glad　to　draw。　　One　disciple　of　the　school；　indeed；　has　striven　to
  impugn　the　value　of　works　of　genius　in　a　wholesale　way　（such
  works　of　contemporary　art；　namely；　as　he　himself　is　unable　to
  enjoy；　and　they　are　many）　by　using　medical　arguments。＇4＇　　But　for
  the　most　part　the　masterpieces　are　left　unchallenged；　and　the
  medical　line　of　attack　either　confines　itself　to　such　secular
  productions　as　everyone　admits　to　be　intrinsically　eccentric；　or
  else　addresses　itself　exclusively　to　religious　manifestations。
  And　then　it　is　because　the　religious　manifestations　have　been
  already　condemned　because　the　critic　dislikes　them　on　internal　or
  spiritual　grounds。
  ＇4＇　　Max　Nordau；　in　his　bulky　book　entitled　Degeneration。
  In　the　natural　sciences　and　industrial　arts　it　never　occurs　to
  anyone　to　try　to　refute　opinions　by　showing　up　their　author's
  neurotic　constitution。　　Opinions　here　are　invariably　tested　by
  logic　and　by　experiment；　no　matter　what　may　be　their　author's
  neurological　type。　　It　should　be　no　otherwise　with　religious
  opinions。　　Their　value　can　only　be　ascertained　by　spiritual
  judgments　directly　passed　upon　them；　judgments　based　on　our　own
  immediate　feeling　primarily；　and　secondarily　on　what　we　can
  ascertain　of　their　experiential　relations　to　our　moral　needs　and
  to　the　rest　of　what　we　hold　as　true。
  Immediate　luminousness；　in　short；　philosophical　reasonableness；
  and　moral　helpfulness　are　the　only　available　criteria。　Saint
  Teresa　might　have　had　the　nervous　system　of　the　placidest　cow；
  and　it　would　not　now　save　her　theology；　if　the　trial　of　the
  theology　by　these　other　tests　should　show　it　to　be　contemptible。
  And　conversely　if　her　theology　can　stand　these　other　tests；　it
  will　make　no　difference　how　hysterical　or　nervously　off　her
  balance　Saint　Teresa　may　have　been　when　she　was　with　us　here
  below。
  You　see　that　at　bottom　we　are　thrown　back　upon　the　general
  principles　by　which　the　empirical　philosophy　has　always　contended
  that　we　must　be　guided　in　our　search　for　truth。　　Dogmatic
  philosophies　have　sought　for　tests　for　truth　which　might　dispense
  us　from　appealing　to　the　future。　Some　direct　mark；　by　noting
  which　we　can　be　protected　immediately　and　absolutely；　now　and
  forever；　against　all　mistakesuch　has　been　the　darling　dream　of
  philosophic　dogmatists。　　It　is　clear　that　the　ORIGIN　of　the　truth
  would　be　an　admirable　criterion　of　this　sort；　if　only　the　various
  origins　could　be　discriminated　from　one　another　from　this
  point　of　view；　and　the　history　of　dogmatic　opinion　shows　that
  origin　has　always　been　a　favorite　test。　　Origin　in　immediate
  intuition；　origin　in　pontifical　authority；　origin　in　supernatural
  revelation；　as　by　vision；　hearing；　or　unaccountable　impression；
  origin　in　direct　possession　by　a　higher　spirit；　expressing　itself
  in　prophecy　and　warning；　origin　in　automatic　utterance
  generallythese　origins　have　been　stock　warrants　for　the　truth
  of　one　opinion　after　another　which　we　find　represented　in
  religious　history。　　The　medical　materialists　are　therefore　only
  so　many　belated　dogmatists；　neatly　turning　the　tables　on　their
  predecessors　by　using　the　criterion　of　origin　in　a　destructive
  instead　of　an　accreditive　way。
  They　are　effective　with　their　talk　of　pathological　origin　only　so
  long　as　supernatural　origin　is　pleaded　by　the　other　side；　and
  nothing　but　the　argument　from　origin　is　under　discussion。　　But
  the　argument　from　origin　has　seldom　been　used　alone；　for　it　is
  too　obviously　insufficient。　　Dr。　Maudsley　is　perhaps　the
  cleverest　of　the　rebutters　of　supernatural　religion　on　grounds　of
  origin。　　Yet　he　finds　himself　forced　to　write：
  〃What　right　have　we　to　believe　Nature　under　any　obligation　to　do
  her　work　by　means　of　complete　minds　only？　　She　may　find　an
  incomplete　mind　a　more　suitable　instrument　for　a　particular
  purpose。　　It　is　the　work　that　is　done；　and　the　quality　in　the
  worker　by　which　it　was　done；　that　is　alone　of　moment；　and　it　may
  be　no　great　matter　from　a　cosmical　standpoint；　if　in　other
  qualities　of　character　he　was　singularly　defectiveif　indeed　he
  were　hypocrite；　adulterer；　eccentric；　or　lunatic。　。　。　。　　Home　we
