in the front bed-room. At about 9.30 she had seen me in the\n passage, going from one room to another; and at 12 P.M., when she\n was wide awake, she had seen me enter the bed-room and walk round\n to where she was sleeping, and take her hair (which is very long)\n into my hand. She also told me that the apparition took hold of\n her hand and gazed intently into it, whereupon she spoke, saying,\n \"You need not look at the lines, for I have never had any trouble.\"\n She then awoke her sister, Miss V., who was sleeping with her, and\n told her about it. After hearing this account, I took the statement\n which I had written down on the previous evening from my pocket and\n showed it to some of the persons present, who were much astonished,\n although incredulous.\n\n I asked Mrs. L. if she was not dreaming at the time of the latter\n experience; but this she stoutly denied, and stated that she\n had forgotten what I was like, but seeing me so distinctly, she\n recognized me at once.\n\n Mrs. L. is a lady of highly imaginative temperament, and told me\n that she had been subject since childhood to psychological fancies,\n etc.; but the wonderful coincidence of the time (which was exact)\n convinced me that what she told me was more than a flight of\n the imagination. At my request she wrote a brief account of her\n impressions, and signed it.\n\n S.H.B.\n\nOne of the authors of \"Phantasms of the Living\" (Mr. Gurney) on\none occasion requested Mr. B. to send him a note on the night that\nhe intended to make his next experiment of the kind, whereupon the\nfollowing correspondence ensued:--\n\n March 22, 1884.\n\n DEAR MR. GURNEY,--I am going to try the experiment to-night of\n making my presence perceptible at 44 Morland Square, at 12 P.M. I\n will let you know the result in a few days.\n\n Yours very sincerely, S.H.B.\n\nThe next letter was received in the course of the following week:--\n\n April 3, 1884.\n\n DEAR MR. GURNEY,--I have a strange statement to show you respecting\n my experiment, which was tried at your suggestion, and under\n the test conditions which you imposed. Having quite forgotten\n which night it was on which I attempted the projection, I cannot\n say whether the result is a brilliant success, or only a slight\n one, until I see the letter which I posted you on the evening of\n the experiment. Having sent you that letter, I did not deem it\n necessary to make a note in my diary, and consequently have let the\n exact date slip my memory. If the dates correspond, the success\n is complete in every detail, and I have an account signed and\n witnessed to show you.\n\n I saw the lady (who was the subject) for the first time last night,\n since the experiment, and she made a voluntary statement to me,\n which I wrote down at her dictation, and to which she has attached\n her signature. The date and time of the apparition are specified in\n this statement, and it will be for you to decide whether they are\n identical with those given in my letter to you. I have completely\n forgotten, but yet I fancy that they are the same. S.H.B.\n\nThis is the statement:--\n\n 44 Morland Square, W.\n\n On Saturday night, March 22, 1884, at about midnight, I had a\n distinct impression that Mr. S.H.B. was present in my room,\n and I distinctly saw him whilst I was quite wide awake. He came\n towards me and stroked my hair. I _voluntarily_ gave him this\n information when he called to see me on Wednesday, April 2, telling\n him the time and the circumstances of the apparition, without any\n suggestion on his part. The appearance in my room was most vivid,\n and quite unmistakable.\n\n L.S. Verity.\n\nMiss A.S. Verity corroborates as follows:--\n\n I remember my sister telling me that she had seen S.H.B., and that\n he had touched her hair, _before_ he came to see us on April 2.\n A.S.V.\n\nMr. B.'s own account is as follows:--\n\n On Saturday, March 22, I determined to make my presence perceptible\n to Miss V. at 44 Morland Square, Notting Hill, at twelve, midnight;\n and as I had previously arranged with Mr. Gurney that I should post\n him a letter on the evening on which I tried my next experiment\n (stating the time and other particulars), I sent a note to acquaint\n him with the above facts.\n\n About ten days afterwards I called upon Miss V., and she\n voluntarily told me that on March 22, at twelve o'clock, midnight,\n she had seen me so vividly in her room (whilst widely awake) that\n her nerves had been much shaken, and she had been obliged to send\n for a doctor in the morning.\n\n S.H.B.\n\nMr. Gurney adds:--\n\n \"It will be observed that in all these instances the conditions\n were the same,--_the agent concentrating his thoughts on the object\n in view before going to sleep_. Mr. B. has never succeeded in\n producing a similar effect when he has been awake.\"\n\nThe foregoing instances have been quoted merely for the purpose\nof showing that the power exists in mankind to cause telepathic\nimpressions to be conveyed from one to another, not only when the\npercipient is awake and the agent is asleep, but when both are asleep.\nIt is true that they do not demonstrate the proposition that the power\ncan be employed for therapeutic purposes when both are asleep; but the\ninference is irresistible that such is the case. They do, however,\ndemonstrate the existence of a power far greater than one would\nnaturally suppose would be required to convey a therapeutic suggestion.\nIn the cases cited, the impressions were brought above the threshold\nof the consciousness of the percipients. It may well be inferred that\na power sufficiently great to cause the percipient, in his waking\nmoments, to see the image or apparition of the agent, or even to dream\nof him when asleep so vividly as to remember the dream, must be easily\ncapable of imparting any thought, impression, or suggestion which is\nnot required to be raised above the threshold of consciousness.\n\nAll that would seem to be required is that the agent, before going\nto sleep, should strongly will, desire, and direct his subjective\nentity to convey the necessary therapeutic suggestions, influence, or\nimpressions to the sleeping patient.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 30: Suggestive Therapeutics, pp. 140, 141.]\n\n[Footnote 31: Vol. vi. pp. 136-139.]\n\n[Footnote 32: Vol. i. pp. 101, 102.]\n\n[Footnote 33: Vol. i. pp. 103-109.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nA NEW SYSTEM OF MENTAL THERAPEUTICS (_continued_).\n\n Recapitulation of Propositions.--Natural Sleep the Best\n Condition attainable both for Healer and Patient.--Demonstrative\n Experiments.--Healing at a Distance of One Thousand\n Miles.--Distance no Obstacle.--Space does not exist for\n the Subjective Mind.--Objective Habits of Thought the only\n Adverse Factor.--Diseases treated.--Strabismus Cured.--Mode of\n Operation.--Not a Good Money-making Scheme.--It Promotes the Health\n of the Healer.--A Method of Universal Utility.--Self-healing\n its Most Important Function.--The Power absolute.--Within the\n Reach of all.--Method of Self-healing.--The Patient's Credulity\n not overtaxed.--The Example of Christ.--Material Remedies not\n to be ignored.--Advice to Christian Scientists.--The Control of\n Dreams.--Practical Conclusions.\n\n\nIt is thought that the following propositions have now been, at least\nprovisionally, established:--\n\n1. There is, inherent in man, a power which enables him to communicate\nhis thoughts to others, independently of objective means of\ncommunication.\n\n2. A state of perfect passivity on the part of the percipient is the\nmost favorable condition for the reception of telepathic impressions or\ncommunications.\n\n3. There is nothing to differentiate natural sleep from induced sleep.\n\n4. The subjective mind is amenable to control by suggestion during\nnatural sleep just the same as it is during induced sleep.\n\n5. The condition of natural sleep, being the most perfect passive\ncondition attainable, is the best condition for the reception of\ntelepathic impressions by the subjective mind.\n\n6. The most perfect condition for the conveyance of telepathic\nimpressions is that of natural sleep.\n\n7. The subjective mind of the agent can be compelled to communicate\ntelepathic impressions to a sleeping percipient by strongly willing it\nto do so just previous to going to sleep.\n\nThe chain of reasoning embraced in the foregoing propositions seems to\nbe perfect; and it is thought that sufficient facts have been adduced\nto sustain each proposition which is not self-evident, or confirmed\nby the common experience of mankind. The conclusion is irresistible\nthat _the best possible condition for the conveyance of therapeutic\nsuggestions from the healer to the patient is attained when both are\nin a state of natural sleep; and that such suggestions can be so\ncommunicated by an effort of will on the part of the healer just before\ngoing to sleep._\n\nIt is not proposed herein to detail the many experiments which have\nbeen made with a view of testing the correctness of this theory,\nmy present object being to advance the hypothesis tentatively,\nin order to induce others to experiment as I have done. It must\nsuffice for the present to state that over one hundred experiments\nhave been made by the writer and one or two others to whom he has\nconfided his theory, without a single failure. Some very striking\ncures have been effected,--cures that would take rank with the most\nmarvellous instances of healing recorded in the annals of modern\npsycho-therapeutics. It is obvious that details of names and dates\ncould not properly be given, for the reason that the cures have been\neffected without any knowledge on the part of the patients that they\nwere being made the subjects of experiment. I do not feel at liberty,\ntherefore, to drag their names before the public without their consent.\nBesides, if they were now made acquainted with the facts, their\nrecollection of the circumstances of their recovery would in many\ninstances be indistinct; and, as a matter of course, all of them have\nattributed their sudden recovery to other causes.\n\nI have taken care, however, in many instances to acquaint third\npersons with intended experiments, and to request them to watch the\nresults; so that I have the means at hand to verify my statements if\nnecessary.\n\nThe first case was that of a relative who had for many years been\nafflicted with nervous trouble, accompanied by rheumatism of the most\nterrible character. He was subject to the most excruciating spasms\nduring his nervous attacks of rheumatic trouble, and was frequently\nbrought to the verge of the grave. He had been under the care of many\nof the ablest physicians of this country and of Europe, finding only\noccasional temporary relief. An idea of the suffering which he endured\nmay be imagined from the fact that one of his hips had been drawn out\nof joint, by which the leg had been shortened about two inches. This,\nhowever, had been partially restored by physical appliances before the\npsychic treatment began. In short, he was a hopeless invalid, with\nnothing to look to for relief from his sufferings but death.\n\nThe treatment began on the 15th of May, 1890. Two persons were informed\nof the proposed experiment, and were requested to note the time when\nthe treatment began. They were pledged to profound secrecy, and to\nthis day the patient is not aware that he was made the subject of an\nexperiment in psycho-therapeutics. After the lapse of a few months, one\nof the persons intrusted with the secret met the invalid, and learned,\nto her surprise and delight, that he was comparatively well. When asked\nwhen he began to improve, his reply was, \"About the middle of May.\"\nSince then he has been able at all times to attend to the duties of his\nprofession,--that of journalist and magazine-writer,--and has had no\nrecurrence of his old trouble.\n\nOf course, this may have been a coincidence; and had it stood as a\nsolitary instance, that would have been the most rational way of\naccounting for it. But a hundred such coincidences do not happen in\nsuccession without a single break; and more than a hundred experiments\nhave been made by this process by myself and two other persons, and\nnot a single failure has thus far been experienced, where the proper\nconditions have been observed. In two cases the patients have not\nbeen perceptibly benefited; but in both of those they were notified\nof the intended experiments, and were profoundly sceptical. But these\nfailures cannot be charged to the account of this method of treatment,\nfor the simple reason that the fundamental principle of the system was\ndeliberately violated. That is to say, the best conditions were not\nobserved,--in that the patient was informed beforehand of what was\nintended. In such cases the healer is handicapped by probable adverse\nauto-suggestion, as has been fully explained in former chapters. The\nprinciple cannot be too strongly enforced that neither the patient\nnor any of his immediate family should ever be informed beforehand\nof the intended experiment. Failure does not necessarily follow the\nimparting of such information; but when the patient or his immediate\nfriends are aware of the effort being made in his behalf, there is\nalways danger of adverse auto-suggestion on the part of the patient,\nor of adverse suggestion being made orally or telepathically by his\nsceptical friends. The conditions are then no better and no worse\nthan the conditions ordinarily encountered by those who employ other\nmethods of mental healing. I have successfully treated patients after\ninforming them of my intentions; but it was because I first succeeded\nin impressing them favorably, and their mental environment was not\nantagonistic.\n\nOne fact of peculiar significance connected with the case of rheumatism\nabove mentioned must not be omitted; and this is that the patient was\na thousand miles distant when the cure was performed. Others have been\nsuccessfully treated at distances varying from one to three hundred\nmiles. The truth is, as has been before remarked, space does not seem\nto exist for the subjective mind. Experimental telepathy demonstrates\nthis fact. Cases of thought-transference are recorded where the\npercipient was at the antipodes. The only thing that operates to\nprevent successful telepathy between persons at great distances from\neach other is our habit of thinking. We are accustomed to regard space\nas an obstacle which necessarily prevents successful communication\nbetween persons. It is difficult to realize that space is merely a\nmode of objective thought, so to speak, and that it does not exist as\nan obstacle in the way of subjective transmission of impressions. We\nare, therefore, handicapped by a want of faith in our ability in that\ndirection. In other words, our faith is in inverse proportion to the\ndistance involved. When we can once realize the fact that distance does\nnot exist for the soul, we shall find that a patient can be treated\nas successfully by telepathic suggestion in one part of the world as\nanother. The only exception to the rule will be when the patient is at\nthe antipodes; for then the healer and the patient will not ordinarily\nboth be asleep at the same time. But space, or distance between the\nagent and the percipient, does not enter _per se_ as an adverse element\nto modify the effects of telepathic suggestion.\n\nThe diseases thus far successfully treated by this process have been\nrheumatism, neuralgia, dyspepsia, bowel complaint, sick headache,\ntorpidity of the liver, chronic bronchitis, partial paralysis, pen\nparalysis, and strabismus. The last-named case was not treated by\nmyself, and I very seriously doubt whether I could have commanded\nsufficient confidence to be successful. But a lady, whom I had\ninstructed in the process, asked me if I thought there was any use\nin her trying to cure a bad case of strabismus, her little niece,\nabout ten years of age, having been thus afflicted from her birth. I\nunhesitatingly assured her that there was no doubt of her ability to\neffect a cure. Full of confidence, she commenced the treatment, and\nkept it up for about three months, at the end of which time the cure\nwas complete. In this case the best conditions were rigidly adhered to,\nno one but myself having been informed of the intended experiment. A\nvolume could be filled with the details of the experiments which have\nbeen made; but as it is foreign to the purpose of this book to treat\nexhaustively any one phase of psychological phenomena, but rather to\ndevelop a working hypothesis applicable to all branches of the subject,\nthe foregoing must suffice.\n\nLittle need be said regarding the mode of operation, as it is apparent\nfrom what has been said that the method is as simple as it is\neffective. All that is required on the part of the operator is that\nhe shall be possessed of an earnest desire to cure the patient; that\nhe shall concentrate his mind, just before going to sleep, upon the\nwork in hand, and direct his subjective mind to occupy itself during\nthe night in conveying therapeutic suggestions to the patient. To that\nend the operator must accustom himself to the assumption that his\nsubjective mind is a distinct entity; that it must be treated as such,\nand guided and directed in the work to be done. The work is possibly\nmore effective if the operator knows the character of the disease\nwith which the patient is afflicted, as he would then be able to give\nhis directions more specifically. But much may be left to instinct,\nof which the subjective mind is the source. It seems reasonable to\nsuppose, however, that if that instinct is educated by objective\ntraining it will be all the better. This is, however, a question which\nmust be left for future experimental solution, not enough being now\npositively known to warrant a statement as to how far the healing\npower of the subjective mind is, or may be, modified by the objective\nknowledge or training of the healer.\n\nBe this as it may, the fact remains that all men possess the power\nto alleviate human suffering, to a greater or less degree, by the\nmethod developed in the foregoing pages. For obvious reasons it is\nnot a method by which money can be made. But it is pre-eminently\na means of laying up treasures where neither moth nor rust can\ncorrupt, nor thieves break through and steal. Each one has it in\nhis power to alleviate the sufferings of his neighbor, his friend,\nor the stranger within his gates; but his compensation must consist\nin the consciousness of doing good, and in the hope of that reward\npromised by the Master to those who do their alms in secret. There\nis, nevertheless, a practical and immediate reward accompanying\nevery effort to heal the sick by the method herein indicated. In\nconsists in this,--that every earnest effort to convey therapeutic\nimpressions to a patient during sleep is inevitably followed by a\ndreamless sleep on the part of the healer. It would seem that the\nsubjective mind, following the command or suggestions of the healer,\noccupies itself with the work it is directed to do, to the exclusion\nof all else; and hence the physical environment of the sleeper fails\nto produce peripheral impressions strong enough to cause the dreams\nwhich ordinarily result from such impressions. Following the universal\nlaw, it obeys the suggestions of the objective mind, and persists in\nfollowing the line indicated until it is recalled by the awakening of\nthe bodily senses.\n\nMoreover, therapeutic suggestions imparted during sleep inevitably\nreact favorably upon the healer; and thus his own health is promoted\nby the act which conduces to the health of the patient. And thus it is\nthat therapeutic suggestion may be likened to the \"quality of mercy\"\nwhich \"is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon\nthe place beneath; it is twice blessed: it blesseth him that gives, and\nhim that takes.\"\n\nIt is easy to foresee that when the world once understands and\nappreciates the wonderful therapeutic powers inherent in the human\nsoul, a great change will be the result. When it is once understood\nthat the power exists in every human organism to alleviate physical\nsuffering by a method at once so simple, so effective, and so mutually\nbeneficial, it cannot be doubted that a large proportion of the ills to\nwhich flesh is heir will exist only in history.\n\nThe most important branch of psycho-therapeutics is, however, yet\nto be discussed. It has been shown in this and former chapters that\nauto-suggestion plays its subtle _r\u00f4le_ in every psychological\nexperiment. It has been shown that the subjective mind of an individual\nis constantly controlled by the suggestion of his own objective mind.\nThis is the normal relation of the two minds; and when that control\nceases, the person is insane just in proportion to the degree in\nwhich the objective mind has abdicated its functions. This control\nis ordinarily exercised unconsciously to the individual. That is to\nsay, we do not ordinarily recognize the operations of the two minds,\nfor the simple reason that we do not stop to philosophize upon the\nsubject of their mutual relations. But when we once recognize the\nfact, we have not only arrived at the principle which lies at the\nfoundation of all true psychological science, but we are prepared\nto accept the subsidiary proposition which underlies the science of\nmental self-healing. That proposition is, that man can control by\nsuggestion the operations of his own subjective mind, even though the\nsuggestion be in direct contravention to his own objective belief.\nThis is unqualifiedly true, even though the suggestion may be contrary\nto reason, experience, or the evidence of the senses. A moment's\nreflection will convince any one of the truth of this proposition.\nIt is auto-suggestion that fills our asylums with monomaniacs. That\nlong-continued and persistent dwelling upon a single idea often results\nin chronic hallucination, is a fact within the knowledge of every\nstudent of mental science. That it often happens that a monomaniac\nidentifies himself with some great personage, even with the Deity, is\na fact within common knowledge. What gives rise to such hallucinations\nis not so well known; but every student of the pathology of insanity\nwill verify the statement that auto-suggestion is the primary factor\nin every case. The patient, who is usually a monumental egotist to\nstart with, begins by imagining himself to be a great man; and by\nlong-continued dwelling upon the one thought he ends by identifying\nhimself with some great historical character whom he specially admires.\nIf he is afflicted with some nervous disorder which causes him to pass\neasily and habitually into the subjective condition, the process of\nfastening the hallucination upon his mind is easy and rapid, and he\nis soon a fit subject for a lunatic asylum. But, whatever physical\ncondition may be a necessary factor in producing such hallucinations,\nthe fact remains that auto-suggestion is the primary cause.\n\nThe subject is introduced here merely to illustrate the power and\npotency of auto-suggestion, even when the suggestion is against\nthe evidence of reason and sense. It must not be forgotten that\nan auto-suggestion which produces a hallucination such as has been\ndescribed, operates on the lines of strongest resistance in nature. If,\ntherefore, such results can be produced when opposed by the strongest\ninstincts of our nature, how much easier must it be to produce equally\nwonderful results when operating in harmony with those instincts, and,\nhence, on the lines of least resistance.\n\nIt is self-evident, therefore, that auto-suggestion can be employed\nto great advantage for therapeutic purposes. Indeed, the power of\nself-help is the most important part of mental therapeutics. Without\nit the science is of comparatively little value or benefit to mankind.\nWith it goes the power to resist disease,--to prevent sickness, as\nwell as to cure it. The old axiom, that \"an ounce of prevention is\nworth a pound of cure,\" holds good in psycho-therapeutics as well as\nin material remedies, and he who obtains the power to hold himself\nin the mental attitude which enables him to resist the encroachments\nof disease has mastered the great secret of mental medicine. That it\ncan be done by any one of ordinary intelligence, is a fact which has\nbeen demonstrated beyond question. The best workers in the field of\nChristian science give more attention to teaching their pupils and\npatients how to help themselves than they do to instructing them how to\nhelp others. And this is the secret of the permanence of their cures,\nas has been fully explained in other chapters of this book. The process\nby which it can be done is as simple as are the laws which govern the\nsubject-matter.\n\nThe patient should bear in mind the fundamental principles which lie at\nthe foundation of mental therapeutics,--\n\n1. The subjective mind exercises complete control over the functions\nand sensations of the body.\n\n2. The subjective mind is constantly amenable to control by the\nsuggestions of the objective mind.\n\n3. These two propositions being true, the conclusion is obvious,\nthat the functions and sensations of the body can be controlled by\nsuggestions of the objective mind.\n\nThe whole science of psycho-therapeutics is embraced in the foregoing\npropositions. They contain all that a patient, who undertakes to heal\nhimself or to ward off the encroachments of disease, needs to know.\nThe process of making a particular application of these principles is\nequally simple, and must be obvious to the intelligent reader. At the\nrisk of repetition, a few general directions will be given.\n\nWe will take, for illustration, a simple case of nervous headache,\nand suppose that the patient resolves to cure himself. He must, first\nof all, remember that the subjective mind is to be treated precisely\nas though it were a separate and distinct entity. The suggestion must\nfirst be made that the headache is about to cease; then, that it is\nalready ceasing; and, finally, that it has ceased. These suggestions\nshould be made in the form of spoken words, and they should be\nsteadily persisted in until the desired effect is produced. A constant\nreiteration of the declaration that the head is better will inevitably\nproduce the desired result; and, when the effect is distinctly felt,\nthe declaration should be boldly made that the pain has entirely\nceased. If any remnants of the pain are felt, the fact should be\nignored, and the suggestion persisted in that it has ceased. This\nshould be followed by the declaration that there will be no return of\nthe symptoms; and this should be made with an air, tone, and feeling of\nperfect confidence.\n\nThe only practical difficulty and obstacle in the way of success with\na beginner lies in the fact that at first he lacks confidence. The\neducation of his whole life has been such as to cause him to look with\ndistrust upon any but material remedies, and there is a disinclination\nto persist in his efforts. But he should remember that it is the\nsuggestions conveyed by this very education that he is now called upon\nto combat, neutralize, and overcome by a stronger and more emphatic\ncounter-suggestion. If he has the strength of will to persist until he\nis cured, he will find that the next time he tries it there will be\nmuch less resistance to overcome. Having once triumphed, the reasoning\nof his objective mind no longer interposes itself as an obstruction,\nbut concurs in the truth of his suggestions. He then possesses both\nobjective and subjective faith in his powers, and he finds himself\noperating on a line of no resistance whatever. When he has attained\nthis point, the rest is easy; and he will eventually be able to effect\nan instantaneous cure of his headache, or any other pain, the moment he\nfinds himself threatened with one. These remarks apply, of course, to\nevery disease amenable to control by mental processes.\n\nIt will be observed that in the process of applying the principles of\nauto-suggestion to the cure of disease the patient is not called upon\nto tax his own credulity by any assertion that is not a demonstrable\nscientific truth. He is not called upon to deny the existence of\nmatter, nor does he find it necessary to deny the reality of the\ndisease which affects him. In short, he is not called upon to deny\nthe evidence of his senses, to assert a manifest impossibility, nor\nto maintain an exasperating absurdity as a condition precedent to his\nrecovery. The fact that cures can be made and are constantly being made\nby those who instruct their patients that a denial of the existence\nof matter and of the reality of disease is a necessary condition to\ntheir recovery, is the strongest possible evidence of the truth of\nthe proposition that the subjective mind is constantly amenable to\ncontrol by the power of suggestion. For it is a fundamental truth in\npsycho-therapeutics that no cure ever was, or ever can be, effected by\nmental processes until the subjective mind of the patient is impressed\nwith a belief in the efficacy of the means employed. It is obvious,\nhowever, that it is more difficult to impress a manifest absurdity upon\nthe subjective mind of a man of common-sense than it is to impress him\nwith a belief in a demonstrable scientific truth. Hence it is that,\nby methods now in vogue, both healer and patient are handicapped just\nin proportion to the tax laid upon their credulity. The point is,\nthat in impressing a patient with a new scientific truth we should\nseek to make it as simple as possible, and avoid anything which will\nshock his common-sense. Christ enjoined upon his followers the simple\nscientific fact that faith on their part was a condition precedent to\ntheir reception of the benefits of his healing power; and he compelled\nthem to believe, by publicly demonstrating that power. He would have\nhad little success among the people with whom he had to deal if he had\nbegun his treatment by telling them that they had no disease; that\nleprosy is a figment of the imagination, and has no existence except in\nthe mind; or that blindness is merely blindness of the mind, and not of\nthe body; and that the body itself has no existence except as a form of\nbelief. He even resorted to material remedies, as in the case of the\nblind man, when \"He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle,\nand he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said unto\nhim, Go, wash in the Pool of Siloam. He went his way therefore, and\nwashed, and came seeing.\"[34]\n\nThe Christian scientist would doubtless say that the clay and the\nsubsequent washing in the Pool of Siloam did no good, except as they\nacted through the mind. This may be true; but in either case it teaches\na valuable lesson, which it would be well for all classes of mental\nhealers to remember. If the clay had a curative effect, it shows that\nthe Master did not disdain to employ material remedies as an auxiliary\nto his healing power. If, on the other hand, it possessed no curative\npower, it shows that the Great Healer did not hesitate to employ any\nlegitimate means at hand to confirm and increase the faith of the\npatient.\n\nBut this is a digression which pertains rather to the general\nsubject of mental healing than to that of self-healing, which we are\ndiscussing. It is believed that the few simple rules herein laid down\nwill enable any one of ordinary intelligence to become proficient, by\na little practice, in the science of self-healing. It is not a mere\ntheory, without practice, which has been here developed. It has been\ndemonstrated over and over again to be eminently practical, not only\nas a means of healing disease, but as a means of warding off its\nencroachments. Indeed, its chief value will eventually be found to\nconsist in the almost unlimited power which it gives one to protect\nhimself from contracting disease. To do that it is only necessary to\nhold one's self in the mental attitude of denying the power of disease\nto obtain the mastery over him. When the patient recognizes the first\nsymptoms of approaching illness, he should at once commence a vigorous\ncourse of therapeutic auto-suggestion. He will find prevention much\neasier than cure; and by persistently following such a course he\nwill soon discover that he possesses a perfect mastery over his own\nhealth. In this connection it must not be forgotten that the method\nof healing during sleep is as applicable to self-healing as it is to\nhealing others. Indeed, perfect rest and recuperative slumber can be\nobtained under almost any circumstances at the word of command. Dreams\ncan be controlled in this way. If one is troubled by distressing or\nharassing dreams, from whatever cause, he can change their current, or\nprevent them altogether, by energetically commanding his subjective\nmind to do so. It is especially efficacious for this purpose to direct\nhis subjective mind to employ itself in healing some sick friend. If\none habitually does this at the time of going to sleep, he will not\nonly be certain to obtain recuperative sleep for himself, but he will\nprocure that contentment and peace of mind which always result from a\nconsciousness of doing good to his fellow-creatures. The exercise of\nthe power to heal in this way is never a tax upon the vital energies of\nthe healer, but always redounds to his own benefit as well as to that\nof the patient. The reason of this is obvious. The normal condition of\nthe subjective mind during the sleep of the body and the quiescence of\nthe objective faculties is that of constant activity. This activity,\nunder ordinary conditions, entails no loss of vital power on the part\nof the sleeper. On the contrary, that is the period of his rest and the\nmeans of his recuperation. If the activities of his subjective mind are\ndirected into pleasant channels, his bodily rest is perfect, and his\nrecuperation complete.\n\nIt is for this reason that the method of healing during sleep is\nbetter for all concerned than any other system of mental healing yet\ndiscovered. It follows the lines of nature, in that it employs the\nsubjective powers at a time when they are normally active; and it\nemploys them in such a way that the ordinary peripheral impressions,\nwhich often disturb the sleeper and produce unpleasant dreams, are\novercome by a more potent suggestion. Any other method of mental\nhealing, where the subjective powers of the healer are called into\naction, entails a certain loss of vital power on his part, for the\nsimple reason that subjective activity during waking moments is\nabnormal. It is true that when the work is not carried to excess the\nphysical exhaustion may not be perceptible; but any Christian scientist\nwill testify that any great amount of effort in the line of his work\nproduces great physical exhaustion. And it is noticeable that this\nexhaustion ensues in exact proportion to the success of his treatment.\nThis success being in proportion to the subjective power exerted, it\nis reasonable to infer that subjective activity during waking hours\nand physical exhaustion bear to each other the relation of cause and\neffect.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 34: John ix. 6.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM.\n\n If a Man die, shall he live again?--The Problem not solved by\n Spiritistic Phenomena.--The Phenomena admitted.--Their Supernatural\n Origin denied.--Explained by the Hypothesis.--Subsidiary\n Hypothesis.--An Intelligent Dynamic Force.--Its\n Characteristics.--Limited by Medium's Intelligence.--It is\n controlled by Suggestion.--Phenomena fail in Presence of\n Scepticism.--Reasons.--Mediumistic Frauds.--The Primary\n Lesson in Spiritistic Investigation.--Mediums not necessarily\n dishonest.--Their Honest Belief in the Phenomena.--Suggestion\n explains all.--Illustrations from Hypnotism.--Convincing Character\n of Alleged Communications.--Telepathic Explanations.--General\n Conclusions.\n\n\nThe next subject which claims our attention in connection with the\nhypothesis under consideration is that of modern spiritism. It is\napproached with much diffidence and some misgivings, not because of any\ndoubt as to the applicability of the hypothesis to the vast range of\nso-called spiritual phenomena, but because of the transcendent interest\nand importance of the subject to all mankind. It cannot be forgotten\nthat millions of human beings base their hopes of a life beyond the\ngrave upon their belief that in the phenomena of spiritism they have\ntangible evidence of the immortality of the soul, and that by means of\nsuch phenomena they can be put into communication with the spirits of\nthe loved ones who have gone before. The fact cannot be ignored that\nthere are millions of stricken hearts whose wounds have been healed\nby the consolation afforded by that conviction. The great question,\n\"If a man die, shall he live again?\" has been by these phenomena\nsatisfactorily answered for many whom revealed religion failed to\nsatisfy, for many whose reasoning powers have failed to grasp the logic\nof the theologian. It were an unwelcome task to throw a shade of doubt\nupon the validity of evidence which to many seems to be \"confirmation\nstrong as proofs of Holy Writ;\" and if in the perusal of the following\npages such doubt arises, the reader is begged to discriminate between\nthe question of the validity of evidence and the question of fact.\nFor, be it remembered, I shall not undertake to prove that the souls\nof men do not live after the death of the body. That question stands\njust where it has always stood. It is a problem which, outside of\nrevelation, is no nearer a solution than it was when Job propounded the\nmomentous question. Neither will I undertake to say that the spirits\nof the dead do not and cannot communicate with the living. I do not\nknow. But I do undertake to say, and will attempt to prove, that the\nphenomena of spiritism, so-called, do not constitute valid evidence\nof the ability of spirits of the dead to hold intercourse with the\nliving. In doing so, no attempt will be made to deny the phenomena of\nspiritism. On the contrary, I shall not only admit the possibility\nof every phenomenon alleged by any respectable number of reputable\nwitnesses to have occurred, but I shall also assume the substantial\naccuracy of the general statements made by spiritists regarding the\nleading phenomena of spiritism. But I shall attempt to explain their\norigin on other grounds than the supposition that they are caused by\nthe spirits of the dead. In other words, I admit the alleged phenomena,\nbut deny the alleged cause.\n\nI will not waste time, however, by attempting to prove by experiments\nof my own, or of others, that such phenomena do occur. It is too\nlate for that. The facts are too well known to the civilized world\nto require proofs at this time. The man who denies the phenomena of\nspiritism to-day is not entitled to be called a sceptic, he is simply\nignorant; and it would be a hopeless task to attempt to enlighten him.\nI shall indulge in the hope, however, that by explaining the origin of\nthe phenomena on rational principles, and thus removing them from the\nrealm of the supernatural, those who now assume to be sceptical may be\ninduced to investigate for themselves. It is easy to deny the existence\nof that for which we cannot account by reference to known laws, and\nit is easy to believe in that which can be thus explained. This is\nespecially true in regard to phenomena which are popularly attributed\nto a supernatural origin. Modern scientists have an easy way of\ntreating such phenomena, which consists in denying their existence and\nrefusing to investigate. Such men would plug their own ears and deny\nthe phenomenon of thunder if they could not account for it by reference\nto laws with which they are familiar. And such a proceeding would be no\nmore senseless than, at this day, to deny the phenomena of spiritism.\n\nIn justice, however, to those scientists who have sought to investigate\nthe subject, and have failed to witness the phenomena promised, it\nmust be said that in many instances their failure is attributable, not\nto any fault of their own, or lack of earnest purpose on their part,\nbut to a want of knowledge of the fundamental laws which pertain to\nthe production of such phenomena. The reasons for the frequent failure\nto produce psychic phenomena in presence of avowed sceptics has been\nfully discussed in a previous chapter of this book, to which the reader\nis referred. But at the risk of repetition they will be restated in\ntheir proper place in this chapter, as they pertain to the subject of\nso-called spirit phenomena.\n\nThe laws which govern the production of the phenomena under\nconsideration are precisely the same as those which pertain to all\nthe other phenomena which have been discussed; and the fundamental\npropositions of our hypothesis apply with equal force to them all.\nAgain, the reader is asked to recall those propositions, in order that\ntheir force and logical sequence may remain clear to his mind in this\nconnection. They are:--\n\n1. The mind of man is dual in its nature,--objective and subjective.\n\n2. The subjective mind is constantly controlled by suggestion.\n\nThese two propositions would seem to have been so well established\nas to need no further elucidation at this time. The subsidiary\nproposition, which applies to the phenomena under consideration, is\nthat,--\n\n3. The subjective mind, or entity, possesses physical power; that is,\nthe power to make itself heard and felt, and to move ponderable objects.\n\nThis may seem at first glance to be begging the question; but its truth\nmust be assumed provisionally, for the sake of the argument which\nfollows. It will readily be seen that if those three propositions\ncan be established, all the physical phenomena of spiritism can be\naccounted for on the ground that living man possesses inherently the\npower to produce them. And this is the position which we must assume,\nfor it appears to be the truth.\n\nIt must be acknowledged by all who have witnessed, under test\nconditions, any of the physical phenomena, that there is a dynamic\nforce residing somewhere that is capable of moving ponderable objects\nwithout physical contact, and that this force, whatever it is, or\nfrom whatever source it emanates, possesses intelligence, oftentimes\nto a remarkable degree. Now, this intelligent force either emanates\nfrom the spirits of the dead, or it does not. If it does not, it\nnecessarily follows that it emanates from the living. That this last\nsupposition is the true one is evidenced by many of the characteristics\nof the intelligence which it manifests, among which the following are\nprominent:--\n\nIt is essentially a human intelligence, and neither rises above nor\nsinks below the ordinary intelligence of humanity.\n\nThe intelligence is always on a level with that of the medium through\nwhom it manifests itself. That is, it never rises so far above that\nof the medium as to preclude the possibility of its having its origin\nin the medium's subjective mind. That it often rises above the\nmedium's known objective intelligence, is well known and admitted.\nBut we have already seen what remarkable powers the subjective mind\npossesses in certain lines of intellectual activity, and with what\nlimitations it is hedged about; and we find that the intellectual feats\nof mediums possess all the characteristics belonging to subjective\nintelligence,--the same wonderful powers, and the same limitations.\nThat so-called spirit communications always correspond to the nature\nof the medium's mind and character, and are limited by his capacity,\nis admitted by all the ablest writers on spiritism; and their greatest\ningenuity is taxed to account for the fact. Alleged communications from\nthe greatest philosophers who have gone before, amount to the merest\ntwaddle when filtered through an ignorant medium.\n\nAgain, we find that the intelligence is controllable by the power of\nsuggestion. This is shown in the readiness with which \"spirits\" can be\nmade to respond to calls made upon them, whether they have any real\nexistence or not. It is well known that any one can as readily obtain\na communication from an imaginary person as from a real one, from a\nliving person as from the dead, providing the medium does not happen\nto know the facts. The writer has had frequent and very affectionate\ncommunications from an imaginary dead sister, and has occasionally had\na very touching communication from himself, the medium believing the\nname to represent a dead brother. The fact that he never had either\nbrother or sister made the communication all the more convincing.\n\nThis perfect amenability to control by suggestion is evinced in another\nmost remarkable way. It is well known to every person who has been\nin the habit of attending spiritual s\u00e9ances how necessary it is that\n\"harmonious conditions\" should prevail. The very presence of an avowed\nsceptic will often prevent any manifestations. It frequently happens\nthat some one present remarks, in a despairing tone, that he does not\nexpect any manifestations, \"because it always happens that when I am\npresent no communications can be had.\" When such a remark is made, the\nchances are ten to one that the \"spirits\" will refuse to respond. Why\nthis happens, spiritists have laboriously attempted to explain, but\nnever satisfactorily, except to themselves. The fact that a spirit,\npossessing sufficient power to move a table, raise a piano to the\nceiling, or levitate the medium, should be paralyzed in presence of\none who does not believe in spirits, is simply inexplicable, except\nupon the one hypothesis, namely, that the power evoked is that of the\nsubjective mind of the medium, which is amenable to control by the\nmysterious power of suggestion. It is inconceivable that the spirit\nof Napoleon Bonaparte, who, when living, swayed the destinies of\nnations, used kings and popes as his puppets, and led his hosts to\nsuccessful battle against the combined armies of Europe, should, when\ndead, shrink, abashed and powerless, in presence of some one man who\nhappens not to believe in spiritism. But it can be readily understood\nhow a s\u00e9ance should prove a failure when we assume that the power\nthat moves the table or writes the communications is exercised by the\nsubjective intelligence of the medium, and that the presence of an\navowed sceptic operates as an ever-present and all-potent suggestion\nthat the promised manifestations are impossible in his presence. It\nis in strict accordance with the universal law of suggestion that\nsuch should be the result. It is this constant amenability to control\nby suggestion which always hampers mediums when they are giving test\ns\u00e9ances in the presence of sceptical investigators; and I undertake\nto say that no medium ever was, or ever can be, powerful enough to\nproduce his phenomena under test conditions in presence of a hostile\nand aggressively sceptical investigating committee. It is no fault of\nthe medium that this is the case, and it is no test whatever of the\ngenuineness of his phenomena. But it is presumptive, if not conclusive,\nevidence that the source of his phenomena resides within himself, and\nhence is amenable to the universal law which governs the action of\nall subjective intelligence and power. Neither is it any reflection\nupon the sincerity of the investigator that he fails to witness the\nphenomena that have been promised. His ignorance of the law which\ngoverns the subject-matter, together with his desire to be frank and\nhonest enough with the medium to put him in possession of a knowledge\nof his sentiments and prejudices, leads him unwittingly to place an\ninsuperable barrier in the way of success. It unfortunately happens\nthat many professional mediums, despairing of success in producing\nthe genuine phenomena, and more than ordinarily anxious to earn the\nreward of success, will, under such circumstances, resort to fraud\nand legerdemain. The temptation to do so is great when he reflects\nupon how much is at stake, the immediate monetary reward promised\nbeing the least consideration. His professional pride, his love of\napprobation, his hope of future fame and emolument in case he succeeds\nin convincing a sceptical scientific investigator,--all operate to\nconstitute a temptation too great to be always successfully withstood.\nBesides, he knows that, under favorable conditions, he can produce the\ngenuine phenomena, that he has produced them again and again, and he\nquiets his conscience by reflecting that it can do no harm to resort to\nlegerdemain to simulate that which he knows to have a genuine existence.\n\nIn this connection it may be well to state what must already be obvious\nto the intelligent reader; namely, that the only way to secure the\nproduction of genuine phenomena is, first, to secure the confidence of\nthe medium by assuming to be in hearty sympathy with him, and by giving\nhim to understand that you thoroughly believe in his honesty and his\npower to produce genuine phenomena. Give him all the time he wants,\nand assure him that you are in no hurry; remembering always that quiet\npassivity and undisturbed serenity of mind on the part of a medium is\nan indispensable prerequisite to success, not only in producing the\nphenomena, but in entering the subjective condition. It is precisely\nthe same in this respect as it is in hypnotism. The condition of the\nmedium, when in a trance or partial trance, is precisely the condition\nof a hypnotized person, and he is subject to the same laws, and the\nsame conditions are necessary and indispensable to his success. Every\nhypnotist knows that it would be madness to antagonize a hypnotic\nsubject by suggesting to him in advance that he is an impostor, or\nthat hypnotic phenomena are mere humbug, and then expect to hypnotize\nhim and produce the phenomena. When investigators realize this one fact\nthey will have taken the primary lesson in spiritistic investigation.\nEvery one who understands the first principles of hypnotism knows\nwhat folly it would be to subject the science to the test of allowing\na sceptical investigator to take a subject in hand and begin the\noperation of trying to hypnotize him by assuring him that hypnotism\nis imposture, and all subjects are mere pretenders. And yet one who\ninvestigates hypnotism in that way does, in effect, precisely what the\nsceptical investigator of spiritistic phenomena does when he avows his\nscepticism to the medium in advance. If investigators would observe\nthe rule here suggested, and always endeavor to put the medium at his\nease and accede to all the conditions prescribed by him, instead of\ninsisting upon test conditions of their own devising, they would soon\nfind that they would witness all the phenomena desired, and under\nconditions that preclude the possibility of fraud or legerdemain. Any\nother course almost of necessity defeats the object sought.\n\nIt will be seen, therefore, that a failure to produce phenomena at\na given time does not necessarily indicate fraud on the part of the\nmedium; and in strict justice to professional mediums, who as a class\nhave been brought into disrepute by the fraudulent practices of some\nof their number, it must be said that the detection of a medium in\nfraudulent practices does not _per se_ prove that he was consciously\nguilty; for it is an undoubted fact that when a medium is unconscious,\nand his subjective mind is in control, it often acts capriciously,\nand presumably fraudulent practices might be indulged in without the\nobjective knowledge or consent of the medium. Therefore, until the\nlaws governing the subject-matter are better understood, we should\nextend the broadest charity over the professional medium, except in\ncases where it is discovered that the paraphernalia necessary for the\nperpetration of fraud have been prepared by the medium in advance.\n\nAt this point the question will naturally be asked, \"How can a medium,\nprofessional or otherwise, be entitled to credit for honesty, who\nrepresents himself as being able to hold communion with the spirits\nof the dead, or to be an instrument through which communications\nfrom spirits of the dead can be obtained, if, in point of fact, such\ncommunications have their origin wholly within his own personality?\"\n\nThis is perhaps the most pertinent and the most far-reaching\nquestion that could be formulated in regard to the hypothesis under\nconsideration. If it could not be fairly answered from a purely\nscientific standpoint, our hypothesis would not be worthy of further\ndiscussion; for it is simply impossible to presuppose that all the\nimmense number of mediums, professional and private, who may be\nfound in all ranks of society throughout the civilized world, are\ndeliberately and consciously perpetrating a fraud upon mankind. On\nthe contrary, I here take occasion to say that there is no system of\nreligious belief which is so thoroughly fortified by facts as that of\nspiritism, when its phenomena are viewed from the standpoint of the\ninvestigator who is unacquainted with the latest scientific discoveries\nin the domain of experimental psychology. But with that knowledge in\npossession, the evidential value of the phenomena of spiritism is\nvastly depreciated, and the high character of the medium for truth and\nsincerity loses all its weight as a factor in the case.\n\nThe intelligent reader has already anticipated the answer to the\nforegoing question. It is simply this: that the subjective mind of\nthe medium, being controlled by suggestion, believes itself to be the\nspirit of any deceased person whose name is suggested. It has been\neducated to that belief through the objective education and environment\nof the individual. It is, by the laws of its being, absolutely\ncontrolled by the objective belief of the medium, and the suggestions\nembraced in that belief. It is true that it often acts capriciously and\nindependently, but it is always in pursuance of the auto-suggestion\nor belief of the medium that it is an extraneous and, therefore, an\nindependent power.\n\nNo one who has witnessed even the stage exhibitions of the phenomena\nof hypnotism will doubt the substantial truth of this proposition. An\nintelligent subject can be made to assume any number of characters,\ndiverse as the antipodes, and in each one he will imitate the original\nin thought, word, and action with perfect fidelity, so far as he knows\nthe character, habits, and idiosyncrasies of the individual personated,\nfirmly believing himself to be the individual he represents. He may,\nwith the same facility, be transformed into an angel or a devil or an\nanimal; and he will never doubt the truth of the suggestion, or fail to\nact the character suggested, so far as it is physically possible. These\nfacts are well known to all hypnotists, as well as to all who witness\nthe common stage exhibitions of the phenomena. Some stage hypnotists\nhave much difficulty in preventing their subjects from exhibiting\nspiritistic phenomena on the platform. This was a common experience of\nProfessor Cadwell, an American performer, who was himself a spiritist.\nWhen it became known to his audiences and subjects that the latter were\nliable to be \"controlled by spirits,\" the trouble became very marked,\nand the professor was greatly annoyed by the frequency with which his\nsubjects were seized upon by \"passing spirits,\" and made to receive\ncommunications and perform other antics in the name of the spirits\nof their dead acquaintances. The phenomena exhibited through these\nsubjects were identical with those shown through ordinary mediums,\nand indeed some of his best subjects afterwards became successful\nprofessional mediums. That the liability of the professor's subjects to\nlapse into mediumship was the result of suggestion is shown by the fact\nthat Professor Carpenter, who was Cadwell's pupil, and operated by his\nmethods, and was in every sense his peer as an operator, never had any\ntrouble with mediumistic phenomena, for the simple reason that he was\ncareful to avoid suggesting the idea to his subjects that such a thing\nwas possible. In point of fact it is well known to many hypnotists\nthat all the phenomena of spiritism can be reproduced through their\nsubjects by simply suggesting to them that they are under the control\nof spirits. Of course it may be said that the spirits do actually take\npossession of a hypnotic subject when permitted to do so, and that it\nis the genuine control of spirits after all. The answer to this is that\nit is also just as easy to obtain communications from a living person\nthrough a hypnotic subject as from a dead one, and from an imaginary\nperson as from a real one, by merely making the proper suggestion. The\nsame is true of any medium, for that matter, as will presently be shown.\n\nIt is obvious, therefore, that the universal law of suggestion operates\nupon the subjective mind of a medium with the same force and certainty\nas upon all others. He is in the subjective, or hypnotic, condition.