Richmond Palladium (Daily), Volume 34, Number 28, 6 December 1908 — Page 2

f AGE TWO.

THE RICHMOND PAlXADIUM AND SUN-TELEGRAM. SUNDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1908.

Scarcely a public .declaration has been made on the subject of the new psychological system of treating the sick called the Emmanuel Movement that has not contained criticisms of Christian Science, and the practice of Christian Scientists. Chief among these are the following: that Christian Scientists attempt the cure of organic diseases; that Christian Scientists, except in the treatment of surgical and contagious cases, "discard the employment of physicians"; that Christian Scientists believe that God is good and the only creator and made nothing unlike himself and that therefore "disease is unreal"; that Christian Science as compared with the Emmanuel Movement is neither "Christian nor scientific"; that Christian Scientists accept a fee for their service. It is certainly right and fair that Christian Science be understood as it is and that, since strangers to Christian Science have attempted and failed to draw a clear line of demarkation between Christian Science and other ejstems of treating the sick which differ therefrom, and have therefore left the subject in a confused state this distinction be drawn by a Christian Scientist. It will be our endeavor to show that the foundation of Christian Science, Its teaching concerning God and His creation, is Christian and scientific, and therefore that its conclusions are Christian, for, whatever else may be said of It, Christian Science is consistent, and it honors God beyond comparison. If critics find no fault with the good things it teaches about God, they should not complain when it logically and consistently reaches the conclusion therefrom that the devil, evil, is neither personal nor real. Mrs. Eddy does not believe in the asserted l ower of evil, and she has taught her students how to overcome its deceptions by being awake to Its subtlety, and by knowing that God is the only power. Revival of Christian Healing. Rev. Frank L. Phalen, of New Bedford, Mass., In an address delivered In that city on October 4. 1908, gave the following very sensible reasous for the revival of Christian healing. He said: "Until a comparatively recent date, the church lost 6ight of the fact that the Founder of Christianity was not only a revealor and proclaimr of the truth, but also a healer of the ills of humanity, both physical and mental. Jesus not only preached the truth, but he healed the sick. The first teachers of Christianity followed the double practiC3 of preaching and healing. Jesus neA'.el physical and mental maladies, not merely becausa he understood and brought to bear supernatural power, but rather because he saw and laid hold of those latent powers in humanity which others had failed to see and utilize. The healing power of Jesus is not something that came into the world with Him and doparted with Him if is a permanent possibility to all those who have sufficient insight and faith and sagacity to grasp and utilize the same power." A careful study of the Scriptures discloses the fact that healing the sick was by no means the result for which the Master primarily labored; it was rather a consequence of the spiritual regeneration which was effected by the Gospel he preached. Christian Science accords with our Lord's teaching, when he said, "Whether is It ' easier to say thy sins be forgiven thee or to say, rise up and walk." and when he declared to another whom he had healed, "Sin no more lest a worse thing come upon thee." He thus taught unquestionably that disease is the result of sin. He did not on these occasions mention any particular sin or enter into a comprehensive definition of sin, but the Scriptures, as a

whole warrant the definition or sin which is taught in Christian Science, namely, that it includes not only the willful wrongs of mortals but all of their ignorant mistakes and blunderings. John said: "All unrighteousness (all unright-wis-ness. all unright-wise-ness) is sin," that is all erroneous beliefs and conceptions which are held es wisdom, all mistakes which are regarded as "wlseness" are included under the name sin. and it is quite evident that unrighteous thought is the basis of all evil conduct, for thought is always prior to action. The Master held this opinion of the fundamentally of sinful thought, as is indicated by his declaration that those who look upon sin to desire it are guilty of its offense. It is proper to say In this connectionthat the double practice of preaching and healing was due to the fact that it was impossible to benefit an Individual spiritually without im-! proving his bodily condition. It would be quite as impossible for one to understand and live and talk according to the Gospel of Truth without bene-; fitting oneself and others as it would be for the sun to shine without dispelling the darkness. Thus we note that healing the sick in the Christian Science Church is not an adjunct to Its religious practice but a natural Inevitable consequence of the new and more definite, comprehensive and Christlike understanding of God and His creation which is taught by Mrs. Eddy. This constitutes the foundation of the entire system of Christian Science and its practice, and it destroys both sin and sickness. It is the truth which illumines the consciousness of the patient and destroys his sense of disease. The Rev. F. C. Baker of Falrhaven. Mass., In referring to "Recent developments In the field of religions ethics," declares, "It Is, perhaps, the latest phase of that more than general awakening to the fact that the Church of Christ has a mission to the whole man. body and souL May ' we add

Emmanuel Movement and Christian BY ALFRED FARLOW.

