chapter ix
., p.
[481] “Illusion; matter in its triple manifestation in the earthly, and the astral or fontal soul, or the body, and the Platonian dual soul, the rational and the irrational one,” see next chapter.
[482] “Perfection of Wisdom.”
[483] Porphyry gives the credit to Plotinus his master, of having been united with “God” six times during his life, and complains of having attained to it but twice, himself.
[484] Orpheus is said to have ascribed to the grand cycle 120,000 years of duration, and Cassandrus 136,000. See Censorinus: “de Natal. Die;” “Chronological and Astronomical Fragments.”
[485] W. and E. Denton; “The Soul of Things,” vol. i.
[486] See the “Cosmogony of Pherecydes.”
[487] See a few pages further on the quotation from the “Codex of the Nazarenes.”
[488] See Plato’s “Timæus.”
[489] On the authority of Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and the “Codex” itself, Dunlap shows that the Nazarenes treated their “spirit,” or rather soul, as a female and _Evil Power_. Irenæus, accusing the Gnostics of heresy, calls Christ and the Holy Ghost “the _gnostic pair_ that produce the Æons” (Dunlap: “Sod, the Son of the Man,” p. 52, foot-note).
[490] Fetahil was with the Nazarenes the king of light, and the _Creator_; but in this instance he is the unlucky Prometheus, who fails to get hold of the _Living Fire_, necessary for the formation of the divine soul, as he is ignorant of the _secret_ name (the ineffable or incommunicable name of the kabalists).
[491] The spirit of matter and concupiscence.
[492] See Franck’s “Codex Nazaræus” and Dunlap’s “Sod, the Son of the Man.”
[493] “Codex Nazaræus,” ii. 233.
[494] This Mano of the Nazarenes strangely resembles the Hindu Manu, the heavenly man of the “Rig-Vedas.”
[495] “I am the _true vine_ and my Father is the husbandman” (John xv. 1).
[496] With the Gnostics, Christ, as well as Michael, who is identical in some respects with him, was the “Chief of the Æons.”
[497] “Codex Nazaræus,” i. 135.
[498] Ibid.
[499] “Codex Nazaræus,” iii. 61.
[500] The Astral Light, or _anima mundi_, is dual and bi-sexual. The male part of it is purely divine and spiritual; it is the _Wisdom_; while the female portion (the spiritus of the Nazarenes) is tainted, in one sense, with matter, and therefore is evil already. It is the life-principle of every living creature, and furnishes the astral soul, the fluidic _perisprit_ to men, animals, fowls of the air, and everything living. Animals have only the germ of the highest immortal soul as a third principle. It will develop but through a series of countless evolutions; the doctrine of which evolution is contained in the kabalistic axiom: “A stone becomes a plant; a plant a beast; a beast a _man_; a man a _spirit_; and the spirit a god.”
[501] See Commentary on “Idra Suta,” by Rabbi Eleashar.
[502] _Sod_ means a religious Mystery. Cicero mentions the _sod_, as constituting a portion of the _Idean_ Mysteries. “The members of the _Priest-Colleges_ were called _Sodales_,” says Dunlap, quoting Freund’s “Latin Lexicon,” iv. 448.
[503] The author of the “Sohar,” the great kabalistic work of the first century B.C.
[504] See Abbé Huc’s works.
[505] “The Sohar,” iii. 288; “Idra Suta.”
[506] Everard: “Mystères Physiologiques,” p. 132.
[507] See Plato’s “Timæus.”
[508] “Supernatural Religion; an Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation,” vol. ii. London, 1875.
[509] See “Heavenly Arcana.”
[510] Burges: Preface.
[511] “Seventh Letter.”
[512] “The True Christian Religion.”
[513] E. A. Hitchcock: “Swedenborg, a Hermetic Philosopher.”
[514] “Ripley Revived,” 1678.
[515] “Mosaicall Philosophy,” p. 173. 1659.
[516] “Correlation of Vital with Chemical and Physical Forces,” by J. Le Conte.
[517] “Archives des Sciences,” vol. xlv., p. 345. December, 1872.
[518] Aristotle: “De Generat. et Corrupt.,” lib. ii.
[519] “De Part.,” an. lib. i., c. 1.
