Richmond Palladium (Daily), Volume 34, Number 42, 20 December 1908 — Page 12

PACK FOUR

THE RICHMOND PALLADIUM AND SUN-TELEGRAM, SUNDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1908.

Emmanuel Movement and Christian Science By Alfred Farlow

Animal Magnetism. Our critic in the Universalist Leader of April 18, l'MH, declares that in the days of Jesus and his apostles, the "attempts at the healing of the ick were incident to the popular belief of Satan us the cause of disease," and that they healed the sick'by virtue of their pow

er over the devil." He adds that the ; method instituted by Mrs. Eddy is auj "abnormal survival" of this belief "un J der such new names as malicious animal magnetism." Mrs. Eddy's definition of malicious animal , magnetism is Identical with our Lord's description of Satan. It la synonymous with the techical word "pernicious mental evil," used by psychologists, and with the word "dragon" of the Apocalypse which is said to be the same "old serpent called Satan and devil" which St. John said "deceiveth the whole world." It was called serpent because of its cunningness. The Master's declaration that Satan is a liar and that "his own," his offspring, is "a lie," is unmistakable in its meaning. Jesus referred to Satan as "he" but declared that he was never in the truth, that there is no truth in him, and that he is altogether a liar. . It is nether perse .1 nor intelligence-thai lies, but a mere mystification or want of intelligence which appears as n false sense of things. The Scriptures refer to Satan as a deceiver. Evil, like darkness, is not a real power, It dimply obscures and it disappears with the revelation of truth. Sin, sickness and death, which are said to be the works of the devil, are the result of deception," the offspring of darkness. They are occasioned by a lack of true understanding and are overcome by Truth, God. Jesus spoke of the woman as having "been bound by Satan, lo, these eighteen years," and he said,. "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." If Satan is a liar. Satan's bonds must be deceptions. The only way that a liar or devil can bind is by deceiving. Hence deception or falsity is the proper name for the works of the devil, sin, sickness and death. ( From this description it is seen that Christian Science docs not endorse the fabled devil with horns and hoofs, but regards Satan in t he light of Scriptural teaching, and while Christian Scientists believe that "Satan" Is the "cause of disease" they are not entertaining the superstitious belief that a peculiar personage by some sort of a spell has produced this disorder, but that because of a lack of understanding and practice of righteousness mortals have lived In t hat state of consciousness wherein they are not properly protected and are consequently subject to disease. Now t he Christian Scientist does not believe that a He can be doctored with medicine, that an error of consciousness can be destroyed by a drug. He knows a nd demonstrates the fact t hat it must be overcome by spiritual regeneration. It may be asked here how drugs and will power heal t he sick, and if there are two distinct mental methods of curing human woes. These questions involve a consideration of the premises of Christian Science as well as of its conclusions. Human will is the cause of all trouble, its misconceptions constitute t he basis of a 11 disease. Sickness is a false belief based upon th e evidence of personal sense. This belief may be temporarily displaced by a form of suggestion which is based upon th e same sense, but the patient would not be really cured because the foundation of the disease would not be destroyed. To illustrate: ' one who believes that four times three are eight may by persuasion be convinced that four times three are sixteen and thus cured of his belief that four times three are eight; but he has another error in its place. If, however, one who understands the truth quietly makes clear to him t he fact t hat four times three are twelve, he is permanently cured of his , belief that four times three are eight, since ho can not again believe that falsehood after the truth is made plain to him. The false belief has not been overcome by will force, nor by persuasion as in the former case, but by a. clear consciousness of eternal truth. Sickness is based upon the belief that man is material and has therefore lppsed into discord, while Science teaches that materiality, evil, disease are no more a part of the real spiritual man than the smoke is a pr.rt of the o bject which it hides, that the material claims concerning man . are no more than a cloud of false sense which to mortal sense temporarily hides the spiritual fact of being, and which 1 s dispelled as t he individual awakens to a realization of his true being. Hence the Patriarch's declaration: "I shall be satisfied when I awake in his likeness." If one is cured by a suggestion which is based upon t he evidence of the senses, upon t he same belief which admits of the sickness in the first place, he is not actually cured, though the disease temporarily disappears, for he still has the error in consciousness which constitutes the foundation of his disease, namely, the belief that man Is mortal and material, Christian Science makes it clear to him tl at he is the reflection ,or manifestation of God, and thus destroys his belief that he is material and consequently his belief that he is sick. Thus he is permanently cured. In this mannr we illustrate the fact that there is but one method of producing actual healings, namely, through that understanding of God and His creation which the Scriptures teach. If we should accept the suggestion-

