To The Reader

From Christian Science, Its “Clear, Correct Teaching” by Herbert Eustace

A reader is entitled to ask what qualifications the writer of a book has to warrant a demand for attention. A short account, therefore, of my experience in Christian Science and my past relationship to that which is called the Christian Science movement, will throw light upon this question.

Looking back over the events which account for the present freedom of thought and action, personality fades out of importance and God’s meaning becomes apparent. Events are found to have unconsciously interpreted the divine purpose far beyond the most earnest hope of unfoldment.

Christian Science was first brought to my attention when I was quite a young man and I was immediately interested, although not from the need for physical healing. I had always been in excellent health. Nor was I dissatisfied with my religion. My father being a clergyman in the Church of England, as had been each of my grandfathers, by natural inclination I adhered to that church. In fact, I was thoroughly satisfied with life as I found it.

But when a friend asked me to read Science and Health I discovered that one does not always know what is taking place in thought and that what I had accepted as satisfaction was really complacency rather than true satisfaction.

At that time, 1893, I was living on my ranch in California and had the long evenings for reading and studying. These I spent with Science and Health. During the day, while at work, I continually pondered the wonders and profound import of this new view of life, and, by the time I had finished reading the book, its teachings had become my own deep conviction.

From that time Christian Science has filled my life with a greater and more eventful happiness than I could have deemed possible. It has truly proved to be the “one pearl of great price,” which, when the seeker had found, he “went and sold all that he had, and bought it.” (Matt. 13: 46.)

At the beginning of my study of Christian Science, I discovered that human opinion has not the slightest value in the understanding of this Science and that the author of Science and Health, Mary Baker Eddy, was the only one who was not swayed and influenced by human opinion, but, in her consecrated communion with Mind, stated the truth fearlessly and uncompromisingly, never deserting the goal of her vision.

I therefore determined at once to obtain all Mrs. Eddy’s writings, which at that time were not published in book form but had appeared in pamphlets or magazine articles.

I was successful in securing much that she had written, and these writings, together with Science and Health, were to me invaluable.

Later, pursuing what then seemed the natural course, I joined The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1894, when the membership of that church was less than three thousand.

Afterward a branch church organization was formed in San Jose, California, and I had the experience of filling, through a period of fifteen years, nearly every office in that church.

In 1902, I had one of the most joyous and enlightening experiences that has come to me — two weeks spent in Boston attending, with Mrs. Eustace, the college class conducted by Edward A. Kimball.

Those who knew Mr. Kimball know what a profound and analytical thinker he was. In that class truths that were dimly stirring in the depths of my own aroused thought were elucidated — truths which with their logical sequences meant genuine Christian Science, truths that meant the “clear, correct teaching of Christian Science,” (My. 297: 18.) rather than faith and belief in it.

A certificate of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, conferring the degree of C.S.B., signed by Mrs. Eddy and Mr. Kimball, was given to each member of that class, together with the further designation of Normal Course Graduate, which meant that the holder was entitled to teach Christian Science.

After returning to San Jose, I soon began holding classes and have continued to do so ever since, each succeeding class being a larger unfoldment of Mind in its infinity of variety.

In July, 1909, I was asked to go to Boston to talk over the advisability of changing my residence to New York to teach there. After careful consideration, however, this plan was abandoned.

It was during this visit to Boston that some forty or fifty visiting Christian Scientists were invited to Mrs. Eddy’s home at Chestnut Hill. Mrs. Eddy graciously said she wished to see us. It gave us the opportunity to refute the foolish story then prevalent that she was dead and that another was masquerading in her place.

It was on this occasion that Mrs. Eddy gave her followers that imperative admonition not to look for their leader in her personality, but only in her books and in her great love for all mankind. It was during the following December, 1910, that Mrs. Eddy passed away.

In September, 1912, I received a letter from the board of trustees of The Christian Science Publishing Society, asking whether I would accept an appointment as a member of that board and requesting me to come to Boston to talk it over. There was nothing attractive to me in occupying an official position. It did not seem that it could in any way help toward demonstrating Christian Science, nor did leaving my home in California appeal to me.