Home and Founder OS J' 9

-j i V, .V:

The First Church of Christ Scientist, Boston, Mass., and Rev. Mary Baker G. Eddy, Mother of the Church.

here that the healing movements which are being instituted in the churches are, to say the least, prompted by an acknowledgement of the Scriptural , teaching, that healing the sick is an essential feature of Christian practice. This point having been settled, it remains to discover the Christ method. We think all will agree that real Christian results can be had only by the means which our jLord employed, via., by an unreserved reliance upon God. If we may assume that human psychology shajj furnish the way of Christian healing on the supposition that "God made psychology," we may consistently go to the length of assuming that every man should be a liberal drinker of whiskey on the supposition that "God made it." The spiritual science of God reveals the fact that both psychology and whiskey, which by the way we are not comparing, are of human invention, and experience teaches that absolute purity of thought and life demands a sacrifice of both. Solomon admonished, "Pull not upon yourselves destruction with the works of your hands." Rather than declare that human methods are gifts of God, we should awake to the fact that they are misappropriations. The Motive of the Emmanuel Movement. Turning now to the Emmanuel Movement, we find that the motive for its establishment, as stated by its founders, was to supply a demand for "non-drug healing." The following quotation from Dr. H. M. Wells of Philadelphia is representative of the many we have seen on this subject. "Recently the suggestion has been made that the Christian Church enter the field of psycho-therapeutics and thus meet the demand that apparently exists in the minds of the people for the healing influences of religion. It is hoped by this means to offset the effects of Christian Science." "To offset" the good works of another body of Christian people does not seem to be a very exalted purpose, but we shall not complain on this account, for we are quite sure that as the churches approach scientific healing whatever is wanting in their motive may be easily corrected. There seems to be a division of opinion regarding the importance, usefulness and advisability of this new movement. One writer declares that "this latest counterfeit probably had its conception and birth in the fear of doctors of losing their patients and oi pastors of losing their members." Says another: "The Emmanuel movement is one of the most talked of projects among churchmen today. It is being U6ed in Boston to combat Christian Science." We do not understand whether the afllrmation that this movement is a return to "primitive Christianity" or a revival of "historic Christianity" refers to means and methods employed or whether it is Intended to apply simply to the abstract proposal to revive "non-drug healing." If we were to undertake to justify the movement by Scriptural authority we should have to concern ourselves not only with the proposition that Jesus and t he apostles healed the sick, but also with the method of healing which they used. We should seek a knowledge of the Christ means of overcoming human ills. In an address made at Rochester on May 20, 190S, Dr. McComb declared that the Emmanuel Movement "is an outcome of the fact that Jesus Christ healed the sick," and that "Christ was not averse to taking advantage of means provided by nature and man in His day." Respecting this it must be said that Jesus was truly human and moved among men, but he had as little part in material things as it was possible for one upon this plane to have, and as he advanced in understanding he relied more and more vpon Spirit until finally he parted from material conditions limitations altogether. Dr. McComb has declared that "The Savior would have been willing to take advantage of the advancements of this age!" Following this line of argument he holds that "spiritual healing must go hand in hand, cooperating with and sometimes supplementing medical science." He even goes so far as to advance the speculative opinion that If Jesus were present In this age he would work hand In hand with the doctors, that he would employ a medical diagnostician to examine the cases which applied to him for help, and if by this means it were discovered-1 hat persons were afflicted organically he would reject them,

of Christian Science

Jr.:

.1' Sf 'V -irl I m .