let's theory of disease, we would be compelled to accept his theory of the proper method of treatment, t he limitation of possible cures, t h necessity for material diagnosis, t he belief that "only nervous disorders can be cured psychologically." These conclusions are consistent with t he psychologist's point of view, but we can not endorse his point of view. He reasons from the standpoint of human will, not from t he standpoint of t he allness of divine Mind. He does not compare the spiritual conclusions of the Christian Scientist with the Scientist's spiritual premises. Hence he errs in his criticism of Christian Science. The word magnetism was first applied to a peculiar attraction of iron ore, a nd the word in itself has no significance, " being applied merely because the property was discovered in the city of Magnesia. Later t he term "animal" was joined to it and it was used with reference to a supposed influence which one person was believed to be able to exert over another by physical contact. The meaning of the term "animal magnetism" has gradually broadened, and now includes any and all supposed action of the human mind. By this description it may be seen that from the very introduction of the term to t he present time the word has been applied to that particular power, influence or force which is supposed to be possessed by the creature in contradistinction to the creator. Hence the propriety of the name in Christian Science. As we have already stated, Christian Science teaches t hat there is in reality but one power or force; that is, God, Spirit, Mind, Truth, Love; and that, therefore, the Christian warfare is the human effort to become subject to t he Mind which is in Christ, to become cubmissive to the divine Mind and thus silence human will, which the Scriptures denominate the "carnal mind." St. Paul described this warfare in t he following words: "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other." Science always settles the battle on t he side of Spirit because "Spirit is t he real and eternal" and "matter (flesh) is the unreal and temporal." (Science and Health, p. 408). Since Science has introduced the proposition that God is the only real Mind, the carnal mind in all its varied manifestations is naturally, in the interest of self preservation, arrayed against it. Therefore every wilful phase of this supposed human opposition, which Is aroused by the introduction of Science Is malicious. Hence the use of the term "malicious animal magnetism." It is called magnetism because it refers to a supposed power independent of God. and malicious in keeping with the Scriptural declaration, "The carnal mind is enmity against God." Mrs. Eddy refers to it as the "human antipodo of Divine Science." It is a term which is broad enough to in

clude all that Is opposed to God. It includes every phase of evil, every phase of the human antagonism to Truth. In combating evil, Christian Science does not regard it as a person but as a suppositious force which dominates false sense and which, in view of its false pretence of intelligence, is denominated "mortal mind." St. Paul called it "carnal mind," evidently because all its promptings or inducements are based upon fleshly desires. The subtle arguments of malicious animal magnetism can have no effect upon those who are aware of its presence a nd who understand that God 1 the only real Mind or power. Malicious animal magnetism is .that which the evil-minded through mental malpractice seek to use in opposition to the good influence of the divine Mind. It is known to all students of psychology, and we think we may safely say to all reasonably well-informed persons, that one may be mentally dominated by another if he is not awake to this evil and prepared to resist its deception, not because evil is power, but because it deceiveth the unwary. There are, and have been for many years, schools which advertise their ability to teach a method of subjugating the will of another for the purpose of ruling him and for the purpose of subserving selfish ends. Jesus said on one occasion, "The prince of this world coraeth but findeth nothing in me." ""One who is perfect in consciousness destroys evil by the very aroma of his thought; evil cannot come near him nor have any influence over him. Evil suggestion finds no response in such an one, for there is no evil in the consciousness of the individual which may be magnified. Human suggestions find no response in the consciousness of the individual who does not believe in the basis of such arguments, but on the contrary understands that God is the only real power. Discrimination Against Organic Diseases. The New York Times of February 12. 1908, declares that "those of them (the people of New York) who have given real thought to the matter are still puzzled to know exactly what Dr. Worcester means when he talks of 'functional nervous disorders. Many of the ills he mentions are as much 'organic as any others, and at the bottom of all the rest there is the best of reasons for strongly suspecting the existence of a physical leBion as real, though of course not as obvious, as that in a broken leg." "And one cannot help wondering just what is Dr. Worcester's position as to miracles, ancient and modern.

