Four Lectures by Mr. Kimball

Four Synopses of Lectures

given by

EDWARD A. KIMBALL

Given in Bloomington, Illinois and

found on pages 5-10, 135-146, 325-332, and 371-379,

in the

Christian Science Journal of 1894, Volume XII

*** * * * * * * * * ***

Christian Science Journal

Vol. XII

Page 5

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE LECTURES.

The following is from the Daily Bulletin, of Bloomington, ILL’s.

ON Christian Science day, which was one of the largest of the Bloomington Chautauqua, the speaker was E. A. Kimball, of Chicago. A good deal of interest was aroused and in response to a general demand for some intelligible information concerning a religion known to the masses by name only, the Bulletin this week will publish a series of answers to questions made by investigators at the meeting. Mr. Kimball said:

A number of questions in reference to this subject have been handed in for me to answer. I would like to say that I shall not stand here under the pretence of being an oracle to answer questions. The best that I can do will be to reply to the different questions that are brought out here in the light of my understanding of Christian Science, aided somewhat by what little familiarity I may have with the other side of the subject.

The first question in this list is: “What are the fundamental points of difference between Christian Scientists and other Christians?” These questions concerning Christian Science are of frequent occurrence, and whenever they are made in good faith every Scientist is only too willing to do what he can to elucidate this subject.

“What are the fundamental points of difference between Christian Scientists and other Christians?” If these other Christians were a unit in their common understanding of God; if they had a specific and universal understanding of Jesus Christ-His words and works; if they agreed precisely and exactly concerning the destiny of man; concerning the question of the future; in relation to heaven and hell; in relation to punishment and all the vital and special things that go to make up religious thought and belief; if there

was a unit here with which to compare the unit of Christian Science, it would be a simple thing to answer this question. But to use the exact phraseology here-the beliefs of other Christians are as numerous as the sands upon the seashore. I venture to make the statement, which any one can verify in part, that, if you were to go to one million people and ask them to give you a full and definite statement of their beliefs concerning all of the fundamentals of religion, you would not get two precisely alike. In the first place you will very seldom find a man who knows what he believes concerning these questions. Some years ago a minister was tried for heresy in the city of Chicago. It was claimed that he had incorporated in his preaching the doctrines of Unitarianism. In his defence several of his parishioners and elders were cited as witnesses, and every one of them testified that they considered his preaching-all the substance of his sermons, entirely orthodox or evangelical. To test their qualifications as witnesses the prosecutor read to each one certain extracts from their pastor’s sermons and from sermons written by a noted Unitarian divine, promulgating the doctrines of Unitarianism. Supposing them all to be sermons of the accused, all of the witnesses said they approved of the substance as being evangelical.

Only a short time ago I was talking with a man who belonged to the Congregational church. He was anxious to know about Christian Science treatment. In the course of the conversation he told me he did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. He went to work to prove to me why it was utterly impossible for Jesus to rise from the dead after being dead three days. Now I ask you what kind of congregationalism it was that eliminated from his belief the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus? What becomes of Christianity with the resurrection left out of it? That man supposed he was a Christian, and a true disciple, but still he denied the resurrection of Jesus.

Again, you cannot always tell what a man believes by what he says. It was not enough to say, I am this or that. Suppose a man says to you, “I believe that God is infinite.” And you,

perhaps reaching out beyond the limitation of the testimony of the senses, allowing your thoughts to rest on those things that are not within the reach of the eyes, nose, and mouth, lay hold somewhat upon the meaning of this word “infinite.” You know that that which is infinite must be self-existent, it must contain all the elements of continuity, it must be unlimited, there can be nothing unlike itself or that is not included in itself. And as you begin to take on the wonderful signification of the word you turn to him and say, “So do I.” And all the time you are thinking of Infinite Intelligence, of the all-inclusive God, the Infinite Wisdom. Then he says, “I believe in the Omnipotence of God,” and as you realize that there is no power without intelligence, and that which is omni-intelligence or omni-science must also include all power; when you realize that infinite cannot be anything less than infinite, that it is the omnipotence of the Omnipotent that you are talking about, you again say to him, “So do I.” Then he says to you, “I believe in the power of evil. I believe that there is an entity called Satan, possessing all the characteristics of immortality, possessing power akin to the divine power, and the ability to hold mankind in eternal punishment, power to drag man down from the image and likeness of God to perdition.” And when you see that this man who is trying to believe in the omnipotence of God, lays a great deal more stress on the power of evil; when you find that he believes in an entity and intelligence opposed to the Infinite, then you see and know that that man does not believe in the first two propositions at all. It makes no difference how a man tries to persuade himself that he believes in an infinite, omnipotent God, if at the same time he is trying to believe in a devil or power opposed to the Infinite; all the sophistry he can bring to bear upon the subject cannot outweigh the utter falsity and futility of the effort and of that conclusion. It would perhaps be indelicate for me to stand up here and say what other people’s beliefs are concerning God and man, and their relation to each other concerning the question of the Messiahship, of future punishment, man’s duty and so on. It is not for me to say

what you and others believe; nor is it worth while for me to discuss the beliefs of the different denominations, but we will take up what I suppose to be the intent of this inquiry, and put it a little differently from the way in which it is here.

“In what respect is Christian Science, viewed as a religious belief, different from all other Christian beliefs?” or rather, “In what respects are the fundamentals of Christian Science different from all other beliefs?” I can perhaps with profit speak of two special differences. One is this: Christian Scientists do believe that God is infinite; that God is Infinite Good, Infinite Truth, Infinite Life, Infinite Love, Infinite Wisdom, Infinite Intelligence, and that “there is none beside Him.” That being the case we have to account for evil in some other way than by calling it a power opposed to God, or evidence of the manifestation of intelligence and wisdom. Christian Scientists believe emphatically and thoroughly that if God is good at all, He must be infinitely good; if God is truth at all, He must be Infinite Truth, and all truth must be good; if God is intelligence at all, He must be Infinite Intelligence, and therefore all intelligence must be good; and that which calls itself evil intelligence, and evil power, is not of God, is not included in the Infinite, is not permitted by the Infinite, is not made use of by the Infinite, but is entirely apart and separate from it. It is utterly impossible to conceive of God as Infinite Good and then incorporate within that an entity called Satan or spirit of evil.