I shall always look back with the deepest interest to the tremendous struggle of those few days in Boston, while considering the question of accepting the trusteeship. It seemed impossible to bring myself to the point of saying I would accept it. I could not have felt a greater reluctance had I known the subsequent necessities of this unfoldment. Finally I promised to give my answer on the following afternoon.

That night, as I debated all the arguments for and against the acceptance, I was forcibly reminded of Jacob’s struggle which lasted “until the breaking of the day,” (Gen. 32: 24.) and which appeared as wrestling with the angel of the Lord all night.

I did not find, however, that with the dawn I had won a victory or that I had approached a solution of the question. Even when I started for the meeting in the afternoon, I was apparentlyas far from being ready to accept as I had been in the beginning. But, when I went into the meeting, without the slightest hesitation I said, “I will accept the trusteeship.”

On September 23rd, 1912, I was elected a member of the board of trustees. I made the proviso, however, that before there was any public announcement I should be informed by telegram, on my return to California, whether or not every member of the board of directors of the Church was in hearty accord with my election. (It is to be remembered that I was appoint-ed to the trusteeship of the Publishing Society by the board of trustees of that body, which under the terms of the Trust Deed, elect their own successors to office.)

In their personal capacity the individual directors of the Church had already expressed to me the friendly hope that I would accept the appointment, but I wanted a united statement assuring me of their support. Instinctively I felt that opposition between these two boards would be fraught with grave consequences. I seemed dimly to discern this storm center about which the oncoming battle would be waged, — the struggle to free Christian Science from the materiality of organization and loose it for its higher destiny of pure metaphysics “uncontaminated and unfettered by human hypotheses, and divinely authorized.” (C.S. Quar. 2.)

When I received by telegram, September 28th, the assurance of the “unanimous and cordial” support of the directors, I wrote them a letter in which I used the expression, “I shall not falter or fail in any work He may give me to do.” Before writing this sentence I hesitated and earnestly asked myself the question, “What is this ‘I’ that will not falter or fail?” I answered, “It is God, the one Mind.” Later I was to learn the full significance of this statement and the great importance with which it was destined to be charged.

Immediately after my election, I received a copy of the Deed of Trust of 1898, constituting the board of trustees, and with it the following letter:

“Herewith please find a copy of the Deed of Trust which the Trustees asked me to forward to you for your confidential consideration.

It occurs to the Trustees that it may be an advantage to you to be able to familiarize yourself with the details of this Deed pending your residence in Boston.”

During the next few weeks, before arriving in Boston, I carefully studied the Deed of Trust and learned something of its character, purpose and deep importance. Especially was I impressed with paragraphs 3, 6, and 8.

No. 3. — Said trustees shall energetically and judiciously manage the business of the Publishing Society on a strictly Christian basis, and upon their own responsibility, and without consulting me about details, subject to my supervision if I shall at any time elect to advise or direct them.

No. 6. — Said Trustees shall employ all the help necessary to the proper conduct of said business, and shall discharge the same in their discretion or according to the needs of the business, excepting that the business manager may call in at times of necessity such temporary help as will facilitate the business.

No. 8. — Said Trustees shall have direction and supervision of the publication of said Quarterly, and also of all pamphlets, tracts, and other literature pertaining to said business, using their best judgment as to the means of preparing and issuing the same, so as to promote the best interests of the Cause, reserving the right to make such changes as I may think important.

Mrs. Eustace and I moved to Boston in November, 1912. The years from that date until February, 1922, when we returned to California, were a period of increasing interest and joy. It was a time of spiritual opportunity.

I had not long been a member of the board of trustees before I began to feel an indefinable element at work with the directors of the Church, an apparent attempt to dictate to the trustees on matters wholly within the province of the trustees’ duties as set forth in the Deed of Trust. I soon realized that it was the age-old demand of ecclesiasticism to rule, to allow nothing to interfere with its thirst for power and authority. I saw clearly, also, that while it might appear as persons trying to acquire power and prestige, it was not primarily person at all, but evil appearing as ecclesiastic despotism in an effort to substitute itself for the demands of Principle.

