Support for the Christian Science Board of Directors

A Series of Pamphlets Written Under the Pen Name of “Paul Revere” Inquiring Into the More Than Twenty-Five Violations of the Church Manual and the Resulting Effect on the Christian Science Movement

by Karl N. Smith and Walter H. Wilson




Publisher’s Foreword

It was just about thirty-five years ago that the first Paul Revere pamphlet was written and sent on its way to a list of selected Christian Scientists. From this beginning there was published over fifty pamphlets and documents, during the period from 1943-1955. These ably written commentaries have analyzed and discussed in depth the vital issues of the Christian Science movement since Mrs. Eddy’s passing in December, 1910. They specifically deal with the “perils of organization,” the need for demonstration in individual and church matters, the need for spiritual interpretation of the “estoppel” clauses to prevent violations of the Church Manual, the significance of the Great Litigation of 1919-1922, and a full discussion of the resulting effects of these unresolved issues on the Christian Science movement.

The first twelve chapters in this volume were originally published in pamphlet form, one each month over a period of a year, and then in book form as SUPPORT FOR THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. The remaining twenty chapters comprising this volume originally appeared as individual monographs. The variation in type size and style as well as in format is accounted for when we realize that they were published over a period of more than a dozen years. No attempt has been made to revise the pamphlets in order to maintain continuity throughout succeeding chapters; and no effort has been made to embellish them.

The Paul Revere pamphlets read today, in light of current developments within the Christian Science organization, appear to be prophetic. However, a thoughtful consideration and understanding of the course being pursued by the Board of Directors since 1910 make it predictable that the many violations of the Church Manual could only lead to the resulting effects blatantly obvious today. We are reaping the bitter fruits of ecclesiastical despotism that has prevailed in the Christian Science organization for over sixty-five years. We have seen an accelerating decline of the Christian Science organization for the past twenty-five years as shown by the reduction of churches, church attendance and active public practitioners. The erosion of our ethics, morality and spirituality is equally obvious to the discerning Christian Scientist.

We, who are republishing the Paul Revere material, like the original authors, hope that this volume will bring about a universal study of the Manual to glean its spiritual interpretation. As the authors clearly state, “A wide study of the Manual will bring to light a spiritual interpretation of the Manual that will reveal Mrs. Eddy’s intent and purpose, and make it possible operate the organization under the provisions of the Manual as they now stand without violating or amending any single By-Law.”

Table of Contents



SUPPORT FOR THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

By

Paul Revere


All Rights Reserved. Copyright, 1945, by Paul Revere.



Foreword

Each of the twelve chapters contained herein was first published in pamphlet form, one each month over a period of a year. From a limited list of names of earnest students of Christian Science.• with long experience in the practice in the United States, to whom were sent the first pamphlets, the numbers grew until within the year the demand for pamphlets came from all parts of the world - from South Africa, India, Australia, England and Canada; this notwithstanding the restrictions due to the war in Europe and the Far East. Such a wide demand coming as it did within so short a time convinced the authors that the message of the pamphlets filled a need. A large volume of correspondence conrmed the fact.

Requests that came for these pamphlets nearly always specified that the entire series be sent. It seemed wise, therefore, that it be put into book form. This not only serves the ends of convenience for publication, but will supply the reader with a permanent and convenient form for preservation after the contents have been read.

The chapter titles used herein are the same as those used in the pamphlets. Each chapter is complete in its context, although reference has been made often to previous chapters. No effort has been made to revise the pamphlets in order to maintain continuity throughout succeeding chapters; and no effort has been made to embellish them.

As single mimeograph sheets these pamphlets started on their way bringing a message that many have welcomed. Now as chapters in a book the authors hope that the message will continue its journey until its destination shall have been reached, and its travel done - until the healing has been accomplished.

Paul Revere.
Washington, D. C. March 27th, 1946.




Chapter One: Support for the Christian Science Board of Directors

“I advise you with all my soul to support the Directors of The Mother Church, and unite with those who are sup poing The Mother Church Directors.” So wrote our beloved Leader to the Board of Trustees of First Church of Christ, Scientist, in New York City, as published in the Christian Science Sentinel of November 20th, 1909..

Mrs. Eddy does not define nor designate the character or quality of this support. She might mean unquestioning obedience to every ruling and decision that the Board of Directors are led to give out to the Field, but this could scarcely be her intent, for does she not say, “follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ”? (‘01, 34). Surely she would not exact obedience to others that she did not exact toward herself.

No matter what our Leader intended to convey at that time, the condition of our Cause today in many fields, prompts this question in the minds of the group represented by “Paul Revere”:-”As Christian Scientists and members of The Mother Church, are we being alert to our duty and privilege of supporting our Christian Science Board of Directors in a way that will be most helpful to -them, and most efficacious in enabling them to fulfill their function the governing body of the Christian Science organization?”

Are we doing the mental work that we should do to neutralize the malicious mental suggestions of animal magnetism that would constantly claim to try to becloud their thought, confuse their decisions, and reverse, if possible, their actions intended for the highest good of our Cause? Or, are we taking the position that, because they are Directs-tors they have reached the piritual plane where animal magnetism cannot and does not touch them and that consequently they have nothing in,particular to meet from it?

To answer this question, we need but remind ourselves that this subtle, lying influence, this hater of Truth, this murderer from the beginning, enticed and influenced many of Mrs. Eddy’s own handpicked and personally taught students into acts foreign to their natural inclinations, right while she was here to guide and protect. If, under such conditions, students came under its claim of power, are we, too, not listening to the sophistry of the serpe when we unthinkingly accept the premise that this fae ,ental activity ceased with the passing of Mrs. Eddy? Should we not instead, recognize that, as a claim of power, it is still aggressive and active, - ever saying, as it did to Jesus, “Let us alone, what have we to do with thee”? Should we not then support the Board of Directors with every ounce of metaphysical knowledge of God’s all-power that we possess, directing it to the destruction and elimination of this seeming influence upon them?

The Christian Science Board of Directors, being the governing body of the Christian Science Movement, according to the Manual of The Mother Church, probably have more malicious mental malpractice and aggressive suggestion directed toward them than any other group of people in the world, for is not this Movement the only real exterminator of error known to mankind today? -Of. course we know it is, and because it is, they, the Bod, have a job out on· the ring line that is sond to none in responsibility and importance - a sk imposed upon them so great that without divine guidance, direction, and protects-tion they could not do it. It could not be done humanly.

They are only men and women such as we. Being appointed to the Board by their fellow members has not made them divine. They probably need more of our support the day after they are appointed than the day before. Are we giving it to them? Several of them have been lecturers, and as such, have traveled all over the country receiving the plaudits and adulation o thousands upon thousands of Christian Scientists who have enjoyed their lectures night after night.

How much are we doing as members in the various fields to prevent animal magnetism from subtly using this phase of the human mind to influence the Directors and the ur church members into assuming unconsciously, the position of “a king to rule over us like all the nations”? Would this not be one of evil’s most subtle and plausible temptations, under the circumstances, for them to yield to? And would not this be the surest way to wreck this Cause we all love? It is to the credit of the Board of Directors that they have withstood it as well as they have.

How active are we in knowing that Truth is guiding the Board members in the selection of their successors, and that animal magnetism can not make them think that their successors should be teachers and lecturers exclusively, with the attendant potential possibilities of such appointees building up Boston as a political and ecclesiastical center?

If the Board sometimes takes a stand that would seem to indicate ecclesiastical despotism ( which they have been accused) is it not as much the fault of the Field for not making a better demonstration of protection for those men and women, who are undoubtedly doing the very highest they know to make decisions that are in line with the greatest good for the Cause? Are not we, the Field, also largely responsible if we allow animal magnetism to use them or us to build up this claim of ecclesiastical dom-inflation, and thus make this accusation seem to be true? Should we not then be guilty of the sin of both omission and commission? Have we, as earnest Christian Scientists who love our Cause dearly, done as much as we could to help promote its growth and prosperity by “holding up the hands” of our governing Board? Have we not let lethargy, apathy, and indifference keep us from seeing to it, as far as lies in our power, that no animal magnetism can influence them to make wrong decisions and commit acts which might result, eventually, in our Movement following the course that history shows all spiritual movements have taken a short time after the passing on of their leaders?

Each day, in our work for the world and the overcoming of evil, have we included the Directors and sufi ported them in knowing and realizing that God, and God alone, is guiding and directing their every move and that no claim of aggressive mental suggestion can darken their thought or mesmerize them in any way?

Have we not often committed the sin of adding to the burdens of their already stupendous task, the weight of the malpractice of our criticism and condemnation, thus making it more difficult for them to function in accordance with divine Principle? Will condemnation of a sick patient aid his recovery or delay it? Will the condemnation of any officer of The Mother Church aid him in the proper performance of his duty, or will it improve the situation in any way?