How can Christian Scientists account for evil? We find it to be this: that the only Satan there is, is the false concept, and what has been termed the carnal mind. Just as soon as men absolutely stop sinning there will be no witness of sin, there will be no witness of a devil; there will be no sin known, and in order to get rid of sin, the only way to do it is to stop sinning. Mortal man has contemplated this thing we call evil so long and sin itself has seemed to exercise such a bondage over him, that he has been obliged to account for it in some way; he has looked upon it as something supernatural; something he could not escape from;

and that horrible sense of the power of evil has hung upon him and mildewed him; those chains have deprived him of the dominion he has over the claim of evil power. What is there more paralyzing to a man’s endeavors than to suppose that there is opposed to him a mysterious power-a supernatural agency that he is not able to cope with; which in spite of his every effort may drag him down to infinite punishment for the finite sin he has committed, and that he cannot resist it.

The question arises: What is the Christian Scientist trying to do to resist Satan? He is trying to cast evil out from his own thought, from his own life, from his own experience; the only way he knows to resist evil is to do that, and he does it rationally with the understanding that when he has accomplished that, he has overcome the devil in himself. What has been the scene of his strife? Is it not that of his own experience, of his own thoughts, of his own tendency? When he sees that he has overcome Satan, if we ask what has been the theatre of action, and he answers truly he will say that it has been his own consciousness.

I shall ignore all of the contradictions of religious beliefs and presume that as Christians we all agree as to the saving mission of Jesus; the divinity of Christ; the efficacy of the atonement and the necessity of following Him as the way of salvation. Let us say that we all agree concerning the desirability of manifesting good and resisting evil; that the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount were intended for us, and that we believe in the teachings of Jesus and that he said: “Go ye into all the world, preach the gospel, heal the sick,” etc.

Having agreed up to this point, the Christian Scientists diverges from the generally accepted conceptions of Christians. So far as I know there is no other phase of Christianity that accepts and believes that part of Jesus’ Christianity-the healing of the sick-as the natural and indispensable phenomenon of religion. I know of no other Christians who believe that the command to heal the sick was intended for them or that they can comply. Christian Scientists, on the

other hand, understand that this command was intended for all Christians; that they can and must obey this mandatory instruction in order to manifest the christianity of Jesus who said, “I am the way and Follow thou me.”

This is perhaps the most conspicuous difference between Christian Scientists and other Christians.

*** * * * * * * * * ***

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol. XII

Page 135

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE LECTURES.

THE following is a synopsis of the residue of the lectures delivered by Mr. E. A. Kimball, of Chicago, at the Bloomington Chautauqua, the first of which was published in our last April issue. Mr. Kimball said:-

“The next question coming on in this same line is this: “Is it not blasphemous to claim to heal, as Jesus did, therefore making yourself equal to Jesus, or making gods of yourselves?” The latter part of the question, “Therefore making yourselves equal to Jesus, or gods of yourselves,” is gratuitous. There is no Christian Scientist who supposes that he is equal to Jesus; he knows why he is not. There is no Christian Scientists trying to make a god of himself; he understands that God is infinite, and that he cannot possibly change himself so as to include the infinite. Let us take the first, which is a legitimate question, “Is it not blasphemous to claim to heal as Jesus did?” If it is blasphemous as a follower of Jesus to follow his commands, then the answer is yes. If it is blasphemous for us to obey the commands of Jesus, then it is blasphemous to preach the gospel; it is blasphemous to be pure in heart; it is blasphemous to be meek; it is blasphemous to love your neighbor; it is blasphemous to keep the ten commandments; it is blasphemous to obey God. If it is thought to be blasphemous to respond to this instruction of Jesus, then I would like to ask yourself what authority there is for dissecting the commands of Jesus and saying this one is valid and that one is not. Where can you find any authority for annulling any of the commands of Jesus if you have any respect for them at all?

“Is it not blasphemous to claim to heal as Jesus healed?”

Do you know how Jesus healed? Who is there here that knows how Jesus healed? Who is it that makes this inquiry that knows how Jesus healed?

135

136

I once read a synopsis of an infidel lecture in which the writer was trying to impeach the biblical account of the miracles and those professed by Jesus. It went on something like this: He said, “Now take these Christian people at their own word. They begin by saying that their God is infinite; He is Infinite Power, Wisdom, Truth and Intelligence. If that is the case everything is in accord with the Infinite, and it must be scientific. God cannot be a miraculous God if He is infinite; it is only to the sense of the beholder that anything can be miraculous; God cannot be supernatural to Himself. If Jesus did the will of God he did it in accordance with the nature of God, which would be scientific. If miracles had been performed they would have been performed in accordance with science, and if so they could be done again. That they have never been performed again is evidence that the biblical account of the miracles is spurious.” He made out of it that because it was claimed that the works of Jesus were miraculous, that claim stultified the other claim that God was infinite.

When we come to know the Science of Jesus’ words and works we learn that when he taught his disciples what they were to do in order to manifest Christianity, he taught them the operation of divinely natural law-the law of God. He taught every one of them that the healing of the sick was the legitimate phenomenon of his own understanding of God and in his teaching he said, “These signs shall follow them that believe.” He was not talking to eleven or twelve men, He was not speaking to a mere speck upon the great wave of humanity; He was teaching a principle; He was giving out something for eternal years. What did He say? He said, Go into all the world and preach the gospel and these signs shall follow you, because you are my students-my disciples. They shall follow them that understand you.

It has been the general understanding that the power to heal that was bestowed upon these disciples was a special interposition-a miraculous enactment of God in behalf of these disciples. We cannot take that view of it. Don’t you remember that there was a time when the disciples came to

137

Jesus and said there was a case they could not heal and he said to them, “Oh! Ye of little faith!” Jesus’ work was poorly done if He had set out to bestow on these men out of all that ever lived, this great power and it had failed, so that they could not do which was brought to them. This sentence of Jesus shows that the effort was a failure in their not having an understanding of what he had taught them.

What do you think Jesus came upon the earth for? Was it not for the saving of the race by the manifestation of the highest good that had ever been known? If healing the sick was one of those manifestations of good, why should the impartation of Infinite Good have limited its operation to eleven men? I am going to introduce another of these questions right here. “Why do Christian Scientists presume to heal when that time is past?” What time is past? If you read history do you not know that one of the invariable accompaniments of early Christian experience was the healing of the sick? Do you not know that as long as Christianity maintained its purity and kept within the confines of meekness, honesty and self-abnegation, that was one of the phenomena of Christian work? We have been accustomed to applaud the Emperor Constantine because he espoused Christianity. What a glorious day it was supposed to be when he fixed his gaze upon Christianity, laid his hand on it and said, “You are mine.” Unhappy hour for the world! What did he do? What did the world do? It took the simple Christianity of the Nazarene, the simple Christianity of the fishermen, and put it on a throne and clothed it in purple and fine linen; it made it a political agency. No wonder that faith in God disappeared!

