lead it into a maze of speculation which is as unprofitable as it is unscientific.

This apparent digression is made for the purpose of placing the conclusions derived from the speculative philosophy of the ancients in sharp contrast with the intuitional perceptions of the unperverted human soul, especially that of Jesus of Nazareth. I shall now follow it up by showing that the facts developed by modern scientific investigation confirm and emphasize the philosophy of Jesus in all its purity and simplicity. For it is a fact of most profound significance that Jesus, although he must be presumed to have been acquainted with all the philosophy of his day, never gave utterance to a word which indicated his belief in that complicated spiritual structure of man which has been so industriously proclaimed by both ancient and modern philosophers. He taught the simple truth that man has a soul; he demonstrated that truth by the production of phenomena of the soul; he promulgated the doctrine that the soul is capable of sustaining an existence independently of the body, and he taught mankind how to deserve and how to attain immortal life. This comprises all that man needs to know of spiritual philosophy, and it will not be denied that in its simplicity of statement it bears the impress of scientific truth. It is the province of science to ascertain whether observable facts confirm his doctrines.

Should a scientist who is unfamiliar with the recent developments of psychic science, be asked what would constitute conclusive evidence to his mind of the existence of a soul in man, he would doubtless reply that he must first be convinced that the mind does not follow the conditions of the body and brain. Then he would launch out into a more or less learned dissertation, reminding us that all human experience goes to show that as the body grows weaker the mind grows weaker; that a disease of the brain produces insanity or imbecility; that certain organs of the

mind can be modified, inhibited, or totally destroyed by a surgical operation; that mechanical pressure upon the brain produces total unconsciousness and insensibility; that when the body dies, all manifestations of mind cease at once and forever, etc. In short, he would lead us through all the stock arguments of materialistic science which go to prove that the mind is not an entity, but a function of the physical brain, and that it necessarily ceases to manifest itself when the brain loses its vitality. All this we have heard before, ad nauseam, and all this we admit to be true, so far as the objective mind is concerned; but we hasten to remind him that the researches of modern science have developed the fact that man has a dual mind,-two planes of consciousness, a normal and a super-normal plane, and that the latter manifests itself when the former is inhibited. In other words, when the brain is asleep and all the objective senses or faculties are in complete abeyance, the super-normal or subjective faculties are capable of intense activity. If he has heard of hypnotism as developed by orthodox scientists, he is ready to admit that man has a dual mind in the sense that it acts in one way under certain conditions of the body, and in another way under certain other conditions of the body. "It is the same mind," he adds, "its powers and functions being susceptible to modification either by peripheral stimuli or by the inhibition of activity in certain nerve centres and the stimulation of others to abnormal activity." All this has a very learned sound, in that it is characterized by the oracular indefiniteness of true materialistic science when dealing with problems beyond its legitimate domain. Should we then remind him that the facts of experimental psychology show that duality of mind means vastly more than is implied in his definition, - that, in fact, it is demonstrable that man possesses a dual mind, he would doubtless inform us at once that such a thing is "impossible," that it is "contrary to

-

the nature of things," that it is "subversive of all psychological science" with which he is acquainted, and, worst of all, "it would destroy the value and significance of all the learning that has been bestowed in times past upon the science of psychology;" in short, "that all the vast bibliography of the old psychology would have to be revised and rewritten "1 if the dual-mind theory is demonstrable. Of course, all this is very shocking and subversive and revolutionary, and all that; but we will suppose our scientist to be a fair-minded man, and we will venture one more question, namely, what demonstration, short of pulling the two minds out of a man with a pair of forceps, weighing them in a balance, and carving them with a scalpel, would be considered adequate proof of the actual existence of two minds in man? I submit that the conditions to be prescribed by the most exacting scientist could be no more severe than the following:

1. It must be shown that man possesses attributes and powers independent of each other and irreconcilable with each other except by the hypothesis that he is endowed with two minds.

2. That each is capable of independent action while the other is in complete abeyance.

3. That each must possess powers and limitations not possessed by the other.

4. That each must, in the normal man, perform functions which the other is incapable of exercising.

5. That one mind must normally be subordinate to the other.

6. That there must be some evidence of the survival of one after the extinction of the other.

7. That each of the foregoing propositions must be

1 I am quoting from memory the words actually employed by an eminent scientist when confronted with the theory of duality of mind.

demonstrated by an appeal to observable facts that are susceptible of no other rational interpretation.

I think it will be conceded by the most sceptical that if the foregoing propositions can be fairly established, it will constitute at least prima facie evidence of the existence of a soul in mankind. When this is done, it will be followed by other considerations which will be demonstrative of that proposition. In the mean time, as the above propositions are nearly related, they will be considered together.

The broad line of distinction and demarcation between the two classes of attributes consists in the fact, which is of every-day observation and universal experience, that normally each class of attributes manifests itself while the other is quiescent. This fact is brought to universal consciousness in the phenomena of dreams. If dreams had but recently been brought to the attention of the civilized world, they would now be considered the most wonderful phenomena of the human mind. Being the common experience of all mankind, their real significance has been to a great extent overlooked. The reason for this is found in the fact that their most common form of manifestation can be traced either to peripheral stimuli, or to the uppermost waking thoughts of the sleeper. But it occasionally happens, and has happened throughout all the ages of which history or tradition gives us any account, that men have dreamed dreams which cannot be traced to anything within the known physical or mental environment of the dreamer. Dreams which give warning of impending danger; dreams which demonstrate the fact of communion with friends at a distance; dreams which solve problems far beyond the objective or normal capacity of the dreamer, are among the phenomena which point clearly to a consciousness distinct from and independent of his normal consciousness, and possessing a power of perception of truth which reaches out far beyond the range of the objective senses. These

are phenomena which have been observed in a haphazard, unintelligent way throughout all the ages, and would doubtless have continued to be so observed had not the phenomena of mesmerism or hypnotism been brought to the attention of science. Hypnotism enables us to study the phenomena of dreams by experimental reproduction; and in this sense it may be defined to be the power to reproduce the phenomena of dreams. It is that, but it is more. It is the power, not only to reproduce, but to control the phenomena, and carry them to an intelligible conclusion. Hypnotic phenomena possess all the salient characteristics of dream phenomena, and are governed by the same laws, modified only by methods of induction. The total or partial abeyance of the objective senses (sleep) is the first requisite in each ease. In hypnotism the subject is en rapport with the hypnotist, and his dreams are controlled by the suggestions of the latter. In natural sleep the subject is en rapport with himself, and his dreams are controlled sometimes by the suggestions conveyed in the current of his waking thoughts, and sometimes by those of peripheral stimuli. This is practically all that differentiates hypnotic sleep from natural sleep (Bernheim). When the sleep is induced by hypnotic processes, the subject may always be made to dream by making oral suggestions, and frequently by mere mental suggestion. He can also be made to dream by peripheral stimuli, such as applying heat or cold to his body, or by placing him in attitudes suggestive of certain mental emotions, or by causing music to be played in his presence.1 There is another point where the phenomena of hypnotism and dreams exactly coincide which deserves particular attention. It is well known that, when

1 See "Some Physiologic Effects of Music in Hypnotized Subjects," by Aldred S. Warthin, Ph.D., M.D., Demonstrator of Clinical Medicine in the Michigan University, Medical News, July 28, 1894 (Philadelphia).