On examining the past relationships of the two boards, I found that from the beginning of the Trust (which I learned Mrs. Eddy had formed without consulting either the church directors or those whom she appointed to be the first trustees under her Deed) there had been an antagonism on the part of the directors against the Trust and the trustees.

While Mrs. Eddy was present, there could be no open friction and no overt act against the trusteeship, but afterward there graduallycropped up efforts on the part of the directors to override the provisions of the Trust Deed.

It is significant that Mrs. Eddy did not make it a requirement that a trustee of the Publishing Society should be a member of The Mother Church. He was, however, to be a good Christian Scientist. In this Mrs. Eddy gave more than an intimation that Christian Science and the church organization were not at all one and the same.

It is evident that Mrs. Eddy’s purpose in creating the 1898 Deed of Trust was, if possible, to check this inevitable greed of ecclesiasticism which she foresaw would seize everything in the line of power and authority. Mrs. Eddy determined to stem this tide by putting the entire authority for all Christian Science literature (apart from her own writings) under the trustees through her Deed of Trust, leaving onlythe authority for the church with the directors.

By this act Mrs. Eddy undoubtedly hoped to thwart the intent of evil to bury Christian Science in ecclesiasticism and materialism as it had previously buried Christianity. It was another evidence of her distrust in church organization as a possible channel for metaphysics.

The “spiritual foresight” that saw the “nations’ drama” (My. 281: 1.) unquestionably foresaw the inevitable conflict that would arise between her Deed of Trust and the vested church authority. Was it any wonder, then, that Mrs. Eddy, in the clarity of her vision, sent to the newly appointed trustees the following three rules for their guidance and support? These rules were in her own handwriting and came by special messenger from Concord, New Hampshire, addressed, “For the Board of Trustees.”

1. When mother foils a demon scheme, do not mar her success. The hardest battle is the last one.
2. Never act on first thoughts unless they be of Good, God, but watch and separate the tares from the wheat. Learn by experience and careful comparison to know whence cometh your conclusions “Try the spirits” before acting, look over the purposes that the enemy might be trying to accomplish and so avoid the snare.
3. Have the bird in your hand before disturbing the bush that he hangs upon.

In these words, so graphically significant, one can hear the cry of Mrs. Eddy’s heart yearning to save her “young child” (Matt. 2: 13.) from the Herod of ecclesiasticism which was seeking its destruction. She saw the deadly conflict that would be waged in the final battle, and she asked her trustees not to “mar her success” but to “Follow the Deed of Trust,” (Proc. in Equity 113 Col. 3.) that the “demon scheme” she foiled in establishing the Trust might not succeed.

No one can doubt that Mrs. Eddy foresaw and endeavored to foil the evil of ecclesiastical despotism.

But this despotism was to grow and increase until it finally attempted to nullify the Deed of Trust, by making a demand in 1916 on the trustees to acknowledge the directors asthe supreme governing power of the Christian Science movement, including the periodicals, thus endeavouring to destroy Mrs. Eddy’s carefully thought out purpose. This was ecclesiasticism in its full measure of arrogance.

But the trustees in 1916, were not only under oath but equally under Mrs. Eddy’s express admonition to follow the Deed of Trust.

Finally when its provisions, as interpreted by its sworn executors, the trustees, were challenged, there was but one course to pursue. The Trust, itself, must take care of the situation. It was a legal instrument drawn by Mrs. Eddy in conformity with the laws of Massachusetts. Its interpretation, as with all legal instruments, lay with the courts. In making it a legal instrument and not a set of rules for the personal conduct of church members, as in the case of the Church Manual, Mrs. Eddy gave it the status of a civil contract under the jurisdiction of the laws of the land.

The trustees had only one course to pursue, namely, to “Follow the Deed of Trust” and let the Trust take care of the whole situation.

A letter written on September 30th, 1918, defined for the directors the trustees’ understanding of the true democracy of Christian Science. This letter was published in full in The Christian Science Monitor of June 12th, 1919, (See APPENDIX, page 316.) and should prove enlightening to every Christian Scientist.It was written with the deepest desire to work from the foundation of Principle and stated plainly and simply the position of the trustees.

