Is there any doubt as to the scientific accuracy of the last proposition? Locke says that "God does not make noble things for ignoble uses," which is true in a limited sense. If he had said that God does not make noble things without any uses, he would have propounded a "universal postulate," for its opposite is inconceivable. And this is precisely what God would have done if He had created a brain intelligence capable of inductive reasoning, when there was already in existence an organized intelligence endowed with the same powers and capable, actually or potentially, of performing the same functions. It is an axiom of evolutionary science that no physical organ was ever evolved except in response to a necessity growing out of physical environmental conditions; and this is as true of the brain, with its distinctive functions and faculties, as it is of the antennæ of the humblest insect.

As I have repeatedly had occasion to observe, that which is now designated as the subjective mind exists in all sentient organisms, from the moneron to man; its salient characteristics are the same now as in the primordial epoch, varying only in degree; and its one salient limitation of power is due to what science, for want of a better name, has designated as the law of suggestion. I have also shown that comparatively late in the history of organic evolution a new mental power was developed, capable of supplying the deficiency due to the limiting law, and thus imparting a fresh impetus to progressive development in the organic world. I repeat that this new power would not have been evolved but for the necessity which existed; and hence the

specific character of the new power is demonstrative evidence of the character of the deficiency or limitation. Not that it imparted any new powers to the already existent mental organism, but that it was able intelligently to direct and promote the enlargement of the scope of the old. I have endeavored to point out the process by which this was begun, namely, by the development of new or secondary instincts, and that this was possible only under the correlative laws of duality and suggestion.

I have said that no new powers were imparted to the subjective mind; nor were its limitations removed. Obviously that would be impossible without changing or repealing a law of nature. The same limitations must always exist so long as it is hedged about by a physical environment.

It will thus be seen, (1) that all progressive increase of animal intelligence beyond primordial conditions is due to the development of secondary instincts, from time to time, in response to the necessities growing out of new and constantly changing environmental conditions; (2) that the acts of secondary instincts are at first "intelligently" performed, and are afterward crystallized into inheritable instincts; (3) that the "intelligence" which thus adapts itself to new environmental conditions is primarily that of the objective, or brain, mind; (4) that the objective mind was, and is, the instructor of the subjective mind; and (5) that all progressive development of animal intelligence is due to the suggestions of the objective mind to the subjective mind.

It follows that all evolutionary development of

animal intelligence is due to the law of suggestion; that is to say, all acquisitions of knowledge that are inheritable, and therefore permanent and valuable to the species, are due to that one universal law. For until animal intelligence is converted into an instinct it is not inheritable, and until it is inheritable it is not permanent, and until it is permanent it is of little value to them in the struggle for life.

What is true of the lower animals is also true of the higher animals, including man. The same law that prevails in the acquisition of the secondary instincts which enable the lower animals to cope successfully with new environmental conditions, enables man to assert and to maintain his dominion over all the animal creation,1 to educate his children, and to train them for future usefulness in the moral and intellectual realms.

It follows that the law of suggestion is an essential factor in the evolution of civilization as well as in the evolution of animal intelligence. As such, it

1 Were it not for the law of suggestion, it would be impossible for man to tame a tiger, subdue an elephant, or break a horse. Thus, every one is aware that in order successfully to reduce a horse to permanent subjection to the will of man, he must be made to believe that man is stronger than a horse. This is usually done by throwing the animal and holding him down until he ceases to struggle. When that has been successfully accomplished, the rest is easy; for the suggestion has thus been imparted to the limited intelligence of the horse that it is useless to struggle against superior strength. This principle prevails in all encounters between man and the lower animals; and just in proportion to man's success in imparting that suggestion to the animal he seeks to subdue, will he succeed in rendering the animal permanently obedient and docile. In a word, man is enabled to assert and maintain his dominion over the animal creation solely by virtue of the law of suggestion.

is the antithesis of the law of heredity, which has been rightly termed "the conservative factor in evolution." Heredity simply preserves what has been gained by evolution. It takes no step in advance; it accomplishes no new result. Indeed, its tendencies, under the law of atavism, are retrogressive. Evolution, with all its factors and forces, is progressive; and as suggestion is its prime factor, especially in moral and intellectual advancement, it follows, as before remarked, that suggestion is the antithesis of heredity. In this sense, therefore, suggestion may be defined as the one means, available to man, whereby he may avoid, overcome, or neutralize the evils due to heredity.

It is, therefore, not only the prime and all-potent factor in the evolutionary development of animal life and intelligence, but it is the one supreme psychological factor, without which human civilization would be impossible.

Enough has now been said to show that the first two terms of our hypothesis are demonstrable propositions. It remains to prove that the third term is equally veridical,—namely, that "the subjective mind controls the functions, sensations, and conditions of the body." This we may assume, for the present, to have been provisionally established by the testimony of “a cloud of witnesses," including that of the ablest members of the medical profession, to say nothing of the innumerable evidences of it in the records of cures of disease under the thousand and one systems of mental healing, generically known to science as 'Suggestive Therapeutics." But it will more fully appear as we proceed with the discussion hereinafter.

66

CHAPTER VII

SUGGESTIONS ADVERSE TO HEALTH

The more Beneficent a Law of Nature, the Heavier the Penalty for its Violation. This Axiom as applicable to Laws of Life, Mind, and Health as to any other Law. Exemption of the Lower Animals from Suggestions Adverse to Health. Man the Prey of such Suggestions. The Potency of Adverse Suggestions equal to that of Therapeutic Suggestions. - The Newspaper an Agency for the Promulgation of Suggestions Adverse to Health. - The PatentMedicine Advertisement. — The Danger of Adverse Suggestions to Students of Medicine. - Newspaper Literature relating to Diet. - Pernicious Dietetics. - Auto-Suggestion the Safeguard.

T is axiomatic that the more beneficent a law is,

IT

the heavier are the penalties exacted for its violation. This is divine justice, and in the realm of natural law the rule is inexorable. Hence the highest conception of human justice, in criminal jurisprudence, is to "make the punishment fit the crime.' Owing, however, to human imperfections, the highest ideal is not often, if ever, reached, although it is more and more nearly approximated as humanity rises in the scale of civilization; hence the gradual restriction of the death penalty to violations of the laws for the protection of human life.

In nature's laws the inexorable rule is as above stated; and no amount of culture or experience or evolutionary development can enable one of God's creatures to evade the full penalty exacted by nature