: I II!

: r. I i u u u i f i

INTERIOR VIEW OF THE FIRST CHURCH BOSTON.

He makes no claims to performing them explicitly denies it, indeed, and allows to medical science at least as much power as it possesses but nevertheless he ascribes his cures to an Influence which, in theory, ought to deal with one malady as easily as with another. It is all very bewildering. The founders of great religions have never discriminated between the 'functional' and the 'organic' in healing the sick, and for the follower of one of them to do so Involves, in some opinions, a curious inconsistency. If Dr. Worcester told us that he used only 'suggestion,' as it is known to science, we could understand the care with which he selects his cases; as it is, the thing is quite beyond comprehension." Commenting upon the above editorial a correspondent in the Times of February ' 14th declares: "The Times places its finger with singular precision upon the weak spot in the system of church psychopathy to which the editorial refers. Either divine healing is a fact or it is not. If it is, then setting selective limitations to omnipotence by restricting its operation to a short list picked from the myriad Ills that flesh is heir to constitutes such a contradiction of logic and of Bible history that it Is surprising to see pious and learned eccleslasts advocate It." To illustrate the present attitude of some of the medical periodicals on this subject we quote the following from the "Medical Record" published in New York City: "It Is time, therefore, to ask what the movement means, and why physicians, even trained neurologists, are to be found! lending themselves to the movement and supporting it by voice and pen. "The first question raised by a perusal of the official book of the Emmanuel movement is. Why clerical healing, and why the limitation of clerical healing to functional disease? We do not find either question answered satisfactorily in this book, and we do not see how they can be answered As physicians we should regret indeed to lose the powerful theapeutic force that resides in religion, but it does not follow from this that we are ready to welcome the priest as a fellow practitioner of medicine, or even to acknowledge that he can exercise that function in the public and wholesale way of the Emmanuel rectors without the danger of doing far more harm than good. "At present the catch word of the Emmanuel movement is 'functional' disease. We are told repeatedly that the clerical healers will have nothing to do with any sufferer from organic disease, and they use their medically trained allies to separate the functional sheep from the organfc goats, the latter being thrust back into the outer darkness of legitimate medical practice. But what do these people mean by 'functional nervous disorders?' Do they really believe that there are two distinct kinds of disease functional and organic? If they do not know, their medical advisors should tell them, that every day we are shifting so-called functional diseases into the class of organic diseases. Will these clerical healers abandon a functional disease to the medical healers when it is discovered to be dependent upon an organic lesion, or will they simply depy its organic basis and continue to treat it? And once they find themselves treating one disease called organic, why not others? Why not all? Every physician knows that 'cheerfulness, hope, courage and religious faith and prayer,' which constitute the pharmacopoeia of the New York school of clerical healing are just as necessary Jin the treatment of tuberculosis as in that of constipation, and indeed that they are often distinctly curative in various organic diseases. If the clergy have a divine commission to heal the sick they are recreant to their trust and cruel to the suffering to deprive any of the benefit of their healing words, and it will not be long before they recognize that fact and act accordingly. That the law forbids them to practice medicine is, of course, a detail of no importance." We do not pretend to be well versed in diagnosis but we understand that, with the exception of those which are produced by accidents, organic lesions are the outcome of functional disorders, and that in a large number of cases when the functions of the body are rendered normal the organic diseases disappear with greater or less rapidity. Therefore we are at a loss to know why those who be