'MSa?lr& hi k - 7351 ., r,nS-r I

& it vV " but If he learned that they had only functional difficulties he would accept them as patients! Over against all this suggestion, however, is the significant fact that Jesus healed most of his patients Instantaneously, and that he cured the most difficult cases in much less time than would have been required even to summon a physician, to say nothing about tedious and painful examinations. If the Master had been a failure in the treatment of disease, if facts could be named In evidence that he succeeded only with functional disorders while he failed to cure organic cases, then there, might be some ground for affirming that, if now upon the earth, he would need and utilize modern medical practice; but when we remember that he healed the most difficult cases instantaneously and that he never lost a case that he cleansed the leper, raised the dead, while the dally failures even of the most approved medical means may be counted by the thousands, we may well ask: Is it reasonable to suppose that the Master "would have been glad" to set aside his perfect system of curing the sick In crder to avail himself of a method which frequently and lamentably fails? It would seem that any Christian minister would blush to assume that either modern or ancient medical diagnosis gives a better statement of the cause of disease than that expressed by Christ Jesus when . He said, "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee," and when He referred to the woman probably afflicted with rheumatism as one whom "Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years." Our Lord treated these cases on the assumption that sin and not a material cause was the foundation of their affliction, and with far better success than any modern physician. At this point it is legitimate to inquire what particular advantage over the Apostolic means and methods is to be found in the Emmanuel Movement, either as regards organic or contagious disorders. Jesus' remedy was always at hand. He was able to call it into action instantly and without being encumbered with a medical case or the expense of a diagnostician. His method was entirely safe in handling contagion because he instantly healed His patients and thus removed all occasion for danger. In an address given in London, England, Dr. McComb declared, however, that in the ancient days "there were two species of leprosy, one that was contagious and one that was not contagious and this probably accounts for the fact that Jesus permitted His leprous cases to mingle with .he public." He has suggested further that these cases were probably of the non-contagious type! Such an argument belittles the omnipotent power f our Lord and would discourage the feeble and fluttering faith in God which exists in the modern Christian world. Men have occasion to be thankful that Christian Science has saved the Bible from doubt and infidelity, and has already prepared the world against such a travesty on the teaching and practice of the Master, for It has healed thousands of cases of organic and so-called contagious troubles. Dr. McDonald of Brooklyn treats this question somewhat differently. He says: "Because Christ drew no line between functional and organic maladies is no reason I should not. I compliment him more when I draw the line than when 1 wander all over the field. That drawing of the line shows that r consider Him a bigger man than I am. He was perfect." This is quite a sane point, but the gentleman should have reasoned further. The facts in evidence lead to the conclusion that not only was the Master perfect, but that His method was perfect also. It is manifest that even a perfect man could not reach a desired destination if he followed a wrong course. We honor the individual who recognizes that he must "suffer to be so now" usages ' and practices which the perfect man may eliminate, but there is no excuse for the effort made by some to substitute modern psychology for primi tive cnnstianuy under the apology that the only reason why Jesus troubled Himself with the tedious method of utilizing divine power-in destroying sin and sickness, rather than avail Himself of the modern method of preparing pills and plasters and entering into a diagnosis which sometimes consumes days, was that these modern conveniences were not in existence and hence not available in His time. After alL the important qnsstioa Is u to