If God is infinite, He works through infinite laws. If God is infinite, He must be impartial, His laws, therefore, are impartial. It is just as impossible for God to create and set in motion a law that has no further application than that which extends itself over eleven, seventy, or three hundred men, as it is for God to become less than the Infinite. It is an impossibility. Whatever is being done according to God is being done according to His universal impartiality. If it

138

was ever right for a sick man to be healed in accordance with the universal law of God, it is right now. There was no good created by God for the year one, if you please, or again for the Christian era, that is not good for him now or that is too good for him now.

“How does it happen, if this is of God, that our good and learned people, preachers, etc., do not believe it?” Before I answer the question I would like to say,-because we Christian Scientists feel somewhat lonesome amongst the rest of the people,-that there are some of our good and learned people who do believe in it, and that we are not, as some suppose, a lot of pagans.

“How does it happen, if this is of God, that our good and learned people, preachers, etc., do not believe in it?” How did it happen that if Jesus was of God the representatives of the most venerable theology in the world, the most highly cultured, philosophical and learned people of the world-those that were supposed to represent the wisdom of this world-did not believe in Him? You who are Christians now looking back upon the scene of Jerusalem, the scene of Athens, that home of literature and philosophy, what do you think of the goodness and learning which rejected Jesus simply because they were the representatives of the dominant religion of that time? Does that indicate that they were right in rejecting Jesus, and Jesus was wrong because they did not accept Him? Why is it if the Catholic religion is of God that our good and learned people do not accept that? Why is it if Methodism is of God the Catholics do not accept that? I think I am not saying too much when I say theoretically that if you should put them, one in one set and the other in another set, and get the consensus of opinion, each would think the other lost because o f his belief.

Now let us change the question a little and ask it in this way: “Why is it, if this is of God, that all religions do not recognize it as such and accept it?” There is one reason really that covers the whole ground. It is because they do not believe in it; that is the reason they do not

139

accept it; they do not believe that it is true. Let us see why. Let us get away from personality and see that every religious denomination is simply the embodiment of some kind of religious belief, and it is this belief and doctrine which we are to consider and not the individual. It is a well known statement of many writers and theological people that there is nothing so tenacious as a religious belief and every one of these denominations is the expression of some particular religious belief, but how can it be possible for one who is absorbed in allegiance to one belief to turn around and believe another one that is so different? The reason people do not accept Catholicism as the universal religion is that they don’t believe in it; the reason they don’t accept Unitarianism is because they don’t believe in it. You might go on until you had covered ten thousand phases of belief.

“How can intelligent people be duped with it? That is another question and the effort to incorporate a sting has created an anomaly. The question is absurd on its face. Before we take the question up from a Christian Science standpoint we will see just what it amounts to. What does it mean to be duped by anything. Let us suggest that it means to be misled, deceived or imposed upon, and reading the question in this way how can intelligent people be imposed upon, or deceived or defrauded by Christian Science? We ask how can an intelligent person be duped? What is an intelligent person? An intelligent person is one that manifests intelligence. Now I would like to ask you how intelligence can be duped by non-intelligence? If a man is intelligent he cannot be duped. If an intelligent man accepts anything that it is evidence that he is not being duped, but that that which he accepts is genuine; that it appeals to his sense of intelligence and order; and on the other hand if he can be duped he is not intelligent. Let us see why intelligent people accept Christian Science or believe in Christian Science. That is an honest question. I remember the first time I went to study Christian Science. A lady came into the class who was a literary woman in Boston. She had been healed of disease and came into the class

140

because she was interested. She and I were stopping at the same hotel, and the next morning, meeting at the breakfast table we engaged in conversation. She said, “I was surprised at the personnel of that class. They were all adults-serious people of intelligent appearance, all indicating by their action deep interest and insight. Where did they all come from? Do they all belong here in Boston?” I was about to say they came from all over the world, but remembering as I did at that moment that I had just escaped from years of imprisonment myself; remembering that right behind me there sat a man who had while lying in prison during the war contracted disease that had prostrated him for twenty years; and he had been healed; remembering that at my side there sat a woman whose mother had died in the insane asylum and she herself had been taken to the asylum; remembering that at my other side there was a woman who for six years had been trying in vain to be healed of asthma, but had just been healed by Christian Science; remembering these and a great many other things, I said to her:

“Most of us came from our graves.”

“How can intelligent people be duped with it? Stand and look into an open grave for months as I have done; all the little fleeting joys of earth seem as nothing compared with it; you begin to be serious; you begin to stare eternity in the face, and then whether you are intelligent or ignorant, if you can turn to that agency which restores you to health, happiness and usefulness, if you have the wisdom of an infant you will want to know what it was that wrought this stupendous transformation. Most of the people who come into Christian Science come because they have been lifted out of a hell of misery.

“Why do Christian Scientists maintain a denomination of their own? If so good, why not keep it in the other churches?” Every denomination is the expression of a belief. When Paul became a Christian the first thing he did was to preach to the Jews. He made an effort to present Christianity to them in such a way that they would espouse it, but they in

141

turn rejected it and he turned to the ‘Gentiles. Christian Science as a demonstrable statement of Christianity, with proofs following in demonstration of that belief, has been preached to the churches and rejected. The reason why they don’t keep it in the old church is that the old church won’t have it there. “Why do Christian Scientists maintain a denomination of their own?” Christian Science as a religion is the only one that claims to be a religion manifested among other things by the healing of the sick. There is a vast difference between the consciousness that believes it can heal the sick and that which thinks it cannot. There is a much wider difference between these beliefs than others that have caused separation. You can go down into town and you will find churches on each of four corners. Why do they have separate churches; if what they believe is so good why not stay in the old church? Why do they hire four ministers, four choirs, and go to the expense of keeping up four establishments? I am not here to criticize the fact that there are four churches on any four corners, but am bringing it within the range of the discussion of the argument that we are narrow. Christian Scientists are separate by reason of the situation; they cannot coalesce with other denominations; because their doctrine is different from many other. Is that not reason enough: you may say that is “no good,” but that is not the point, for it is the reason why Christian Scientists are a denomination by themselves. they do not segregate because they want to monopolize good; that is not Christian Science at all.