OF CHRIST SCIENTIST, lieve that Christian Science can heal functional disorders go to the length of insisting that it is impossible to heal a case of organic disease by mental treatment. There is no other way of fundamentally curing disease. Any other method must depend upon doctoring the effect in order to remove the cause. This would be equivalent to topping a tree for the purpose of killing it. Such a remedy only causes the tree to spread its branches. Although human evidence and experience may declare for the incurability of those disorders which have developed into the form that is called j organic, there is no reason to conclude that they are beyond the reach of divine power, nor that those who trust God cannot utilize that power. "Behold the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save." "Man's extremity is (indeed) God's opportunity." Dr. Richard C. Cabot, a noted medical authority and advocate of the Emmanuel Movement, in a published statement declared that he had "studied one hundred cases of Christian Science cures recorded in the recent volumes of the Christian Science Journal" and that "putting together this evidence and comparing it with" his "own experience regarding the accuracy of his own patients' , statements about their own diseases," his "conclusions are, first that most Christian Science cures are probably genuine; but, second, that they are not the cures of organic diseases." Incidently he declares: "functional diseases are no more imaginary than an ungovernable temper or a balky horse is imaginary. They 'are often the source of acute and continued suffering; indeed I believe that there is no class of diseases that gives rise to so much keen suffering." Thus the doctor pays tribute to Christian Science by generously conceding that . it heals "real" diseases and destroys an immense amount of suffering. So far, so good. Proceeding, the doctor declares, "The sharpness of this distinction between functional and organic troubles is somewhat blurred," and organic disease is oftentimes produced by functional disease "and such organic disease is often cured by Christian Science." Dr. Alfred T. Schofield.a medical authority, in his well-known work entitled "The Force of Mind," says: "There can be no organic disease without some derangement of function," while he also declares in agreement with Dr. Cabot, "functional disease may after all be organic at the bottom." Thus in the' mouth or pen of "two witnesses" it is "established" that every case is a fit subject for Christian Science treatment, since according to the testimony of these reputable witnesses every person with organic troubles is also afflicted functionally, and every functional trouble is a fit subject for Christian Science treatment. Dr. Cabot has stated his belief that functional disorders can be cured by Christian Science treatment. Dr. Schofield, & before stated, has asserted that all organic disease produces functional disorders. This is equivalent to saying that every sick person is afflicted with functional disease. Now it is not possible really to cure a disease without going to the bottom of it and eradicating its foundation. Every case of functional disease having an organic foundation can only be cur ed by destroying its organic founda tion. Therefore, on the testimony of these two distinguished authorities, the fact is established that Christian Sci ence cures all kinds of diseases, for It is evident that a functional disorder which originates in a defective organ cannot be cured unless the organic disease is first destroyed, for the functional disorder, being an effect, must of necessity reappear so long as its cause Is not destroyed. Since, as Dr. Cabot declares, the "sharpness of distinction between or ganic and functional troubles is some what blurred," it follows that it is not easy to distinguish between an organ-

x

ic and a functional disease, nor would , be exact it should be said that thus it be easy to distinguish between an j far very few patients suffering with organic disease which is "produced by j any sort of disorder call upon a Chrisfunctional troubles" and one which is tian Scientist until after they have ex-

not occasioned by functional troubles. Therefore Dr. Cabot's logic convinces one that to he on the safe side every individual afflicted with . organic or functional troubles should avail himself of Christian Science treatment lest he should be neglecting a means of recover. t

