Changes

  | volume = 1

  | volume = 1

  | chapter number = 3

  | chapter number = 3

  | chapter title  =  

  | chapter title  = Blind leaders of the blind

  | previous = v.1 ch.2

  | previous = v.1 ch.2

  | next    = v.1 ch.4

  | next    = v.1 ch.4

{{Page|82|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}  

{{Page|82|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}  

age,^{[#fn163 163]} full of dead and dying faiths; full of idle prayers sent out in vain search for the departing gods. But oh! it is a glorious age, full of the golden light which streams from the ascending sun of science! What shall we do for those who are shipwrecked in faith, {{Style S-Italic|bankrupt in intellect,}} but . . . who seek comfort in the {{Style S-Italic|mirage of spiritualism,}} the delusions of transcendentalism, or the {{Style S-Italic|will o’ the wisp}} of mesmerism? . . . .”

{{Style P-No indent|age,{{Footnote mark|*|fn163}} full of dead and dying faiths; full of idle prayers sent out in vain search for the departing gods. But oh! it is a glorious age, full of the golden light which streams from the ascending sun of science! What shall we do for those who are shipwrecked in faith, {{Style S-Italic|bankrupt in intellect,}} but . . . who seek comfort in the {{Style S-Italic|mirage of spiritualism,}} the delusions of transcendentalism, or the {{Style S-Italic|will o’ the wisp}} of mesmerism? . . . .”}}

The {{Style S-Italic|ignis fatuus,}} now so favorite an image with many dwarf philosophers, had itself to struggle for recognition. It is not so long since the now familiar phenomenon was stoutly denied by a correspondent of the London {{Style S-Italic|Times,}} whose assertions carried weight, till the work of Dr. Phipson, supported by the testimony of Beccaria, Humboldt, and other naturalists, set the question at rest.^{[#fn164 164]} The Positivists should choose some happier expression, and follow the discoveries of science at the same time. As to mesmerism, it has been adopted in many parts of Germany, and is publicly used with undeniable success in more than one hospital; its occult properties have been proved and are believed in by physicians, whose eminence, learning, and merited fame, the self-complacent lecturer on mediums and insanity cannot well hope to equal.

The {{Style S-Italic|ignis fatuus,}} now so favorite an image with many dwarf philosophers, had itself to struggle for recognition. It is not so long since the now familiar phenomenon was stoutly denied by a correspondent of the London {{Style S-Italic|Times,}} whose assertions carried weight, till the work of Dr. Phipson, supported by the testimony of Beccaria, Humboldt, and other naturalists, set the question at rest.{{Footnote mark|†|fn164}} The Positivists should choose some happier expression, and follow the discoveries of science at the same time. As to mesmerism, it has been adopted in many parts of Germany, and is publicly used with undeniable success in more than one hospital; its occult properties have been proved and are believed in by physicians, whose eminence, learning, and merited fame, the self-complacent lecturer on mediums and insanity cannot well hope to equal.

We have to add but a few more words before we drop this unpleasant subject. We have found Positivists particularly happy in the delusion that the {{Style S-Italic|greatest scientists}} of Europe were Comtists. How far their claims may be just, as regards other {{Style S-Italic|savants,}} we do not know, but Huxley, whom all Europe considers one of her greatest scientists, most decidedly declines that honor, and Dr. Maudsley, of London, follows suit. In a lecture delivered by the former gentleman in 1868, in Edinburgh, on {{Style S-Italic|The Physical Basis of Life,}} he even appears to be very much shocked at the liberty taken by the Archbishop of York, in identifying him with Comte’s philosophy. “So far as I am concerned,” says Mr. Huxley, “the most reverend prelate might dialectically hew Mr. Comte in pieces, as a modern Agag, and I would not attempt to stay his hand. In so far as my study of what specially characterizes the positive philosophy has led me, I find, therein, little or nothing of any scientific value, and a great deal which is {{Style S-Italic|as thoroughly antagonistic to the very essence of science as anything in ultramontane Catholicism.}} In fact, Comte’s philosophy in practice might be compendiously described as {{Style S-Italic|Catholicism minus Christianity.”}} Further, Huxley even becomes wrathful, and falls to accusing Scotchmen of ingratitude for having allowed the Bishop to mistake Comte for the founder of a philosophy which belonged by right to Hume. “It was enough,” exclaims the professor,

We have to add but a few more words before we drop this unpleasant subject. We have found Positivists particularly happy in the delusion that the {{Style S-Italic|greatest scientists}} of Europe were Comtists. How far their claims may be just, as regards other {{Style S-Italic|savants,}} we do not know, but Huxley, whom all Europe considers one of her greatest scientists, most decidedly declines that honor, and Dr. Maudsley, of London, follows suit. In a lecture delivered by the former gentleman in 1868, in Edinburgh, on {{Style S-Italic|The Physical Basis of Life,}} he even appears to be very much shocked at the liberty taken by the Archbishop of York, in identifying him with Comte’s philosophy. “So far as I am concerned,” says Mr. Huxley, “the most reverend prelate might dialectically hew Mr. Comte in pieces, as a modern Agag, and I would not attempt to stay his hand. In so far as my study of what specially characterizes the positive philosophy has led me, I find, therein, little or nothing of any scientific value, and a great deal which is {{Style S-Italic|as thoroughly antagonistic to the very essence of science as anything in ultramontane Catholicism.}} In fact, Comte’s philosophy in practice might be compendiously described as {{Style S-Italic|Catholicism minus Christianity.”}} Further, Huxley even becomes wrathful, and falls to accusing Scotchmen of ingratitude for having allowed the Bishop to mistake Comte for the founder of a philosophy which belonged by right to Hume. “It was enough,” exclaims the professor,

[#fn163anc 163]. Dr. F. R. Marvin: “Lecture on Insanity.”

{{Footnote return|*|fn163}} Dr. F. R. Marvin: “Lecture on Insanity.”

[#fn164anc 164]. See Howitt: “History of the Supernatural,” vol. ii.

{{Footnote return|†|fn164}} See Howitt: “History of the Supernatural,” vol. ii.

83 THE “MONKEYS” OF SCIENCE.

{{Page|83|THE “MONKEYS” OF SCIENCE.}}

“to make David Hume turn in his grave, that here, almost within earshot of his house, an interested audience should have listened, without a murmur, whilst his most characteristic doctrines were attributed to a French writer of fifty years later date, in whose {{Style S-Italic|dreary and verbose pages we miss alike the vigor of thought and the clearness of style. .}} . .”^{[#fn165 165]}

{{Style P-No indent|“to make David Hume turn in his grave, that here, almost within earshot of his house, an interested audience should have listened, without a murmur, whilst his most characteristic doctrines were attributed to a French writer of fifty years later date, in whose {{Style S-Italic|dreary and verbose pages we miss alike the vigor of thought and the clearness of style}}. . . .”{{Footnote mark|*|fn165}}}}

Poor Comte! It appears that the highest representatives of his philosophy are now reduced, at least in this country, to “one physicist, one physician who has made a specialty of nervous diseases, and one lawyer.” A very witty critic nicknamed this desperate trio, “{{Style S-Italic|an anomalistic triad,}} which, amid its arduous labors, finds no time to acquaint itself with the principles and laws of their language.”^{[#fn166 166]}

Poor Comte! It appears that the highest representatives of his philosophy are now reduced, at least in this country, to “one physicist, one physician who has made a specialty of nervous diseases, and one lawyer.” A very witty critic nicknamed this desperate trio, “{{Style S-Italic|an anomalistic triad,}} which, amid its arduous labors, finds no time to acquaint itself with the principles and laws of their language.”{{Footnote mark|†|fn166}}

To close the question, the Positivists neglect no means to overthrow Spiritualism in favor of their {{Style S-Italic|religion.}} Their high priests are made to blow their trumpets untiringly; and though the walls of no modern Jericho are ever likely to tumble down in dust before their blast, still they neglect no means to attain the desired object. Their paradoxes are unique, and their accusations against spiritualists irresistible in logic. In a recent lecture, for instance, it was remarked that: “The exclusive exercise of {{Style S-Italic|religious}} instinct is productive of sexual immorality. Priests, monks, nuns, saints, {{Style S-Italic|media,}} ecstatics, and devotees are famous for their impurities.”^{[#fn167 167]}

To close the question, the Positivists neglect no means to overthrow Spiritualism in favor of their {{Style S-Italic|religion.}} Their high priests are made to blow their trumpets untiringly; and though the walls of no modern Jericho are ever likely to tumble down in dust before their blast, still they neglect no means to attain the desired object. Their paradoxes are unique, and their accusations against spiritualists irresistible in logic. In a recent lecture, for instance, it was remarked that: “The exclusive exercise of {{Style S-Italic|religious}} instinct is productive of sexual immorality. Priests, monks, nuns, saints, {{Style S-Italic|media,}} ecstatics, and devotees are famous for their impurities.”{{Footnote mark|‡|fn167}}

We are happy to remark that, while Positivism loudly proclaims itself a religion, Spiritualism has never pretended to be anything more than a science, a growing philosophy, or rather a research in hidden and as yet unexplained forces in nature. The objectiveness of its various phenomena has been demonstrated by more than one genuine representative of science, and as ineffectually denied by her “monkeys.”