\nThe suggestion that he is about to be controlled by the spirits of the\ndead is ever present to his mind, and is all potent. It is a part of\nhis education. It is his religious belief. No other explanation of the\nmysterious phenomena is known to him. He knows only that he is moved by\na power, an intelligence, over which he exerts no conscious control.\nIt gives utterance to thoughts beyond his comprehension, and possesses\nknowledge of matters of which he consciously knows nothing. His\nconclusion is, first that the intelligence is something extraneous to\nhis personality, and secondly that it must be that of an inhabitant of\nanother world. From his standpoint it is the only rational conclusion.\nHis hereditary belief in the immortality of the soul confirms it. His\nreading of the Bible sanctions the belief in the power of spirits to\nhold communion with the living. His hope of a life beyond the grave,\nand his longing to hold communion with the loved and lost, combine to\ngive his conclusions a welcome reception in the chambers of his mind.\n\nA more potent suggestion was never forced upon the subjective\nmind of man than this; and in obedience to the universal law, it\nmust be believed by the medium's subjective mind, and acted upon\naccordingly. And the subjective mind _does_ believe the suggestion\nmost implicitly. If it did not, the law of suggestion would have no\nplace in experimental psychology, and all the conclusions deducible\ntherefrom would have to be revised. So believing, it follows that,\nwhen questioned, it will unhesitatingly affirm that it is the spirit\nof whatever person is suggested; and so far as the medium knows the\ncharacter or antecedents of the spirit invoked, that spirit will\nbe personated with all the preternatural acumen characteristic of\nsubjective mental activity.\n\nIf the chain of reasoning by which the medium and his friends have\narrived at the conclusion that the phenomena must proceed from\ndisembodied spirits seems to them to be perfect, their conviction rises\nto the dignity of a certainty, in their estimation, when the supposed\nspirit begins to forward alleged communications from the hypothetical\nborder-land of another world. They find that his alleged \"control\" is\nable to tell them secrets which they supposed to be safe in their own\ncustody, or perhaps only known to themselves and the deceased whose\nspirit has been invoked. He will describe the character and personal\nappearance of deceased persons whom it was impossible that he should\nhave known in life, sometimes even giving their names and ages; he will\ntell of incidents in their career known only to the person for whose\nbenefit the communication is given.\n\nIf the sitter is sceptical, and has learned something of telepathy,\nhis ready objection is that all this is \"mind-reading.\" But presently\nthe medium will describe some one of whom the sitter has not thought\nfor years, who was utterly unknown to the medium, and of whom he\nnever heard. It is then that the sitter is confounded. His telepathic\nexplanation is exploded, for he \"was not thinking of the deceased at\nall; it could not, therefore, be mind-reading,\" he declares, with all\nthe enthusiasm of a new convert whose last objection has been answered.\n\nThere is no more common or popular explanation of certain phases of\nspiritistic phenomena than attributing them to mind-reading. When a\nmedium relates to you incidents of your life of which you know he\nhas no previous knowledge, the most obvious explanation is that he\nreads your mind,--that is, if you do not believe that he is controlled\nby spirits; and you are undoubtedly right. But when he tells you of\nthings that you had forgotten, and describes persons of whom you are\nnot thinking, you jump to the conclusion that thought-reading does not\nexplain that particular phenomenon. And it is just here that you make a\nmistake, for the reason that you do not understand the first principles\nof mind-reading. But when it is once understood that mind-reading\nis the communion of two subjective minds, and that the objective or\nconscious thoughts of the sitter have no necessary effect upon the\ncharacter of the communications, it will be seen that the fact that the\nsitter was not consciously thinking of the person described, or had\nforgotten the incident recalled, has no evidential value whatever. The\nsitter may or may not be thinking consciously of the subject of the\ncommunication; he may even be endeavoring to cause the medium to speak\nof some particular one with whom he earnestly desires to communicate.\nIt makes no difference whatever, for it is the uppermost thought of\nthe subjective mind that is read, and of that the sitter has neither\nknowledge nor conscious control. That the medium relates incidents of\nthe sitter's life which he had forgotten until reminded of them, is not\nat all strange or unaccountable, when we remember that the memory of\nthe subjective mind is perfect. Neither is there any evidential value\nin the fact that the sitter cannot remember an incident related by the\nmedium; for he must remember that objective memory retains little,\ncomparatively, of the incidents of life, while the subjective mind\nretains all.\n\nIt will thus be seen that in order to explain the phenomena of\nspiritism on the hypothesis that it has its origin wholly within the\nsub-conscious mind of the medium, it is not necessary to presuppose\nthat he is dishonest or insincere when he attributes it to disembodied\nspirits. In the absence of knowledge on his part of the recent\ndiscoveries in psychological science, he has the best of reasons for\nso believing, for up to the present time no other hypothesis has\nbeen advanced which will account for all the phenomena on any other\nrational supposition. But the two great laws--duality of mind and\nsuggestion--clear away the greatest stumbling-block in the way of\nscientific investigation of this, the greatest problem of the ages.\nIt is now no longer necessary to deny the phenomena, since they can\nall be accounted for on scientific principles, outside the domain of\nthe supernatural. It is no longer necessary to consider the spiritual\nmedium either a fool or an impostor, since the phenomena are genuine,\nand their explanation on scientific principles is impossible, except in\nthe light of very recent discoveries in psychic science.\n\nHaving set forth the fundamental principles underlying the production\nof so-called spirit phenomena, we will now proceed briefly to examine\ntheir various phases and leading characteristics, and to show how the\nhypothesis under consideration applies to each of them with the same\nforce and pertinency as in the case of the other psychic phenomena\nwhich have been considered.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nTHE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM (_continued_).\n\n Various Classes of Phenomena.--Clairvoyance.--Its Field not yet\n clearly defined.--Telepathy invades its Ancient Domain.--Simple\n Experiments in Telepathy.--Their Significance.--Telepathic Power\n in Mediums.--Telepathic Visions.--A Typical S\u00e9ance.--Wonderful\n Exhibition of Telepathic Power.--An Affecting Interview of\n the Sitter with Himself.--Deductions.--Visions of Inanimate\n Things as well as of Deceased Persons.--Spirit of the Jack of\n Clubs.--Subjective Memory.--Spirit Identity.--Allan Kardec's\n Observations.--His Illogical Conclusions.--His Supreme\n Test.--Telepathic Explanation.--Four Ways of explaining his Test\n Case.\n\n\nThere are several ways by which the operations of the subjective mind\ncan be brought above the threshold of consciousness. When this is done\nby any one of the various methods, a phenomenon is produced. Each of\nthese phenomena has been, at some time in the history of mankind,\nattributed to the agency of disembodied spirits.\n\nThe leading phenomena above alluded to are clairvoyance, clairaudience,\ntelepathy, mesmerism, or hypnotism, automatic writing, percussive\nsounds (spirit-rapping), movement of ponderable bodies (table-tipping),\nand phantasmic appearances.\n\nOf these, clairvoyance, telepathy, and hypnotism have generally ceased\nto be regarded as proceeding from supernatural agencies. They are now\nrecognized as powers inherent in mankind, and, as will be seen, are\nlargely employed to explain other phenomena.\n\nOf clairvoyance little will be said, for the reason that it is still\nan open question among scientists who have been, and are still,\ninvestigating the subject, whether independent clairvoyance exists as\na power of the human mind. Sufficient evidence has not been brought to\nmy attention to demonstrate its existence. Certainly the great bulk of\nphenomena which are popularly regarded as evincing clairvoyant power\nmust now be referred to telepathy. It must be said, however, that many\nphenomena have been produced which cannot at present be accounted\nfor on any other hypothesis than that of independent clairvoyance.\nYet it is not impossible that, when the laws of telepathy are better\nunderstood, all so-called clairvoyant phenomena may be referred to that\nagency. For the purposes of our argument, however, it is not specially\nimportant that the distinction should be clearly drawn between the two,\ninasmuch as telepathy, which is an undoubted power of the subjective\nmind, sufficiently explains all the so-called spiritistic phenomena\ninvolving the perception by the medium of facts not within his own\nexperience or his previous knowledge. I will therefore first treat\nof those phenomena the mysteries of which are directly and primarily\nreferable to telepathy.\n\nA very simple experiment will enable almost any one to demonstrate\ntelepathic power. Let a person be securely blindfolded, by taking a\npair of kid gloves, folding them into pads, placing them over his eyes,\nand binding them on by means of a handkerchief. Then let a circle\nbe formed by a few persons, with their hands joined, the percipient\nforming one of the circle. Let a card be selected at random from a\npack, taking care that no one sees any other card of the pack, even for\nan instant, until the experiment is over. Then place the card in plain\nsight of all but the percipient, and let them fix their minds and gaze\nupon the card, and in silence await the result. In the mean time the\npercipient should be and remain in a perfectly passive and tranquil\nframe of mind, and simply watch for visions. He will soon begin to see\nindistinct objects floating in the darkness, and these objects will\npresently begin to form themselves into shapes more distinct. They may\nbe evanescent, and disappear at intervals; but they will soon return\nin still more definite form, and will eventually assume some shape\nthat will suggest the card selected. It may be that a vision of the\nwhole card will be presented, exactly as it is, or it may be that there\nwill be a sort of allegorical representation of it. For instance, in\nan experiment tried in presence of the author the ten of diamonds had\nbeen selected. Instead of seeing a vision of the card, there was an\nappearance of ten real diamonds, arranged in rows corresponding to the\nrows of spots on the card, each one sending forth rays of light and\nscintillations of color. As it was the first experiment the percipient\nhad ever tried, he was at a loss to know the meaning, if it had any,\nof the vision; but as it persisted in coming, he finally ventured\nto remark, hesitatingly, that he had an \"impression of the ten of\ndiamonds.\" The applause which followed told him that his subjective\nmind had conveyed to his consciousness by means of an allegorical\nvision the information it had telepathically received. It may here be\nremarked parenthetically that the subjective mind of man appears to be\nfond of allegory as a means of conveying its thoughts or information\nabove the threshold of consciousness. The history of mankind is full of\nillustrations of this fact.\n\nWhen the next card was selected, the percipient saw the vision of a\nsingle heart spot floating in the darkness, unattached to anything like\na card; whereupon he ventured to name the ace of hearts, which was\ncorrect. In all, five cards were selected at this sitting, and each one\nwas named correctly, with the exception of the last, which was the five\nof spades. The five of clubs was named; but the percipient explained\nhis mistake by saying that one-half of each spot was concealed from\nhis view, namely, the points of the spade spots, which appeared to be\nthrust into the darkness, so to speak, leaving only the handle end of\nthe spades exposed to view. As that half of the spade spot corresponds\nexactly to the corresponding half of a club spot, the mistake was\nnatural, and was really of as great, if not greater, evidential value\nthan if the card had been correctly named.\n\nOthers of the company tried the same experiment, generally without\nphysical contact with any one else, and each one was able to name some\nof the cards correctly. But no one was able to name correctly a card\nwhich was not seen by some one else,--which showed clearly that the\npower to see the card resulted from telepathy, and not from independent\nclairvoyance. It should be here stated that there were six in the\ncompany, each one of whom tried the experiment, and each scored a\nsufficient number of successes to remove the result from the domain of\ncoincidence.\n\nThese experiments were as simple as could well be devised, and to the\nunreflecting mind may seem trifling. But I shall endeavor to show that\nthey possess unmeasured significance.\n\nBefore proceeding to do so, it may be well to state that visions\nresulting from telepathic communion are as varied as is the character\nof the communicants or the subjects of the messages. They are often\nseen by the percipient as plainly as the objective reality could be\nseen; and events are depicted by means of visions that re-enact the\nscenes, with all the characters and actors represented, as perfectly as\nthe reality itself.[35]\n\nIt now remains to show how this faculty of reading the minds of others\nis unconsciously employed by spirit mediums to impart to their clients\ninformation regarding persons and events of which the medium has no\nprevious knowledge.\n\nWe will consider, for this purpose, the case of a medium who develops\nno physical phenomena, but who simply receives his visitor, tells\nhim of the events of his past life, describes his spirit-friends,\nconveys oral communications from them, and occasionally drops into\nprophecy. The visitor may or may not be a professed believer in\nspiritism; but the fact that he is there to consult a medium shows a\nfaith sufficient for the purpose in view, and propinquity places his\nsubjective mind _en rapport_ with that of the medium. We will suppose\nthat this is the first time that the two have met, and that the medium\nis entirely unacquainted with the character, the antecedents, or the\ndeceased friends of the sitter. The first thing that the medium does\nis to become wholly or partially self-hypnotized. He may go into the\nstate only partially, and appear to the visitor to be in his normal\ncondition. He may, and probably does, believe that his \"control\" takes\npossession of his body and talks through him; he has, as we have\nalready seen, every reason for this belief. He is taken possession\nof by some unseen force, is guided by some unseen intelligence which\npossesses powers and attributes of which he is not conscious in his\nnormal condition. He has no other hypothesis to account for the\nextraordinary manifestations of which that intelligence is the source.\nTo make assurance doubly sure, the intelligence tells him that it is\nthe spirit of some deceased person, and gives him a detailed and very\nplausible account of itself. He is forced to believe the statements of\nhis subjective entity, for he knows no reason for believing otherwise,\nand it, in turn, is compelled by the laws of its being to believe\nitself to be what it represents; for the suggestion has been made to\nit that it is the spirit of a deceased person. That suggestion having\nbeen made in a general way, to begin with, his subjective mind will\nproceed to fill in the details in some way with marvellous acumen, and\nwith such logical circumstantiality of detail as to deceive \"the very\nelect.\" It is just as it is in the case of a hypnotized person, who, in\npursuance of a post-hypnotic suggestion, having done some absurd act,\nwhen questioned as to why he did it, will, on the instant, invent some\nreason so plausible that the act will seem perfectly natural to one who\ndoes not know its origin.\n\nAgain, the subjective mind of the sitter is also controlled by a\nsuggestion, more or less strong, that spirits of the dead are about\nto be invoked; and it is also ready with its logical deductions from\nthe premises suggested, and will perform its part in the s\u00e9ance with\nthe same alacrity and acumen. Here, then, we have two subjective minds\n_en rapport_, and the telepathic conditions for a successful s\u00e9ance\nare established. The shrewd and successful medium usually begins by\nmaking some very complimentary remarks concerning the character and\nmental attributes of the sitter. This puts the latter at his ease,\nand gives him an exalted opinion of the good sense and judgment of\nthe medium. Some incidents of the sitter's life may then be related,\nand his occupation indicated. It will generally be done in terms such\nas indicate the fact that the medium obtains his impressions by means\nof visions. For instance, the writer once heard a medium in New York\ncity describe the occupation of an examiner in the United States\nPatent Office. The two had never met before, and did not know of each\nother's existence ten minutes before the s\u00e9ance. Even the name of the\nsitter had been withheld from the medium, for the purpose of testing\nher telepathic powers, and for the further purpose of convincing one\nof those present that spirits of the dead had nothing to do with the\nmanifestations. The members of the party introduced each other by\nfictitious names, and talked spiritism to the medium until \"harmonious\nconditions\" were established, when the s\u00e9ance began. \"I see an immense\nbuilding,\" she began, \"with a great number of rooms in it. In one of\nthese rooms I see you, seated at a large desk, with a great many papers\nupon it. I see drawings, apparently of machinery, spread out upon the\ndesk before you. It seems to me that you must have something to do\nwith patent rights.\" She was informed that her conjecture was thus far\ncorrect. It should here be remembered that a medium should always be\nencouraged by a frank acknowledgment when he is correct. It encourages\nhim, puts him at his ease, and constitutes a suggestion that he is able\nto perceive the truth in reference to that particular person; and,\nconsequently, helps him to proceed correctly with other manifestations.\n\n\"But,\" continued the lady, \"this is not your only occupation. I see\nyou in your library at home, surrounded by books and manuscripts. You\nappear to be writing a book.\"\n\nShe then went on to describe correctly all the bookcases and other\nfurniture in the room, and then said,--\n\n\"I see the pathway by which you have arrived at your present conclusion\nin reference to the subject of your book. It is all strewn with\nrubbish and weeds, all of which you have thrown aside. But you see a\ngreat light ahead, and are pursuing that with perfect confidence and\nsteadiness of purpose.\"\n\n\"Am I in the right path?\" inquired the examiner.\n\n\"I cannot tell, for I cannot perceive the subject on which you are\nwriting. I think you are, however, for the light ahead seems so clear.\"\n\nAfter a pause she added,--\n\n\"You are making one mistake. You think that you are doing it all\nyourself. But you are not. You are constantly guided by a great spirit.\"\n\n\"Who is he?\" was asked, with all the greater interest because the\ngentleman _was_ writing a book, and, like every other author, felt that\nhe had perceived \"a great light;\" moreover, if he was sure of anything\nconnected with it, he was sure that he was doing it himself, without\nthe aid of any spirit or spirits. \"Give me the name of my spirit friend\nand guide,\" he added.\n\n\"I cannot do that to-day,\" she replied, with the true commercial\ninstinct of the professional medium; \"come to-morrow, and I will try to\ngive you the name.\"\n\nAccordingly, the same party visited her the next day, when she made\nevery effort to obtain the name, but without success. It should be\nstated here that the lady was a slate-writing medium. Communication\nafter communication was written, but without signature, and all efforts\nto obtain the name were futile. Finally the gentleman said, in an aside\napparently not intended for the ears of the medium, \"I think I know who\nit is. It must be either A B [naming a living friend in Washington],\nor my brother, C D [giving his own name],\" for he had no brother,\nliving or dead. Immediately a communication was written out, signed\nby the supposed spirit brother, announcing the fact that he, and he\nalone, was the inspiring power in charge of the literary work named,\nthat he was the \"guardian spirit\" of the gentleman, over whom he was\n\"constantly watching,\" etc.\n\nThe emotions created by the affecting terms of the communication can be\nimagined when it is stated that all present, save the medium, knew that\nthe name was that of the sitter, and that he never had a brother. But\nthese emotions quickly gave place to wonder and admiration when it was\ndiscovered that the signature was an almost exact reproduction of his\nown, with all its salient peculiarities faithfully reproduced.\n\nComment upon this wonderful admixture of genuine telepathic power\nand conscious or unconscious fraud will not be indulged in, save to\nremark that the first day's proceedings exhibited marvellous telepathic\npower under the most perfect test conditions. As to the second day's\nperformance, it need only be said that if the communication had\nbeen from a genuine spirit, struggling in vain to remember his own\nname, it shows that even spirits are controlled by the subtle power\nof suggestion; for he had no hesitation in assuming the name of the\nsitter when that name was suggested, and he so completely identified\nhimself with that person as to reproduce his signature with marvellous\naccuracy. It may be said that a fraud was perpetrated upon the medium.\nTo this the plea of guilty must be entered, together with a plea of\nextenuating circumstances, in that it was done in pursuit of scientific\ntruth. Whether the interests of truth were subserved, the reader must\njudge for himself. To that end he must ask himself the question whether\nit is not more probable that this manifestation was of the subjective\nentity of the medium rather than of an independent, disembodied\nspirit. Conceding the inherent power in mankind to convey and receive\ntelepathic communications, it must be evident that telepathy is a\nsufficient explanation of what occurred the first day. It is true that\nthe medium thought that the information thus obtained was conveyed to\nher by disembodied spirits. But that does not change the facts; and\nwhen a phenomenon is explicable by reference to known natural laws,\nwe have neither occasion nor logical right to seek an explanation in\nthe realm of the supernatural. The second day's performance is as\neasily explicable under the well-known laws of hypnotism. The medium\nwas in a partially hypnotic state, her subjective mind was active\nand in control of her physical powers, and was necessarily perfectly\namenable to control by suggestion from any source. In obedience to the\nlaw of auto-suggestion, it believed itself to be a disembodied spirit.\nIt acted in that capacity far enough to write communications of the\nstandard, indefinite character common to such productions, but could\ngive no name, for the simple reason that there was no name to give, and\nnone had been suggested. But the instant a name was suggested it seized\nupon it, and, in pursuance of the suggestion that it represented the\nsitter's brother, wrote just such a communication as the logic of the\nsituation dictated, believing, without a doubt, that it was actually\nthe spirit of the deceased brother of the sitter. It may be asked why,\nif the medium was possessed of such wonderful telepathic power, did\nshe not perceive the fact that she was being imposed upon, that the\nsitter was not sincere in his professions of a belief in spiritism,\nand that he had not a brother in the spirit-land. Simply because\nshe was controlled by the universal law of suggestion, and the oral\nsuggestions had been made that he was a believer, and that he had a\nbrother deceased. If she had disbelieved the statement, it would have\nconstituted an exception to the operation of a natural and universal\nlaw,--a suspension, in fact, of the laws of nature.\n\nOn the other hand, if we are to discard the foregoing explanation and\nhold that it was actually a disembodied spirit controlling the medium,\nwe must presuppose a spirit without a name, or without sufficient\nintelligence to remember his name. Either supposition, if it does\nno violence to common-sense, is contrary to all the teachings of\nspiritists, who have led us to believe that the law of spirit-life\nis that of eternal progress; that all truth stands revealed to the\nperception of the disembodied soul. It would cause one to lose\nconfidence in his guardian angels if he were forced to believe that a\nshort residence in the spirit-land could reduce the immortal mind to\nsuch a state of imbecility.\n\nThis digression is indulged in for the purpose of illustrating the fact\nthat one of the means by which telepathic impressions are conveyed from\none to another is by visions. The percipient sees a vision representing\nthe incident sought to be communicated by the agent. He sees the image\nof the object or person which the agent desires him to see. Thus, when\na person consults a medium he generally expects and desires to learn\nsomething of his deceased friends. The medium goes into the subjective\ncondition for that purpose. The visitor's mind is full of anticipation\nand hope that he will be put into direct communication with the loved\nand lost. Presently the medium sees a vision of some person. He\nbelieves that he sees a spirit. He describes it, and it is found to\ncorrespond with one of the visitor's deceased friends. The visitor\nrecognizes the description, and says so. He asks for the name, and it\nis given. Then the medium sees a vision representing some incident\nknown only to the visitor and the deceased. He describes the incident,\nnot, perhaps, as a vision which he sees, but as a statement of fact\nimparted to him by the spirit. The visitor very likely knows that the\nmedium knew nothing of him or of the deceased before that hour. He is\nconvinced that the medium has seen and conversed with the spirit of\nhis dead friend, and he is a convert to spiritism from that moment.\nNow, has the medium actually seen a spirit, or has he merely read the\nsitter's subjective mind? Is there any more reason for supposing that\nhe has seen a spirit of a dead man than there is for supposing that a\nmind-reader sees the spirit of the Jack of clubs when the image of that\ncard is telepathed to him? Obviously not. The conditions are precisely\nthe same in both cases. The percipient sees the image of that which is\nin the mind of the agent. In the one case, it is a card; in the other\nit is an individual. If it is the spirit of the individual that is\nseen in the one case, it is the spirit of the card that is seen in the\nother. In the case of the New York medium, did she see the spirit of\nthe Patent Office, the spirits of the papers, the drawings, the desks,\nand the spirit of the examiner seated at the spirit of one of the\ndesks, examining the spirits of the drawings and of the specifications?\n\nI repeat it, the percipient sees the image of that which is in\nthe mind of the agent, and he never sees more than that. It often\nhappens that the image of some one is seen, of whom the agent is not\nconsciously thinking at the moment. This has been already explained,\non the obvious ground that it is the subjective, or unconscious, mind\nof the agent that is read. It sometimes happens that some fact is\nrelated, some scene described, which the sitter cannot recall to mind,\nand he conscientiously declares that he never knew the fact related,\nnor witnessed the incident depicted. But when it is remembered that\nthe subjective mind of man retains all that he has ever seen, heard,\nor read, and that he retains comparatively little in his objective\nrecollection, it is extremely unsafe for him to declare that any one\nfact has never been known to him. It is merely negative evidence\nat best, and amounts only to a declaration that he does not recall\nthe fact. When we consider how little we retain, in our objective\nrecollection, of what we have seen, heard, or read, we may well wonder\nthat it does not oftener happen that so-called spirits tell us of\ncircumstances which we do not remember. On the whole, it may be safely\nassumed that no medium has ever yet been able to impart any information\nthat is not known either to the medium or to some living person with\nwhom he is _en rapport_. There is certainly nothing but the merest\nnegative evidence, such as has been described, that such a thing ever\nhappened. On the other hand, there is the strongest possible evidence\nto the contrary, in the fact that there is room for a doubt on that\nquestion. It is self-evident that if facts, known neither to the\nmedium nor those surrounding him,--that is, facts not known to him nor\nobtainable by means of telepathy,--can be perceived or obtained by him\nfrom independent sources, the evidence of that fact would be thrust\nupon us from ten thousand different sources every hour. This is also\nnegative evidence, it is true, but it is all but conclusive. Thus, the\nquestion of spirit identity has given spiritists no end of trouble.\nTheir ablest writers have sought in vain for a solution of the question\nwhy it is that spirits constantly fail to give conclusive evidence of\ntheir identity by means which could not be referred to the knowledge of\nthe medium or to telepathy.\n\nOn this subject Allan Kardec, one of the ablest writers on the subject,\ndiscourses as follows:--\n\n \"The identity of contemporaneous spirits is much more easily\n proved,--those whose character and habits are known; for it is\n precisely these habits, which they have not yet had time to throw\n aside, by which they can be recognized.\"[36]\n\nThis may be true; but it is also true that where the \"character and\nhabits\" of a supposed spirit are known to the medium, or to those who\nare in telepathic rapport with him, simulation of that character and\nthose habits is perfectly easy to the expert medium. The more generally\nthe character and habits are known, the less evidential value is to be\nattached to their reproduction.\n\nOur author then proceeds:--\n\n \"Without doubt the spirit can give the proofs if asked, but he does\n not always do so, unless it is agreeable to him, and generally\n the asking wounds him; for this reason it should be avoided. In\n leaving his body the spirit has not laid aside his susceptibility;\n he is wounded by any question tending to put him to the proof.\n _It is such questions as one would not dare to propose to him,\n were he living_, for fear of overstepping the bounds of propriety;\n why, then, should there be less regard after his death? Should a\n man enter a drawing-room and decline to give his name, should\n we insist, at all hazards, that he should prove his identity by\n exhibiting his titles, under the pretext that there are impostors?\n Would he not, assuredly, have the right to remind his interrogator\n of the rules of good breeding? This is what the spirits do, either\n by not replying or by withdrawing. Let us make a comparison.\n Suppose the astronomer Arago during his life had presented himself\n in a house where no one knew him, and he had been thus addressed;\n 'You say you are Arago; but as we do not know you, please prove it\n by answering our questions; solve this astronomical problem; tell\n us your name, your Christian name, those of your children, what you\n did such and such a day, at such an hour, etc.' What would he have\n answered? Well, as a spirit he will do just what he would have done\n during his lifetime; and other spirits do the same.\"\n\nThe above is considered the best reason that can be given for\nthe fact that spirits whose character and habits in life are not\ngenerally known, or not known to the medium or to those surrounding\nhim, invariably refuse to give proofs of their identity. But is his\ncomparison pertinent? I think not. It might be considered impertinent,\nnay, the very height of ill-breeding, if one should insist on proofs\nof identity when a stranger is casually introduced, or introduces\nhimself, in a drawing-room. But let us make another comparison.\nSuppose a stranger--we, too, will say Arago the astronomer--calls\nus up by telephone, and makes a statement of the most transcendent\ninterest and importance to us,--a statement which, if true, will change\nthe whole course of our lives and our habits of thought. He states\nthat his special mission is to make this portentous announcement to\nus, and that his name is Arago, the astronomer. We know Arago the\nastronomer by reputation, but have never had the honor of his personal\nacquaintance. We know enough of him, however, to be certain that he\nwould tell us the exact truth as he understood it; and we would stake\nour dearest interests upon a statement of his regarding that about\nwhich he professed to have positive personal knowledge. Under such\ncircumstances would it be likely to wound his feelings or shock his\nsense of propriety if we should reply through the telephone something\nlike this:--\n\n\"Sir, your message is of portentous import to us, and we cannot\nhesitate to believe it if we can be assured that you are Arago the\nastronomer, as you represent. We can hear you, but we cannot see you,\nand you are not vouched for by any one we know. Please give us some\nproof of your identity.\"\n\nWould Arago the astronomer, or any other sensible man, wrap himself in\nthe mantle of offended dignity and treat us with silent contempt, or\nremind us of \"the rules of good-breeding\"? Certainly not, especially if\nthe object of his existence was to make the communication, not only for\nour individual benefit, but for the purpose of giving to all mankind\nthat direct and positive assurance, that tangible evidence, for which\nall humanity has sought in vain since the dawn of creation.\n\nOur author then continues:--\n\n \"While spirits refuse to answer puerile and impertinent questions\n which a person would have hesitated to ask during their lives,\n they often spontaneously give irrefutable proofs of their\n identity by their character, revealed in their language, by\n the use of words that were familiar to them, by citing certain\n facts,--particularities of their life sometimes unknown to the\n assistants, and whose truth has been verified. Proofs of identity\n will spring up in many unforeseen ways, which do not present\n themselves at first sight, but in the course of conversations.\n It is better, then, to wait for them, without calling for them,\n observing with care all that may flow from the nature of the\n communications. (See the fact given, No. 70.)\"\n\nTurning now to page 82 of the volume, we find the statement above\nalluded to, and it reads as follows:--\n\n \"On a vessel of the Imperial French navy, stationed in the Chinese\n seas, the whole crew, from the sailors up to the staff-major, were\n occupied in making tables talk. They hit upon the idea of invoking\n the spirit of a lieutenant of this same vessel, some two years\n dead. He came, and after various communications, which astonished\n every one, he said, by rapping, what follows: 'I pray you instantly\n to pay the captain the sum of (he mentioned the sum), which I owe\n him, and which I regret not having been able to repay before my\n death.' No one knew the fact; the captain himself had forgotten the\n debt,--a very small one; but on looking over his accounts, he found\n there the lieutenant's debt, the sum indicated being perfectly\n correct. We ask, of whose thought could this be the reflection?\"\n\nHere, then, we find the supreme test applied,--the best conditions\npossible, as prescribed by one of the ablest and most thoughtful\nwriters on the subject. It will be observed that he is not blind to the\npossibilities of telepathy, and counts it as a factor in the case. \"Of\nwhose thought could this be the reflection?\" he asks triumphantly. \"No\none knew the fact; the captain himself had forgotten the debt.\" It must\nbe admitted that if this test is conclusive, their case has been proved\na thousand times over. But in view of what is now known of the laws\nof telepathy, it is self-evident that it proves nothing. Telepathy,\nas we have again and again repeated, is the communion of two or more\nsubjective minds. It is not that of which we are consciously thinking\nthat the subjective mind of the medium perceives. Doubtless the captain\nhad forgotten, objectively, all about the loan. It was a very small\namount, and the lieutenant had been dead two years. But the subjective\nmind of the captain, which remembers all things, great and small, could\nnot forget it, and it was telepathed to the subjective mind of the\nmedium. Besides, there was another very potent agency at work to bring\nthis loan into prominence. We have already seen, in former chapters,\nthat the normal function of the subjective mind is to watch over and\nprotect the life of the individual. It is the strongest instinct of\nall animate nature. The protection of the material interests of the\nindividual is as much a part of the function of the subjective mind as\nthe protection of his life. Indeed, the promotion of the one is but a\nmeans to secure the other. It was, therefore, simple obedience to the\nfirst law of nature that prompted the subjective mind of the captain to\nthrust this loan upon the attention of those present and thus secure\nits payment.\n\nIt may be said, however, that there was no evidence that the captain\nwas present at the s\u00e9ance; and it may be assumed by some that\ntelepathic communion with his mind was impossible in his absence\nfrom the circle. The former supposition is possibly correct, but the\nlatter is not probable, in view of the well-known facts of telepathy.\nBut assuming both to be true,--that the captain was absent from the\nimmediate circle, and that the circumstance would prevent telepathic\ncommunion with his mind,--there still remain two or three other ways\nof accounting for the phenomenon. In the first place, it is extremely\nprobable that the captain's accounts were kept by a subordinate, who\nwas present, and who, subjectively at least, remembered the account.\nIt is distinctly stated that all the subordinates were present, \"from\nthe sailors up to the staff-major.\" This would necessarily include the\none whose duty it was to keep the books. His subjective mind would be\njust as available as that of the captain for the production of what, in\nthose days, was considered a test case. Again, supposing that the entry\nof the account was made by the captain's hand, it is extremely probable\nthat some one else had access to the books; and however superficially\nthe knowledge was impressed upon his consciousness, it was forever\nfixed upon the tablets of his subjective memory, and was instantly\navailable for use when a test case was needed. To those who regard\nindependent clairvoyance as an established principle, or faculty,\nof the human mind, the explanation is easy; for there would be no\ndifficulty in supposing the mind of the independent clairvoyant to be\ncapable of taking cognizance of all that was to be found in the ship's\nrecords.\n\nIt is extremely improbable, however, that any third party figured in\nthe transaction, or that it is necessary to assume that any third party\nknew of the loan. It is sufficient to know that the captain was aboard\nthe ship, and that everyone on the vessel was necessarily _en rapport_\nwith him. Besides, if any one in the circle was in telepathic rapport\nwith the captain, it would be an all-sufficient explanation of the\nphenomenon; for it is well known that specific information, not known\nto any one in the circle, can be obtained from some one having the\nknowledge who happens to be _en rapport_ with any person in the circle.\n\nThus it will be seen that there are at least four ways of accounting\nfor the phenomenon, on well-established principles, without the\nnecessity of resorting to the assumption of supernatural agencies.\n\nThe subtle _r\u00f4le_ which telepathy plays in so-called spirit\nmanifestations must now be apparent. It is not only in the class\nof phenomena to which we have alluded that its power is manifest,\nbut it reappears in all classes and phases of phenomena popularly\nattributed to spirits. The greater part of the mystery which surrounds\nthese manifestations, aside from the purely physical phenomena, is\ndirectly traceable to telepathy; and it explains that which, without\nits aid, would be inexplicable on any other hypothesis than that the\nmanifestations proceed from disembodied spirits.\n\nIn concluding the discussion of this branch of the subject, I desire\ndistinctly to impress upon the mind of the reader an important\nproposition which seems to have been lost sight of by many who are\notherwise inclined to give full credit to telepathy as a means of\nexplaining many so-called spirit phenomena. It is this:--\n\n_It is not necessary that any member of a circle should be in\npossession of objective knowledge of a fact in order to be able to\ncommunicate it telepathically to the medium._\n\nThe reason will be obvious, after a moment's reflection, to any one\nwho admits the existence of the power of telepathy. If the power is\npossessed by A to communicate a telepathic message to B, it follows\nthat B can communicate the same message to C, and C can convey it to\nD, and so on, _ad infinitum_. This proposition will not be gainsaid by\nany one who admits that A can convey a telepathic message to B. D may\nhave no objective knowledge of A or of B, but is _en rapport_ with C.\nNow, we will suppose that a disaster happens to A. He is missing; he\nis drowned; but no one possesses any objective knowledge of the fact,\nand his friends institute a vain search, no one having the remotest\nidea of what has happened to him. B, his mother, receives a telepathic\nmessage, conveyed by A at the moment of his death to her subjective\nmind, informing her of the sad accident. But not being sensitive to\nsubjective impressions, it is impossible for her subjective mind to\nconvey the message above the threshold of her consciousness. She is,\ntherefore, objectively ignorant of the fact, although her subjective\nmind is fully cognizant of all its sad details. In the mean time, C, a\nsympathetic neighbor, _en rapport_ with B, subjectively perceives that\nwhich is so strongly impressed upon the subjective mind of the mother.\nC is also unable to elevate the knowledge above the threshold of her\nconsciousness; but she is a believer in spiritism, and volunteers\nto visit a neighboring city and consult a medium. She does so; and\nthe moment she becomes _en rapport_ with the medium, the telepathic\nmessage is delivered, and the medium perceives, objectively as well as\nsubjectively, the details of the disaster which befell A. He describes\nthe whole transaction, and locates the exact spot where the body may\nbe found. Subsequent investigation demonstrates the exact knowledge\npossessed by the medium, for the whole environment is found to be\nexactly as described, and the body is found in the very spot indicated.\n\nNow, the spiritists say that this occurrence cannot be explained by\nreference to telepathy, for the reason that D was not _en rapport_\nwith A, nor with B. Nor was C _en rapport_ with A, for the latter was\ndead before C could have become cognizant of the facts. The obvious\nanswer to this is, as before indicated, that if the power exists in\nman to convey a telepathic message to his fellow-man, it presupposes\nthe existence of the power in the percipient to repeat the message to\na third person, and so on indefinitely, until some one receives it who\nhas the power to elevate the information above the threshold of his\nconsciousness, and thus convey it to the objective intelligence of the\nworld. Nor is the element of time necessarily an adverse factor in the\ncase; for there is no reason to suppose that such messages may not be\ntransmitted from one to another for generations. Thus, the particulars\nof a tragedy might be revealed many years after the event, and in such\na way as to render it difficult, if not impossible, to trace the line\nthrough which the intelligence was transmitted. For the spiritist the\neasy and ever-ready explanation of such a phenomenon is to ascribe it\nto the intervention of spirits of the dead. But to those who have kept\npace with the developments of modern scientific investigation, and who\nare able to draw the legitimate and necessary conclusions from the\nfacts discovered, the explanation is obvious, without the necessity of\nentering the domain of the supernatural.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 35: See \"Phantasms of the Living,\" and the Proceedings of the\nLondon Society for Psychical Research, for full confirmation of this\nstatement.]\n\n[Footnote 36: Book on Mediums, pp. 331-2.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nTHE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM (_continued_).\n\n Psychometry.--\"The Souls of Things.\"--Professor Denton's\n Experiments.--Wonderful Visions of the Ancient Environment\n of Geological Specimens.--A Piece of Mortar from\n Cicero's House.--Supposed Scientific Tests.--Explanation\n on Telepathic Principles.--Experiments in Hypnotism\n compared.--Clairvoyance and Telepathy.--Their Boundary\n Lines in Transit.--Clairaudience.--Definitions of the\n Term.--Socrates and his D\u00e6mon.--Modern Instances.--Mental\n Impressions.--Premonitions.--Their Unreliability.--Remarkable\n Examples of Clairaudience.--A Lawyer's Experience.--Subject to the\n Law of Suggestion.--Insanity sometimes results from Ignorance of\n the Cause.--Practical Suggestions.\n\n\nThere is another class of phenomena which has attracted a great deal\nof public attention, and which demands a passing notice in this\nconnection. It is that class which has received an exhaustive treatment\nin the work of the late Professor Denton, entitled \"The Souls of\nThings.\" It has been denominated \"psychometry,\" which may be defined\nas the supposed power of the human mind to discern the history of\ninanimate objects by clairvoyance. Many wonderful stories are related\nof the exercise of this supposed faculty, under the strictest test\nconditions, as test conditions were then understood. Professor Denton\nmade a long series of experiments with his sister, his wife, and some\nothers who were supposed to possess that power in a remarkable degree.\nThe powers of his wife and sister were indeed wonderful; but, as we\nshall see, not in the line in which the experiments were directed.\nIt must be premised that the professor was a very learned man, not\nonly in his specialty, which was geology, but in all branches of human\nknowledge. His wife and sister were also highly cultivated women, and\nwere specially interested in those branches of learning in which the\ngifted professor excelled. Thus the conditions were extremely favorable\nfor the production of extraordinary results in whatever branch of\noccult science they might jointly engage.\n\nIt was the habit of the professor to select some geological specimen,\nor a fragment of some historical structure, and submit it to his\npercipient for her version of its history. She would readily enter a\npartially subjective condition, place the relic on her head, and at\nonce give a very plausible, and oftentimes a most wonderfully accurate,\nhistory of the scenes which had been enacted within its former\nenvironment. Thus, if the object happened to be a geological specimen,\nshe would launch out into a glowing description of its surroundings\nwhen found, and going back into its history before the earth's crust\nwas formed, trace it down through the different geological changes\nuntil she landed it in the professor's cabinet. Again, a piece of\nmortar from the dwelling of Cicero would be handed to her, and she\nwould give a vivid description of the domestic life of those who had\noccupied the mansion, and describe historic events which \"might have\nbeen seen\" from the ancient habitat of the piece of mortar. It is\neasy to see how all this might be accomplished, and all the known\nfacts stated with accuracy, regarding the geological environment of\nthe piece of stone in her hands, when her own geological learning was\ntaken into consideration. But the professor was not unmindful of so\nobvious an explanation of her power. To eliminate that element was his\nfirst care. To that end he would wrap the specimen in a piece of paper,\nand carefully conceal its character from her objective knowledge. The\nresult was always the same. She would read the history of the specimen\nwith the same apparent accuracy as before. The professor, however, did\nnot forget the possibility that telepathy was an element necessary to\nbe eliminated. The possibility that she might read what was in his\nown mind must, therefore, be provided against. To that end he wrapped\na large number of specimens in packages as nearly alike as possible,\nand mixed them together so that it was impossible for him to know\nthem apart. One specimen after another would then be handed her, and\neach one would be described with the same accuracy as before. This\nwas considered the supreme test, and the doctrine that \"things,\" in\ncommon with men, have \"souls,\" was thought to be demonstrated. The\nOrientalists would say that he had demonstrated that the history of\nall things is \"recorded in the astral light,\" whatever that may be.\nThe spiritist would say that the spirits of dead men had given her the\ninformation.\n\nThe true explanation is obvious to those who are acquainted with the\nfacts of telepathy. The professor was an eminent geologist and a\nclassical scholar. In his subjective mind was the history of every\ngeological specimen in his possession, pictured clearly and vividly,\naccording to the theories of the best geologists of his generation. His\nimagination carried him back to the time when chaos reigned supreme. He\nfollowed the fragment of rock down through all the changes which took\nplace in the earth's structure, until it became a part of the solid\nmass of rock from which it was taken. In the ever-changing environment\nof that fragment, since the time when it was a part of a vast mass\nof molten matter, there was material for pictures of the sublimest\nscenes incident to the formation of a world. Those pictures, to the\nimagination of every geologist worthy of the title, are ever present\nand intensely vivid. A fragment of rock to him is an open book, in\nwhich are recorded the history of the sublimest works of Omnipotence,\nand his imagination supplies the panoramic illustrations. In\nexperiments such as have been described, these pictures are necessarily\npresented to the subjective mind of the percipient in a form so clear\nand vivid that she would be insensate indeed if she failed to describe\nthem in appropriate terms. And when we consider the fact that the\npercipients employed in these experiments were exceptionally cultivated\nwomen, especially interested in the subjects of the professor's\nresearch, it will be seen that successful telepathic experiments were\nto them exceptionally easy.\n\nThe successful reading of the history of the specimens submitted to\nthe percipients is therefore easily accounted for where the professor\nhad conscious knowledge of the contents of the packages. It remains\nonly to explain the reason of success when he sought to eliminate\nthat element by submitting a large number of similar packages, not\nconsciously knowing one from the other. This also is easy to understand\nwhen the extraordinary acumen of the subjective mind is considered. It\nis a common hypnotic experiment to draw a blank card from a package,\nhand it to a subject, and suggest that it contains a picture of some\nperson. The card is then marked on the back and shuffled with fifty or\nmore others. A good subject will, in nine cases out of ten, indicate\nthe marked card as the one containing the suggested picture, and that\nwithout the possibility of seeing the mark on the other side. It is\nobviously a much easier feat to remember the differences in packages\nthan in blank cards. Of the former, no two could possibly be alike. Of\nthe latter, no two would ordinarily be sufficiently unlike to enable\none to determine the difference by the unaided senses. But to the\nsubjective mind the feat of remembering each package and its contents\nwould be very easy, compared with thousands of recorded instances to be\nfound in the literature of psychic phenomena.\n\nIt will be observed that we have refrained from invoking the aid of\nclairvoyance to account for the phenomena of psychometry. It would\nbe a much simpler solution of the problem to assume that the power\nof independent clairvoyance exists, and that the percipients simply\nsaw the contents of the packages. But inasmuch as the known facts of\ntelepathy afford a perfect solution, we are not logically justified\nin entering a domain which is in the slightest degree overshadowed by\ndoubt. By this remark it is not meant to imply that there is any doubt\nof the existence of a power which is generally known as clairvoyance,\nbut that its limitations are as yet undecided. That is to say, the\nboundary line between clairvoyance and telepathy is not at present\nclearly drawn. The field of clairvoyance is constantly narrowing its\nboundaries. Thus, a few years ago every perception of a fact not\ncognizable by the senses was attributed either to clairvoyance or to\nspirits. Sceptics on the latter subject were wont to explain certain\nphenomena by attributing them to the former. The phenomena which\ncould not thus be explained were relegated to the domain of fraud and\nlegerdemain. When the phenomena of telepathy became better understood,\nthe field of clairvoyance was greatly narrowed, as it was found that\nmost of the phenomena before explained by clairvoyance were really due\nto telepathic communion. But the powers and limitations of telepathy\nare not yet clearly marked; and it is found that every step in advance\nin the knowledge of its principles by just so much narrows the field of\nclairvoyance. No better illustration of this fact could be given than\nthe phenomena of psychometry, which we have just been considering. The\npower to read the history of a geological specimen with a plausible\nshow of accuracy was first attributed to clairvoyance. As telepathic\npowers began to be understood, it was thought that possibly the\npercipient simply related what was read in the mind of the agent. Many\nexperiments were made throughout the country which demonstrated that\nfact, and the recognized field of clairvoyance was thereby curtailed.\nBut Professor Denton determined to eliminate the element of telepathy\nby so disposing of his relics as to divest himself of all knowledge of\nthe particular one under examination. When the percipient exhibited the\nsame powers of discernment under those circumstances it was thought\nthat the element of telepathy was eliminated, and that the power of\nclairvoyance was demonstrated. But as the knowledge of telepathy is\nincreased, and when it is understood that telepathy is the communion\nof subjective minds, and that the subjective mind is endowed with\ntranscendent powers in certain directions, while it is hedged about\nwith limitations in others, it is seen that the professor did not\nsucceed, as he had supposed, in eliminating the element of telepathy.\nThus the field of clairvoyance is again curtailed, and that of\ntelepathy correspondingly enlarged. It may be assumed, therefore, that\nthe boundary lines between the two supposed powers are still unmarked.\nIn the mean time it is unsafe to assume any one point as the boundary,\nor even to assume that there is, in fact, any line at all. Judgment\nmust be suspended until telepathy is better understood. All that can be\nsafely said is that there are facts which cannot as yet be explained\non any other hypothesis than that of independent clairvoyance. When\nwe come across such a fact we may provisionally assume the power to\nexist, and await the slow progress of experimental knowledge to enable\nus to classify the fact in accordance with its legitimate relations.\nIt is logically safe to do this as long as we thus avoid the necessity\nof wholesale denials of demonstrated facts on the one hand, and on the\nother refrain from entering the domain of the supernatural in search of\na hypothesis.\n\nIt is thought that enough has now been said to explain the part which\ntelepathy plays in the phenomena which have been considered, and also\nto enable the intelligent reader to apply the principles to all other\nclasses of phenomena in which telepathy constitutes a possible factor.