The doctor declares that he has through medicine, arid if it be true j If we may not depend upon the dlaggrouped the one hundred cases which that from a medical point of view or-gnoses of the most learned and experihe has "analyzed" in four classes: ganic diseases are mere difficult to enced physicians la dealing with 6uch "First, 72 in which" he finds "on care- heal, it is likely that more cases af- extremely pronounced cases upon ful study, reasonably good evidence for flicted with organic t roubles apply to ' what evidence can it be decided that the diagnosis of functional or nervous Christian Science. If it be true that . Christian' Science does not heal organic disorder. Second, seven cases of what organic diseases are as a rule more ; diseases? If the liue of dcmarkation appears to be organic disease. Third, difficult to heal than functional trou-' between organic and functional dlsor1 1 cases very difficult to classify, but bles, it is because the one has a strong- i ders is so "blurred" that even the exprobably belonging in the functional er hold upon human belief and in the perts can not discern it, may it not & group. Fourth, lO cases, regarding breaking requires a more stalwart un- j ter all be true that there is no line of the diagnosis of which no reasonable dei standing of the divine power, j detnarkatioa except in mistaken becoujecture can be made." j Some cases are more difficult to heal lief? After all the cause of disease May I state parenthetically at this than others, just as some problems in , lies deeper than functional or organic point that the testimonies published in mathematics are more difficult j ills. the real cause Is mental, a fact in the Christian Science periodicals than others, but while even a simple i which is proved when by correcting have all been carefully verified, but that, problem might baffle the efforts fo of the mental condition of t he patient

to avoid nourishing and enlarging the

thought of disease, its elaboration is standing, t he most difficult would be eliminated from them. These descrip- easy to a Master. Therefore the remtions. which are usually Given by those ?dy for the Inability to heal any class

who send in their testimony, but

which are omited out of consideration more material means but in underl'or t he young especially, give the de-. standing more perfectly the spiritual, tails of diagnosis and of 'painful ex- In the writer's own practice, experiences as t he result of operations tending through a period of twenty and drug treatment which distinctly years, he has seldom had a patient

emphasizes the seriousness of the maladies endured. Hence in the investigation into the merits of the cases, and into t he efficacy of Christian

Science treatment for all disorders, which have been called nervous diswhether organic or functional, an ex- orders. amination of unabridged testimonies J in conclusion our critic declares: would greatly enlarge and strengthen "Believin then as I do that most Chria-

the evidence that upon the basis ot expert diagnosis by physicians of the most unquestioned standing, Christian Science must be credited with having proved efficient in healing cases of everv variety of 111, whether organic or

iuncuonai, wun wnicn poor numanuy .. ."that Is, by t producing in the pais afflicted. tIent a strong belief that he will get What Dr. Cabot means by "careful well." .

study" is not 6tated. He does not make clear whether he has made any investigation outside of a mere consideration of the wording of t be testimonies. Neither is it stated why the doctor "concluded" that the 1 leases very difficult to classify "probably belong to the functional group." It was doubtless natural that he should give the benefit of the doubt to his own side of the question. Otherwise he might have said that these doubtful cases "probably" belong to t be organic group, or he might have added these 11 cases to the fourth group, regarding the diagnosis of which be declares "no reasonable conjecture can be made." Then the organic class would have an equal chance with the functional group. Not very long ago one medical authority went so far as to declare that many organic diseases were nervous disorders. Such ..n authority adds still more to the confusion, and we begin to wonder if, after all, our medical brethren know any more about the real nature and cause of disease than Christian Scientists. At the same time we are well a ware of the ability of our distinguished brethren to make a physical diagnosis of disease, and we are not unmindful that in this respect they possess an accomplishment to which the Christian Scientist, makes no Dretences whatever exceot what he jearn3 by observation and experience and possibly some reading on the subject. But the real question is after all, what is the foundation of both functional and crganic disorders? If by correcting the mental conditions of a patient both organic and functional troubles are healed, we have the evidence that an erroneous mental condition was the foundation of the disease, and we believe t hat ere long Dr. Cabot and all t he host of medical men will have arrived at this conclusion and will note t he fact that, notwithstanding all that is said and done regarding diagnosis, t he Christian Scientist is accurate in bis conclusions concerning the real nature of disease. In any event "probabilities" are not sufficient evidence to the contrary. The doctor declares "Experience shows that when a person has had many doctors, many diagnoses, many 'diseases,' or many operations,' he usually turns out to be suffering from nervous prostration or some other form of functional nervous trouble." There are a great many persons in this world who h ave had many doctors, many diagnoses, and many diseases, I f not many operations, and it is kind in Dr. Cabot to point out t he fact that there is hope for them in Christian Science. Dr. Knapp, who is said to be opposed to the Emmanuel Movement, de - Clares: "The distinction between func - tional and organic diseases is indefln - ite. iMany diseases formerly called