[520] A Pythagorean oath. The Pythagoreans swore by their master.
[521] See Lemprière: “Classical Dictionary.”
[522] Psel. in Alieb: “Chaldean Oracles.”
[523] Proc. in 1 “Alieb.”
[524] From the Latin word _mensa_—table. This curious letter is copied in full in “La Science des Esprits,” by Eliphas Levi.
[525] The Sulanuth is described in chap. lxxx., vers. 19, 20, of “Jasher.”
[526] “And when the Egyptians hid themselves on account of the swarm” (one of the plagues alleged to have been brought on by Moses) “ ... they locked their doors after them, and God ordered the _Sulanuth_ ...” (a _sea-monster_, naively explains the translator, in a foot-note) “which was then in the sea, to come up and go into Egypt ... and she had long arms, ten cubits in length ... and she went upon the roofs and uncovered the rafting and cut them ... and stretched forth her arm into the house and removed the lock and the bolt and opened the houses of Egypt ... and the swarm of animals destroyed the Egyptians, and it grieved them exceedingly.”
[527] “Strom,” vi., 17, § 159.
[528] Ibid., vi., 3, § 30.
[529] “Gorgias.”
[530] “Timæus.”
[531] Cory: “Phædro,” i. 69.
[532] Ibid., i. 123.
[533] Cory: “Phædras;” Cory’s “Plato,” 325.
[534] See “The Unseen Universe,” pp. 205, 206.
[535] See Bulwer-Lytton: “Strange Story,” p. 76. We do not know where in literature can be found a more vivid and beautiful description of this difference between the life-principle of man and that of animals, than in the passages herein briefly alluded to.
[536] A. R. Wallace: “The Action of Natural Selection on Man.”
[537] W. Denton: “The Soul of Things,” p. 273.
[538] “Herodotus,” b. i., c. 181.
[539] “Anthropology,” p. 125.
[540] “Of Sacrifices to Gods and Dæmons,” chap. ii.
[541] “Odyssey,” book vii.
[542] Porphyry: “Of Sacrifices to Gods and Dæmons,” chap. ii.
[543] Ibid.
[544] Iamblichus: “De Mysteriis Egyptorum.”
[545] Ibid.: “On the Difference between the Dæmons, the Souls, etc.”
[546] Du Potet: “La Magie Devoilée.”
[547] We wonder if Father Felix is prepared to include St. Augustine, Lactantius, and Bede in this category?
[548] For instance, Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo? For further
## particulars see the “Index Expurgatorius.” Verily, wise are such
popular sayings, as that, “Boldness carries off cities at one shout.”
[549] This statement, neither Herbert Spencer nor Huxley will be likely to traverse. But Father Felix seems insensible of his own debt to science; if he had said this in February, 1600, he might have shared the fate of poor Bruno.
[550] “Le Mystère et la Science,” conferences, P. Felix de Notre Dame; des Mousseaux: “Hauts Phen. Magie.”
[551] Damascius, in the “Theogony,” calls it _Dis_, “the disposer of all things.” Cory: “Ancient Fragments,” p. 314.
[552] Plato: “Timæus.”
[553] “Suidas: v. Tyrrhenia.”
[554] The reader will understand that by “years” is meant “ages,” not mere periods of twelve lunar months each.
[555] See the Greek translation by Philo Byblius.
[556] Cory: “Ancient Fragments.”
[557] We give the spelling and words of this Kabalist who lived and published his works in the seventeenth century. Generally he is considered as one of the most famous alchemists among the Hermetic philosophers.
[558] The most positive of materialistic philosophers agree that all that exists was evolved from ether; hence, air, water, earth, and fire, the four primordial elements must also proceed from ether and chaos the first _Duad_; all the imponderables, whether now known or unknown, proceed from the same source. Now, if there is a spiritual essence in matter, and that essence forces it to shape itself into millions of individual forms, why is it illogical to assert that each of these spiritual kingdoms in nature is peopled with beings evolved out of its own material? Chemistry teaches us that in man’s body there are air, water, earth, and heat, or fire—_air_ is present in its components; _water_ in the secretions; _earth_ in the inorganic constituents; and _fire_ in the animal heat. The Kabalist knows by experience that an elemental spirit contains only one, and that each one of the four kingdoms has its own peculiar elemental spirits; man being higher than they, the law of evolution finds its illustration in the combination of all four in him.