\nIt is constantly reappearing in every phase of psychic phenomena,\nand constitutes a factor in every manifestation of intelligent power\ninvolving the perception of that which is beyond the reach of the\nsenses.\n\n\nCLAIRAUDIENCE.\n\nThe next subject in order is that of clairaudience, or \"clear hearing.\"\nIt is a faculty of the human mind much more rarely developed than that\nof clairvoyance,--that is, if we assume the latter to be identical with\ntelepathy, which we may do for the purposes of this discussion.\n\nThe Century Dictionary defines clairaudience as \"the supposed power of\nhearing in a mesmeric trance sounds which are not audible to the ear in\nthe natural waking condition.\"\n\nThis, as far as it goes, is a correct definition of that faculty; but\nit defines a very small part of its field of operations, and that\npart which is of the least importance. It may be defined, broadly, to\nbe \"the power of hearing the spoken words of a human soul.\" In other\nwords, it is that faculty of man's intelligence which enables his\nobjective mind to receive communications from his own subjective mind\nor from that of another by means of spoken words. It is one means of\nbringing the operations of the subjective mind above the threshold\nof consciousness. The power is by no means confined to persons in a\nmesmeric trance, although it seems probable that one must be in a\npartially subjective state to enable him to hear clairaudiently. The\ndegree of subjectivity may be very slight, so that the percipient may\nseem to himself and others to be in a perfectly normal condition. The\nsounds--if that may be called sound which does not cause atmospheric\nvibrations--are perfectly distinct to the consciousness of the\npercipient, but are not perceptible to others who may be near him and\nin the normal condition.\n\nLike all other means for bringing the operations of the subjective\nmind above the threshold of consciousness, the sounds have from time\nimmemorial been attributed to supernatural agencies. Socrates furnished\nthe most notable example in ancient or modern times of a man whose\nsubjective mind was able at any time to communicate messages to his\nobjective mind by means of spoken words. It is well known that he\nsupposed himself to be constantly attended by a d\u00e6mon, or guardian\nspirit, who watched over him and warned him of any danger that was\nimminent. (See Chapter X. for a fuller discussion of Socrates and\nhis d\u00e6mon.) The biblical student will recall to mind many instances\nwhere voices were heard, conveying intelligence of the most portentous\ncharacter, and a critical examination of some of the instances will\nnot fail to reveal their true nature.\n\nMany spiritual mediums of the present day have the faculty largely\ndeveloped. Some of them are enabled to obtain the names of their\nsitters by hearing them spoken clairaudiently, and the names of\nsupposed spirits are obtained in the same way. It is popularly\nsupposed that the ordinary method of telepathic communion, when the\nmessage is not brought above the threshold of consciousness, is by\nmental impressions. It is, of course, impossible for us to know the\nprocesses employed in the ordinary communion of subjective minds. It\nseems probable, however, that it is by means of such language as is\nemployed by the communicants in objective life. All that is or can\nbe known is, that when the ideas are communicated to the conscious\nmind, it is necessarily by such means as can be understood,--that is,\nby means which appeal to the senses. It is true that the subjective\nmind is often able strongly to impress the objective mind, especially\nwhen danger to the person is imminent, or when some near relative or\ndear friend is in danger. Such impressions are known as premonitions.\nSometimes they are so strong as to be of real service in averting\ndanger. But they are not always reliable, for the reason that we\nare seldom able to distinguish a real premonition from that feeling\narising from fear and anxiety regarding the welfare of those who are\nabsent and very dear to us. Thus, a mother will often feel that she\nhas a premonition of danger to an absent child, but will afterwards\nlearn that her fears were groundless. Perhaps at another time a real\npremonition will be disregarded. It seems probable that when the laws\nof subjective mental action are better understood, there may be some\nmethod formulated by which a genuine premonition may be recognized. It\nis certain that in all cases where danger to the person is imminent,\nthe subjective mind makes a supreme effort to give warning and avert\nthe danger. That being its normal function, its highest activity is\nexercised in the effort to preserve the life of the individual. It\nis sometimes successful, and sometimes not; but that the effort is\nalways made does not admit of doubt. Sometimes it succeeds by means\nmost extraordinary,--clairaudience not infrequently being the means\nof receiving the warning. Thus, a lady once confessed to the writer\nthat she at one time, in a fit of despondency arising from ill health,\nattempted to commit suicide. She had raised a pistol to her head and\nwas about to fire, when she heard an explosive sound, apparently in the\nsame room, resembling a pistol-shot. This caused her to pause for an\ninstant, when she heard the words, apparently spoken in her ear, \"Not\nnow; you have two years yet!\" Surprise caused her to lower the pistol,\nand reflection caused her to desist, and finally to abandon the idea of\nsuicide. As the two years have not yet expired, it is too early to know\nwhether it is a case of prevision as well as of clairaudience.\n\nOne of the most remarkable cases of clairaudient warning against\ndanger that has ever come under the observation of the writer occurred\nnear Washington a short time ago. A well-known colored preacher was\naboard a train on its way to the city. He was dozing in his seat a few\nmiles out, when he was suddenly awakened by a cry of \"Wreck! wreck!\"\napparently sounding in his ears. He thought for a moment that he had\nbeen dreaming; but after he was fully awake he again heard the same\nwords repeated three times. As he happened to be the only occupant\nof the car, he knew that no one was playing a trick upon him, and he\ninstantly became panic-stricken, and rushed to the rear end of the car\nand jumped off, although the train was going at the rate of thirty\nmiles an hour. He was somewhat cut and bruised, but managed to walk\nto the next station, where he related his adventure to my informant.\nLittle importance was attached to the circumstance at that time, as his\ntrain passed to the city in safety. But the very next train that passed\nover the road in the same direction was wrecked by the falling of a\nlarge rock upon it as it passed. The rock overhung the track, and had\nevidently become loosened by the vibrations caused by passing trains.\nSubsequent investigation by my informant revealed the fact that the\nold preacher had leaped from the train but a short distance beyond the\nscene of the wreck.\n\nNow, it may be asked, how do we connect the clairaudient warning of the\nold man with the wreck which did not occur to his train? It must be\nadmitted that the circumstances do not constitute an ideally perfect\ncase of a life saved by a clairaudient reception of warning; but it\nmust also be held that the case is of all the greater evidential\nvalue for that very reason. It is easy to perceive how the old man's\nsubjective mind perceived the danger, when it is once admitted that\nit possesses the power to see that which is not within the range of\nobjective vision. Ever alert for the safety of the individual, it\nperceived the danger, no matter how. It saw the condition of the\noverhanging rock, and believed that that train would loosen its\nhold. In the mean time the old man was in that passive, somnolent\ncondition most favorable for the reception of subjective impressions or\ncommunications. He happened also to be clairaudient, and therefore in\nthe best possible condition for the conveyance of subjective messages\nabove the threshold of consciousness. And the message was delivered in\nthe most effective way possible,--in the same way in which Socrates\nwas again and again warned of impending danger. That the catastrophe\ndid not happen to his train proves only that the intelligence which\ngave the warning was finite, that its knowledge was circumscribed by\nthe limitations of human judgment, and that it did not proceed from\nOmniscience.\n\nIt may be here remarked that this incident seems difficult to explain\non any other hypothesis than that of independent clairvoyance. To\nexplain it on the principle of telepathy would involve the necessity\nof presupposing that some person or persons knew of the dangerous\nsituation of the rock, and that they were in telepathic rapport with\nthe percipient. Either supposition seems improbable, although not\nimpossible. Be this as it may be, the fact remains that the subjective\nmind of man has some means of reaching out beyond the range of our\nfaculties of objective perception, and of knowing when and where danger\nthreatens the individual. That it is constantly on the alert for that\npurpose, is also certain.\n\nBut its efforts are not directed exclusively to the protection of\nthe body from harm. It is also on the alert for the protection of\nthe material interests of the individual, and for the advancement of\nwhatever aims and objects he has in life. These objects are, of course,\nsubsidiary to the main one, being means to the end in view,--namely,\nthe preservation of human life. One of the most eminent lawyers in the\nUnited States informs me confidentially that he is often guided, in\ncritical emergencies, by a voice which gives him in a single, concise\nsentence the key to the situation. All the years of his adult life\nthis voice has warned him of impending danger, and guided him to the\nattainment of the objects of his ambition. He did not, in early life,\nentertain any well-defined theory on the subject of the origin of the\nvoice, but has always been guided by its monitions, and never to his\ndisadvantage. Of late years, however, he has become convinced of its\ntrue source, and now regards his faculty as of the most transcendent\ninterest and scientific importance, to say nothing of its value as a\npersonal mentor.\n\nIt seems probable that the faculty might be cultivated to an unlimited\nextent, provided its true source could be recognized early in life\nand its monitions heeded. It is also probable that most people have\noccasionally heard clairaudiently, though but few have paid attention\nto the phenomenon; and those who have done so have either attributed it\nto imagination, or regarded it as a subjective hallucination. In either\ncase the auto-suggestion would necessarily prevent the development of\nthe faculty. It sometimes happens, however, that spirit mediums develop\nthe faculty to a remarkable extent. As they attribute the phenomena to\nextraneous sources, the suggestion necessarily results in corresponding\nphenomena. It is needless to remark that the same law of suggestion\nwhich prevails in the production of other phenomena governs the\ncharacter of clairaudient manifestations. Thus, if the suggestion is\nentertained that the voice proceeds from a disembodied spirit, or from\nthe guardian angel of the percipient, the character suggested will be\nassumed by the subjective entity, and future communications will be\nconducted on that basis. It may thus be made to assume the character of\nan angel or of a devil, just as the suggestion happens to be made. The\nsuggestion, in the present state of knowledge on the subject of psychic\nphenomena, must depend altogether upon accident, or the education and\nhabits of thought of the individual.\n\nDoubtless, many persons have been made insane by constantly hearing\nwhat they supposed to be spirit voices. Not knowing the true origin\nof the phenomenon, they endow it with whatever character happens to\nsuggest itself, and it readily assumes to be whatever is suggested; or\nit may assume a dozen different characters, if the person happens to\nimagine their existence. The effect can readily be conceived when one\nis persuaded that he is beset by supernatural beings. Insane people\nare often seen to be engaged in conversation with some imaginary\nperson, and when we say of such a soliloquist, \"He is talking to\nhimself,\" we are wiser than we think; for that is the fact. But the\nindividual thought he was in conversation with supernatural beings. We\nare accustomed to regard such conversations as symptoms of insanity,\nwhereas they are oftentimes the cause of insanity. The patient for some\nreason develops the faculty of clairaudience. He imagines that the\nvoice proceeds from some extraneous source. His superstition causes\nhim to ascribe it to spirits. He constantly develops the faculty by\npractice, until he becomes a monomaniac on the subject. His subjective\nmind, dominated by an all-potent, but false, suggestion, gradually\nobtains control of the objective faculties, and Reason abdicates her\nthrone. The man is insane, just as all men are insane who allow their\nsubjective minds to obtain the ascendency. This is, of course, an\nextreme case; but it is less rare than many suppose. Our asylums are\nfull of men and women who, in one way or another, are dominated by\ntheir subjective minds, acting in obedience to false suggestions which\nhave been dwelt upon so long that reason is powerless to combat them.\n\nThe lesson is obvious. We should learn first of all that the subjective\nentity within each of us, whilst it is endowed with transcendent\npowers, is also circumscribed by limitations which unfit it for\ncontrol of the dual man. Having learned this, it should be our care\nto keep reason in the ascendency, and to control the subjective mind\nby suggestions which, while keeping it in subordination, will direct\nits powers in the channel of its legitimate functions,--namely, the\npreservation and perpetuation of the human species.\n\nClairaudient powers, like every other power which enables man to\nraise the operations of the subjective mind above the threshold of\nconsciousness, may to one who knows the laws which govern it, who\nappreciates its powers, and who is aware of its limitations, become a\nsource of decided advantage. But to one who does not understand those\nlaws, powers, and limitations, those faculties may prove to be like the\nwand in the hand of the slave of the magician in the Eastern tale. He\nsaw his master wave his wand, and heard him give orders to the spirits\nwho arose at his command. The slave stole the wand, waved it in the\nair, and summoned the spirits. They came at his summons, but tore him\nin pieces instead of obeying his commands. He had not observed that his\nmaster used his left hand for the purpose of conjuration.\n\nThis tale was told for the purpose of illustrating the very point which\nwe have sought to make. The fate of the magician's slave was no worse\nthan that which may befall any man who irregularly summons his own\nspirit, without understanding the laws which enable him to control it\nand make it useful instead of destructive. He is conjuring with the\nmost potential force of nature below that of Omnipotence.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nTHE PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM (_continued_).\n\n The Planchette.--Modifications.--Easily operated.--Automatic\n Writing.--Governed by the Universal Law.--The Planchette without\n Spirits.--The Planchette and Telepathy.--Trance.--Ancient and\n Modern Superstitions relating to Trance.--Religious Systems founded\n on Trance.--Visions.--Swedenborg.--Oriental Philosophy.--Its\n Slow Growth and Stupendous Proportions.--Spiritistic\n Philosophy.--Its Evolution.--All founded on Trance Visions\n in Ignorance of the Law of Suggestion.--Cahagnet's Mesmeric\n Seers.--Their Revelations.--Objective and Subjective\n Visions.--Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.--Visions of the Holy\n Virgin.--The Physical and Mental Attitude of Prayer.--The\n Prayer of Faith.--Obsession.--Possession.--Casting\n out Devils.--Devils out of Fashion.--The Influence of\n Suggestion.--The Element of Telepathy.--Dual Personality.--Loss of\n Identity.--Characteristics.--The Case of Ansel Bourne.--Possible\n Explanation.--A Proof of the Dual Hypothesis.--Multiple Personality.\n\n\nAnother method of bringing the operations of the subjective mind above\nthe threshold of consciousness is by means of an instrument called\nthe planchette. It consists of a thin board about six inches square,\nresting upon two castors, the third leg consisting of a pencil, which\npasses through a hole in the board, its point resting upon the paper\nupon which the instrument is designed to write. The mode of operation\nconsists in resting the hand lightly upon the board and allowing it to\nmove over the paper without consciously aiding its progress. In the\nhands of a medium it will soon begin to write, apparently propelled\nby an unseen power. A modification of this apparatus is now on the\nmarket, which consists of a similar piece of thin board, approximately\ntriangular in shape, with a plain wooden leg at each apex. Its feet,\nlike the feet of the gods, are \"shod with wool.\" Accompanying it is a\nboard, say two feet square, on which the letters of the alphabet and\nthe arabic numerals are painted. Its mode of operation is similar to\nthat of the planchette, except that, instead of a pencil being used,\none of the legs serves as a pointer, and the words are spelled out,\nletter by letter, as indicated by the pointer, which moves over the\nboard in the same mysterious way as the planchette. Its advantage over\nthe planchette consists in the fact that a greater number of persons\ncan operate it satisfactorily. Otherwise, the planchette is preferable,\ninasmuch as it writes continuously, instead of spelling the words\nletter by letter. In almost every family some one will be found who\ncan, with a little practice, obtain communications by this means from\nhis own subjective mind. This is the simplest way by which so-called\nspirit communications can be obtained.\n\nAutomatic writing is a cognate method, and consists in holding a pencil\nin the hand and letting it write. The subjective mind assumes control\nof the muscles and nerves of the arm and hand, and propels the pencil,\nthe objective mind meantime being perfectly quiescent, and often\ntotally oblivious of what is being written. A smaller number of persons\ncan acquire this faculty than either of the others.\n\nWe assume, of course, that it is the subjective mind of the medium\nthat directs the pencil. The same laws govern the manifestations, and\nthe intelligence is hedged about by the same limitations. Suggestion\nplays the same subtle _r\u00f4le_, and the knowledge of the subjects of the\ncommunications are limited by that of the medium and those with whom\nhe is in telepathic rapport. The entity that guides the pencil almost\ninvariably assumes to be a spirit, and its communications necessarily\nconform to the character assumed. The reason of this is obvious when\nwe consider the fact that automatic writing has always been associated\nwith the idea of spirit communion. The universality of this idea\nconstitutes an all-potent suggestion which cannot easily be overcome.\nEven though the medium may profess to be a sceptic on the subject of\nspirit intercourse, nevertheless he is dominated by that suggestion,\nin the absence of any definite counter-suggestion. Obviously, a\ncounter-suggestion which could overcome the hypothesis of spirit\nintercourse must be in the form of a theory which appeals more strongly\nto the reason of the medium than the suggestion of spirit intercourse.\nIn the present state of popular opinion on the subject of spiritism it\nwould be difficult to find a medium whose subjective mind would not\nbe dominated by the popular hypothesis. Nevertheless, instances have\nbeen known where the popular idea did not prevail. One case that is now\nrecalled is reported in the \"Proceedings of the Society for Psychical\nResearch,\" April, 1891 (page 23). The medium, or, more properly\nspeaking, the automatist, was a young lady, aged fifteen. \"She had not\npreviously heard of planchette,\" says the author, \"and spiritualism\nwas to her a mere name.\" This was a very desirable condition of mind\nfor the purpose, and as rare as desirable. \"She never knew what she\nhad written till it was looked at,\" continues the author, \"and there\nwas often some slight difficulty in deciphering it. Thus, the first\nquestion, 'Who are you that write?' produced what at first I took to\nbe mere scrawling, and C (the automatist) shortly after left the room.\nAfter she had done so, I took another look at this scrawl, and then at\nonce perceived that it was legible, and that the name written in answer\nto the question was 'Henry Morton.' I at once followed C upstairs, and\nasked her if she had ever heard the name; and she replied that it was\nthat of a character in a Christmas play she had acted in, more than a\nyear previously.\"\n\nThis is a most remarkable case in more ways than one. It shows,\nfirst, that when the automatist knows nothing of spiritism, and there\nis consequently no suggestion of the spirits having any part in the\nperformance, the subjective mind will not assume that it is a spirit\nthat writes; secondly, that the bare fact that the question, \"Who\nare you that write?\" is asked, amounts to a suggestion that some\nthird person is writing, and that the automatist is dominated by the\ninference drawn, just the same as if the suggestion had been a positive\nstatement. The most remarkable part of it, however, is the persistency\nwith which her subjective mind clung to the suggestion that she was\n\"Henry Morton.\" She had assumed that character more than a year before,\nin a Christmas play, and her subjective mind still identified itself\nwith the imaginary personage, and believed the truth of the suggestion\nas firmly as it would have believed the suggestion that it was a\ndisembodied spirit, had that suggestion been made. The author shows\nan intelligent appreciation of this fact when he adds: \"Had the name\nbeen, as it easily might have been, that of some deceased friend, it is\nobvious what inference would have been drawn.\" It is also obvious that\nit would have been that of some deceased person, had the young lady\nbeen acquainted with the planchette and the spiritistic hypothesis.\n\nAnother instance of automatic writing where the spiritistic hypothesis\nwas ignored, is reported in the \"Proceedings of the Society for\nPsychical Research,\" vol. iii. pages 8-23. Space can be given to a\nbrief extract only. The experiments were tried by the Rev. P.H. Newnham\nand his wife, the latter acting as the automatist. The primary object\nof these experiments was to test the power of thought-transference.\nThis was very successfully done, as the answers, though not always\ncorrect, referred to the questions. It appears, incidentally, that they\nentertained a different hypothesis from the usual one, as will appear\nfrom the answers which we quote. The questions were written down by Mr.\nNewnham, and no hint was given to the operator as to their character or\nsubject. The following are fair samples:--\n\n \"_Q._ Is it the operator's brain, or some external force, that\n moves the planchette? Answer 'brain,' or 'force.'\n\n _A._ Will.\n\n _Q._ Is it the will of a living person, or of an immaterial spirit\n distinct from that person? Answer 'person' or 'spirit.'\n\n _A._ Wife.\n\n _Q._ Give first the wife's Christian name; then my favorite name\n for her.\n\n _A._ (This was accurately done.)\n\n _Q._ What is your own name?\n\n _A._ Only you.\n\n _Q._ We are not quite sure of the meaning of the answer. Explain.\n\n _A._ Wife.\"\n\nAt a subsequent sitting the following questions and answers were\ngiven:--\n\n \"_Q._ Who are you that write?\n\n _A._ Wife.\n\n _Q._ But does no one tell wife what to write? If so, who?\n\n _A._ Spirit.\n\n _Q._ Whose spirit?\n\n _A._ Wife's brain.\n\n _Q._ But how does wife's brain know (certain) secrets?\n\n _A._ Wife's spirit unconsciously guides.\"\n\nAt a subsequent s\u00e9ance the following dialogue occurred:\n\n \"_Q._ By what means are (unknown) secrets conveyed to wife's brain?\n\n _A._ What you call mesmeric influence.\n\n _Q._ What do you mean by 'what you call'? What do _you_ call it?\n\n _A._ Electro-biology.\n\n _Q._ By whom, or by what, is the electro-biologic force set in\n motion?\n\n _A._ I told you you could not know more than you did.\n\n _Q._ Can wife answer a question the reply to which I do not know?\n\n _A._ Why do you try to make me say what I won't?\n\n _Q._ Simply because I desire knowledge. _Why_ will you not tell?\n\n _A._ Wife could tell if some one else, with a very strong will, in\n the room knew.\"\n\nThese two cases clearly demonstrate the proposition that where an\noperator can be found who is not dominated by the suggestion embraced\nin the spiritistic hypothesis, he will not assume to be a spirit. If\nhe does entertain the spirit hypothesis, he _will_ assume that he is a\nspirit, and answer accordingly. The mental and physical phenomena are\nthe same in the one case as in the other. The logical conclusion is\nthis: the fact that the intelligence which operates the pencil in the\none case claims that it is a disembodied spirit does not constitute\nvalid evidence that it is a spirit. We must look, therefore, to other\nsources for evidence of spirit origin of the phenomena. Obviously the\nonly test by which that question can be settled is by the character of\nthe communications. When that test is applied, it is found that all\nthat is mysterious about them can be explained on the hypothesis of\ntelepathy or clairvoyance. In the mean time, the fact that the power\nthat writes is always amenable to control by suggestion, constitutes\nthe strongest presumptive evidence that it is the subjective mind of\nthe operator. This is the explanation which is afforded by a knowledge\nof some of the laws governing the action of the subjective mind. The\n_onus probandi_ rests with those who claim a supernatural origin for\nthe phenomenon.\n\n\nTRANCE.\n\nUnder the general head of trance may be grouped all that class of\ncases in which the objective faculties are, for the time being, held\nin practically complete abeyance, and the subjective mind becomes\ncorrespondingly active. Various names have been applied to this\ncondition, such as somnambulism, hypnosis, mesmeric trance, ecstasy,\ncatalepsy, obsession, etc., many of the names implying a theory of\ncausation rather than distinctive features of condition. The condition\nvaries in accordance with the idiosyncrasies of the individual as\nmuch as from the causes which induce it. The leading characteristics\nare, however, the same in all cases. These are, first, the partial or\ncomplete abeyance of the objective mind; second, the activity of the\nsubjective mind; and, third, the perfect amenability of the latter to\ncontrol by the power of suggestion. Many remarkable mental phenomena\nare developed in these states, but this discussion will be confined\nto the supposed power of persons in the condition of trance to hold\nintercourse with the spiritual world.\n\nThis power has been held to exist from time immemorial; the ancient\nand modern mystical literature is filled with the most interesting,\nnot to say startling, accounts of interviews held by these persons\nwith the inhabitants of the spirit-land. Vast systems of religion have\nbeen founded upon the supposed revelations of persons in a trance,\nand untold millions of the human race base their hopes of a life in\na future world upon the dreams of ecstatics. The whole vast fabric\nof Oriental philosophy and religion is based upon the revelations\nof persons in a trance. The Swedenborgian philosophy in the Western\nworld is founded upon the dreams of a person who, in a condition\nof a trance, believed himself to be able to hold familiar converse\nwith the inhabitants of heaven and of hell. Some of these systems of\nspiritual philosophy are of such vast and complicated structure that\nthe mind is wrapped in wonder and admiration of their magnitude and\nperfection. The Oriental philosophy, in particular, is so symmetrical,\nso pervaded by grand and noble conceptions, so permeated with lofty\nprecepts of morality, humanity, and religion, that we are wont to lose\nsight of the fact that the whole structure is built up by a process\nof deductive reasoning from premises that have no better foundation\nthan the dreams of ecstatics. But we are told that it has stood the\ntest of thousands of years of thought and investigation, and that no\nfact in physical science can be adduced to disprove its fundamental\nprinciples. Doubtless this is true. The adepts have steered clear\nof propositions in physical science which could be disproved by the\nlearning of the schoolboy. In this they have avoided those errors of\nthe Bible of the Christians, which, though unimportant in themselves,\nhaving no bearing upon the real philosophy of the Christian religion,\nhave proved a stumbling-block to superficial minds. But does it follow\nthat because a proposition regarding the condition of affairs in the\nspirit-world cannot be controverted by the science of the physical\nworld, the proposition must necessarily be true? Clearly not. Again,\ndoes it follow that because a system of philosophy, the alleged\nfacts of which are necessarily undemonstrable, has stood the test of\nthousands of years of investigation, it is necessarily correct? By no\nmeans. Time has effected for the Oriental philosophy that which has\nnot been effected for the Western spiritual philosophy, simply for the\nwant of time; it has perfected it as a system. The lapse of time has\nenabled the system to be evolved by the gradual but constant accretions\nof human thought, from generation to generation, until it has grown,\nfrom the first vague hope of the human soul for a life beyond the\ngrave, to its present stupendous proportions. The processes of its\ngrowth can readily be seen and understood by a glance at the evolution\nof our own spiritistic philosophy within the memory of men now living.\nIt is true that modern spiritism found a philosophy ready made to its\nhand in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. His descriptions of the\nspirit-world were in the main confirmed by the earlier mediums who\nwere acquainted with his writings. His was essentially a material\nheaven. \"As on earth, so in heaven,\" was his highest conception of the\nbeauties and glories of the land of \"spirits of just men made perfect.\"\nBut he believed in hell, and he found one. He was inimical to certain\nChristian sects, and he found that all who belonged to those sects were\ncondemned to everlasting punishment. When modern spiritism became a\nbelief, it found its most enthusiastic followers among those who were\noutside of the pale of the Church, those who were in revolt against the\nasceticism of the Puritan belief and practices, those who refused to\nbelieve that a God of love and mercy would condemn any portion of his\ncreatures to everlasting fire. They found in the Rochester knockings\nthe first evidence which appealed to their senses of a life beyond\nthe tomb; and they consulted their mediums with perfect confidence\nin their ability correctly to portray the condition of the denizens\nof the land of spirits. They learned from those oracles that their\npreconceived notions of divine justice were eminently correct, that\nthere was no such place as hell, and that all alike shared in the boon\nof immortality; and, by a series of progressive steps, through seven\nor eight concentric spheres, all at last reached the highest state of\ndivine felicity. They found that Swedenborg was right in the main, but\nwas a little incorrect in his information concerning hell. It would be\ntedious, as well as superfluous, to enumerate the steps by which the\nphilosophy of modern spiritism has advanced from the crude notions of\nthe earlier writers to its present status. Every intelligent reader\nwill recognize the wide difference between the rhapsodic hodge-podge of\nAndrew Jackson Davis and the calm philosophy of Judge Edmonds, and will\nnot fail to note how completely the latter is now superseded by modern\nwriters, who are gradually engrafting upon the indigenous stem the most\nluxurious branches of the Oriental tree. What their philosophy will\nbe in coming years can be conjectured only by those who observe what\nevolution has done for the Oriental philosophy during the thousands of\nyears of its existence.\n\nThe process of this evolution is easy to understand. The earlier\nmediums adopted the doctrines of Swedenborg, with certain amendments\nwhich seemed to them to be more in accord with reason and Divine\njustice. Those who followed, in turn adopted the main ideas of their\npredecessors, with amendments of their own. Each writer in succession\namended the work of his predecessors in those respects in which it\nseemed to him to be imperfect, and each one had authority from the\nspirit-world which sanctioned the amendment. And thus the system grows\nin magnitude and perfection, and will continue to grow as long as men\nbelieve themselves to be inspired by extramundane intelligences.\n\nNow, the noteworthy facts connected with this evolutionary process\nare, first, that all believe that they obtain their authority for\nevery statement of fact and every new idea direct from the spirits of\nthe dead; and secondly, that every man who evolves a new idea, or is\npossessed of an old one, can easily have it confirmed by consulting a\nspirit medium, providing the proper suggestion is made to said medium.\nAnd this is true of all classes and ranks of mediums, from the common\ntable-tipper to the Oriental ecstatic. If the medium is possessed of\nideas of his own, and no outside suggestion is made, he will obtain\ninformation from the spirit world in exact accordance with his ideas.\nThe same is true of all trance-seers, by whatever means the trance is\nbrought about. Thus, Cahagnet, the French mesmerist, who devoted his\nlife to mesmerizing subjects for the sole purpose of ascertaining what\nwas going on in heaven, once mesmerized a French peasant, and directed\nhim to visit the abode of the blest. This he promptly did, and reported\nthat he saw a great white throne, surrounded by a great throng of\npeople, all dressed in the most gorgeous apparel. On the throne was\nseated a man who was much larger than any of the rest, and who was\nfurther distinguished by the superior cut, make, fit, and material of\nhis clothes. The peasant was sure that he had seen the Almighty, and so\nreported. It is obvious that he had simply seen a vision representing\na peasant's idea of heaven. Cahagnet assured him that he must be\nmistaken, and quoted Bible authority to show that God himself has said,\n\"There shall no man see me, and live.\" This was convincing to the\nsimple-minded peasant, and Cahagnet advised him, the next time he was\nentranced, to ascertain if it was not a conclave of leading spirits\nthat he saw, who were assembled for some purpose connected with the\ninternal economy of heaven. Accordingly, he made inquiries the next\ntime he was entranced, and ascertained that Cahagnet was right. It is\nclear that Cahagnet did not understand the law of suggestion, or his\nbook would never have been written. It is scarcely necessary to remark\nthat his book obtained a wide circulation, was translated into several\nlanguages, and constituted a standard mesmeric text-book for many years.\n\nI have said that the same law of suggestion governs all trance-seers.\nThis is obviously true. If it is a law, it is universal in its\napplication. Yet Orientalists tell us that their visions are veridical,\n\"because,\" they say, \"they are objective visions.\" This, of course,\nis merely begging the question. They hold that the visions and other\ncommunications obtained by Western spiritists are mere \"subjective\nhallucinations.\" It is noteworthy that the distinction which they make\nbetween the two kinds of visions is this: those visions which accord\nwith their views are \"objective;\" those which do not are \"subjective.\"\nIt is a very easy and comforting distinction, but it forcibly\nreminds one of the old definition of orthodoxy as distinguished from\nheterodoxy: \"Orthodoxy is my doxy, and heterodoxy is your doxy.\" The\nOriental adepts claim that they have learned much more of the laws of\nnature than is dreamed of in Occidental philosophy. Doubtless they\nhave, if half the stories we hear of them are true. They have learned\nto produce phenomena which far transcend anything done by our spirit\nmediums. Moreover, they have learned the true source of the power, and\nthey do not ascribe it to spirits of the dead. Said one of them, in my\nhearing: \"I have often been asked the question, 'What is an adept?'\nAn adept is a spirit medium who knows that the power to produce his\nphenomena resides within himself, and who possesses the intelligence\nand power to control and direct it.\" This is the exact truth in a\nnutshell. But because the adepts have acquired the knowledge of the\nlaws which govern the production of phenomena, and are able to apply\nthem, it does not follow that they are able to set any law of nature\nat defiance, or that they can claim exemption from the operation of\na universal law of our existence. We find in the Western world that\nthe law of suggestion controls all subjective phenomena, of whatever\nname or nature, and we are slow to believe that Eastern people are\nexempt from the operations of the same law. If they are, the burden\nof proof rests upon them to demonstrate it. Thus far it has not been\ndemonstrated.\n\nThe literature of mysticism of all ages of the world and of all nations\nis full of accounts of the visions of ecstatics. The one noteworthy\nfact that is observable in all is that each one sees and hears that\nwhich he expects to see or hear. The details may be unexpected, and\nthe whole may transcend his objective conceptions, but none controvert\ntheir preconceived ideas. Catholic ecstatics will see Catholic visions,\nand Protestants will see Protestant visions. In short, whatever may\nbe the belief or the philosophy of the ecstatic, confirmation of\nthat belief will be found in his visions of, or his communications\nfrom, the other world. The history of the Catholic Church abounds\nin accounts of wonderful visions seen by nuns and other religious\ndevotees of that faith. One noteworthy fact constantly reappears in\nthat connection, which is, that they nearly always become entranced\nafter long contemplation of the image of the Saviour or of the Virgin\nMary. This fact is interesting from a purely scientific standpoint. The\nphysical attitude which they assume in contemplation of the crucifix\nis the one most conducive to the induction of the hypnotic condition.\nThe significance of this observation will be at once apparent when we\nremember that Dr. Braid demonstrated that fixed gazing upon an object\nheld in such a position as to cause the eyes to be strained upward is\nthe easiest way to induce the hypnotic condition. The attitude, both\nphysical and mental, of prayer, is therefore the one most favorable to\nthe induction of the hypnotic or trance condition on the one hand, and,\non the other, to the production of the visions which accord with the\nfaith and expectancy of the individual.\n\nThe fact that the physical attitude assumed in prayer has a tendency\nto induce the subjective condition, will account for many of the\nwell-recognized effects of earnest supplication of Divine favor. That\ncalm tranquillity of mind which follows the prayer of faith may be\nattributed, in part at least, to the physical condition resulting from\npartial hypnosis. The objective faculties are held in abeyance, the\nnerves are tranquillized, and that part of \"God in us\" holds communion\nand is harmonized with its Divine source. Thus it is that long and\nearnest prayer for the restoration of health is often followed by\nmarvellous results, especially when it is inspired by perfect faith\nin the promises of the Master. The fact that faith constitutes a\nstrong suggestion to the subjective mind, which in turn controls\nthe condition of the body, does not militate against the idea of\nDivine agency in the result. It is the Divine essence within us which\nproduces the effect, and it operates in strict accordance with Divine\nlaw. It confirms and explains that which Christ taught so earnestly\nand so persistently, namely, that we must have faith, or our prayers\nwill avail nothing. That he understood the principle involved, goes\nwithout saying; but it was not yet time to give it to the world, for\nthe world was not prepared to receive it. \"I have many things to say\nunto you, but ye cannot bear them now,\" were his words, uttered during\nhis last interview with his disciples previous to his crucifixion.\nHis was the \"dispensation of faith.\" The promised \"dispensation of\nknowledge\" has not yet been inaugurated; when it is, the wisdom which\nhe taught will be better understood, for it will then be known that the\ndoctrines which he enunciated regarding his power over disease, and the\nconditions of immortality, were but statements in strict accordance\nwith scientific facts.\n\n\nOBSESSION.\n\nWebster defines \"obsession\" as \"the state of a person vexed or besieged\nby an evil spirit, antecedent to possession.\" The latter term he\ndefines as \"the state of being possessed, as by an evil spirit,\" etc.\nAllan Kardec employs obsession as a generic term, to include _simple\nobsession_, which accords with Webster's definition of the term;\n_fascination_, which is \"an illusion produced by direct action on the\nmedium's thought,\" paralyzing his judgment; and _subjugation_, which\ncompletely paralyzes the will, and causes the medium to act in spite\nof himself. For our purpose these fine distinctions are immaterial,\nas they merely represent different stages or degrees of intensity\nof the same phenomenon. The theory of obsession is a modernizing of\nthe old idea of being possessed of a devil, or devils, as the case\nmight be. It consists in being dominated, to a greater or less extent,\nby the idea that the person is besieged or controlled by a foreign\nspirit, good or bad, angel or devil. It seems superfluous to remark\nthat the same principles prevail in these cases as in all others where\nthe idea of spirits has been suggested to the subjective mind. It\nmatters not how the suggestion originated, the result is the same. In\nancient times the idea prevailed that any one was liable at any time\nto be taken possession of by a devil. When that idea was in vogue it\nfrequently happened that persons who easily entered the subjective\ncondition found themselves possessed of one or more devils. In those\ntimes the profession of exorcist was very profitable. The priesthood\ngenerally monopolized the business, for the obvious reason that they\nwere supposed to entertain a spirit of more or less antagonism to\ndevils generally. Besides, devils were supposed to have a mortal fear\nof anything holy; they had an especial dread of the sight of a copy of\nthe Scriptures, and of hearing the name of God pronounced. Accordingly\nit came to pass that, upon the command of the exorcist, the devil would\noften incontinently fly, leaving the patient in his normal condition.\nSometimes, however, he would be more stubborn, and the patient would\ngo into convulsions upon hearing the magic words pronounced; and then\nmore severe measures would have to be adopted, such as employing more\nexorcists. But persistence was generally rewarded with success.\n\nIn later years devils have generally gone out of fashion, and their\nplace is taken by bad spirits of dead men. And so it has come to pass\nthat many spirit mediums are sorely afflicted with spirits, who pester\nthem most outrageously. The exorcist is now replaced by the family\ndoctor, who is generally scientific to the last degree, and accordingly\nendeavors to get rid of the spirit by means of physic or clysters.\nRecently, however, such cases have been treated successfully by means\nof hypnotism, which is the obvious remedy, in case the hypnotist\nrealizes the power of suggestion.\n\nIt is obvious to those who have followed our argument thus far that the\nsubjective mind of the person obsessed is dominated by the suggestion\nthat it is a bad spirit or a devil, as the case may be; and that,\nacting upon that suggestion, it will personate the spirit or devil\nwith the same extraordinary acumen that it would personate any other\ncharacter suggested. And it will assume to be one, two, or seven devils\nor spirits, in accordance with the suggestion, and will exhibit as many\ndifferent kinds and degrees of deviltry as there are devils embraced in\nthe suggestion.\n\nSuch cases are frequently characterized by the development of\nwonderful telepathic power; and this of course adds to the mystery and\nconfirms his friends in the idea that the patient is controlled by an\nextramundane agency. But, while it adds to the mystery, it does not\nmilitate against the soundness of the explanation afforded by the laws\nof duality and suggestion. The ceremony of exorcism by the priests in\nancient times constituted a most powerful suggestive command, which\ncould not, and did not, fail in having the desired effect. There was\nan interval, however, between the days of priestly exorcism and the\ndays of modern hypnotism, during which scepticism prevailed regarding\nthe power of any one to exorcise an offending spirit, or to cure the\npatient by other than material remedies. Patients were then sent to\ninsane asylums, only to increase their maladies. But in later years\nthe power of hypnotic suggestion has become a recognized principle in\ntherapeutics, and little trouble is experienced in curing obsessed\npatients where the brain has not become diseased. The fact that the\ntrouble is susceptible of cure by hypnotic suggestion points clearly\nto its mental origin, and precludes the possibility of its being\nattributable to supermundane causes.\n\n\nDUAL PERSONALITY.\n\nCognate in some of its essential characteristics to the phenomenon\nof obsession is that of _dual personality_; and although it has\nnothing to do with the question of spiritism, it may as well be noted\nhere as elsewhere. By this term is not meant the duality of mental\norganization which pertains to every human being, but it refers to a\nspecific phenomenon which has received that name from recent scientific\nobservers. It is characterized by a complete loss of knowledge of\npersonal identity. The patient assumes a new name, a new personality,\nand a new character, the last being often in marked contrast to the\nnormal one in every essential particular. The old personality is\nsometimes completely forgotten, and sometimes it is remembered only as\na person whom the patient has once known. In some instances the two\npersonalities alternate at somewhat irregular intervals. In others, the\nphenomenon occurs only once in a lifetime. In others, several different\npersonalities will be assumed at different times. In all these\ncases certain characteristics constantly reappear, the most notable\nappearing in the fact that the new personality is always consistent\nwith itself; that is, it is always the same, whenever it reappears.\nIts moral characteristics are sometimes in marked contrast to the\nlifelong character developed in the normal state, but it never varies\nfrom one time to another. If a dozen different personalities should\nbe assumed at different times, each would always be consistent with\nitself. The incidents occurring during the continuance of one interval\nof the abnormal personality will always be remembered whenever the same\npersonality reappears, so that the existence of the new personality,\nwhen it reappears with frequency, is practically continuous; that is,\nthe intervals of normal consciousness do not seem to be remembered. The\nnormal personality, however, never remembers aught of what occurred\nduring the abnormal interval. As before remarked, the abnormal\npersonality sometimes remembers the existence of the normal one, but\nalways as that of a third person, upon whom it often looks, and of\nwhom it sometimes speaks, with pitying contempt. It generally happens,\nin case two or more abnormal personalities are assumed, that each\nremembers all the other abnormal characters, but regards them as third\npersons having no connection whatever with itself.\n\nOne of the most remarkable cases which have been reported in the United\nStates was that of one Ansel Bourne, a Baptist clergyman, who suddenly\ndisappeared from his home in Rhode Island a few years ago. Every effort\nwas made to find him, but without avail. At the end of two months he\nreturned to his home, after an experience of the strangest character.\nIt appears, from an investigation conducted in the most careful and\npainstaking manner, in behalf of the London Society for Psychical\nResearch, that Mr. Bourne lost normal consciousness soon after leaving\nhome, and wandered around in several different towns and cities,\nfinally reaching Norristown, Pa., where he rented a store, stocked\nit with small wares, and carried it on successfully for a period of\nsix weeks, under the name of A.J. Brown. He appeared to the citizens\nof Norristown as a normal person, conducting his business properly,\ncontracting no unnecessary debts, and always paying promptly. At the\nend of six weeks of a mercantile career he suddenly regained his\nnormal consciousness, and remembered nothing whatever of his abnormal\nexperience. The article in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical\nResearch, written by Richard Hodgson, LL.D., exhibits exhaustive\nresearch in the investigation of this case, and its entire verity\ncannot be doubted. It appears that Mr. Bourne had once, in early life,\nhad a remarkable experience, which shows a tendency to abnormal psychic\nconditions; but nothing was developed which throws any light upon any\nspecific cause for the particular phase of his later experience. He\nhad never before engaged in trade, nor had he had any taste for such a\nlife, and nothing could be remembered which could explain why it was\nthat he assumed the name of A.J. Brown. It is stated, however, that he\nhad once been hypnotized, when young, and made to perform many amusing\nantics on the stage; but no recollection was had that the name of A.J.\nBrown had been suggested to him at the time. It is extremely probable,\nhowever, that that name _was_ suggested to him at that time, and that\nhis subjective mind retained the memory of the name, and that the\nimpression lasted all those years, only to reappear when he again went\ninto a hypnotic trance. This is only a conjecture, however; but it has\nbeen shown in a previous chapter how the subjective mind of a young\nlady retained the impression of its identity with a certain fictitious\ncharacter, which she had once assumed in a play, and with which it\nagain identified itself in obedience to her suggestion, made when she\nwas in the normal condition.\n\nAgain, it is a common stage experiment in hypnotism to suggest some\nname to the subject, and some character in which he is made to act,\nthat of a merchant being not uncommon. When we remember how lasting\nare such impressions upon the subjective mind, and how prone they are\nto reappear at any subsequent time when the same conditions exist, we\nare prepared to believe that such a suggestion, made in early life,\nwould be an ample explanation of the subsequent event. The fact that\nthe suggestion, whatever it was and by whomsoever it was made, was\nmade while the subject was in the hypnotic condition, and could not,\ntherefore, be remembered objectively, explains why it is that in few,\nif any, of such cases can any clew be obtained as to the origin of the\nsuggestion, or any reason assigned for the assumption of any particular\npersonality.\n\nThe dual character of the persons thus afflicted constitutes the most\nindubitable evidence of the duality of man's mental organism, and it\nis beginning to be so recognized by European scientific observers.\nSome of them say, however, \"If this is evidence of duality of mind,\nwhat shall we say of those who exhibit a triple personality? Is that\nan evidence of a trinity of mind?\" The question is pertinent, and\nis easily answered. It is obvious that the persons exhibiting the\nphenomenon are in a hypnotic trance, and are, therefore, governed by\nthe laws pertaining to hypnotism. They have an objective mind, which\nis the controlling power in the normal condition. In the hypnotic\nstate the normal, or objective, faculties are in abeyance, and the\nperson is amenable to control by the power of suggestion. Whatever\nname or character is then suggested is at once assumed by the subject.\nThe suggestion may be oral, and proceed from another; or it may be\nan auto-suggestion, arising from something suggested in a previous\nhypnotization, or from some forgotten circumstance. Be that as it\nmay, the suggested character is assumed and carried out with all the\ndeductive logical exactitude characteristic of subjective reasoning.\nThis is a well-known result of a common hypnotic experiment. It is\nalso well known that the subject can be made to assume any number\nof characters by the same process. It is a common stage experiment\nto cause a versatile subject, who is easily controlled, to assume a\ndozen different characters in the course of an evening's performance.\nIt is obvious, therefore, that persons who are afflicted with a\nsecond personality, which occasionally takes possession of them, are\nalso liable to assume a third, or, indeed, any number of names and\ncharacters, if anything happens to suggest them. In fact, the power\nof suggestion over the subjective mind, in the line of multiplication\nof characters, is practically unlimited. It is not a multiplication\nof personalities, however, nor an evidence of a triple or a quadruple\npersonality, but merely an exhibition of the power of the second, or\nsubjective, personality of man to assume, in obedience to the law of\nsuggestion, any number of real or imaginary characters. The same power\nis exhibited by the subjective personality of a spirit medium when it\nassumes the names and characters of any number of spirits of the dead,\nwhose names are suggested.\n\nThe specific character of the mental operations of persons in whom\nthe second personality is abnormally developed has not been recorded,\nso far as we are aware. It will be found, however, when observations\nare made in that direction, that they have practically no capacity\nfor reasoning by the inductive process when under the control of the\nsecond personality. This will certainly be the case if the hypnosis\nis perfect. Otherwise it might be modified by the synchronous action\nof the objective mind. It is hoped that future observers will direct\ntheir attention to this question, to the end that a series of facts may\nbe collated which shall assist in determining the direction and extent,\nas well as the exact limitations, of subjective mental power. When that\nis accomplished, the first great step will have been taken in bringing\npsychology within the domain of the exact sciences.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nTHE PHYSICAL PHENOMENA OF SPIRITISM.\n\n The Intelligence manifested.--It is a Human Intelligence.--Inherent\n Probabilities.--Conditions requisite.--The Best Conditions.--A\n Living Organism necessary.--The Laws of Telepathy and\n Suggestion prevail.--Slate-Writing.--A Wonderful Slate-Writing\n S\u00e9ance.--Telepathic and Psycho-Physical Power displayed\n in Perfection.--Demonstration of its Mundane Origin.--An\n Unexpected Phenomenon.--Summary of Results.--Syllogism.--General\n Conclusions.--Spiritistic Phenomena do not constitute Valid\n Evidence of a Life beyond the Grave.--An Argument for Immortality.\n\n\nThe physical phenomena of spiritism are in more senses than one the\nmost interesting of all the manifestations of subjective power. They\nrequire, however, but a brief treatment at our hands, for the reason\nthat the primary object of this book is to deal with the mental powers\nand attributes of mankind in their relations to psychic phenomena. No\nattempt, therefore, will be made to prove that the alleged physical\nphenomena of so-called spiritism are veridical or otherwise. It would\nbe a work of supererogation to attempt to add force or volume to the\nalready overwhelming array of testimony going to show the wonderful\nphysical power often displayed in connection with psychic phenomena.