Do we not sometimes take the position of dismissing the Directors from our thought, with the idea that running the organization is their business and not ours, and that we have no part in it? Is not this in itself a subtle argument of animal magnetism using us, - an argument to lull us to sleep, do nothing about it and leave most of the metaphysical work to be done by those under the attack?

While our Church Manual would seem to make the government of The Mother Church the most autocratic and undemocratic organization on earth -. vesting no voting wer in the membership for the selection or election of officers - we know that this is only what mortal mind would have us believe. Our Leader, more wise than mortal mind, made it the most democratic, - giving power to divine methods instead of to those of human organization. For even though we of the Field have no human vote in the election of the Board members, still, by utilizing our bih-right of spiritual thinking, we can absolutely deteine the spiritual quality and the calibre of our Mother urch government and its officers.

If, in our thinking, we listen to the suggestions of anim magnetism as did the Children of Israel in the days of Samuel, and accept the suggestion that we should not be happy without a king to rule over us, then, we shall have a king. If we think it wise to have only lecturers d teachers as members of the Board of Directors, then we shall have only lecturers and teachers. On the other hand, if we realize scientifically that only those whom God selects,can be apinted, then, like the prophet’s selection of David, only those most spiritually equipped will be chosen.

The authors of this book have no intention of portraying the Directors in an unfavorable light. On the other hand, they do not desire to portray the Directors as infallible and worthy of unquestioning and blind obedience. The Directors are earnest men and women doing a very difficult and trying work and doing it to the very best of their ability. The authors would like, however, to contribute in some way to rousing the Field to a greater sense of its responsibility with regard to the kind of administration we. have in Boston and our duty to support it. Neither condemning the Directors nor worshipping them as though every word they utter were from an oracle of God, nor treating them as if they were Mrs. Eddy’s successors, will help our Cause. Neither will lack of interest nor lethargy toward the progress of our Movement make for its better-foment. Our task is to think. To think fearlessly, clearly, and logically! “Truth, independent of doctrines and time-honored systems, knocks at the portal of humanity. The time for thinkers has come.” (S & H, Pref)




Chapter Two: Our Church Manual

In a preceding chapter, we stated that we would bring to Y?Ur attention several subjects upon which we desired that you give some earnest and prayerful, consecrated thought. This chapter deals with one of them - one dear to the heart of every loyal Christian Scientist - namely, obedience to the requirements our beloved Leader set forth in the Manual of The Mother Church.

In June, 1943, Mrs. Daisette D. McKenzie was elected by the Christian Science Board of Directors to the office of President of The Mother Church. Mr. Roy G. Watson d Miss Mary G. Ewing were reelected to their respective offices. A short time previously, Mr. Francis Jandron had been elected by the Directors to ll the vacancy on the Board caused by the passing of Mr. McKenzie.

I Arcle 1: Sections 2, 3, and 5 of our Manual, it is stated that the election of these officers and some others, requires either the written consent or the approval of the Pastor Emeritus given in her own handwriting. Did the Board of Directors get either this approval or our Leader’s written consent before announcing the names of these appointees at the Annual Meeting? If not, were these appointees legally and Manually elected? Apparently not.

Can any By-Laws be added to our church Manual? Can any of the present ones be annulled or amended? Can any of them be revised? If you, as a loyal working Christian Scientist, were asked these questions wouldn’t your immediate, unqualified answer be a positive, “No”?

If you were asked, “Why”, wouldn’t you immediately pick up your Manual, hastily turn to Article XXXV, Sections 1 and 3 and read the following: “This Manual shall not be revised without the written consent of its author,” and “No new Tenet or By-Law shall be adopted, nor flay Tenet or By-Law amended or annulled, without the written consent of Mary Baker Eddy, the author of our textbook, SCIENCE and HEALTH”?

Would you not sit back in satisfied complacency, perfectly confident that, as long as Mrs. Eddy’s written consent was so positively a requisite, there could be no possibility of our Manual ever being tampered with?

The purpose of the group whom “Paul Revere” represents, is not to disturb your complacency, except in so far as it seems necessary to arouse your thinking until you arrive at the place where you are quite positive that Mrs.

Did you ever stop to count and to ponder the number of other places in the Manual where Mrs. Eddy’s written $ignature is. required to make the By-Laws operative? And the places where her approval or sanction is requisite? Did you stop to consider the consequences, and effect upon her Cause if we are disobedient to her expressed wishes?

If we are all quite confident that the Manual can never be amended or annulled because of the By-Law requiring her written consent, upon what security is this confidence based? And how sound is it? If the same definite require-foment i. e. her written consent, has bMn waived in the selection of the officers of The Mother Church, by what sophistry of mortal reasoning, do we presume to think that it will not be, or can not be, waived in regard to amending her Manual?

Let µs change our presentation: if it is right and proper to waive these requirements in the other sections where they have been voided for many years, how long will it be before someone in office decides that the Manual can be amended and changed to meet some urgent need or current condition existing within the organization, and justifies the action on this very basis, viz. - that Mrs. Eddy’s consent has been waived for years in every other section where it occurs, on the basis of the seeming impossibility of fullment, and therefore, can be waived in the matter of amendment? You all know the answer.

We believe it is generally recognized today throughout the Christian Science movement, that Mrs. Eddy left these requirements in the Manual intentionally - that it was not an oversight on her part. It is an established fact that this matter was brought to her attention repeatedly by her students before she left us in 1910; that she insisted they be retained in the sections where they so frequently occur. If this is so, and it is, then by what authority have we disobeyed her expressed wishes, for all the years since 1910?

Should we not, therefore, give some earnest and thoughtful consideration to this matter? Should we not consider how and why we violate Mrs. Eddy’s clearly expressed instructions in these sections of the Manual? Because it has been done since Mrs. Eddy’s passing is no valid reason to assume that it is right, or that it should continue to be done if it is not right. Is it not possible that the Board of Directors were impelled by animal magnetism instead of by Truth and Principle, when in 1910, they decided that because Mrs. Eddy’s signature could no longer be obtained, they should accept the morl, legal int of view and waive these and similar provisions? Perhaps Mrs. Eddy intended that we should see something we have not yet seen.

All Christian Scientists desire to obey the Manual. Next to Science and Health it occupies a place in the Christian Scientist’s heart as the most earnest expression of Mrs. Eddy’s rules and mode of conduct for the guidance of the members of The Mother Church for all time to come. Furthermore, we believe, as she has stated several times, that the Mind that led her and guided her in writing Science and Health also guided her in giving to us these By-Laws. Who then made the mistake? Did God? Did our dear Leader when she left in the Manual these requirements that seem so impossible of fulfillment humanly? Or did the Board of 1910 who interpreted them make the mistake when they turned for advice to legal authority, and accepted its ruling on the subject, namely - that, what is obviously impossible of fullment to the human mind, is to be waived? In that act, then, did not the Board of Directors turn from the divine wisdom that led Mrs. Eddy to retain these requirements in the Manual? They surely did, as much so as you would consider that a patient had, who had turned for healing,-from Science and Health to Epsom Salts. Quite similarly Mrs. Eddy says in her Message for 1901, “Making matter more potent than Mind, when the storms of disease beat against Bishop Berkeley’s metaphysics and personality he fell, and great was the fall - from divine mephysics to tar-water!” From divine metaphysics to mere legal interpretations! Did not the Board of Directors do this when they us the wisdom of the human, legal mind that ever says that the things of Spirit are impossible of achievement and therefore must be waived aside to give place to the things that the carnal mind admits are possible? Unfortunately for our Cause they did, and have not we all since the time of that decision accepted it as final? Should we not now awaken to the necessity of discerning the spiritual intent of the By-Laws and demand that they be rried out on this higher plane of thought?

In the days immediately following our dear Leader’s passing from mortal sight, the consternation among her students was so great and the decisions to be made so momentous, that it is no discredit to them if they contended for and promulgated this doctrine - the doctrine that, as long as Mrs. Eddy was no longer with us, the By-Laws requiring her written consent should operate without it. The school of thought holding to this human opinion was in the majority, - consequently, it was adopted as the official ruling.

Have we not, all of us, perhaps too unthinkingly, accepted it as law ever since? Should we not, now, prayerfully, earnestly and conscientiously review our premises, our conclusions, our decisions and our acts just to be sure that we are not missing the spiritual path our Leader left for us to discern and follow?

We all know that, when she was present with us, her method of doing things constantly astounded her students; they repeatedly remonstrated with her when she acted contrary to the generally accepted human methods. o could understand, for instance, her closing of the Me-physical College at the height of its prosperity? Her wisdom was never the mortal-mind, legal wisdom of that day or this.