That they might be sure they were making no mistake at this difficult moment and that they understood the meaning of the Trust which Mrs.Eddy had so carefully drawn up in accordance with law and given to them for their guidance, the trustees decided to consult the best legal authority obtainable.

Seldom has the world seen such distinguished counsel collaborating on a case. The Senior Counsel was the Honorable Charles Evans Hughes, who is today, after a career of great honor to himself and his country, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Associated with Justice Hughes were Sherman L. Whipple, one of the most noted and talented members of the Bar of New England, and Silas H. Strawn, a leading member of the Bar of Illinois, and at one time President of the Bar Association of the United States. With these there was also associated as Junior Counsel, Lothrop Withington, a brilliant young member of the Massachusetts Bar.

The trustees have always felt that these gentlemen so generously contributed their services, refusing compensation beyond what virtually amounted to expenses, because they instinctively realized the great import of the conflict.

Under the advice of their Counsel, the trustees, while upholding their Deed of Trust, did everything in their power to prevent open conflict with the directors. But there was, of course, no possibility of preventing the inevitable clash between ecclesiasticism and Principle.

On March 17th, 1919, ecclesiasticism, appearing in the guise of the board of directors, decided to bring its authority to a test. It voted to remove one of the trustees from his office, and demanded that the remaining trustees appoint his successor.

This promptly brought the whole question of the Deed of Trust and the authority delegated under it to the front. Because it was a Deed of Trust under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, there was only one tribunal that could give an authoritative interpretation of the duties of the trustees under the Deed, and that was the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. A Bill in Equity was therefore filed by the trustees on March 25th, 1919.

The case was referred by the Court to a Master, and Judge Frederic Dodge, who had just retired after twenty-eight years of service on the Federal Bench, was appointed Master to hear the case.

The entire proceedings in court were published in The Christian Science Monitor from June 4th, 1919, to the final end of the case January 31st, 1922, so that the world might become familiar with every phase of it.

On March 6th, 1920, Judge Dodge handed down his final report, finding for the trustees in all the essential facts and making his rulings of law in conformity with those facts. Lawyers recognize Judge Dodge’s report in this case as one of the most masterly reports ever made in any case. The thoroughness and clarity of the decision could not be surpassed.

An appeal was taken by the directors to the full bench; and, after many months, a new decision was handed down November 23rd, 1921. The Master’s findings of fact were undisputed — they were based upon testimony taken in the original hearings and were final — but the Supreme Court of Massachusetts reversed the rulings of law as handed down by Judge Dodge.

It could not have happened otherwise because, sooner or later, ecclesiasticism must be found by every Christian Scientist to have no relationship whatever to Christian Science. Without the despotic control of ecclesiasticism (masquerading as the Christian Science organization and demanding that it be allowed to govern every thought and action of the Christian Scientist) having been expressed we might have remained apathetic for many years, perhaps centuries, before turning to divine Principle as All-in-all.

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision reversing the Master’s findings of law, the trustees were glad to resign their offices and elect new trustees in subordination to the directors, and to turn over to them, immediately, the business of the Publishing Society. In accordance with this intent, the trustees published the following statement:

We Lay Down Our Trust.

During the period of each of our terms of office as aTrustee of The Christian Science Publishing Society, we have striven to uphold what we believed to be Mrs. Eddy’s design for the welfare and maintenance of the Society. With the decision of the Court we cannot pretend to agree. It reverses what we believe to be the intention of the sacred trust we received from our Leader, and which we have pledged ourselves to defend. Nevertheless we are able to abide by the decision unhesitatingly since it is the finding of the Court which, as good citizens, we are bound to obey. And we have no difficulty in doing this, but only a deep sense of peace, because we know that Truth cannot perish from the world, so that, if we are right, our course must ultimately be vindicated, for Principle will overturn, overturn, and overturn, until He whose right it is shall reign.

To all of those who have supported us in the joyful work of carrying on our Leader’s publications, we would offer our sincere thanks, for we realize that their support was given to us out of an understanding of Principle which never faltered, and could not be shaken. The knowledge of this will prove to them a reward which cannot be dimmed nor taken away.