\nFor our purposes it is not a matter of vital importance whether things\ncan be made to levitate without physical contact or not. It will be\nassumed, therefore, that all statements made by respectable witnesses\nin regard to the occurrence of physical phenomena are true. We do\nthis partly because we believe them to be true, having seen enough\nto _know_ the reality of the leading physical phenomena, and partly\nbecause our purpose is to deal with the mental aspects of psychic\nphenomena, and the laws which pertain to their development. We shall\nleave to those who are sceptical, or who think they are sceptical\nrather than ignorant, the task of investigating, after the ponderous\nand elaborate methods of the scientists, phenomena which can be\nverified beyond the possible shadow of a doubt, by the exercise of a\nlittle common-sense. And we will here undertake to guarantee that if\nany scientific gentleman will, in good faith, follow the suggestions\noffered in former chapters of this book regarding the proper method of\ndealing with so-called mediums, and will divest himself, for the time\nbeing, of all fear of professional mediums and all prejudice against\nthem, he will not only see enough to convince him of the truth of all\nthat is alleged regarding physical phenomena, but he will also see\nthat the elaborate test conditions often insisted upon by scientific\ninvestigators are superfluous, not to say absurd. These remarks are,\nof course, applicable to the better class of mediums, that is, those\nwho are recognized by the great body of spiritists as possessing a high\norder of mediumistic power. Their moral characteristics need not count\nas a factor, for it is to the interest of a medium to produce genuine\nphenomena when he can, and he will always do so if the conditions are\nfavorable. Mediums are always anxious to exhibit their phenomena, when\ngenuine, under test conditions, and will do so in a way that shall\nsatisfy the most sceptical. A further qualification of the foregoing\nremarks should be made in regard to \"materializing\" mediums. The writer\nhas never seen anything genuine in the line of materializations.\nThere is here more room for fraud, and more fraud is perpetrated by\nmaterializing mediums than by any other, because materialization is a\nrare and difficult phase of mediumship. Yet there is every reason to\nbelieve, and we shall undertake to show further on, that the production\nof genuine apparitions, resembling the persons they profess to\nrepresent, is a possibility within the range of psychic power.\n\nThe remarks which follow will therefore be addressed, not to those\nwho are not yet convinced of the reality of physical phenomena,\nbut to those who are aware of their reality, but attribute them to\nextramundane causes.\n\nThere is one pregnant fact connected with these manifestations which\nall will admit, and that is that there is an intelligence which directs\nand controls them. This intelligence is that of disembodied spirits,\nor it is not. If it is not, it must be that of embodied spirits. These\npropositions, if not self-evident, will at least be admitted to be\ntrue by those who believe that it proceeds from disembodied spirits of\nhuman beings. The intelligence is a human intelligence,--that is, it is\ncharacterized by human imperfections and limitations; and, as all human\nbeings must be classified as either living or dead, we must look to one\nclass or the other for the source of the phenomena.\n\nThe first question in order is, What are the inherent probabilities?\nConceding the power to exist, it would seem to be more inherently\nprobable that it is possessed by a soul connected with a living\norganism, than it is that it is possessed by a soul that has been\nentirely severed from all connection with the material world.\nSpiritists themselves unwittingly concede the truth of this proposition\nwhen they assert, as does Allan Kardec, on the authority, as he says,\nof \"the spirit of Saint Louis,\" that \"the spirits who produce these\neffects are always inferior spirits, who are not entirely disengaged\nfrom material influence.\"[37] Besides, the very fact that the\nintervention of a \"medium\" is necessary for the production of physical\nphenomena demonstrates the proposition that the elements of physical\norganism are essential. It requires, therefore, two things to produce\nthe phenomena; namely, a soul and a body. In a living man the two are\nunited and working in harmony. Is it not probable that such an organism\nis capable of producing all the effects attributed to the temporary\nunion of a dead man's soul and a living man's body? If not, why not?\nWhy should a dead man's spirit in abnormal union with a living man's\nbody possess more power than a living man's spirit in normal union with\nhis own body? Is it because the former possesses more knowledge than\nthe latter? No, for we have seen that it is only \"inferior spirits\" who\nare capable of producing physical manifestations. Superior knowledge\nconfers no advantage; for, as Kardec informs us, the superior spirits\nhave no power in that direction. We have, therefore, the authority of\nthe spiritists themselves for formulating the proposition that the more\ncompletely the spirit of a man is \"disengaged from material influence,\"\nthe less power he possesses to produce physical phenomena. This being\ntrue, it follows that the converse of the proposition is true, namely,\nthat the more completely the spirit of a man is united to material\nelements, the greater is his power to produce such phenomena. The\nconclusion is irresistible that the spirit of a man in normal union\nwith his own body possesses the power in perfection.\n\nIf, therefore, we can find in abstract reasoning no warrant for the\nassumption that the phenomena are produced by disembodied spirits, we\nmust look elsewhere for evidence of their extramundane origin. The\nfirst inquiry naturally suggesting itself is, What internal evidence\nis contained in the character of the manifestations which would enable\none to form a correct judgment regarding their probable source? We\nhave already seen that reasoning from their physical character leads\nus to the conclusion that the physical power displayed must have a\nphysical basis, and that that basis is probably the physical organism\nof the medium. Now, if its intellectual character leads us in the same\ndirection, the evidence is still stronger in favor of its purely human\norigin. We presume that no one will dispute the proposition that the\ncommunications received through the physical phenomena are governed by\nthe same laws as those received by means of the other methods which\nhave been discussed. Indeed, the fact is almost self-evident. They\nhave the same origin, and must be governed by the same laws. The\nremarks, therefore, which have been made concerning the character of\nthe communications obtained by other than physical means apply with\nfull force to those obtained through physical demonstrations. The\nlaws of telepathy and suggestion play their subtle _r\u00f4le_ in the one\ncase the same as in the other. If possible, there is less evidence of\nextramundane origin in the physical manifestations than there is in\nthe intellectual. Indeed, this might be pre-supposed, from the gross\ncharacter of the former, even though the latter had a purely spiritual\nsource. If, therefore, we find no valid evidence of extramundane\norigin in the higher manifestations, it is a waste of time to seek for\nevidence of spirit intercourse in the tipping of kitchen tables, the\nlevitation of parlor sofas, or the convulsions of whole sets of chamber\nfurniture.\n\nThe foregoing remarks apply to all forms and grades of physical\nphenomena, of which there are many. Some of them possess the most\nintense interest, not only on account of the wonderful psycho-physical\npower displayed, but because of their intellectual phases.\nSlate-writing, for instance, when performed by a first-class medium,\ngifted with a high order of telepathic power, accompanied by other\nnecessary intellectual qualifications, is one of the most interesting\nof all phases of psychic power. An instance which occurred within the\nwriter's own experience will be here related, for the reason that it\nfully illustrates the essential qualifications and characteristics of\na first-class medium, shows both the physical and mental powers with\nwhich he is endowed, and clearly defines the limitations which hedge\nhim about, and which point, with unerring exactitude, to the source of\nthe phenomena.\n\nA few years ago, a conversation which the writer had with a celebrated\nUnion general led to an agreement to visit a prominent slate-writing\nmedium, then sojourning in the city of Washington. Among other things,\nit was agreed that the general should be the sitter, and that he should\nbe guided entirely by my suggestions relative to the course which he\nshould pursue before and during the s\u00e9ance.\n\nMy object, which he fully understood and appreciated, was, first, to\nconvince him of the genuineness of the physical phenomena,--that is,\nthat the slate-writing was performed without corporeal contact of\nthe medium with the pencil, and without the shadow of a possibility\nof the employment of legerdemain; and, secondly, to demonstrate the\nutter impossibility of the phenomena being attributable to disembodied\nspirits.\n\nIt must be premised that the medium was in the habit of causing his\nsitters to write six short letters to as many different spirits.\nThese epistles are written on separate pieces of paper about three\ninches square, and are addressed to the spirits by name and signed by\nthe writer, precisely as an ordinary letter would be addressed and\nsigned. Each letter is then rolled into a wad as small as possible, and\nretained in the hand of the sitter until he is requested to deposit\nthem in a pile on the table. When this is done, the medium reaches\nhis hand across the table and touches the wads with the tips of his\nfingers, the sitter meanwhile watching the proceeding closely, to\nprevent the possibility of fraud. After the medium has touched each\nbit of paper the sitter resumes possession of them and retains them\nfor future reference. It may be here remarked that a sitter has the\nprivilege of bringing his own slates with him, and retaining possession\nof them until the writing is finished. They need not leave his custody\nfor an instant. He may place the bit of pencil between them himself,\nand then securely lock or tie them together, and hold them as tightly\nas he chooses on the top of the table, in the broad light of day, while\nthe writing is going on.\n\nThe plan suggested to the general on this occasion, and which he\ncarried out to the letter, was as follows:--\n\n1. To write three letters to as many spirits of his dead acquaintances,\neach one couched in general terms,--such as, \"Dear B., can you\ncommunicate with me to-day? If so, tell me your condition in the\nspirit-land.\" This could be answered by very general remarks, and would\nrequire no specific answer involving any knowledge of the sitter's\naffairs or anything else.\n\n2. To write two similar letters to two persons known to the sitter, but\nunknown to the medium, to be still living in the flesh.\n\n3. To write one letter to a deceased person, asking a specific\nquestion, the correct answer to which neither the sitter nor the medium\ncould possibly know.\n\n4. To place the medium at his ease, by leading him to believe that he\nhad to deal with a sympathetic believer in the doctrine of spiritism,\nwho had perfect faith in the medium's powers.\n\n5. To prescribe no test conditions whatever, but let the medium have\nhis own way in everything.\n\n6. Under no circumstances to let the medium know the name or\nantecedents of the sitter.\n\nThese suggestions were carried out to the letter. The general was\nunknown to the medium, and was introduced by the writer under a\nfictitious name. The medium occupied a suite of rooms consisting of a\nlarge double parlor separated by folding-doors. The front parlor was\nused as a reception-room, and the back parlor as a s\u00e9ance-room. The\nlatter was lighted by one large window, in front of which stood an\nold-fashioned square dining-table. The medium seated himself on one\nside of this table, and the sitter occupied a chair on the opposite\nside. Several slates were lying on the table, two of which the medium\nwashed clean and then gave them into the custody of the sitter,\nwho carefully examined them, and kept them in his possession until\nthe s\u00e9ance was over, resting his arms upon them while he wrote the\nprescribed letters. He was particularly cautious about writing the\nletters, carefully guarding them so that it was impossible for the\nmedium to see the writing with his natural eyes, and never lifted his\nelbows from the two slates in his custody. When the letters were all\nfinished and rolled into wads, they were placed upon the table directly\nbetween the medium and the sitter, the latter never allowing his eyes\nto wander from them for an instant. The medium then touched each wad\nwith his finger-tips, when they were again taken possession of by the\nsitter.\n\nIt should be stated that the s\u00e9ance, thus far, was not witnessed\nby myself; but the circumstances were afterwards detailed by the\ngeneral, whose perfect trustworthiness is beyond question. At this\njuncture--that is, while the wads were still lying on the table--a\nmost remarkable incident happened. The medium suddenly arose, opened\nthe folding-doors, and invited me in to take part in the s\u00e9ance. After\nresuming his seat, he remarked to me: \"There is a spirit here who\nrefuses to communicate until you are allowed to be present. He says\nhis name is G---- (mentioning a common Christian name). Have you any\ndeceased friend by that name?\" I answered, No, not remembering, for the\nmoment, any one bearing that name. The medium then handed me a pencil,\nand said: \"Touch one of those wads with the pencil; then open it, and\nyou will find that it is a letter addressed to G----.\"\n\nI touched one of the six wads, at random of course, and upon opening\nit found, to my surprise, that it was a letter addressed by the sitter\nto his deceased brother G----. The brother was also a very dear friend\nof mine; but his exalted position in life precluded me from ever\naddressing him by his Christian name, and I had not been consciously\nthinking of him during the s\u00e9ance. Then the medium again addressed me,\nas follows:--\n\n\"Fold the letter again, place it with the others, and mix them all\ntogether. Then take the pencil and touch another wad; and the one you\ntouch you will find to be a letter addressed to M----.\"\n\nThis was done, and the wad touched proved to be a letter addressed to\nthe party named by the medium. A third time this feat was performed\nwith the same result. To say that we were surprised is but feebly\nto express our emotions. The first success might be attributable to\ncoincidence, supposing the medium to be in possession of the name. The\nchances were one to six, and it is within easy range of coincidence\nthat I should have hit upon the right letter. In the second trial the\nchances were also one to six, _per se_; but the chances that I should\nsucceed twice in succession were largely against me; and the fact\nthat I succeeded three times in succession in pointing out the right\nletter removes the matter far outside the domain of coincidence. When\nwe take into account the telepathic power displayed by the medium, and\nthat other power, whatever it may have been, which transformed me for\nthe moment into an automaton, the incident will be seen to possess an\nextraordinary interest and importance. I should here remark that that\nwas the first and only experience of my own in the domain of subjective\nautomatism, and that I did not experience any sensation which could\nlead me to suppose that I was not in a perfectly normal condition,\nmentally and physically.\n\nThe most remarkable part of the performance, however, is yet to be\nrelated. The sitter meantime did not lose his presence of mind, but\ncarefully guarded the pair of slates in his custody, never lifting his\narms from them as they lay upon the table before him. Nor did he for an\ninstant lose sight of the wads of paper which he placed upon the table.\nThe medium touched them with his finger-tips alone, as before related;\nand after I had pointed out the three letters, they were taken into the\ncustody of the sitter. This done, the medium said to the sitter: \"Open\nthe slates, and you will find a communication from G----.\" This was\ndone, and the promised communication was found, addressed to the sitter\nby name and signed by G----, the name of the sitter's brother. In fact,\nit was a pertinent answer to the letter written by the sitter to his\nbrother, addressed as the sitter had signed his name, and signed as the\nsitter's brother had been addressed.\n\nThe medium then became considerably agitated, and moved with convulsive\nrapidity. He seized two other slates, washed them, submitted them\nfor inspection, and placed them upon the centre of the table before\nus, with a bit of black pencil between them. He then invited us to\nplace our hands upon the slate with him. This we did, whereupon the\nwriting began. We could distinctly hear the pencil move with a gentle,\nbut rapid, scratching sound. In a few minutes three raps were heard,\napparently made by the pencil between the slates. This was said to be\nthe signal announcing the completion of the message. The slates were\nthen separated, and several messages were found inside.\n\nTwo more slates were then seized by the medium, washed, submitted\nfor inspection, and placed upon the table as before. Our hands were\nagain placed upon the slates, and the writing again began. After\nit had progressed for a few moments, the medium announced that the\nspirits wanted to write in colors. He thereupon arose, walked to the\nmantelpiece, and produced a box of colored crayons, all in small bits,\nabout the size of the piece of black slate pencil with which the\nwriting had been done. We were about to open the slates, to allow the\ninsertion of the crayons, when the medium said that it was unnecessary,\nas \"the colors could be got from the outside just as well.\" The box of\ncrayons was accordingly placed beside the slate, and the writing was\nresumed. After a short interval the signal was given that the messages\nwere finished. The general thereupon very carefully separated the\nslates, to see if there were any colored crayons concealed therein.\nOnly the bit of black slate pencil was there, but four or five\ndifferent colors had been used in writing the messages.\n\nThe results of this s\u00e9ance may be summed up as follows:\n\nThe contents of every letter written by the sitter were evidently\nknown to the intelligence which wrote the replies, for every letter\nreceived an appropriate answer, save one, which will be noted further\non. The answer to each letter was addressed to the name signed to the\ncorresponding letter, and each answer was signed with the name of the\nperson to whom the corresponding letter was addressed.\n\nSix letters were written by the sitter, as before stated. Three of\nthem were written to deceased friends of the sitter, and were couched\nin such general terms that the replies did not require any specific\nknowledge on the part of the intelligence which wrote the replies.\n\nTwo of the letters were written to living persons, and they were also\ncouched in general terms, requiring no specific knowledge to enable an\nappropriate reply to be framed.\n\nEach of these five letters received a reply which assumed that its\nwriter was a denizen of the spirit-land. There was no difference in\ntheir replies so far as that was concerned.\n\nThe sixth letter was addressed to a deceased relative, and was as\nfollows, omitting names:--\n\n DEAR A.B.,--Whom did you desire to have appointed administrator of\n your estate? (Signed) C.D.\n\nTo this letter the only reply was from the medium's \"control,\" who\nreported as follows:--\n\n \"A.B. is here, but cannot communicate to-day.\"\n\nThe conclusions which are inevitable may be summed as follows:--\n\n1. The slate-writing was done without physical contact with the\npencil, either by the medium or any one else. It all occurred in broad\ndaylight. The slates were not handled by the medium, except to wash\nthem and to place his hands upon them (in all cases but one) while the\nwriting was going on. The slates were not for an instant out of sight\nof the sitter during the whole s\u00e9ance, nor were they out of his custody\nduring that time, after they were washed by the medium. They were then\ncarefully inspected by the sitter, the pencil was placed between them\nby the sitter, they were tied together by the sitter, and opened by him\nafter the writing was finished. In short, there was no chance for fraud\nor legerdemain, and there was none.\n\n2. The power which moved the pencil, being clearly not physical, must\nhave been occult. This occult power was either that of disembodied\nspirits, or that of the medium. Did it proceed from disembodied\nspirits? Let us see. The replies to the five letters emanated from\nthe same source; that is to say, if the replies to any of them were\nfrom disembodied spirits, they were all from disembodied spirits. They\nwere clearly not all from disembodied spirits, for two of the letters\nwere addressed to living persons, and the replies were of the same\ncharacter as the others. The logical conclusion is inevitable that none\nof the replies were from disembodied spirits. To put it in the simple\nform of a syllogism, we have the following:--\n\nThe replies to the five letters were all from the same source.\n\nTwo of them were not from disembodied spirits.\n\nTherefore, none of them were from disembodied spirits.\n\nAgain:\n\nThe power to produce the slate-writing emanated either from disembodied\nspirits or from the medium.\n\nIt did not emanate from disembodied spirits.\n\nTherefore, it emanated from the medium.\n\nHaving now logically traced the phenomenon to the door of the\nmedium, let us see what further evidence there is in support of that\nconclusion. And first let us inquire, Is there anything inherently\nimprobable in the theory that he was the source of the intelligence\nwhich guided, and the power which moved, the pencil? Was there any\nintellectual feat performed which rendered it impossible that he should\nhave been its author? The power to read the contents of the six letters\nwas obviously within the domain of telepathy. He was, therefore, just\nas well equipped for the performance of that feat as a disembodied\nspirit could be. Suggestion also plays its subtle _r\u00f4le_ in this\nclass of phenomena, as in all others, and relieves the medium of all\nimputation of dishonesty or insincerity in attributing it to the wrong\nsource. The probability that the power to move the pencil without\nphysical contact resides in the medium, is as great, at least, as the\nprobability that it resides in disembodied spirits. All these questions\nhave, however, been fully discussed, and are mentioned here merely to\ncomplete the chain of reasoning.\n\nThere was nothing apparent in the answers to the five letters mentioned\nwhich would indicate that they emanated from any source other than\nthe medium. They contained no information possessed exclusively by\ndisembodied spirits, although they all purported to emanate from them.\nThe five letters were not, however, framed for the purpose of testing\nthe knowledge possessed by spirits, but merely to show that the replies\ndid not emanate from that source.\n\nThe sixth letter, however, _was_ framed for the express purpose of\ntesting the knowledge possessed by the intelligence which moved\nthe pencil. The question, \"Whom did you desire to have appointed\nadministrator of your estate?\" was asked because the sitter did not\nknow the correct answer, and he knew that the medium could not know.\nThe knowledge was possessed by the deceased person exclusively; and\nit is reasonable to suppose that if he was present, as the medium\ndeclared that he was, he would have given the desired information.\nThe intelligence which wrote the replies was in full possession of\nthe contents of all the letters, all the names addressed, and all\nthe signatures, including those of the sixth letter. The answers to\nfive of them were pertinent and intelligent, no specific knowledge\nbeing required. But when the sixth was reached, the spirit \"could\nnot communicate to-day.\" Why? Simply because the specific knowledge\nrequired to answer the question was not in the possession of any one\npresent, and it could not, therefore, be obtained telepathically, as\nthe knowledge of the contents of the other letters was obtained.\n\nThis is the rock upon which all so-called spirit intercourse splits.\nEverything goes along swimmingly as long as the medium knows what\nto reply, or can obtain information by means of his telepathic or\nclairvoyant powers. But the moment he is confronted by a question\nrequiring knowledge not obtainable in that way, he fails dismally.\n\nThe circumstances of this s\u00e9ance have been detailed for the reason that\nit was a typical s\u00e9ance. It displayed all the essential characteristics\nof modern spirit intercourse, so-called. The medium displayed all\nthe essential powers and attributes of good mediumship. The physical\nphenomena were produced to perfection, and under the most perfect\ntest-conditions. The telepathic powers displayed were of the most\nextraordinary character, and the conditions under which they were\nproduced were also such as to preclude the possibility of fraud or\nlegerdemain. The results were also perfect in their character, showing,\nas they did, both the powers of the medium and his limitations. The\ndual character of the human mind was also clearly manifested, and the\nperfect amenability of the subjective entity to control by the power of\nsuggestion was demonstrated.\n\nIt would be interesting to pursue the subject of physical\nmanifestations further, and to examine all their multiform\ncharacteristics; but that would be foreign to the purposes of this\nbook. The examination of the mental characteristics of the intelligence\nwhich controls the different manifestations is our only purpose,\nand we have shown that the same laws prevail in all. It is believed\nthat enough has been said to enable the conscientious investigator,\nwho wishes to test the correctness of our hypothesis, to apply its\nfundamental propositions to all psychic phenomena. It is also believed\nthat whoever so applies those propositions will arrive at the same\nconclusions to which I have come; namely, that there is no valid\nevidence, in any of the phenomena of so-called spiritism, that the\nspirits of the dead have any part in their production. On the contrary,\nas it seems to me, the evidence all points in the opposite direction. I\nrefer, of course, solely to those phenomena which are produced through\nso-called spirit mediums. If there is any communication to be had with\nthe denizens of the other shore, it is certainly not through them. I\nhave reluctantly arrived at this conclusion. It would be pleasant to\nbelieve otherwise, but I have sought in vain for evidence which would\nwarrant me in doing so.\n\nIn abandoning all hope of obtaining valid evidence of the ability of\ndisembodied spirits to hold intercourse with the living through the\nintervention of spirit mediums, I do not for a moment yield my hope, or\nmy convictions, of a life beyond the grave. On the contrary, the very\npowers which are evoked in the production of the phenomena constitute\none of the strongest links in the chain of evidence going to show that\nman possesses within himself an entity which does not depend for its\nexistence upon the continued life of the body. We see that this entity\npossesses powers which far transcend those of our physical frame;\nthat the mental powers of the subjective mind or entity are exercised\nindependently of our objective senses; that they grow stronger as the\nbody grows weaker, and are strongest in the hour of death. Have we not\na logical right to infer that when it is entirely freed from physical\ntrammels, it will have reached a condition of independent existence?\nWhat that existence is, it is not for objective man to know. It is\npossible that if spirits could communicate as familiarly with the\nliving as we commune with one another, they would have no language\nwhich could bring to our comprehension their true condition. It would\nbe like teaching an infant the principles of the differential calculus.\nHow can the caterpillar, crawling upon the ground, hold intelligent\ncommunion with the airy butterfly, or the butterfly reveal to the\ncaterpillar the mysteries of her winged life?\n\nThe fact remains that mankind has ever hoped, and will ever hope,\nfor a continued existence of some kind; and all the old arguments\nin its favor, and all the promises of the Master, still hold good.\nMoreover, every new development in psychic science adds strength to the\narguments, and fresh proofs of his wisdom.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 37: Book on Mediums, p. 87.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nPHANTASMS OF THE DEAD.\n\n Ghosts.--Scientific Investigations.--Tentative\n Classification of Phenomena.--Power to create Phantasms\n demonstrated.--Investigations of the London Society for\n Psychical Research.--Spirit Photography.--Projection of the\n \"Astral Body.\"--Witches.--Conditions necessary.--The same in\n all Cases.--Spirit \"Materialization.\"--Magicians.--Ghosts\n the Creations of the Subjective Entity.--Eliphas Levi's\n Views.--Raising the Devil.--Crystal Visions.--Propositions\n established.--Embodied Thoughts.--Phantasms not Spirits.--Uniform\n Characteristics.--A New Classification.--Conditions of Objectivity\n and Persistency.--Haunted Houses.--No General Intelligence\n manifested.--D'Assier's Statements.--A Remarkable Case.--Ghosts\n Intensified Telepathic Visions.--Difference in Degree, not\n in Kind.--Ghosts not controllable by Suggestion.--Other\n Salient Peculiarities.--Ghosts neither prove nor disprove\n Immortality.--Mental Atmosphere of Houses.--Remarkable\n Cases.--Classification of Telepathic Phenomena.--Conclusions.\n\n\nThere is another class of phenomena which demands a brief notice,\nalthough it does not pertain directly to the development of the\nhypothesis under consideration. It is that of phantasms of the dead,\nor ghosts. Scientific investigations of modern times have demonstrated\nthe fact that many of the ghost-stories which have terrified the timid\nin all ages of the world have a real foundation in fact; that is,\nit has been demonstrated that certain impalpable shapes, resembling\npersons deceased, do from time to time appear to the living. The\nworld is indebted more than it can ever repay to the London Society\nfor Psychical Research for its patient, untiring, and strictly\nscientific investigations of this subject. Many facts have been\naccumulated, but they have not yet been classified with reference to\nany special theory or hypothesis. It is perhaps too early to formulate\nany hypothesis pertaining to the subject-matter. It is certainly too\nearly to dogmatize. The most that can safely be done is to speculate\ntentatively, and to suggest a line of thought and investigation for\nthose who are devoting their time to the work. It is my purpose to\ndo this, and this alone, in the hope that if the suggestions seem\nto be worthy of consideration, the subject may be pursued on the\nlines indicated until their fallacy is exposed or their correctness\ndemonstrated.\n\nIt seems to me that sufficient facts have been accumulated to\nestablish, provisionally at least, certain definite characteristics of\nall phantasms, whether of the living or the dead; and if a theory can\nbe formulated, however startling it may be at first glance, that will\nharmonize with the well-established characteristics of the phenomena,\nit will be at least worthy of consideration. In attempting to do this,\nI shall not quote authorities to any extent to establish my premises,\nbut shall state merely what seems to be well authenticated, and leave\nthe verification of the premises, as well as the conclusions, to those\nwho have more time, patience, and ability to devote to the work than I\nhave.\n\nFirst of all, then, it seems to be well authenticated that the\nsubjective personality of man possesses the power to create phantasms,\nor visions, which in many instances are visible to the objective senses\nof others. The telepathic experiments recorded in \"Phantasms of the\nLiving\" and in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research\namply demonstrate the truth of this proposition. Every vision perceived\nby one in telepathic rapport with another must be presumed to have been\ncreated by one or the other. It is true that some of the visions may\nbe merely perceived subjectively, but not all. Many cases are recorded\nwhere the phantasms have been perceived by more than one person at the\nsame time, and others have been perceived under circumstances such\nas to leave no doubt that the percipient was in a completely normal\ncondition, and saw the visions objectively. Moreover, the phenomena of\nso-called spirit photography amply demonstrate the fact that visions\ncan be created of such tangible character that they can be caught and\nfixed upon the photographic plate. In saying this I am not insensible\nof the fact that many frauds have been committed in this species of\nphenomena, as well as in all others attributed to spirits of the dead.\nBut this does not militate against phenomena of that character which\nhave been produced under test conditions so strict that all possibility\nof fraud was eliminated. In admitting this class of phenomena to be\ngenuine, in the sense that it is sometimes produced without fraud or\nlegerdemain, it is also admitted that, in many instances, pictures of\nthe sitter's dead friends have been produced which were such perfect\nlikenesses of the deceased as to be unmistakable. Of course it will be\nunderstood that whilst I admit the phenomenon, I do not admit the claim\nthat it has its origin in the spirit-world. Like all other so-called\nspirit phenomena, it is, in my opinion, directly traceable to the power\nof the subjective mind of the medium, aided by telepathic communion\nwith the sitter. The latter, consciously or unconsciously, thinks of\none or more of his dead friends. The medium, perceiving telepathically\nthe image created by the mind of the sitter, re-creates it in such\ntangible shape that it is caught by the camera. Or it may be in some\ninstances that the image is created by the sitter himself in such\npalpable shape as to be caught by the camera. Indeed, in many recorded\ninstances, where the sitter has been a powerful medium, it seems\nprobable that he created the image himself. In point of fact there is\nlittle doubt that the power resides, to a greater or less extent, in\nall human beings to create such images, their strength and clearness\ndepending, of course, upon the power of the individual to recall\nvividly the remembrance of the person to be photographed, together with\nthe power to concentrate his mind for a certain length of time upon the\nmental picture. Indeed, experiments have been made which demonstrate\nthe power to produce the picture of any one, living or dead, in this\nmanner.\n\nThis being true, two conclusions are obvious; namely, (1) That the\nphenomena of spirit photography are easily accounted for, without the\nnecessity of attributing them to extramundane origin; and (2) That\nthe power resides in the subjective mind of man to create phantasms\nperceptible to the objective senses of others. Again, it seems to be\nwell established by experiment that some persons have the power, not\nonly to create such phantasms, but to endow them with a certain degree\nof intelligence and power. Thus, the experiments recorded in \"Phantasms\nof the Living,\" and quoted in a preceding chapter of this book, show\nthat the image of the agent was not only created by him in his sleep,\nbut was projected into the presence of others at a long distance from\nwhere he slept. The image was not only perceptible to the sight, as\nmuch so as the real presence would have been, but in some instances\nit was even tangible. The Orientalists call this the \"projection of\nthe astral body,\" and it is claimed that many persons in the East have\nacquired the power to produce the phenomenon at will. The fact that\nphantasms can thus be produced being well authenticated, many old\nstories of such phenomena acquire a new interest and importance, and\nassume an air of probability. Thus, the old stories of witches, in\nso far as the alleged phenomena seem to have been produced under the\nsame conditions as those which are well authenticated, are elevated\ninto the region of possibility, if not of probability. They are at\nleast worthy of re-examination, in the light of modern experiments.\nIt is foreign to my purpose to enter at large into the discussion of\nthe alleged phenomena of so-called witchcraft, and this allusion is\nmade here for the purpose of suggesting to those who desire to pursue\nthe subject that if they will take for granted that which has been\ndemonstrated to be true in regard to the power of the sub-conscious\nmind, or personality, to project tangible phantasms or images, and will\napply the doctrine of duality and suggestion to the alleged facts, the\nold stories of the phenomena of witchcraft will be found to possess a\nscientific value and importance which cannot be ignored in the study of\npsychology.\n\nFor the purposes of this argument it will be assumed that the power of\nman, under certain conditions, to project phantasms is provisionally\nestablished. The next question is, What are the conditions? If we find\nthat the conditions are practically the same in all cases, one great\nstep in the classification of the phenomena will have been taken.\n\nThe one condition which seems to be necessary in all cases for the\nproduction of the phenomena is that of profound sleep, either natural\nor artificial. The objective senses must be locked in slumber, and\nthe more profound the sleep, the greater the power seems to be. Thus,\nin the cases recorded in \"Phantasms of the Living,\" the sleep was\nnatural, but profound. It was at least so profound that the agent had\nno recollection of actually doing what he had resolved to do, and\nit was only brought to his knowledge by the subsequent statements\nmade by the percipients. It is said, however, that sometimes the\nagent retains full recollection of what he did. Be this as it may,\nthe fact remains that the one essential condition for the successful\nproduction of the phenomena is that of sleep. Again, the Orientalists\ntell us the same thing. Their adepts lock themselves in their rooms,\nwhich are carefully protected against invasion, and go into a sleep\nso profound as to simulate death. The witches were known to employ\nartificial means to produce sleep. Formul\u00e6 for producing what was\nknown as \"witches' ointment\" are still extant. It was composed of the\nmost powerful narcotics, made into an ointment by the addition of some\nfatty substance. The body of the witch was anointed from head to foot,\nand she then went to bed in some place secure from observation or\ndisturbance, and lapsed into a profound sleep. This much is known, and\nmany wonderful phenomena are alleged to have been produced, prominent\namong which was the creation of various shapes, such as the image of\nherself, images of cats, dogs, wolves, etc., which were sent to worry\nand annoy her neighbors or any one against whom she had a grudge. In\nfact, the shapes alleged to have been produced are protean.\n\nAnother alleged phenomenon of cognate character is that of so-called\nspirit materialization. In the production of this phenomenon the\nconditions are the same. The medium goes into a trance, or hypnotic\nstate, and projects the shapes of various persons, generally of the\ndeceased friends of some of those present. A good medium will produce\nany number of visions, of any number of persons, men and women, large\nand small. Spiritists believe, of course, that the real spirits of\ntheir friends are present, and are thus made visible to mortal eyes,\nand in many instances tangible, and able to hold a brief conversation\nwith their friends. As the intellectual part of the performance of\nthese alleged spirits is always on a par with that of other forms of\nspirit manifestation, subject to the same limitations and governed by\nthe same laws, we must come to the same conclusion as to their origin,\nnamely, that, whatever it may be, it is not due to spirits of the dead.\n\nThe old stories of the power of magicians to conjure alleged spirits\nare also raised into the region of probability by these considerations.\nThey also observed the same conditions required in all the other cases\nmentioned. By the performance of certain impressive ceremonies, which\nthey were taught to believe were necessary, they were said to be able\nto evoke so-called spirits and to do many other wonderful things. The\nceremonies and incantations, together with the impressive environment\nwith which they surrounded themselves, the incense, the slow music, the\n\"dim religious light,\" the solemn invocations,--all had a tendency to\nthrow them into the subjective condition, and thus enable them to evoke\nthe shapes desired. That these shapes were literal creations of the\nsubjective personality of the magician, rather than the actual spirits\ninvoked, there is every reason to believe. Nor are we alone in that\nopinion. Eliphas Levi, than whom no modern writer on the subject of\nmagic is better informed or more honest in the expression of his real\nconvictions, gives utterance to the following:--\n\n \"Human thought creates what it imagines; the phantoms of\n superstition project their real deformity in the Astral Light, and\n live by the very terrors they produce. They owe their being to the\n delusions of imagination and to the aberration of the senses, and\n are never produced in the presence of any one who knows and can\n expose the mystery of their monstrous birth.\"[38]\n\nAgain, on page 160, he says:--\n\n \"The evokers of the Devil must before all things belong to a\n religion which believes in a Devil who is the rival of God. To have\n recourse to a power, we must believe in it. A firm faith being\n therefore granted in the religion of Satan, here is the method of\n communicating with this pseudo-god:--\n\n _Magical Axiom._\n\n Within the circle of its action, every Logos creates what it affirms.\n\n _Direct Consequence._\n\n He who affirms the Devil creates the Devil.\"\n\nThe author then goes on to give minute directions for performing\nthe ceremonies necessary for raising the Devil, so to speak, with\nwhich we have nothing to do at present; these quotations being\nmade merely for the purpose of showing that the greatest and most\nphilosophical magician of this century was fully aware that the shapes\nevoked by the Magi, whether they be of angels or of demons, whether\nthey be perceptible to the objective senses or merely subjective\nhallucinations, tangible or intangible, are the creations of the mind\nof the magician.\n\nThe phenomenon of crystal vision is another illustration of the power\nof the subjective mind to create visions. Ordinarily these visions\nare only perceptible to the operator; but cases are recorded where\nthey were perfectly perceptible to the bystanders. The conditions\nnecessary for successful crystal reading are practically the same as in\nall other cases, although the subjective condition is not ordinarily\nso pronounced. This phenomenon illustrates, however, the power of\nthe subjective mind to create phantasms, and constitutes one of the\nmany methods of bringing the operations of the subjective mind above\nthe threshold of consciousness. It is one of the best methods known\nof exercising the power of telepathy, the visions being objective\nreproductions of what is real or perceived in the mind of the person\nwho consults the medium. If no one is present besides the medium or\noperator, he sees merely what his own subjective mind creates. It is\nperhaps superfluous to remark that the phenomenon is governed by the\nsame laws which pertain to all other subjective phenomena, and the\nintelligence displayed is hedged about by the same limitations.\n\nI have now enumerated several different sub-classes of the phenomena\nwhich are concerned in the creation of visions. In each sub-class\ninstances are recorded of the visions being made perceptible to\nthe objective senses of others. As remarked in the beginning of\nthis chapter, we do not propose to stop to verify the phenomena of\neach class. It is sufficient to know that the phenomena of one of\nthe sub-classes is verified by scientific authority. For present\npurposes the rest must stand or fall by that. At any rate, we shall\nassume the right to hold that any cognate phenomenon, alleged to have\nbeen produced under the same conditions as those which have been\ndemonstrated to be veridical, is entitled to tentative consideration\nand credit.\n\nIt is assumed, therefore, that the following propositions are\nsufficiently verified for the purpose of formulating a definite theory\nof proximate causation:--\n\n1. The alleged phenomena are all produced under the same conditions.\n\n2. The one essential condition is that of the partial or total\nsuspension of objective consciousness.\n\n3. The more complete the extinction of the objective consciousness,\nthe more pronounced the success of the experiment; that is, the more\ntangible to the objective senses of others do the creations become.\n\nFrom these facts it is fair to conclude,--\n\n1. That the power to create phantasms resides and is inherent in the\nsubjective mind, or personality, of man.\n\n2. That the power becomes greater as the body approaches nearer to the\ncondition of death; that is, as the subjective, or hypnotic, condition\nbecomes deeper, and the subjective personality in consequence becomes\nstronger in its sphere of activity.\n\n3. That at the hour of death, or when the functions of the body are\nentirely suspended, the power is greatest.\n\nHence, ghosts.\n\nIt will be understood from the foregoing that my theory is that ghosts,\nor phantasms of the dead, are produced exactly as phantasms of the\nliving are produced; that is, they are creations of the subjective\nentity. How they are created is of course a question that may never\nbe answered in terms comprehensible by the objective intelligence of\nman. It is as far beyond our finite comprehension as are the processes\nby which the Infinite Mind has brought the universe into being. All\nthat we can know is the fact that phantasms are created by some power\ninherent in the subjective personality of man. They may be called\n\"embodied thoughts,\" as man may be called the embodied thought of God.\nIf, as the Scriptures teach us, \"we are gods,\" that is, \"sons of God\"\nand \"heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ,\" it is fair to\npresume that that part of the Infinite which is embodied in each of us\nmust partake, to a limited extent, of His power to create. Experimental\npsychology suggests to us that we have that power, and that it is thus\nthat phantasms are produced.\n\nTo the supposition that phantasms of the dead are thus created is\nopposed but one other hypothesis, and that is, that the phantasms are\nthe real spirits of the dead persons whom they represent. Granted\nthat ghosts do exist and make themselves manifest to the living,\none or the other of these hypotheses must be true, and the other\nfalse. To determine which is true, we must have recourse to the\nghosts themselves; that is, we must collate the facts regarding the\ncharacteristics of these supposed dwellers on the border-land, and ask\nourselves whether their known and admitted characteristics are those\nwhich would naturally belong to the real spirit of a man, or to an\nembodied thought of a man.\n\nThe salient characteristics which seem to belong to all ghosts, and\nwhich pertain to the question under consideration, are these:--\n\nThe ghosts which are best authenticated and which seem to possess the\ngreatest longevity, so to speak,--that is, the greatest persistency of\npower and purpose,--are of those who have died violent deaths. There\nare exceptions to this rule, which will be noted later on.\n\nThe generally accepted theory which has been employed to account for\nthis coincidence is that the soul, thus torn suddenly and prematurely\nfrom the body, retains more of the material elements of the body than\nit does when death is the result of gradual disintegration and the\nnatural separation of the material from the immaterial. It is thought\nthat the physical elements thus retained temporarily by the spirit\nenable it to make itself visible to the living, as well as to perform\ncertain feats of physical strength attributed to some spirits. This\nis very plausible at first glance, and in the absence of any facts\nto the contrary might be accepted as the true theory. But, as before\nintimated, there are exceptions to the supposed rule. It is not true\nthat all ghosts are those of persons who have died violent deaths. On\nthe contrary, many of the best authenticated ghosts are of persons who\nhave died at a good old age and in the due course of nature. Moreover,\nthere is nothing to distinguish the one class of ghosts from the other,\nalthough it is true that those who have met death by violence far\noutnumber the others. This theory, therefore, accounts for nothing.\nNevertheless, the fact that the majority of ghosts are of those who\nbelong to a particular class must possess some significance. Now, if we\ncan discover some state of facts which appears to accompany all, or to\nprecede all, ghostly phenomena, a great point will be gained, and the\nreal significance of the other facts may become apparent.\n\nIn looking the field over with this end in view, the first fact which\nforces itself upon our attention, and which seems to be universal and\nto possess a veritable significance, is that _all phantasms of the dead\nare of those who have died under circumstances of great mental stress\nor emotion_. No one whose death was peaceful and quiet, no one who left\nthis life with no unsatisfied longing or desire present in the mind at\nthe time of death, ever projected a phantasm upon the living objective\nworld.\n\nAgain, the strength, persistency, and objectivity of the phantasm seem\nto be in exact proportion to the intensity of the emotion experienced\nat the moment of death.\n\nIt will thus be apparent why it happens that ghosts of those who have\ndied violent deaths more frequently \"revisit the glimpses of the moon\"\nthan those whose deaths have been less tragic and less calculated to\ninspire an intense desire or emotion. The murdered man feels, at the\nsupreme moment, an intense longing to acquaint the world with the\ncircumstances of his \"taking off;\" and he conceives the thought of\nreproducing the scene on the spot until its significance is understood\nand the murderer is brought to justice. The result is a haunted house;\nand those whose nerves are strong enough to withstand the shock may\nnightly witness a realistic reproduction of the tragedy. This may\ncontinue for days, months, or even years, but invariably ceases when\nthe object is accomplished.\n\nThe character of the manifestations is as varied as are the phases\nof human emotion or the objects of human desire; but when the facts\nof a tragedy once come to light, the phantasm is always found to be\nsignificant of their important features.\n\nWhen a mother dies at a distance from her children, she is often filled\nwith an intense longing to see them once more before she passes away.\nThe result often is that she projects a phantasm into their presence\nwhich takes a lingering look into the faces of the loved ones, and then\nfades away.\n\nTwo persons agree that whichever passes away first shall show himself\nto the other at or soon after the hour of death. The result often is\nthat the agreement is carried out with startling fidelity. The object\naccomplished, the phantasm disappears forever.\n\nAnother salient characteristic, which seems to be universal and which\npossesses the utmost interest and importance in determining the true\nsource of the phantasm, is that it possesses no general intelligence.\nThat is to say, a ghost was never known to have more than one idea or\npurpose. That one idea or purpose it will follow with the greatest\npertinacity, but utterly ignores everything else. In the rare instances\nwhere the phantasm has been conversed with, it manifests perfect\nintelligence on the one subject, but pays not the slightest attention\nto any question pertaining to any other, not even to cognate subjects.\nThis characteristic pertains to every form and phase of visions which\nare tangible to the objective senses. Subjective hallucinations are\ngoverned by different laws, and are not taken into account in this\nconnection.\n\nM. Adolphe d'Assier, in his intensely interesting work entitled\n\"Posthumous Humanity,\" mentions this peculiarity in a number of\ninstances. Thus, on page 272 he says:\n\n \"The shade only talks about its personal predilections, and remains\n deaf to every question outside the limits it has prescribed for\n itself. All the colloquies that have been gathered upon this\n subject resemble that of Bezuel and Desfontaine (1697), reported\n by Dr. Bri\u00e8re de Boismont. They were two college comrades, two\n intimate friends, who had sworn to each other that the first\n who died should appear to the other to give him some news about\n himself.\"\n\nAccordingly, the year following, the shade of Desfontaine appeared to\nBezuel, and addressed him as follows:--\n\n \"I agreed with you that if I died first I should come and tell\n you. I was drowned in the Caen River the day before yesterday, at\n this same hour, in company of Such and Such;' and he related the\n circumstances which caused his death. 'It was his very voice,' says\n Bezuel. 'He requested me, when his brother should return, to tell\n him certain things to be communicated to his father and mother. He\n gave me other commissions, then bade me farewell and disappeared.\n I soon learned that everything he had told me was but too true,\n and I was able to verify some details that he had given. In our\n conversation he refused to answer all the questions I put to him\n as to his actual situation, especially whether he was in heaven,\n in hell, or in purgatory. One would have said that he did not hear\n me when I put such questions, and he persisted in talking to me of\n that which was upon his mind about his brother, his family, or the\n circumstances which had preceded his death.'\"\n\nIt should be stated, in this connection, that this phantom does not\nappear to have been seen objectively by any one, save, possibly, by\nBezuel himself. Others were present, who saw Bezuel apparently engaged\nin conversation with some invisible being. They could hear Bezuel's\nwords, but neither saw nor heard those of the phantom. It seems\nprobable, therefore, that it was a case of telepathic communion pure\nand simple; but it illustrates our point just as well as if it had been\nwhat it appeared to Bezuel to be,--a veritable apparition, perceptible\nto the objective senses. Moreover, it was a case of deferred\npercipience,--the death having occurred two days previously,--and is\ntherefore more strongly illustrative of our position, as will presently\nbe seen.\n\nA moment's reflection will show how impossible it would be for the\nagent, in conveying a telepathic message on a given subject, especially\nin a case of deferred percipience, to do anything more than convey the\nmessage. When the agent has sent the message, the transaction is ended,\nso far as he is concerned. When the message rises above the threshold\nof the consciousness of the percipient, and he begins to ask questions\nforeign to the subject of the message, there is no one to answer them;\nthe agent is no longer in telepathic rapport with him. It is just the\nsame as if one should send a telegram to another on a given subject,\nand then disappear. The recipient of a message might ask all the\nquestions he chose, on that or any other subject, but he could get no\nreply, for the reason that the original sender is out of reach.\n\nIt might be possible, if both the agent and the percipient were in the\nproper mental condition at the same time, for them to hold a general\nconversation; but we know of no recorded case of the kind. In all\nreported cases the agent telepaths the message, and the percipient\ntakes cognizance of it by means of clairaudience, or by seeing a\nvision illustrating it, as the case may be, and that ends it. The\nmessage is a thought of the agent projected into the consciousness of\nthe percipient through the medium of his subjective mind. When the\nmessage has once risen into the consciousness of the percipient, he\nis apparently no longer in a mental condition to communicate with the\nagent telepathically. At least, he never does so communicate, with the\nresult of receiving further information in reply.\n\nIn the case under consideration the agent had been dead two days when\nthe message was received by the percipient. If it was a telepathic\nmessage projected at the hour of death by the agent, it was manifestly\nimpossible, for the reasons before stated, for him to respond to\nquestions foreign to the subject of the message. If, on the other hand,\nthe apparition was the real phantom, or spirit, of the deceased, it\ncould have conveyed any information desired. The fact that it could\nnot do so shows conclusively that said phantom was merely the embodied\nthought of the deceased, projected at the supreme moment for a specific\npurpose.