Mrs. Eddy was fully aware, do you not think, of history’s sad record, that, in a comparatively few years ter each spiritual leader’s effort to uplift the human race, misuse of organization drowned out spirituity? Is the not abundant evidence in many fields today that some such thing is taking place in this Cause we all love so much? In her great wisdom, derived from her constant communion with her heavenly Father, Mrs. Eddy must have ten steps to prevent the repetition of this destructive phe of animal magnetism in the Cause she gave so much to tab-lish. Have we missed the way? H our disobedience these sections in the Manual requiring her written consent anything to do with it?

Have we, as loyal Christian Scientists, been willing to think this through and decide for ourselves just what our Leader means by the two requirements mentioned above? What does “with the consent of the Pastor Emeritus” mean today? And where and how is Mrs. Eddy’s consent to be obtained or found? If the provisions of our Manual are for all time to come, as our Leader says they are, then there must be an answer that will enable us to be obedient to these requirements now.

Have we not, for fear that it would lead to the dissolution of The Mother Church organization, really been unwilling to approach the subject and see what. would be the result if we were obedient to these By-Laws? Those whom “Paul Revere” represents do not believe that all the effort and labor expended by our dear Leader was for the purpose of building up an organization that was designed to endure no longer than her visible presence with us. Even so, this possibility should not act as a deterrent to the open-minded study of her Manual with a view to finding out what she did mean, and the acquiring of the spiritual consciousness necessary to be obedient to it.

We have, therefore, given these questions much thought and we believe that we have found the answer that makes obedience to these requirements a present possibility and in the way that Mrs. Eddy intended. And no Christian Scientist should be afraid to be obedient to our Leader’s instructions when he understands what she means. Indeed, should he not be confident that only by obedience thereto can he possibly hope to keep our beloved Cause from falling into the pitfalls that have beset other religious organizations?

Does not the remedy for any and every error confronting our Cause reside in the spiritual thinking of the collective membership? Is God going to take care of the Christian Science Movement and protect it any more than He did the early Christian Church, which, after three hundred yeas of spfritual healing work descended into the centuries ^nown as e “dark ages”, if we Christian Scien-theists thfok o differently than did the early Christians?.Is it not some:Wre of the insidious whispering of the lying serpent that makes us think that, because we have the printed word of Science and Health· and the Manual, God, in some miraculous way is going to take care of the ·christian Science Cause? To be lull by stupifying illusions into tiing that “all is well”, when it is not, is one of the sophistties of evil that has almost wrecked the material world by wars. Let it not operate to wreck our Cause. Let us heed the words rep^ted to be from our Leader in the Divinity Course on May 21st, 1903: 14The _true Science - divine Sden - will be lost sight of again unless we arouse _ourselves. This demonstrating to make matter build up is not Science. The building Up of churches, the writing of fticles, and the speaking in public. is the old way of building up a cause. The way I brought this· Cause into sight _was through healing; and now these other things would come in and hide it, just as was done in the time of Jesus. Now this Cause must be saved and I pray God to be spared for this work - Things must tum and overturn, until he whose right shall fei.” These. pages and other§ to follow are only bugle calls help rouse every earnest and loyal Christian Scientist to more active.and fearles thinking and to a more spiritual interpretation and demonstration of our church Manual. As the Field collectively rises in spiritual thinking, - in just this proportion will our organization improve and fulfill the fond hopes of our dear Leader that this great Movement would stand as a spiritual beacon for the guidance of men out of the bondage of all enslaving beliefs.




Chapter Three: Why Paul Revere

It has not surprised us, the writers of this book, that we have been asked, through the mail, why we do not reveal our identities, why we use a nom de plume.

Let it be emphasiz at once that the authors have made every effort to take not a single step unless it be the result of demonstration. The dision to write these pages was not a sntaneous outburst of petulance or indignation because of the acts of others. We have felt for a number of years that what we are now doing should be done.

Our earnest effort in demonstration is to be actuat only by love for the Cause of Christian Science and to promote for the good of humanity the great work which

s. Eddy so nobly began. Above all, we wish to avoid any act that could be tinged with unkindness, unloveliness, mice or iitation. We hope to avoid any conduct which could bring disunity when unity is so greatly needed in a war-torn world. We hope and pray to do absolutely nothing except it be through God’s leading.

We earnestly desire that you will meet our message to you with the tolerance that our sincerity deserves. Help us if we are in the right. If we are in the wrong, help us to see the right: Then why not at once reveal our identities?

For a long time we refrained from this writing bause we had not demonstrated the answer to that question satisfactorily to ourselve. This was the final problem present for our solution before we began. Having demonstrated the answer in the nom de plume of “Paul Revere”, we were ready.

The ne symbolizes our efforts. Paul Revere rode at night. He aroused the sleeping countryside from its lethargy of sleep to see what threatened. The signal was two small beams of light amid the dark, a signal so inconspicuous that only the awaken and alert could perceive its purpose. When with the day the enemy came, the en-ghtened had been prepred and the foe was vanquished.

Had there been no Paul Revere, had the faithl slept, even our own beloved Cause might today have been far behind in the march toward freedom. Or, had Paul Revere’s purpose been revealed to the British; had his ride been expected, he and the few faithful would have bn csh; the use of freedom would have awaited another champion, and taxation without representation would have bn carried on for no one knows how long.

It -was a very small minoan ty that std with Paul Revere. But in due course their names were revealed and the great good that they had accomplished was proclaimed to a grateful world.

We, who collaborate in the writing of this book, e, for the present, in a minority. But history has never fiesta lished as a fact that minorities are always wrong and majorities always right. “One with God is a majority”, and with that majority we are striving with all our might to be. But, as a human minority, we have, through our demonstration, seen that which we believe needs telling.

The theme of our message is a warning to those who, t busy or too lethargic, fail to see the coming of the enemy of our beloved Cause - an enemy which is the most prolific, resourceful, most active, and above all, the most subtle of all the unreal manifestations of evil. It is that which, during all the centuries, has been the foe of organized effort to establish Truth. It has destroyed one religious organization after another, and its seeming monstrous presence has accomplished these evils because it h maintained itself, for the most part, invisible. Mrs. Eddy saw it and called it animal magnetism. And she said of it in The First Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany, page 213: “Unless one’s eyes are opened to the modes of mental malpractice, working so subtly that we mistake its suggestions for the impulses of our own thought, the victim will allow himself to drift in the wrong direction without knowing it. Be ever on guard against this enemy.”

Let us hasten to assure the reader that we are conscious of the unreality of animal magnetism and of its nothingness. But we are also equally conscious of its seeming ability to force us, unless we are ever on the watch, “to drift in the wrong direction without knowing it.” The destruction of weU•i-ntentioned religious organiza tions in the past, has been brought about by this unseen, sbtle influence.

The deployment of these evil forces which have been so · destructive to ·efforts to establish the Truth, is well defined: History portrays it in clearly drawn patterns. We see some of these forces present in our own beloved organization; these same subtle influences that ultimately resulted in the downfall of so many others that drifted “in the wrong direction without knowing it.”

And so, if we are not constantly alert, if each one is not to himself a Paul Revere, we shall nd ourselves aligned with a majority, only because it is a majority, - doing what others do, saying what others say, and even seeing only what others see.

The history of religious. organizations and sects declares, throughout the centuries, the pitiable fact that, in al^ost. every instance, disintegration began from withi^. Persecution from without united the communicants to great courage and strength, but, from within, enticed by “unseen, silent arguments,” (Miscellany, page 211) the memberships permitted, without protest, the growth of intolerance and domination by their leaders, who thought for them, ^ntil the crest of the successful efforts and sacrifices of the founders had passed and the subterranean movements of animal magnetism had begun, silently, to undermine the foundations.

We hope we are too wise not to expect that mortal history will try to repeat itself in ^be Christian Science organization unless we in the Field, yes, unless the great majority of Christian Scientists, awake to the presence of this evil influence and rise to challege its attempt to destroy that which is most dear to us - our Cause.

In the past, those who struggled against the evils in organization, did not know of, nor had· not been told of animal magnetism. They were lulled into a false sense of success when their causes spread and prospered financially, and they grew in numbers: They adopted a mortal mind criterion of success.

Mrs. Eddy has told us of these evil influences that destroyed these organizations of the past, and she has showed us how to meet them. The political cliques, the desire for power in the minds of the leaders, the efforts of a few to dominate and prescribe the thinking of many, mandates from a centralized authority, threats to excommunicate those who raised a voice in protest; all these are symptoms of disintegration which persistently recur in organizations, religious and secular alike. They are termites that, unseen, finally cause the superstructure to fl.

But all these are symptoms, not cause. They are “creeping things”. The cause is the carnal mind, or, as Mrs. Eddy has named it, “animal magnetism”. And she has warned us, over and over again, that the influence is subtle, silent, and malicious. Under its influence destructs-tive elements grow right before our eyes but, under the i_nuence of animal magnetism, we fail to see the trend, or, if we do see it, we are impelled to fight the effects and persons rather than the cause of it all - animal magnetism.