We are happy to remark that, while Positivism loudly proclaims itself a religion, Spiritualism has never pretended to be anything more than a science, a growing philosophy, or rather a research in hidden and as yet unexplained forces in nature. The objectiveness of its various phenomena has been demonstrated by more than one genuine representative of science, and as ineffectually denied by her “monkeys.”

We would there were no occasion to extend the critic’s glance beyond the circle of triflers and pedants who improperly wear the title of men

We would there were no occasion to extend the critic’s glance beyond the circle of triflers and pedants who improperly wear the title of men

[#fn165anc 165]. Prof. Huxley: “Physical Basis of Life.”

{{Footnote return|*|fn165}} Prof. Huxley: “Physical Basis of Life.”

[#fn166anc 166]. Reference is made to a card which appeared some time since in a New York paper, signed by three persons styling themselves as above, and assuming to be a scientific committee appointed two years before to investigate spiritual phenomena. The criticism on the triad appeared in the “New Era” magazine.

{{Footnote return|†|fn166}} Reference is made to a card which appeared some time since in a New York paper, signed by three persons styling themselves as above, and assuming to be a scientific committee appointed two years before to investigate spiritual phenomena. The criticism on the triad appeared in the “New Era” magazine.

[#fn167anc 167]. Dr. Marvin: “Lecture on Insanity,” N. Y., 1875.

{{Footnote return|‡|fn167}} Dr. Marvin: “Lecture on Insanity,” N. Y., 1875.

84 THE VEIL OF ISIS.

{{Page|84|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}

of science. But it is also undeniable that the treatment of new subjects by those whose rank is high in the scientific world but too often passes unchallenged, when it is amenable to censure. The cautiousness bred of a fixed habit of experimental research, the tentative advance from opinion to opinion, the weight accorded to recognized authorities—all foster a conservatism of thought which naturally runs into dogmatism. The price of scientific progress is too commonly the martyrdom or ostracism of the innovator. The reformer of the laboratory must, so to speak, carry the citadel of custom and prejudice at the point of the bayonet. It is rare that even a postern-door is left ajar by a friendly hand. The noisy protests and impertinent criticisms of the little people of the antechamber of science, he can afford to let pass unnoticed; the hostility of the other class is a real peril that the innovator must face and overcome. Knowledge does increase apace, but the great body of scientists are not entitled to the credit. In every instance they have done their best to shipwreck the new discovery, together with the discoverer. The palm is to him who has won it by individual courage, intuitiveness, and persistency. Few are the forces in nature which, when first announced, were not laughed at, and then set aside as absurd and unscientific. Humbling the pride of those who had not discovered anything, the just claims of those who have been denied a hearing until negation was no longer prudent, and then—alas for poor, selfish humanity! these very discoverers too often became the opponents and oppressors, in their turn, of still more recent explorers in the domain of natural law! So, step by step, mankind move around their circumscribed circle of knowledge, science constantly correcting its mistakes, and readjusting on the following day the erroneous theories of the preceding one. This has been the case, not merely with questions pertaining to psychology, such as mesmerism, in its dual sense of a physical and spiritual phenomenon, but even with such discoveries as directly related to exact sciences, and have been easy to demonstrate.

{{Style P-No indent|of science. But it is also undeniable that the treatment of new subjects by those whose rank is high in the scientific world but too often passes unchallenged, when it is amenable to censure. The cautiousness bred of a fixed habit of experimental research, the tentative advance from opinion to opinion, the weight accorded to recognized authorities—all foster a conservatism of thought which naturally runs into dogmatism. The price of scientific progress is too commonly the martyrdom or ostracism of the innovator. The reformer of the laboratory must, so to speak, carry the citadel of custom and prejudice at the point of the bayonet. It is rare that even a postern-door is left ajar by a friendly hand. The noisy protests and impertinent criticisms of the little people of the antechamber of science, he can afford to let pass unnoticed; the hostility of the other class is a real peril that the innovator must face and overcome. Knowledge does increase apace, but the great body of scientists are not entitled to the credit. In every instance they have done their best to shipwreck the new discovery, together with the discoverer. The palm is to him who has won it by individual courage, intuitiveness, and persistency. Few are the forces in nature which, when first announced, were not laughed at, and then set aside as absurd and unscientific. Humbling the pride of those who had not discovered anything, the just claims of those who have been denied a hearing until negation was no longer prudent, and then—alas for poor, selfish humanity! these very discoverers too often became the opponents and oppressors, in their turn, of still more recent explorers in the domain of natural law! So, step by step, mankind move around their circumscribed circle of knowledge, science constantly correcting its mistakes, and readjusting on the following day the erroneous theories of the preceding one. This has been the case, not merely with questions pertaining to psychology, such as mesmerism, in its dual sense of a physical and spiritual phenomenon, but even with such discoveries as directly related to exact sciences, and have been easy to demonstrate.}}

What can we do? Shall we recall the disagreeable past? Shall we point to mediæval scholars conniving with the clergy to deny the Heliocentric theory, for fear of hurting an ecclesiastical dogma? Must we recall how learned conchologists once denied that the fossil shells, found scattered over the face of the earth, were ever inhabited by living animals at all? How the naturalists of the eighteenth century declared these but mere {{Style S-Italic|fac-similes}} of animals? And how these naturalists fought and quarrelled and battled and called each other names, over these venerable mummies of the ancient ages for nearly a century, until Buffon settled the question by proving to the negators that they were mistaken? Surely an oyster-shell is anything but transcendental, and ought to be quite a palpable subject for any exact study; and if the scientists could not agree

What can we do? Shall we recall the disagreeable past? Shall we point to mediæval scholars conniving with the clergy to deny the Heliocentric theory, for fear of hurting an ecclesiastical dogma? Must we recall how learned conchologists once denied that the fossil shells, found scattered over the face of the earth, were ever inhabited by living animals at all? How the naturalists of the eighteenth century declared these but mere {{Style S-Italic|fac-similes}} of animals? And how these naturalists fought and quarrelled and battled and called each other names, over these venerable mummies of the ancient ages for nearly a century, until Buffon settled the question by proving to the negators that they were mistaken? Surely an oyster-shell is anything but transcendental, and ought to be quite a palpable subject for any exact study; and if the scientists could not agree

85 AN EPIDEMIC OF NEGATION.

{{Page|85|AN EPIDEMIC OF NEGATION.}}

on that, we can hardly expect them to believe at all that evanescent forms,—of hands, faces, and whole bodies sometimes—appear at the seances of spiritual mediums, when the latter are honest.

{{Style P-No indent|on that, we can hardly expect them to believe at all that evanescent forms,—of hands, faces, and whole bodies sometimes—appear at the seances of spiritual mediums, when the latter are honest.}}

There exists a certain work which might afford very profitable reading for the leisure hours of skeptical men of science. It is a book published by Flourens, the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy, called {{Style S-Italic|Histoire des Recherches de Buffon.}} The author shows in it how the great naturalist combated and finally conquered the advocates of the {{Style S-Italic|fac-simile}} theory; and how they still went on denying everything under the sun, until at times the learned body fell into a fury, an epidemic of negation. It denied Franklin and his refined electricity; laughed at Fulton and his concentrated steam; voted the engineer Perdormet a strait-jacket for his offer to build railroads; stared Harvey out of countenance; and proclaimed Bernard de Palissy “as stupid as one of his own pots!”

There exists a certain work which might afford very profitable reading for the leisure hours of skeptical men of science. It is a book published by Flourens, the Perpetual Secretary of the French Academy, called {{Style S-Italic|Histoire des Recherches de Buffon.}} The author shows in it how the great naturalist combated and finally conquered the advocates of the {{Style S-Italic|fac-simile}} theory; and how they still went on denying everything under the sun, until at times the learned body fell into a fury, an epidemic of negation. It denied Franklin and his refined electricity; laughed at Fulton and his concentrated steam; voted the engineer Perdormet a strait-jacket for his offer to build railroads; stared Harvey out of countenance; and proclaimed Bernard de Palissy “as stupid as one of his own pots!”