\n\nM. d'Assier affirms that the case here related is typical of all\nmessages delivered by ghosts; that is, that they are apparently never\nable to enter into a general discussion of matters outside of the\none dominant idea which called them into being. The history of all\nphantoms, so far as our reading extends, confirms the statement.\n\nFrom these premises two conclusions seem inevitable:\n\n1. That a phantom, whether it be of the living or of the dead, whether\nit is perceived subjectively or objectively, is not the subjective\nentity, or soul, of the person it represents. If it were, it would\nnecessarily possess all the intelligence belonging to that person,\nand would, consequently, be able and willing to answer any and all\nquestions propounded by the percipient. It is simply impossible to\nconceive any valid reason for the refusal of a friend or relative of\nthe percipient to answer questions of vital interest and importance to\nall mankind.\n\n2. The second conclusion is, that a phantom, or ghost, is nothing more\nor less than an intensified telepathic vision, its objectivity, power,\npersistency, and permanence being in exact proportion to the intensity\nof the emotion and desire which called it into being. It is the\nembodiment of an idea or thought. It is endowed with the intelligence\npertaining to that one thought, and no more. Hence the astonishing\nlimitations of the intelligence of ghosts, before noted.\n\nThe difference between a telepathic vision transmitted from one living\nman to another, and a phantom, or ghost, of a deceased person, is one\nof degree, and not of kind; of species, but not of genus. Both are\ncreations of the subjective mind; both are created for the purpose of\nconveying intelligence to others. In each case the vision ceases the\nmoment the object of its creation is accomplished. In telepathy between\ntwo living persons, the vision is created, and the intelligence is\ncommunicated direct to the percipient. Its mission accomplished, it\nfades away. It seldom displays physical power or becomes perceptible to\nthe touch, although there are exceptions to the rule. (See the cases\nnoted in a former chapter.) The reasons are: (1) that the emotions\nand desires which call it into being are seldom of great intensity,\ncompared with the emotions of a man dying by violence; (2) that the\nconditions are not so favorable in a living person, in normal health,\nas they are in one whose objective senses are being closed in death;\n(3) that the object for which it was created being easily and quickly\naccomplished, and there being no further reason for its existence, it\nfades away, in accordance with the laws of its being.\n\nOn the other hand, the phantom of the dead is produced under the\nmost favorable conditions. The objective senses are being closed in\ndeath. The emotions attending a death by violence are necessarily of\nthe most intense character. The desire to acquaint the world with\nthe circumstances attending the tragedy is overwhelming. The message\nis not for a single individual, but to all whom it may concern.\nHence the ghost does not travel from place to place, and show itself\npromiscuously, but confines its operations to the locality, and\ngenerally to the room in which the death-scene occurred. There it will\nremain, nightly rehearsing the tragedy, for days and months and years,\nor until some one with nerves strong enough demands to know the object\nof its quest. When this is done, the information will be given, and\nthen the phantom will fade away forever.\n\nWe have supposed two extreme cases,--one, a simple case of experimental\ntelepathy, and one, of a death by violence. Between the two extremes\nthere is every variety of manifestation and every grade of power. But\nthey are all governed by the same laws and limitations.\n\nThat the posthumous phantom is not the soul, or subjective entity, of\nthe deceased, is evidenced by many other facts, among which may be\nmentioned the following:--\n\n1. It is not controllable by suggestion. This is abundantly shown by\nwhat has been said regarding its persistency in following the one idea\nwhich it represents, and ignoring every effort to obtain information\npertaining to other matters. This peculiarity characterizes every\nphantasm, whether of the living or of the dead. Again, no ghost was\never laid by the power of exorcism until the object of its existence\nwas accomplished. Obsessing spirits, so-called, can be exorcised,\nbecause the exorcist is dealing directly with the subjective mind of\nthe obsessed, and amenability to control by suggestion is the law\nof its being. But a ghost is not amenable to that law; it cannot\nbe scolded out of existence before the object of its existence has\nbeen accomplished. In this, therefore, the phantom possesses the\ncharacteristics which might be expected to distinguish an embodied\nthought of a soul from the soul itself.\n\n2. If we are to suppose a phantom to be the soul of the person it\nrepresents, we must also be prepared to believe that inanimate things\nand animals possess souls. Ghosts, it will be remembered, are always\nwell provided with wearing apparel. We must therefore suppose clothes\nto have souls, and that the soul of the dead, or dying, man provides\nhimself with an outfit of the souls of his hat, coat, trousers, boots,\netc. Moreover, ghosts are frequently seen riding in ghostly turnouts,\ncomprising horses, carriage, harness, and all the paraphernalia of a\nfirst-class establishment. Are we to suppose that the souls of all\nthese things are pressed into the service of the nocturnal visitant?\nThe same is true of telepathic visions of all grades and kinds. In\nthis, again, the vision, or phantom, possesses the characteristics\nwhich one can easily attribute to an embodied thought-creation, but not\nto the actual soul of a person, living or dead.\n\n3. Another peculiarity of ghosts is that they invariably disappear,\nnever to return, when the building which was the scene of their\nvisitation has been destroyed. Another building may be erected on the\nsame spot, but the ghost never reappears. There must be some valid\nreason for this, for it is impossible to attribute to coincidence\nthat which so frequently and invariably happens. It would seem to be\nbut another limitation of the power and intelligence of the embodied\nthought. Its mission seems to be confined, not only to conveying the\none item of intelligence, but to the actual scene of the tragedy.\nThe effect of changing the physical environment appears to have the\nsame effect as an attempt to change the current of its thought by\nasking a question foreign to it. It disappears. Now, it is impossible\nto conceive of an intelligent entity, in full possession of all the\nfaculties and attributes of a human soul, being so easily diverted from\nthe pursuit of a given object.\n\n4. M. d'Assier arrives at two conclusions regarding ghosts, neither\nof which can afford any satisfaction to those who seek, in their\nmanifestations, for evidence of a happy or a continued life beyond\nthe grave. One is that the continued existence of the shade is a\nburden too grievous to be borne; and the other is that it eventually\ndisappears by atomic dispersion, and loses its identity. On page 270 of\n\"Posthumous Humanity\" he says:--\n\n \"Most of the manifestations by which the shades reveal themselves\n seem to indicate that the posthumous existence is a burden.\"\n\nAgain, on page 273, he says:--\n\n \"To sum up, one may say that the impression left upon the mind by\n the lamentations and rare replies of those shades who succeed in\n making themselves heard is almost always a sentiment of profound\n sadness.\"\n\nOn page 274 he has the following to say regarding the ultimate fate of\nposthumous man:--\n\n \"I have said that the existence of the shade is but a brief one.\n Its tissue disintegrates readily under the action of the physical,\n chemical, and atmospheric forces which constantly assail it,\n and it re-enters, molecule by molecule, the universal planetary\n medium. Occasionally, however, it resists these destructive causes,\n continuing its struggle for existence beyond the tomb.\"\n\nM. d'Assier is undoubtedly right regarding his facts, but wrong in\nhis interpretation of those facts, and consequently wrong in his\nconclusions.\n\nIt is undoubtedly true that the shade is always imbued with a sentiment\nof profound sadness. The circumstances under which it is produced, and\nthe emotions and desires which call it into being, are necessarily of\nsuch a character as to project a profoundly sad thought. And this fact\nis another evidence of its being an embodied thought, rather than a\nhuman soul. If it were the latter, it would be subject to varying moods\nand emotions, modified by its environment for the time being. But,\nbeing an embodied thought, it never changes its attitude or sentiment,\nbut goes on in its predetermined line of action, regardless of its\nsurroundings and utterly oblivious of anything which may be said or\ndone to divert it. Truly, \"thoughts are things.\"\n\nAgain, M. d'Assier is right in his declaration that the shade\nsustains but a comparatively brief existence. Some ghosts persist for\nyears, it is true, in haunting a given spot, but they all eventually\ndisintegrate. Their capacity for continued existence depends upon the\nintensity of the emotion which produces them. Their actual longevity\ndepends largely upon the importance of the thought or message which\nthey personate. It depends principally, however, upon the successful\nperformance of its mission. When that is accomplished, it disappears\nat once and forever. As has already been pointed out, an ordinary\ntelepathic message between two individuals disappears at once upon\nits successful delivery; whereas a phantom of the dead may persist in\nhaunting one spot for years. It will, however, eventually disintegrate\nand disappear, even if its mission has proved to be a failure.\n\nIf we are to consider, as M. d'Assier evidently does, the shade of a\ndeceased person to be the soul of such person, we must arrive at the\nsame conclusion that he has reached; namely, that posthumous existence\nis a burden, and that it is but a brief one at most. According to his\nview, the evidence of the phantom negatives the idea of a continued\nexistence after the death of the body. According to our view, it\nneither proves nor disproves immortality; it leaves that question just\nwhere it found it. Like all so-called spiritual manifestations, it adds\nnothing to our stock of knowledge of what is in store for us beyond the\ngrave. We must still look for immortality with the eye of faith alone,\nrelying on the promises of the Master.\n\nThere is another alleged phenomenon connected with this general subject\nwhich deserves a passing notice. I refer to the popular belief that\ncertain houses are pervaded by a mental atmosphere, so to speak, which\ncorresponds to the mental condition of those who have inhabited it.\nThere are many sensitive persons who, upon moving into a strange house\nor room, are influenced apparently by the mental attitude of those who\npreviously occupied the premises. This is especially true if the former\ninhabitants were the victims of any great sorrow or strong emotion of\nany kind whatever. The influence is felt sometimes for years, and is\nfrequently of such a character and force as to compel the victim to\nvacate the premises. No ghost is seen or heard, but the influence is\nfelt, and cannot be thrown off. Doubtless many such experiences may\nbe attributed to suggestion,--the person having been informed of some\ntragic event which once happened on the premises. But many cases are\nrecorded which cannot be thus explained. Cases are numerous where the\npercipient knew nothing whatever of the history of the house or of its\nformer inhabitants.\n\nThe phenomenon is explained by spiritists by referring it to the\nagency of spirits of the dead. Others explain it on the theory of\npsychometry. That the latter explanation is not the true one is\nevidenced by the fact that psychometry itself is explicable on the\nwell-known principles of telepathy. That the spirit hypothesis is\nnot the true one is evidenced by the fact that the influence is felt\nwhen there has been no death on the premises,--when all the former\ninhabitants of the house are still alive. Nor is the influence\nnecessarily a bad one. Thus, a lady of my acquaintance, who is\npeculiarly sensitive to psychic impressions, informs me that in one\nhouse, which she occupied some years ago, she was seized with an\nintense longing to study art. She had passed the age at which people\nusually take up a new profession, and she had never been particularly\ninterested in art. She had no acquaintances who were artists, and there\nwas nothing in her environment specially to attract her attention\nto the subject. Nevertheless, her desire to become an artist grew\nstronger and stronger, until she felt forced to yield. She finally\nemployed a teacher, and eventually became very proficient. It was\nafterwards ascertained that the tenant who occupied the house before\nshe took possession was an enthusiastic devotee of art. He was not\na particularly good artist, but his whole soul was bound up in his\nprofession.\n\nThe same lady occupied a house some years later which she felt obliged\nto leave, on account of the evil influence which it seemed to exert\nupon her. It was an almost ideal house in its appointments and in\nthe arrangement of its rooms; and when she first entered it she was\nenthusiastic in her admiration of it. But she never spent a comfortable\nday in that house. Naturally of a cheerful and happy disposition, she\nbecame gloomy and despondent, without any apparent cause, and was\nat last forced to yield to her feelings and vacate the premises. An\ninquiry into the history of the house revealed the fact that it had\nformerly been occupied by a lady whose husband had ill-treated her, and\nhad finally deserted her, under circumstances of peculiar atrocity,\nto live with a mistress. The history of that house from the time when\nthe afflicted lady left it has been one of constant change of tenants.\nOther houses in the same row, built upon the same plan and owned by\nthe same person, have no such history. No death has ever occurred in\nthe house, either tragic or otherwise, and consequently it cannot be\nsaid to be haunted in the ordinary acceptation of the term; that is, by\nspirits of the dead.\n\nBut is it not haunted, nevertheless? Is it not haunted by the thoughts\nengendered from the mental agony of that poor woman whose life\nwas blasted by the perfidy of an unfaithful husband,--a man whose\nsubsequent career was one of disgrace and infamy?\n\nI make these suggestions tentatively, and for the purpose of directing\nthe attention of those interested to a line of investigation which\nshould not be ignored by students of the new psychology. It is cognate\nwith the phenomenon of haunted houses, and may yet be found to be\ngoverned by the same laws. If it is true that a visible ghost is\nbut an embodied thought of a dying man, may it not be true that any\ngreat emotion can leave its impress upon the locality in which it is\nexperienced? It may not be visible to the objective senses, but it may\nhave the power to impress the subjective minds of those who are brought\nwithin its environment, and to create in them the same emotions as\nthose experienced by the former occupants of the premises. It seems to\nbe another form of telepathy, cognate with the phantom of the dead,\ndiffering only in the strength and character of its manifestation. It\nmay not be visible, for the reason that the thought cannot be pictured\nby a vision. It may be an abstract thought, idea, or emotion, which\ncan be transmitted to others by impression only; or the emotion which\ncreated it may not have been strong enough to project a visible phantom.\n\nTelepathy, therefore, appears to be divisible into three generic\nclasses, differing principally in the methods or means of\npercipience,--the processes of projection being the same in all.\n\nThe first is a thought sent from one living person to another for the\npurpose of communicating information to that one individual. It is\nperceived by that person only,--usually by means of visions,--and it\ninstantly fades away when its mission is accomplished.\n\nThe second is a thought sent from a dying person to the world at\nlarge to communicate some fact of portentous import. It is sometimes\nmade visible to the objective senses, and is always confined to one\nlocality, which it haunts till its object is accomplished.\n\nThe third partakes of the characteristics of the first and second. It\nis created by a living person, and is confined to one locality. It is\nnot sent to any particular individual, but impresses whoever inhabits\nthe house or room it haunts.\n\nIt will be understood by the intelligent reader that these three\nclasses are not separated by any distinct lines of demarcation, but\nthat each possesses characteristics common to the others.\n\nIn concluding this branch of the subject we have but one further remark\nto make concerning those hypothetical spirits which are popularly\nbelieved to be able to make themselves visible to mortal eyes. If\nit is true that the power exists in mankind to create phantoms, to\nproject visions which may become visible to others, objectively or\nsubjectively, we have the logical right to infer that all so-called\nspirits, such as elementals, elementaries, _et id genus omne_, are\ncreations of the subjective minds of those who believe in their\nexistence.\n\nAs remarked in beginning this chapter, it is written tentatively,\nhoping to suggest an enlargement of the field of investigation of\nthe subject of telepathy. That power has been found to afford an\nexplanation of so much of psychic phenomena which had before been\nreferred to extramundane origin that it seems probable that it may be\ncapable of still further service in that direction. The phenomena of\nghosts and haunted houses seem to be the only demonstrated phenomena\nof which telepathy has not been shown to be at least a partial\nexplanation; and if it can be shown that ghosts are also the creations\nof subjective power, there will be nothing left for superstition to\nfright the world withal.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 38: Eliphas Levi: Waite's Digest, p. 118.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nSUSPENDED ANIMATION AND PREMATURE BURIAL.\n\n Facts of Startling Import.--The Case of Washington\n Irving Bishop.--Other Instances of Suspended\n Animation.--Vampirism.--Catalepsy.--East Indian Fakirs buried\n alive for Months.--Fundamental Errors.--Catalepsy not a\n Disease.--A Recuperative Agent.--The Law of Suggestion governs\n the Phenomena.--Subjective Insensibility impossible.--Suggestion\n of Death deepens the Lethargy.--The Appalling Dangers of\n Catalepsy.--The Proper Treatment.\n\n\nThere is another psychic phenomenon which deserves a passing notice at\nour hands, not only because it is governed by the same laws which have\nbeen discussed, but because it is a matter of transcendent practical\ninterest and importance. I refer to the subject of suspended animation,\nand consequent premature burial.\n\nI know of but one physician in this country who has given serious\nattention to this subject. Nothing in authoritative form has yet\nappeared from his pen, but I am credibly informed that he has collected\nan array of facts of veritable significance. One assertion of startling\nimport is that in the United States an average of not less than one\ncase a week is discovered and reported. This statement alone attests\nthe importance of the subject, although due allowance must be made for\npossible exaggeration. Be that as it may, the appalling possibility of\npremature burial as a result of a condition so common as catalepsy,\nthe psychic aspects of which are so little understood in this country,\ninvests the subject with more than ordinary interest.\n\nThe following cases have been personally investigated by the writer,\nand serve to illustrate the dangers which menace the cataleptic\nsubject. Names are omitted, at the request of the parties interested.\n\nThe first case is that of a young lady, near Indianapolis, who came\nto life after fourteen days of suspended animation. Six doctors had\napplied the usual tests, and pronounced her dead. Her little brother\nclung to her, against the opinion of the doctors and the will of\nthe parents, and frantically declared that she was not dead. In the\nexcitement the bandage which held her jaw in place was accidentally\npushed aside. The jaw fell, and the brother fancied that he saw his\nsister's tongue moving slowly.\n\n\"What do you want, sister?\" cried the little fellow.\n\n\"Water,\" was the faint answer from the supposed corpse.\n\nWater was administered, the patient revived, and is yet living.\n\nA lady who is now at the head of one of the largest orphan asylums\nof a Western city has been twice pronounced dead by the attending\nphysicians, twice prepared for the grave, and twice resuscitated by her\nfriends. On the last occasion extraordinary precautions were taken, in\nview of her former experience. All the tests known to her physicians\nwere applied, and all doubts were set at rest. She was a second time\nprofessionally declared to be dead, and the physicians left the house.\nIn preparing the body for burial it was accidentally pricked by a pin.\nSoon afterwards it was discovered that a small drop of blood marked\nthe spot where the pin entered. This once more roused the hope of the\nfamily, and vigorous treatment soon restored her to consciousness. She\nis living to-day, a vigorous, useful woman. It is proper to note here\nthat upon being restored, the lady declared that she had never for a\nmoment lost consciousness, that she knew all that went on around her,\nperfectly comprehended the significance of all the tests which were\napplied, but felt the utmost indifference as to the result, and was\nneither surprised nor alarmed when it was decided that she was dead.\n\nA few years ago, a gentleman of Harrisburg, Pa., apparently died after\na long period of suffering from inflammatory rheumatism, complicated\nwith heart trouble. Preparations were made for the funeral; but his\nwife refused to allow the body to be packed in ice, fearing the\npossibility of a premature burial, and announced her determination\nto keep it for at least a week. The next day her hopes were realized\nby finding her husband with his eyes wide open, and one of his arms\nout of the position in which it had been placed. She called loudly\nfor him to arise, and with assistance he did so, and was placed in a\nchair. Physicians were summoned, but before their arrival he was so\nfar recovered that their aid was unnecessary, and he soon recovered\nfrom his illness. He states that during the time of suspended animation\nhe was perfectly cognizant of all that occurred around him, heard the\nlamentations of the stricken family and the preparations for burial,\nbut was unable to move a muscle or utter a sound.\n\nThe reading public has not forgotten the death of Washington Irving\nBishop, the celebrated mind-reader, which occurred under circumstances\nthat called forth the declaration on the part of his friends and\nrelatives that he was not dead before the surgeon's knife penetrated\nhis brain; that on several previous occasions he had been in a\ncataleptic state, resembling death, for many hours at a time; and that\non one of these occasions his attending physicians had pronounced\nhim dead. The public will not soon forget the thrill of horror which\nwas felt when it was learned with what unseemly haste an autopsy was\nperformed upon that unfortunate man.\n\nThese are not exceptional cases, nor is the phenomenon of modern\norigin. It can be traced back through all the ages of which there are\nrecords preserved, until it is lost in the twilight of tradition and\nfable.\n\nIn all human probability the ancient belief in vampirism had its origin\nin discovered cases of suspended animation. It will be remembered\nthat whenever a corpse was suspected of being a vampire, the grave\nwas opened and the body was examined. If it showed no signs of\ndecomposition, the fact was held to be indubitable evidence of guilt.\nThe punishment was summary, and fully as effective as a modern autopsy;\nit consisted in driving a stake through the heart. This simple process\neffectually laid the \"vampire ghost,\" and it no longer possessed the\npower to \"suck the blood of the living,\" and thus \"continue to live\non in the grave,\" to use the language of an ancient official document\ndefining the characteristics of a vampire.\n\nRevolting and gross as was the superstition relating to vampirism,\nis it not possible that, like most legendary tales, it had a basis\nof truth, and that an essential part of that truth consisted, as\nbefore remarked, of the fact that the cases referred to were cases of\nsuspended animation? Many cases are reported which appear to be well\nauthenticated, and they all seem to sustain this theory. One case\n(which was officially attested) is related, where the body of a man\nsuspected of vampirism was exhumed after it had lain in the grave three\nweeks. No signs of decomposition being visible, a stake was driven\nthrough the heart, \"upon which,\" says the report, \"fresh blood gushed\nfrom the mouth and ears.\"\n\nAnother case is mentioned of one Arnold Paul, a Hungarian, whose body\nwas exhumed after it had been buried forty days. \"His body,\" says the\nnarrator, \"was red; his hair, nails, and beard had grown again, and\nhis veins were replete with fluid blood.\" The stake was brought into\nrequisition, and as it pierced his heart, he \"uttered a frightful\nshriek, as if he had been alive.\"\n\nTwo erroneous impressions very generally prevail regarding catalepsy,\nor suspended animation. One is that depriving the subject of air will\ncause death in a few hours. Another is that catalepsy is a disease, or\nis always the result of disease. Both of these hypotheses are clearly\ndisproved by the well-known experiments of the East Indian fakirs.\n\nOne of the most clearly attested instances of the kind alluded to is\nthe experiment of the Fakir of Lahore, who, at the instance of Runjeet\nSingh, suffered himself to be buried alive in an air-tight vault for\na period of six weeks. This case was thoroughly authenticated by Sir\nClaude Wade, the then British Resident at the court of Loodhiana.\nThe fakir's nostrils and ears were first filled with wax; he was\nthen placed in a linen bag, then deposited in a wooden box which was\nsecurely locked, and the box was deposited in a brick vault which was\ncarefully plastered up with mortar and sealed with the Rajah's seal. A\nguard of British soldiers was then detailed to watch the vault day and\nnight. At the end of the prescribed time the vault was opened in the\npresence of Sir Claude and Runjeet Singh, and the fakir was restored to\nconsciousness.\n\nLieutenant Boileau relates another instance where a man suffered\nhimself to be buried for a period of ten days in a grave lined with\nmasonry and covered with a large slab of stone, the whole strictly\nguarded day and night. On being restored to consciousness, the man\noffered to submit to burial for a year, if the lieutenant so desired.\n\nMany other well-authenticated instances are related by British\nresidents in India, but these must suffice. In all these cases the\nsubjects were in perfect health when the experiments were made, and in\neach instance the body, when disinterred, was found to present all the\ncharacteristics indicating death, except decomposition.\n\nVolumes might be filled with well-authenticated cases of suspended\nanimation, varying in duration from a few hours to many months; but it\nwould be foreign to the purpose of this chapter to cite any. Sufficient\ninstances have been given to illustrate the points which I shall\nattempt to make, as well as to show the intrinsic importance of the\nsubject and the danger to be apprehended from ignorance of the psychic\nprinciples involved.\n\nThe fundamental error into which many physicians have fallen consists\nin the assumption that catalepsy is, _per se_, a disease. It must be\nsaid, however, to the credit of the profession, that no one pretends to\nunderstand it. Most medical writers confess that if it is a disease,\nit is one of which the pathology is but little understood by the\nprofession, and they aver that morbid anatomy throws no light upon it\nwhatever. In fact, some well-known writers have doubted its existence,\nand have attributed the recorded cases to gross imposture. It is,\nhowever, generally held to be a functional nervous disorder; but the\ntendency of modern investigation is in the direction of its psychic\naspects, and moral means are now largely employed in its treatment by\nthe best physicians.\n\nThe truth appears to be that catalepsy is not a disease in any proper\nsense of the word. The most that can be said is that it may be\nconsidered a symptom of certain diseases. That is to say, inasmuch\nas it commonly attacks those who are suffering from certain nervous\ndisorders, it might be said to be a symptom indicating the presence of\nsuch disorders. But, I repeat, it is not a disease _per se_; and one\nprominent medical authority goes so far as to admit that \"in itself\ncatalepsy is never fatal.\" He might have gone further, and said that\nother diseases are rarely fatal when catalepsy supervenes.\n\nCatalepsy belongs exclusively to the domain of hypnotism. I employ this\nterm in the broadest significance of its Greek radix; for no matter how\nthe condition is induced, it is purely a sleep of the objective senses,\na suspension of the vital functions, a rest of all the vital organs. It\ncan be induced in perfectly healthy persons by the hypnotic processes\non the one hand, or, on the other, it may supervene after a long period\nof illness or nervous exhaustion. In both cases the phenomenon is\nthe same; and when the patient is intelligently treated, the effect\nis always salutary. It is, in the highest sense of the phrase, a\nmanifestation of the _vis conservatrix natur\u00e6_; it is, of a truth,\n\"tired nature's sweet restorer, balmy sleep.\"\n\nCatalepsy is always easily induced in a hypnotic subject by the\nordinary processes known to hypnotists, and the normal condition is as\neasily restored. It is always refreshing to the subject, especially\nwhen he is exhausted by mental or physical labor,--far more so than\nis ordinary sleep of the same duration. The same is true of the\ncatalepsy which supervenes after a long period of illness or of nervous\nexhaustion. That this statement is true of the first class, we have\nthe testimony of all who have been subjects of intelligent experiment.\nThat it is true of the second class also, is attested by the fact that\nsuspended animation is nearly always followed by the recovery of the\npatient from illness. The cataleptic condition marks the crisis in many\ndiseases, especially those of the nerves. If the patient is properly\nmanaged during that crisis, his convalescence is assured.\n\nCatalepsy may properly be divided into four classes, differing from\none another only in the causes which induce the condition. The first\nis catalepsy from hypnotic suggestion; the second, epidemic catalepsy;\nthe third, self-induced catalepsy; the fourth, catalepsy arising from\ndisease or nervous exhaustion. Suggestion is the all-potent factor in\nthe production of the catalepsy of the first three classes, as it is\nin the production of all other hypnotic phenomena. The suggestion may\ncome, first, from an operator who purposely induces the condition as\nan experiment. Secondly, it may arise from the patient seeing other\ncataleptic subjects. In such cases, catalepsy may run through a whole\nschool or a neighborhood, precisely as does epidemic insanity, St.\nVitus's dance, and many other nervous troubles. \"Imitation,\" or the\ndisposition to imitate, has generally been assigned as the cause of\nsuch manifestations becoming epidemic among children. But this is a\npalpable error. It arises rather from the fear that each one feels--the\nmental suggestion that each one makes--that he or she may be the\nnext victim. Thirdly, self-induced catalepsy is illustrated in the\nexperiments of the East Indian fakirs, and arises from auto-suggestion.\nIn these cases the condition is purely hypnotic, and is self-induced by\nsimple processes, well known to all who have made an intelligent study\nof hypnotism as practised in the Orient.\n\nIt is not, however, with these classes that we have to deal in this\nchapter, but rather with cases which arise from disease or nervous\nexhaustion. In such cases, suggestion can hardly be considered as an\ninitial cause, although, as we shall see further on, it is a potent\nfactor in deepening, prolonging, and terminating the condition.\n\nI have said that catalepsy marks the crisis in certain diseases.\nIt is, in fact, the supreme effort of nature to give the exhausted\nnerves their needed rest. When this fact is once appreciated, and the\npatient is intelligently treated on its basis, much needless alarm\nwill be saved, and many fatal errors will be avoided. The patient in\nthat condition is enjoying absolute rest. All the vital processes are\npractically suspended. He is free from all pain, and is enjoying a\nrefreshing sleep,--a sleep so profound that it may be truly likened\nto its \"twin-brother, death.\" The depth and duration of the trance\nwill depend upon the necessities of the case. That is to say, it will\nbe proportioned to the severity of the patient's illness, and his\nconsequent need of rest and recuperation.\n\nThe primary mistake which many physicians make in managing cataleptic\npatients consists in seeking, by heroic treatment, to hasten\nrestoration to consciousness. No greater mistake is possible. If the\nattempt is successful, it causes a fearful shock to the nerves, and\nthe effort is thwarted which nature is making to relieve the patient\nand give rest to his already overstrained nervous system. If it is\nunsuccessful, the patient is threatened with the danger of being buried\nalive, or of an autopsy. These dangers are ever present; and as long as\nphysicians fail to recognize the pregnant fact that an advanced stage\nof decomposition is the only infallible test of death, just so long\nwill the human race be menaced with the horrors of premature burial.\n\nThe most important branch, however, of the subject of catalepsy is that\npertaining to its psychological features. I have said that catalepsy\nbelongs to the domain of hypnotism. I mean by this, not only that the\nphenomenon is identical with the condition which can be produced by\nthe ordinary hypnotic processes, but that the cataleptic patient is\namenable to precisely the same psychological laws which govern the\nordinary hypnotic subject.\n\nThe two fundamental propositions which bear upon this subject are the\nfollowing:--\n\nFirst, a patient in a case of suspended animation or catalepsy, induced\nby disease or nervous exhaustion, is amenable to control by suggestion\nprecisely as he is in the ordinary hypnotic state.\n\nSecond, a patient in that condition is always conscious, subjectively,\nof all that happens around him. That is to say, no matter how\nprofoundly the objective senses are locked in slumber, the subjective\nfaculties are ever alert, and the subject recognizes, often with great\nacuteness, everything that goes on around him. This fact is not always\nrecognized by hypnotists, and it is safe to say that ignorance of this\none truth has been the source of more erroneous conclusions regarding\nthe significance of hypnotic phenomena than all other causes combined.\nHundreds of cases are reported where the patients noted all the\npreparations for burial and all that was said and done, and yet were\nunable to move or make the fact known that they were alive. This seems\nto be the universal testimony, although it is possible that the patient\nmight not, in all cases, remember what he had experienced. In fact,\nit is common for hypnotic subjects to forget their experiences during\nthe sleep; but that does not militate against the fact that they were\nsubjectively conscious at that time.\n\nThe conclusions derivable from these premises are as important as\nthey are obvious. The first and most vital is that when a patient is\nsuffering from a disease which will induce catalepsy, and begins to\nenter that state, the usual remarks and conversation of those at the\nbedside must inevitably tend to deepen and prolong the lethargy. The\npatient appears to be dying. The friends, by word and action, are\nconveying the impression that death is at hand. The physician feels\nthe pulse, which grows fainter and fainter, until it is no longer\nperceptible. He examines the heart until its pulsations cease. Finally,\nhe turns to the stricken friends, and in a solemn voice announces that\nall is over,--the patient is dead. Now, if it happens that it is merely\na case of catalepsy, or suspended animation, the announcement by the\nphysician that the patient is dead is an all-potent suggestion which\nis, and must inevitably be, seized upon by the subject and carried to\nits legitimate conclusion. A case of prolonged suspension of animation\nis the inevitable result, as the laws of hypnotism teach, if they teach\nanything. The patient actually believes that he is dead. The statement\nof this proposition seems almost ridiculous; but when it is remembered\nthat no suggestion seems absurd or incongruous to the hypnotic subject,\nthe proposition is seen at once to be an absolute verity. Who has not\ndreamed of being dead? Few, if any, have not had this experience; and\nyet the incongruity of the two ideas--of being dead and of calmly\nreflecting on the subject--never strikes the dreamer's subjective\nintelligence. Subjective impressions never seem absurd or incongruous\nto the subject. This principle runs through all subjective mental\naction, from the dreams of the healthy sleeper to the hallucinations of\nthe monomaniac. Subjective intelligence, be it remembered, is capable\nof exercising but one form of reasoning,--the deductive. But it will\nreason deductively from any premise imparted to it, by any form of\nsuggestion, with great acumen; and it never arrives at a conclusion\ninconsistent with the premise,--that is, the suggestion. All the facts\nknown to the individual's objective experience which are inconsistent\nwith that premise stand for nought in presence of the one ever-present\nidea. That idea is the major premise, unquestioned and indisputable, of\na syllogism which he will inevitably complete with logical accuracy.\n\nIt is easy to see from what has been said what an appalling,\never-present danger menaces the patient who, from any cause, becomes\ncataleptic, especially the one who has reached the crisis of a\nlingering illness, and is surrounded by physicians and friends who are\nignorant of the psychological principles involved. The natural language\nof the emotions of the surviving friends, the wail of hopeless grief,\nthe administration of the sacraments of the Church, and, finally, the\nauthoritative announcement of the doctor that \"He is dead!\" all tend to\nthe one result. When to these are added the ice-pack or the embalmer's\nfluid, it remains only for the performance of an autopsy to give the\n_coup de gr\u00e2ce_.\n\nI shall not attempt to apply the principles here laid down to\nparticular cases. Those who are cognizant of the circumstances of any\ncase, either recorded or within their own private experience, will\neasily recognize their significance. Nor shall I attempt to prescribe\nthe specific course to be pursued where suspended animation is\nsuspected, as that is the province of the physician in attendance on\neach particular case. My object will have been accomplished if what I\nhave said shall be the means of directing the attention of the medical\nprofession to the psychic aspects of catalepsy, and to a more careful\nstudy of the psychology of that science which has suffered so much\nat the hands of charlatanism on the one hand, and prejudice on the\nother,--hypnotism.\n\nNevertheless, a few general observations regarding the proper course to\nbe pursued may not seem impertinent. It is obvious that when catalepsy\nis suspected, or is possible, all allusion to or suggestion of death\nshould be avoided, especially by the physician in attendance. It should\nnot for a moment be forgotten that, however profoundly the objective\nsenses may be locked in insensibility, subjectively the patient is\nawake and is taking cognizance of all that occurs, and appreciates with\nwonderful, acuteness the significance of every word that is uttered. It\nshould be remembered that since suggestion can induce catalepsy, it can\nalso deepen and prolong the period of its duration. Conversely, it is\nthe most potent means of restoration. Other restoratives should rarely,\nif ever, be resorted to. Violent means should never be employed. The\nessential thing is a cheerful, confident demeanor in all present at the\nbedside. Time should always be given for the conservative forces and\nrecuperative powers of nature to do their legitimate work, and in due\nseason the patient, who \"is not dead, but sleepeth,\" will awake; or, in\nobedience to suggestion, will \"arise and come forth,\" saved from the\njaws of death,--rescued from the horrors of a living grave.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nPRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.\n\n The Normal Relations of the Objective and Subjective\n Faculties.--Their Distinctive Powers and Functions.--The Infinite\n Wisdom displayed in their Distribution.--It constitutes Man a Free\n Moral Agent.--Limitation of Subjective Powers and Responsibilities\n in this Life.--The Kinship of the Soul to God.--The Limitation\n of the Powers of the Objective Mind.--The Transcendent Powers of\n the Soul.--Errors of the Old Philosophers.--The Normal Functions\n of the Soul in Earthly Life.--Dangers of Abnormal Exercise of\n Subjective Power.--Nervous Disorders, Insanity, Imbecility, and\n Moral Degradation.--The Importance of a Knowledge of the Law of\n Suggestion.--Dangers of Mediumship.--Trance-speakers.--Immoral\n Tendency of Ignorant Mediumship.--Tendency towards Free Love.--The\n Causes.--The Orientalists.--Their Greater Powers and their Greater\n Facilities for Self-delusion.--Practical Conclusions.--Warnings.\n\n\nI have now presented the propositions of my hypothesis, together with\na brief outline showing its applicability to the leading psychic\nphenomena; and it remains only to draw a few practical conclusions\nwhich apply to every-day life. The first, and the most obviously\nimportant one, relates to the exercise of subjective power, and the\nnormal relations of the objective and subjective faculties. In order to\ndo so clearly and concisely, it will be necessary to recall the terms\nof the hypothesis.\n\nThe first proposition is that the mind of man is dual in character.\nThis proposition, as we have already stated, has been more or less\ndimly recognized by many philosophers in all ages; and during the\npresent century it has been gradually assuming a more definite status\nin mental philosophy. Assuming, therefore, this proposition to be\ntrue, it necessarily follows that the two minds must, normally, bear a\nharmonious relation to each other. It follows that one of the two minds\nmust, normally, be subordinated to the other. Otherwise there would be\na conflict. Just here Li\u00e9bault's discovery of the law of suggestion\ncomes in, and shows that the subjective mind is constantly controlled\nby that power. It is true that Li\u00e9bault and his followers have applied\nthe law only to the elucidation of hypnotic phenomena; and in that\nhave not always carried it to its legitimate conclusion. But it has\nseemed to me that if the law is applicable to one class of psychic\nphenomena, it must be equally applicable to all, as nature's laws admit\nof no exceptions. I have therefore declared, as the second proposition\nof my hypothesis, that the subjective mind is always controllable by\nsuggestion.\n\nAssuming, therefore, that these two propositions are true, it follows\nas a necessary consequence that there must be some distinctive line\nof difference between the methods of operation of the two minds. It\nis obvious that there is a limitation of power in the subjective\nmind, otherwise it could not be subordinated to the objective. Just\nwhere this line of distinction could be drawn, and how it could\nbe formulated, was at first a perplexing question. There were no\nauthorities on the subject who ever hinted at a possible limitation of\nreasoning power in either branch of the dual mind. On the contrary,\nthose who have observed the phenomena of subjective mental activity,\nas seen in hypnotic subjects, in trance-speakers, and cognate\nexhibitions, have been so profoundly impressed with its transcendent\npowers that it has seemed impossible that it could be hedged about by\nlimitations. Philosophers from time immemorial have recognized its\ntremendous powers of memory, and millions have sat entranced by the\neloquence of subjective speakers, and noted with profound admiration\ntheir accuracy of logical deduction. So impressed has the world been\nby such exhibitions that the soul has been held up as the infallible\nguide to all that is pure and noble and good in humanity. It has\nbeen called the Ego (which it truly is), and as such it has been\nrecognized as the inward monitor, whose monitions are always entitled\nto reverential consideration. It was difficult, therefore, to imagine\nany line of distinction between the two branches of the dual mind\nwhich would place the subjective in a subordinate position. But for\nthe discovery of Li\u00e9bault's law of suggestion that line would never\nhave been recognized. It now becomes evident, however, that the point\nof its limitation of reasoning power is the starting-point. It has not\nthe power to formulate its own premises. The subsidiary proposition\nof our general hypothesis is, therefore, that _the subjective mind is\nincapable of inductive reasoning_. It will readily be seen that it is a\ncorollary of the law of suggestion; but the three propositions together\nfurnish the key to the whole science of psychology.\n\nI am aware that those who have hitherto regarded the soul as possessing\nall the intellectual powers, as well as all the moral attributes, will\nbe shocked when they realize that the object of their admiration is\nhedged about with any limitations whatever. The first question they\nwill ask is, \"Why is it that God has given to man a soul possessing\nsuch transcendent powers in certain directions, and yet under the\nabsolute control, in all its ideas and intellectual functions, of a\nfinite, perishable intelligence?\" The broad and comprehensive answer\nis, _To constitute man a free moral agent_. It needs no argument to\nshow that if the soul were not so limited in its initiative power of\nreasoning, the finite, mortal man could not be held responsible for\nthe moral status of his soul. God gave to objective man the powers of\nreason, inductive as well as deductive, for the purpose of enabling him\nsuccessfully to struggle with his physical environment. He gave him the\npower to know the right from the wrong. He gave him supreme control\nof the initial processes of reasoning, and thus made him responsible\nfor the moral status of his soul. The soul, in the mean time, so long\nas it inhabits the body, is charged with limited responsibilities. It\nis the life-principle of the body, and its normal functions pertain\nsolely to the preservation of human life and the perpetuation of the\nhuman race. It possesses wonderful powers in other directions, under\ncertain abnormal conditions of the body, it is true. But their exercise\noutside of those limits is always abnormal, and productive of untoward\nresults. Those powers of which we catch occasional glimpses, and which\nso excite our admiration, are powers which pertain to its existence in\na future world. They are powers which proclaim it as a part of God, as\npartaking of the nature and attributes of the Divine Mind. Its powers\nof perception of the fixed laws of nature demonstrate its kinship\nto Omniscience. It is independent of the feeble powers of inductive\nreasoning when it is freed from its earthly trammels; and there is not\none power or attribute peculiar to the finite, objective mind that\ncould be of any service to the soul in its eternal home. We boast of\nour powers of inductive reason, forgetting how little we have learned,\nor ever can know, compared with what there is to learn. We forget that\nthey are the outgrowth of our physical wants and necessities, and\nsimply enable us to grope in the dark for the means of subsistence, and\nto render our physical existence tolerable. The powers of the objective\nmind, compared with those of the subjective mind, may be likened to a\nman born in a cave, in which the light of the sun never entered, and\nsupplied only with a rushlight with which to grope his way and find\nthe means of subsistence. The light, feeble as it is, is invaluable to\nhim; for by its means he is enabled gradually to learn his bearings,\nto take note of his environment, to make occasional discoveries of the\nnecessities of life, and finally to achieve some of the comforts of\nexistence. The more he discovers, the more he appreciates the value\nof his rushlight and the more he boasts of its transcendent powers of\nillumination. He hears vague reports of an outside world where the\ncomforts and luxuries of life are comparatively easy to obtain, and he\nresolves to grope his way out. He is told that the outside world is\nlighted by a great luminary which will render his rushlight of no value\nto him except as a reminder of the limitations of his cave-life. But\nhe is sceptical, and points with pride to his accumulations and the\ndiscoveries he has made with the aid of his \"God-given illuminant,\" and\nrefuses to believe that there is a possible state of existence which\nwould be tolerable without rushlights. At length a cataclysm of nature\nthrows him upon the outside world in the full blaze of the light of a\nmidday sun. He then finds that he is in a world of light; that he can\nperceive things as they are, and observe their bearings and relations\nto each other, and he finds that the rays of his rushlight are no\nlonger visible. It is obvious that this is but a feeble illustration of\nthe difference between the powers of inductive inquiry into the laws\nof nature, and the powers of perception possessed by the subjective\nentity. When the soul is freed from its physical trammels it ascends\nto its native realm of truth, and, untrammelled by false suggestions\narising from the imperfect knowledge of the objective mind, it \"sees\nGod as he is;\" that is, it apprehends all his laws, and imbibes truth\nfrom its Eternal Source.\n\nIt must not be forgotten in this connection that the subjective mind\nis the soul, or spirit, and is itself an organized entity, possessing\nindependent powers and functions; while the objective mind is merely\nthe function of the physical brain, and possesses no powers whatever\nindependently of the physical organization. The one possesses dynamic\nforce independently of the body; the other does not. The one is capable\nof sustaining an existence independently of the body; the other dies\nwith it. It is just here that the ancient philosophers made their\ngreatest error; and that error has been transmitted down through\nall the ages. They recognized the dual character of the mind, but\nsaw no fundamental difference in the functions of the two minds. It\nnever occurred to them that there was, or could be, any limitation of\npower in either that was not common to both. They recognized man as\na trinity, the three elements of which are \"body, soul, and spirit.\"\nThe soul, in their system of philosophy, corresponds to the objective\nmind, and the spirit to the subjective mind. They considered only the\nfunctions of the two minds as minds, and constantly regarded the\ntwo as possessing only co-ordinate powers. Or, if they regarded them\nas entities, they considered that while each was an entity, it was,\nsomehow, inseparably joined to the other in function and destiny.\nHence, according to their philosophy, if one survived the death of\nthe body, both must survive it. This fundamental error shows itself,\nin various forms, in every system of philosophy, from Plato down; and\nit will continue to breed confusion and uncertainty in the human mind\nuntil the fact is recognized that the subjective mind, or spirit, as\nPlato designates it, is a distinct entity, possessing independent\npowers and functions; whereas the objective mind, or the \"soul,\" of\nthe ancient philosopher, is merely the function of the physical brain.\nThis latter proposition is demonstrated by every consideration of its\npowers, functions, and limitations. Its powers wholly depend upon the\nphysical condition of the brain. They decline as the body weakens.\nThey become deranged and useless as the brain becomes disorganized\nfrom physical causes. Its distinctive functions pertain solely to\nphysical existence. It has the power of independent inductive reasoning\nto compensate for its total want of power to perceive by intuition.\nBut, as I have already pointed out, inductive reasoning is merely\na laborious method of inquiry, and pertains wholly to our physical\nexistence. It would be as useless to the spirit in an existence where\nall truth is perceived by intuition, as a tallow-dip in the full blaze\nof a noonday sun. It may be set down as a maxim in spiritual philosophy\nthat there is not one power or function of the objective mind which\ndistinguishes it from those of the subjective entity, that could be of\nany service to the latter when it is freed from its earthly environment.\n\nThe peculiar functions of the physical brain are therefore no more\nentitled to be considered as an immortal entity, or as any necessary\npart or function of an immortal entity, than are the physical functions\nof deglutition or digestion, or the physical power of pedal locomotion.\n\nIt is not for man to question the wisdom of God in so ordaining the\nrelations of the soul to the body as to subordinate the eternal to the\nperishable. But it is man's duty so to exercise his powers of induction\nas to ascertain those relations; and, having done so according to\nhis best lights, so to order his conduct as to do his whole duty to\nhimself and his Creator. As we find those relations exist, the whole\nresponsibility rests upon the objective man. He is a free moral agent,\nand has it in his power to train his soul for weal or woe, for this\nlife and for eternity.\n\nIt is of the relations which exist between objective and subjective\nman in this life that I propose to offer a few practical suggestions\nat this time. I have already shown that the normal functions of the\nsubjective mind are apparently limited to the preservation of human\nlife and the perpetuation of the human race. These functions are\nmanifested in what are known as instincts. The first is the instinct\nof self-preservation; the second is the instinct of reproduction;\nand the third pertains to the preservation of the offspring. In the\nlast may be included the instinctive desire to preserve human life\ngenerally. Outside of these limits all phenomenal subjective mental\nactivity appears to be abnormal. I say _appears_ to be abnormal, for\nthe reason that we have no means of judging, except from a consensus\nof facts. The facts which pertain to the subject can be found in the\ngreatest abundance in spiritistic circles, for the reason that it is\nthere that subjective activity is greatest in modern times. I venture\nto say that no one of the better class of spiritists will deny the fact\nthat most professional mediums eventually become physical wrecks; many\nare overtaken by mental derangement, and some by a moral degradation\ntoo loathsome to be described. Few, if any, escape serious physical\ntrouble. This, of itself, is sufficient evidence of abnormality,\nand should serve as a warning against the too frequent exercise of\nsubjective power. The majority of spiritistic mediums are more or less\nafflicted with nervous disorders, and many of them are hysterical to\nthe last degree. Most of them complain of extreme nervous exhaustion\nafter a s\u00e9ance, and many require days to recover from the effects of a\nprolonged exercise of subjective power. It may be said that I mistake\nthe cause for the effect; that is, that it may be only weak and nervous\nphysical organisms that are capable of exercising subjective power. I\nam aware that the question is not free from difficulty, and that one\nis liable to fall into error in discussing a subject that is so little\nunderstood. The fact remains, nevertheless, that nervous disorders and\nmediumship are generally associated, and that fact alone is indicative\nof abnormality. Whether we are to regard the exercise of subjective\npower as productive of abnormal physical conditions, or are to suppose\nthat it requires an abnormal physical organism to produce subjective\nphenomena, matters little. The conclusion must be the same,--that the\nexercise of subjective power is abnormal, and should be avoided until\nmore is known of the proper conditions of its exercise than has yet\nbeen discovered.