[559] Görres: “Mystique,” lib. iii., p. 63.
[560] The ancients called “the soul” the spirits of bad people; the soul was the _larva_ and _lemure_. Good human spirits became gods.
[561] Porphyry: “De Sacrificiis.” Chapter on the true Cultus.
[562] “Mysteries of the Egyptians.”
[563] Second century, A.D. “Du Dieu de Socrate,” Apul. class., pp. 143-145.
[564] “Eastern Monachism,” p. 9.
[565] “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” iv. 385.
[566] Hardy: “Manual of Buddhism;” Dunlap: “The World’s Religions.”
[567] Lemprière (“Classical Dictionary,” art. “Pythagoras”) says that “there is great reason to suspect the truth of the whole narrative of Pythagoras’ journey into India,” and concludes by saying that this philosopher had never seen either Gymnosophists or their country. If this be so, how account for the doctrine of the metempsychosis of Pythagoras, which is far more that of the Hindu in its details than the Egyptian? But, above all, how account for the fact that the name MONAS, applied by him to the First Cause, is the identical appellation given to that Being in the Sanscrit tongue? In 1792-7, when Lemprière’s “Dictionary” appeared, the Sanscrit was, we may say, utterly unknown; Dr. Haug’s translation of the “Aitareya Brahmana” (“Rig-Vedas”), in which this word occurs, was published only about _twenty_ years ago, and until that valuable addition to the literature of archaic ages was completed, and the precise age of the “Aitareya” now fixed by Haug at 2000-2400 B.C.—was a mystery, it might be suggested, as in the case of Christian symbols, that the Hindus _borrowed_ it from Pythagoras. But now, unless philology can show it to be a “coincidence,” and that the word _Monas_ is not the same in its minutest definitions, we have a right to assert that Pythagoras was in India, and that it was the Gymnosophists who instructed him in his metaphysical theology. The fact alone that “Sanscrit, as compared with Greek and Latin, is an elder sister,” as Max Müller shows, is not sufficient to account for the perfect identity of the Sanscrit and Greek words MONAS, in their most metaphysical, abstruse sense. The Sanscrit word Deva (god) has become the Latin _deus_, and points to a common source; but we see in the Zoroastrian “Zend-Avesta” the same word, meaning diametrically the opposite, and becoming _daêva_, or evil spirit, from which comes the word _devil_.
[568] Haug: “Aitareya Brahmanam.”
[569] Ibid.
[570] Berosus: fragment preserved by Alex. Polyhostor; Cory: “Of the Cosmogony and the Deluge.”
[571] Some writer has employed a most felicitous expression in describing the majesty of the Hindu archaic monuments, and the exquisite finish of their sculpture. “They built,” says he, “like giants, and finished like jewelers.”
[572] “Anatomie Cerebrale,” Malacorne, Milan.
[573] Psellus, 6, Plet. 2; Cory: “Chaldean Oracles.”
[574] See “Lecture on the Vedas.”
[575] In order to avoid being contradicted by some spiritualists we give verbatim the language in question, as a specimen of the unreliability of the oracular utterances of certain “spirits.” Let them be human or elemental, but spirits capable of such effrontery may well be regarded by occultists as anything but safe guides in philosophy, exact science, or ethics. “It will be remembered,” says Mrs. Cora V. Tappan, in a public discourse upon the “History of Occultism and its Relations to Spiritualism” (see “Banner of Light,” Aug. 26, 1876), “that the ancient word witchcraft, or the exercise of it, was forbidden among the Hebrews. The translation is that no witch should be allowed to live. That has been supposed to be the literal interpretation; and
## acting upon that, your very pious and devout ancestors put to death,
without adequate testimony, numbers of very intelligent, wise, and sincere persons, under the condemnation of witchcraft. It has now turned out that the interpretation or translation should be, that no witches should be allowed to obtain a living by the practice of their art. That is, it should not be made a profession.” May we be so bold as to inquire of the celebrated speaker, through _whom or according to what_ authority such a thing has ever _turned out_?