The editor of the London {{Style S-Italic|Spiritualist,}} in answer to Dr. Gully’s criticism of Mr. Tyndall’s fire-mist theory, remarks that if the entire body of spiritualists are not roasting alive at Smithfield in the present century, it is to science alone that we are indebted for this crowning mercy. Well, let us admit that the scientists are indirectly public benefactors in this case, to the extent that the burning of erudite scholars is no longer fashionable. But is it unfair to ask whether the disposition manifested toward the spiritualistic doctrine by Faraday, Tyndall, Huxley, Agassiz, and others, does not warrant the suspicion that if these learned gentlemen

The editor of the London {{Style S-Italic|Spiritualist,}} in answer to Dr. Gully’s criticism of Mr. Tyndall’s fire-mist theory, remarks that if the entire body of spiritualists are not roasting alive at Smithfield in the present century, it is to science alone that we are indebted for this crowning mercy. Well, let us admit that the scientists are indirectly public benefactors in this case, to the extent that the burning of erudite scholars is no longer fashionable. But is it unfair to ask whether the disposition manifested toward the spiritualistic doctrine by Faraday, Tyndall, Huxley, Agassiz, and others, does not warrant the suspicion that if these learned gentlemen

86 THE VEIL OF ISIS.

{{Page|86|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}

and their following had the unlimited power once held by the Inquisition, spiritualists would not have reason to feel as easy as they do now? Even supposing that they should not roast believers in the existence of a spirit-world—it being unlawful to cremate people alive—would they not send every spiritualist they could to Bedlam? Do they not call us “incurable monomaniacs,” “hallucinated fools,” “fetich-worshippers,” and like characteristic names? Really, we cannot see what should have stimulated to such extent the gratitude of the editor of the London {{Style S-Italic|Spiritualist,}} for the benevolent tutelage of the men of science. We believe that the recent Lankester-Donkin-Slade prosecution in London ought at last to open the eyes of hopeful spiritualists, and show them that stubborn materialism is often more stupidly bigoted than religious fanaticism itself.

{{Style P-No indent|and their following had the unlimited power once held by the Inquisition, spiritualists would not have reason to feel as easy as they do now? Even supposing that they should not roast believers in the existence of a spirit-world—it being unlawful to cremate people alive—would they not send every spiritualist they could to Bedlam? Do they not call us “incurable monomaniacs,” “hallucinated fools,” “fetich-worshippers,” and like characteristic names? Really, we cannot see what should have stimulated to such extent the gratitude of the editor of the London {{Style S-Italic|Spiritualist,}} for the benevolent tutelage of the men of science. We believe that the recent Lankester-Donkin-Slade prosecution in London ought at last to open the eyes of hopeful spiritualists, and show them that stubborn materialism is often more stupidly bigoted than religious fanaticism itself.}}

One of the cleverest productions of Professor Tyndall’s pen is his caustic essay upon {{Style S-Italic|Martineau and Materialism.}} At the same time it is one which in future years the author will doubtless be only too ready to trim of certain unpardonable grossnesses of expression. For the moment, however, we will not deal with these, but consider what he has to say of the phenomenon of consciousness. He quotes this question from Mr. Martineau: “A man can say ‘I feel, I think, I love’; but how does consciousness infuse itself into the problem?” And thus answers: “The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite thought and a molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously; we do not possess the intellectual organ nor apparently any rudiments of the organ, which would enable us to pass by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear together, but {{Style S-Italic|we do not know why.}} Were our minds and senses so expanded, strengthened and illuminated, as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the brain; were we capable of following all their motions, all their groupings, all their electric discharges, if such there be; and were we intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the problem, ‘How are these physical processes connected with the facts of consciousness?’ The chasm between the two classes of phenomena would still remain intellectually impassable.”^{[#fn168 168]}

One of the cleverest productions of Professor Tyndall’s pen is his caustic essay upon {{Style S-Italic|Martineau and Materialism.}} At the same time it is one which in future years the author will doubtless be only too ready to trim of certain unpardonable grossnesses of expression. For the moment, however, we will not deal with these, but consider what he has to say of the phenomenon of consciousness. He quotes this question from Mr. Martineau: “A man can say ‘I feel, I think, I love;’ but how does consciousness infuse itself into the problem?” And thus answers: “The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite thought and a molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously; we do not possess the intellectual organ nor apparently any rudiments of the organ, which would enable us to pass by a process of reasoning from one to the other. They appear together, but {{Style S-Italic|we do not know why.}} Were our minds and senses so expanded, strengthened and illuminated, as to enable us to see and feel the very molecules of the brain; were we capable of following all their motions, all their groupings, all their electric discharges, if such there be; and were we intimately acquainted with the corresponding states of thought and feeling, we should be as far as ever from the solution of the problem, ‘How are these physical processes connected with the facts of consciousness?’ The chasm between the two classes of phenomena would still remain intellectually impassable.”{{Footnote mark|*|fn168}}

This chasm, as impassable to Professor Tyndall as the fire-mist where the scientist is confronted with his unknowable cause, is a barrier only to men without spiritual intuitions. Professor Buchanan’s {{Style S-Italic|Outlines of Lectures on the Neurological System of Anthropology,}} a work written so far back as 1854, contains suggestions that, if the scio-

This chasm, as impassable to Professor Tyndall as the fire-mist where the scientist is confronted with his unknowable cause, is a barrier only to men without spiritual intuitions. Professor Buchanan’s {{Style S-Italic|Outlines of Lectures on the Neurological System of Anthropology,}} a work written so far back as 1854, contains suggestions that, if the scio-

[#fn168anc 168]. Tyndall: “Fragments of Science.”

{{Footnote return|*|fn168}} Tyndall: “Fragments of Science.”

87 ULTRAMONTANISM IN SCIENCE.

{{Page|87|ULTRAMONTANISM IN SCIENCE.}}

lists would only heed them, would show how a bridge can be thrown across this dreadful abyss. It is one of the bins in which the thought-seed of future harvests is stored up by a frugal present. But the edifice of materialism is based entirely upon that gross sub-structure—the reason. {{Style S-Italic|When they have stretched its capabilities to their utmost limits, its teachers can at best only disclose to us an universe of molecules animated by an occult impulse.}} What better diagnosis of the ailment of our scientists could be asked than can be derived from Professor Tyndall’s analysis of the mental state of the Ultramontane clergy by a very slight change of names. For “spiritual guides” read “scientists,” for “prescientific past” substitute “materialistic present,” say “spirit” for “science,” and in the following paragraph we have a life portrait of the modern man of science drawn by the hand of a master:

{{Style P-No indent|lists would only heed them, would show how a bridge can be thrown across this dreadful abyss. It is one of the bins in which the thought-seed of future harvests is stored up by a frugal present. But the edifice of materialism is based entirely upon that gross sub-structure—the reason. {{Style S-Italic|When they have stretched its capabilities to their utmost limits, its teachers can at best only disclose to us an universe of molecules animated by an occult impulse.}} What better diagnosis of the ailment of our scientists could be asked than can be derived from Professor Tyndall’s analysis of the mental state of the Ultramontane clergy by a very slight change of names. For “spiritual guides” read “scientists,” for “prescientific past” substitute “materialistic present,” say “spirit” for “science,” and in the following paragraph we have a life portrait of the modern man of science drawn by the hand of a master:}}

“. . . . Their spiritual guides live so exclusively in the prescientific past, that even the really strong intellects among them are reduced to atrophy as regards scientific truth. Eyes they have and see not; ears they have and hear not; for both eyes and ears are taken possession of by the sights and sounds of another age. In relation to science, the Ultramontane brain, through lack of exercise, is virtually the undeveloped brain of the child. And thus it is that as children in scientific knowledge, but as potent wielders of spiritual power among the ignorant, they countenance and enforce practices sufficient to bring the blush of shame to the cheeks of the more intelligent among themselves.”^{[#fn169 169]} The Occultist holds this mirror up to science that it may see how it looks itself.

“. . . . Their spiritual guides live so exclusively in the prescientific past, that even the really strong intellects among them are reduced to atrophy as regards scientific truth. Eyes they have and see not; ears they have and hear not; for both eyes and ears are taken possession of by the sights and sounds of another age. In relation to science, the Ultramontane brain, through lack of exercise, is virtually the undeveloped brain of the child. And thus it is that as children in scientific knowledge, but as potent wielders of spiritual power among the ignorant, they countenance and enforce practices sufficient to bring the blush of shame to the cheeks of the more intelligent among themselves.”{{Footnote mark|*|fn169}} The Occultist holds this mirror up to science that it may see how it looks itself.

Since history recorded the first laws established by man, there never was yet a people, whose code did not hang the issues of the life and death of its citizens upon the testimony of two or three credible witnesses. “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death,”^{[#fn170 170]} says Moses, the first legislator we meet in ancient history. “The laws which put to death a man on the deposition of one witness are fatal to freedom”—says Montesquieu. “Reason claims there should be two witnesses.”^{[#fn171 171]}

Since history recorded the first laws established by man, there never was yet a people, whose code did not hang the issues of the life and death of its citizens upon the testimony of two or three credible witnesses. “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death,”{{Footnote mark|†|fn170}} says Moses, the first legislator we meet in ancient history. “The laws which put to death a man on the deposition of one witness are fatal to freedom”—says Montesquieu. “Reason claims there should be two witnesses.”{{Footnote mark|‡|fn171}}

Thus the value of evidence has been tacitly agreed upon and accepted in every country. But the scientists will not accept the evidence of the million against one. In vain do hundreds of thousands of men testify to facts. {{Style S-Italic|Oculos habent et non vident!}} They are determined to remain blind and deaf. Thirty years of practical demonstrations and the testimony of some millions of believers in America and Europe are certainly entitled to some degree of respect and attention. Especially so, when

Thus the value of evidence has been tacitly agreed upon and accepted in every country. But the scientists will not accept the evidence of the million against one. In vain do hundreds of thousands of men testify to facts. {{Style S-Italic|Oculos habent et non vident!}} They are determined to remain blind and deaf. Thirty years of practical demonstrations and the testimony of some millions of believers in America and Europe are certainly entitled to some degree of respect and attention. Especially so, when

[#fn169anc 169]. Tyndall: Preface to “Fragments of Science.”