Science

whether the modern methods are superior to the our Lord's and we know of no better rule by which this question may be decided, in this or In any age than the test: "By their fruits shall jr. know them." Jesus and His disc" pies furnished the important thing, namely, good results. Furthermore, if Christ Jesus and His apostles were living in this age and were to refer those who are organically afflicted back to the physicians who have failed to cure them, that would certainly fall to demonstrate the full ness and Inflnftude of Divine Power, and their mission would in so far be defeated. In the efforts to follow Christ Jesus and heal the sick, men and women today do indeed fall far short of the perfect understanding and application of divine power, but the remedy is not to resort to an insufficient substitute, but to strive the more earnestly to know and utilize the perfect way. The remedy Is not to bring our Lord down to the level of those who are compelled to depend upon material remedies because they do not understand how to avail themselves of the spiritual, but to plant ourselves unreservedly upon the possibility of an effective faith In and reliance upon God, and by our sufficient striving to ataln to the exalted position which was occupied by our great Exemplar. Rev. Albert B. Shield, rector of the Church of the Redeemer, Boston, an advocate of the Emmanuel movement, in an address given in Hartford, Conn, on May 3rd. 1908, declared that "The Old Testament prophets were psychotherapeutists while Christ was the greatest of all." We assume because of the connection In which the gentleman makes this declaration, that he means to declare that Jesus was nothing more than a practitioner of menI tal suggestion, according to the mod ern system, that He did not heal by the direct power of God but through the medium of human will; and yet the Master said in His prayer, "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt." He declared "the words that I will speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that worketh within me. He doeth the works." If we mistake not the Christian world will object to having the word "psycho-therapeutics" or "healing by human will power," applied to the ex alted and purely spiritual methods of Christ Jesus. Opinions Respecting Christian Science In the book "Religion and Medicine" compiled by Drs. Worcester, McComb and Coriat, and which for the sake of convenience we shall credit to Dr. Worcester a further reason for the Emmanuel Movement is suggested, namely, that "ihe metaphysical basis of Christian Science is too crude, too contradictory to be accepted by the normal reason,' though he adds that "with all its obscurities we find in the Sacred Book of Christian Science great truths." Either the Doctor must be laboring under a misapprehension, or else by "normal reason" he means the pecu liar interpretations of personal sense, since otherwise he could not have , made this declaration. The metaphy slcal basis of Christian Science is the metaphysical basis of Scriptural teach ing. The Scriptures admonish us to compare "spiritual things with spirit ual," for "It is the spirit that quicken eth, the flesh profiteth nothing." The Master placed no reliance whatever up on matter. He brushed It aside completely by declaring it to be altogether , unprofitable, and it is certainly true that his teaching that God is Spirit, and the teaching of Christian Science which Is based entirely thereupon do not conflict, nor does any part of Christian Science contradict any other part. Every statement contained in the Christian Science text book is con sistent with every other statement contained therein, and no statement contained therein is contradictory to anything but material sense, that which our Lord affirmed to be unprofitable, not to be credited even in the smallest degree. It is averred by critics that mental suggestion has been employed in some form or other during all the ages of I the world and that long before Mrs. ; Eddy launched Christian Science, men tal suggestion had been practiced, and . yet they say, "if the doctors and prac titioners had done their full duty Christian Science would never have flourished." Will some one of its crit ics stand up and tell us why this ridiculous Christian Science "has flour ished" to such an extent while this assertedly "rational," "scientific," "mind-over-matter," work-togethe r - w 1 1 h -medicine "remedy adopted by the Em manuel Movement attracted no spe cial attention until the growth and influence of Christian Science made it seem important to do something by the way of competition and as a means of buttressing the old way? - m It has been said that the Christian Scientist is inconsistent because he at tempts to cure a disease after affirming that there Is none, and that Chris tian Scientists differ from those who are interested in the Emmanuel Move ment in that they do not believe in the reality of disease. In reply It may be said that the fundamental teaching of Christian Science is responsible for its conclusion concerning the nature of disease and sin and that this dlstinc tlon is of vital impotance. Upon It hinges the whole question of the differ ence between the teaching and practice of Christian Science and the teach ing and practice of those schools which do not rely exclusively upon the divine Mind, Christian Science at taches the word reality only to that which is spiritual and eternal, not to the temporal and material. It recog nizes that sin and disease exist In err ing mortal experience, that experience wnicn Solomon denominated "Error of Life," and that therefore they must be grappled with and overcome, but the success of the overcoming will de pend upon the means employed. If sin and disease are indeed error, not tru and not ral they cannot be ov