\n\nThere is a further difficulty attending the consideration of this\nsubject which must not be lost sight of, and that is the question how\nfar suggestion may enter as a factor in the case. It is well known\nthat some mesmeric healers fancy that \"they take on the conditions of\nthe patient,\" as they phrase it. That is, they feel the symptoms which\nafflict the patient. There is no question of the fact that those who\nenter upon the treatment of a case with that idea firmly fixed in their\nminds will experience the anticipated sensations, often to a marked\ndegree. But late scientific experiments disclose the fact that such\nphenomena are always the effect of suggestion. The physical exhaustion\nwhich some healers feel after the treatment of a case is also\nlargely due to suggestion. These effects may always be counteracted\nby a vigorous auto-suggestion; and, moreover, the same means may be\neffectively employed to produce exactly the opposite effects upon\nthe operator. That is to say, the mental healer, by whatever method\nhe does his work, may always cause his treatment of a patient to\nredound to his own benefit, as well as to that of the patient, by the\nexercise of the power of auto-suggestion. It is therefore impossible\nto say just how far suggestion enters as a factor in the production of\nuntoward physical results from the exercise of mediumistic power. It\nis certainly traditional among the fraternity that nervous exhaustion\nensues from its exercise, and the results are appalling. How far the\neffects may be counteracted by intelligent auto-suggestion, remains\nto be settled by the process of evolution. There is, however, little\nhope of any change for the better so long as the spiritistic medium\nbelieves himself to be under the domination of an extraneous force\nwhich is beyond his control, and the effects of which he is powerless\nto mitigate.\n\nThis phase of the subject is, however, of little importance compared\nwith the mental effects produced by the too persistent exercise of the\nsubjective faculties in the production of phenomena. Again we must draw\nour illustrations from spiritistic circles. It is undeniable that the\ntendency of mediumship is to unhinge the mind, to destroy the mental\nbalance, and often to produce the worst forms of insanity. And it is\nnoticeable that the more thoroughly sincere the medium is in his belief\nin the genuineness of his power to evoke the spirits of the dead, the\ngreater is the tendency to insanity. The reason is obvious. If he\nsincerely believes himself to be under the control of an extraneous\npower, he yields implicit obedience to that power; especially if it\nassumes to be a superior mentality, as it generally does. Instead of\nassuming control of the power, he allows it to control him. As a matter\nof course, he is ignorant of the laws pertaining to it. He is ignorant\nof the fact that the force which controls him resides within himself,\nand is not a superior being commissioned from Heaven to convey a\nmessage from the Source of all knowledge. He is dazed by its wonderful\nexhibitions of superior intelligence, is captivated by its eloquence,\nand awed by its assumption of authority. In short, he knows nothing of\nits source, or the limitations of its powers of reasoning. The result\nis that he yields implicit obedience to its guidance in all things. His\nreason has abdicated its throne and abandoned its functions, and he is\nat the mercy of his subjective mind, which, in turn, is controlled by\nthe false suggestions of his own disorganized and subjugated objective\nintelligence. His physical degeneracy keeps pace with his mental\ndecline, his whole nervous system is prostrated by excessive exercise\nof subjective power, and too frequently the end is acute mania or\ndrivelling imbecility.\n\nOne of the most fascinating and seductive forms of subjective mental\nactivity is exhibited in trance, or inspirational, speaking. A medium\nof fair intelligence and some education, obtained, perhaps, by\ndesultory reading of spiritistic and miscellaneous literature, develops\nhimself into an inspirational speaker. As a sincere spiritist, he\nbelieves himself to be controlled by some great spirit who in life\nwas celebrated for his eloquence. He ascends the rostrum and amazes\nhis audience by his wonderful oratory, his marvellous command of the\nresources of his mind, and, above all, by the clearness and cogency of\nhis reasoning. Those who have known him before and are aware of the\nlimits of his education are the most surprised of all, and no argument\ncan convince them that he is not inspired by some almost superhuman\nintelligence from another world. They know nothing of the wonders of\nsubjective mental power; they have no knowledge of the perfection of\nsubjective memory, which gives the speaker perfect command of all he\nhas ever read, or of the logical exactitude of the deductive reasoning\nof the subjective intelligence. The speaker, on his part, finds himself\nin possession of such wonderful powers and resources, emanating, as\nhe believes, from an extraneous source, abandons his old pursuits,\nand devotes himself to the work of his inspiration. It is an easy\nand pleasurable existence for the time being. He finds that there is\nno need of taking thought of what he is to say, for ideas, and words\nwith which to clothe them, flow from him like a mountain torrent. He\nfinds himself in possession of knowledge which he has no objective\nrecollection of ever having acquired, and of ideas which were foreign\nto his objective intelligence. He believes, and, from his standpoint,\nhas every reason to believe, that he is inspired by some lofty spirit\nwhose knowledge is unlimited and whose resources are unfailing. He\nfeels that he has no need of further reading or study, and the work of\nobjective intellectual labor soon becomes a drudgery. The result is\nthat his objective intellectual growth soon comes to a stand-still,\nand at length his objective intellect begins to deteriorate. In the\nmean time his subjective powers may continue to grow in brilliancy\nfor a time, or at least they shine with a new lustre, as they are\ncompared with the deepening dulness of his objective intellect.\nAt length he becomes fitful, erratic, eccentric. As his objective\npowers deteriorate, they no longer have any semblance of control\nover his subjective mind. The suggestions which reason, in its best\nestate, may have given to his subjective mind, as a starting-point\nfor his discourses, are no longer available, for his power to reason\nis failing. His friends, who follow him from place to place, begin\nto notice that he talks one thing at one place, and the opposite at\nanother. They attribute the fact to the control of different spirits at\ndifferent times, and for a time they are consoled. Eventually the fact\nis forced upon them that in his normal, or objective, condition he is\ngrowing more and more erratic, and that at times his conversation is\nthe merest drivel. As in all the other forms of subjective development\nmentioned, his physical deterioration keeps pace with his mental\ndecline. In the mean time his subjective powers appear to deteriorate.\nIt is not true, in fact, that his subject mind, _per se_, deteriorates,\nfor that is impossible. But as it is always controlled by suggestion,\nit necessarily takes its cue from the suggestions conveyed to it by\nthe objective mind. When that ceases to develop, the subjective mind\nkeeps on in its old rut, for the obvious reason that no new ideas\nare imparted to it. When the objective mind begins to deteriorate,\nits suggestions are no longer coherent, and the subjective mind is\nnecessarily incoherent in exact proportion. Its deductions from a false\nor imbecile suggestion will be logically correct; but, as a matter\nof course, a false, extravagant, or imbecile premise, followed to\nits legitimate, logical conclusion, necessarily leads the mind into a\ncorresponding maze of extravagance and imbecility. It is therefore no\nindication of a decline of subjective powers, but it is a demonstration\nof the universality of the law of suggestion. It goes without saying\nthat if an inspirational speaker were aware of the source of his power,\nand of the laws which govern it, and would constantly keep it under the\ncontrol of his reason, he could utilize it to the very best advantage.\nA cultured man of well-balanced intellect would then formulate his own\npremises according to the best lights obtainable through the processes\nof inductive reasoning, and \"inspiration would do the rest.\" If his\npremises were correct, the subjective mind could always be depended\nupon to deduce the correct conclusions, and to illustrate them by\ndrawing upon the resources of its perfect memory of all that the\nindividual has ever seen, heard, or read bearing upon the subject.\nSuch a man would be known as a man of \"genius,\" in whatever direction\nhe exercised his powers. And just in proportion to the natural powers\nand cultivation of his objective mind and the extent of his objective\ninformation would his subjective manifestations be brilliant and\npowerful.\n\nI do not say that such an exercise of subjective power would not be\nabnormal and productive of untoward physical consequences. Men of\ngenius in all ages of the world have unconsciously exercised this\npower. But men of genius the world over have been too often noted for\nabnormalities of character and conduct. Profane history furnishes but\none example where a man of genius appears to have been in possession of\nobjective and subjective powers perfectly balanced, and who was able to\nutilize his enormous objective advantages, resulting from constant and\nintimate association with the greatest minds of his generation, in the\nsubjective production of works which must always stand pre-eminent. It\nis unnecessary to say that I allude to Shakspeare. So little is known\nof his private life that it is impossible to judge whether abnormal\nphysical effects resulted from his labors. But his works are full of\ninternal evidence that his subjective powers were under the constant\ncontrol of a well-trained and perfectly balanced objective intellect.\n\nIt is of course impossible to say just how far subjective power might,\nnormally, be employed in the direction indicated, in the absolute\ndearth of examples where it has been employed with a full knowledge\nof the laws which govern it. But certain it is that so long as it is\nexercised under the delusion that it is an extraneous and superior\npower, over which the objective man possesses no control, just so\nlong will the victim of the delusion be subject to the caprice of an\nirresponsible power, which will eventually drive him to the horrors of\ninsanity or leave him in the darkness of imbecility.\n\nOf greater importance than either the physical or mental deterioration\nof the one who habitually exercises subjective power in the production\nof phenomena, is the moral aspect of the question. One may escape\nserious physical consequences of mediumship, or he may succeed in\nmaintaining a sufficient outward semblance of mental equilibrium to\nkeep out of the insane asylum; but no well-informed spiritist of the\nbetter class will attempt to deny or weaken the force of the statement\nthat a mephitic moral atmosphere surrounds the average spiritistic\nmedium. I do not assert by any means that all mediums are immoral. On\nthe contrary, there are many noble men and pure women who habitually\nexercise mediumistic power. Otherwise, the tendency to looseness of\nmorals which characterizes so many of them would be difficult to\naccount for on other than physiological grounds. Books have been\nwritten to account for this tendency, on the hypothesis that immorality\nis a consequence of the nervous derangement which follows the practice\nof mediumship. This hypothesis necessarily presupposes the invariable\nconnection of immorality with a nervous disorder, and the latter with\nmediumship. The common experience of mankind may be invoked to prove\nthat there is no invariable connection of the kind existing. Another\ncause must therefore be sought for the too-frequent association of\nimmorality with mediumship.\n\nThose who have followed me in my brief analysis of the causes which\nconspire to bring about the mental deterioration of the spiritistic\nmedium will anticipate me in what I have to say concerning the causes\nof the moral degradation of the same class. The medium, if he is\nsincere in his professions of belief in the alleged communication of\nspirits of the dead through him, believes himself to be under the\ncare and control of a higher and purer mentality than his own. He\nbelieves in its lofty assumptions of mental and moral superiority, and\nhe becomes accustomed to ask its advice in all things pertaining to\nhis personal well-being. He frequently finds its advice to be of the\nbest, and he gradually accustoms himself to submit to its guidance in\nall things. He assumes and believes that in the clearer light of the\nworld of spirits many of the artificialities of mundane civilization\nare held in pitying contempt, and he frequently comes to believe\nthat many of the restraints of human society are purely artificial,\nand have no foundation in true morality or religion. He generally\nregards himself as a reformer, having broken away from the orthodox\ncreed, and becomes the advocate of a new religion. Like most radical\nreformers who find the world all wrong in one respect, he immediately\nassumes that it is wrong in everything; and nothing will satisfy his\nambition short of destroying the whole fabric of civilized society, and\ninstituting a new order of things more suited to his ideas of human\nprogress and felicity. It all too frequently happens that one of the\nfirst \"artificial\" institutions of society which becomes the object of\nprivate attack by the spiritual medium is the marriage relation. He\nsees much domestic infelicity surrounding him, and is perhaps tired\nof the restraints which it imposes upon himself, and he consults his\nspirit guide as to the propriety of setting at defiance the laws of\nhuman society in that regard. Now, if his \"spirit guide\" were what he\nbelieved it to be, or what it assumed to be,--a pure and lofty spirit,\ndisenthralled from the temptations and weaknesses of the flesh, and\ndrawing inspiration from the society of just men made perfect,--there\ncould be no doubt of the character of the advice it would give him.\nBut, being the medium's own subjective entity, bound by the laws of its\nbeing to control by the power of suggestion, it necessarily follows the\nline of thought which is uppermost in the medium's objective mind, and\nit gives the advice most desired. Moreover, from the premises suggested\nby the unhallowed lusts of the medium, it will frame an argument so\nplausible and convincing to his willing mind that he will fancy that,\nin following the advice of his \"control,\" he is obeying the holiest\nimpulses implanted in his nature by a God of love.\n\nI do not charge spiritists as a class with being advocates of the\ndoctrines of free love. On the contrary, I am aware that, as a class,\nthey hold the marriage relation in sacred regard. I cannot forget,\nhowever, that but a few years ago some of their leading advocates\nand mediums proclaimed the doctrine of free love in all its hideous\ndeformity from every platform in the land. Nor do I fail to remember\nthat the better class of spiritists everywhere repudiated the doctrine\nand denounced its advocates and exemplars. Nevertheless, the moral\nvirus took effect here and there all over the country, and it is doing\nits deadly work in secret in many an otherwise happy home. And I charge\na large and constantly growing class of professional mediums with being\nthe leading propagandists of the doctrine of free love. They infest\nevery community in the land, and it is well known to all men and women\nwho are dissatisfied or unhappy in their marriage relations that they\ncan always find sympathy by consulting the average medium, and can,\nmoreover, find justification for illicit love by invoking the spirits\nof the dead through such mediums.\n\nAs before remarked, I do not charge mediums as a class with immoral\npractices, nor do I say that the exercise of subjective power, _per\nse_, has a tendency to induce immoral practices. What I do say is, that\nthrough a want of knowledge of the laws which pertain to subjective\nmental activity, the one who exercises that power in the form of\nmediumship is in constant danger of being led astray. He invokes a\npower that he knows nothing of,--a power which may, at any time, turn\nand rend him.\n\nThe man or woman whose heart is pure, in whom the principles of\nvirtue and morality are innate, is in no danger of being corrupted by\nthe exercise of mediumistic power. The auto-suggestions of such are\nconstantly on the side of virtue, and a corrupt communication could not\nemanate from such a source. But to the young, whose characters are not\nformed, and to those whose notions of morality are loose, the dangers\nof mediumship are appalling.\n\nI have felt obliged to draw my illustrations from spirit mediums for\nthe reason that mediumship is the form which subjective activity takes\nin the Western world. Other forms, however, are being introduced from\nthe Orient, and may soon become common in this country. The Western\nworld is threatened with a revival of the arts of the magician, the\nconjurer, and the wizard. It may be true, and doubtless is, that the\nEastern adepts know more of the practice of subjective arts than is\ndreamed of by spiritists. The fact that they denounce as dangerous to\nhealth, morals, and sanity the practice of mediumship, is a hopeful\nsign. That they are aware that the power which controls the medium\nemanates from himself, is demonstrative of their advancement in\npractical knowledge of the subject. But that they are reliable guides\nto the safe exercise of subjective power has not been demonstrated. It\nis certain that they are yet ignorant of the fundamental principles\nwhich underlie the science of the soul, for they have yet to learn the\nlaw of suggestion, and to appreciate the subtle _r\u00f4le_ which that power\nplays in every psychic phenomenon. Their whole system of spiritual\nphilosophy has been built up in ignorance of that law, and hence they\nare necessarily subject to the same delusions, arising from the same\nsources of error, that have misguided all mankind, in all the ages of\nthe world, prior to the discovery of that law. They believe in their\npower to communicate with the spirits of another world, precisely the\nsame as do the modern spiritists. The foundation of their belief is the\nsame; namely, psychic phenomena produced by themselves, in ignorance\nof the fundamental laws which govern it. The only difference resides\nin the fact that the Orientalists have the power to produce a greater\nvariety of startling phenomena, and hence are in possession of greater\nfacilities for deceiving themselves. No advantage, therefore, can be\ngained by studying their philosophy or practising their arts, except as\na means of gaining general information or for purposes of scientific\nexperiment; and the warning against indulging in the indiscriminate\npractice of mediumship holds good against the too frequent exercise\nof subjective power in any direction, or for any purpose save that of\nscientific investigation or healing the sick.\n\nIt should be remembered always that the power of the subjective entity\nis the most potential force in nature, and when intelligently directed\nthe most beneficent. But, like every other power in nature misdirected,\nits destructive force is equally potent.\n\nIn conclusion, I desire again to impress upon the reader the absolute\nnecessity of always holding the subjective entity under the positive\ndomination of objective reason; and I here repeat, what I have\nagain and again sought to enforce, that insanity consists in the\nusurpation by the subjective mind of the throne of reason. The terrible\npotentialities of the subjective entity are as much to be feared as\nadmired, and no faculty that it possesses is more to be dreaded and\nguarded against than its awful power and inexorable exactitude of\nlogical deduction, when reasoning from premises that have not been\ndemonstrated by the processes of induction.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nTHE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS AND PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST.\n\n The Great Stumbling-block, Unbelief in the Physical History of\n Christ.--Modern Science confirms the New Testament.--Internal\n Evidence of the Truth of the History of Jesus.--The Scientific\n Accuracy of his Statements.--The Exoteric and the Esoteric\n Doctrines.--Parables.--Esoteric Doctrines Reserved for Modern\n Science to discover.--The Spirit of Truth.--Jesus the first to\n proclaim the Scientific Truth.--The Doctrine of Faith.--Healing the\n Sick.--Natural Law.--Faith essential then as now.--Illustrative\n Incidents.--Jairus' Daughter.--Seven Scientific Steps.--Secrecy\n enjoined.--Scientific Reasons.---Rediscovery of the Science of\n Mental Therapeutics in Modern Times.--Nothing discovered that Jesus\n did not know.--Absent Treatment.--The Power to heal transmitted to\n all Future Generations.--The Conditions.--Conclusions.\n\n\nIt was no part of my original intention in writing this book to enter\nupon the discussion of theological questions, or to speculate upon the\npossible condition of the soul after the death of the body. Nor shall\nI, to any great extent, enter upon that prolific field of discussion\nat this time. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from presenting a few\nthoughts which have forced themselves upon me concerning the relation\nwhich the hypothesis under consideration bears to the history and\ndoctrines of the man Jesus Christ. In doing so I hope to offend no\nman's theology, and to avoid the accusation of seeking to \"open the\nsecret of spiritual life in the criminal court of empirical philosophy.\"\n\nIt has often been said that the laws which enable man to perceive\nspiritual truths, or to apprehend the relation which his spiritual\nnature bears to the Christ, cannot be formulated by any known methods\nof finite reasoning, that spiritual truth must be approached from the\nspiritual side, and that it must be perceived by the eye of faith.\nNevertheless, there are many who have never been able to attain that\nfaith in the spiritual nature of Christ, for the reason that they\npersist in approaching him by and through the finite processes of\nreasoning. Their conceptions of him come through the history of his\nphysical life, and their doubts arise through their unbelief in the\nverity of the history of his physical manifestations. The history of\ncritical warfare upon Christianity will bear out the statement that\nthis is, and has ever been, the great stumbling-block. The assaults of\nscepticism have always been upon the man Christ; and, being unable to\nreconcile the accounts of his physical history and manifestations with\nthe laws of nature, as understood by his critics, sceptics have ignored\nthe spiritual side of his character, and ended in total unbelief in his\ndivine attributes.\n\nIf, therefore, the discoveries of modern science can be made to\nthrow any light upon the history of the man Jesus; if they confirm\nall that has been said of the physical phenomena which characterized\nhis career,--the first great obstacle which stands in the way of the\nacceptance of the essential spiritual doctrines which he promulgated\nwill be removed.\n\nIf, in addition to that, it can be shown that the discoveries of modern\nscience not only confirm the story of his physical manifestations,\nbut demonstrate the essential truth of the central idea which he\npromulgated concerning man's immortality, show the philosophy of\nhis mission on earth, and prove that he was, and is, as a matter of\nscientific truth, the Saviour of the souls of men, there will be little\nleft upon which scepticism can hang a reasonable doubt.\n\nI undertake to say that modern science can do all this, and more.\n\nIt has often been said that the New Testament bears internal evidence\nof its own truth. This is true. But it is not true in the sense in\nwhich it has been stated. It has been said that such evidence consists\nin the alleged fact that at the time when Christ lived, there was no\none else capable of formulating the code of ethics and morals which he\npromulgated. That this is not true is evidenced by the writings of many\nwho preceded him. The golden rule itself, which may be said to embody\nthe noblest conception which has been given to mankind of man's duty\nto his fellow-man, is found in the writings of Confucius. The code of\nethics found in the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers will\ncompare favorably with anything found in the New Testament. It is not\nin this, therefore, that the internal evidence of the truth of the New\nTestament is to be found.\n\nBut I undertake to say that in view of the state of scientific\nknowledge which existed at the time when Christ appeared on earth, it\nwas absolutely impossible that a fictitious character could have been\ncreated, embodying the salient features of the physical history and\ncharacter of Christ, by any one of his day and generation. The writers\nof the New Testament must have had an original from which to write\nthe history, draw the character, and state the attributes of Christ.\nThis is especially true of his physical history and manifestations;\nfor no one but he was at that time capable of doing his work or of\nformulating with scientific accuracy the secret and source of his\npower. Nor was any one of his day capable of conceiving the ideas\nwhich he promulgated concerning his spiritual mission on earth, or of\nstating, as he did, the exact conditions upon which mankind must depend\nfor salvation and immortality. He did not formulate the scientific\nprinciples which underlie his doctrines, for the world was not ready to\nreceive, nor capable of appreciating, them; he only stated the facts.\nIt has been left for the discoveries of modern science to demonstrate\nthe scientific accuracy of his statements. That he understood the\nprinciples which underlie his doctrines and constitute the secret of\nhis power, goes without saying; but his biographers did not understand\nthem, or, if they did, they were as reticent as he was. Nor is it\nimportant to know whether they were or were not in possession of that\nknowledge. The point is, that they could not have created the character\nwithout the original to draw from, and, _a fortiori_, they could not\nhave formulated the doctrines which, after the lapse of nineteen\nhundred years, prove to be scientifically correct. But it is said that\nthey were inspired. Leaving out of consideration the theological idea\nof inspiration, it is certain that they were inspired in the highest\nand best sense of the word. They were inspired by the authoritative\ndeclarations of the Master,--by his statement of the great principles\nof his philosophy; by the words of him \"who spake as never man\nspake,\"--words of which he made the declaration, that, \"though heaven\nand earth shall pass away, my words shall not pass away.\" With this\nview of the source of the inspiration of the writers of the New\nTestament, the internal evidence of the essential truth of the history\nof Jesus Christ is demonstrative.\n\nIf Jesus had formulated the scientific principles which pertain to\nhis doctrines and his works, and had taught them to his disciples,\nthere would have been no internal evidence whatever of the truth of\nhis history, or that he ever existed. The reason is obvious. If his\nbiographers had been in possession of that knowledge, no matter from\nwhat source they obtained it, it would have been possible for them to\ncreate a fictitious character possessing all the powers and attributes\nof Christ. A few years ago it would have been impossible for the most\nlively imagination to picture two men, standing a thousand miles apart,\ntransmitting oral messages to each other over a wire stretched between\nthem. If, however, a statement had been made by any one that he had\nseen the feat performed, the existence of the telephone to-day would be\ndemonstrative evidence of the truth of his statement, however sceptical\nhis own generation might have been. In other words, the discoveries of\nmodern science would have developed the fact that he spoke the truth.\nIf it were known that the man who made the statement knew absolutely\nnothing of the science of electricity, the internal evidence of its\ntruth would be all the stronger; for a man well versed in the science\nof electricity might be supposed to be capable of imagining the\npossibility of such an invention, and stating its existence as a fact.\nBut a man ignorant of electrical laws could by no possibility conceive\nthe idea of the telephone; he must be presented with the concrete fact\nin order to be able to state it intelligently.\n\nIt was so with the biographers of Jesus. They knew nothing of the\nscientific principles involved in the performance of his wonderful\nworks. They knew only the facts, and they recorded them. He gave to\nhis apostles just enough information to enable them to continue his\nwork. He stated the conditions of success, and promised the world\nthat whosoever complied with those conditions should be able to do\neven greater works than he had done. He formulated the doctrine\nof immortality, and stated the conditions of its attainment. His\nbiographers have recorded his words, but not his reasons, for he\ngave none. If, therefore, science demonstrates that the powers that\nhe possessed are possible, that the conditions of their exercise\nare precisely what he declared them to be, and that they cannot be\nexercised without a strict compliance with those conditions, the\ninternal evidence for the truth of his history is overwhelming.\nModified by the nature of the subject, and of the proofs required, the\nsame may be said of his spiritual doctrines.\n\nHis practical wisdom is nowhere shown more conspicuously than in his\nreticence. He had two very important reasons for withholding a full\ndisclosure of the underlying principles of his philosophy, or of the\nlaws which pertain to his physical manifestations. The first was that\nthe world was not ready to receive the whole truth. This was said to\nhis disciples during his last interview with them previous to his\ncrucifixion. \"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot\nbear them now.\" He had given to his followers all that it was expedient\nto give in that age. He had told them the conditions of salvation.\nHe had taught them how to heal the sick. He had taught them how to\nemploy their powers in doing good, both physically and spiritually. But\nhe knew that the same power which he taught them how to use for the\nphysical benefit of mankind might also, in the hands of wicked men, be\nemployed for doing evil. He knew that the condition of its exercise for\nevil purposes was a full knowledge of the laws which pertain to it.\nHe knew that in the hands of the majority of the men of his day and\ngeneration it was a dangerous power,--too dangerous to be intrusted to\nthe world in its then stage of public and private virtue, morality,\nreligion, and enlightenment.\n\nThere was an exoteric doctrine which he promulgated to the world, and\nan esoteric doctrine which he deemed it inexpedient to divulge before\nthe world was prepared to receive it. His whole career illustrates this\nimportant fact.\n\nHis habit of speaking to the multitude in parables, together with\nhis reasons for so doing, constitutes the strongest evidence of his\ndetermination to conceal his esoteric doctrines from the common people.\n\n \"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto\n them in parables?\n\n \"He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to\n know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not\n given....\n\n \"Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see\n not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand....\n\n \"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of\n hearing, and their eyes they have closed....\n\n \"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and\n without a parable spake he not unto them:\n\n \"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,\n saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which\n have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.\"[39]\n\nThese passages make it as clear as words can formulate a proposition\nthat he deemed it inexpedient to divulge to the people anything more\nthan they could understand and assimilate. His estimate of men and his\nknowledge of their needs were perfect; and he gave to each class with\nwhom he had to deal, just what was necessary to enable it to perform\nthe work assigned to it. He taught the multitude the principles of\nmorality and justice among men, and pointed the way to eternal life;\nbut he did not teach them how to heal the sick. He taught his chosen\nones the true method of healing the sick, and divulged the exact\nconditions of its exercise; but he did not teach them the scientific\nprinciples upon which his system of healing was founded. They were no\nmore capable of understanding those principles than were the multitude\ncapable of acquiring the power to heal the sick. He gave to each\naccording to his needs; and, true to his spiritual mission, Christ\nenjoined upon all men the necessity of first seeking the kingdom of\nheaven, when all other needful things would be added unto them. It\nwas not necessary for his disciples to know the esoteric science of\nhealing, in order to enable them to heal the sick, any more than it is\nfor us to-day. We may know how little the knowledge of true scientific\nprinciples involved in the exercise of that power has to do with\nsuccess in healing, when we observe the diversity of views entertained\non the subject by the successful healers of modern times. Christ gave\nto the world all the knowledge necessary for the successful exercise of\nthat power in the one word _faith_. He was the first who taught that\nlesson to mankind; and it holds as good to-day as it did when he first\nproclaimed it to the multitude upon the banks of the Jordan.\n\nThe second reason for withholding a statement of the scientific\nprinciples involved in his manifestations of power and his spiritual\nphilosophy was that he foresaw the time approaching when the world\nwould reason it out for itself; and that when that time came, mankind\nwould be prepared to receive it. He foresaw that in the progress of\ncivilization and enlightenment the time would surely come when the\nworld would not be content to rest its belief upon the doctrine of\nany one, whatever his claims to inspiration or authority. In other\nwords, he foresaw the present age of materialism, and its tendency\ntowards scepticism regarding everything which cannot be scientifically\ndemonstrated by the inductive processes of reasoning. He knew that when\nthat epoch should have arrived in the history of man's intellectual\ndevelopment, the truth of his doctrines would be all the more forcibly\nimpressed upon mankind if they could be proved by the inexorable rules\nof logic. Besides, science and inductive reasoning would have been\nlost upon the people with whom he had to deal. That he fully realized\nthis is shown by his implied rebuke to the nobleman of Capernaum,\nwhen he exclaimed, \"Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not\nbelieve.\" To have attempted to reason with them would have been like\n\"casting pearls before swine.\" He appealed to them by the only logic\nthey could understand. He offered to them the only evidence they could\nappreciate,--the evidence of their senses.\n\nThat Christ foresaw the time when the world would be in possession of\nindubitable evidence of the truth concerning him, but that he knew\nthat the time had not yet come, is clearly shown by his remarks to his\ndisciples in his memorable interview with them just previous to his\ncrucifixion:\n\n \"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them\n now.\"[40]\n\nThis refers to the then existing conditions. He had given them all\nthe proofs that they were capable of appreciating of the truth of his\ndoctrines. In the next sentence he refers to the time to come, when\nstill more evidence would be given to the world.\n\n \"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you\n into all truth.\"[41]\n\nThis clearly refers to the time, which was yet to come, when mankind\nshould seek the truth and demand to know it. The \"Spirit of truth\" is\na personification of that spirit in man which seeks to learn the truth\nfor its own sake, by the only process known to this world,--inductive\nreasoning. That day has come. The Spirit of truth is abroad throughout\nall the civilized world, and it demands reasons for the faith that is\nin the Christian Church.\n\nAgain Christ said:--\n\n \"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the\n Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,\n he shall testify of me:\n\n \"And ye shall also bear witness, because ye have been with me from\n the beginning.\"[42]\n\nThe first verse above quoted has the same meaning as this last\nquotation. The second refers to the events of his life of which they\nwere witnesses. He foresaw that the record of those events would be\nread by future generations, and compared with later experiments. He\nhad left the power to heal as a heritage to all who should come after\nhim, possessing the requisite faith; and he knew that the testimony\nof his disciples concerning the works that he had performed would be\ncompared with later exhibitions of the same power. He foresaw that the\n\"Spirit of truth\" would eventually discover the laws pertaining to\nhis doctrines and his works, and that a comparison of the testimony\nof his followers with the discoveries of science would demonstrate\nto the world the essential truth of his history and of his spiritual\nphilosophy.\n\nI shall now briefly point out a few of the more salient features of the\nhistory of Jesus which bear upon the subject under consideration, and\nshall undertake to show, first, how the discoveries of modern science\nconfirm the accounts of his physical manifestations; and secondly, how\nthey confirm the essential features of his spiritual philosophy.\n\nThe prominent feature of his physical manifestations consisted in\nhealing the sick; and in the discussion of the first division of the\nsubject I shall confine myself to the consideration of that part of his\ncareer.\n\nThe first proposition bearing upon the subject is, that Jesus Christ\nwas the first who correctly formulated the exact conditions necessary\nand indispensable to the exercise of the power to heal the sick by\npsychic methods.\n\nThe second proposition is, that the conditions which he declared to be\nnecessary to enable him to exercise that power are the same conditions\nwhich are indispensable to-day.\n\nThese propositions will be considered together.\n\nThe condition which he declared to be essential, not only in the\npatient, but in the healer, is embraced in the one word _faith_. That\nword, more than any other, expresses the whole law of human felicity\nand power in this world, and of salvation in the world to come. It is\nthat attribute of mind which elevates man above the level of the brute,\nand gives him dominion over all the physical world. It is the essential\nelement of success in every field of human endeavor. It constitutes the\npower of the human soul. When Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed its potency\nfrom the hill-tops of Palestine he gave to mankind the key to health\nand to heaven, and earned the title of Saviour of the World.\n\nIt would seem to be a work of supererogation to cite particular\npassages of the Scriptures or to employ argument to prove the\ncorrectness of the proposition that Jesus considered faith in the\npatient a necessary condition of his recovery. The proposition is\nplainly true, and it has been so understood by all intelligent readers\nof the New Testament until very recent times. There are those,\nhowever, who now seem to fear that Jesus will be robbed of his glory,\nand reduced to the common level of mankind, if it is shown that the\nconditions necessary to the success of the mental healer of to-day\nare the same as they were nineteen hundred years ago. In other words,\nthey endeavor to show that Jesus did not operate in harmony with the\nlaws which he proclaimed, but independently and in defiance of the\nvery principles of nature which it was his mission to illustrate and\nexpound. He did not pretend to establish any new law of nature, but\nto teach mankind that which had been in existence from the beginning,\nto illustrate it in his life, and to sanction it by his death. He did\nnot teach his disciples the principles and laws involved in healing the\nsick, and at the same time violate himself. He taught them his methods\nof healing, and sent them into the world to imitate his example. When\nthey failed, as they occasionally did fail, he reproved them for\nneglecting his teachings, and upbraided them for their want of faith.\nWhen the lunatic was brought to him, and he was told that his disciples\nhad failed to cast out the devil which afflicted the patient, Jesus\nexclaimed: \"O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be\nwith you? how long shall I suffer you?\" After he had cast out the\ndevil, the disciples asked him why they could not cast him out.\n\n \"And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I\n say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall\n say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall\n remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.\"[43]\n\nHis expression concerning their power to remove mountains doubtless had\nreference to the fact that ponderable bodies can be moved by subjective\npower, under proper conditions, as has been frequently demonstrated in\nlater times.\n\nMany passages might be quoted illustrating the proposition that faith\nwas a necessary condition in the minds of the apostolic healers; but it\nis believed that no one will gainsay the proposition. It may be said,\nhowever, that Jesus did not require faith in himself to enable him to\nheal the sick,--that he healed independently of that law. The obvious\nanswer is that he had that knowledge of his power which transcended\nfaith: or rather, that he had the faith which came from knowledge of\nthat power. In the sense that faith ceases where knowledge begins,\nhe may be said not to have had faith. His disciples arrived at that\npoint after an experimental demonstration of their power; and so may\nwe all do likewise. As I have shown in a former chapter, subjective\nfaith may be acquired in direct contradiction to objective faith\nor belief; but after an experimental demonstration of the power of\nsubjective faith, objective belief no longer sets up an auto-suggestion\nagainst it. It then becomes knowledge, and in that sense it ceases\nto be faith. Nevertheless, in the sense in which it is said that the\nhealer must have faith to enable him to heal the sick, he has faith. In\nthat sense it cannot be disputed that Jesus had faith in his power to\nheal the sick. It is thought, therefore, that enough has been said to\ndemonstrate the proposition that faith was a requisite element in the\nhealers of Jesus' time. Certainly no one will dispute the proposition\nthat it is necessary in the psychic healers of to-day. We may consider,\ntherefore, that two points in our argument are established,--namely\n(1), that the conditions requisite in psychic healers of this day are\nidentical with those required in apostolic times; and (2) that Jesus\nwas the first to proclaim the principle and to exemplify it in his\nworks. The difference is not in principle, but in degree of power.\n\nIt is said, however, that Jesus did not require faith in those whom he\nhealed. The first answer to this proposition is that there is nothing\nin his recorded words to warrant the statement. He never professed to\nbe able to heal independently of that condition. On the contrary, all\nhis expressions on that subject lead to the inevitable conclusion that\nfaith was a necessary condition of the patient's mind to enable him to\neffect a cure. It may be true that in some cases he said nothing about\nit; but this is only negative evidence, and of the weakest kind, in\nview of what he _did_ say on the numerous occasions when circumstances\nrequired an utterance on the subject.\n\nA striking instance of healing, and a fair example of his utterances on\nthis subject, is recorded in Matthew ix. 28, 29, 30:--\n\n \"And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him:\n and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this?\n They said unto him, Yea, Lord.\n\n \"Then he touched their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it\n unto you.\n\n \"And their eyes were opened.\"\n\nJesus was not in the habit of uttering idle words, or words without\nsignificance. In all history there is not an example recorded of a man\nwhose reticence was so marked. Every word he uttered conveyed some\nimportant lesson to humanity. It does not seem probable that he would\nquestion those poor blind men regarding their faith in his power,\nunless their faith was an important factor in the case.\n\nThe case of the ten lepers of Samaria and Galilee has been cited as\nan instance of his healing in the absence of faith on the part of the\npatients:--\n\n \"And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men\n that were lepers, which stood afar off:\n\n \"And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have\n mercy on us.\n\n \"And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go show yourselves unto\n the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were\n cleansed.\n\n \"And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and\n with a loud voice glorified God,\n\n \"And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he\n was a Samaritan.\n\n \"And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where\n are the nine?\n\n \"There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this\n stranger.\n\n \"And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee\n whole.\"[44]\n\nIt has been said that this passage shows that nine out of the ten were\nhealed without the exercise of faith on their part, because he said to\nbut one of them, \"Thy faith hath made thee whole.\" The obvious answer\nto this is that he had no opportunity to say it to the rest. There was\nbut one of the ten who exhibited sufficient gratitude to return and\ngive thanks for what had been done for him. That the rest were healed\nin the same way is obvious. That they all had faith in his power is\nevidenced by the fact that they cried to him from afar off, \"Jesus,\nMaster, have mercy on us.\" I submit that that is not the language of\ndoubt.\n\nAgain, it has been said that in the cases where he raised from the dead\nthere could have been no faith on the part of the dead. This is by all\nodds the strongest case that could be cited in support of the theory\nthat faith was not required. But the objection instantly vanishes when\nwe remember that it is the faith of the subjective mind, or the soul,\nthat is required; and that the belief of the objective mind has only\na limited control, governed by circumstances.[45] When Jesus raised a\nperson from the dead, the conditions were, in one sense of the word,\nthe best possible to enable him to obtain complete mastery of the soul\nof the deceased by the power of suggestion. The objective senses were\nin complete abeyance, the body was dead; consequently, there was no\nobjective auto-suggestion of doubt possible. The soul, in obedience to\nthe universal law, was amenable to control by the mysterious power of\nsuggestion. Jesus, possessing more subjective power than any one who\nhas ever lived, commanded the soul of the deceased to return to its\nearthly tenement. He may not have employed objective language when he\nissued his command, but his soul, in perfect telepathic communion with\nthat of the deceased, and dominating it as only he could dominate the\nsouls of men, issued his mental mandate to the departing soul to return\nto the body and resume its functions. That command it must obey, and\nit did obey. There was no law of nature violated or transcended. On\nthe contrary, the whole transaction was in perfect obedience to the\nlaws of nature. He understood the law perfectly, as no one before him\nunderstood it; and in the plenitude of his power he applied it where\nthe greatest good could be accomplished.\n\nThe case of Jairus' daughter is a perfect illustration of the fact\nthat he perfectly understood the mental conditions necessary to enable\nhim to raise her from the dead. Jairus, one of the rulers of the\nsynagogue, besought Jesus to come to his house and heal his daughter,\nwho was lying at the point of death. Jesus readily complied with the\nrequest; but before they arrived, word was sent to Jairus that the\ndamsel was dead:--\n\n \"While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue's\n house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou\n the Master any further?\n\n \"As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the\n ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.\n\n \"And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and\n John the brother of James.\n\n \"And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and\n seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly.\n\n \"And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado,\n and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.\n\n \"And they laughed him to scorn. But when he had put them all out,\n he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that\n were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying.\n\n \"And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, _Talitha\n cumi_; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.\n\n \"And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of\n the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great\n astonishment.\n\n \"And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and\n commanded that something should be given her to eat.\"[46]\n\nThere are several points embraced in the above which are deserving of\nserious consideration.\n\nThe first is that Christ perfectly understood the importance of\nsecuring for his patient a favorable mental environment. To that end\nhe endeavored to quiet the fears of the father, and to impress upon\nhim the necessity of holding his mind in the attitude of faith and\nconfidence. The father was necessarily in telepathic rapport with the\ndaughter, and it was important that he should not impress his doubts\nand fears upon her departing soul. The injunction was, therefore, laid\nupon him, \"Be not afraid, only believe.\"\n\nHe also understood the value of a positive mental force surrounding\nthe deceased, which would be in perfect harmony with his own force and\npurpose. To that end, he selected three of the most powerful of his\nfollowers, Peter, James, and John, to be present in the chamber of\ndeath, and he suffered no one else to follow him. He kept the multitude\nof unbelievers as far away as possible. When he came to the house and\nsaw the tumult, and heard the weeping and wailing of the friends and\nrelatives of the deceased, he not only put them all out of the room,\nbut sought to quiet their fears by the only way possible, which was by\nassuring them that \"the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.\" These words\npossess a double meaning, a double purpose; and some have supposed that\nthey implied that the damsel was only in a cataleptic trance. It is\nprobable, however, that they were uttered in the sense that the soul\nnever dies. It will be remembered that he used the same expression in\nregard to Lazarus, but afterwards explained his meaning by declaring\nthat Lazarus was really dead in the common acceptation of the term.\nHis object in using that expression was twofold. First, he desired to\nquiet the fears and stop the lamentations of the friends and relatives,\nfor the obvious reason that their hopeless wailing must operate as a\nstrong adverse suggestion to the soul of the patient. The only way that\ncould be accomplished was by an assurance that the damsel was not dead.\nSecondly, he knew the potency of such a suggestion upon the patient\nherself. It was the master-stroke on his part, first, to quiet the\nfears of the relatives, and secondly, to fill the departing soul with\nthe subjective faith necessary to enable him successfully to command it\nto return to the body. That this was his object in uttering those words\nthere can be no reasonable doubt; more especially as it is precisely\nwhat an intelligent mental healer who thoroughly understands the law of\nsuggestion would do to-day, in the light of recent rediscoveries in the\nscience which Jesus taught.\n\nHere, then, are seven separate and distinct acts which he performed,\nall tending in the one direction:--\n\n1. He inspired the father with faith, because he was in telepathic\nrapport with his daughter.\n\n2. He prohibited the multitude of unbelievers from approaching the\nhouse, knowing the adverse influence of an atmosphere of incredulity\nand doubt.\n\n3. He took three of his most powerful apostles with him, for the\npurpose of surrounding the patient with an atmosphere of faith and\ncourage.\n\n4. He excluded the weeping friends and relatives from the sick room,\nfor the same reason that he prevented the multitude from following him.\n\n5. He assured them that the damsel was not dead, for the purpose of\ninspiring them with faith and hope in her recovery, and thus adding\nanother favorable element to the mental environment.\n\n6. By the same words of assurance that the damsel was not dead\nhe conveyed to her subjective mind the most powerful suggestion\npossible,--indeed, the only suggestion applicable to the exigencies of\nthe case.\n\n7. Having thus secured the best possible conditions, he took the damsel\nby the hand, and, by an energetic command, restored her to life.\n\nThe sceptic will doubtless interpose the objection that the damsel\ncould not have been dead, but that it was merely a case of suspended\nanimation. To this the reply is, first, that it is claimed by\nthe Eastern adepts that as long as the vital organs of the body\nare perfect, it is always possible to compel the soul to return\nto its habitation. It is certain that there are many apparently\nwell-authenticated instances of the performance of the feat even in\nthe Western hemisphere. The second and most pertinent reply is that\nthe evidential value of the case is just as great, supposing it to\nhave been a case of suspended animation. The point is that Jesus could\nnot have taken the course he did if he had not been in full possession\nof the knowledge of the laws pertaining to mental therapeutics. This\none case is demonstrative, first, that he perfectly understood the\nlaws of telepathy; and secondly, that he fully understood the law\nof suggestion. Indeed, Jesus was the first discoverer of that law,\nfor the word _faith_ is an epitome of the whole law of suggestion.\nIn short, the internal evidence of the exact truth of this narrative\nis demonstrative, in view of what is now known of the laws of mental\nhealing. For, in his day, no one but he knew enough about those laws\nto enable him to carry out the minute details of the process; and, _a\nfortiori_, no one could have written the narrative in the absence of an\nexemplar.\n\nThere are two other points embraced in the last paragraph of the\nnarrative which must not be overlooked.\n\n \"And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and\n commanded that something should be given her to eat.\"\n\nThe injunction of secrecy contained in the first part of the paragraph\nwas often laid upon those whom he healed. \"See thou tell no man\" was\nan injunction which was often repeated by him in the course of his\ncareer as a healer of the sick, and it still further illustrates his\nwonderful knowledge of the science of mental therapeutics. The reason\nfor so charging his beneficiaries has only recently been discovered.\nIt is this: When a person is suddenly healed by mental processes, it\nbecomes a matter of the first importance that he should not talk on\nthe subject in public, or to persons who are sceptical. The reason is\nthat sceptical persons are apt to dispute the facts or to ridicule\nthe idea of healing by such processes. They often say to a patient:\n\"You have been cured by exciting your imagination, and the disease\nwill return as soon as the excitement is over.