Our Trust itself we are able to hand over in a perfectly sound condition. It owes no man anything. Its property is entirely intact. Whatever damage it may seem temporarily to have sustained has been wrought by Christian Scientists themselves, and can be repaired, for the outside public has never failed to support, but has rather grown in its support of, Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration.

To be obedient to the teaching of Christian Science, every Christian Scientist must learn to be a law unto himself. He must follow the Christ as he sees the Christ. “Be sure,” Mrs. Eddy says, on page 117 of “Miscellaneous Writings,” “that God directs your way; then, hasten to follow under every circumstance.”

HERBERT W. EUSTACE,
LAMONT ROWLAND,
PAUL HARVEY.

The trustees found, however, that while the directors were most eager to have them resign and elect their successors in office, there was no intention of accepting their accounts before their retirement, although the books of the Societyhad been completely audited and found in perfect condition by public accountants.

Naturally the trustees could not allow this, much as they desired to be relieved from further responsibility. The months of controversy had engendered such bitterness in the ranks of church members that there were, among the former employees of the Publishing Society, a few whose blind partisanship on the side of the directors could be expected to drive them, when reemployed, as seemed likely to happen, to the depths of manipulating the books in order to discredit the trustees. In fact, some of the employees, on leaving the employ of the Publishing Society during the case, had even mutilated the books they were in charge of to show their allegiance to the directors.

If this statement seems extravagant, one needs only to point to the wave of religious fanaticism which swept through the ranks of the church members at that time and which resulted in the wholesale persecution of all who refused to de-clare themselves supporters of the directors while the case was still pending in the courts. A chronicler of the events of this period in the history of the Christian Science movement would unfold a tale in all essentials paralleling the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, the method of “discipline” being, of course, brought up to date.

In view of this emotional tenseness in certain quarters, and in order to adhere to strictly legal procedure, Counsel for the trustees prepared a bill presenting the resignation of the trustees to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to be accepted after the Court had passed upon the accounts.

The bill was duly heard by the Court, and, after the accounts had been examined and finally accepted by the Court, the resignations of the trustees were accepted and a final decree was entered January 30th, 1922, releasing them from all further responsibility under their Trust. The Court then appointed a new board of trustees.

No greater difference could possibly exist between two contentions than existed between the contentions of the ecclesiastical board and those of the board of trustees. This will finally be understood when the case is read in its entirety, as originally published in The Christian Science Monitor and later put into book form.

The trustees were standing for the absolute democracy of Christian Science, the right of the individual Christian Scientist to perform whatever duty is entrusted to him, in obedience to his own understanding of divine Principle, to live his life as a Christian Scientist in accordance with that understanding, and without interference from any so-called supreme human authority. The very opposite is the contention of ecclesiasticism and was the stand taken by the directors. When this case is so read, the final argument of Justice Charles Evans Hughes for the trustees’ case, before the full bench of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, will also be so read andits marvelous clarity of vision will be grasped and appreciated.

Ecclesiasticism, now feeling itself more firmly entrenched, promptly invoked its traditional weapon of excommunication. Early in October, 1922, I received the following communication:

The First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts

Office of

The Christian Science Board of Directors

September 29, 1922. Mr. Herbert W. Eustace,

San Jose, Calif.

Dear Mr. Eustace:

The Christian Science Board of Directors instructs me to inform you that formal complaints have been presented to the Board which, if sustained, would affect your standing as a member of The Mother Church and as a teacher of Christian Science, and to write you as follows:

It is alleged that you have violated Article XI, Section 7, of the Manual of The Mother Church by reason of the following particulars:

1. That on or about September 11, 1918, and continuously thereafter for over three years, you attempted to change the char-acter of the office of trustee of The Christian Science Publishing Society from the character given it by Mrs. Eddy in her trust deed of January 25, 1898, and in her Church Manual, so that a trustee could not be removed and his position would not be subject to supervision by the Directors of The Mother Church;
2. That you, during this time, attempted to change the relation of the Publishing Society to The Mother Church, from the relation established by Mrs. Eddy, to that of a separate institution to be conducted independently, whose trustees would not be subject to removal or supervision by the Directors of The Mother Church;
3. That you, during this time, attempted to prevent the Directors of The Mother Church from exercising the powers relating to the Publishing Society which Mrs. Eddy conferred upon said Directors, and thus sought to deprive The Mother Church and the Cause of Christian Science of the advantages which would result from the exercise of those powers;
4. That in March, 1919, you joined in a false and misleading Bill in Equity by which an ad interim injunction was obtained from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and attempted to obtain a final

decree commanding the Directors of The Mother Church not to interfere with the conduct of the trustees of the Publishing Society and never to exercise the powers relating to the Publishing Society which Mrs. Eddy conferred upon the Directors for the benefit of The Mother Church and the Causeof Christian Science ;

5. That you joined in a petition based on the above false and misleading Bill in Equity by which a ruling was obtained from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts whereby the Directors of The Mother Church were commanded contrary to the plan of Mrs. Eddy in her Church Manual, not to elect editors for the Publishing Society;
6. That from time to time during the prosecution of said Bill in Equity you falsely and dishonestly represented to branches and members of The Mother Church that the Publishing Society was being conducted in accordance with Mrs. Eddy’s directions, whereas you were co-operating in conducting the Publishing Society in violation of Mrs. Eddy’s directions and were pre-venting the Directors from complying with Mrs. Eddy’s directions in relation to the Publishing Society;
7. That after the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts filed an opinion for the dismissal of the Bill in Equity, you persisted in working against the interests of the loyal members of The Mother Church and against the interests of Mary Baker Eddy and the accomplishment of what she understood to be advantageous to The Mother Church and to the Cause of Christian Science by refusing to elect a trustee to fill the vacancy caused by the dismissal of a former trustee, as was your duty under Mrs. Eddy’s trust deed of January 25, 1898, and the Manual of The Mother Church, — by holding your position as trustee contrary to the provisions of said trust deed and Manual, — and by publishing and circulating a certain statement headed “We Lay Down Our Trust” calculated to nullify the effect of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts sustaining Mrs. Eddy’s plan of church government.

The complaints will be heard at a meeting of The Christian Science Board of Directors to be held Tuesday, October 24, at11:30 a. m., in the Directors’ room of The Mother Church. Any statement and evidence which you desire to submit will be carefully considered if the same is received before the date of the hearing.

The Directors regret the necessity of taking up these complaints with you but this is their duty under the By-Laws of The Mother Church.

Sincerely yours, Lucia C. Warren,

Assistant Corresponding Secretary for The Christian Science Board of Directors

My reply was: San Jose, California October 17th, 1922.

Christian Science Board of Directors,

The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts.

Gentlemen: —

I have your letter of September the 29th, containing certain charges made against me upon which you inform me the Directors will hold a hearing on Tuesday, October 24th.

While you state that any evidence which I may desire to submit will be carefully considered, of course, it is apparent to any one having even a superficial knowledge of the recent controversy that a consideration of the evidence by your Board would be a mere formality.

Of course the very nature and wording of the charges show that they are sponsored, if not actually drafted, by your Board. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to believe, particularly in view of the Board’s repeatedly announced attitude, that the matter has not in fact already been discussed and a decision reached.

As to the specific charges, all of them arise out of the fact that as a Trustee of The Christian Science Publishing Society I deigned to entertain theories as to my duties as a Trustee which were not in accord with the views of your Board. My entire stand with regard to these charges has been fully and completely stated by me in the various conferences between your Board and the Board of Trustees, in the various letters passing between these two Boards, and in my testimony on the stand and the position asserted by me in the court proceedings, all of which are virtually on record in printed form. I stand unreservedly on that record which I think, if it discloses anything, shows that I undertookto conscientiously carry out what I understood to be the duty imposed upon me by Mrs. Eddy’s Deed of Trust.

As to my having joined in a false and misleading bill in equity I beg to call your attention to the fact that Judge Frederic Dodge found the allegations of the bill to be true in every substantialif not in every respect, and these findings of fact were fully sustained by the Full Bench of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in its final decision, although in its interpretation of the law its decision was adverse to our contention.

