PSYCHIC PHENOMENA OF RELIGIOUS EXPERI ENCE. It is still a common belief in some quarters that the religious experiences of the Hebrew prophets, of the early Christians, and even of the Christians of the Middle Age differed widely from those of the adherents of other religions, and from those of modern Christians. By a curious process of reasoning it is claimed that in distant ages the power of the Spirit manifested itself in marvellous ways, and then changed its method of opera tion. Whenever in modern times it has been reported that marvellous things have happened the disposition has been to smile or even to scoff. It is true that the Society for Psychical Research has brought about a change, but the prejudice against such investigations and against the trend of thought which such investigations represent is amazingly strong. Yet, if marvels happen at all, why they should happen in one age and not in another, no one has been able satisfactorily to explain. To many people the simplest explanation seems to be that they never have happened. And of course the simplest ex planation is often the wrong one. The truth is that what were understood as marvels in distant ages do happen still. It Is impossible to suppose that the Divine Power, which is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever can ever have left itself without unmistakeable evidence in any age. Marvels do happen quite similar to some of those which happened in the days of the Hebrew Prophets and the Early Christians. There can no longer be any doubt that people in these days are being healed bodily and reformed morally in a way that seems miracu lous. One need only refer to such works as W. Soltau's Hat Jesus Wunder gOtan? H. Dresser's Health and the inner Life (1907), the book published in 1908 with the title Religion and Medicine, and Hugo Muensterberg's Psychotherapy (1909). Marvels still happen. But there is a fundamental difference between our age and the early ages to this extent that at least in some cases the progress of the Science of Mind, which is still new, has taught us to interpret the marvellous phenomena of re ligious experience in another way. We are ,better able to distinguish between subjective and objective pheno mena. This is a matter of far-reaching significance. The failure in ancient times to make this distinction not only fostered an extravagant belief in palpable marvels, but influenced the whole style and language in which even ordinary historical events were described. The profound and remarkable subjective experiences of men like Moses, for instance, dictated the style in which the history of his people was written. One example may be taken, though it may not be the best for our purpose. We are told that when the people of Israel journeyed from Egypt, Jehovah went before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. This is none other than the fire and smoke which Moses raw subjectively in his vision of the Burning Bush, and which he ever afterwards associated with the Divine Presence (see further BURNING BUSH, and PILLAR OF CLOUD AND FIRE). The Bible is probably full of instances of the kind, and in this respect no sharp line of distinc tion can be drawn between the Old Testament and the New. Profane history in any age is but a poor reflexion of historical truth. Sacred history, history written from a religious standpoint, bears a still slighter resemblance to history as the term is commonly understood. But let this fact be emphasized at once, the style in which sacred history is composed bears witness to religious experiences which stirred men to their inmost depths. And the history does reflect and enshrine in great measure that knowledge which is of priceless worth, the knowledge of divine truth. This is the treasure hid in a field which one would do well to search out and buy at any price. To interpret sacred history too literally then is to mis understand it. This was pointed out long ago by De Quincey, a rather conservative writer when he came to deal with theology. The language of sacred books is coloured by religious experience. And yet, where the writer is not a mere second-hand reporter or editor, but one who has himself had exceptionally profound religious experiences, divine inspiration may be said to cling to every word. In a sense the idea expressed by Verbal Inspiration is still true. Be that as it may, the claim that certain books as a whole are inspired is well sup ported. It is supported powerfully in one way by the effect which they produce when they are rightly under stood. The philosophy known as Pragmatism seems to be based upon the principle that the truth of a philosophy will be demonstrated by its practical results. The prin ciple is a right one. Experience shows that there is nothing wrong with Inspiration and Revelation, but only with the way in which they have been understood. Certain books are inspired. The point that requires to be emphasized is that by the time inspiration has reached a book it has passed through several processes or stages. According to Mr. Laurie Magnus (` Religio Loki' Judaica, 1907), even traditional Judaism " recog nizes at least three elements in the inspired text, as we receive it. First, the message; next, the interpreter; lastly, the audience. Human agents were chosen to communicate the divine will, and something doubtless was lost in the first process of transmission. Further, the transmitting agent had to make his communication to a heterogeneous audience, and that second process of removal from the original Voice involved a fresh adapta tion of the message. The Peutateuchal formula is com monly : ' And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them.' Now taking the thing quite literally, it is obvious that in auy attempt to repeat to a large mixed class the words of a supreme authority, a certain admixture must take place. There is not only the mind of the transmitter, but the mind of the receivers to be considered. Each will colour the message on its way; and there will be in the resultant text the element of Moses and the element of the children of Israel, as well as the original code." This, according to Mr. Laurie Magnus, is the view of traditional Judaism. But we can go even deeper to the root of the matter. God is spirit. This of itself suggests that he would not use a human language. The general experience of man kind supports the suggestion that he does not do so. When God inspires, Spirit communes directly with spirit. The language of God is the language of the soul. Light is thrown on this matter by the experience known as Con version (q.v.). A sudden conversion is the result of in spiration. It is not as a rule the inspiration of a religious genius; but it is real inspiration, though of a lesser degree. What happens? A person suddenly receives a subjective message, a divine intuition. He feels, or rather he knows, that an important change has taken place in him. He knows that somehow or other his out look has been radically altered. He experiences a sense of relief, of happiness, unknown before. Ask him what