ercome by physical means, since

Truth alone is the antidote for error. overlook that the Christian Scientist's Here is a point that critics seem to practice is in perfect accord with his theory that his exclusive reliance upon God in time of sickness is due to his firm conviction that God is the only Power, that He is the author of all that exists and that, as sin is no part of the divine economy, it is simply error, which can be destroyed by truth alone. Speaking of the Emmanuel Movement. Rev. Frank L. Goodspeed of pringfield. Mass., has said that "It is not like Christian Science. You do lot have to insult your Intellectual fac ulties and blackguard them into beieving what isn't so, as in Christian Science." We venture the assertion that every Bible student will readily endorse the basic statement of Christian Science,' namely, God Is Spirit, and he will agree that spirit is not matter but Mind. To do this he is obliged to deny the testimony of material sense if he does rot "insult" and "blackguard" it, for material sense declares "I do not believe there is any spirit for I do not see any spirit." Now, if it Is possible for one to reject the testimony of his material senses sufficiently to believe that God is Spirit, there is no reason why he cannot consistently accept the entire teaching of Christian Science, srnce every proposition of Christian Science is consists ently deduced from this as a premise. Jesus was not afraid of insulting his human sense of things. He declared that "The flesh I matter J profiteth nothing." "It is the spirit that qulckeneth giveth life and existence. The Master's denial of sense testimony was as sweeping as that of Mrs. Eddy. Indeed Mrs. Eddy finds warrant for her denial in our Lord's teachings. Rev. Artemus J. Haynes, New Haven, Conn., in a sermon delivered in that city, said: "I wish to pay a tribute that I feel is deserved. Christian Science took up a great truth that had fallen into disuse since the days of the apostolic church. Christian Science so emphasized that truth over-emphasized it, if you insist as to compel the church, compel the medical fraternity, compel the world to listen. Let us be fair; we should never have heard of this Emmanuel clinic had it not been for the Christian Science Church." One Mind or Minds Many. There are and can be but two mental methods of treating the sick, or influencing a fellow mortal, one la that which recognizes no other Mind, hence no other power, but God, good; the other is that which is based upon the human, mortal, or "carnal" mind. Now either there is but one Mind, on God or there are minds many, Gods many. Which proposition is true? The Scriptures teach the fact that there is but one God. God is Spirit, Life, Truth, Love. Hence, the implied teaching that there is but one Life, one Spirit, one love, "one good." An erroneous belief seems to prevail to some extent that all mental .methods employed in the treatment of human ills are fundamentally alike. Experience will correct this error, for as a matter of fact, God, divine Mind, is the only real Cause and the only actual exterminator of evil. Either a method of healing recognizes this fact, or It does not. If it does, it will proceed in complete confidence of the power of God to deal with all cases. It will not require a diagnostician to determine whether in the premises God is competent to act. If, on the other hand, a method of healing does not ad mit that God is the only cause, then the "mind" employed in its mental healings will be human mind. Its power is the force of human will and its cures not fundamental. The sup posed changes which are produced by the exercise of human will and which are regarded by some as genuine heal ings will eventually be discovered to be only temporary changes of morta consciousness, which are not real cor rections, but simply substitutes of certain erroneous mental conditions for others equally erroneous. They are the outcome of the condition mentioned in the Scriptures. "God is not in all their thoughts." Wre affirm that the Psalmist was right in his practice as indicated by the declaration, "His delight Is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." How continuous meditation en the supremacy of God heals the sick and overcomes sin may not be apparent to the casual observer, but it will surely become clear to the Christian) who puts the practice to a test. It may be well to note here that thinking df God, as a matter of course, means and necessitates a consciousness of what God is, a realization of his various characteristics and attributes, and His relation to man and the universe. If such meditation Is comprehension it must of necessity take in the very nature and essence of Deity. Among the myriad ideas which it includes, we might mention that it would embrace a consciousness that God is infinite Mind, eternal Life, immutable Truth, unchanging Love; that He is the only Cause, the beginning and the end, the foundation of being, the ultimate sustenance, the "author and the finisher" of all things, that He is "all in all"; that since He is the only Cause, that which He creates is the only effect; that the discords, abnormalities, evils, which appear to exist, being no part of the very good things which God created, have only a mythical existence, they are but counterfeits of the real and spiritual creations, and that notwithstanding the fact that they appear to exist In erring mortal experience and therefore must be grappled with and overcome through divine power, they belong only to erring mortal sense-experience, which Solomon denominated the "error of life." Christian Healing. For about forty years Christian Science has found more or less acceptance and has healed many sick folks through a reliance upon spiritual power alone. Surviving its doubts and misgivings, Christendom has eventually concluded and acknowledged that Christian Science heals; hence Mrs. Eddy's prophecy of fifteen years ago, seems about to be fulfilled. She said, "If the Uves of Christian Ceientlsts at

test their fidelity to Truth, I predict that in the twentieth century, every Christian church in our land, and a few in far-off lands, will approximate the understanding of Christian Science ruffici ently to heal the sick in His name." (Pulpit and Press, page 31.) Within the past two years movements relying more or less upon mental methods of treating the sick have been instituted. On this subject the March number of "Current Literature" declares: "The significance of this new propaganda can hardly be appreciated apart from its relation to Christian Science. It is the product of the timespirit that has given birth to Christian

