Only the nervous mothers.—Perhaps not one mother in twenty could mark her child. Only those mothers who are very susceptible to unusual mental impressions mark their children. Nervous, gloomy, despondent, excitable mothers are liable to do this. Practically nineteen-twentieths of the mothers need not have a moment’s fear of marking their child. If these facts are true, then it follows that there are many children who in their prenatal state possessed a temperament not susceptible to abnormal maternal impressions. Such a child, in all probability, could not be marked, even if the mother had passed through mental states favorable to marking her child.
The materialist puzzled.—Birthmarks cannot be explained on a physiological or materialistic basis. Only as we recognize the supremacy of the mental nature of man over his body can we understand these hereditary influences. Almost all Christian doctors and scientists recognize the fact of birthmarks. Men of these professions, who are materialistic in their belief, treat the subject of birthmarks as a relic of superstition. Not being able to explain them, they relegate all birthmarks to the “unknowables,” calling them freaks or monstrosities.
A government pet.—After one of the doctors in a state insane asylum, appointed to this position by the governor for some political favor he had done and without any regard to his qualifications, had conducted me through all the wards, I said, “Doctor, what emphasis do you put upon heredity in your study and treatment of the inmates of this institution?” “Very little,” he replied. “Do you believe that mental and moral states of the mother have any influence over her child before it is born?” To this question he replied, “I believe nutrition and pelvic environment are the only prenatal relations between the child and its mother.” I then asked him to explain some of the following cases of birthmarks by his theory. He did not believe in birthmarks at all, and stated that as he did not have the opportunity to investigate the pelvic conditions of the mothers, he should not be expected to explain the cases I gave him. I will leave the reader to judge whether that little political pet could have explained the following cases with his theory.
Explanation.—Birthmarks can be explained only by the influences of the mother’s mental states upon the forming child in her body. No single mentation could possibly mark her child in a very perceptible way. It is the constant repetition of the mental image in the mother’s mind that finally takes expression in the physical form of the child. To illustrate, the first conscious mentation, after an act of murder, does not give the criminal the facial expression of a murderer. But after days of thinking of his crime, even if there were no eye witnesses to his crime and he were not even suspected of guilt, yet his face gradually takes on the features of a criminal. He cannot remove that criminal look with soap and water, or by crying or laughing. That conscious thought of his crime oft repeated has finally taken expression in physical form. A genuine conversion to Christ alone can remove the criminal look. The same is true of all classes of criminals. Harmony of mental states between husband and wife finally establishes a decided resemblance.
Mother and child vitally one.—The physical organism of man is never more susceptible to mental impression than during its plastic state before birth. The mother and her child are in continuous vital communication with each other. In a very vital sense the mother is the architect of her child. If the mother keeps herself in a perfectly normal state, the child will most likely be normal. Any abnormal state the mother may pass through may have its abnormal influence upon her child.
The effect of a constant mental repetition.—The initial mentation, whether it be a scare, anger, sympathy, grief, desire or disgust locates and starts the birthmarks. If this unusual initial mental image were never repeated, the effect on the child would be hardly perceptible. If the murderer could prevent the return of the mental picture of his crime, the criminal look in his face would not become noticeable. It is the constant repetition of the first mental state that finally takes permanent form in the child’s body.
How to prevent marking a child.—How can susceptible mothers prevent marking their children? By refusing to repeat the mental image. They should keep their minds engaged in other matters. Banish the mental picture every time it occurs in the stream of consciousness. In this way birthmarks may be largely prevented.
The following cases are only a few that I have studied personally and know to be true. I have had many friends tell me of cases known to them, many of which would be very interesting to you, but I refrain from the use of them in this lecture.
Frightened by a crawfish.—Rev. T. of ——, had a right thumb that was double to the first joint. He told me that his mother, while washing clothes at a stream, turned over a flat rock and a crawfish caught her by the thumb with one of its big claws. In her fright she flung the crawfish out on the bank. I studied another case that was very nearly a duplicate of this one. These are examples of fright.
Arkansas mother.—While I was filling an engagement in the town of ——, Ark., the pastor’s wife became the mother of a little girl whose fingers were quite long and the joints of the fingers, hands and arms, stiff. She was quite nervous and despondent during gestation. She told me that one day when she was alone at home and especially gloomy and nervous, she heard some one rap at the door and looking up she saw a man standing at the door with deformed hands.