[576] Mr. Cromwell F. Varley, the well-known electrician of the Atlantic Cable Company, communicates the result of his observations, in the course of a debate at the Psychological Society of Great Britain, which is reported in the “Spiritualist” (London, April 14, 1876, pp. 174, 175). He thought that the effect of free nitric acid in the atmosphere was able to drive away what he calls “unpleasant spirits.” He thought that those who were troubled by unpleasant spirits at home, would find relief by pouring one ounce of vitriol upon two ounces of finely-powdered nitre in a saucer and putting the mixture under the bed. Here is a scientist, whose reputation extends over two continents, who gives a recipe to drive away bad spirits. And yet the general public mocks as a “_superstition_” the herbs and incenses employed by Hindus, Chinese, Africans, and other races to accomplish the self-same purpose.
[577] “Art-Magic,” p. 97.
[578] This phantom is called _Scin Lecca_. See Bulwer-Lytton’s “Strange Story.”
[579] In the Strasbourg edition of his works (1603), Paracelsus writes of the wonderful _magical_ power of man’s spirit. “It is possible,” he says, “that my spirit, without the help of the body, and through a fiery will alone, and without a sword, can stab and wound others. It is also possible that I can bring the spirit of my adversary into an image, and then double him up and lame him ... the exertion of will is a great point in medicine.... Every imagination of man comes through the heart, for this is the sun of the microcosm, and out of the microcosm proceeds the imagination into the great world (universal ether) ... the imagination of man is a seed which is _material_.” (Our atomical modern scientists have proved it; see Babbage and Professor Jevons.) “Fixed thought is also a means to an end. The magical is a great _concealed wisdom_, and reason is a great public foolishness. No armor protects against magic, for it injures the _inward_ spirit of life.”
[580] “Salem Witchcraft; With an Account of Salem Village,” by C. W. Upham.
[581] “Odyssey,” A. 82.
[582] “Æneid,” book vi., 260.
[583] “De Dæmon,” cap. “Quomodo dæm occupent.”
[584] Numquid dæmonum corpora pulsari possunt? Possunt sane, atque dolere solido quodam _percussa_ corpore.
[585] Ubi secatur, mox in se iterum recreatur et coalescit ... dictu velocius dæmoni cus spiritus in se revertitor.
[586] A magistrate of the district.
[587] This appalling circumstance was authenticated by the Prefect of the city, and the Proconsul of the Province laid the report before the Emperor. The story is modestly related by Mrs. Catherine Crowe (see “Night-Side of Nature,” p. 335).
[588] Pliny, xxx., 1.
[589] T. Wright, M.A., F.S.A., etc.: “Sorcery and Magic,” vol. iii.
[590] “Art-Magic,” pp. 159, 160.
[591] “Art-Magic,” p. 28.
[592] Fakir, beggar.
[593] A juggler so called.
[594] “Mœurs et Pratiques des Demons.”
[595] “Histoire du Merveilleux dans les Temps Modernes,” vol. ii., p. 262.
[596] Ibid.
[597] Ibid., p. 265.
[598] Ibid., pp. 267, 401, 402.
[599] Ibid., pp. 266, etc., 400.
[600] Ibid., p. 403.
[601] “Histoire du Merveilleux,” vol. i., p. 397.
[602] Ibid., pp. 26-27.
[603] Ibid., p. 238.
[604] Des Mousseaux: “Magie au XIXme Siècle,” p. 452.
[605] Hume: “Philosophical Essays,” p. 195.
[606] “Histoire du Merveilleux,” p. 401.
[607] Ibid.
[608] Ibid., vol. ii., pp. 410, 411.
[609] Ibid., p. 407.
[610] Villecroze: “Le Docteur H. d’Alger,” 19 Mars, 1861. Pierrart: vol. iv., pp. 254-257.
[611] Bruce: “Travels to Discover the Sources of the Nile,” vol. x., pp. 402-447; Hasselquist: “Voyage in the Levant,” vol. i., pp. 92-100; Lemprière: “Voyage dans l’Empire de Maroc, etc., en 1790,” pp. 42-43.
[612] Salverte: “La Philosophie de la Magie. De l’Influence sur les Animaux,” vol. i.
[613] Thibaut de Chanvallon: “Voyage à la Martinique.”
[614] Salverte: “Philosophy of Magic.”