Science; and it has grown up side by side with the latter faith. It is distinctly an effort to appropriate, in the interests of historic Christianity, 'whatever is good' in the doctrines promulgated by Mrs. Eddy." Concerning the Emmanuel Movement in Boston it is said: "It rests on the theory that re ligion is the greatest therapeutic agent known to man." It Is just announced that Dr. Jas. J. Putnam of Harvard Medical School has given notice that the Emmanuel Movement Is a "mistake." Dr. McComb and Dr. Worcester have expressed their "interest" in Dr. Putnam's '"statement," but have not pubL'cly stated whether they will discontinue. Since a number of prominent neurologists have concluded to disapprove the movement, we assume that our brethren of the movement will drop the term "approved methods" from their next edition else prefix th word sometimes. Dr. Robert McDonald of Brooklyn. N. Y., declares: "There is a demand on the pulpit that It not only seek to save souls, but that it also seek to cure the ills of the body. This demand has been Ignored by the church, and disappointed church people have turned away to help build up a cult that claims millions of adherents and has its foundation laid on the fact that certain cures may be worked through faith." Thus we note that one avowed purpose of the Emmanuel Movement, with which many If not all other movements relating to the "healing of the sick psychologically" seem to agree, is that the older churches shall supply a growing demand for mental healing, and yet, so far as we know, nearly all of those prominent in this movement deplore the fact that many members of the older churches "have been attracted to Christian Science because of Its healings!" If, as It is claimed, Christian Science heals by the same power which is employed by other movements deal ing with mental treatment, there is no excuse for attacking it. Neither is there any reason why other move ments should not hold their own by honest competition and without feeling called upon to speak disparaging ly of those who are seeking the same end by different means. In the spirit of competition they point with pride to the fact that they "welcome the assistance and cooperation of the medical fraternity," declaring "Christian Scientists are uncompromisingly hostile to medicine in all its aspects." This is scarcely a fair statement, for, while the Christian Scientist, In the practice of absolute Christian Science, relies exclusively upon the divine power, he recognizes that the physician has his particular field of operation and that in the present stage of development he is an important factor in human affairs. His work, in so far as it is commendable, is gratefully acknowledged by Christian Scientists, nevertheless in his treatment of the sick the Christian Scientist undauntedly declares that material and spiritual remedies do not operate together, that the one acts against the other and that therefore it is not only inconsistent but impractical to administer to a patient spiritually and at the same time employ material means. To take advantage of these conditions and seize the opportunity to generate an unpleasant feeling between Christian Scientists and physicians is certainly a questionable procedure. The Christian Scientist should be commended, not criticised, for his consistency with the Scriptural adminltion. to trust God only. There is surely less justification in the act of holding out the inducement to the public that one may have new and unusual benefits without sacrificing any old beliefs or methods. It is reasonable to expect and seek new and better ways and means if we would have new and better results. The situation justifies an endorsement of our Saviour's warning that no man can successfully put "new wine" in "old bottles" nor make an old garment as good as new by using patches of new cloth. We might add that in the matter of possessing new means of healing sin and sickness it costs no more to have an entirely new and spiritual method than to seek to improve the old way by a few spiritual patches. Besides, those who have had experience first with the material and then with the spiritual have proved the spiritual to be better. In the effort to minimize the importance of an undivided faith in God, critics should proceed with extreme caution, especially when they undertake to Justify their position by affirming that the newest method is in strict accord with primitive Christianity while the Christian Science method is a departure therefrom. It Is with some of the arguments employed to Justify the modern coalition of mind and medicine and the tender regard for the medical practice which the founders of this union express that we desire to deal In particular. It should be understood that Christian Scientists have no quarrel with any class of religious believers nor with any. therapeutic school. If they are permitted to have their choice In the matter, they will make their way without strife or contention. Reverend Lyman P. Powell of Northampton, Mass., declares that "Any movement likely to reduce the doctor's practice or his income is sure to cause disquiet and in some quarters to excite antagonism. From the first, therefore, I have endeavored to win the confidence of the physician and to emphasize in the public press as well as in private conversation the close connection which In the nature of the case exists between the doctor and the