{{Footnote return|*|fn169}} Tyndall: Preface to “Fragments of Science.”

[#fn170anc 170]. Deuteronomy, chap. xvii., 6.

{{Footnote return|†|fn170}} Deuteronomy, chap. xvii., 6.

[#fn171anc 171]. Montesquieu: Esprit des Lois I., xii., chap. 3.

{{Footnote return|‡|fn171}} Montesquieu: Esprit des Lois I., xii., chap. 3.

88 THE VEIL OF ISIS.

{{Page|88|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}

the verdict of twelve spiritualists, influenced by the evidence testified to by any two others, is competent to send even a scientist to swing on the gallows for a crime, perhaps committed under the impulse supplied by a commotion among the cerebral molecules unrestrained by a consciousness of future moral retribution.

{{Style P-No indent|the verdict of twelve spiritualists, influenced by the evidence testified to by any two others, is competent to send even a scientist to swing on the gallows for a crime, perhaps committed under the impulse supplied by a commotion among the cerebral molecules unrestrained by a consciousness of future moral retribution.}}

Toward science as a whole, as a divine goal, the whole civilized world ought to look with respect and veneration; for science alone can enable man to understand the Deity by the true appreciation of his works. “Science {{Style S-Italic|is the understanding of truth or facts,”}} says Webster; “it is an investigation of truth {{Style S-Italic|for its own sake}} and a pursuit of pure knowledge.” If the definition be correct, then the majority of our modern scholars have proved false to their goddess. “Truth for its own sake!” And where should the keys to every truth in nature be searched for, unless in the hitherto unexplored mystery of psychology? Alas! that in questioning nature so many men of science should daintily sort over her facts and choose only such for study as best bolster their prejudices.

Toward science as a whole, as a divine goal, the whole civilized world ought to look with respect and veneration; for science alone can enable man to understand the Deity by the true appreciation of his works. “Science {{Style S-Italic|is the understanding of truth or facts,”}} says Webster; “it is an investigation of truth {{Style S-Italic|for its own sake}} and a pursuit of pure knowledge.” If the definition be correct, then the majority of our modern scholars have proved false to their goddess. “Truth for its own sake!” And where should the keys to every truth in nature be searched for, unless in the hitherto unexplored mystery of psychology? Alas! that in questioning nature so many men of science should daintily sort over her facts and choose only such for study as best bolster their prejudices.

Psychology has no worse enemies than the medical school denominated {{Style S-Italic|allopathists.}} It is in vain to remind them that of the so-called exact sciences, medicine, confessedly, least deserves the name. Although of all branches of medical knowledge, psychology ought more than any other to be studied by physicians, since without its help their practice degenerates into mere guess-work and chance-intuitions, they almost wholly neglect it. The least dissent from their promulgated doctrines is resented as a heresy, and though an unpopular and unrecognized curative method should be shown to save thousands, they seem, as a body, disposed to cling to accepted hypotheses and prescriptions, and decry both innovator and innovation until they get the mint-stamp of {{Style S-Italic|regularity.}} Thousands of unlucky patients may die meanwhile, but so long as professional honor is vindicated, this is a matter of secondary importance.

Psychology has no worse enemies than the medical school denominated {{Style S-Italic|allopathists.}} It is in vain to remind them that of the so-called exact sciences, medicine, confessedly, least deserves the name. Although of all branches of medical knowledge, psychology ought more than any other to be studied by physicians, since without its help their practice degenerates into mere guess-work and chance-intuitions, they almost wholly neglect it. The least dissent from their promulgated doctrines is resented as a heresy, and though an unpopular and unrecognized curative method should be shown to save thousands, they seem, as a body, disposed to cling to accepted hypotheses and prescriptions, and decry both innovator and innovation until they get the mint-stamp of {{Style S-Italic|regularity.}} Thousands of unlucky patients may die meanwhile, but so long as professional honor is vindicated, this is a matter of secondary importance.

Theoretically the most benignant, at the same time no other school of science exhibits so many instances of petty prejudice, materialism, atheism, and malicious stubbornness as medicine. The predilections and patronage of the leading physicians are scarcely ever measured by the usefulness of a discovery. Bleeding, by leeching, cupping, and the lancet, had its epidemic of popularity, but at last fell into merited disgrace; water, now freely given to fevered patients, was once denied them, warm baths were superseded by cold water, and for a while hydropathy was a mania. Peruvian bark—which a modern defender of biblical authority seriously endeavors to identify with the paradisiacal “Tree of Life,”^{[#fn172 172]} and which was brought to Spain in 1632—was neg-

Theoretically the most benignant, at the same time no other school of science exhibits so many instances of petty prejudice, materialism, atheism, and malicious stubbornness as medicine. The predilections and patronage of the leading physicians are scarcely ever measured by the usefulness of a discovery. Bleeding, by leeching, cupping, and the lancet, had its epidemic of popularity, but at last fell into merited disgrace; water, now freely given to fevered patients, was once denied them, warm baths were superseded by cold water, and for a while hydropathy was a mania. Peruvian bark—which a modern defender of biblical authority seriously endeavors to identify with the paradisiacal “Tree of Life,”{{Footnote mark|*|fn172}} and which was brought to Spain in 1632—was neg-

[#fn172anc 172]. C. B. Warring.

{{Footnote return|*|fn172}} C. B. Warring.

89 NOSTRUMS AND SPECIFICS.

{{Page|89|NOSTRUMS AND SPECIFICS.}}

lected for years. The Church, for once, showed more discrimination than science. At the request of Cardinal de Lugo, Innocent X. gave it the prestige of his powerful name.

{{Style P-No indent|lected for years. The Church, for once, showed more discrimination than science. At the request of Cardinal de Lugo, Innocent X. gave it the prestige of his powerful name.}}

In an old book entitled {{Style S-Italic|Demonologia,}} the author cites many instances of important remedies which being neglected at first afterward rose into notice through mere accident. He also shows that most of the new discoveries in medicine have turned out to be no more than “the revival and readoption of very ancient practices.” During the last century, the root of the male fern was sold and widely advertised as a secret nostrum by a Madame Nouffleur, a female quack, for the effective cure of the tapeworm. The secret was bought by Louis XV. for a large sum of money; after which the physicians discovered that it was recommended and administered in that disease by Galen. The famous powder of the Duke of Portland for the gout, was the {{Style S-Italic|diacentaureon}} of Cælius Aurelianus. Later it was ascertained that it had been used by the earliest medical writers, who had found it in the writings of the old Greek philosophers. So with the {{Style S-Italic|eau medicinale}} of Dr. Husson, whose name it bears. This famous remedy for the gout was recognized under its new mask to be the {{Style S-Italic|Colchicum autumnale,}} or meadow saffron, which is identical with a plant called {{Style S-Italic|Hermodactylus,}} whose merits as a certain antidote to gout were recognized and defended by Oribasius, a great physician of the fourth century, and Ætius Amidenus, another eminent physician of Alexandria (fifth century). Subsequently it was abandoned and fell into disfavor only because it was {{Style S-Italic|too old}} to be considered good by the members of the medical faculties that flourished toward the end of the last century!

In an old book entitled {{Style S-Italic|Demonologia,}} the author cites many instances of important remedies which being neglected at first afterward rose into notice through mere accident. He also shows that most of the new discoveries in medicine have turned out to be no more than “the revival and readoption of very ancient practices.” During the last century, the root of the male fern was sold and widely advertised as a secret nostrum by a Madame Nouffleur, a female quack, for the effective cure of the tapeworm. The secret was bought by Louis XV. for a large sum of money; after which the physicians discovered that it was recommended and administered in that disease by Galen. The famous powder of the Duke of Portland for the gout, was the {{Style S-Italic|diacentaureon}} of Cælius Aurelianus. Later it was ascertained that it had been used by the earliest medical writers, who had found it in the writings of the old Greek philosophers. So with the {{Style S-Italic|eau medicinale}} of Dr. Husson, whose name it bears. This famous remedy for the gout was recognized under its new mask to be the {{Style S-Italic|Colchicum autumnale,}} or meadow saffron, which is identical with a plant called {{Style S-Italic|Hermodactylus,}} whose merits as a certain antidote to gout were recognized and defended by Oribasius, a great physician of the fourth century, and Ætius Amidenus, another eminent physician of Alexandria (fifth century). Subsequently it was abandoned and fell into disfavor only because it was {{Style S-Italic|too old}} to be considered good by the members of the medical faculties that flourished toward the end of the last century!

