y by their experience of fact. "Experience of
fact" is a field with so many things in it that the sectarian scientist
methodically declining, as he does, to recognize such "facts" as
mind-curers and others like them experience, otherwise than by such
rude heads of classification as "bosh," "rot," "folly," certainly
leaves out a mass of raw fact which, save for the industrious interest
of the religious in the more personal aspects of reality, would never
have succeeded in getting itself recorded at all. We know this to be
true already in certain cases; it may, therefore, be true in others as
well. Miraculous healings have always been part of the supernaturalist
stock in trade, and have always been dismissed by the scientist as
figments of the imagination. But the scientist's tardy education in
the facts of hypnotism has recently given him an apperceiving mass for
phenomena of this order, and he consequently now allows that the
healings may exist, provided you expressly call them effects of
"suggestion." Even the stigmata of the cross on Saint Francis's hands
and feet may on these terms not be a fable. Similarly, the
time-honored phenomenon of diabolical possession is on the point of
being admitted by the scientist as a fact, now that he has the name of
"hystero-demonopathy" by which to apperceive it. No one can foresee
just how far this legitimation of occultist phenomena under newly found
scientist titles may proceed--even "prophecy," even "levitation," might
creep into the pale.

Thus the divorce between scientist facts and religious facts may not
necessarily be as eternal as it at first sight seems, nor the
personalism and romanticism of the world, as they appeared to primitive
thinking, be matters so irrevocably outgrown. The final human opinion
may, in short, in some manner now impossible to foresee, revert to the
more personal style, just as any path of progress may follow a spiral
rather than a straight line. If this were so, the rigorously
impersonal view of science might one day appear as having been a
temporarily useful eccentricity rather than the definitively triumphant
position which the sectarian scientist at present so confidently
announces it to be.

You see now why I have been so individualistic throughout these
lectures, and why I have seemed so bent on rehabilitating the element
of feeling in religion and subordinating its intellectual part.
Individuality is founded in feeling; and the re