minister In the Emmaauel Movement, In this kind of patronage for an avowed purpose Christian Scientists take no part. We believe that all broad minded, progressive physicians will honor any individual or class of individuals who have the moral courage to launch out into a way to which honest conviction directs them, and we venture to saythat if the Christian does this sincere'y, observing the admonition "Be as vise as serpents and as harmless as loves," he will meet the approbation f every honest clergyman and physician. Frankness and sincerity are adulred. not condemned, by all gool eople. No one knows better than an experienced physician that, notwithstanding medical science in recent years hni arrived at a more definite understanding of physical dUorders and symptims. the medical world Is still iargo-

lv at sea in respect to the real cause of disease. Eminent doctors openly declare that there is no known mater ial remedy for certain quite prevalent diseases, and since it is agreed by all parties concerned that we should appropriate whatever is in the Interest of "historic Christianity." why not ob serve the Scriptural injunction "come now let us reason together," and if . possible arrive at a correct conclusion, as to what the founders of historic Christianity taught and practiced. The declaration that it is the Intention of the new movement "to appropriate, in the interests of historic Christianity, whatever is good in th doctrines promulgated by Mrs, Eddy." is commendable, but so far as we axe able to observe, the only things that are left for appropriation after the culling Is completed to suit the taste of some of our contemporaries, are a few peculiar beliefs which are not and never were Included in the teaching and practice of Christian Science! When Bishop Fallows starts on' his mission of differentiation and rejec- . tlon, he declares first that bis theory differs from Christian Science because "it clearly recognizes the reality of the mind and the body and the Inseparable relation existing between them." This abstract statement is likely to mean to those who are not informed as to what Christian Science gives in place of that which It repudiates, that Christian Science denies the reality of mind and body and that it denies that there Is any relation existing between them. This Is a mistake. Christian Science affirm that mind and body are not only inseparable but in an Important sense, identical, and that therefore the slightest change in the mental condition Is manifested in a changed bodily condition, so that when mortals become fully conscious of the spiritual truth of being the body will manifest perfect harmony, l. e.. It will be a perfect expression of the perfect Mind, God. Another point of difference between Christian Science and the Emmanuel Movement as affirmed by representatives of the latter, is this, .hat the latter attaches value to "anatomy, physiology, the practical bearing of psychology in the treatment of disease." We can understand that what

is termed a psychological treatment of disease deal with these subjects, but we fall to recognize what there is In this particular appropriation which may be properly associated with "historic Christianity." if by "historic Christianity" Is meant that which was practiced by Jesus and His Apostles. The most pointed lesson in physiology which the Master taught was the following: "Take no thought for the body," "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness." His psychology is emphatically set forth In the declaration "I came to do the will of my Father" and in his prayer "Not as I will but as .Thou wilt." Human will was entirely eliminated from His practice. He healed the sinful and sick by relying entirely upon the divine Mind. It is said that the new system differs from Christian Science "in not being a religious sect," and In this connection it Is said, "It is one of the dearest wishes of those who -hope to see this movement spread widely, that people should find In their own particular church organizations these practical applications of Christianity to their daily needs, which they have sought elsewhere." This is an honest desire, but in this connection it should be noted that healing the sick is not the sole object of the Christian Ccience Church. It Is not even Its prime object. It is the mission of this church to promulgate the Gospel, to educate mortals into an understanding of the Science of God. Bodily healing follows as a natural consequence of this spiritual regeneration. From the description given by the advocates of the new movement the effort seems to be to establish a method of healing the sick entirely apart from and independent of the religion of Christ. Reverend Robert McDonald even declares that the means employed "are not essentially religious." He declares, "It is the human mind that cures as the suggestion emsnates from the strong, rational, conscious mind. In his book entitled. "Religion and Medicine," Dr. Worcester says, 'There Is no peculiar piety involved in the use of suggestion; to which we would answer, there is. however, a peculiar piety involved In Christian healinc the method which Jesus and the Apos ties employed, for they cured the sick by the moral Improvement of their patients. Dr. Worcester adds: "We have seen the consumptive nursed back 'to life, by rest, fresh air, abundant food and kindness and the fact remains that consumption can be cured In no other way. Surely the gentleman does not mean to say that it is not possible for God to restore the con- ; 6umptive instantly. We realize thai in a large measure mortals are subject to the slow process of material laws, but this is because they do not understand and rely sufficiently upon the divine law, because that in theli seeking they have not yet found "the kingdom of God and His righteous ness," but are taking too much thought for matter. (To be continued next Sunday)