Have any of these manifestations of evil that have undermined the foundations of so many religious organizations of the past crept into ours?• Are we or our officers absolutely impervious to this influence that has deceived millions for centuries? Are we aware of its tremendous power in belief? If we have just not given the subject any thought, then we are following the patte that animal magnetism has cut out for us, and we shall nd, unless we awake, that our beloved Cause may go the way of so many others.

But there can be no excuse for.us. Others may have seen the decline of their organizations, and recognized its perils, but, nearly always, they attempted to stem the tide of disintegration by fighting the effects instead of the cause. They· destroyed their leaders. The leaders, failing to see themselves held under this influence, followed the silent directions of animal maetism. The followers, not discerning the true cause of e difficulties, fought the leaders in the beltef that to remove them from the scene would restore spirituity.

Thus the cycles have completed themselves and re-ated, always in an e ort to prevent the universal roi-tion of Truth. Leaders destroyed followers, followers destroyed leaders; but never was the real culpt appr hended. Animal magnetism was never seen as the cause of it all.

Had the Truth been seen, had Chstian Science been discovered and been demonstrated, as we should be- demonstrating it now, all this could have been overcome. Mrs. Eddy has shown us the way. She has uncovered- the methods of this hidden influence. We who write these pages perceive these beginnings of the symptoms that have spread and destroyed so many others. Unfortunately all in seats of authority have not seen them and so are yielding to the influences that history has portrayed so vividly.

Our puose is not to condemn any persons in authority whom animal magnetism may be using or influencing, for we should then be -doing that which we ought to avoid at all costs, for by attacking our officers as persons we should be fighting the effect of animal magnetism instead of animal magnetism itself. Such an action on our part would tend to foment the very disunity and schisms that we seek to avoid.

Since we feel thus, we are constrained to urge that no one else shall commit any act of aggression, mentally or audibly, against the personal acts of those in positions of authority, but instead, that each one of us shall attack vigorously the serpent of animal magnetism which, even now, is operating to destroy the work so dear to us all.

Because we are seeing indications of e efforts of animal magnetism to influence the Field as. well as those in authority, and because we believe that both the officers in authority and the Field are largely Unaware of this daerous menace, or too lethargic to ke the trouble to allay it, we wte as we do.

Our personal preference would be to reveal our iden tity. If we should do so, while in the minoty, we should open our defense to this same evil influence which would at once· operate to destroy the effectiveness of our efforts, even going so far as to use the old historic weapon of - communication.

Please bear with us then, if we must continue for a time, to write only as “Paul Revere”. And if we bring to your notice things which you may wish we had not said about our organization, and the conduct of its affairs, let us assure you again that neither is it pleasant for us to say these things. It is only that, to us, our duty remain undone if we do not carry, “in the hour of darkness and peril and need”, the impo of the midnight message of Paul Revere.




Chapter Four: Loyalty to Principle—Not Person

. “To Arms! To Arms! The Btish are coming!” Can you not hear Paul Revere arousing his fellow countrymen with some such words as these, in the momentous days preceding the American Revolution?

Why was he riding to awaken the slumbering countryside to take up arms against its own kith and kin, - against its own relatives, united by language and ancestry to common ideals and traditions? He wasn’t. While he may not have realized it, Paul Revere was not fighting or arousing the people to fight against the British at all. He was engaged· in the age-old battle against what we know today, in Christian Science, as animal magnetism, - animal magnetism, in those early days, using the British people to take away the berties of free men, ^ men who had ed to this country to be free to worship God as they saw t. He and his fellow patriots had no personal grievance against the men in authority who cried out, “Disperse, ye rebels!” They didn’t even know their fines! They fought persons because they knew no better; they knew not how to fight the insidious foe, the mental evil, the hidden, influence the caal mind’s hatred of Truth which ·was prompting the British to hold men in bondage or to enslave them. The incident was new, - the influence, agold. It operated long before their time, in their time, in our Leader.’^ time and is still operating in our time.

Paul Revere’s ride preceded the battle of Lexington and Concord by only a few hours. In the previous chapter we referred to “the use of the old historic weapon of excommunication” as the means by which animal magnetism has endeavored to control the forward marches of individual inspiration. We were not aware when we wrote that chapter how closely its writing would precede the use of this very weapon by the Christian Science Board of Directs-tors of The Mother Church. We feel-that the issue involving its use is of as great import to the Christian Science Move foment as was the battle of Lexington to the cause of universal freedom. It prompts us to paraphrase Paul Revere’s words and to send them deep into the consciousness of every thinking Christian Scientist who_ loves this Cause so dearly: “To Arms! To Arms! Animal magnetism is entering! It has impelled the Directors to take the names of the Carpenters, father and son, out of the list of teachers and practitioners in the November 1943 Joual P’

The personalities involved in this action are not important, either the excommunicated or the excommunica-tors. Back of them, however, and back of the apparently insigni cant incident, as on the Commons of Lexington, a great spiritual movement stands poised on a brink, - whether it shall go forward or backward. Whether it shall succeed or fail is being determined by you and me, by l of us,- by the quality of our thinking.

In one of our earlier chapters, we urged that the Field awake, that we all awake to a realization of the necessity of supporting the Board of Directors, - supporting them with all the knowledge of God we possess, supporting them by knowing that aimal magnetism can not influence them to make decisions that will ultimately wreck this Move-mentthe Cause our dear Leader gave so much to est^blish. We urged you to treat daily and earnestly that Truth, not animal magnetism, would guide their every act and decision. Apparently we all have done too little, too late. Lexington was only the culminating expression of a great force gathering momentum. It was the initial outward action of a great conflict. May we pray and work mightily that this action against the Carpenters be corrected and the underlying cause be d^stroyed, that this thing come not upon our beloved Cause.

“What thing? What has happened? Why all this furor regarding two persons whose names have been summarily removed from our Journal? Other names have been removed”, you say. Yes, we are sad to admit, they have been, but not always justly. Each isolated case, where a dissenting thinking Christian Scientist is “purged”, and no protest from the Field is heard, gives only impetus and encouragement to animal magnetism to widen and enlarge the scope of its activities. But, you ask, how dare we say or assume that it is animal magnetism and not Truth that is guiding the Directors in making these decisions? We are not going to answer that question for you. For ourselves, we are convinced that it is animal magnetism. We shall, however, present some facts that your own investigation can prove to be facts; then, after your investigation but not before, let your knowledge of Christian Science ide you to judge righteous and loving judgment.

Who are the Carpenters? Before answering that question, let us, who collaborate in the writing of these pages under the name of “Paul Revere”, assure you that the Carpenters are not one of us. They have no knowledge of our writing them nor of our identity. Neither are we writing them with any idea of helping the Carpenters make their individual demonstration over an error confronting them,- however much we should like to, and think them worthy of our support. We feel sure that if they were aware of our efforts, they would probably have preferred -Twenty-one that this chapter had not been written. We are writing because the issue involved is far bigger than anything personal; it affects you and us and all Christian Scientists who dare think as a minority. This issue is of as great importance to everyone of us as were the issues which the fearless patriots defended with their lives on the bridge at Concord.

The names of the Carpenters (Gilbert C. and Gilbert C. Jr. of Providence, R. I.) and their titles of C.S.B. have been listed in our Journal for many years up to and including October 1943. The father lived in Mrs. Eddy’s home for a long time, making many demonstrations that called forth her commendation. This you can verify to your own satisfaction. The son has conducted classes regularly each year in accordance with the provisions of the Manual relating to teachers, - students attending from many distant parts of the country.

These two spiritually-minded men have been seen in their home by some of the collarators who write these pages. They devote almost their entire time. to the advance-foment of the Cause of Christian Science. Their loyalty to the Movement is of the highest quality and, in our humble opinion, their spitual attainments and developments are far superior to the general rank and. le of teachers and practitioners. Our object, however, is not one of “selling to you” the Carpenters. Our beloved Leader says, “We look for the sainted Revelator in his writings, and there we nd him. Those who look for me in person, or elsewhere than in my writings, lose me instead of nd me/’ (My. 120) On the same basis, a just estimate of these two men may be obined by applying this method · advocated by our Leader.

These earnest students have written some wonderful books, portraying intimate picture^ of our Leader, that are almost priceless. The latest book is their interpretation of some of the letters that our dear Leader sent to the Board of Directors. These letters, the Carpenters feel, would be very_ helpful at this time in solving some of the problems confronting The Mother Church. Copies of some of these letters are the personal property of the Carpenters, while many hundreds more repose in the archives of The Mother Church. The title of this book is, “Mary FiBer Eddy, Her Spiritual Precepts as Gleaned and Deduced from her Letters to The Christian Science Board of Directors and The Mother Church.” We understmd that the action taken by the Directors in removing their names is directly related to the writing of this book.