It is admitted on all hands that from time immemorial the distant East was the land of knowledge. Not even in Egypt were botany and mineralogy so extensively studied as by the savants of archaic Middle Asia. Sprengel, unjust and prejudiced as he shows himself in everything else, confesses this much in his {{Style S-Italic|Histoire de la Medicine.}} And yet,

It is admitted on all hands that from time immemorial the distant East was the land of knowledge. Not even in Egypt were botany and mineralogy so extensively studied as by the savants of archaic Middle Asia. Sprengel, unjust and prejudiced as he shows himself in everything else, confesses this much in his {{Style S-Italic|Histoire de la Medicine.}} And yet,

90 THE VEIL OF ISIS.

{{Page|90|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}

notwithstanding this, whenever the subject of magic is discussed, that of India has rarely suggested itself to any one, for of its general practice in that country less is known than among any other ancient people. With the Hindus it was and is more esoteric, if possible, than it was even among the Egyptian priests. So sacred was it deemed that its existence was only half admitted, and it was only practiced in public emergencies. {{Style S-Italic|It was more than a religious matter, for it was considered divine.}} The Egyptian hierophants, notwithstanding the practice of a stern and pure morality, could not be compared for one moment with the ascetical Gymnosophists, either in holiness of life or miraculous powers developed in them by the supernatural adjuration of everything earthly. By those who knew them well they were held in still greater reverence than the magians of Chaldea. Denying themselves the simplest comforts of life, they dwelt in woods, and led the life of the most secluded hermits,^{[#fn173 173]} while their Egyptian brothers at least congregated together. Notwithstanding the slur thrown by history on all who practiced magic and divination, it has proclaimed them as possessing the greatest secrets in medical knowledge and unsurpassed skill in its practice. Numerous are the volumes preserved in Hindu convents, in which are recorded the proofs of their learning. To attempt to say whether these Gymnosophists were the real founders of magic in India, or whether they only practiced what had passed to them as an inheritance from the earliest Rishis^{[#fn174 174]}—the seven primeval sages—would be regarded as a mere speculation by exact scholars. “The care which they took in educating youth, in familiarizing it with generous and virtuous sentiments, did them peculiar honor, and their maxims and discourses, as recorded by historians, prove that they were expert in matters of philosophy, metaphysics, astronomy, morality, and religion,” says a modern writer. They preserved their dignity under the sway of the most powerful princes, whom they would {{Style S-Italic|not}} condescend to visit, or to trouble for the slightest favor. If the latter desired the advice or the prayers of the holy men, they were either obliged to go themselves, or to send messengers. To these men no secret power of either plant or mineral was unknown. They had fathomed nature to its depths, while psychology and physiology were to them open books, and the result was that science or machagiotia that is now termed, so superciliously, {{Style S-Italic|magic}}.

{{Style P-No indent|notwithstanding this, whenever the subject of magic is discussed, that of India has rarely suggested itself to any one, for of its general practice in that country less is known than among any other ancient people. With the Hindus it was and is more esoteric, if possible, than it was even among the Egyptian priests. So sacred was it deemed that its existence was only half admitted, and it was only practiced in public emergencies. {{Style S-Italic|It was more than a religious matter, for it was considered divine.}} The Egyptian hierophants, notwithstanding the practice of a stern and pure morality, could not be compared for one moment with the ascetical Gymnosophists, either in holiness of life or miraculous powers developed in them by the supernatural adjuration of everything earthly. By those who knew them well they were held in still greater reverence than the magians of Chaldea. Denying themselves the simplest comforts of life, they dwelt in woods, and led the life of the most secluded hermits,{{Footnote mark|*|fn173}} while their Egyptian brothers at least congregated together. Notwithstanding the slur thrown by history on all who practiced magic and divination, it has proclaimed them as possessing the greatest secrets in medical knowledge and unsurpassed skill in its practice. Numerous are the volumes preserved in Hindu convents, in which are recorded the proofs of their learning. To attempt to say whether these Gymnosophists were the real founders of magic in India, or whether they only practiced what had passed to them as an inheritance from the earliest Rishis{{Footnote mark|†|fn174}}—the seven primeval sages—would be regarded as a mere speculation by exact scholars. “The care which they took in educating youth, in familiarizing it with generous and virtuous sentiments, did them peculiar honor, and their maxims and discourses, as recorded by historians, prove that they were expert in matters of philosophy, metaphysics, astronomy, morality, and religion,” says a modern writer. They preserved their dignity under the sway of the most powerful princes, whom they would {{Style S-Italic|not}} condescend to visit, or to trouble for the slightest favor. If the latter desired the advice or the prayers of the holy men, they were either obliged to go themselves, or to send messengers. To these men no secret power of either plant or mineral was unknown. They had fathomed nature to its depths, while psychology and physiology were to them open books, and the result was that science or machagiotia that is now termed, so superciliously, {{Style S-Italic|magic}}.}}

While the miracles recorded in the Bible have become accepted facts

While the miracles recorded in the Bible have become accepted facts

[#fn173anc 173]. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii., 6.

{{Footnote return|*|fn173}} Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii., 6.

[#fn174anc 174]. The Rishis were seven in number, and lived in days anteceding the Vedic period. They were known as sages, and held in reverence like demigods. Haug shows that they occupy in the Brahmanical religion a position answering to that of the twelve sons of Jacob in the Jewish Bible. The Brahmans claim to descend directly from these Rishis.

{{Footnote return|†|fn174}} The Rishis were seven in number, and lived in days anteceding the Vedic period. They were known as sages, and held in reverence like demigods. Haug shows that they occupy in the Brahmanical religion a position answering to that of the twelve sons of Jacob in the Jewish Bible. The Brahmans claim to descend directly from these Rishis.

91 THE DEMIURGOS.

{{Page|91|THE DEMIURGOS.}}

with the Christians, to disbelieve which is regarded as infidelity, the narratives of wonders and prodigies found in the {{Style S-Italic|Atharva-Veda}},^{[#fn175 175]} either provoke their contempt or are viewed as evidences of diabolism. And yet, in more than one respect, and notwithstanding the unwillingness of certain Sanscrit scholars, we can show the identity between the two. Moreover, as the Vedas have now been proved by scholars to antedate the Jewish {{Style S-Italic|Bible}} by many ages, the inference is an easy one that if one of them has borrowed from the other, the Hindu sacred books are not to be charged with plagiarism.

{{Style P-No indent|with the Christians, to disbelieve which is regarded as infidelity, the narratives of wonders and prodigies found in the {{Style S-Italic|Atharva-Veda}},{{Footnote mark|*|fn175}} either provoke their contempt or are viewed as evidences of diabolism. And yet, in more than one respect, and notwithstanding the unwillingness of certain Sanscrit scholars, we can show the identity between the two. Moreover, as the Vedas have now been proved by scholars to antedate the Jewish {{Style S-Italic|Bible}} by many ages, the inference is an easy one that if one of them has borrowed from the other, the Hindu sacred books are not to be charged with plagiarism.}}

First of all, their cosmogony shows how erroneous has been the opinion prevalent among the civilized nations that Brahma was ever considered by the Hindus their chief or Supreme God. Brahma is a secondary deity, and like Jehovah is “a {{Style S-Italic|mover of the waters.”}} He is the {{Style S-Italic|creating}} god, and has in his allegorical representations four heads, answering to the four cardinal points. He is the demiurgos, the {{Style S-Italic|architect}} of the world. “In the primordiate state of the creation,” says Polier’s {{Style S-Italic|Mythologie des Indous,}} “the rudimental universe, submerged in water, reposed in the bosom of the Eternal. Sprang from this chaos and darkness, Brahma, the architect of the world, poised on a lotus-leaf floated (moved?) upon the waters, unable to discern anything but water and darkness.” This is as identical as possible with the Egyptian cosmogony, which shows in its opening sentences Athtor^{[#fn176 176]} or Mother Night (which represents illimitable darkness) as the primeval element which covered the infinite abyss, animated by water and the universal spirit of the Eternal, dwelling alone in Chaos. As in the Jewish Scriptures, the history of the creation opens with the spirit of God and his creative emanation—another Deity.^{[#fn177 177]} Perceiving such a dismal state of things, Brahma soliloquizes in consternation: “Who am I? Whence came I?” Then he hears a voice: “Direct your prayer to Bhagavant—the Eternal, known, also, as Parabrahma.” Brahma, rising from his natatory position, seats himself upon the lotus in an attitude of contemplation, and reflects upon the Eternal, who, pleased with this evidence of piety, disperses the primeval darkness and opens his understanding. “After this Brahma issues from the universal egg—(infinite chaos) as {{Style S-Italic|light,}} for his understanding is now opened, and he sets himself to work; he {{Style S-Italic|moves}} on the eternal waters, with the spirit of God within himself; in his capacity of {{Style S-Italic|mover}} of the waters he is {{Style S-Italic|Narayana.”}}