Another question is:-

“Why didn’t God send it sooner?” Why didn’t he send Moses and the ten commandments sooner? Why wait four thousand years before Jesus came? Why hasn’t every scientific fact come sooner? This question comes from the conception that God has a lot of truth stored up and doles it out through different eras of history. He is supposed to wait a few thousand years and then sends Moses to tell people they must do so and so, and then in a few thousand more years sends Jesus. This question comes

142

from a minimized conception of God, that includes no understanding of His operations at all. Let us go back and take in humanity. What were the conditions at the time of Moses? They were as black as ink so far as their mentality was concerned. They had been in Egypt many years and were filled full of every form of the black art and occultism. They were so opaque as it was possible to be-not one ray of spirituality there. Moses discerned somewhat of God; that was a condition of consciousness where God could be seen, felt and appreciated. Moses discerned what was the law of God-the nature of God and what man must do in order to manifest God, and formulated that conception in the declaration “Thou shalt not.”

Then we find that human thought trudges on; here are the prophets, Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah teaching and admonishing the people, and finally there is just attenuation in the condition of human consciousness so that Jesus appears at the proper time and preaches a new dispensation, the law of Love, which fulfils all law. Was Jesus in advance of His time or on the other hand was He too late? Of all the people that then existed, how many were ready for Him? If you will examine the history of the action of the human mind, you will see that this sublimation was going on all the time; it is the only reason that this mind has been able to accept his higher metaphysical statement of science or God. This being the Truth, you see it could not have come much sooner and created any impression. Notwithstanding that it is to-day accompanied by the most indisputable phenomena the ignorance of the human mind yields slowly to the “glad tidings.”

“Why do Christian Scientists use a vocabulary of words that differ from ordinary English?” They do not; positively they do not. If you will look in the dictionary you will find as many as fifteen different meanings for words; some of them give the very lowest signification and then they ascend to higher and more comprehensive definitions. Take the word “infinite.” How many can define it-how many really understand it? Some men would say, “This is

143

an infinitely cooler day than yesterday.” What kind of use is that to make of the word “infinite?” However you find that most people have a more comprehensive sense of the word than that. Most words have from one to a dozen meanings and men use them according to their understanding. It is a fact that there is not a word in the vocabulary of Christian Science that is not warranted by the dictionary. The trouble is that ordinary English is not comprehensive enough to convey the meaning of metaphysics; the trouble in making Christian Science understood is that ordinary language is insufficient in its scope, and that which is sufficient is not understood. To understand Christian Science, one must work up to the higher understanding of these terms.

“If medicine is wrong, why do we have herbs with medicinal qualities?” I am going to tell you what Dr. Mason Good, a learned professor of London says: “The effects of medicine on the human system are in the highest degree uncertain; except, indeed, that it has already destroyed more lives than war, pestilence and famine all combined.” That is the testimony concerning the effect of medicine by a learned doctor of medicine. This question is a very common one. A recent eminent divine is reported to have said that he would be inclined to espouse the doctrines of Christian Science if it was not for the medicine that is growing all around us; that God had created that medicine because He expected people to be sick; and that is what it was for. The fact of the matter is everything in the vegetable, mineral, and animal kingdom has been doled out to man as medicine, for sickness, and he has swallowed it all.

If it is admitted that the fact that men have taken all these things as medicine is evidence that God created them for this purpose, we are forced to the irresistible conclusion that God created man to be sick after having created the earth as medicine for him.

I do not think there is much force in this premise, but let us go on and examine the question from a different standpoint. Christian Scientists don’t go around saying, “You

144

must not take medicine.” What they do say is this, that you do not need to take medicine in order to be healed, that there is a better way to heal man than by giving him medicine. They realize that the true way of healing the sick is the mental process. They are trying to prove to him that that is the better way. Just as soon as he comes to see and depend on other methods than medicine, just as soon as he sees that it is something valuable, he will find that it is a better way; he will find that he is not only being healed but he stays well longer-he don’t get sick so often; he gets rid of sickness sooner when he is sick, and so on. We are not here to quarrel with medicine and especially with people who do not understand these things. People are all depending too much on medicine-a thing which most of them know so little about.

I knew a man who was sick; he was being treated by the homoeopathic method. He was not getting well and they called a physician in consultation. They had been giving him the seventieth attenuation of homoeopathic remedies. As I understand it, in order to prepare homoeopathic remedies they take one unit of the mother tincture and mix that with nine parts of alcohol; that makes one tenth medicine; that is the first attenuation. In order to get the second attenuation they take one drop of the first and mix it with nine parts of alcohol-that makes 1-100 part medicine; the third attenuation is 1-1,000 part medicine; the eight is 1-100,000,000 part. I think I am right in the statement of the preparation of homoeopathic remedies; if I am wrong I hope some one will correct me. The eighth attenuation has 1-1,-000,000,000 of the unit in it. They were giving this man the seventieth attenuation. After they had had this consultation they decided that everything was all right, except there was one thing they wanted to change; the change they made was to give him the 200th attenuation of medicine. That was equivalent to saying that they had been giving him too much medicine. How much too much: A million times too much? More. A billion times too much? More. A quadrillion times too much? More. A quintil-

145

lion times too much? More. A decillion times too much? More. That man had had too much medicine; no wonder he did not get well.

“Why do you make charges? Jesus did not charge.”

In the tenth chapter of Luke you will find some instruction that Jesus gave his disciples. He said go; take no money-no purse; preach the gospel, heal the sick, eat what is set before you, and the laborer is worthy of his hire. Taking these two in connection is it not fair to think that he told them to eat what was before them not as beggars and mendicants, but because they were entitled to the provision. This is a figure of speech which he used in order to reach their understanding and this is the natural, easy and proper interpretation of it. Jesus sent them out with the instruction that the laborer is worthy of his hire. In those days the social system was very different from what it is now. They didn’t pay people salaries. It is only a short time since the school teacher had to get his board one week at a place and the next week at another. They set something before him and he accepted it because it was sufficient for what he did. In those days they did not receive pay according to the money standard of to-day, but they did receive reasonable compensation for what they did. I do not believe that there is one Christian Scientist on earth who did not have to struggle with himself before he could come to the point where he was willing to receive pay for the work he did and saw that it was right for him to do so. My dear friends, there is a reverse side to this question that is of great importance. Why do you object to paying for services performed in your behalf? Why are you unwilling to pay the minister of the gospel that labors for you? Why to my sense the minister occupies the most exalted position that man can occupy; in order to do his work faithfully he must exhibit great self-abnegation, being criticized on all sides. Why do you object to paying him for trying to save you? Why is it that the physician doing the best he knows how to do to relieve humanity; ready to go on all occasions both day and night; coming in contact with the most fretful irritable beings on

146

earth-sick people-why is it that you object to paying him. We find that when we get hold of a person that can pay and don’t want to, he is one of the hardest people to heal. The fact is it is a sin-the sin of selfishness, of greed; unwillingness to give credit where credit is due. This willingness to get something for nothing is a sin, and Christian Scientists would be helping to perpetuate that sin if they went to people and healed them for nothing. It would be evil to perpetuate this principle.

