[1] In the latest series of sittings, the rule has been for F.B.B. to read aloud to J.A. during the whole course of the writing, from a novel or other entertaining or amusing book, calculated to retain his attention, and the script resulting has proved to have nothing at all in common with the subject-matter of the book, but forms a related series of essays bearing upon the conquest of matter by spirit. Consider for a moment the human brain as the repository of all impressions made on the mind from childhood upwards. Thus viewed, it becomes, as it were, an encyclopedia of all knowledge which the conscious mind has stored, each item recording an idea of a certain quality, in such language as circumstances may at the time have dictated. Suppose then--and it is not difficult to do so--that each of these records is responsive to the impulse of an Idea which is seeking expression, and whose instrument of expression is some sort of sympathetic vibration attuned to the original thought which recorded the particular memory or subject. The sympathetic vibration lays hold of the denser or physical particles of the record, causing them to respond and to emit their own proper voice. In other words, the language of the script would be simply the product of the reaction of our brain-records to the sympathetic vibration of Idea, from whatever source arising. Not that such conditions are always necessary or possible. There are, for example, many quite well-authenticated cases of automatic writing in which not only the idea conveyed is outside the consciousness of the writer, but the language itself is entirely unknown to him, or to her, as the case may be. Take, for example, the many recorded cases of automatic writing in languages unknown to the medium, and sometimes requiring special scholarship to appreciate. The explanation seems in this case to be that the mind of the medium is plastic to a more direct spiritual influence which can therefore mould its particles and create a new record for itself. This must have been so in the Gift of Tongues at the Pentecost, and later in the history of the Primitive Church. The second problem noted by critics is a more difficult one. It concerns the intelligent source of the messages. As to this, I have propounded the view of a Greater Memory transcending, and interpenetrating our own. This theory is suggestive rather than explanatory. It does not, and cannot, explain many things which in our present state of knowledge are inexplicable. Neither does it pretend to cover the whole ground. It is, as I say, merely suggestive. Its virtue is that it excludes no other possible agencies, hence leaving room not only for the exercise of transcendental faculty, such as clairvoyance, but for any variety of _primary_ impulse, and for any number or degree of directive agencies capable of employing it.