[615] Forbes: “Oriental Memoirs,” vol. i., p. 44; vol. ii., p. 387.
[616] Stedmann: “Voyage in Surinam,” vol. iii., pp. 64, 65.
[617] See “Edinburgh Review,” vol. lxxx., p. 428, etc.
[618] Elam: “A Physician’s Problems,” p. 25.
[619] The “Immortality of the Soul,” by Henry More. Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge.
[620] D^r H. More: “Immortality of the Soul,” p. 393.
[621] “Transactions of the Medical Society of N. Y.,” 1865-6-7.
[622] “Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science,” vol. xv., p. 263, 1853.
[623] “Recherches d’Anatomie transcendante et Pathologique, etc.,” Paris, 1832.
[624] “Silliman’s Journal of Science and Art,” vol. x., p. 48.
[625] “Precis Elementaire de Physiologie,” p. 520.
[626] Ibid., p. 521.
[627] “Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie,” p. 175.
[628] “Transactions of Medical Society, etc.,” p. 246.
[629] Fournié: “Physiologie du Système Nerveux, Cerebro-spinal,” Paris, 1872.
[630] Ibid.
[631] “Night-Side of Nature,” by Catherine Crowe, p. 434, _et seq._
[632] Henry More: “Immortality of the Soul,” p. 399.
[633] By the word _soul_, neither Demokritus nor the other philosophers understood the _nous_ or _pneuma_, the divine _immaterial_ soul, but the _psychè_, or astral body; that which Plato always terms the second _mortal_ soul.
[634] Balfour Stewart, LL.D., F.R.S.: “The Conservation of Energy,” p. 133.
[635] Fournié: “Physiologie du Système Nerveux,” p. 16.
[636] “A System of Logic.” Eighth ed., 1872, vol. ii., p. 165.
[637] Draper: “Conflict between Religion and Science,” p. 22.
[638] Edward L. Youmans, M.D.; “A Class-book of Chemistry,” p. 4.
[639] Sprengel, in his “History of Medicine,” makes Van Helmont appear as if disgusted with the charlatanry and ignorant presumption of Paracelsus. “The works of this latter,” says Sprengel, “which he (Van Helmont) had attentively read, aroused in him the spirit of reformation; but they alone did not suffice for him, because his erudition and judgment were infinitely superior to those of that author, and he _despised_ this _made egoist_, this ignorant and ridiculous vagabond, who often seemed to have fallen into insanity.” This assertion is perfectly false. We have the writings of Helmont himself to refute it. In the well-known dispute between two writers, Goclenius, a professor in Marburg, who supported the great efficacy of the sympathetic salve discovered by Paracelsus, for the cure of every wound, and Father Robert, a Jesuit, who condemned all these cures, as he attributed them to the Devil. Van Helmont undertook to settle the dispute. The reason he gave for interfering was that all such disputes “affected Paracelsus as their discoverer and _himself as his disciple_” (see “De Magnetica Vulner.,” and l. c., p. 705).
[640] Demokritus said that, as from nothing, nothing could be produced, so there was not anything that could ever be reduced _to nothing_.
[641] J. Le Conte: “Correlation of Vital with Chemical and Physical Forces,” appendix.
[642] The date is incorrect; it should be 1784.
[643] Ecclesiastes i. 10.
[644] Ibid., i. 6.
[645] Ibid., i. 7.
[646] Siljeström: “Minnesfest öfver Berzelius,” p. 79.
[647] “Séance de l’Academie de Paris,” 13 Août, 1807.
[648] Mollien: “Voyage dans l’interieur de l’Afrique,” tome ii., p. 210.
[649] “The Popular Science Monthly,” May, 1876, p. 110.
[650] Malte-Brun, pp. 372, 373; Herodotus.
[651] “The Popular Science Monthly,” Dec., 1874, p. 252, New York.
[652] The “Periplus of Hanno.”
[653] The original was suspended in the temple of Saturn, at Carthage. Falconer gave two dissertations on it, and agrees with Bougainville in referring it to the sixth century before the Christian era. See Cory’s “Ancient Fragments.”
[654] Professor Jowett.
[655] “On the Atlantic Island (from Marcellus) Ethiopic History.”