“Even if some get well under the treatment, might they not get well anyway?” Yes, decidedly; they might get well under any other treatment. I will go further and say that a physical of understanding, if he can be induced to be candid will say that 75 or 80 percent, of all the cases of sickness that occur, would recover spontaneously if they were let alone. If they had no treatment, no doctor, no change of air, no electricity or anything else. Seventy-five or 80 per cent of the different ailments if left alone, would disappear if nothing was done.

The healing of hundreds of thousands of cases of hopeless disease constitute the proof of Christian Science Mind-Healing”

*** * * * * * * * * ***

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol. XII

Page 325

WORDS SPOKEN FROM EXPERIENCE.

E. A. KIMBALL

[Continuation of Mr. Kimball’s answers to questions propounded to him before the Bloomington (Ill.) Chautauqua.-Ed.]

SEVEN years ago, after wandering about the earth in the fruitless search for health, I turned in despair, and as a last resort, to Christian Science, and was healed.

I have been the beneficiary of its mighty influence in such abundant degree, that if I failed whenever suitable opportunity occurred, to lift my voice in grateful testimony thereof “the very stones would cry out against me.”

I made this personal statement because I wish it known that I speak from the standpoint of actual proof and not theory.

Christian Science! Why is it called Science, and why Christian?

It is called Science because it is the statement of an immutable and infinite Principle with an invariable rule, which when understood is manifested in absolute demonstration-unmistakable, immortal proof to the demonstrator.

It is often said; “I do not like the use of the word Science in connection with religion, it makes it seem cold and cheerless.”

Ah! dear friend have you forgotten that nearly every modern creed, including that of your own denomination, expressly declares that God is omniscience-all science?

Do you not know that if God who is Love is all science, then love is the “Substance of Science”? Love that transcends in warmth and cheer and blessed continuity, the most lofty flights of human imagination?

Do you not know that humanity has degraded its own sense of science until it means to it little more than study or investigation, and that this low estimate is the man of straw that you condemn.

The term science, properly understood, refers only to the laws of God and His government, inclusive of man; and

325

326

the highest definition of the word must be synonymous with Truth. If you were to go to school to study mathematics, you might learn that the science of mathematics is the highest finite sense of Truth, but you would also learn that the only possible way for you to know that science, would be to gain a demonstrable understanding of the principle and then prove it for yourself.

This is true of any of the exact sciences, and there is no such thing as an inexact science.

But as related to infinite science-the Science of Life-of Being-people are educated to think that they may believe anything they please.

God, being All Science, we must see that all science is projected by God and not by man, and that God is always manifested scientifically, and that whatever is not scientific is not of God.

It is claimed for Christian Science that it is the truth about God and God’s laws and their relation to man and the universe.

It is called Christian, because Jesus who did the will of his Father, manifested the infinite will and law of infinite Good-he manifested the Science of God.

Mortals have been limiting their idea of the infinite within the radius of their own finite sense, but when we gain a supersensible understanding of God, we get a larger grasp of the vast import of the term “Infinite God,” and begin to see, that God and his will-his laws and power are eternal, changeless, impartial, universal, unlimited, the same yesterday, to-day and forever, never spasmodic, intermittent, or local in nature or operation.

Does it detract from your opinion or estimate of God, to contemplate the entire action of the divine nature as scientific, when you perceive that it means the manifestation of demonstrable, omnipotent Truth?

Are you losing any hold on heaven in seeing that the laws of God as infinitely natural, and that only the natural and scientific law of God is real or true, and that God is manifested in no other way than naturally?

327

Jesus the Christ, the founder of the true worship of God, said of himself-“I came to do the will of my Father,”-and if we admit that he manifested God and reflected his infinite will, then there is no other conclusion than that the messianic mission, and all that it includes, was scientific; and that the proper understanding of that mission as disclosed by the words and works of Jesus constitutes scientific religion or Christian Science, which is a religion with “signs following.”

The signs that followed as proof or demonstration of Christianity in Jesus’ time, were manifested in the destruction of evil, the reformation of the sinner, the healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, the casting out of devils, and the preaching of the gospel of salvation. All in obedience to the universal law of God. And the universality of this law was recognized and disclosed by Jesus when he said “these signs shall follow them that believe.”

Does it lessen your esteem for Jesus’ work for you to know that it was the manifestation of infinite will rather than a special supernatural or miraculous law, the very enactment of which would necessitate a departure from the infinite, which is impossible?

Did the Infinite ever become less than infinite? Was eternal law ever fluctuated for special effect outside of the universal purpose and order established by Him whose work as the Principle of the universe was all done before Abraham was?

Finally, it is called science because the declaration of Principle which it includes cannot be changed. If it would be changed, altered, amended, or revised, the entire structure would collapse.

Demonstrable Truth cannot be changed for it is eternal and infinite.

Error alone is changeable, and any statement of dogma or doctrine that needs alteration must be error.

Plato furnished the world with a code of ethics that seemed to serve the needs of humanity for hundreds of years. The same is true of the ecclesiasticism of Judah; but not

328

until we get the words of Jesus do we recognize that they alone will answer perpetually the human necessity, and that they need no alteration, for they are in accord with the omniscience of God. I do not think of any subject now before, the world that is so little understood, or so thoroughly misunderstood as is Christian Science.

A celebrated Frenchman once said, “My history is being written by mine enemies.”

I will not apply this statement in full to Christian Science, but it is a fact that almost the entire bulk of opinion concerning it proceeds from those who have not one atom of understanding of what it really is, and whose opinion refers solely to their own false concept of it.

There is a general impression however that it presents to the public two particular phases. One is as a religion, and the other is as a remedial or healing agency.

Let us consider its religious aspect. What is religion? True theology must pertain to God, Truth; false theology is a false conception and does not pertain to God but is error.