Where can these books be purchased? Nowhere. So far as we can ascertain, nothing that the Carnters have written can be purchased. They have refused to commercialize their intimate knowledge of Mrs. Eddy. This, in itself, ought to commend them to any fair-minded tribunal. Where can these books be read? Only in the Congressional Library in Washington, D. C. We are also informedby the attendant there that these boo are in almost constant use, - that countless persons come to Washington and make hotel reservations for no other purpose than to read them and make copies of the most helpful pages. They depart, well repaid in spiritual uplift, for all the effort and expense involved.

Should these two men be penalized for doing such a work for our Cause? Should they be threatened with excommunication because a Board, who may not apprecia the spiritual value of these letters or who, for some reason of their own, do not wish the Field to see these letters, does not approve of their being published by the Caenters. The Carpenters probably feel that they have been divinely inspired to do this work and that, if the leadings of divine Mind have prompted them to write, they should not desist because of a human board’s adverse opinion. With this conclusion, we collaborators heartily concur.

This opens up the broad aspect of this question with which we take issue. Stated simply, it is this: has the Board of Directors, under the provisions of the Manual, the right to penalize those who accept a different point of view than their own? Have they the right to control the thinking and inspiration of other earnest Christian Scien-theists under the threat and execution of the penalty of excommunication? We are aware that our use of the term excommunication is not quite exact. The Carpenters have not, so far as we know, had their names dropped from the roll of The Mother Church which would be the technical application of the word. This weapon of excommunication still remains as a further threat whenever the first penalty isn’t sufficient. Removal of a teacher’s card from our Joual, in effect, excommunicates him. Persons seeking class instructs-tion are not very likely to be attracted to apply to a teacher whose card has been removed.

Unfortunately, and especially in our Movement, there are many, and even good eaest Christian Scientists, who still accept, unconsciously perhaps, the doctrine that “the king can do no wrong.” As applied in this instance, if the Directors are motivated to remove the Carpenters’ names, then that is prima facia evidence that the Carpenters must be wrong; the Field so accepts it and acts accordingly. How animal magnetism has used this doctrine to darken all religious history! at injustice has been caused by its acceptance! Let us in the Field, by -our scientific thinking, see that it can operate no longer in our Cause. There have been others whose names have been removed from the Joual because they did not think as did the Directors. It is happening all too frequently now.

There are certain definite provisions under the Manual by which the Board is empowered to accept or reject cards for the Journal listing. With actions based on these require-foments we take no issue. When, however, the Board is in^ uenced to take the position that the Board is Mrs. Eddy’s successor and as such is the interpreter of her writings, we definitely do take issue. Such a point of view is a grave menace to our Cause! It is not incidental, it is basic. It diers only in degree from the doctrine of the Catholic Church that openly contends that all interpretation shm^fold be in the hands of the priestcraft, not in the hands of the laiety. Is the promulgation of this doctrine in our. Move-Twenty-/ our foment, the influence of animal magnetism or the leading of Truth?\ Is it divin_e Lov^, or is it ecclesiastical despotism boring from within? “Divine Mind is its own interpreter.” (S&H 577) This is a very definite statement from our Leader.

Briefly, let us think of the far-reaching effect upon innocent people of this action against the Carpenters. Let us assume, for instance, that there is a young, thriving, branch church, - everybody happy and joyous in the work; among its membership is an ever-increasing number of Carpenter’s students. Suddenly, to their bewilderment, these students are confronted with the opprobrium of being students of a teacher who is dubbed disloyal or some other te more or less obnoxious. Quickly, animal magnetism begins to whisper to the other members in this church that these Carpenter students should not occupy the offices nor teach in the Sunday School because their teacher is so and so. You all know how it goes; a definite faction and cleavage is created. Multiply this in every church where Carpenter students are: then multiply it in all the churches where other teachers and practitioners have been excommunicated and what do you have? Church after church divided; young, earnest and happy students upset by problems beyond their understanding. And who is pleased? What organization has for its slogan “Divide and Conquer”? Is it animal magnetism or divine Love that motivates our. Board of Directors to make such decisions?

We said in the first chapter, “Support for the Board of Directors”, that we feel very kindly toward the Directors. And we do. They are only men and women such as you and we are. They are under the greatest combined attack of animal magnetism and malicious malpractice that any group of people on earth have ever been called upon to face. It imposes burdens upon them that precludes condemnation. Our weapons are spiritual, not caal. Our job is to support them, - not condemn them. Our job is to uncover and destroy, by our active thinking, the subtle in-uence that would blind them so as to prevent their seeing T enty-five the road down which such decisions are leading our Cause-the same road all religious organizations have traveled throughout all history. Let us be loyal to the Directors - not loyal to them, right or wrong, but loyal to them as they express Principle.

A loyal teacher once gave a definition of loyalty that ts our concept of it, exactly. It is this: “Loyalty having its basis in Principle is the only real loyalty; this loyalty has the divine qualities of Principle, ^ supporting, sustaining, helping those who seem to stand in places of authority. This loyalty is not only supporting to all that is right, but it eradicates the wrong. There is no thought of person in this loyalty; loyalty is weakness when the personal element enters. Odience to persons or rsonal opinion is som times ken for loyalty; this is not loyalty, it is slave. lt throttles individual unfoldment and whatever throttles individual unfoldment throttles our Movement use we are the Movement.”

Let not our loyalty to the Directors, then, contribute to our throttling the Movement. If such incidents as the excommunication of the Carnters, are allowed to pass unnoticed, they multiply; the fear in the Field consciousness increases so that, less and less, will members dare think independently of constituted authority. Not every one is as fearless as the Carpenters nor has the courage of his convictions. Rather than face the penalty, many would allow their unfoldment to be throttled. en we, the membership of the Christian Science organization permit, without mental or audible protest, the growth of intolerance and domination we are allowing animal magnetism to undermine the very foundations of our Cause. Let us recall our Leader’s dynamic words; “For this (healing) Principle there is no dynasty, no ecclesiastical monopoly. Its only crowned head is immortal sovereignty. Its only priest is the spiritualized man. The Bible declares that all believers are made kings and priests unto God.” (S&H. 141)

Let us all unite in arousing every working, advanced-thinking Christian Scientist to his duty against this age-old enemy of the Christ. Let us drive back its attack did the early patriots at Lexington and Concord, - not th guns and carnal weapons, but with alert, spiritual and fearless thinking, and acting as God directs.




Chapter Five: “Authorized” Literature

Person” we pointed out that the names of Gilbert C. Car-nter and Gilbert C. Carpenter, Jr. have been removed from the list of Practitioners and Teachers in the Novem-fiber, 1943, Journal. This, we have been informed, was an act of the Board of Directors of The Mother Church and the reason had to do with the publication of certain bks which the Carpenters had published without the books having been authorized by the Board. These books were written largely as a result of the association which Mr. Gilbert Carpenter, Sr. enjoyed while living in the home of and acting as secretary for Mrs. Eddy at Pleasant View. These books contain a wealth of material concerning Mrs. Eddy’s own demonstration of Christian Science, and intimate details of the instruction that members of her household had been able to gain through daily contact with our beloved Leader. The inspirational value of these writings n not be measured.

We pointed out at the same time that in the opinion of the authors, writing under the name of Paul Revere, this act of the Board of Directors had been the result of an unconscious yielding, on their part, to animal magnetism; that animal magnetism, in its struggle to stifle and destroy the spiritual idea in Christian Science, has been attacking, with seeming success, the officers who conduct the affairs of our organization. Acts, such as this suppression in a peremptory fashion of these letters and accounts of Mrs. Eddy’s life and the use of the timeworn wean of discipline, amounting to excommunication, give testimony that animal magnetism, using its agold methods, has moved into the very headquarrs of our Cause.

Had this been the first time that the Christian Science Board of Directors had imposed this penalty upon on^ whom they had declared guilty of something, we should not have been so immediate in reporting for your consideration this act against the Carpenters. But unfortun-stately, such acts as these by the Board, have been too many.

Before entering into a discussion of this phase of the question, however, let us call your attention to a “warning”, to quote themselves, from the Directors. This appeared in the Sentinel of April 4th, 1942, on page 594 of that issue. This item amounts to a reiterated warning that the Field must not read and circulate literature on the subject of Christian Science, which has not been “authorized”. The following has been copied from this statemet of the Directors: “Considering all that has been published in these columns relative to the passing about of papers alleged or purported to be copies of letters, articles, addresses, and talks by Christian Scientists, or excerpts from them, it seems strange that the objectionable practice should still persist. Even Christian Scientists who are otherwise loyal and alert need to beware of subtle argu-foments which would lead them to disregard the warnings repeatedly giv.en on this subject.” The italics are our own.