[656] “Alchemy, or the Hermetic Philosophy.”
[657] See “Revue Encyclopédique,” vol. xxxiii., p. 676.
[658] “Bulletin de la Soc. Geograph,” vol. vi., pp. 209-220.
[659] See “Revue Encyclopédique,” vols. xxxiii. and xxxiv., pp. 676-395.
[660] Porphyry: “Epistola ad Anebo., ap. Euseb. Præp. Evangel,” v. 10; Iamblichus: “De Mysteriis Ægypt.; “Porphyrii: “Epistola ad Anebonem Ægyptium.”
[661] “Porphyry,” says the “Classical Dictionary” of Lemprière, “was a man of universal information, and, according to the testimony of the ancients, he excelled his contemporaries in the knowledge of history, mathematics, music, and _philosophy_.”
[662] “On the Scientific Use of the Imagination.”
[663] Epes Sargent. See his pamphlet, “Does Matter do it All?”
[664] In his “Essay on Classification” (sect. xvii., pp. 97-99), Louis Agassiz, the great zoölogist, remarks: “Most of the arguments in favor of the immortality of man apply equally to the permanency of this principle in other living beings. May I not add that a future life in which man would be deprived of that great source of enjoyment and intellectual and moral improvement, which results from the contemplation of the harmonies of an organic world would involve a lamentable loss? And may we not look to a spiritual concert of the combined worlds and _all_ their inhabitants in the presence of their creator as the highest conception of paradise?”
[665] “Diog. in Vita.”
[666] See the works of Robertus de Fluctibus; and the “Rosicrucians,” by Hargrave Jennings.
[667] Professor B. Stewart: “Conservation of Energy.”
[668] Cabanis: “Histoire de la Medecine.”
[669] “De Vatibus in Problemate,” sect. 21.
[670] See Max Müller: “The Meaning of Nirvana.”
[671] “The Lankâvatâra,” transl. by Burnouf, p. 514.
[672] “Classical Dictionary.”
[673] See Cabanis, “Histoire de la Medecine.”
[674] “Le Lotus de la bonne Loi,” by E. Burnouf, translated from the Sanscrit.
[675] “Cosmos,” vol. iii., part i., p. 168.
[676] “Lecture on the Vedas.”
[677] “The Classical Journal,” vol. iv., pp. 107, 348.
[678] See “Mosheim.”
[679] “New Platonism and Alchemy.”
[680] Origen: “Contra Celsum.”
[681] “Fatti relativi al Mesmerismo,” pp. 88, 93, 1842.
[682] “Leonard de Vair,” l. ii., ch. ii.; “La Magie au 19me Siècle,” p. 332.
[683] “The Tinnevelly Shanars,” p. 43.
[684] Pierart: “Revue Spiritualiste,” chapter on “Vampirism.”
[685] Maimonides: “Abodah Sarab,” 12 Absh, 11 Abth.
[686] Pierart: “Revue Spiritualiste.”
[687] Dr. Pierart: “Revue Spiritualiste,” vol. iv., p. 104.
[688] See “Hauts Phen.,” p. 199.
[689] “Huetiana,” p. 81.
[690] Dom Calmet: “Apparitions,” etc. Paris, 1751, vol. ii., p. 47; “Hauts Phen. de la Magie,” 195.
[691] “Hauts Phen.,” p. 196.
[692] Ibid.
[693] See the same sworn testimony in official documents: “De l’Inspir. des Camis,” H. Blanc, 1859. Plon, Paris.
[694] Dom Calmet: “Apparit.,” vol. ii., chap, xliv., p. 212.
[695] Pierart: “Revue Spiritualiste,” vol. iv., p. 104.
[696] “Sadducismus Triumphatus,” vol. ii., p. 70.
[697] Görres: “Complete Works,” vol. iii., ch. vii., p. 132.
[698] “Ashes to Ashes,” London: Daldy, Isbister & Co., 1875.
[699] The author refers all those who may doubt such statements to G. A. Walker’s “Gatherings from Graveyards,” pp. 84-193, 194, etc.
[700] Horst: “Zauber Bibliothek,” vol. v., p. 52.
[701] See Eliphas Levi: “La Science des Esprits.”
[702] Henry Maudsley: “Body and Mind.”