A careful analysis of the complaints show the real charge to be that having disagreed with your Board in the interpretation of my duties as Trustee under a Deed of Trust, I appealed to the highest tribunal in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to get from them an authoritative interpretation of those duties.It was, at the beginning of the controversy, and still is my conception of my duty as a Trustee in case of question or doubt as to the interpretation of a Deed of Trust to seek instructions from the only authoritative source available.

More and more I am reassured in my original belief that in the end my action in this controversy will prove of the greatest benefit to the unfoldment of Christian Science to the world.

The remaining charge that I calculated to nullify the effects of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusettsby publishing and circulating the statement “We Lay Down Our Trust” is best met by an honest reading of that document. I should be proud to submit to the Chief Justice of that Court the statement of which you complain and take his finding as to whether it does not in truth show a profound allegiance to Christian Science and an absolute willingness to obediently accept the interpretation of Mrs. Eddy’s Trust as laid down by that Court. Apparently those drafting the complaint have neither a full comprehension of the decision of the Court nor an ability to appreciate the sincerity of the statement in question.

Clearly the contemplated action against me is only the first step in a scheme to do everything within your power to attempt to injure and discredit each of the individuals who dared to raise their voice to question your individual interpretation of Mrs.Eddy’s purpose.

I should not be true to what I understand of Christian Science if I did not add, that I believe your interpretation in regard to Mrs. Eddy’s purpose for the Christian Science movement and what you term her plan of Church government is based upon fundamental error.

Christian Science demonstrates Principle, not person, andthe fundamental basis of Christian Science is man’s oneness with Principle. Nothing can substitute this as Christian Science. Apparently your concept of

Christian Science and the entire effort of your Board has been to substitute the rule of persons for Principle and attempt to force this upon all Christian Scientists under the guise of calling it Mrs. Eddy’s purpose and plan of Church government.

I believe the day will come when your Board may see this for each one of us must inevitably sooner or later face the judgment of our every thought and act by Principle. In such a judgment the unimportance of personal rule or interpretation will appear.

Very sincerely yours,

Herbert W. Eustace.

Then followed the official excommunication:

The First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts

Office of

The Christian Science Board of Directors

October 26, 1922.

Mr. Herbert W. Eustace, San Jose, Calif.

Dear Mr. Eustace,

The Christian Science Board of Directors instructs me to make the following reply to your letter of October 16 which was received by the Board on October 23. The following resolution was passed unanimously by the Board of Directors at its meeting of October 24:

WHEREAS, members of The Mother Church who are in good standing and were acting from Christian motives have voluntarily and independently filed complaints with this Board that Herbert W. Eustace, another member of this Church, has persisted in working against the interests ofits loyal members and against the interests of Mary Baker Eddy “and the accomplishment of what she understands is advantageous to this Church and to the Cause of Christian Science,” and that he has influenced other members of this Church thus to act, and

WHEREAS, a meeting of this Board was duly called for the examination of said complaints on October 24, 1922, and notice thereof was duly given to Mr. Eustace by a registered letter dated September 29, 1922. and

WHEREAS, instead of confessing and forsaking his errors, he has sent to this Board a letter which amounts to a defiant persistence in the errors specified in the complaints,

NOW, THEREFORE, on October 24, 1922, after having duly examined said complaints in accordance with the Manual of The Mother Church, The Christian Science Board of Directors, the Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, doth unanimously act upon the complaints and exercise the discipline of this Church as follows:

FIRST: — Pursuant to Section 7 of Article XI of The Mother Church Manual, the name of Herbert W.

Eustace be and hereby is dropped from the roll of membership of this Church.

SECOND: — Pursuant to Section 1 of Article XII and Section 8 of Article XXX of the Church Manual, the authority of Herbert W. Eustace to act as a teacher of Christian Science be and hereby is revoked and terminated, because he has so strayed as not to be fit for that work and now ceases to be a member of this Church. * *

* * * Sincerely yours,

Lucia C. Warren,

Assistant Corresponding Secretary for The Christian Science Board of Directors.