The “warning” from which we have quoted refers to taking notes of the addresses of others and passing such notes around, without such notes having first been “authorized”. The “warning”, however, refers also to “letters”, “articles”, and of course, books, which may have en prepared by Christian Scientists but not “authorized”. We can interpret “authorization” to mean that the Board of Directors considers that we Christian Scientists in the Field are not competent to pass upon the “purity of the teachings of Christian Science” contained in these writings; and that the Board must, therefore, appoint someone of its own selection to perform this important duty for us. fter this selectee has read and approved such written statements, as being pure Christian Science, they may then be said to have been “authorized.”

·fhe “warning” implies that any Christian Scientist that reads statements or articles or books on the,subject of Christian Science, which have not been authorized after this manner, shall be subject to discipline.

Incidentally it is interesting to note that the Concordances to Mrs. Eddy’s works indicate that the term “authorized literature” has not once been used in all of her writings. The phrase seems to have come into general use during or shortly after the litigation in the early 1920’s. Was it animal magnetism huilding up an autocratic centralized authority or was it the leading of the divine Mind that prompted the use of this term now so widely used by Christian Scientists?

If the only question involved in the warning to the Field, were the wisdom of taking notes and circulating them as an exact transcript of some one’s speech, we should not feel impelled to take up your time or our own in discussing the matter. But more than this is involved.

It is a fact, of which those in authqrity at Boston seem unaware, that members of many Christian Science churches throughout the country, - earnest, thinking, demonstrating Christian Scientists, (and they are growing in number), are very apprehensive of the effect upon our use of the official attitude toward any person who reads anything or writes and circulates anything upon the subject of Christian Science, that has not first been tested as to the “purity” of its context, by a representative of the Board of Directors. Stigma falls upon anyone who asserts his moral right to 1·ead and study what he chooses to b lieve aids his own spiritual understanding.

Respecting the high motives of the incumbents of the office which issued this edict or warning, there can be not the slightest doubt. They evidently felt that this warning lay within their duty; that the Cause of Cluistian Science would be forwarded if Christian Scientists, everywhere, could be prohibited from reading literature which h not first been tested and approved by some one more competent to judge of the spirituality of such writing than would the reader.

Our question, and that of many other Christian Scien-theists, is whether we, as individuals, or the Field at large, grow in understanding and influence for gd by submitting to others the prerogative of censoring our reading, instead of leaving the choice to demonstration on the oart of the individual.

Mrs. Eddy has written on page 358 of Science and Health: “Christian Science, understood, coincides with the Scriptures and sustains logically and demonstratively every point it presents. Otherwise it would not be Science, and could not present its proofs.” Let us examine this waffling from the Board of Directors that we shall read only what another tells us we may, rather than to read what our own demonstration dictates. The wording of the “warning” carries with it several implications which must be sustained by logic, “otherwise it would not be Science, and could not present its proofs.” Following are some of these implications:

That the Board of Directors of The Mother Church has the inherent or constitutional authority, provided by the Manual, to prevent students of Christian Science from reading, writing or circulating any material that their demonstration may dictate, without asking the peission of another. (Is this true?)

That some official representative shall have access to or nd time to read every book, tract, treatise or article written or published anywhere in the world, upon the subject of Christian Science, in order that the reader may refer to that person before he begins to read any subject matter relating to Christian Science.

That we Christian Scientists in the Field, regardless of our experience in healing and teaching, or our spiritual attainments, and degree of development, are not competent to judge for ourselves what is and what is not true Christian Science; that we are not able to judge for ourselves what contributes to our spiritual advancement but must leave that to a representative appointed by the Board of Directors. (Is this true of you?)

That the Board of Directors has been granted by the Manual of The Mother Church, the power to discipline any Christian Scientist who fails to heed this “warning” which it has given. (What section of the Manual confers this right upon the Board?)

It could be inferred further that, since the writings of another are but the spoken word transcribed, we should not listen to the conversation of another upon the subject of Christian Science without such verbal utterances having been “authorized”. This may seem to be carrying the analogy to a ludicrous extreme but does not all illogic lead to nonsense?

To admit that we, as individuals, have not the spirituality or discernment to distinguish between what is good for our development and what is not, and that we need a censor to decide for us, is perforce, an admission that e cannot hope, soon, to know for ourselves the Truth that makes free. Our salvation must be a vicarious one.

As we have pointed out, one instance of such an action taken against a member of The Mother Church because he declines to accept another’s dictum concerning what he shall read to develop his spirituality, might not be serious. But there have been others who have been summarily repri manded by the Board of Directors, and whose names have been removed from the list of Practitioners and Teachers for questioning the right of the Board of Directors concerning this same effort to control what all Christian Scien-theists shall read.

Unfortunately, the effect of animal magnetism, that would cause the Directors to exercise such control, incites the fanaticism of the human mind and causes many to submit, not only without a protest, but without even giving thought to the consequences to themselves, of yielding to others so important a human activity as selecting one’s own reading. This fanaticism is evident in the acts of students and even teachers who have gone so far as to burn certain writings of Christian Scientists, which, according to the Board’s definition, have not been ‘’authorized”.

Rev. G. A. Kratzer, foi·mer teacher, lecturer and practitioner has published several books on the subject of Christian Science. We are not here concerned with a defense of what Mr. Kratzer may have written. Please remember that. We are concerned with the fact that Mr. Kratzer was severely reprimanded by the Board, which moved him to resign from The Mother Church. This action taken against Mr. Kratzer in 1913, just a few short years after lrs. Eddy had left us, was, we feel, one of the early steps in the development of the influence of ^finial magnetism upon our Cause which is now finding further expression in the recent action of the Board against the Carpenters and other thinking Christian Scientists.

During Mrs. Eddy’s life, Mr. Kratzer was a contributor to our periodicals. In 1908 an article entitled “Dominion Within” was published in the Sentinel. These collaborators who write under the nom de plume of “Paul Revere” have in their possession copies of voluminous correspondence between Mr. Kratzer and the Board of Directors. In one of these letters, Mr. Kratzer allud^d to the fact that, two days after the publication of “Dominion Within” in the Sentinel, Mrs. Eddy wrote personally to him saying, “Your ticle ‘Dominion Within’ is superb.” In Mr. Kratzer’s book, of the same title, other articles appear which have been published previously in the Sentinel, and additional ones that have not appeared in the periodicals.

After Mrs. Eddy’s passing, the Board of Directors pressed ‘Mr. Kratzer for his resignation for writing and circulating other articles of the same tenor and spirituality that Mrs. Eddy hd observed in “Dominion Within” and declared “superb”. After submitting his reasons for writ. ing as he had, and at the same time asserting that in dealing with his patients there were some impulses that he believed came from God, Mr. Kratzer contended that it was his moral right, as a Christian Scientist, to read and write as he felt his demonstration dictated. However, soon after-

Now, in a sphit of fanatical obedience to authority, students have thrown into the re to be bued, and have maligned with great indignation this book containing · article which Mrs. Eddy declared “superb”.

Another book containing lectures and notes from the

teachings and addresses of Mr. Edward A. Kimball, C.S.D., has en equally maligned, and also st into the re to be bued. This book contains over three hundred pages of spiritual value. Much of the subject-matter contains a graphic expose of many phases of animal magnetism. May not this be the very reason why students are impelled to a fanatical destruction of this bk? Would it not be the method of animal magnetism to influence all whom it could, to bu the book, in order that animal magnetism might save its own life?

Please let us assert here with the greatest emphasis, that we, who prepare these pages, realize full well that Mrs. Eddy’s works are complete; that they must be the textbooks of every Christian Scientist; that nothing can ke their place; that they must be read daily; that they heal and regenerate; that they were inspired and that they contain the whole of Chstian Science. But it was chapter-tainly the will and wish of Mrs. Eddy that others should write on the subject and that such writings should be published, otheise we should not have our periodicals.

The question that we now ask you to consider prayerfully is not what you or we shall read, but whether the fight r^ad what his own demonstration dictates is inherent in the individual Christian Scientist. Shall you and I yield this right to another who may be appointed by the Board of Directors? And it is well to remember that the Directors are chosen from the Field, but do not take on a mantle of immutability after having become Directs^ors.

We have said before, and we shall probably keep on saying, in order that none may misunderstand our motives, that we write these chapters in no spirit of acrimony. We have no personal grievance against any Director. We are stpporting the Directors with every energy, and beg that all Christian Scientists will be equally ardent in lending every. support to their difficult work. · On the other hand, as members f The Mother Church, the Directors are our representatives in the sense that they are in office as an expression of the. quality ·of demonstration· of the Field at large. If the organization is to continue and we in the Field are to maintain our continued interest and support of the organization, we must cherish the right to express our appreciation for the good that they do, and likewise, to register our disapproval of any acts that we believe are not the result of demonstration.