First of all, their cosmogony shows how erroneous has been the opinion prevalent among the civilized nations that Brahma was ever considered by the Hindus their chief or Supreme God. Brahma is a secondary deity, and like Jehovah is “a {{Style S-Italic|mover of the waters.”}} He is the {{Style S-Italic|creating}} god, and has in his allegorical representations four heads, answering to the four cardinal points. He is the demiurgos, the {{Style S-Italic|architect}} of the world. “In the primordiate state of the creation,” says Polier’s {{Style S-Italic|Mythologie des Indous,}} “the rudimental universe, submerged in water, reposed in the bosom of the Eternal. Sprang from this chaos and darkness, Brahma, the architect of the world, poised on a lotus-leaf floated (moved?) upon the waters, unable to discern anything but water and darkness.” This is as identical as possible with the Egyptian cosmogony, which shows in its opening sentences Athtor{{Footnote mark|†|fn176}} or Mother Night (which represents illimitable darkness) as the primeval element which covered the infinite abyss, animated by water and the universal spirit of the Eternal, dwelling alone in Chaos. As in the Jewish Scriptures, the history of the creation opens with the spirit of God and his creative emanation—another Deity.{{Footnote mark|‡|fn177}} Perceiving such a dismal state of things, Brahma soliloquizes in consternation: “Who am I? Whence came I?” Then he hears a voice: “Direct your prayer to Bhagavant—the Eternal, known, also, as Parabrahma.” Brahma, rising from his natatory position, seats himself upon the lotus in an attitude of contemplation, and reflects upon the Eternal, who, pleased with this evidence of piety, disperses the primeval darkness and opens his understanding. “After this Brahma issues from the universal egg—(infinite chaos) as {{Style S-Italic|light,}} for his understanding is now opened, and he sets himself to work; he {{Style S-Italic|moves}} on the eternal waters, with the spirit of God within himself; in his capacity of {{Style S-Italic|mover}} of the waters he is {{Style S-Italic|Narayana.”}}

The lotus, the sacred flower of the Egyptians, as well as the Hindus, is the symbol of Horus as it is that of Brahma. No temples in Thibet or

The lotus, the sacred flower of the Egyptians, as well as the Hindus, is the symbol of Horus as it is that of Brahma. No temples in Thibet or

[#fn175anc 175]. The fourth Veda.

{{Footnote return|*|fn175}} The fourth Veda.

[#fn176anc 176]. Orthography of the “Archaic Dictionary.”

{{Footnote return|†|fn176}} Orthography of the “Archaic Dictionary.”

[#fn177anc 177]. We do not mean the current or accepted Bible, but the {{Style S-Italic|real}} Jewish one explained kabalistically.

{{Footnote return|‡|fn177}} We do not mean the current or accepted Bible, but the {{Style S-Italic|real}} Jewish one explained kabalistically.

92 THE VEIL OF ISIS.

{{Page|92|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}

Nepaul are found without it; and the meaning of this symbol is extremely suggestive. The sprig of {{Style S-Italic|lilies}} placed in the hand of the archangel, who offers them to the Virgin Mary, in the pictures of the “Annunciation,” have in their esoteric symbolism precisely the same meaning. We refer the reader to Sir William Jones.^{[#fn178 178]} With the Hindus, the lotus is the emblem of the productive power of nature, through the agency of fire and water (spirit and matter). “Eternal!” says a verse in the {{Style S-Italic|Bhagavad Gita,}} “I see Brahma the creator enthroned in {{Style S-Italic|thee}} above the lotus!” and Sir W. Jones shows that the seeds of the lotus contain—even before they germinate—perfectly-formed leaves, the miniature shapes of what one day, as perfected plants, they will become; or, as the author of {{Style S-Italic|The Heathen Religion,}} has it—“nature thus giving us a specimen of the {{Style S-Italic|preformation}} of its productions;” adding further that “the seed of all {{Style S-Italic|phœnogamous}} plants bearing {{Style S-Italic|proper}} flowers, contain {{Style S-Italic|an embryo plantlet ready formed.”^{[#fn179 179]}}}

{{Style P-No indent|Nepaul are found without it; and the meaning of this symbol is extremely suggestive. The sprig of {{Style S-Italic|lilies}} placed in the hand of the archangel, who offers them to the Virgin Mary, in the pictures of the “Annunciation,” have in their esoteric symbolism precisely the same meaning. We refer the reader to Sir William Jones.{{Footnote mark|*|fn178}} With the Hindus, the lotus is the emblem of the productive power of nature, through the agency of fire and water (spirit and matter). “Eternal!” says a verse in the {{Style S-Italic|Bhagavad Gita,}} “I see Brahma the creator enthroned in {{Style S-Italic|thee}} above the lotus!” and Sir W. Jones shows that the seeds of the lotus contain—even before they germinate—perfectly-formed leaves, the miniature shapes of what one day, as perfected plants, they will become; or, as the author of {{Style S-Italic|The Heathen Religion,}} has it—“nature thus giving us a specimen of the {{Style S-Italic|preformation}} of its productions;” adding further that “the seed of all {{Style S-Italic|phœnogamous}} plants bearing {{Style S-Italic|proper}} flowers, contain {{Style S-Italic|an embryo plantlet ready formed}}.”{{Footnote mark|†|fn179}}}}

With the Buddhists, it has the same signification. Maha-Maya, or Maha-Deva, the mother of Gautama Buddha, had the birth of her son announced to her by Bhodisat (the spirit of Buddha), who appeared beside her couch with a {{Style S-Italic|lotus}} in his hand. Thus, also, Osiris and Horus are represented by the Egyptians constantly in association with the lotus-flower.

With the Buddhists, it has the same signification. Maha-Maya, or Maha-Deva, the mother of Gautama Buddha, had the birth of her son announced to her by Bhodisat (the spirit of Buddha), who appeared beside her couch with a {{Style S-Italic|lotus}} in his hand. Thus, also, Osiris and Horus are represented by the Egyptians constantly in association with the lotus-flower.

These facts all go to show the identical parentage of this idea in the three religious systems, Hindu, Egyptian and Judaico-Christian. Wherever the mystic water-lily (lotus) is employed, it signifies the emanation of the objective from the concealed, or subjective—the eternal thought of the ever-invisible Deity passing from the abstract into the concrete or visible form. For as soon as darkness was dispersed and “there was light,” Brahma’s understanding was opened, and he saw in the ideal world (which had hitherto lain eternally concealed in the Divine thought) the archetypal forms of all the infinite future things that would be called into existence, and hence become visible. At this first stage of action, Brahma had not yet become the architect, the builder of the universe, for he had, like the architect, to first acquaint himself with the plan, and realize the ideal forms which were buried in the bosom of the Eternal One, as the future lotus-leaves are concealed within the seed of that plant. And it is in this idea that we must look for the origin and explanation of the verse in the Jewish cosmogony, which reads: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth . . . the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, {{Style S-Italic|whose seed is in itself.”}} In all the primitive religions, the “Son of the Father” is the creative God—{{Style S-Italic|i.e.,}} His thought made visible; and before the Christian era, from the Trimurti of the Hindus down to the

These facts all go to show the identical parentage of this idea in the three religious systems, Hindu, Egyptian and Judaico-Christian. Wherever the mystic water-lily (lotus) is employed, it signifies the emanation of the objective from the concealed, or subjective—the eternal thought of the ever-invisible Deity passing from the abstract into the concrete or visible form. For as soon as darkness was dispersed and “there was light,” Brahma’s understanding was opened, and he saw in the ideal world (which had hitherto lain eternally concealed in the Divine thought) the archetypal forms of all the infinite future things that would be called into existence, and hence become visible. At this first stage of action, Brahma had not yet become the architect, the builder of the universe, for he had, like the architect, to first acquaint himself with the plan, and realize the ideal forms which were buried in the bosom of the Eternal One, as the future lotus-leaves are concealed within the seed of that plant. And it is in this idea that we must look for the origin and explanation of the verse in the Jewish cosmogony, which reads: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth . . . the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, {{Style S-Italic|whose seed is in itself.”}} In all the primitive religions, the “Son of the Father” is the creative God—''i.e.'', His thought made visible; and before the Christian era, from the Trimurti of the Hindus down to the

[#fn178anc 178]. “Dissertations Relating to Asia.”

{{Footnote return|*|fn178}} “Dissertations Relating to Asia.”

[#fn179anc 179]. Dr. Gross, p. 195.

{{Footnote return|†|fn179}} Dr. Gross, p. 195.

93 THE WATER-LILIES OF GABRIEL.

{{Page|93|THE WATER-LILIES OF GABRIEL.}}

three kabalistic heads of the Jewish-explained scriptures, the triune godhead of each nation was fully defined and substantiated in its allegories. In the Christian creed we see but the artificial engrafting of a new branch upon the old trunk; and the adoption by the Greek and Roman churches of the lily-symbol held by the archangel at the moment of the Annunciation, shows a thought of precisely the same metaphysical significance.