  come　again；　then；　to　the　old　and　last　resort　of　certitudenamely
  the　common　assent　of　mankind；　or　of　the　competent　by　instruction
  and　training　among　mankind。〃＇5＇
  ＇5＇　　H。　Maudsley：　　Natural　Causes　and　Supernatural　Seemings；
  1886；　pp。　256；　257。
  In　other　words；　not　its　origin；　but　THE　WAY　IN　WHICH　IT　WORKS　ON
  THE　WHOLE；　is　Dr。　Maudsley's　final　test　of　a　belief。　　This　is　our
  own　empiricist　criterion；　and　this　criterion　the　stoutest
  insisters　on　supernatural　origin　have　also　been　forced　to　use　in
  the　end。　　Among　the　visions　and　messages　some　have　always　been
  too　patently　silly；　among　the　trances　and　convulsive　seizures
  some　have　been　too　fruitless　for　conduct　and　character；　to　pass
  themselves　off　as　significant；　still　less　as　divine。　　In　the
  history　of　Christian　mysticism　the　problem　how　to　discriminate
  between　such　messages　and　experiences　as　were　really　divine
  miracles；　and　such　others　as　the　demon　in　his　malice　was　able　to
  counterfeit；　thus　making　the　religious　person　twofold　more　the
  child　of　hell　he　was　before；　has　always　been　a　difficult　one　to
  solve；　needing　all　the　sagacity　and　experience　of　the　best
  directors　of　conscience。　　In　the　end　it　had　to　come　to　our
  empiricist　criterion：　　By　their　fruits　ye　shall　know　them；　not　by
  their　roots。　　Jonathan　Edwards's　Treatise　on　Religious　Affections
  is　an　elaborate　working　out　of　this　thesis。　　The　ROOTS　of　a　man's
  virtue　are　inaccessible　to　us。　　No　appearances　whatever　are
  infallible　proofs　of　grace。　　Our　practice　is　the　only　sure
  evidence；　even　to　ourselves；　that　we　are　genuinely　Christians。
  〃In　forming　a　judgment　of　ourselves　now；〃　Edwards　writes；　we
  should　certainly　adopt　that　evidence　which　our　supreme　Judge　will
  chiefly　make　use　of　when　we　come　to　stand　before　him　at　the　last
  day。　。　。　。　　There　is　not　one　grace　of　the　Spirit　of　God；　of　the
  existence　of　which；　in　any　professor　of　religion；　Christian
  practice　is　not　the　most　decisive　evidence。　。　。　。　　The　degree　in
  which　our　experience　is　productive　of　practice　shows　the　degree
  in　which　our　experience　is　spiritual　and　divine。〃
  Catholic　writers　are　equally　emphatic。　　The　good　dispositions
  which　a　vision；　or　voice；　or　other　apparent　heavenly　favor　leave
  behind　them　are　the　only　marks　by　which　we　　may　be　sure　they
  are　not　possible　deceptions　of　the　tempter。　　Says　Saint　Teresa：
  〃Like　imperfect　sleep　which；　instead　of　giving　more　strength　to
  the　head；　doth　but　leave　it　the　more　exhausted；　the　result　of
  mere　operations　of　the　imagination　is　but　to　weaken　the　soul。
  Instead　of　nourishment　and　energy　she　reaps　only　lassitude　and
  disgust：　　whereas　a　genuine　heavenly　vision　yields　to　her　a
  harvest　of　ineffable　spiritual　riches；　and　an　admirable　renewal
  of　bodily　strength。　　I　alleged　these　reasons　to　those　who　so
  often　accused　my　visions　of　being　the　work　of　the　enemy　of
  mankind　and　the　sport　of　my　imagination。　。　。　。　　I　showed　them　the
  jewels　which　the　divine　hand　had　left　with　me：they　were　my
  actual　dispositions。　　All　those　who　knew　me　saw　that　I　was
  changed；　my　confessor　bore　witness　to　the　fact；　this　improvement；
  palpable　in　all　respects；　far　from　being　hidden；　was　brilliantly
  evident　to　all　men。　　As　for　myself；　it　was　impossible　to　believe
  that　if　the　demon　were　its　author；　he　could　have　used；　in　order
  to　lose　me　and　lead　me　to　hell；　an　expedient　so　contrary　to　his
  own　interests　as　that　of　uprooting　my　vices；　and　filling　me　with
  masculine　courage　and　other　virtues　instead；　for　I　saw　clearly
  that　a　single　one　of　these　visions　was　enough　to　enrich　me　with
  all　that　wealth。〃＇6＇
  ＇6＇　　Autobiography；　ch。　xxviii。
  I　fear　I　may　have　made　a　longer　excursus　than　was　necessary；　and
  that　fewer　words　would　have　dispelled　the　uneasiness　which　may
  have　arisen　among　some　of　you　as　I　announced　my　pathological
  programme。　　At　any　rate　you　must　all　be　ready　now　to　judge　the
  religious　life　by　its　results　exclusively；　and　I　shall　assume
  that　the　bugaboo　of　morbid　origin　will　scandalize　your　piety　no
  more。
  Still；　you　may　ask　me；　if　its　results　are　to　be　the　ground　of　our
  final　spiritual　estimate　of　a　religious　phenomenon；　why　threaten
  us　at　all　with　so　much　existential　study　of　its