We believe that this act of attempting to deprive members of the right to be listed in the Journal, because they disagree with the Directors in this matter of the right of individual demonstration in the selection of one’s o reading, is the result of the pressure of animal magnetism upon ‘the Board, and its corollary effect upon the Field at large, as witnessed by the burning of books ad pamphlets not “authorized’’. We do not, however, ask that you accept our conclusions upon this most·important matter, but only that you think about them, and investigate for yourself.




Chapter Six: The Soft Vulnerable Spot

THE “SO VULNERABLE” SP

In an earlier chapter, entitled “Our Church Manual”, we pointed out many sections in our Manual where the provisions seem to be humanly impossible qf fullment. We showed that it was impossible to “Manually” elect the President of The Mother Church, the Treasurer, Clerk and other officers. The present incumbents of these offices had not received Mrs. Eddy’s approval of their appointment, given in her own handwriting, as the Manual requires. Therefore, they were not ‘’ManuaUy” elected in a strict and obedient interpretation of our Leader’s Manual. requir.e-foments..

This ^pens up the que^tion that, for a long time, has

T hirt-/01^r .ttracted the attention of eaest thinking-Chr an Scien-theists everywhere. Was this Mrs. Eddy’s way of dissolvini The Mother Church organization?

We stated, however, that it was our human opinion that Mrs. Eddy did not build up this great and wondeul organization to endure no longer than her stay with us here on earth, or with the expectation that it would be dissolv at the time of her passing. We further stated that we felt there must be some solution to this problem that a more spiritualized study of our Manual would reveal. Surely, there must be a way to be obedient to every provision the Manual without dissolving The Mother Church organist-zation! After much conscientious and prayerful study, way has appeared that has seemed to satisfy our consciousness. We are not ready and do not care to discuss · it through these pages· now, for the time is not appropriate. The Field has not given sufficient attention to the provisios of our Manual during these late years to make a discussion of the subject very helpful. But let us state our positi clearly- again. We feel ·very.definitely at there is a way for The Mother Church to continue to function and- at the same time be obedient to these By Laws.

Assuming· then that We are correct, ’ that Mrs. Eddy intended her organization to continue to function- ter her passing, ^ she·. must have made provision to safe-ard it from the pitfalls along the road, into which history shows so many religious -organizations have fallen. An analysis of these pitfalls from the tim·e of the early church in Jerusalem d6w to the present day, shows that the tender spot, the· place most vulnerable for the entrance of animal maetism to destro all that a.spiritual leader has laboriously built up, is the place where the rights of the so-called governing b’ody touch the rights of the governed. Mrs. Eddy was not simpleminded, even humanly. She was well read and conversant with history. Certainly she was not unaware that the dangers confronting the permanency of her Cause would he·the same old errors, - just paint over with new faces. In addition to this heritage of human wisdom, she w in almost consnt communion th the one vine Mind. She tk not a single step nor brought forth a single By-Law in our Manual that was not the result of the same quality of inspiration that wrote Science and Health. If, therefore, Mrs. Eddy expected the provi-sjons of Science and Health to be obeyed in order to obtain the maximum of growth and happiness she must have so excted the provisions of her Manual to be obeyed that her church would also expand and broaden its scope of spiritual activity. This obedience to every By-w is imperative to protect it against attacks of error that have proved fatal in other religious organizations. She certainly must have expected to reenforce the spots so vulnerable to animal magnetism. Nowhere is this reenforcement more noticeable than in her definite provisions regarding the Board of Directors and their relation to the Field.

This is our explanation for the continual references in these pages to the Board of Directors. Unless this is borne in mind, a perusal of the previous chapter entitled, “Authorized Literature” might easily give the impression that we are condemning the Board of Directors or making it appear that we feel they are responsible for the growing distress existent in the Christian Science fields today. We want to reiterate as we have in our other chapters that nothing is farther from our thought or purpose. We have stated that we feel they have the solemn duty of administering the affairs of the highest office in the world - an office so laden with complex problems and burdens that only by the constant support of each and every one of us . can they creditably perform these human tasks. They do not need condemnation and faultfinding. We want these pages to add nothing to their burdens. We want to inspire you to give them increased support; support of the highest metaphysical quality. On the other hand, we do not want to feel that this quality of support precludes our fearlessly looking at and discussing the problems and situations that are confronting our beloved Cause. No good is accom lished by foolishly crying, “Peace, peace”, when danger is threatening at our vulnerable places.

The litical history of the world during these last few years has made even the dullards realize that a different attitude on the part of the Chamberlain govement of England would have saved millions of lives. It is related that one of our lecturers, Mr. lpatrick we believe, visited England a few months before the war. He saw a nation sound asleep

the dangers threatening it just a few miles away. Shortly thereafter he went to Germany. Here the whole nation was teeming with war activity openly directed agnst England. The same year, he came back to England and tried to arouse them out of their mesmeric stupor. ey in their trusting, blissful, sweet love that did not ke to be disturbed (like the variety we hear so often expressed in the Christian Science fields-that God is Love d He will take care of the Christian Science Cause; we do not need to do anything about it) turned the lie on Mr. lpatrick, calling him a warmonger.

So let us look fearlessly into the affairs of our sleeping organization.. Are we aware that animal magnetism is already entering at our vulnerable spot? It is not the fault of the Directors any more than it is your fault or ours. The almost successful annihilation of England was Chamberlain’s fault only as it was the fault of every Briton who let himself be mesmerized into sleep. People lose their liberties gradually, - here a little, there a little, almost imperceptibly, until organized interests have the agencies of power in their control. The loss of our constitutional rights in our own Federal government is a glaring example.

The Manual of The Mother Church is very similar in one resct to the Constitution of the United States. It is a matter of wonderment if Mrs. Eddy did not patte the Manual after it. The Constitution prescribes a central govement with certain definite rights of supervision over the whole country. It just as definitely provides, and in no uncertain terms, certain states’ rights which can not be invaded nor violated by the central govement. Each ste, under its own individual constution c choose to make it lawful to drive a hundred miles or ten mil^s an hour over its qighways. That is the State’s on business; the Federal government cannot interfere. a

The Manual of The Mother Church is the Constitution “for Christian Scientists, - officials and nonofcials, alike. In it Mrs. Eddy hs provided for a central.govern-foment with officers whose duties • and functions are to exercise a general supervision over the whole Movement. She, however, definitely provides - the states ·. or branch churches with boundaries over which the central govern-foment must not trespass. Article XXIII, Section 1 of the Manual of The Mother Church, states, ‘’The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist, shall assume no general official control of other churches, and it shall be controlled by none other. Each -Church of Christ, Scientist, shall have its own fo of government.” And in Section 10, “In Christian Science each branch church shall be distinctly democratic in i government, and no individual, and no other church shall interfere with its. affairs.” These provisions sound like strong states’ rights, do they not? This means that a branch church is exercising its Manual rights if it chooses to admit to membership those who have not made the demonstration over smoking and drinking. If it chooses to exclude those who gossip, wear glasses, manifest tumors or are unloving to other Christian Scientists, this, too, is the prerogative of each branch church. Neither The Mother Church, nor any other church nor any individual shall interfere with its right to select its own method of healing these errors. In the proportion that official Bosn directly or indirectly infringes on that -church’s sovereignty, official Boston is not only being disobedient to Mrs. Eddy’s Manu instructions, but is furnishing another evidence that animal magnetism is striking at the soft vulnerable part of our Movement.

Nowhere in Mrs. Eddy’s writings is there any provision for throttling the unfoldment of the individual. Nowhere is there any provision for throttling individual unfoldment of teachers and practitioners. And nowhere is there provi-^ion for interfering with individual branch church unfold-foment. Mrs. Eddy established no centralized standard ^chool with examinations that had to be passed by applicants before becoming practitioners. She knew that such a provision would stifle individual unfoldment. · In the face of all this precaution to prevent any one group of thinkers from imposing the limitations of their degree of spiritual development upon the freedom of others’ thoughts, why is it then, that branch church members desire a central organization power to do their thinking for them? Why is it, too, that a central power succumbs to this old temptation of animal magnetism for priestcraft to interpret for and control the laity? A very illuminating article, dealing with this subject is found in the Journal of January, 1922, by Hugh Studdert Kennedy entitled, “The Simplicity That is in Christ”. It is an article that the whole Field would do well to read and think about.

We would like to refer to a few little incidents, insignificant in themselves, but very illustrative of the point we are trying to make. The issue involved, however, is basic.