exactly has happened. That is to say, ask him to trans late his subjective, his divine message into the language of human speech. In most cases he cannot do it. Pro bably the most he can do is to repeat mechanically old formulas, perhaps the old formulas of his childhood re ligion, which seem to have some connection with his pre sent state of mind and may express his new feeling but not his new knowledge. The divine intuition never ceases to influence his life. It does not fail to colour his language, but it may never receive adequate expres sion in human speech. The man's faith cannot be ex plained in such a way as to satisfy merely intellectual inquiries. He has, however, the kind of knowledge that made Job proof against all the attacks of those who sought to destroy his faith in God, the kind of know ledge which all persons whose religion is not a mere form do somehow or other obtain. Such is an ordinary case of sudden conversion. Now the inspiration of a prophet or a religious genius, we may suppose, differs from the inspiration of ordinary conversion, not in kind but only in degree. The difference seems to be that it comes with greater power and does in course of time receive more or less adequate expression. Yet even in this case, as far as ordinary language is concerned, only more or less adequate, by no means perfect, expression. Inspired persons are always more inspired than their spoken or written utterances. The priests of some of the Zen sects in China and Japan seem to have realized this, though they may be mistaken in thinking them selves inspired. Mr. Arthur Lloyd writes of them (The Religion of Half Japan, 1911) : " It is difficult to talk with them on purely spiritual issues, because they hold that Truth is not communicated orally from mouth to ear, but without the intermediary of words, by a kind of wireless telegraphy from heart to heart." Bodhidharma, an Indian priest, who arrived in China in the year 526 A.D. and played a prominent part in the development of the Zen sects, is quoted as having said : " You cannot get Buddhism from books. If you want Enlightenment, you must get it as S'akyamuni did, as the great KaAyapa did, as Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu did—by meditation. Books will only tell you about it—meditation and con templation will procure it for you." The divine message to a prophet, like the divine message to an ordinary converted person, is received subjectively or telepathi cally. It comes as a kind of intuition. We know that in the case of ordinary telepathic messages, the message only in rare cases rises from the sub-conscious mind to the waking mind. It requires some peculiarly endowed person to bring even a simple message to the surface. The prophets were peculiarly endowed. But even in their case, we may suppose, the difficulty of translating profound subjective religious experiences or intuitions into the language of the ordinary speech of a particular period and place is almost insuperable. And when at length, perhaps after a long interval, the inspired words are written down, they may be supposed to give but a poor reproduction of the original inspiration. The in spiration is there. It is there in and behind the mere words, and in some subtle way it does not fail to make itself felt. It is never really lost. This explains the power of the Bible. Read as a whole, it does succeed in giving very forcible expression to divine intuitions. In days when it was read with a simple childlike faith it did often work marvels. Another of the phenomena of religious experience seems to point in the same direction as Conversion. the phenomenon known as Speaking with tongues (see TONGUES, GIFT OF). In many cases it is the result of a real religious experience, a divine in spiration. Here again what seems to happen is that people try to express in human language a message which has been received in a different way, that is to say, subjectively or telepathically, with the result that they only succeed in uttering strange unintelligible sounds. We have reference to this kind of experience in the New Testament (I. Corinthians xii. 10, xiv. 2, 14, 23). J. Massie (I. and II. Corinthians in the " Century Bible ") explains that there appears to have been in those days of infant Christianity an inarticulate yearning to praise, an inexpressible joy, which because it had no vocabulary commensurate with its requirements, broke forth in unintelligible utterance." He adds : " Surely such incoherence when joy *is overwhelming is not beyond conception; perhaps it is not altogether contrary to ex perience." The messages of God pass directly and sub jectively to the minds or souls of men. It is true that reference is often made to a voice. Those who have had remarkable religious experiences often testify to having distinctly heard a voice. We are often told in the Bible that men heard the voice of God. There is no reason to doubt that a voice was heard, but as heard it was hardly the voice of God. Such a voice is heard subjectively. If two persons are together it will be heard as a rule by one, but not by both. If, however, the two persons are in very close sympathy, it may be heard by both, just as the same remark is sometimes made by two persons at the same moment. In any case, the voice is really secondary. It is the voice, subjec tively heard, not of God but of man. It is said that on the occasion of Paul's conversion he was not the only person who heard the voice. We read : " And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man." This is possible, for Paul was just in that condition in which he might have acted as a medium. But it may be that the statement does not necessarily mean more than that the men who were with Paul heard him carrying on a conversation with, as they thought, some unseen person. The knowledge. then, which comes through inspiration differs, it would seem, from the knowledge acquired through the ordinary efforts of the intellect. It is intuitional. and is con veyed by a different language, a language, if we can call it such, of its own. But it need not come by an imme diate or direct inspiration as in the case of a sudden con version. In many cases no doubt it is inherited. A religious genius transmits it subjectively to his disciples, and these transmit it to others. For there is truth in the idea of an Apostolic Succession, and an Elisha does inherit the mantle of an Elijah. It may be transmitted by an inspired book, if the ordinary intellect is not allowed to assert itself too uncompromisingly. In some way or other, one must suppose, it is a knowledge within the reach of all. For experience seems to teach that if the pursuit of religious truth is persevered in, sooner or later, however black for a time the prospect may be, the light will burst forth. The trouble is that .so many people too soon abandon the pursuit in despair, adopt some party label, Agnostic, Rationalist, and so forth, accepting all its 'shibboleths without more ado, and hence forth think no more. Books have been referred to in the course of the article.