functional hare been proved to be or- been pronounced Brlght's Disease by ganic and the few left which are still one of the foremost experts of this called functional will in all probabil- country, If not the foremost, after exity be found to be organic." I hausting his hope In material remeThis statement practically relegates dies, was healed by Christian Science, all diseases to t he functional class, Thereafter he returned to the noted which we understand even the most specialist for an examination in order skeptical admit are amenable to Chris- to make sure that he was really cured.

. tian Science treatmentIt would seem therefore that sufficient testimony is already in to settle the question. We shall not hold ourselves responsible for t he conviction of Dr. Cabot, but will wait for him to discover the truth of Dr. Knapp's essertion by experience. Our critic declares: "A patient suf- ; fering from organic j consults a Christian disease rarely Scientist" To hansted their patience or their means in experimentig with material remedies. It is natural that one should

not experiment with something' that 1 cannot heal organic disease is based is new and untried so long as t he old largely, if not altogether, upon the ways promise results. Those who an- opinion that the nature of organic dimply to Christian Science are as a rule eas Is such that it cannot be thus those who have failed to recover hcaled-

a neophyte or one with limited under

f diseases does not lie In resorting tot who was not afflicted with both organic and functional disorders and his success has been quite as uniform with organic troubles as with those jan science cures are genuine genuine cures of functional disease the quesjou arise3 whether the special inethC)js cf mental healing employed by christian Scientists differ from other methods of mental healing,". . Whatever may be said concerning the Christian Scientist's ability to diagnose disease, we think Dr. Cabot will concede to him at least one privilege, namely, t he privilege of stating how Christian Science heals, since the Christian Scientist is at least supposed to be informed on his own subject Tq acknowledge the Christian Scientist's qualification to define his own theory and practice would be no less consistent. It Is evident that no one knows quite so well how Christian Science heals, as the Christian Scientist, through whose understanding the healing is effected. No doubt, when under Christian Science treatment a patient begins toj improve, there is produced "in the patient a strong belief that he will get well," but to say that it is this belief which cures the patient is to fail entirely to analyze the modus operandi of t he healing. A Christian Scientist would not hope to succeed in curing a patient by the mere belief that the patient will get well although he Is aware t hat such an encouraging belief is always helpful to a patient. The healing remedy in Christian Science as we have already shown, is the realization of the divine power and presenco which illumines the mentality of t be patient and destroys bis sense and fear of disease. Dr. Cabot declares: "I believe that a good many warped minds.... just as a certain type of crooked spine, may be helped by a sharp .twist in the other direction." This being true the doctor would logically be obliegd to admit that the last twist must be in. the right direction, otherwise it would not be corrective. While Christian Scientists have great respect for those who resort to medicine, while asking God's blessing upon it, they have learned by experience that better results can be obtained by relying entirely upon spiritual means. It is not a question of fanaticism or non-fanaticism but a question of choosing the way which Is most scientific and rtsultful. No one will ever be able to discover how much God can do for him until he experiments by throwing his whole weight upon the side of Spirit. While his neighbor feels sure that the Christian Scientist is taking a risk in his bold reliance upon Spirit, the Christian Scientist is equally sure that his neighbor is jeopardizing his safety by dividing his thought between two powers and thus weakening whatever of result he might obtain by an exclusive dependence upon either. Medical Diagnosis. The following Incidents furnish striking examples of the fact that it is next to an impossibility for one who believes in the material theory of the ! cause and cure of disease to admit that j organic disorders can be healed by ! purely spiritual means. Not long ago a man who was afflicted with what had After a second very careful examination the physician was unable to discover any Blight's Disease, but, instead of admitting that the rescued man had been healed, of the disease, he gravely said, "For the first time In my life I have mistaken In my diagnosis." Another patient had been treated for several years by a physician who pronounced her disease tuberculosis of the lungs. She, too, turned to Christian Science and was healed, after which the physician said that she could not have had consumption, for if she bad had the disease she could not have been cured by Christian Science. So it appears that, as a rule, the physician's decision that Christian Science

the body responds accordingly.