\" This constitutes a\nsuggestion which must act unfavorably, and it often causes the patient\nto look for the predicted return of the disease. His fears are aroused\nby imperceptible degrees; and if the suggestion is persisted in, the\nfears will eventually be realized. A person must needs be well grounded\nin the faith, and well versed in the science, to resist the insidious\ninfluence of an unfavorable suggestion constantly reiterated by his\nsceptical friends. It is, therefore, of the highest importance that the\ninjunction of Christ should be observed. That he did not utter those\nwords idly, and without a full knowledge of the principles involved,\ncannot be doubted.\n\n\"And he commanded that something should be given her to eat.\" These\nwords show merely that he did not despise the ordinary means of\nimparting vigor to the wasted frame. As we have remarked in a former\nchapter, he did not hesitate to employ material remedies in connection\nwith, and auxiliary to, his occult power. The mental healers of to-day\nwould do well to profit by the example of the Master, especially when\ntheir patients are new to the faith, or, from any cause, refractory.\n\nTaken as a whole, the narrative of the raising of Jairus' daughter from\nthe dead conveys the best lesson in mental therapeutics which has ever\nbeen given to mankind. No mental healer of this day, even though he may\nbe thoroughly versed in all the discoveries of modern science relating\nto mental therapeutics, could make it more complete.\n\nAgain I repeat that no man who lived in the days of Christ could have\nwritten that narrative except under the inspiration of literal truth.\nThe scientific knowledge necessary for the production of a fictitious\nnarrative corresponding to that did not exist in the minds of men\nprevious to this, the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Up to\nthis time the knowledge of the scientific principles involved was\nconfined to one man,--Christ Jesus.\n\nIt is noteworthy, in this connection, that Jesus was in the habit of\nhealing by what is known at this day as \"absent treatment;\" that is,\nhealing when at a distance from the patient, and without his knowledge.\nThe healing of the nobleman's son at Capernaum is a striking example\nof this. The nobleman met Jesus at Cana, and besought him to heal his\nson, who was at the point of death. Without going near the patient,\nChrist said to the nobleman: \"Go thy way; thy son liveth.\" It was\nafterwards ascertained that at the same hour the fever left the young\nman, and he recovered. The principles involved in absent treatment\nhave been fully explained in another chapter, and will not be repeated\nhere; I may remark, however, that the most perfect faith that can\nbe obtained for therapeutic purposes is that which arises from a\ntelepathic suggestion to the subjective mind of the patient, when he is\nobjectively ignorant of the fact that anything is being done for him.\nIt is evident that Jesus fully understood this law, as he did all the\nlaws of mental therapeutics. The patient in this case was objectively\nignorant of the effort made to heal him; he was, therefore, objectively\npassive, and no adverse auto-suggestion was possible. The father also\nwas full of faith, or he would not have entreated Jesus in such earnest\nand pathetic terms to save his son. The conditions were therefore as\nperfect as possible for successful absent treatment.\n\nThe healing of the centurion's servant was a parallel case. It was on\nthis occasion that Jesus declared, \"I have not found so great faith,\nno, not in Israel.\"\n\nIt is needless to multiply instances to illustrate the fact that\nJesus healed by the same law which prevails at this day,--the law of\nfaith. It seems like arguing a self-evident proposition to show that\nhe required that condition on the part of the patient to enable him to\nheal the sick or to do any mighty work. He never pretended to be able\nto dispense with that condition, or to be superior to the law which\nhe proclaimed to the world. When he said anything about it he always\ngave the patients to understand that it was through faith that they\nwere made whole. The New Testament is full of such expressions as: \"Thy\nfaith hath made thee whole;\" \"According to your faith be it unto you;\"\n\"If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth;\"\n\"Said I not unto thee that if thou wouldst believe, thou shouldst see\nthe glory of God?\" These were neither idle nor untruthful expressions.\n\nOn the other hand, it was said of him that at his own home he failed to\ndo many mighty works, \"because of their unbelief.\" The condition was\nabsent there, because the people had known him from boyhood, and could\nnot believe that the \"carpenter's son\" could do any mighty works.\nBesides, as Jesus himself remarked, \"a prophet is not without honor\nsave in his own country.\"\n\nFaith was the essential prerequisite to the exercise of all the\npower that he possessed, and it was the condition precedent to its\ninheritance by those who were to come after him.\n\n \"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall\n they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;\n\n \"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing,\n it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they\n shall recover.\"[47]\n\nAgain,--\n\n \"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works\n that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he\n do; because I go unto my Father.\"[48]\n\nChrist transmitted his power as a sacred heritage to all mankind.\nHe had taught his followers, by precept and example, the conditions\nnecessary to its exercise. Those conditions were expressed in the one\nword, _faith_. He never intimated to them that he healed by any other\nmethod than that which he transmitted to them. His example would have\nbeen lost to mankind if it were not illustrative of his precepts. It\nwould be valueless to the world if it did not illustrate the principles\nof the science which he taught. To seek to cast a shade of doubt upon\nthe verity of his teachings, to intimate a want of harmony between his\npractice and his precepts, is to attempt to rob him of the glory and\nhonor due to one who was able to divine the fundamental laws of our\nbeing, nineteen hundred years before his teachings could be verified\nby the inductive process of science, and to destroy the force of the\nstrongest internal evidence of the truth of sacred history.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 39: Matthew xiii. 10, 11, 13, 15, 34, 35.]\n\n[Footnote 40: John xvi. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 41: John xvi. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 42: John xv. 26, 27.]\n\n[Footnote 43: Matthew xvii. 20.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Luke xvii. 12-19.]\n\n[Footnote 45: See the chapters on Mental Therapeutics.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Mark v. 35-43.]\n\n[Footnote 47: Mark xvi. 17, 18.]\n\n[Footnote 48: John xiv. 12.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nTHE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF CHRIST (_continued_).\n\n The Word _Faith_ in its Application to Psychic Phenomena.--Its\n Definition.--An Epitome of the Law of Suggestion.--Subjective\n Faith only required.--Illustrative Incident.--The \"Spoken\n Word.\"--Jesus knew the Law, and always acted within its\n Limitations.--Intuitive Perception of the Laws of the Soul.--His\n Manhood and its Limitations.--Our Warranty of Title as Sons of\n God.--Christ constantly controlled by Reason.--His Subjective\n Powers subservient.--The Three Temptations illustrative.--The Great\n Lesson to Mankind.--The Normal Exercise of Subjective Power.--Simon\n the Sorcerer.--Miracle not a Necessary Explanation of the Power of\n Christ.--Conclusions.\n\n\nIn proceeding to make a more direct application of our hypothesis to\nthe doctrines of Jesus, it will be necessary first to consider the\nmeaning of the word _faith_ as it was employed by him, and as it must\nbe understood in its application to all psychic phenomena.\n\nIn the common acceptation of the term, faith is \"belief; the assent\nof the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting\nsolely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on\ntestimony.\"[49] \"The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind\nwhich is called 'trust,' or 'confidence,' exercised towards the moral\ncharacter of God, and particularly of the Saviour.\"[50]\n\nIt is obvious that neither of these definitions properly characterizes\nthat emotion of the mind, called _faith_, which is the necessary\nprerequisite condition of the mind of a person to enable him to confer\nor to receive the benefits of psychic power.\n\nIt has been shown in a former chapter that the faith necessary to\nenable a person to be healed by mental processes is subjective faith;\nthat is, the faith of the subjective mind, or soul. It has been shown\nthat this faith may be entertained by the subjective mind in positive\nopposition to the faith, or belief, of the objective mind,--that it\nmay be forced, upon the subjective mind in defiance of objective\nreason or the evidence of the objective senses. It is not deemed\nnecessary, therefore, to enter at this time into a full discussion of\nthis branch of the subject, and the reader is referred to the chapters\non psycho-therapeutics. In this view of the question it is obvious\nthat the definition of the word _faith_ must be revised if we would\nunderstand it as Christ understood it, and make it conform to the facts\ndemonstrated by modern science. In other words, we must define that\nparticular kind of faith which pertains to the development and exercise\nof psychic power,--that faith of which Christ was the first to proclaim\nthe necessity and define the attributes.\n\nFaith, therefore, in the sense in which Jesus employed it, may be\ndefined as the assent of the soul, or subjective mind, to the truth of\nwhat is declared to be true.\n\nIn other words, faith is that emotion of the human soul which consists\nin the unhesitating acceptance and belief in the absolute verity of a\nsuggestion.\n\nAs has been frequently stated before, the belief of the subjective\nmind in the verity of a suggestion made to it is the essential and\nnever-failing law of its being. If the suggestion made to it is not\ncounteracted by an auto-suggestion proceeding from the objective mind\nof the individual, it will always be unhesitatingly accepted. If it is\ncontroverted by auto-suggestion, the strongest suggestion must prevail.\nThis law is universal. It frequently happens that a therapeutic\nsuggestion is counteracted by auto-suggestion. The latter may arise\nfrom intense prejudice, or from natural scepticism regarding phenomena\nnot understood. It is, however, comparatively easy to overcome an\nauto-suggestion, in the treatment of disease, for the patient is\ngenerally anxious to be cured, and is willing to assume a passive state\nof mind; and this is generally all that is necessary. Moreover, the\nsubjective mind, ever on the alert for any means of preserving the\nlife or health of the individual, will readily accept a therapeutic\nsuggestion if there is no active counter auto-suggestion. If the healer\nunderstands the law of auto-suggestion, and advises his patient that he\ncan overcome the effect of objective unbelief by a simple assertion of\nbelief, salutary results all the more readily follow.\n\nA remarkable instance illustrating this principle occurred in the\nhistory of Jesus. It was in the case of the man who brought his son\nto be healed, who was afflicted with a \"dumb spirit.\" He had gone to\nJesus' disciples, who failed to effect a cure. In despair, he appealed\nto the Master, saying:--\n\n \"If thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.\n\n \"Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are\n possible to him that believeth.\n\n \"And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with\n tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.\"[51]\n\nWhereupon Jesus rebuked the foul spirit and commanded it to come out of\nthe boy, \"and enter no more into him.\" And the boy was instantly healed.\n\nNow, the whole circumstances surrounding this case were calculated\nto render the father sceptical concerning the power of Jesus to heal\nhis son. He had gone to the disciples, and they had failed. When he\nappealed to Jesus he said: \"If thou canst do any thing, have compassion\non us, and help us.\" This expression plainly implied a doubt. After\nJesus had explained that belief was a necessary condition of success,\nthe father cried out: \"Lord, I believe; help _thou_ mine unbelief.\"\nThis expression plainly indicated a want of objective faith. But he\nspoke the words, \"I believe,\" and then intimated to Jesus that his\nreal belief depended upon him. He uttered the words \"I believe\" in\npursuance of an earnest desire to comply with the conditions imposed,\nand that was sufficient. These words constituted an auto-suggestion\nfrom his objective mind to his subjective mind; and Jesus was satisfied\nwith that compliance with his demand for faith, and he instantly healed\nthe sufferer. He knew the law, and was fully aware that any lingering\nobjective doubt remaining in the father's objective mind could not\nprevail against the \"spoken word\" of faith.\n\nThis case is also illustrative of the principle discussed in the\nprevious chapter; namely, the desirability of having a favorable mental\nenvironment, especially in cases where the objective mind of the\npatient could not be appealed to. The boy was in a state of complete\nobjective insensibility. The father was the only one present who was\nin telepathic rapport with him. Hence the importance of impressing\nthe father's subjective mind with faith, to the end that his mental\ncondition might be impressed upon the subjective mind of the son, and\nby that means exert a favorable influence upon the latter by telepathic\nsuggestion. In this case the father's spoken word of belief was a more\npotent suggestion than his objective doubts, and the son's subjective\nmind, ever alert, seized upon the suggestion; and Jesus, by means of a\nsuggestion uttered in a solemn tone of supreme authority, healed him\ninstantly.\n\nI do not mean to say that Jesus could not heal in such cases where the\nmental environment was unfavorable; but the fact that he took infinite\npains, wherever practicable, to secure the best conditions, shows that\nhe understood the law and worked within its limitations.\n\nCertain it is that he never performed any of his wonderful works\noutside the laws which he proclaimed, nor did he ever intimate that\nhe could do so. It is true that his biographers did not always relate\nthe details of the transactions recorded; but it must be remembered\nthat they wrote at a later day, and may not have been in possession\nof all the details. It is, however, a marvellous fact, and one which\nconstitutes indubitable evidence of the truth of his history, that\nin no instance do they relate a single act performed or word spoken\nby him, relating to the healing of the sick, that does not reveal\nhis perfect knowledge of and compliance with the laws which pertain\nto mental therapeutics as they are revealed in modern times through\nexperiment and the processes of inductive reasoning.\n\nThere is but one legitimate conclusion, and that is that the\ndiscoveries of modern science demonstrate the essential truth of the\nhistory of the physical manifestations of Jesus.\n\nThe next question is, How did it happen that Jesus came into possession\nof the knowledge of the true science of mental therapeutics, when no\none else in all the world at that time knew its rudiments? It may\nbe true, and doubtless it is true, that there were mental healers\nbefore his time, who, by various methods, performed wonderful works in\npsycho-therapeutics. But it must be conceded that he was the first who\nevinced a true knowledge of the underlying principles of the science.\nHe it was who first divined the very essence of that science, and\nproclaimed it to the world in the one word _faith_. That word embraced\nall that it was necessary for the world to know at that time. Faith,\nand the means of acquiring it, is the substance of all that he taught\nto his disciples concerning the means of healing the sick; and it was\nall that was necessary to enable them to imitate his example and to\ntransmit the power to those who should come after them. To use his own\nlanguage, it was all that they could bear. It was the exoteric science\nof mental healing. The esoteric doctrine he reserved for the time\nwhen mankind, inspired by the \"Spirit of truth,\" which he promised,\nshould be able to discover it for themselves. His was the \"dispensation\nof faith.\" The \"dispensation of knowledge\" was yet to come. That he\nwas in possession of the knowledge of the underlying principles of\nthe whole science of mental healing is all but self-evident. No man\nwithout that knowledge could have done what he did to secure the most\nfavorable conditions for the exercise of his power. It required a full\ncomprehension of the law of suggestion, a thorough knowledge of the\nlaw of telepathy, a complete realization of the dual nature of the\nmind of man, and the power of the soul over the functions of the body,\nto enable him to take the seven steps preparatory to the raising of\nJairus' daughter from the dead. If he had failed in that attempt, his\npreparatory steps to that end would nevertheless have demonstrated his\nknowledge of the laws which pertain to healing by psychic power.\n\nThe theologian will find a ready-made answer to the question, How did\nJesus come into possession of knowledge which it has taken nineteen\nhundred years of scientific research to verify? His answer will be:\n\"By direct inspiration from God; by virtue of his being the Son of\nGod,--one with the Father.\" I shall not attempt to gainsay this\nproposition, but shall endeavor to show that it is true in the highest\nand best sense of the expression. In doing so I shall not discuss the\nquestion of his miraculous birth; I leave that to the theologian. I\ndesire simply to show that, whatever may have been the conditions of\nhis birth, he took upon himself the nature and attributes of humanity,\nand subjected himself to its physical conditions and limitations. In\nother words, his wondrous works were performed within the domain of\nthe same natural laws which limit the powers of all mankind. He was a\nman, and merely a man, in his physical life and manifestations, and\ndiffered from other men only in the degree of his faculties and in the\npossession of the intuitive power of perception of the laws of the soul\nin its relations to the physical world and to God.\n\nI have shown that Jesus did not find it necessary to go outside the\npale of natural law for the power to perform his mighty works, that he\nnot only operated within the domain of natural law, but even avowed and\nproclaimed the fact to the world. It remains for me to show that his\nknowledge of those laws was obtained through the operation of natural\nlaw, and without the necessity of our invoking the aid of miraculous\npower.\n\nIt will be remembered that in a former chapter of this book it was\nshown that the subjective mind, or soul, of man possesses the inherent\npower to _perceive_, under certain exceptional conditions not clearly\ndefined, those operations of nature which are governed by fixed laws.\nIt was by means of this power of instantaneous perception of the laws\nof numbers that Zerah Colburn, before his objective education was\nsufficient to enable him to understand the power of the nine digits,\nwas enabled instantly to state the cube root of any number that was\ngiven him. He could never give any explanation of the means by which\nthe result was accomplished. It was beyond his own objective powers of\ncomprehension. He simply perceived the truth.\n\nIt was this power that enabled Blind Tom to perceive the laws of the\nharmony of sounds. He was without objective education, and devoid of\nthe capacity to acquire one; but from the moment when he discovered an\nold piano in an unused room of his master's mansion, he was able to\nimprovise beautiful melodies, and to reproduce with remarkable accuracy\na piece of music after once hearing it played.\n\nThis is a power which transcends reason, and is independent of\ninduction. Instances of its development might be multiplied\nindefinitely, but it is not necessary in this connection to enlarge\nupon a fact which will receive the instant assent of the intelligent\nreader when his attention is called to it. In this objective existence\nof ours, trammelled as is the human soul by its fleshly tabernacle, it\nis comparatively rare that conditions are favorable to the development\nof the phenomena. But enough is known to warrant the conclusion that\nwhen the soul is released from its objective environment it will be\nenabled to perceive all the laws of its being, to \"see God as he is,\"\nby the perception of the laws which he has instituted. It is the\nknowledge of this power which demonstrates our true relationship to\nGod, which confers the warranty of our right to the title of \"sons\nof God,\" and confirms our inheritance of our rightful share of his\nattributes and powers,--our heirship of God, our joint heirship with\nJesus Christ.\n\nIt was this power of perception of truth without the necessity of\nresorting to the slow and laborious processes of induction that enabled\nChrist to divine the whole law of mental therapeutics. Science, after\nnineteen hundred years of induction, has demonstrated the fact that\nhe perceived the whole law and applied it with scientific accuracy.\nThe most marvellous part of it all is that the account of it has been\npreserved and transmitted with such fidelity of scientific detail.\n\nLeaving out of consideration the question of the alleged miraculous\nconception and birth of Christ, it is certain that he was exceptionally\nendowed, morally, physically, and mentally. No man ever before\npossessed the subjective power that he did. And yet, unlike most of\nthose of modern times who are exceptionally endowed with that power,\nhis objective faculties and his subjective powers seem to have been\nharmoniously balanced and developed. This is shown by his perfect\nmoral character and attributes. It is demonstrated by the fact that\nhis subjective mind was always under the perfect control of his\nreason. In these respects he presents a most striking contrast to the\ngreat majority of persons, especially of the present day, who are in\npossession of great subjective powers. Not clearly understanding the\nrelationship between their objective and subjective faculties, they\nallow the latter to usurp control. They realize the wonderful powers\nand attributes of the human soul, but they fail to understand its\nequally wonderful, but necessary, limitations. They realize that the\nsoul is \"God in us,\" and naturally conclude that it is endowed with all\ngod-like attributes. They fail to realize that while it is imprisoned\nin the body, it must be limited and controlled by its objective\nenvironment. They cannot understand that the soul, as long as it is\namenable to control by the power of suggestion, must necessarily be\nlimited in its powers of reasoning. Most important of all, they fail to\nunderstand that the soul is the seat of all human passion and emotion;\nthat, uncontrolled by objective reason, it runs riot at the bidding of\nevery immoral suggestion; that his objective powers of reason were\ngiven to man to enable him to train the soul for eternity,--to work out\nhis own salvation.\n\nThe whole life of Christ is an illustration of the fact that he knew\nthe law, and, knowing it, employed his subjective powers in their\nlegitimate domain, and never suffered himself to be tempted to allow\nthem to usurp the throne of reason.\n\nThe account of his temptations in the wilderness is a striking\nillustration of this fact, and it teaches a lesson to humanity of\nthe utmost practical importance. Like all the recorded events of his\nlife, it is intended to illustrate a great principle. It is not a\nmere literal history of an episode in his career, in which a personal\ndevil figured at a disadvantage. To suppose that he could be tempted\nby such a devil as has been pictured by some, would be to degrade him\nbelow the level of common humanity. But to interpret the story as a\nsymbolical vision appearing to Christ after his forty days' fast in the\nwilderness, is to find in it one of the most important lessons ever\nconveyed to humanity.\n\nHe was just entering upon his ministry. He had shut himself out from\nthe world for forty days, preparatory to entering upon his work. He\nemployed his time in silent contemplation and earnest prayer for\nstrength and power and Divine guidance. He fasted all this time, as a\nphysical preparation necessary to the attainment of the full powers of\nthe soul. At the end of that time, conscious of the full possession of\nsubjective power such as no man ever before attained, contemplating\nthe career upon which he was about to enter, realizing all its\npossibilities for good and all its opportunities for the attainment of\npersonal power and aggrandizement, the temptation came. His subjective\nmind was the tempter. Reasoning deductively from the consciousness of\ntranscendent power, and selfishly, in obedience to the laws of its\nbeing, it pictured to the imagination of Jesus all the possibilities\nin store for him if he chose to exercise his power for selfish ends.\nThe first temptation appealed to his sense of personal necessity. He\nwas poor. \"He had not where to lay his head\" at night. He was dependent\nupon the bounty of his friends for his daily food. In the pursuit of\nhis mission he had the prospect before him of being often thrown among\nstrangers hostile to his faith; and his immediate necessities, after\nhis forty days' fast, gave intensity to the temptation and suggested\nits concrete form. It came in the words: \"If thou be the Son of God,\ncommand that these stones be made bread.\" Jesus understood the vision,\nnot only as pertaining to his present necessities, but, in its broader\nsense, as a temptation to the exercise of his power for selfish\npersonal ends, for the promotion of his individual ease and comfort.\n\nIt was then that his objective power of reason asserted itself, and he\nrefused to allow his subjective mind to usurp control. He knew that\nhis mission on earth could not be promoted by the employment of his\nsubjective powers for the purpose of ministering to his own selfish\nwants. Therefore he spurned a temptation which, if yielded to, would\nweaken the altruistic sentiment which was regnant in him.\n\nHis next temptation followed the first in deductive logical sequence.\nIt came in the form of a symbolical vision, in which he saw himself\nplaced upon a pinnacle of the temple, and a voice said: \"If thou be\nthe Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give\nhis angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear\nthee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.\" This\nsuggestion was a sequence to the other, for it was as much as to say:\n\"If you wish to heal the sick, exhibit your power in public, where all\nmen can see and know that you have the power to preserve your own life.\nThen will you receive the plaudits of the multitude, and their faith in\nyou will be made strong.\"\n\nHis answer to this, \"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God,\" conveys,\nin one brief sentence, a valuable and important lesson pertaining to\nthe exercise of subjective power,--a lesson the importance of which,\nin its application to the science of mental therapeutics, cannot be\noverestimated. In its general sense it means that subjective power\nshould never be exercised for purposes of mere display. The tempter\nappealed to his love of approbation, his pride of power, his desire\nfor the plaudits of the multitude, tempered by the insidious suggestion\nthat, by the public exhibition of his power, he could all the more\nreadily secure the confidence of the people and promote the object of\nhis mission. He had refused to exercise his power for the purpose of\nsecuring his own ease and comfort, for the reason that his mission,\nin part, was to relieve the sufferings of others; and now he was\ntempted to promote that object by a public display in the presence\nof an admiring multitude. There was nothing morally wrong in either\nsuggestion. It is not wrong, _per se_, to produce bread, or to take\nmeasures to secure our own comfort. Nor is it wrong, in itself, to give\na public exhibition for a good purpose; but from the standpoint from\nwhich he viewed it, both were wrong in principle and practice. The\nfirst would interfere with, and endanger the success of, his mission;\nthe second would be trifling with the gift of God. It would be a wanton\nexercise of a power which is given, not for idle display, but for the\npromotion of the highest good of mankind, when exercised within its\nlegitimate sphere.\n\nBut there was another and a more potent reason still for his refusal to\nexercise his power for purposes of display. It is a reason which the\nworld is just beginning to appreciate. It is a reason which finds its\njustification in the fundamental principles pertaining to the exercise\nof psychic power. As in all the words and deeds of Christ, there was\na scientific principle underlying the sententious expression employed\nin his rejection of the second temptation. This principle applies with\nspecial force to the employment of psychic power to the healing of the\nsick.\n\nIt has been shown in a former chapter that the normal functions of the\nsubjective entity consist in the performance of those acts which tend\nto the preservation and perpetuation of the human race. It has also\nbeen shown that all exercise of subjective power outside that domain\nis abnormal, and, consequently, injurious. As this subject has been\nsufficiently enlarged upon elsewhere, it need only be mentioned here.\nIt was this principle which Christ desired to illustrate and enforce,\nand he never neglected an opportunity to do so by precept or example.\nAs before remarked, it applies with special force to the exercise of\nthat power for the purpose of healing, and it teaches a most important\nand salutary lesson both to healer and patient. It is this: that no one\nshould ever presume to violate the laws of health for the mere purpose\nof showing to himself or to others that he has the psychic power to\nheal himself. A necessary or an unavoidable act may be performed which\nis ordinarily injurious to health, or even dangerous to life, and\npsychic power may be invoked to avert the natural consequences; but\nwhen one wantonly violates the laws of health for the mere purposes of\ndisplay, he is apt to find that the power to avert the consequences has\ndeserted him. He has violated the commandment uttered by the Saviour on\nthat occasion: \"Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.\" He has violated\na law of nature, a law of psycho-therapeutics, which Christ thus\nsententiously formulated for the guidance of all who should come after\nhim. Like all the other laws which he revealed to mankind, it applies\nwith equal force now as it did when he first promulgated it nineteen\nhundred years ago; and it may safely be said that there is no one act\nof his life that more clearly discloses his perfect knowledge of the\nlaws which pertain to the normal exercise of subjective power than his\nrejection of the three temptations.\n\nHis next temptation came in the form of a symbolical vision, in which\nhe saw himself, figuratively, upon the top of \"an exceeding high\nmountain,\" from which he could view \"the kingdoms of the world, and the\nglory of them.\"\n\nThe other temptations attacked his usefulness as a man. The third\nwas directed against his spiritual mission also. It came in a more\ninsidious form than either the first or second, for its promises\nincluded both. It was equivalent to saying: \"You see the wide world\nbefore you, with all its comforts, its honors and glory, its wealth and\nsplendor and power. All these can you acquire by the exercise of that\npotent force with which you have been invested.\"\n\n \"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is\n written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt\n thou serve.\"\n\nAgain had reason triumphed over the natural, instinctive suggestions of\nhis human nature. Again had he refused to employ the power with which\nhe had been invested, outside the limits of its legitimate domain.\nAgain had he taught a lesson to humanity by illustrating the normal\nrelations between the objective and subjective faculties,--between\nreason and instinct. In his rejection of the last temptation he did\nmore,--he exhibited his entire devotion to the objects of his spiritual\nmission. He had come into the world, taking upon himself the yoke and\nburden of common humanity. He was circumscribed by the limitations of\nits laws, municipal, ecclesiastical, and natural. He willingly obeyed\nthem all. His lot was cast among a poor and humble people. He must\nmingle familiarly with them if he would impress them with the grand and\nawful simplicity of his philosophy. If he placed himself above the laws\nof the land, he would be proscribed. If he transcended or violated the\nlaws of nature, his example would be lost to common humanity. If he\nsought the worldly wealth and secular power which was within his grasp,\nhe would be feared, but not loved, by the people whose destiny it was\nto be the first recipients of his teachings, the beneficiaries of his\npower, the witnesses of his example, the recorders of his testament.\n\nThis digression from the main point of our present argument seemed\nnecessary in order to show how perfectly the subjective mind of Jesus\nwas under the control of his objective reason. Besides, there is no\none act of his life that more clearly discloses his perfect knowledge\nof the laws which pertain to the normal exercise of subjective power,\nand his firm determination never to exercise that power outside of its\nlegitimate domain, or for purposes of private advantage or emolument,\nthan his rejection of the three temptations. That these principles\nactuated him is shown by his every act and word. That he taught them\nin their purity to his apostles is shown in the indignant reply of\nPeter to Simon the sorcerer, who offered a money consideration to\nPeter to purchase the secret of his power. Knowing that Simon was a\nprofessional magician, and suspecting that he desired only to add to\nhis _r\u00e9pertoire_ of stock exhibitions of occult powers, the apostle\nrebuked him in these memorable words:--\n\n \"Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the\n gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part\n nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of\n God.\"[52]\n\nI now recur to the main question under discussion: How did Jesus\nobtain the scientifically accurate and exclusive knowledge of the laws\npertaining to the exercise of subjective power, of which every act and\nword of his demonstrates his possession?\n\nThe ready and easy answer of unreasoning faith is, \"Miracle.\" But is\nit necessary in this case to invoke the aid of such an explanation?\nClearly not. Without entering upon the discussion of the vexed question\nof the possible existence of the power to work a miracle, it must be\nheld as a self-evident proposition that we should never convert an\nevent into a miracle when there is a satisfactory explanation within\nthe known laws of nature.\n\nIn this case the necessity does not exist to presuppose a miraculous\nintervention of Divine power, since God has given to every human\nsoul the inherent power, under certain conditions, to _perceive_ and\ncomprehend the fixed laws of nature. What those conditions are, we may\nnever know. That they exist, the events within common knowledge amply\ndemonstrate. That they are exceptional, goes without saying. No one\nman has ever been able to perceive all the laws during his objective\nexistence. One perceives the law of numbers, another that of the\nharmony of sounds, another that of the harmony of colors, and so on.\n\nJesus Christ perceived spiritual law.\n\nThat his intuitions were scientifically exact, so far as they pertained\nto the subject of his physical manifestations in healing the sick,\nis amply demonstrated by comparison of what he did and said with the\ndiscoveries of modern science within this, the last quarter of the\nnineteenth century.\n\nI have purposely refrained from commenting on the accounts of his\nphysical manifestations other than those of healing the sick, for the\nreason that science in the Western world as yet furnishes little or\nno data for comparison. I cannot refrain, however, from calling the\nattention of the reader to the fact that a few years ago sceptics were\njust as incredulous regarding the biblical accounts of Christ's healing\nthe sick as they still are regarding his feeding of the multitude\non the five loaves and the two fishes. It must be remembered that\nexperimental knowledge of the occult sciences is still in its infancy\nin the Western world, and that what is regarded as a miracle to-day may\nbe known to be a scientific fact to-morrow. In the mean time enough is\nknown to the scientific world to-day to demonstrate the essential truth\nof the physical history of Jesus of Nazareth. It remains to show what\nlight the scientific discoveries of the nineteenth century shed upon\nhis spiritual philosophy.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 49: Webster.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Dwight.]\n\n[Footnote 51: Mark ix. 22-24.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Acts viii. 20, 21.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nTHE SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST.\n\n Even now, after eighteen centuries of Christianity, we may be\n involved in some enormous error, of which the Christianity of the\n future will make us ashamed.--VINET.\n\n The Necessity of Signs and Wonders.--Christ's Work was for all\n Time.--His Consummate Wisdom.--Signs and Wonders as Evidence.--His\n Perception of Spiritual Laws.--The Perceptive Powers of the\n Soul.--Propositions.--Presumptive Evidence of his Knowledge of\n Spiritual Laws.--Condition precedent to Immortality.--Faith the\n Essential Condition.--The Declarations of Christ.--He meant\n just what He said.--The Doctrines of the Church.--Literal\n Extinction of the Soul through Unbelief.--Belief essential\n to Salvation.--Belief will not avert the Consequences of\n Sin.--Inherent Probabilities.--The Conscious Existence of the\n Soul.--The Law of Suggestion applied.--Scepticism constitutes a\n Fatal Suggestion.--Phenomena of Hypnotism illustrative.--Souls of\n Animals have no Conscious Existence; hence not Immortal.--Christ\n as a Saviour of Souls.--His Doctrine new to the World, but\n scientifically correct.\n\n\nWhen Jesus said to the nobleman of Capernaum, \"Except ye see signs and\nwonders, ye will not believe,\" he not only correctly summarized the\nthen existing attitude of the public mind in reference to the doctrines\nwhich he proclaimed, but he declared with prophetic exactitude that\nwhich is as true to-day as it was when he uttered it in Galilee.\nHe said it, not reproachfully, but as a statement of a condition\ninevitable from the nature of things, which must be recognized and\ndealt with in a practical manner. The wisdom shown in yielding to the\ndemand for \"signs and wonders\" in that day is obvious. Without it\nthe people could not believe; with it they could not doubt. To them\nit was the power of God, working through miracle. It was to them a\nsign and symbol of puissance and authority. To doubt the word of one\nwho was able to work such wonders was to doubt the evidence of their\nsenses. Without that evidence the spiritual doctrines of Jesus would\nhave been to them without sanction of authority. Logic and reason\nwould have been wasted on the people of that age. Their belief that\nthe signs and wonders were wrought in defiance of natural law was the\nonly circumstance that could command their respect. Their idea was\nthat the only way in which God could manifest his power was by some\nsignal violation of his own laws. To attempt to show them that Christ\nhealed the sick by a strict observance of natural law would have been\nas futile as to attempt to teach a new-born babe the principles of the\ndifferential calculus. To convince them of the fact would be to destroy\ntheir faith in the power of God. Jesus taught them all that they could\nunderstand,--all that it would benefit the world to know in that era of\ncivilization. He was working, not only for the people of his own time,\nbut for all future generations. He laid his foundations broad and deep,\nand with the most consummate wisdom. He not only conferred the benefits\nof his power upon the people of his own race and country, but he left\nindubitable evidences of the truth of his history and of his doctrines\nfor all future generations.\n\nConceding, for the sake of the argument, that Jesus possessed the power\nto work a miracle,--that is, to work outside of the domain of natural\nlaw and in defiance of it,--his consummate wisdom in refraining from\nthe exercise of that power is now manifest. If he had wrought his\nwonders by miracle, only the eye-witnesses of his works would have\nbeen benefited; for there would have been no means provided by which\nfuture generations could verify his history. But if he performed his\nworks by and through the operations of natural law, it only remains for\nscience to rediscover that law, in order to demonstrate the truth of\nhis history. His consummate wisdom is, therefore, manifest in that he\ndid leave a record, told with such accuracy of detail, that the science\nof this generation can verify its truth.\n\nThe immediate necessity for showing signs and wonders to his people\nwas what he declared it to be,--namely, \"that they might believe\" in\nhim; that they might be convinced of his power, and have faith in his\ndeclaration.\n\nBut he had a grander and a nobler object still than the conversion\nof the few people of his own race and country. He foresaw the time\nwhen mankind would not be content to rest its faith upon the dictum\nof a history written by obscure and unknown men; when the world would\nrefuse to believe in the possibility of miracles, and demand a reason\nfor faith in him, in his works, and in his spiritual doctrines. We\nhave already seen how amply the truth of the history of his physical\nmanifestations has been vindicated by the discoveries of modern science.\n\nBut he had a more far-reaching wisdom still. It would avail the world\nlittle, simply to know the truth of his physical history, if by that\nmeans he could not demonstrate the truth of his spiritual doctrines\nand philosophy. And it is just here that his utterance to the nobleman\nof Capernaum applies with equal force to the people of the present\nday, \"Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.\" It is\nnow apparent that those signs and wonders were as necessary for the\nconfirmation of the faith of the scientific investigator of to-day as\nthey were to convince the people of his day that he was invested with\npower and authority. Without them there would have been no means by\nwhich we could prove even his probable existence. With them we are put\ninto possession of data which, by comparison with the known facts of\ncontemporary science, enable us to predicate with moral certainty his\nexistence and the essential truth of his history.\n\nThey do more. They enable us to know with scientific certainty that\nhe was in possession of an accurate knowledge of the laws which\npertain to his physical manifestations; and they logically justify us\nin the conclusion that by the same means he obtained possession of\na knowledge of the laws which pertain to the conditions of immortal\nlife. The subject-matter is the same. His physical manifestations\nwere exhibitions of the powers of the soul. The philosophy of his\npsychic power is the philosophy of the soul in its relations to the\nphysical man. The philosophy of immortality is the philosophy of the\nsoul in its relations to God. A change in its environment does not\nchange the nature or attributes of the soul; and hence we may infer\nwith irresistible logic that Jesus was as correct in his inferences or\nknowledge concerning the life beyond as he was scientifically accurate\nin his knowledge of the laws of the soul in its relation to its\nphysical environment.\n\nIn discussing the above proposition, the question as to how it was\npossible for Jesus to obtain a knowledge of the condition of the\nsoul after the death of the body will first be considered. It has\nalready been shown that under certain conditions the soul perceives\nwith absolute accuracy the fixed laws of nature. It has also been\nshown that the soul does not possess during its sojourn in the flesh\nthe power of inductive reasoning, but that its powers of reasoning\ndeductively from any suggested premise are marvellous. I have ventured\nto use the expression in that connection, that \"the subjective mind\nreasons deductively with extraordinary acumen.\" I have not ventured\nthe assertion that its deductions are infallible, though there is good\nreason to believe that under certain conditions the assertion would be\nsubstantially correct. The instances cited of mathematical prodigies\nwould seem to bear out that assertion. The power of perception in them\nmust be perfect, or there would be nothing to distinguish them from\nother mathematicians. Their answers to mathematical problems, to be\nremarkable, must be correct. That they are correct would seem to give\nus warrant for the inference that under favorable conditions the powers\nof the soul for correct deductive reasoning, or perception of fixed\nlaws, are perfect. If it is true in mathematics, it must be true in all\nother matters governed by fixed laws, especially since all the forces\nof nature are correlated, and all are governed by mathematical laws.\n\nIt has also been shown that the deductions of the subjective mind are\nalways logically accurate, even though the premises may be false. Any\none who has had experience in dealing with persons in a hypnotic trance\nwill bear me out in that statement.\n\nThe question now arises, What are the conditions necessary to give\nus assurance of infallible deductions from given premises? Before\nproceeding to discuss that matter, it is proper to premise that it is\ndifficult, in dealing with the subtle forces of the subjective mind, to\ndraw a distinct line between its powers of perception of fixed laws and\nits powers of deduction from given premises. Its perceptions seem to be\ninstantaneous, and to preclude the idea of the employment of any such\nprocesses of reasoning as are known to the logic of objective education.\n\nThe distinction seems to be this: If the premises are given from an\nextraneous source, in the form of a suggestion, the processes of\ndeductive reasoning are employed. If the premises are the result of\nintuitive perception, the conclusion is also perceived simultaneously.\nIn such a case the whole law pertaining to the subject-matter is\nperceived at once; and it is inconceivable to the finite mind how any\nprocesses of reasoning have been employed. Thus, in the case of Zerah\nColburn, his answers to mathematical problems of the most intricate\ncharacter were given instantaneously, and he was never conscious of\nemploying any process of calculation whatever. Moreover, his answers\nwere always correct.\n\nNow, whether the processes of deductive reasoning employed by the\nsubjective mind lead to infallible results, it is not my purpose to\ndiscuss. It is certain that they are marvellously accurate, whether\nthe premises are true or false; but whether they may be relied upon as\nalways correct when the premises are true, I am not prepared to say\nfrom the data before me; nor is it important, for my present purpose,\nto know.\n\nIt is certain, however, that where the powers of perception are\nemployed, under proper conditions, the conclusions are infallible.\n\nWe have now a starting-point from which we may form a correct estimate\nof the scientific accuracy of the spiritual philosophy of Jesus.\n\nIf we are to concede that his doctrines are true, it is obvious that we\nmust demonstrate the correctness of the following propositions:---\n\n1. That Jesus was endowed with the power to obtain a perfect knowledge\nof spiritual law by perception or intuition.\n\n2. To demonstrate this we must show, (_a_) that his knowledge of\nspiritual law was scientifically accurate; and (_b_) that it could not\nhave been obtained by the ordinary processes of objective education.\n\n3. To show that his knowledge was accurate, it must be demonstrated\nthat the conclusions arrived at by the inductive processes of modern\nscience are identical with the doctrines that he proclaimed.\n\nIt has already been shown that, as far as his physical manifestations\nare concerned, each of the statements embraced in the foregoing\npropositions is true. It has been shown that he must have had an\nintuitive perception of the law of healing by subjective power, for\nthe reasons, first, that in the state of occult knowledge existing in\nhis day, it was impossible that he could have obtained his knowledge\nby means of objective education; and, secondly, that his knowledge\nof the law of healing was scientifically accurate, as shown by the\nfact (_a_) that he proclaimed and constantly reiterated the essential\ncondition of the exercise of the power of healing precisely as it\nis known at the present day; (_b_) that he constantly practised by\nthe methods known at the present day to be the best; (_c_) that he\nsurrounded himself and his patients with the best attainable aids to\nthe exercise of his powers,--precisely such aids, the utility of which\nhas been demonstrated by modern practice; and (_d_) that he constantly\nsought to secure the mental environment which is now known to be of the\nfirst importance, if not absolutely essential, to successful mental\nhealing. In short, it has been shown that he must have understood every\nprinciple and every law of mental therapeutics, the rediscovery of\nwhich has distinguished the present century.\n\nReasoning, therefore, from the premises which have thus been\nestablished, we have the logical right to infer that he understood all\nthe laws which pertain to the soul. If he understood the laws which\ngovern it in its relations to its physical environment, it is fair to\npresume that he knew the laws which pertain to its continued existence\nafter it is freed from the trammels of the flesh. Without any further\nproofs, therefore, we have the logical right to consider the one as\npresumptive evidence of the other.\n\nIf I stopped right here, I might reasonably claim to have established\nthe fact that the religion of Christ is founded upon a purely\nscientific basis. But I do not intend to rest content with mere\npresumptive evidence. I propose to show that his knowledge of the\nlaw of immortality did not rest upon inferential deductions from the\nfacts known by him regarding the relations of the soul to its physical\nenvironment. I propose to show that the world is now in possession of\nfacts from which we can reason inductively up to the same conclusions\nwhich he proclaimed, _ex cathedra_, as the law of immortality.\n\nBefore proceeding to do so, we must first inquire just what he\ntaught. In doing so I intend to confine myself to the one essential\nproposition which he made regarding the condition essential to the\nsoul's salvation; for I do not propose to be led into a discussion of\nthe great fabric of doctrinal religion which has been built up since\nhe ascended to the Father. I leave that to the theologian. What I\nintend to show is, that, viewed from a purely scientific standpoint,\nthe declaration which he made regarding the condition precedent to the\nsalvation of the soul is necessarily true.\n\nThe first question, therefore, is, What did Jesus declare to be the\none essential condition necessary to the attainment of immortal life?\nWhen I say, \"necessary to the _attainment_ of immortal life,\" I mean\nliterally what I say; for I hold that if there is one principle\nlaid down by the Master that is more clearly defined than any\nother, it is contained in his declaration, so often repeated, that\nfaith--_belief_--is the one essential condition precedent to the\ncontinued life of the soul after the death of the body; and that, in\nthe absence of belief in immortality, the soul itself will necessarily\nperish. That this was his doctrine, literally interpreted, no one will\ndeny. That he meant exactly what he said, I shall attempt to show. That\nhis declarations to that effect were statements of a scientific truth,\nI shall attempt to demonstrate by the process of inductive reasoning\nfrom facts known to modern science.\n\nBefore proceeding with the main argument, I hasten to say that the\ndoctrine of future rewards and punishments will be left untouched.\nThat question will stand just where it has always stood,--for each\none to decide for himself according to his own interpretation of the\nScriptures on that point, or his own sense of Divine Justice. I shall\nnot even attempt to destroy the comfort and consolation which many\ngood persons seem to derive from their belief in eternal fire. My\nonly object is to show, from a purely scientific standpoint, that the\nhistory and essential doctrines of Jesus are confirmed by the facts and\nnecessary inductions of modern science, and, incidentally, to harmonize\ncertain passages of the New Testament which, through misinterpretation,\nhave seemed to be at variance.\n\nAccording to the Gospel of Saint John, the first declaration by Jesus\nof his doctrine of immortality was made to Nicodemus in the following\nwords:--\n\n \"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must\n the Son of Man be lifted up:\n\n \"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have\n eternal life.\n\n \"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,\n that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have\n everlasting life.\"[53]\n\nAgain, in John vi. 40, 47, he makes the same declaration in the\nfollowing clear-cut sentences:--\n\n \"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which\n seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life....\n\n \"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath\n everlasting life.\"\n\nAgain:--\n\n \"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and\n believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not\n come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.\"[54]\n\n \"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me,\n though he were dead, yet shall he live:\n\n \"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.\"[55]\n\nOther passages might be quoted to the same effect, but these must\nsuffice.\n\nThe question now is, Did Jesus mean just what he said; or were these\nidle words, having no significance taken in their literal sense? Jesus\nwas not in the habit of uttering idle words, or of making statements\nthat did not contain the elements of eternal truth. If these are\nexceptions, they are the only ones recorded in his history. I hold that\nthey are not exceptions, but that they are authoritative statements of\na literal scientific truth.\n\nI have already shown that in formulating the doctrine of faith as\nthe essential condition prerequisite to successful healing, he gave\nutterance to a scientific principle which it has taken nineteen hundred\nyears for the world to understand and appreciate. It is equally true\nthat, in formulating the proposition that _belief_ is the essential\nprerequisite to the attainment of immortality, he gave words to a\nscientific principle of far greater importance than the other.\n\nI am aware that one portion of the Christian Church believes that by\nthe words \"eternal life\" Jesus meant that reward in heaven which is\npromised to the just, and that by \"eternal death\" he simply meant\nthe punishment which the wicked must undergo for their sins. On the\nother hand, there are those of the Church who hold that the literal\ndeath of the soul is the punishment meted out to all who die in their\nsins, while \"eternal life\" is the reward promised to all who are good.\nNeither of these sects has, however, satisfactorily explained to\nunbelievers why it is that belief or unbelief enters as a factor in the\ncase, since man is not supposed to be able to command his belief.\n\nIt is to the reconciliation of these conflicting theories that I shall\nnow address myself.\n\nThe first proposition of my theory is that the death, or practical\nextinction, of the soul as a conscious entity is the necessary result\nof unbelief in immortality.\n\nThe second proposition is that the soul, having attained immortality\nthrough belief, is then subject to the law of rewards and punishments\n\"according to the deeds done in the body.\"\n\nThe same propositions are more sententiously expressed in Romans ii.