{{Style P-No indent|three kabalistic heads of the Jewish-explained scriptures, the triune godhead of each nation was fully defined and substantiated in its allegories. In the Christian creed we see but the artificial engrafting of a new branch upon the old trunk; and the adoption by the Greek and Roman churches of the lily-symbol held by the archangel at the moment of the Annunciation, shows a thought of precisely the same metaphysical significance.}}

The lotus is the product of fire (heat) and water, hence the dual symbol of spirit and matter. The God Brahma is the second person of the Trinity, as are Jehovah (Adam-Kadmon) and Osiris, or rather Pimander, or the Power of the Thought Divine, of Hermes; for it is Pimander who represents the root of all the Egyptian Sun-gods. The Eternal is the Spirit of Fire, which stirs up and fructifies and develops into a concrete form everything that is born of water or the primordial earth, evolved out of Brahma; but the universe is itself Brahma, and he is the universe. This is the philosophy of Spinoza, which he derived from that of Pythagoras; and it is the same for which Bruno died a martyr. How much Christian theology has gone astray from its point of departure, is demonstrated in this historical fact. Bruno was slaughtered for the exegesis of a symbol that was adopted by the earliest Christians, and expounded by the apostles! The sprig of water-lilies of Bhodisat, and later of Gabriel, typifying fire and water, or the idea of creation and generation, is worked into the earliest dogma of the baptismal sacrament.

The lotus is the product of fire (heat) and water, hence the dual symbol of spirit and matter. The God Brahma is the second person of the Trinity, as are Jehovah (Adam-Kadmon) and Osiris, or rather Pimander, or the Power of the Thought Divine, of Hermes; for it is Pimander who represents the root of all the Egyptian Sun-gods. The Eternal is the Spirit of Fire, which stirs up and fructifies and develops into a concrete form everything that is born of water or the primordial earth, evolved out of Brahma; but the universe is itself Brahma, and he is the universe. This is the philosophy of Spinoza, which he derived from that of Pythagoras; and it is the same for which Bruno died a martyr. How much Christian theology has gone astray from its point of departure, is demonstrated in this historical fact. Bruno was slaughtered for the exegesis of a symbol that was adopted by the earliest Christians, and expounded by the apostles! The sprig of water-lilies of Bhodisat, and later of Gabriel, typifying fire and water, or the idea of creation and generation, is worked into the earliest dogma of the baptismal sacrament.

Bruno’s and Spinoza’s doctrines are nearly identical, though the words of the latter are more veiled, and far more cautiously chosen than those to be found in the theories of the author of the {{Style S-Italic|Causa Principio et Uno,}} or the {{Style S-Italic|Infinito Universo e Mondi.}} Both Bruno, who confesses that the source of his information was Pythagoras, and Spinoza, who, without acknowledging it as frankly, allows his philosophy to betray the secret, view the First Cause from the same stand-point. With them, God is an Entity totally {{Style S-Italic|per se,}} an Infinite Spirit, and the only Being utterly free and independent of either effects or other causes; who, through that same Will which produced all things and gave the first impulse to every cosmic law, perpetually keeps in existence and order everything in the universe. As well as the Hindu Swâbhâvikas, erroneously called Atheists, who assume that all things, men as well as gods and spirits, were born from Swabhâva, or their own nature,^{[#fn180 180]} both

Bruno’s and Spinoza’s doctrines are nearly identical, though the words of the latter are more veiled, and far more cautiously chosen than those to be found in the theories of the author of the {{Style S-Italic|Causa Principio et Uno,}} or the {{Style S-Italic|Infinito Universo e Mondi.}} Both Bruno, who confesses that the source of his information was Pythagoras, and Spinoza, who, without acknowledging it as frankly, allows his philosophy to betray the secret, view the First Cause from the same stand-point. With them, God is an Entity totally {{Style S-Italic|per se,}} an Infinite Spirit, and the only Being utterly free and independent of either effects or other causes; who, through that same Will which produced all things and gave the first impulse to every cosmic law, perpetually keeps in existence and order everything in the universe. As well as the Hindu Swâbhâvikas, erroneously called Atheists, who assume that all things, men as well as gods and spirits, were born from Swabhâva, or their own nature,{{Footnote mark|*|fn180}} both

[#fn180anc 180]. Brahma does {{Style S-Italic|not}} create the earth, {{Style S-Italic|Mirtlok,}} any more than the rest of the universe. Having evolved himself from the soul of the world, once separated from the First Cause, he emanates in his turn all nature out of himself. He does not stand above it, but is mixed up with it; and Brahma and the universe form one Being, each particle of which is in its essence Brahma himself, who proceeded out of himself. [Burnouf: “Introduction,” p. 118.]

{{Footnote return|*|fn180}} Brahma does {{Style S-Italic|not}} create the earth, {{Style S-Italic|Mirtlok,}} any more than the rest of the universe. Having evolved himself from the soul of the world, once separated from the First Cause, he emanates in his turn all nature out of himself. He does not stand above it, but is mixed up with it; and Brahma and the universe form one Being, each particle of which is in its essence Brahma himself, who proceeded out of himself. [Burnouf: “Introduction,” p. 118.]

94 THE VEIL OF ISIS.

{{Page|94|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}

Spinoza and Bruno were led to the conclusion that {{Style S-Italic|God is to be sought for within nature and not without.}} For, creation being proportional to the power of the Creator, the universe as well as its Creator must be infinite and eternal, one form emanating from its own essence, and creating in its turn another. The modern commentators affirm that Bruno, “{{Style S-Italic|unsustained by the hope of another and better world,}} still surrendered his life rather than his convictions;” thereby allowing it to be inferred that Giordano Bruno had no belief in the continued existence of man after death. Professor Draper asserts most positively that Bruno did not believe in the immortality of the soul. Speaking of the countless victims of the religious intolerance of the Popish Church, he remarks: “The passage from this life to the next, though through a hard trial, was the passage from a transient trouble to eternal happiness. . . . On his way through the dark valley, the martyr believed that there was an invisible hand that would lead him. . . . For Bruno there was no such support. The philosophical opinions, for the sake of which he surrendered his life, could give him no consolation.”^{[#fn181 181]}

{{Style P-No indent|Spinoza and Bruno were led to the conclusion that {{Style S-Italic|God is to be sought for within nature and not without.}} For, creation being proportional to the power of the Creator, the universe as well as its Creator must be infinite and eternal, one form emanating from its own essence, and creating in its turn another. The modern commentators affirm that Bruno, “{{Style S-Italic|unsustained by the hope of another and better world,}} still surrendered his life rather than his convictions;” thereby allowing it to be inferred that Giordano Bruno had no belief in the continued existence of man after death. Professor Draper asserts most positively that Bruno did not believe in the immortality of the soul. Speaking of the countless victims of the religious intolerance of the Popish Church, he remarks: “The passage from this life to the next, though through a hard trial, was the passage from a transient trouble to eternal happiness. . . . On his way through the dark valley, the martyr believed that there was an invisible hand that would lead him. . . . For Bruno there was no such support. The philosophical opinions, for the sake of which he surrendered his life, could give him no consolation.”{{Footnote mark|*|fn181}}}}

But Professor Draper seems to have a very superficial knowledge of the true belief of the philosophers. We can leave Spinoza out of the question, and even allow him to remain in the eyes of his critics an utter atheist and materialist; for the cautious reserve which he placed upon himself in his writings makes it extremely difficult for one who does not read him between the lines, and is not thoroughly acquainted with the hidden meaning of the Pythagorean metaphysics, to ascertain what his real sentiments were. But as for Giordano Bruno, if he adhered to the doctrines of Pythagoras he must have believed in another life, hence, he could not have been an atheist whose philosophy offered him no such “consolation.” His accusation and subsequent confession, as given by Professor Domenico Berti, in his {{Style S-Italic|Life of Bruno,}} and compiled from original documents recently published, proved beyond doubt what were his {{Style S-Italic|real}} philosophy, creed and doctrines. In common with the Alexandrian Platonists, and the later Kabalists, he held that Jesus was a magician in the sense given to this appellation by Porphyry and Cicero, who call it the {{Style S-Italic|divina sapientia}} (divine knowledge), and by Philo Judæs, who described the Magi as the most wonderful inquirers into the hidden mysteries of nature, not in the degrading sense given to the word magic in our century. In his noble conception, {{Style S-Italic|the Magi were holy men, who, setting themselves apart from everything else on this earth, contemplated the divine virtues and understood the divine nature of the gods and spirits, the more clearly; and so, initiated others into the same mys}}-

But Professor Draper seems to have a very superficial knowledge of the true belief of the philosophers. We can leave Spinoza out of the question, and even allow him to remain in the eyes of his critics an utter atheist and materialist; for the cautious reserve which he placed upon himself in his writings makes it extremely difficult for one who does not read him between the lines, and is not thoroughly acquainted with the hidden meaning of the Pythagorean metaphysics, to ascertain what his real sentiments were. But as for Giordano Bruno, if he adhered to the doctrines of Pythagoras he must have believed in another life, hence, he could not have been an atheist whose philosophy offered him no such “consolation.” His accusation and subsequent confession, as given by Professor Domenico Berti, in his {{Style S-Italic|Life of Bruno,}} and compiled from original documents recently published, proved beyond doubt what were his {{Style S-Italic|real}} philosophy, creed and doctrines. In common with the Alexandrian Platonists, and the later Kabalists, he held that Jesus was a magician in the sense given to this appellation by Porphyry and Cicero, who call it the {{Style S-Italic|divina sapientia}} (divine knowledge), and by Philo Judæs, who described the Magi as the most wonderful inquirers into the hidden mysteries of nature, not in the degrading sense given to the word magic in our century. In his noble conception, ''the Magi were holy men, who, setting themselves apart from everything else on this earth, contemplated the divine virtues and understood the divine nature of the gods and spirits, the more clearly; and so, initiated others into the same mys''-

[#fn181anc 181]. “Conflict between Religion and Science,” 180.