Mrs. Eddy defines Church as “The structure of Truth and Love; whatever rests upon and pro-ceeds from divine Principle.” (S. &. H. 583: 12.) To me, therefore, this so-called excommunication was simply a gesture of ecclesiasticism, because excommunication can be brought about only by one’s own departure from Principle. The right to teach and to practise Christian Science is based upon one’s own state and stage of consciousness. Therefore, as a Christian Scientist, I could not do otherwise than continue to practise and hold classes.

Particularly pertinent, in this connection, is Mrs. Eddy’s reference to “our far Western students, the Christian Scientists,” (My. 197:13) in her letter to the San Jose church, published at her request in the Sentinel of December 23rd, 1905, and republished in 1913 with changes, in The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany.

Self-evidently Mrs. Eddy meant by her expression “our far Western students, the Christian Scientists,” (My. 197: 13.) those students throughout the world who express and represent that for which the West, and especially the far West, has always so preëminently stood, namely: freedom, unbiased by tradition; the determination to think and act for one’s self in line with right; the determination to accord to all the same privilege, thereby typifying true individualism, namely, man’s eternal right to think and act in accord with Principle.

This attitude of mind and what it must and does accomplish, is surely what Mrs. Eddy knew would entitle one to be called a Christian Scientist. Without this attitude of mental freedom,no real progress could be made, hence her further statement in that letter, “Comparing such students with those whose words are but the substitutes for works, we learn that the translucent atmosphere of the former must illumine the midnight of the latter, else Christian Science will disappear from among mortals.” (My. 197: 15) In other words, if the clear atmosphere of thought, the freedom of action represented by the “far Western students,” is to give place to ecclesiastical control, then “Christian Science will disappear from among mortals.”

The directors’ letter of October 26th, 1922, was followed a month later by a statement to the Boston Post on November 25th, 1922, by Clifford P. Smith, their committee on publication,saying that “Mr. Eustace is excommunicated forever.”

Since that time I have been busier and more active in the work of Christian Science than ever before. In being released from every form of ecclesiastical organization, I was freed from such trammels, so that my work became to that extent unhampered by human belief and regulation. I have held numerous classes in various parts of the United States. The demand for “clear, correct teaching” (My. 297: 18) is becoming greater all the time, and will so continue, for it has no personality or human control attached to it, and it is this very freedom for which the mortal is striving. He is learning, at last, no longer to put his faith in person or organization, but to trust in his own effort to understand divine Principle.

It has been said that my experience in Christian Science has been slight, that I am not an “authorized” teacher, hence cannot teach correctly.

But I was an “authorized” teacher for twenty years during which the correctness of my teaching was not questioned. It is the same teaching today. For twenty-eight years I was an active member of the Christian Science Church, holding many offices in that Church. From 1912 to 1922 I was a member of the board of trustees that was in full charge of the publication of all the Christian Science organization literature, which included for several years the publication of Mrs.Eddy’s works. The board of trustees also passed on all advertised professional cards, and appointed the Bible Lesson committee.

The first question ever raised about the authoritativeness of my teaching was after I had differed with the directors upon the interpretation of a legal document.

The intensity of disagreement was solely over the fact that as trustees we resolutely stood out against the demands of the directors to destroy the functions of the Deed of Trust.

However, the purpose of this book is not to deal with personality nor with human records but to deal with absolute Christian Science.

My experiences in Christian Science I consider a great privilege. Through them I have been able to understand more clearly the fallacy of ecclesiastical organization.

The especial privilege of being “excommunicated” has been tremendously enlightening. I understand it was not a person but that which was being upheld — “clear, correct teaching,” individual oneness and responsibility to divine Principle, true democracy, that was excommunicated (released) from ecclesiastical bondage.

Invariably “You may know when first Truth leads by the fewness and faithfulness of its followers. Thus it is that the march of time bears onward freedom’s banner. The powers of this world will fight, and will command their sentinels not to let truth pass the guard until it subscribesto their systems; but Science, heeding not the pointed bayonet, marches on. There is always some tumult, but there is a rallying to truth’s standard.” (S. & H. 225: 5.)

This book must be its own evidence that it presents the “clear, correct teaching of Christian Science” that Mrs. Eddy referred to, and which she also declared “has been and is an inspiration to the whole field,” thus holding aloft “truth’s standard.”

H. W. E.