True theology pertains to the infinite and immutable and must itself be changeless and universal, otherwise it would be contrary to God.

Instead of there being a universal religion, reflecting the nature of divinity, there are thousands of beliefs-all different.

Only one of many contradictory statements of God can possibly be right. Which one is it? Because God is infinite, it does not follow, as a possibility, that he can be outlined and declared by an infinite variety of diverse and conflicting opinions.

It has come to be a habit of thought with us to assume that if a man subscribed to some religious belief and endeavored to live up to his highest sense of God and God’s law, it was enough; but this amiable though fatal compromise must be seen as a most desolating error, and we must learn to know God-aright, is Life eternal.

An erroneous, limited, finite human conception of Deity does not mean the consciousness of eternal Life. Nor have

329

we any assurance that we are obeying the laws of God, if we do not know what they are.

It is not sufficient that a man should obey his own opinion of what they are.

True religion must include the understanding of the universal Truth of God, and true worship must include obedience to the universal will or law of God. Only in this way can we “know God,” and in this way alone will the image and likeness of God appear.

What is your conclusion, when you survey the bewildering array of beliefs about God, who can only be known as He is?

Do they indicate to your mind that the world at large understands God, and that religion at large really pertains to the one only, true God?

The Christian will admit that the Confucian does not know God, and the Mohammedan is certain that the Christian dog does not, but it is a matter of history, that the differences between the Christian sects themselves, have most disturbed the current of modern events. Continuing our definition of religion, let us inquire, what is Christianity? Shall we not say that it is the knowledge of God as taught by Jesus Christ, whom we are accustomed to describe as “God manifested in the flesh?”

If he manifested the unity of the Infinite, must we not see that the Truth he revealed is universal Truth; and if we say that he taught a religion, it must have been a universal religion: and if he established a church, it was a universal church?

If we as Christians are not manifesting this common understanding, is it not palpable that we do not understand the teachings of him who as the manifestation of divine unity?

At this point it is usually suggested that in all the fundamental and vital particulars the Christian religions are essentially the same.

Let us see if this is really so, and without making any extensive comparison of the different dogmas we can test

330

our thought on this subject by a few questions. Is it essentially the same to you whether you have been predestined and elected by God, to be damned or not? If you are a heathen, or an infant, is it, in that event essentially the same to you whether for that fact alone, you are to be damned or not? Is it essentially the same to you, whether human destiny is to be wrought out in universal salvation or eternal hell? Is it the same thing to you whether Christ is divine or not? Whether there is a personal devil or not, whether infants are regenerated by baptism or not, whether there is probationary opportunity after death or not, whether the Scripture record is unerring or not, or whether forgiveness of sin through the human process known as absolution, is valid and efficacious or not?

These few of many questions will serve to direct our thought and judgment to some of the denominational beliefs which are flatly denied and rejected by others.

Instead of being essentially the same, and essentially Christlike in effect, many of these beliefs have manifested themselves in the most desolating wars, murders, persecutions, torture, oppression, and other forms of violence and hatred that deface the pages of history.

Shall we ignore the current statue of belief, thought, and events, and try to allure ourselves to the mischievous conclusion that these contentions have ceased,-that the Christian sects are now in harmonious accord with the mind which was also in Christ Jesus, and that the theology of to-day is in a state of permanent composure?

Upon this scene of conflicting dogmas and sectarian turmoil appears Christian Science as a new statement of the understanding of God as revealed by the words and works of Jesus.

It heralds itself, not as a new religious belief, but as a demonstrable declaration of God, and including or revealing a demonstrable understanding of the words and works of Jesus. It is a statement of Truth which all men can prove to be Truth.

In other words, it appears as a religion in the highest sense which is demonstrably true and universal.

331

In this respect it is unique in history. There is no other religion claiming to rest on a demonstrable principle, on proof rather than profession, on understanding and signs following, instead of belief and conjecture.

What does it declare? It affirms that God is the supreme Being, Infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, the Life of man and the universe, the allness of Truth, Love, Intelligence and Substance, “whom to know aright is Life eternal.”

It affirms the immortality of Life, the divinity of Christ, and the actuality of his resurrection and ascension. It acknowledges him as the way and the only way of salvation. It demands absolute obedience to the ten commandments and the sermon on the mount. It demands the annihilation of sin and shows man how, not merely to resist, but to destroy it. It demands the elimination of disease, and shows humanity how this is to be accomplished. Its legitimate action is to reform the sinner, reclaim the infidel, to heal the sick and cast out evil of every kind, to establish a better citizenship, a grander manhood, a higher morality, a purer individual and social status, an expanded love for God and the neighbor, and the manifestation of the universal brotherhood of man in God, who is Love.

Unless human conduct is progressing in accord with this, it is not in obediece to Christian Science: is it not in obedience to him who is the Way of salvation.

What is that way and how is it applicable to the needs of humanity? Let us first see what are the needs of humanity.

Look down the vistas of human experience and behold man in the fitful, though vain pursuit of satisfaction.

You behold the inveterate anguish of his lot, his poverty, his sin, his beds of pain and disease, the jails and asylums, the broken hearts, the hideous fear, the open graves and “man’s inhumanity to man.”

Now ask yourself: -Is humanity in need of salvation? If so where shall salvation be found?

Is it to be found in mystery and conjecture, in the mere promise of future felicity, or is it to be found in the speedy and actual destruction of evil?

332

The Bible says of our Saviour that he came to bear witness to the Truth, and that his mission was to destroy the works of the devil.

This then, is the real work of salvation-to destroy evil.

And how did he bear witness to the Truth or Science and manifest it, and how did he destroy the works of evil? By reforming the sinner, healing the sick, casting out devils, raising the dead and preaching this gospel of salvation, and he said that all that believed on him (understood his teachings) should do these things and greater things than these, and that there was no other way under heaven whereby man should be saved.

Obedience to this demand upon the followers of Christ manifested itself for three centuries in the healing of the sick as a natural phenomenon of Christianity.

Christian Science in its applicability to humanity is the declaration that there is a divine remedy available to man, and sets forth the rediscovery of the healing Principle of Christianity and the rule of demonstration whereby man may “acquaint himself with God and be at peace.”

*** * * * * * * * * ***

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol. XII

Page 371

WORDS SPOKEN FROM EXPERIENCE.

E. A. KIMBALL

[The following concludes the remarks of Mr. Kimball at the Bloomington (Ill.) Chautauqua.-Ed.]