{{Footnote return|*|fn181}} “Conflict between Religion and Science,” 180.

95 THE INDICTMENT AGAINST BRUNO.

{{Page|95|THE INDICTMENT AGAINST BRUNO.}}

{{Style S-Italic|teries, which consist in one holding an uninterrupted intercourse with these invisible beings during life.}} But we will show Bruno’s inmost philosophical convictions better by quoting fragments from the {{Style S-Italic|accusation}} and his {{Style S-Italic|own confession.}}

{{Style P-No indent|''teries, which consist in one holding an uninterrupted intercourse with these invisible beings during life''. But we will show Bruno’s inmost philosophical convictions better by quoting fragments from the {{Style S-Italic|accusation}} and his {{Style S-Italic|own confession.}}}}

The charges in the denunciation of Mocenigo, his accuser, are expressed in the following terms:

The charges in the denunciation of Mocenigo, his accuser, are expressed in the following terms:

“He has shown indications of wishing to make himself the author of a new sect, under the name of ‘{{Style S-Italic|New Philosophy.’}} He has said that the Virgin could not have brought forth, and that our Catholic faith is all full of blasphemies against the majesty of God; that the monks ought to be deprived of the right of disputation and their revenues, because they pollute the world; that they are all asses, and that our opinions are doctrines of asses; that we have no proof that our faith has merit with God, and that not to do to others what we would not have done to ourselves suffices for a good life, and that he laughs at all other sins, and wonders how God can endure so many heresies in Catholics. He says that he means to apply himself to the art of divination, and make all the world run after him; that St. Thomas and all the Doctors knew nothing to compare with him, and that he could ask questions of all the first theologians of the world that they could not answer.”

“He has shown indications of wishing to make himself the author of a new sect, under the name of ‘{{Style S-Italic|New Philosophy.’}} He has said that the Virgin could not have brought forth, and that our Catholic faith is all full of blasphemies against the majesty of God; that the monks ought to be deprived of the right of disputation and their revenues, because they pollute the world; that they are all asses, and that our opinions are doctrines of asses; that we have no proof that our faith has merit with God, and that not to do to others what we would not have done to ourselves suffices for a good life, and that he laughs at all other sins, and wonders how God can endure so many heresies in Catholics. He says that he means to apply himself to the art of divination, and make all the world run after him; that St. Thomas and all the Doctors knew nothing to compare with him, and that he could ask questions of all the first theologians of the world that they could not answer.”

96 THE VEIL OF ISIS.

{{Page|96|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}

To this, the accused philosopher answered by the following profession of faith, which is that of every disciple of the ancient masters:

To this, the accused philosopher answered by the following profession of faith, which is that of every disciple of the ancient masters:

“Next, in regard to what belongs to the true faith, not speaking philosophically, to come to individuality about the divine persons, the

“Next, in regard to what belongs to the true faith, not speaking philosophically, to come to individuality about the divine persons, the

97 BRUNO A PYTHAGOREAN.

{{Page|97|BRUNO A PYTHAGOREAN.}}

wisdom and the son of the mind, called by philosophers intellect, and by theologians the word, which ought to be believed to have taken on human flesh. But I, abiding in the phrases of philosophy, have not understood it, but have doubted and held it with inconstant faith, not that I remember to have shown marks of it in writing nor in speech, except indirectly from other things, something of it may be gathered as by way of ingenuity and profession in regard to what may be proved by reason and concluded from natural light. Thus, in regard to the Holy Spirit in a third person, I have not been able to comprehend, as ought to be believed, but, according to the Pythagoric manner, in conformity to the manner shown by Solomon, I have understood it as the soul of the universe, or adjoined to the universe according to the saying of the wisdom of Solomon: ‘The spirit of God filled all the earth, and that which contains all things,’ all which conforms equally to the Pythagoric doctrine explained by Virgil in the text of the {{Style S-Italic|Æneid:}}

{{Style P-No indent|wisdom and the son of the mind, called by philosophers intellect, and by theologians the word, which ought to be believed to have taken on human flesh. But I, abiding in the phrases of philosophy, have not understood it, but have doubted and held it with inconstant faith, not that I remember to have shown marks of it in writing nor in speech, except indirectly from other things, something of it may be gathered as by way of ingenuity and profession in regard to what may be proved by reason and concluded from natural light. Thus, in regard to the Holy Spirit in a third person, I have not been able to comprehend, as ought to be believed, but, according to the Pythagoric manner, in conformity to the manner shown by Solomon, I have understood it as the soul of the universe, or adjoined to the universe according to the saying of the wisdom of Solomon: ‘The spirit of God filled all the earth, and that which contains all things,’ all which conforms equally to the Pythagoric doctrine explained by Virgil in the text of the {{Style S-Italic|Æneid:}}}}

{{Style P-Quote|Principio coelum ac terras camposque liquentes,

{{Style P-Quote|Principio coelum ac terras camposque liquentes,

Mens agitat molem; }}

Mens agitat molem; }}

and the lines following.

{{Style P-No indent|and the lines following.}}

“From this spirit, then, which is called the life of the universe, I understand, in my philosophy, proceeds life and soul to everything which has life and soul, which, moreover, I understand to be immortal, as also to bodies, which, as to their substance, are all immortal, there being no other death than division and congregation, which doctrine seems expressed in {{Style S-Italic|Ecclesiastes,}} where it is said that ‘there is nothing new under the sun; that which is is that which was.’”

“From this spirit, then, which is called the life of the universe, I understand, in my philosophy, proceeds life and soul to everything which has life and soul, which, moreover, I understand to be immortal, as also to bodies, which, as to their substance, are all immortal, there being no other death than division and congregation, which doctrine seems expressed in {{Style S-Italic|Ecclesiastes,}} where it is said that ‘there is nothing new under the sun; that which is is that which was.’”

But for the opportune appearance of Berti’s authoritative work, we would have continued to revere Bruno as a martyr, whose bust was deservedly set high in the Pantheon of Exact Science, crowned with laurel by the hand of Draper. But now we see that their hero of an hour

But for the opportune appearance of Berti’s authoritative work, we would have continued to revere Bruno as a martyr, whose bust was deservedly set high in the Pantheon of Exact Science, crowned with laurel by the hand of Draper. But now we see that their hero of an hour

98 THE VEIL OF ISIS.

{{Page|98|THE VEIL OF ISIS.}}

is neither atheist, materialist, nor positivist, but simply a Pythagorean who taught the philosophy of Upper Asia, and claimed to possess the powers of the magicians, so despised by Draper’s own school! Nothing more amusing than this {{Style S-Italic|contretemps}} has happened since the supposed statue of St. Peter was discovered by irreverent archæologists to be nothing else than the Jupiter of the Capitol, and Buddha’s identity with the Catholic St. Josaphat was satisfactorily proven.

{{Style P-No indent|is neither atheist, materialist, nor positivist, but simply a Pythagorean who taught the philosophy of Upper Asia, and claimed to possess the powers of the magicians, so despised by Draper’s own school! Nothing more amusing than this {{Style S-Italic|contretemps}} has happened since the supposed statue of St. Peter was discovered by irreverent archæologists to be nothing else than the Jupiter of the Capitol, and Buddha’s identity with the Catholic St. Josaphat was satisfactorily proven.}}

Thus, search where we may through the archives of history, we find that there is no fragment of modern philosophy—whether Newtonian, Cartesian, Huxleyian or any other—but has been dug from the Oriental mines. Even Positivism and Nihilism find their prototype in the exoteric portion of Kapila’s philosophy, as is well remarked by Max Müller. It was the inspiration of the Hindu sages that penetrated the mysteries of Pragnâ Pâramitâ (perfect wisdom); their hands that rocked the cradle of the first ancestor of that feeble but noisy child that we have christened modern science.

Thus, search where we may through the archives of history, we find that there is no fragment of modern philosophy—whether Newtonian, Cartesian, Huxleyian or any other—but has been dug from the Oriental mines. Even Positivism and Nihilism find their prototype in the exoteric portion of Kapila’s philosophy, as is well remarked by Max Müller. It was the inspiration of the Hindu sages that penetrated the mysteries of Pragnâ Pâramitâ (perfect wisdom); their hands that rocked the cradle of the first ancestor of that feeble but noisy child that we have christened {{Style S-Small capitals|modern science}}.