Those who take the position that organic troubles can noti be curd by spiritual means, but must be left to the medical practitioner, declare in substance that the healings of Jesus were confined to functional disorders. Cn the other hand if they admit that Jesus healed organic diseases, they must admit that those in this age of the world who heal according to his method will be able to do likewise. Christian Scientists are well aware of their short comings, their inability to produce the full fruitage of Christian Science, owing to their present insufficient - spirituat apprehension. But they have proved by expertnece that they may do more for themselves and others with Christian Science and without material remedies than they have formerly been able to do mita material remedies and without Christian Science, and t his justifies the position which they take. There may be some exceptions to the rule which we have mentioned, some extreme cases that would justify a modification of the Christian Scientist's regu lar practice, and it is left with the judgment of the individual student to attempt only that which observation and experience convinces him may be undertaken with a reasonable degree of success. Compensation. One of the criticisms made by some of the advocates of t he Emmanuel Movement is that Christian Scientists accept a fee while the new plan is conducted without fee. It is not in the spirit of retaliation but with considerable reluctance that we call our readers attention to the fact that, while In the Emmanuel Church at Boston no fee is exacted by those who practice "suggestion." we are informed by Dr. Worcester that no patients are accepted for treatment whose cases have not first been diagnosed and passed upon by a ; ular physician, and that during t heir course of treatment they are "frequently examined" by a physician who charges a fee for his service. T he writer happens to know of a lady who appliedfor help at this Institution. ' She was referred first to one physician and then to another. Each charged her a fee of $ lO.Ort for an examination. Please note that this expense of $ 2.o was incurred while under the ' direction of those in charge of the Emmanuel Movement. It - should alBO be noted that $2O.00 pays for four weeks' service from the most proficient Christian Scientist practitioner. Dr. McComb declares that free will offerings are accepted for the support of his movement. This is an admission that after all every self-respecting person who is able Is expected to pay In order to balance accounts with his own conscience. Many surely would consider an honest charge the better plan for both the patient and t he practitioner. Moreover the argument that t he acceptance of a fee for service rendered Is unChrlstian is borne out neither by experience nor by Scriptural teaching. It is generally conceded, that It is not only abnormal but also unjust to accept something for nothing. Although one individual might be willing to serve another without compensation, the question arises: would it br. fair for the other to accept the service without giving an equivalent thereforl It is not only wrong to be selfish, but it is also wrong to educate selfish nei in another, and indeed to use the privilege of serving another without compensation as an opportunity to be unselfish and thus win the praise of our fellows is itself selfish, for whatever of unselfishness is gained In the transaction is gainer at the expense of the supposed beneficiary and by leaving him in his selfishness. Tl:e self respect of the community is main tained by the generally accepted rule J that every individual should be prooerly compensated for a service ren dered another. Jesus said "The labor er Is worthy of his hire." which ct course means that he is worthy of a proper remuneration. There might b a difference of opinion as to what would constitute extortion or over charge, but so far as is within the Judgment of those concerned the fee charged for a service should be an equivalent for t he service rendered. So long a clergymen are receiving an adequate salary from their congregation they may forego the privilege of accepting a fee from individuals who apply to them for help, and we think they would be Justified in declining a fee under such circumstances providei the individual beneficiary contributes sufficiently to the general fund which supports them. If our competitors can find no more worthy ground upon which to find fault with us than to attack our honest, dignified, acceptable and successful financial methods and our adherence to t he belief that sin, sickre.-s and death have no divine father and hence hive only a temporal, mythical existence, we t hink our position. In reasonably- safe