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE, when understood will gradually eliminate the element of mystery from religion.

Every creed purports to be a declaration of principle or truth and enjoins belief and obedience as necessary to salvation, but if the supposed principle is not demonstrable, the religion must be involved in more or less mystery, and if to know God aright is Life eternal, the effect of mystery would be opposite, and must obscure or shut out the consciousness of God as Life.

If the entire career of Jesus presents the way of salvation in accordance with the will of God, should we expect it to be mysterious or unscientific? If it is mysterious where is its availability, and if it is unscientific how is it a manifestation of omniscience? What is the saving efficacy of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus, or the divinity of Christ, if we have no understanding of what is meant by these significant things?

We look in pity on the fantastic beliefs of the past ages concerning Deity, but the time will come when future people, contemplating the religious medley of this hour, will be amazed at the boundless industry of human conjecture about God. Many who take one little superficial glimpse at the hem of this garment of Science think it vague, but on the contrary, it effaces mystery, and enables its student to exclaim, “I know that my redeemer liveth.”

It is not pretended that Christian Scientists who have just entered the vestibule of this vast dome of Truth, already understand all there is of this Divine Science, but the meager understanding they have gained, together with their

371

372

faithfulness over a few things, is filling this entire land with proofs, many of which cannot be afforded by any human agency and the results that have already been accomplished in healing the sick and reclaiming the sinful are so manifest and well authenticated that they should commend this denomination of Christian workers to the glad welcome of every human being, and should disarm baseless prejudice and misconception concerning our faith and our works.

Bogus masqueraders in the name of Christian Science cannot mock it. Nor can the disdain and denunciation of those who do not understand it, annul the mighty actuality of demonstrated proof. Look at the long procession of religious beliefs, myths and superstitions concerning Deity that parade in review before your contemplation. It is true that many of them has passed through their evolutions and no longer encumber human credulity, but in their day, they had the most fervent and abundant fealty.

Modern thought accounts most of them to have been very foolish and benighted, but in obedience and loyalty to them men have not only gone out to the most appalling carnage, but they have also manifested the highest human types of fidelity, self-sacrifice and self-inflicted suffering. Under their influence empires have fallen, governments have been disrupted, and the community-the family and the individual-have been influenced unto the most pitiable and lamentable conditions.

Now then, remembering that there are more religious sects and conflicting creeds than ever before, more of these antagonistic beliefs and doctrines, let us honestly and candidly think of our particular one, if we have one, and ask how much of it we absolutely know to be infinite Truth, and then inquire on what authority and impulsion any declare that Christian Science, the only pretence of literal and full compliance with the commands of Jesus, is of the devil?

I am not here to exhort you, to appeal to you or to urge aught in justification of Christian Science.

If it is Truth, it is its own justification, and mortal man cannot furnish credentials to infinite Science. I do not ask

373

you to have faith in it, of you cannot have any substantive faith in what you do not understand.

The mission of the true Scientist is to preach the gospel that means emancipation from disease and sin, now and here,-the gospel that dispels doubt and fear and exclaims to stricken humanity, “Fear not, it is I.”

Now we will give some attention to the subject of Christian Science healing in a general way only, for there is not time in which to enter upon any reference to the technicalities thereof. Let me say at once that with the Scientist it is understood to be the natural operation of divine law, and is just as much a part of his theology as the healing of sin is. For this reason, no matter how wonderful a cure may seem to be to others, he never considers it as a personal achievement. The public at large, regard the subject of Christian Science as referring only to disease and its treatment, whereas the Scientist regards the healing as simply an incidental effect rather than a paramount object.

This Science does not appear in this age merely as a school of doctrine, and to enter into competition with the other therapeutic schools and contest for the favor of the public as a curative agent. Scientists are not healers because they are in pursuit of fame, emolument or place, but because they are constrained thereto by the impulsion of that infinite Principle of all Science, the demonstration of which in human experience transcends in importance all the other concerns of life. Although the Principle of Christian Science healing is very different from the basis of other methods of treating disease, it has no enmity towards any one. It is not person, place or thing, but simply the natural law of God, understood and made available.

Science cannot hate because it is of God, and when it is hated, it opens not its mouth.

Christian Science is not faith cure, or what is often called mind cure, or mesmerism, hypnotism, theosophy, spiritualism, psychology, clairvoyance or any other phase of occultism. On the contrary, these are all antipodes of Christian Science, and some of them are the most terrible

374

agents for the accomplishment of human woe, of which the great mass of humanity is in pitiful ignorance.

As a curative agent, being different from all others, it is ipso facto, an impeachment of all other methods and this fact, for which no human being is responsible, has occasioned much opposition and persecution, but with conscientious physicians this feeling is being modified by the irresistible proofs that from time to time impress first one and then another. The methods of treating disease by the use of drugs are constantly changing. Old practices are denounced and discarded and new ones taken on to be in turn dropped. And these constant changes show conclusively that medical practice is not scientific, but tentative, experimental.

It is no part of my work to denounce any one, and my reference to this is for the purpose of comparison and in order to make it clear to you that I am not the originator of what might be thought to be an offensive allusion, I will quote the words of Dr. Chapman, Professor of the institute and practice of physics in the university of Pennsylvania.

“Consulting the records of our science, we cannot help being disgusted with the multitude of hypotheses obtruded upon us at different times. Nowhere is the imagination displayed to a greater extent, and perhaps so ample an exhibition of human invention might gratify our vanity if it were not more than compensated by the humiliating view of so such absurdity, contradiction and falsehood. To harmonize the contraries of medical doctrines is indeed a task as impracticable as to arrange the fleeting vapors around us or to reconcile the fixed and repulsive antipathies of nature.

Dark and perplexed, our devious career resembles the groping of Homer’s Cyclops around his cave.”

The comparison that I wish to make is this, that the principle of Christian Science mind healing can never change. The students may and will grow into a better understanding of it, and this better understanding will be manifested in better results, but there can be no mutations in the basis of their healing.

375

One of the principal points of difference between this and other methods is concerning the cause of disease. I cannot recall a single case that I ever heard of, where the Scientist did not seek the cause back of that which was usually ascribed, which latter, from his standpoint always appeared as an effect. It is for this reason, particularly, that he can account for the fact that cancers, inaccessible tumors, hereditary diseases, and other physical discords, ordinarily considered incurable, are often reached and cured by him.