\n12: \"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without\nlaw: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.\"\n\nIn other words, the condition precedent to the attainment of\nimmortality, or salvation,--that is, the saving of the soul from\ndeath,--is _belief_. The condition precedent to the attainment of\neternal bliss and the avoidance of the punishments incident to sin, is\nrighteousness.\n\nIt will thus be seen that if it can be shown that these two\npropositions are necessarily true, we shall avoid, on the one hand,\nthe incongruous idea that _belief_ will atone for all sin; and, on the\nother, the equally incongruous idea that the extinction of the soul is\nthe necessary consequence of all sin.\n\nIn discussing the first proposition we shall first inquire what are\nthe inherent probabilities regarding the meaning which Christ attached\nto the words which are quoted above. Is it probable, or even possible,\nthat he could have taught that _belief_ alone was a sufficient\natonement for the sins of the wicked? Knowing, as all must know who\nhave followed his career and noted his sayings, his utter abhorrence of\nall wickedness; reading, as all may read, his sublime code of ethics\nand morals, together with the awful maledictions pronounced upon all\nviolations of that code, and the punishments which he held before the\nworld as a consequence of sin,--it is simply impossible rationally to\nconceive the idea that he taught that all consequences of a life of\nsin could be avoided by _belief_. It is a self-evident proposition\nthat a man may believe in Christ, may believe in immortality, and at\nthe same time be steeped in all manner of wickedness and crime. No\nmore devout believers can be found in all Christendom than those of\nan unfortunate race in America who are proverbial alike for their\ndevoted piety and for their propensity to steal on their way home from\nprayer-meeting; unless we except the bandits of Italy, who are as noted\nfor their strict observance of the forms of the Church as they are for\nthe fact that they live by the perpetration of murder and robbery.\nUnfortunately, our illustrations cannot be drawn exclusively from any\none race or nation. In every Christian society there are all too many\ndevout believers who live in constant violation of every law, human and\nDivine. It is an insult to the intelligence of Christ and of humanity\nto hold the monstrous doctrine that the belief of these men can shield\nthem from the punishment due to infamy, or that they can be adequately\npunished, \"according to their deeds,\" by annihilation.\n\nOn the other hand, it is impossible to believe that Christ summarized\nall the virtues, human and Divine, in the one word _belief_, or that by\nthe employment of that word he simply meant that all who live pure and\nvirtuous lives before God and man will be entitled to the rewards of\nheaven. If this was all that he meant, he taught nothing new, either to\nthe Jewish nation or to any other civilized nation then in existence;\nfor the Hebrews had been taught the doctrine of future rewards and\npunishments, of heaven and of hell, long before the appearance of\nthe Messiah. It is true that Moses did not teach the Israelites any\ndoctrine of the future world, and very vague mention is made of it\nin the later books of the Old Testament. It is a historical fact,\nnevertheless, that before the advent of Jesus the Jews had become\nimbued with the Greek doctrine of Hades, which was an intermediate\nwaiting station between this life and the judgment. In this were\nsituated both Paradise and Gehenna, the one on the right and the other\non the left, and into these two compartments the spirits of the dead\nwere separated, according to their deserts. Jesus found this doctrine\nalready in existence, and in enforcing his moral precepts and in his\nparables he employed the symbols which the people understood, neither\ndenying nor affirming their literal verity. I remark, therefore, that\nin simply teaching the doctrine of future rewards and punishments he\ntaught nothing new; and, in that sense, he is no more entitled to be\nconsidered the Saviour of mankind than would be any other successful\nteacher of the same doctrine.\n\nWe are, therefore, forced back to a literal interpretation of the\nstatements under consideration. In this sense they can have but one\nmeaning, and that is, that _in the absence of belief in immortality,\nthe soul cannot have a conscious existence_. Reasoning from known\nfacts, there is no other rational conclusion. In explanation of\nthe meaning of \"conscious existence\" in the sense in which I have\nemployed that phrase, it is only necessary to direct the attention\nof the intelligent reader to the accepted definition and doctrine\nof consciousness. \"In taking a comprehensive survey of the mental\nphenomena,\" says Sir William Hamilton, \"these all seem to comprise\none essential element, or to be possible only under one necessary\ncondition. This element or condition is consciousness, or the knowledge\nthat I--that the ego exists, in some determinate state.\"[56] Again, he\ncompares consciousness to \"an internal light, by means of which, and\nwhich alone, what passes in the mind is rendered visible.\"[57]\n\nThe existence of a man without the knowledge of sensations or of mental\noperations would be one without consciousness, and would constitute a\npurely vegetative existence as long as it continued. One can readily\nunderstand this condition in the objective mind from the observation\nof physical phenomena. It is equally comprehensible how the subjective\nmind, or soul, may be deprived of a conscious existence when we\nremember the fundamental law of its being, the law of suggestion. We\nhave already seen how the law of suggestion operates upon the soul\nin cases of cataleptic trance, where the suggestion is made that the\npatient is dead. In that case the suggestion was believed implicitly,\nand the preparations for the funeral did not disturb the equanimity\nof the patient in the least. Nor did the incongruity of the situation\nsuggest itself to the patient; namely, the idea of being dead and of\nthinking of being dead at the same time.\n\nThe suggestion to the patient's subjective mind that he was dead,\nrendered that mind unconscious of its own mental operations, and he\nwas, to all intents and purposes, dead.\n\nThis is, obviously, but a feeble illustration of the principle\ninvolved. It is, however, sufficient to show how the soul may be\ndeprived of a conscious existence. A lifelong scepticism regarding\nthe existence of the soul, and a consequent disbelief in immortality,\nconstitute a suggestion that must operate to deprive the soul of a\nconscious existence, if the law of suggestion is universal in its\noperations.\n\nThe phenomena of experimental hypnotism also demonstrate the truth of\nthe proposition. Every hypnotist knows that a suggestion to a deeply\nhypnotized subject that he is dead will produce a condition of such\nprofound lethargy or catalepsy as closely to simulate death, and were\nthe impression not removed, it would doubtless end in death. When\nthe subject remembers what has passed, he testifies that he believed\nhimself dead, and saw no incongruity in the situation. A settled belief\nthat the death of the body ends all, and the absence of any belief or\nknowledge of the subject, must each operate to the same end.\n\nIt is this principle which constitutes the difference between men and\nanimals, and which gives the one the power and potency of immortality,\nand leaves the other to perish. Animals, in common with men, are\npossessed of a duality of mind; the subjective in the former being\nproportionately stronger than in the latter, as is shown in their\nstronger instincts. Objective reason being weak, and the power of\nspeech being absent, there is no possibility of the idea or suggestion\nof immortality being imparted to the animal. Hence its soul can have no\nconscious existence after the death of the body. It has the instinct of\nself-preservation in common with man, but it is the preservation of the\nlife of the body. If the animal has any definite idea regarding life\nand death, it all pertains to the body. An animal certainly can have no\nidea of the possession of a soul, much less of its immortality.\n\nWhen, therefore, Jesus proclaimed the law that belief was a condition\nprecedent to immortal life, he formulated a scientific proposition then\nnew to the world, and at the same time proclaimed himself master of the\nscience of the soul. He had declared the law of faith as it applied\nto the power of the soul to heal the sick, and he knew that the same\nlaw governed the soul in its relations to eternal life. He did not\nformulate his propositions in the terms demanded by the science of the\nnineteenth century, nor did he give such reasons for his conclusions\nas inductive processes require. The time for that had not yet come.\nReasons would not have been appreciated in his day and generation. Nor\nwas it necessary for the accomplishment of his mission--which was to\nproclaim the law of immortality--to show that the man whose soul has\nnot been aroused to consciousness dies as the brute dieth. This was\nhis mission; and in so far as he has accomplished that mission is he\nentitled to be called the Saviour of the souls of mankind. He preached\nno new doctrine other than this. His code of ethics was sublime and\ngod-like in its purity and simplicity, but it was not new. He taught\nthe doctrine of future rewards and punishments; but the symbols which\nhe employed to describe the condition of the soul after death--the\nrewards bestowed and the punishments inflicted--were those which were\ncurrent among the people with whom his earthly lot was cast; nor does\nthis fact argue for or against his omniscience. It would, obviously,\nhave been impossible for him to convey to the world any adequate idea\nof the modes of spiritual existence in terms which could be understood.\nHe used the current coin of expression to convey to mankind the broad\nidea that the soul that is \"saved\" to immortal life through \"belief\"\nwill then be punished or rewarded according to the deeds done in the\nbody. It would, obviously, have been useless and confusing to his\nhearers had he attempted to employ any new symbols, or any language to\nwhich they were not accustomed, to convey that idea.\n\nHis mission, therefore, as the Saviour of the souls of men was\naccomplished when he revealed to the world the essential condition\nof immortal life. His mission as a moral teacher was secondary in\nimportance. The one doctrine was new, the other old. The one was a\nscientific fact, the other a code of ethics. The one was essential to\nthe attainment of man's ultimate destiny as an immortal entity, the\nother a standard of right and justice in this world, and a condition of\nfelicity in the world to come.\n\nIt is said that when Hillel, who flourished in the century preceding\nChrist, was asked whether he could give the whole Jewish law in one\nsentence, he answered: \"Yes, perfectly well. What you do not want\nanybody to do to you, do not you to them. That is the whole law;\neverything else is only commentary.\"\n\nThe same may be truly said of the New Testament doctrines and the law\nof faith. The only thing wholly new was the doctrine of faith. That is\nthe whole law; everything else is commentary.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 53: John iii. 14-16.]\n\n[Footnote 54: John v. 24.]\n\n[Footnote 55: John xi. 25, 26.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Metaphysics, p. 126.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Ibid.]\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nTHE MISSION OF CHRIST; FUTURE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS.\n\n The Success of Christ's Mission.--Chaotic State of Spiritual\n Philosophy in His Time.--The Various Doctrines in Vogue.--Jesus\n the first to simplify the Doctrine of Immortality.--He gave it a\n Definite Status in Philosophy.--The Doctrine of Future Rewards\n and Punishments.--God will \"render to every Man according to\n His Deeds.\"--Spiritual Penalties for Violations of Spiritual\n Law.--The Sin against the Holy Ghost.--The Sin of Unbelief.--The\n Status of a Lost Soul.--Possible Reincarnation.--The Means of\n Punishment for Sin.--Affections.--Conscience.--Memory.--General\n Conclusions.--Scientific Basis of Christianity.\n\n\nIt is often charged by the sceptical world that the mission of Jesus\nhas thus far proved a failure, for that only about one third of the\ninhabitants of the earth have ever heard the name of Christ; that of\nChristian nations but a limited proportion of the inhabitants belong to\nthe Christian Church; and that of the church membership there is but a\nlimited number who so live as to entitle them to the rewards of heaven.\nMeasured by the common idea of what constitutes salvation, there may be\ngood ground for that criticism. But measured by the number of those who\nbelieve in the immortality of the soul; by the number who have a hope\nof a life beyond the grave; by the number who have a consciousness of\nthe existence within them of the transcendental ego; or by the number\nof those who have risen, directly or indirectly, through the teachings\nof Christ so far above the level of the brute creation as to have a\nconsciousness of the possibility of immortal life, and a consequent\nhope and subjective belief in immortality,--his mission has proved the\ngrandest success recorded in the history of missionary effort.\n\nIt must be remembered that when he came into the world the doctrine of\nimmortal life held a very vague and uncertain place in the philosophy\nof civilized mankind. I do not say that the doctrine of immortal\nlife was unknown, but it was undefined, and so tinctured with finite\nconceptions, and limited by the uncertain boundaries of a hundred\ndifferent systems of fantastic philosophy, that it did not, and could\nnot, form a basis of rational hope or intelligent promise.\n\nThus, among the Chinese of that day (1), the doctrines of Confucius\nheld the most prominent place. His was a system which might be called a\nparent-worship, in which virtue was rewarded and vice punished in the\nindividuals, or in their posterity, on earth, no promise of immortality\nbeing held out. (2) The sect of Rationalists, founded by Lautsz in the\nsixth century before Christ, taught the emanation of all good beings\nfrom the Bosom of Reason, and their absorption thither for an eternal\nexistence, while the bad were doomed to successive births and many\nsorrows. (3) Another sect held that the principle of all things is but\na vacuum,--nothing,--from which all things have sprung, and to which\nall must return.\n\nThe Hindoo doctrine was substantially the same as it is now; and it is\nso well known as not to require a particular statement, further than to\nsay that its disciples believe in successive incarnations of the soul,\nand its final absorption into the incorporeal nature of Brahm.\n\nThe Persians believed in the doctrine of hell for the wicked, and of\nparadise for the good; but held that all the wicked would eventually\nbe purified by fire. It was thought that the fires were hot enough to\npurify the most abominable soul in about three days.\n\nHerodotus tells us that the Egyptians were the first to defend the\ndoctrine of the immortality of the soul, and he says that they believed\nin its transmigration through various animal bodies for a period of\nthree thousand years before its return to a human body.\n\nOf the Grecian schools, the Pythagoreans held that the soul is\neternal,--that is, uncreated and indestructible; that no real entity\nis either made or destroyed. The Eleatics held practically the same\ndoctrine. The Ionics taught that the soul was reabsorbed into the\nDivine reason. The Stoics believed in the periodical destruction of all\nthings by fire, when the good will be absorbed and the wicked perish.\nThe Epicurean faith was well described by Paul in the phrase, \"Let us\neat and drink, for to-morrow we die.\" The Pyrrhonists were the sceptics\nof the age, and doubted everything. Socrates taught the doctrine of\nimmortality for the good, the virtuous, and the wise. The incurably\nbad are \"hurled into Tartarus, whence they never come forth;\" whilst\nthose who can be cured are subjected to needful punishments before\nbeing admitted into the mansions of the blest. Plato was a Pythagorean,\nwith certain bizarre notions of his own, such as the migration of souls\nthrough various brute and human forms; and he believed that even the\nduration of divine work is limited.\n\nIt will thus be seen that when Jesus appeared on earth he found the\nphilosophy of the soul in a very chaotic state. It was his mission\nto bring order out of chaos, and to proclaim the true philosophy; to\ndeclare the conditions of immortality, and point the way to eternal\nhappiness. That he simplified the doctrine of immortality into a system\nso plain that \"the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein,\"\nno one will deny. Its grand simplicity, when placed in contrast with\nthe complicated doctrines of all other systems of religious philosophy,\nancient or modern, places upon it the stamp of inherent probability;\nfor scientific truth is always simple and free from complication. It\nwas Jesus who gave the doctrine of immortality a distinct and definite\nform and a permanent place in the philosophy of the civilized world. It\nwas he who first proclaimed the fundamental law underlying the science\nof the soul. It was from his words, spoken to a few humble followers\nin an obscure corner of the earth, that the doctrine has spread\nthroughout all the civilized world. From the centres of civilization\nthe Church has sent its missionaries, its representatives of the\nMaster, among all peoples, civilized and savage, preaching the gospel\nof immortality to all mankind. Its influence is not confined to those\nwho believe in the tenets of the Christian Church, nor even to those\nwho have heard the name of Christ. It has spread, through some subtle,\nunseen power and potency, until it permeates every fibre of human\nsociety, and constitutes the promise of every religion, the hope of all\nhumanity.\n\nI have, in other chapters, pointed out some of the proofs which science\naffords of the doctrine of immortality, and of the verity of the\nhistory of Jesus of Nazareth. I have shown that every known fact which\nbears upon the subject points to the continued life of the soul after\nthe death of the body. I have shown that the discoveries of modern\nscience demonstrate the fact that Jesus was in possession of a complete\nknowledge of the science of the soul in its relations to its physical\nenvironment. I have shown that all known facts bearing upon the subject\ngo to prove that he also had a knowledge of its laws in its relations\nto a purely spiritual existence.\n\nWe have then, _first_, an array of demonstrable facts which\nirresistibly lead to the conclusion that the soul survives the body;\n_secondly_, another array of facts which prove that it was possible\nfor an exceptionally endowed person to perceive the laws of the\nsoul; _thirdly_, an array of facts which demonstrate that Jesus did\nunderstand those laws as far as they pertain to the soul's relations\nto the physical man; _fourthly_, we have facts which show that he\nunderstood the laws of the soul in its relations to the spiritual\nworld, and the essential conditions of its conscious existence after\nthe death of the body; and _fifthly_, we have in the New Testament a\nrecord of the acts which demonstrated his knowledge of the subject,\nas well as of his solemn and repeated declarations of the laws which\npertain to that subject.\n\nWhen we consider together all these cumulative proofs, it may safely\nbe said that there are few principles of nature that are more clearly\nestablished by inductive processes of reasoning than is the principle\nof immortality.\n\nHaving established this proposition, it remains only to consider\nChrist's doctrine of future rewards and punishments. Obviously, this\nis a more difficult question to handle, for the reason that there\nare necessarily few facts known to mankind which can be considered\nscientifically demonstrative of any proposition which has been made\nby any one on that subject. Nevertheless, if there is one known fact\nwhich confirms his declarations on that question, and at the same time\nsatisfies the demands of human reason and the common sense of Divine\nJustice, we may safely conclude that the Christian religion rests upon\na purely scientific basis.\n\nThe first important fact which confronts us in considering this branch\nof the subject is, that Jesus said very little on the subject. It was\nobviously impossible for him to convey to the human mind any adequate\nknowledge or idea of the actual conditions of a spiritual existence.\nHe was hedged about by the limitations of human speech and the finite\nunderstanding of his followers. His descriptions, therefore, of the\nplaces of future rewards and punishments were necessarily limited to\nmaterial conceptions. He could effectively employ no other symbolism\nthan that with which his hearers were familiar and which they could\nappreciate. He had taught them in plain and unmistakable terms the\nconditions upon which the soul could attain a conscious existence;\nand having done that, his mission was thenceforth a moral one. Having\ntaught them how to attain eternal life, he taught them so to conduct\ntheir lives in this world as to entitle them to the joys of that life.\nIt was no part of his mission to reconstruct the accepted geography of\nthe world of spirits, for it could only add confusion to their crude\nconceptions. His parables were drawn from the objects and incidents of\ntheir every-day life, and were necessarily limited in their application\nto a spiritual existence. His only object was to enforce a code of\nmorals founded upon the eternal principles of right and justice,\nsimple in terms, and adapted to their comprehension, but grand in its\nsimplicity, and adapted to the varying conditions of human society for\nall time.\n\nThe question now is, What is to be considered the doctrine of future\nrewards and punishments to be gathered from the New Testament? It is\nclear that we must reject all material conceptions of both heaven and\nhell. It follows that the punishment must be a moral one, since there\nis no material entity to be dealt with. The sense of justice inherent\nin all mankind would seem to indicate that the punishment shall be\ncommensurate with the offence. It must be assumed, therefore, that the\ntrue doctrine is expressed in Romans ii. 6, where it is said that God\nwill \"_render to every man according to his deeds_.\"\n\nThis satisfies the finite sense of justice, and perfectly accords\nwith the highest human conceptions of the character of a God of love,\nmercy, and justice. The good man would ask nothing more, the bad could\nexpect nothing less. Reasoning from analogy would lead to the same\nconclusion. We know from daily experience that every violation of the\nlaws of our physical nature is followed inevitably by its adequate\npunishment. We have a right to suppose, therefore, that every violation\nof moral and spiritual law will be followed by its appropriate penalty.\nWe know, indeed, from what we have seen of the teachings of Christ,\nthat spiritual penalties follow a violation of spiritual law. In other\nwords, the law of suggestion follows the soul across the boundaries\nof eternity. Spiritual death is the inevitable result of spiritual\nunbelief. It is not a vindictive punishment, it is the fundamental law\nof spiritual life. Just as the spirit quickens the flesh, so does faith\nquicken the spirit.\n\nAgain, we find a spiritual penalty following a violation of spiritual\nlaw in what Christ taught regarding the sin against the Holy Ghost.\nJust what that sin consists of, never has been satisfactorily defined.\nWe are told that it is a sin which cannot be forgiven. It must,\ntherefore, consist of a violation of some fundamental law of the\nsoul's existence, the penalty for which is inevitable according to the\nfixed laws of God. It cannot be a moral offence, consisting simply\nin wrong-doing, for such sins can be atoned for. A moral offence so\ngross that a God of infinite mercy and love cannot forgive it, and, if\nthe Scriptures are to be believed, does not stand ready to forgive it\nwhen proper atonement is made, cannot be conceived. Nor has it been\nmentioned in Holy Writ. We are therefore forced to the conclusion that,\nas before remarked, the sin against the Holy Ghost must consist of a\nviolation of the fundamental law of the soul's existence. It must,\ntherefore, be the sin of unbelief, and consist of a blasphemous denial\nof the existence of the soul and its Father, God. This would be in\nstrict accordance with the fundamental law of suggestion, as it has\nbeen scientifically demonstrated to exist. The emphatic and persistent\ndenial of the soul's existence must eventually prove to be a suggestion\nso strong as to overcome its instinctive belief in its own existence,\nand thus neutralize its instinctive desire for immortal life. It would,\ntherefore, have the same effect as unbelief arising from a want of\nknowledge, or a lack of the intellectual power to conceive the idea of\nimmortality. The soul, in either case, could not have a consciousness\nof its own existence or individuality.\n\nIt may be asked, What becomes of the soul when deprived of a conscious\nexistence? Does it actually die, disintegrate, and return to its\noriginal elements? Is it possible that a human soul, created by God\nand endowed with the power and potency of immortal life, can fail of\naccomplishing its mission, and become extinct? Can a segregated portion\nof the Divine essence, once individualized, ever perish or lose its\nidentity? All these questions, and more, will be asked. I do not know.\nPerhaps it is reincarnated. I do not know anything about reincarnation.\nI know as much about it, however, as any one else knows. I mean by\nthis that no one can be said to know anything about the truth of any\nproposition that has not underlying it a substratum of demonstrable\nfact. The theory of reincarnation has no such basis; and I shall not,\ntherefore, indulge in speculation on the subject further than to say\nthat it is possibly true that reincarnation is the process of the\nsoul's evolution. If so, reasoning from analogy, I should say that\nthe process ceases when the soul reaches the status of a conscious\nexistence. In the physical world we see that the process of evolution\nhas gone forward progressively from the lowest form of animal life up\nto man. There the process ceases. All further progress is in the line\nof improvement in the human race. No higher type of animal life is\ndeveloped, and in our pride of manhood we believe that there never can\nbe any higher animal existence. It may, therefore, be true that the\nprogress of a soul is through reincarnation from the lower animal life\nto the higher, until it reaches the human; and that it may still go on\nin the lower grades of human organisms until it reaches the dignity of\na conscious human soul. Having reached that point, the law of progress\nwill expend its force in carrying it forward to its ultimate destiny.\nConsidered as the process of the soul's evolution, the necessity for\nfurther reincarnation apparently no longer exists after the soul has\nattained the power and potency of a conscious, self-existent entity.\n\nI throw out this suggestion for the benefit of those spiritistic\nmediums and other trance-seers who have found out so much more than\nJesus knew about the internal economy of the spiritual world and the\nlaws which pertain to spiritual existence. But this is a digression\ninto the forbidden field of speculation without facts.\n\nThe common experience of mankind demonstrates the proposition that\nappropriate physical penalties are the necessary result of a violation\nof physical laws; and it has been shown from the teachings of Jesus,\nconfirmed by the inductions of science, that the violation of the\nlaws of spiritual existence is followed by inevitable spiritual\npenalties. It now remains to be considered what facts are known to\nscience which will confirm the doctrine that moral punishment will\nfollow the infraction of moral laws, in exact accordance \"with the\ndeeds done in the body.\" In order to do so intelligently, we must\nfirst briefly consider the question as to what the nature of the\npunishments and rewards must be. It being manifestly impossible for us\nto know, affirmatively, the particular modes of spiritual existence,\nwe can arrive at a conclusion only by the method of exclusion. We\nmust, therefore, begin by excluding all idea of material penalties or\nrewards. All such conceptions of spiritual life must be relegated to\nthe dark ages of human intelligence, when man was able to conceive\nof no joy apart from physical pleasure, and no punishment other than\nphysical suffering. Our conceptions must, therefore, be limited by\nwhat we know of the nature and attributes of the soul, as exhibited\nthrough phenomena. The first question, then, is, What do we know of the\nattributes of the soul?\n\nWe know, first, that it is the seat of the emotions. It is therefore\ncapable of being rewarded or punished through the natural affections.\n\nSecondly, we know that it possesses the inherent power of perception\nof the laws of nature and of God, including the eternal, God-ordained\nprinciples of right and wrong. It will, therefore, after its release\nfrom the body, be able to estimate the value of every good deed, and\nrealize the inherent infamy of every wrong one, as weighed in the\nscales of Eternal Justice.\n\nThirdly and lastly, we know of one attribute and power of the human\nsoul more pregnant with weal or woe, with joy or sorrow, than all the\nothers combined; and that is its perfect memory.\n\nThese are the essential things that we know of the soul from the\nobservation of phenomena. Our conceptions of it, therefore, are limited\nto its intellectual, moral, and emotional attributes. We know it only\nas an intellectual entity, and our conceptions of the rewards and\npunishments adequate to the ends of Divine Justice must be limited\naccordingly.\n\nLittle need be said in explanation of the trend of this brief summary.\nThe conclusions are obvious. We have before us an intellectual entity\ncapable of experiencing all the natural emotions of humanity, of joy\nand sorrow, of love and friendship; endowed with a perfect perception\nof the principles of right and wrong, and consequently in possession of\nan awakened conscience more keenly alive and active than the objective\nmind can conceive, and possessing a memory so perfect that every good\nand every bad deed of its whole earthly existence is constantly before\nit like a vast panorama. What greater reward could such a being ask or\nexperience than would be found in the contemplation of a well-spent\nlife? What greater punishment than the remorse of conscience arising\nfrom the ever-persistent memory of a life of wickedness and crime?\n\nIt is obvious that both rewards and punishments are adequate and exact,\nand that God will \"render to every man according to his deeds,\" by and\nthrough the operation of his immutable, unchanging laws.\n\nI have now summarized enough of the leading points in the history of\nJesus of Nazareth and of his doctrines, and compared them with known\nphenomena with sufficient particularity to show that the inductions of\nmodern science demonstrate the essential truth of the history of his\nphysical manifestations, and to prove, as far as inductive reasoning\nfrom known phenomena can prove anything not physically demonstrable,\nthe truth of every essential doctrine of his spiritual philosophy.\nI have by no means exhausted the subject, for the New Testament is\nfull of passages confirmatory of the view I have taken. It is true\nthat I have interpreted the passages relating to the conditions\nprecedent to the attainment of immortal life in a way in which they\nhave never before been interpreted; but in doing so I have harmonized\nthat which has heretofore seemed incongruous, and have thus removed a\nstumbling-block from the pathway of scepticism. I have no fear that\neven prejudice will find fault with my interpretation; for it not only\nleaves the essential doctrines relating to rewards and punishments\nuncontradicted, but it affords strong confirmation of their essential\ntruth. Moreover, my interpretation is confirmed by the facts of modern\nscience, and must, therefore, shed a new lustre upon the name and\nattributes of Jesus, demonstrating, as it does, the accuracy of his\nknowledge of the laws of the soul.\n\nIt has been but a few years since the researches of science began to\nfurnish facts confirmatory of the history and doctrines of Christ;\nbut it has come to pass that every new fact discovered, and every new\nprinciple evolved, weakens the foundation of every other religious\nsuperstructure, and adds strength and harmony of proportions to that\nerected by the man of Nazareth.\n\nIt may, therefore, be now confidently asserted that Christianity\npossesses that to which no other system of religion can lay a valid\nclaim; namely, a sound scientific basis.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nDEDUCTIONS FROM VARIOUS ATTRIBUTES OF THE SOUL.\n\n The Question of Identity.--Consciousness and\n Memory.--Identity considered in Reference to Rewards\n and Punishments.--Conscience.--Conflicting Theories of\n Psychologists.--Education and Intuition.--Different Standards\n of Morality.--The Soul's Perception of the Eternal Principles\n of Right and Wrong.--The Instinct of Worship.--Its Abnormal\n Manifestations.--The Law of Suggestion.--Universality of the\n Sentiment of Worship.--Its Normal Manifestations.--Demonstrative of\n the Existence of a God of Love.--Old Arguments invalid.--Socrates\n and Paley.--Argument predicated on the Affectional\n Emotions.--Syllogistic Deductions.--The Divine Pedigree of Man.\n\n\nIt has often been said that no proposition is worthy of belief that\nis not verified by phenomena. Whilst I do not commit myself to a\nmaxim so broad in its terms, I have thus far religiously refrained\nfrom advancing an idea that is not so verified. In other words, the\nprimary object of this book is to interpret phenomena, and not to\nadvance new ideas, except those which are thrust upon me as necessary\ndeductions from the terms of my hypothesis. Sincerely believing that\nthe fundamental propositions of that hypothesis are true, I have not\nhesitated to follow them into whatever field they might lead, and to\naccept every legitimate conclusion. In pursuance of such deductions I\nhave been led reluctantly to the conclusion that none of the phenomena\ncommonly attributed to supermundane agencies afford tangible evidence\nof the continued existence of the soul after the death of the body.\nI have, however, been more than compensated by the discovery, in\npursuance of the same hypothesis, that in the inherent powers and\nattributes of the soul is to be found indubitable evidence of its\nimmortality. This evidence is based on phenomena which have been, and\nmay be, produced by experiment. Many of these phenomena have been\nalready pointed out, but others remain to be considered which have an\nimportant bearing upon the question under immediate consideration;\nnamely, the immortality of the soul, and its relations to the Supreme\nBeing.\n\nThere are still other attributes and powers of the soul which have\nbeen considered, from which further conclusions may be drawn which may\nassist us in forming correct conclusions regarding its status in a\nfuture life. The first of these attributes which I purpose briefly to\ndiscuss is that of memory, and its relations to the question of spirit\nidentity.\n\nThe question as to whether the soul of man retains its identity after\nthe death of the body, is second only in interest and importance to\nthe question of immortality. There are many who hold that the soul\nis necessarily reabsorbed into the Divine essence, and finds its\ncompensation for the ills of earthly life in becoming an integral part\nof God, and, as such, a participator in his power and glory. This\npresupposes a loss of identity, and to most minds would be considered\nequivalent to annihilation; by others it is regarded as the highest\nconception of eternal felicity. Thus far no one, as far as I am\naware, has attempted to offer any scientific reasons for believing\none way or the other. It seems to me that there is abundant evidence\nin phenomena observable in this life to demonstrate, as far as such a\nproposition is demonstrable, that the soul does retain its identity in\na more pronounced degree, if possible, than we can retain it in this\nobjective existence. In what does identity consist, or, more properly\nspeaking, how is it retained? The answer is, through our consciousness\nand memory. It is obvious that if either is lost, identity is lost. It\nis equally obvious that if both are retained, identity is retained.\nNow, the phenomena alluded to which bear upon the question relate to\nthe perfect memory of the subjective mind, or soul. This faculty of\nsubjective memory is implanted in the human soul for some purpose.\nIt certainly does not pertain to this life, for, as we have seen, it\nis only under abnormal conditions that the phenomenon is observable.\nIt must, therefore, be a part of the Divine economy pertaining to\nthe future existence of the soul. It has no use here, for objective\nrecollection is all-sufficient for objective existence and purposes.\nThe conclusion is irresistible that it is for the purpose, amongst\nother things, of enabling the soul to retain its identity. Its bearing\nupon the question of future rewards and punishments has already been\ncommented upon; nevertheless, at the risk of repetition, a further\nremark will be ventured. It is obvious that if the soul did not retain\na conscious memory of its earthly life, no adequate or just reward or\npunishment could be meted out to it. Even human justice would revolt\nagainst, and human laws would prevent, the infliction of the penalty\nfor a capital crime, if it were clearly proved that the criminal had so\nfar lost his mind as to have no recollection of the events of his past\nlife, or, in other words, had lost conscious identity. Besides, it must\nnot be forgotten that the soul is the seat of the emotions, as well as\nthe storehouse of memory. It is obvious that it is only through the\nemotions and the memory that rewards can be conferred, or punishments\ninflicted, upon the immaterial soul.\n\nAnother question which has been incidentally alluded to deserves a\nmore extended notice, for the reason that it bears directly upon the\nquestion of future rewards and punishments, and is also illustrative\nof the general hypothesis under consideration; it is the question of\nconscience. Metaphysicians are divided in opinion on this question,\none school holding that conscience is innate and instinctive, and the\nother that it is the result of experience and education. My hypothesis\nleads to the conclusion that each school is partly right and partly\nwrong. Granted that the eternal principles of right and wrong are a\npart of the fixed and immutable laws of God, it follows that the soul\nof man will, under favorable conditions, have a clear perception of\nthose laws. Those conditions may or may not be present during the life\nof the body. They certainly will be present when the soul is freed\nfrom the clogs of the flesh, and is able to perceive all the fixed\nlaws of nature. In the mean time, while it is an inhabitant of the\nbody it is amenable to control by the power of objective suggestion,\nand hence is dependent upon the objective education of the individual\nfor its standard of right and wrong. This standard may be high or low\nin any individual case. There will be one standard in one community,\nand another in another, all depending upon education and social\nenvironment; but in each case the subjective mind will follow the\nsuggestions imparted to it by objective education. If the standard\nis high in any individual case, the sentiment will gradually become\ninstinctive, so that the subjective impulses and emotions will play an\nimportant part. If the standard is low, the instinctive emotions will\nonly be conspicuous for their absence.\n\nMan stands in his relation to the principles of right and wrong in\njust the same position that he occupies in his relation to the laws of\nelectricity or any other natural law. He is struggling to ascertain\nthe laws in each case for the purpose of placing himself in harmony\nwith them. His knowledge is of slow growth, but each century finds the\ngeneral standard of right and wrong higher than it was the century\nbefore. If the soul possessed, in the normal condition of man, an\ninstinctive knowledge of those laws, he would not have to await the\nslow process of evolution to develop them.\n\nHistory records the name of but one man in whom the eternal principles\nof right and wrong were instinctive. That man was Jesus Christ. He\nperceived those laws, as he perceived all spiritual laws, while yet\nin the flesh. We may profit by his example and his precepts, but\notherwise we must work out our own salvation, knowing that, when the\nsoul reaches its final home, it will be in possession of the eternal\nstandard by which to measure the guilt or innocence of every deed done\nin the body.\n\nThe only remaining psychic phenomena which I propose to discuss are\nthose connected with that emotion of the human soul which finds its\nexpression in the worship of the Supreme Being. This feeling is so\nwidespread that no system of philosophy is complete that does not take\nit into account. Like every other emotion, it has its normal mode of\nexpression, and its abnormal manifestations. The difference between the\ntwo modes of expression is so great that their identity of origin has\nbeen, to a great extent, lost sight of.\n\nThe abnormal manifestation of this emotion now occurs principally among\nthe uncultivated classes of religious worshippers, and the feeling\nhas been somewhat contemptuously designated as \"emotional religion.\"\nIt is conspicuous in the revival meetings of certain religious sects,\nwhere in former years its manifestations were so violent and unseemly\nthat it was looked upon as reprehensible; but these exhibitions have\nbeen, of late years, generally repressed, except among the lower orders\nof the people. Scientists have tried to account for it on the ground\nthat it is the result of mesmeric power consciously or unconsciously\nexerted by the preachers over their congregations, resulting in an\necstatic emotion wholly abnormal and entirely unconnected with true\nreligion. The fact that it sometimes results in a cataleptic condition,\nand sometimes in a trance undistinguishable from that produced by\nhypnotic processes, lent color to the theory, and has gradually brought\nthe educated classes to regard the feeling of religious emotion with\ndistrust. The result is that what used to be known as \"vital religion\"\nis gradually becoming a thing of the past, and is giving place to a\ncold, self-contained, unemotional sentiment, which is as unlike true\nreligious worship as the other, and as abnormal.\n\nIt is true that the abnormal manifestations of the emotion are governed\nby the same laws, and are produced by the same causes, as other\nsubjective phenomena. Suggestion plays its part in these as in other\nthings pertaining to the attributes of the soul; and in these, as in\nall others, a wrong, extravagant, or misdirected suggestion produces\nabnormal results. But this does not argue that the emotion is abnormal.\nThere is no emotion of the human soul that has not its abnormal\nmanifestations when not directed and controlled by reason. The common\nexperience of every-day life demonstrates this proposition. One of the\nmost sacred and praiseworthy of all the human emotions is that of love\nbetween the sexes. But the fact that our jails are filled with those\nwho have indulged in its abnormal manifestations does not argue that\nthe institution of marriage is abnormal.\n\nThe sentiment of worship is as widespread as the sentiment of love;\nand that very fact shows that it must be taken into account in\nthe diagnosis of the human entity, if we would arrive at correct\nconclusions. That this sentiment is universal, and is repressed only by\nan effort of will, no one will deny. It is its abnormal manifestations\nmerely that are to be guarded against. Like every other emotion of\nthe soul, its normal indulgence is in the highest degree healthful\nand exalting. The normal expression of the emotion of earthly love\nbrings us into harmonious relations with our fellow-beings. The normal\nexpression of the emotion of worship brings the soul into harmonious\nrelations with its Creator. Every form and act of worship is an\nexpression of this emotion. It is experienced by all races of the human\nfamily, from the fetich worshipper to the Christian. Each stands in\nawe and reverence before some superior power, external to himself, and\ncapable of controlling his destiny. In proportion to his intelligence\nwill his conceptions of that power be exalted; and in proportion to the\nexaltation of his conceptions will be the intensity of his emotions of\nawe, reverence, love, worship.\n\nThe conclusions which necessarily follow are of the most important\ncharacter. The first and most important--for it includes all the\nrest--is that the fact of the existence of the emotion of worship is\ndemonstrative of the existence of a Supreme Being.\n\nAnd right here I wish to make an important distinction. The\nstandard-theological argument in favor of the immortality of the soul\nis based upon the following syllogism:\n\n1. There is a universal desire for immortality.\n\n2. The mind of man cannot conceive an object of desire the means for\nthe attainment of which are not somewhere in existence.\n\nConclusion: Man is necessarily immortal.\n\nNow, if these premises were demonstrably correct, we might safely\nrely upon the conclusion. But they are not correct. The first may be\nassumed to be practically true, for the sake of the argument; but the\ndesire for continued life beyond the grave may be explained upon other\ngrounds, namely, upon the instinctive desire to prolong life. This\ninstinct is shared with man by all the animal creation, and pertains,\nprimarily, to the preservation of animal existence. Man soon learns\nthat continued animal existence is impossible. He sees that all must\ndie; but, as \"hope springs eternal in the human breast,\" he conceives\nthe hope that he may, somehow, live after the death of the body. The\nexistence of the desire for immortality is, therefore, traceable\ndirectly to the purely animal instinct of self-preservation.\n\nThe second premise is intrinsically absurd. It is obvious that\nthe brain of man may conceive of many objects of desire which are\nmanifestly impossible of realization, as well as non-existent. In\nthe Christian mythology of Milton the idea is developed of a rival\npower--Satan--in heaven almost, but not quite, equal to God. In the\nstruggle which ensued from a rebellion of Satan he was cast out, and\nset up a kingdom of his own on this earth. Now, a strictly orthodox\nperson might say that this was merely an allegorical representation of\nan existent fact. But suppose the poet had gone a step further, and had\nrepresented Satan as going outside the universe and setting up a rival\nuniverse of his own. Would that conception have proved that an outside\nuniverse is possible or existent?[58]\n\nAgain, the existence of a Supreme Being is thought to have been\ndemonstrated by the argument of Socrates wherein he confuted\nAristodemus the atheist, and used the statues of Polycletus and the\npictures of Zeuxis to illustrate the idea that, as the structure of\nthe universe shows evidence of design, therefore there must have been\na designer. Theology has never improved upon this argument, and Paley\nmakes the same use of the watch for an illustration as Socrates did\nof the statues and pictures. It is a strong argument, but it does not\nreach the point which the human heart desires to have demonstrated. Nor\ndoes it add force to, but rather weakens, the argument which is found\nby all reflecting minds in every tree, leaf, bud, or flower. It simply\nproves the existence of a force, which all admit.\n\nWhat the human heart desires, and what the human mind seeks, are proofs\nof the existence of a God, not of mere intelligence and potentiality,\nbut such a God as Jesus characterized,--a God of love and benevolence,\na God who sustains the relation of Father to all humanity.\n\nIt seems to me that in seeking within the realm of human desire for an\nargument in proof either of immortality or the existence of a Supreme\nBeing, theologians have failed to make a necessary distinction between\ndesires which may or may not be universal and inherent, and desires\nwhich have their source in the affectional emotions. It is upon the\nlatter only that an argument can be logically predicated. And I may\ngo further, and say that an argument logically predicated upon the\naffectional emotions, is demonstrative. It is true that some of the\nemotions of the soul seem to pertain exclusively to this life; but not\nall. The emotion of religious worship pertains solely to that invisible\npower which we call God. Nevertheless, we may employ the others for\nillustration. Let us see how this doctrine applies to the subject under\nconsideration. Putting it in syllogistic form, we have the following:--\n\n1. The affectional emotions are universal attributes of every normally\ndeveloped human mind.\n\n2. No affectional emotion can have an existence in the normally\ndeveloped human mind in the absence of an object of affection capable\nof reciprocal feeling.\n\nTherefore, when a normally developed human being experiences the\nemotion of love or affection, there is necessarily existent an object\nof love or affection normally capable of reciprocal emotion.\n\nThus, the emotion of friendship presupposes the friendly relation\nexisting between man and his fellow-man.\n\nThe emotion of sexual love presupposes the sexual relation and the\nexistence of persons of the opposite sex normally capable of reciprocal\nemotion.\n\nThe emotion of parental love presupposes the relation of parent and\nchild, each normally capable of reciprocal attachment.\n\nIt follows that _the emotion of religious worship presupposes the\nexistence of an object of worship capable of reciprocal emotion_.\n\nIf this is not the correct interpretation of the universal sentiment of\nworship which is inherent in the breast of every normal human being,\nthen there is an exception to the laws which govern every other human\nemotion. As there are no exceptions in the operation of nature's laws,\nthe conclusion is inevitable, not only that the emotion of religious\nworship is normal, but that it is the one phenomenal attribute of the\nsoul which gives to man indubitable evidence of his Divine origin, and\ndemonstrates the existence of a God of love. It is the connecting link\nbetween man and his Creator. It is the instinctive manifestation of\nfilial affection which proclaims our Divine pedigree, and demonstrates\nthe universal brotherhood of man and the Fatherhood of God.\n\n \"Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till\n they rest in Thee.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote 58: One of the most eminent and fair-minded theologians in\nthe United States, who has kindly read the manuscript of this work and\nindulgently criticised its contents, suggests that I have not treated\nthe standard theological argument quite fairly, in that I should have\nstated the second proposition less broadly: that the desire referred\nto is _instinctive desire_, and should have been so limited. I freely\nadmit that as careful and candid a reasoner as he would naturally so\nlimit the statement of the proposition. But not all theologians are as\ncandid and logical. However, I provisionally accept his limitation, and\nreply that the answer to the amended second proposition is embraced in\nthe answer to the first.]\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n_THIRD EDITION_\n\n\nTHE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN\n\n_Or, The Testimony of Evolution and Psychology to the Fatherhood of God_\n\n\nBy THOMSON J. HUDSON, LL.D.\n\n\nAn original conception of evolution which is worked out with the\nsame avoidance of vague theory, and the same adherence to a basis of\nwell-authenticated facts and to cogent and logical reasoning, which\ncharacterize Dr. Hudson's former works. It presents an original and\nconvincing interpretation of the facts which have been accumulated\nby the labors of scientists such as H\u00e6ckel, Darwin, and Spencer; and\nconstitutes an attempt to establish thereby the belief in Christian\nTheism. It shows that the god-like powers of man exist potentially in\nthe lowest forms of animal life known to us; and advances a powerfully\neloquent argument against the atheistic attitude which so many\nevolutionists have assumed.\n\n The book reveals much study and research, and its optimism is sure\n to bring much cheer to those who can accept its theories.--_Chicago\n Tribune._\n\n An interesting and valuable contribution to the discussion of a\n great problem.--_The Sunday-School Times._\n\n12mo. $1.50\n\n\nA.C. McCLURG & COMPANY\n\nPUBLISHERS \u00b7 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS\n\n\n\n\n_SEVENTH EDITION_\n\n\nA SCIENTIFIC DEMONSTRATION _of the_ FUTURE LIFE\n\nBy THOMSON J. HUDSON, LL.D.\n\n\nThe success that \"The Law of Psychic Phenomena\" met with induced the\nauthor to prepare and publish the present volume, for the purpose\nof carrying to their legitimate conclusions some of the principles\nlaid down in his former one. Dr. Hudson, in pursuing his inquiry, has\nendeavored to follow the strictest rules of scientific induction,\ntaking nothing for granted that is not axiomatic, and holding that\nthere is nothing worthy of belief that is not sustained by a solid\nbasis of well-authenticated facts.--_The New York Times._\n\n12mo. $1.50\n\n\nA.C. McCLURG & COMPANY\n\nPUBLISHERS \u00b7 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS\n\n\n\n\n_DR. HUDSON'S LAST BOOK_\n\n\nTHE EVOLUTION OF THE SOUL AND OTHER ESSAYS\n\n\nBy THOMSON J. HUDSON, LL.D.\n\n\nAfter the death of Dr. Hudson in 1903, enough material was found\namong his papers for one more book from his bold and original pen. It\nconsists of a number of lectures delivered at various times, and all\ndealing with the subject on which he is now an acknowledged authority.\nThis collection of scattered papers supplements most admirably his\nprevious books,--particularly \"The Law of Mental Medicine\" and \"The\nLaw of Psychic Phenomena,\"--and will, in a way, help to complete the\nwork most deplorably interrupted by his untimely death. To say that\nthese essays are in Dr. Hudson's characteristic and illuminating style\nis all that is needed to convince his thousands of admirers that this\nposthumous volume is one of the most absorbing interest. The addition\nof the portrait and biographical sketch will also be much appreciated.\n\nWith portrait, $1.20 net\n\n\nA.C. McCLURG & COMPANY\n\nPUBLISHERS \u00b7 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS\n\n\n\n\n_THIRD EDITION_\n\n\nTHE LAW OF MENTAL MEDICINE\n\n_The Correlation of the Facts of Psychology and Histology in their\nRelation to Mental Therapeutics_\n\nBy THOMSON J. HUDSON, LL.D.\n\n\nThe book is one to read studiously, and will appeal to a large class of\nmodern thinkers who have caught a theoretical glimpse of an existence\nfree from the misery of disease. Dr. Hudson's celebrated work, \"The Law\nof Psychic Phenomena,\" has paved the way for the student of psychic\nlore to receive and digest his later works.--_New York Tribune._\n\nHis theories are scientific in method, and soundly based, as well\nas sufficiently untechnical for the general reader.--_San Francisco\nArgonaut._\n\nThere is no denying the interest the book holds for the thinking,\nearnest student of mental phenomena, and even those who scoff and sneer\nat \"faith cure\" in its various branches will find much in this volume\nthat will start a serious train of thought.--_Nashville American._\n\nThere is nothing of the quack about Dr. Hudson. His book is eminently\npractical, and is quite free from \"the falsehood of extremes.\" Nobody\ncan be hurt by reading it, and it will help many to correct erroneous\nprepossessions and misunderstandings.--_Charleston News and Courier._\n\n\"The Law of Mental Medicine\" is the title of an interesting book from\nthe pen of Thomson Jay Hudson, in which he points out a simple system\nof practice depending for its efficacy on natural laws.--_Detroit Free\nPress._\n\n12mo. $1.20 net\n\nA.C. McCLURG & COMPANY\n\nPUBLISHERS \u00b7 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS","title":"The Law of Psychic Phenomena: A working hypothesis for the systematic study of hypnotism, spiritism, mental therapeutics, etc.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":137128}