[703] Josiah Cooke, Jr.: “The New Chemistry.”
[704] Henry Maudsley: “The Limits of Philosophical Inquiry,” p. 266.
[705] “Scientific American,” August 12, 1868.
[706] Le Conte: “Correlation of Vital with Chemical and Physical Forces.”
[707] The wood-apple.
[708] Incorrect; the Hindustani word for monkey is _rūkh-charhä_. Probably _chokra_, a little native servant is meant.
[709] “Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., pp. 306, 307.
[710] Delrio: “Disquis. Magic,” pp. 34, 100.
[711] Col. H. Yule: “The Book of Ser Marco Polo,” vol. i., p. 308.
[712] Edward Melton: “Engelsh Edelmans, Zeldzaame en Geden Kwaardige Zee en Land Reizen, etc.,” p. 468. Amsterdam, 1702.
[713] “Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangire,” pp. 99, 102.
[714] J. Hughes Bennett: “Text Book of Physiology,” Lippincott’s American Edition, pp. 37-50.
[715] “Curiosités Inouïes.”
[716] “Thoughts on the Birth and Generation of Things.”
[717] C. Crowe: “Night-Side of Nature,” p. 111.
[718] Pliny: “Hist. Nat.,” vii., c. 52; and Plutarch: “Discourse concerning Socrates’ Dæmon,” 22.
[719] “De Res. Var.,” v. iii., i., viii., c. 43. Plutarch: “Discourse concerning Socrates’ Dæmon,” 22.
[720] Nasse: “Zeitschrift fur Psychische Aerzte,” 1820.
[721] Osborne: “Camp and Court of Rundjit Singh;” Braid: “On France.”
[722] Mrs. Catherine Crowe, in her “Night-Side of Nature,” p. 118, gives us the particulars of a similar burial of a fakir, in the presence of General Ventura, together with the Maharajah, and many of his Sirdars. The political agent at Loodhiana was “present when he was disinterred, ten months after he had been buried.” The coffin, or box, containing the fakir “being buried in a vault, the earth was thrown over it and trod down, after which a crop of barley was sown on the spot, and sentries placed to watch it. The Maharajah, however, was so skeptical that in spite of all these precautions, he had him, twice in the ten months, dug up and examined, and each time he was found to be _exactly in the same state_ as when they had shut him up.”
[723] Todd: Appendix to “Occult Science,” vol. i.
[724] “A Cornel. Cels.,” lib. ii., cap. vi.
[725] “Hist. Nat.,” lib. vii., cap. lii.
[726] “Morning Herald,” July 21, 1836.
[727] “La Science des Esprits.”
[728] “Vit. Apollon. Tyan.,” lib. iv., ch. xvi.
[729] Salverte: “Sciences Occultes,” vol. ii.
[730] “La Science des Esprits.”
[731] It would be beneficial to humanity were our modern physicians possessed of the same inestimable faculty; for then we would have on record less horrid deaths _after_ inhumation. Mrs. Catherine Crowe, in the “Night-Side of Nature,” records in the chapter on “Cases of Trances” _five_ such cases, in England alone, and during the present century. Among them is Dr. Walker of Dublin and a Mr. S——, whose stepmother was accused of poisoning him, and who, upon being disinterred, was found lying on his face.
[732] A. Wilder: “Neo-platonism and Alchemy.”
[733] Iamblichus was the founder of the Neo-platonic theurgy.
[734] See the “Sketch of the Eclectic Philosophy of the Alexandrian School.”
[735] See “Medium and Daybreak,” July 7, 1876, p. 428.
[736] In Volume II., we will distinctly prove that the _Old Testament_ mentions the worship of more than one god by the Israelites. The El-Shadi of Abraham and Jacob was not the Jehovah of Moses, or the Lord God worshipped by them for forty years in the wilderness. And the God of Hosts of Amos is not, if we are to believe his own words, the Mosaic God, the Sinaïtic deity, for this is what we read: “I hate, I despise your feast-days ... your meat-offerings, I will not accept them.... Have ye offered unto _me_ sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?... No, but _ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun_ (Saturn), your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.... Therefore, will I cause you to go into captivity ... saith the _Lord, whose name is The God of hosts_” (Amos v. 21-27).
[737]