I cannot enter upon an explanation of what we consider the cause or causes of disease because it would take too long, but I would like to make this statement-that our demonstrations which are obtainable in no other way,show clearly that humanity has much to learn concerning this subject, and that when its eyes are fairly opened to the scientific fact, and it attunes its conduct to conform to its discovery, the millennium will not be very far from any of us. How long this will be, depends on the opacity of human belief and the error which ignores the stupendous operations of mind.

If disease, as a concomitant of human life were diminishing, that fact might be regarded as evidence that a dominant principle was being manifested and there would be some reason for letting well enough alone, but the records show that disease is increasing, and that there are more fatal diseases than there were fifty years ago even, and that many more now take on the epidemic form.

The administering of drugs is more carefully pursued, than then, and less harm is done, but nevertheless, the ugly fact stands out, that humanity is getting sicker and sicker, and disease is now so prevalent that it furnishes a standard and inexhaustible theme for conversation throughout the entire social range, for almost none are exempt.

They say that what is everybody’s business is nobody’s business, and you may be interested in this question because you feel powerless to act in the premises, but the situation itself, suggests this inquiry: Is humanity doing its best to cope with and master disease? The answer that

376

the understanding of Christian Science supplies for this inquiry is positively, No!

It is 4,000 years since pagan priests in order to gain a larger control over the people, instituted the compulsory practice of dispensing material commodities as remedies for disease. This practice grew and passed through many stages of superstition and experiment, until it reached such stages of superstition and experiment, until it reached such a pass that Dr. Jas. Johnson, who was surgeon extraordinary in England said, “I declare it to be my conscientious opinion founded on long observation and reflection, that if there were not a single physician, surgeon, apothecary, man midwife, chemist, druggist, or drug on the face of the earth, there would be less sickness and less mortality.”

Let us now suppose that the question is asked, “Is the nature of Christian Science healing such that it covers all of the requirements of humanity?”

It is customary for us as Scientists to speak from the standpoint of our demonstrations, and not having cured every disease I cannot say, Yes! out of my own experience, but it is true that Scientists as a body hold that this Science is adequate to extinguish all disease, and that it will in time be so proven.

St. John the Revelator foresaw this operation of Divine Science when he uttered this message of glad reassurance to those who can discern its meaning: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying-neither shall there be any more pain, for the former things are passed away.”

Under stress of the most strenuous opposition and amid the most unpropitious surroundings, in spite of arrest and imprisonment, of abuse and misrepresentation most foul, the Scientist, impelled alone by the desire to do the good which he knows he can and must do, has kept “the even tenor of his way,” has healed hundreds of thousands of cases of sickness, and to-day Christian Science is forcing the inevitable, though reluctant, admission that it is an accredited intuition of society for the accomplishment of good.

After their many scars and sacrifices shall have done their

377

work for mankind, and the persecutions shall have diminished their virulence-after the people, because of its successful work of love, shall manifest towards it the same favor and confidence and patience and constancy that are now bestowed on drugs and other material remedies, the Scientists will be able to do far more for weary hearts and aching bodies than is possible amid the present unfavorable environments.

It is a fact that there has never been a sustained conviction of any Christian Scientist and it is probable that there never can be unless the constitution of the United States is changed, but nevertheless, if a person in the very last stages of some fatal disease,-whose death is momentarily expected, seeks the possible aid of a metaphysical healer, it does not conduce to the best results for that healer to work under the contingency, that if he does not heal that patient within a few hours, he is liable to be arrested and imprisoned for “rail-roading people to the cemetery.”

The Christian Scientists are not proselyters, nor can they force a blessing on any man. They can only be witnesses. They can testify that they have been healed themselves and are healing others through the operation of this Science. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”

In this immediate age, it is not expected that humanity will reap the fullest possible benefits of this Science, because it is not fully understood, and the repressing antagonism of human opinion has not yet sufficiently subsided to permit the best results of metaphysical healing, but already multitudes have been cured, and diseases have been healed by its action that have never been known to be healed before. It is not pretended that all the students of this Science heal all the cases that come to them, but it is a fact that they have fewer failures and fewer fatalities, than are incident to any other practice.

After forty centuries of the supposed necessity for medicine, and of reliance on drugs or matter as curative agents, the hypnotists announce that they can produce on the human body by means of hypnotic influence alone, which is the

378

action of one human mind over another, every symptom of every drug on earth, even to the extent of producing death by poisons.

Christian Science healing is for the purpose of arousing people to a knowledge of the fact that they can resist and overcome sin and disease. Its promise is not merely that disease shall be cured, but that man shall be liberated from a thousand forms of evil whose havoc is so distressing.

Jesus said, “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest,” and this is always the invitation of Truth. It is not for the purpose of reconciling you to the evil that besets you, but for the purpose of liberating you, and, line upon line, here a little, and there a little, this will be done, until the end of it.

How was it that Jesus healed the sick? We all know that it was not the water, phosphorus, lime, iron and other constituents of the human body that performed the wonders of that hour.

Can we not see that it was the Mind which was in Christ Jesus that did it? What was that Mind? Jesus said that he and his Father were one. Was it not the divine Mind that is God, Good, which he manifested to human apprehension, and was it not that Mind which was manifested when the sick were healed and error was destroyed.

St. Paul who tells us to work out our own salvation says, “Let that Mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,” and the world is slowly awakening to the discovery that when you let that Mind be in you, you can heal the sick and cast out error according to the command of Jesus, who is “the way.” When this awakening is complete and man manifests no other Mind but God, he will then appear in the divine likeness and be satisfied.

Erring human thought-the carnal mind-may continue to scoff at the idea of the omnipotence of the divine Mind, but at some time mortals will slowly turn against the errors of self-derived knowledge and bow before the supremacy of Spirit for “He will turn and overturn, until he whose right it is shall reign.”

379

The supreme need of the race is that it shall find escape from the misery of sin and disease, and to all who are prostrated by these twin evils Christian Science is the voice of hope and cheer that reaches far into the deepest abyss of misery to rescue the suffering from the hard bondage of fear and pain and sin.

I wish that I might, at this moment, present to you the concentrated testimony of the thousands who have been the beneficiaries of this sublime, consummate Christianity. You could then see its vast and far-reaching influence for Good. You would know that it blesses man, that it heals the sick and helps him to understand the Scriptures and the power of God. And as its purity-its love that casteth out fear-its invariable certainty and its great possibilities of deliverance were unfolded to your comprehension, and it appeared in its “ever growing kindliness of aspect,” you would turn in responsive gratitude to the Giver of all Good, and say, “Father I thank thee.”