We are informed of a branch church whose corporate meeting for the election of Readers fell on the same evening that a lecture was scheduled to be given by one of the other churches in the same city. Instead of tuing to

d to ascertain which meeting the members should attend, they wrote a letter to the Board of Directors in Boston asking them to answer this question. And the Board of Directors told them! We are not concerned with the Board’s advice, be it in favor of one meeting or the other. That is immateal. The thing that is serious is the evident fact that we of the Field have reached a place in loss of individual demonstration that prompts a group of Christian Scientists to feel imlled to write to Boston for information on such-a sml matter. It is surprising that Boston would reply in any other way than to discourage such inquiries, informing them that such matters had to be left to in-dividual demonstration and could not be decided by the Board of Directors for a branch church. Furtheore, it did not want to be written to as if it were Mrs. Eddy’s successor. This is another evidence of animal maetism oper^ting to throttle individual unfoldment.

Another incident: A man is known to us, who, not so long ago, gave a testimony at a Wednesday evening testimony meeting in a branch church of which he was a member in good standing. Within a few days, he received a letter from the Board of Directors saying that it had been brought to its attention that he had made certain incorrect statements in his testimony. He had not made the statements reported and he so wrote the Board. But, again, whether he made them or not, is not the point we desire to make. Assuming that he did make them, whose business is it to correct a testimony in a Christian Science branch church, - the First Reader conducting the service or the Board of Directors in Boston? Is not this act of the Board in writing to this member a violation of the rights of that church to govern itself? Who was at greater fault, the one who reported the incident to the Directors or the.Directors in being receptive to such reports? We would say the culprit is animal magnetism pushing in at the vulnerable spot. We urge you, if you care so little for yourselves that you allow these things to occur without protest, that you have love and appreciation enough for the noble woman who spent forty long years in suering and toil to give us this wonderful heritage of Christian Science, to arouse yourselves to see that these provisions of her Manual, which would prevent such machinations of animal magnetism upon our Cause, are obeyed.

Let us suppose that you are a practitioner or a teacher. You have a troop of adming and worshipping patients, so common an occurrence in our Cause today. Let us also suppose that you are a First Reader in a branch church d ever so often, several of these admiring patients get up in a Wednesday evening service and express their graffiti- tude for Christian Science. Before concluding, they, me■-

i your name, relate how grateful they are to you for healing them; how wonderful you are and what a good Christian man you are, etc. What would you do if this were repeated week after week? If you did not rebuke this exaltation of personality in your church, you know that your church would soon lose its spiritual vision and finally disintegrate.

Now, the analogy to this, we really do not like to make. We love the Board of Directors; we realize that they have a tremendous job on their hands, but, - we also love the Carpenters and others; they too, are Christian Scientists and God’s ideas. We love Mrs. Eddy and her Cause more than all else but God. Our duty then is to make this analogy.

It is this: For the past twenty-four years, the publication of our periodicals has been more directly in the hands of the Directors of The Mother Church than any Wednesday evening service is under the control of the First Reader. Time and time again, animal magnetism has influenced them to allow themselves to be eulogized in the very periodicals that they control. This has been done in testimonies, in articles by other church officials, by the lecturers and lecture Boards. Do not take our word for it; go back through the periodicals and you will be amazed at its frequency. We are happy to say that this has been lessened during the last year or two, showing that the doors against animal magnetism can be closed.

The lecturers are appointees of the Board, as you know. Why. is it necessary and what purpose is to be achieved for them, receiving such large fees, to tell the Field wh.at a good man their employer is? And this, too, in the employer’s own controlled publication. Do they feel there is a doubt in the minds of the Field?

We know a field where every May the chairmen of the Boards of all the Science churches spend an evening drafting a letter of loyalty to the Board of Directors which is to be sent to the Board preceding the Annual Meeting. Bear in mind, this is expressed as loyalty to the Board, - not to Mrs. Eddy or to The Mother Church. We know tha^ these letters have never been returned or rebuked. How far animal magnetism has entered!

We also know of a teacher’s Association. One of its first official acts each year is to pass a motion to send· to the

Directors a previously prepared leer expressing loyalty to

them. Do you know of any such Association letters? Can not we of the Field take our first human footsteps against this encroachment of animal magnetism upon our Cause by protes^ing against the sending of any of these ‘Heil Hitler” letters? They are only its advance agent, coming where it always has throughout history, ensnaring us to oer a crown and ensnaring someone else to accept it, One is no more guilty than the other. The culprit is the lying carnal mind. We, the Christian Science Field, must block its eors.

When George Washington refused to be crowned ng after the American Revolution, he did more, by that act, for the freedom of the world and to merit the title of “Father” of our great country than anything he ever accomplished as a great general. Let us support our Board of Directors that they may resist animal magnetism’s tempting oer.




Chapter Seven: These Pamphlets and the Board of Directors

CHAER SEVEN THESE PAMPHLETS AND

THE BOARD OF DIRECRS

The large number of letters which we have received in commendation of what we have said in these pages les us believe that thinking Christian Scientists all over the United States are in agreement with us.

That being the attitude of the Field, what of the et of all this upon the Board of Directors at Boston; how do they cept what we have said? What will they do aut it?

We asked these questions of ourselves before we began this work. ter. prayerful consideration, we reized that Fo’t-two there could be but one attitude for us to maintain toward the Board of Directors and be scientific. That attitude must be based upon the standpoint that our Board is the kind of Board that we and the Field believe it should be. As^uing, as we must, that the imus of the Board. of Directors will at all times be an exp1·ession of the highest type of Sci^nce, we can with reasonable logic, conclude what position the Boara should take after reading what we lave written. Whether or not our human opinion may be conrmed, or what someone else may tell us about the Board, must not change our standpoint of seeing only a Board that will act consistently with the great work entrusted to it.

What kind of Board shall we exct that to be? What manner of Board does the Field believe should direct the affairs of the Christian Science organization?

Obviously, the demands of the office require a group of persons of outstanding spiritu achievement; the kind of Christian Scientists who typify the highest quality of ipirituality to be found anywhere. In order,to coduct the important business of the Christian Science organization, with all it means to the welfare of the world, the members of the Board must possess the greatest breadth of vision, comprehensiveness of understanding, tolerance, love, compassion and freedom from resentment. Together with these virtues the Board must have an unusually highly developed ability to disce the subtleties of animal magnetism in all its phes.

We must expect that every act of the Board of Directs-to, which involves the well.being of the Cau, will follow only the most earnest and prayerful demonstration. We should expect that no single step will be taken thout weighg, carefully, its effect upon every other individual who is striving to five and to practise Christian Science, and also upon the Field as a whole.

Its treatment of branch churches, too, will not oly be in confo1ity with the letter of Article XXIII, Sections 1 and 10 of the Manual of The Mother Church, in order carry out the letter of that By-Law, but, by encouragement and example, the Board will impress un members of branch churches that the spirit also of that By-w is necessa for individual demonstration in church membership. It will be further emphasized that Christian Science branch churches must eventually fail, and the whole organization, as it was envisioned by Mrs. Eddy, finally disintegrate unless that By-Law is operative in spirit in the branch churches and ‘in the minds of the members of the Board of Directors, as well.

By the act of bestowing upon her church the designation of “Mother”, Mrs. Eddy thereby placed upon the Board a profound obligation toward branch churches. This relationship the Board must typify in its loving consideration of any problems which may arise affecting the work of branch churches.

The efforts of these churches to solve these problems must be encouraged, and reenforced by the kind and sympathetic support of The Mother Church, through the Board of Directors. The Board should also never forget that the branch churches, while they are, in effect, the children of The Mother Church, are not of the bondwoman but of the free.

Much of the welfare of the practitioners, nurses and teachers can be influenced by the decisions that the Board of Directors make. It is, indeed, a solemn and profound duty that the Board is called upon to perform. In short, the whole concept which is held by the average Christian Scientist, concerning the duty of the Board of Directors, is that the Board has within its charge one of the most important duties that could be placed within the care of five persons.

When therefore, in the preparation of these pages we consider this question, we must, if we are to be scientific, see a Board made up of the kind of persons whom we have described. If we do not have this kind of Board, then the demonstration of the Christian Scientists in the Field has been inadequate. If, however, the field has made this donstration, (and we must act from the sndpoint that it h) how shall we expect that the Board will receive our message?

Such a Board could never act except from the. highest motives of love, tolerance and compassionate consideration. Resentment could not ssibly enter into the conduct of such a Board. Fighting against persons could never be the weapon of such a Board. Any desire to cast disrepute upon us or upon any other earnest Christian Scientist who disagrees with them, could never be thought of by such a Board. To illustrate the point, we quote the following para- aph from a letter sent to us by a correspondent:

“Just to. warn you that The Mother Church is having the services of a clerk in the Post Office in Washington check who Paul Revere is.”

While we appreciate this friendly waffling, we certainly are reluctant to believe that our corresndent may not have been misinfoed. For any person, trusted by the Post Office Departments!, to divulge the name of the owner of a lock box, we understand to be a serious violation of Post Office regulations; but for a Board such as we have described, to act as a party to seduce a Christian Science clerk or any other person to a betrayal of both a moral and legal trust is unthinkable.

Turning the light of the same search upon ourselves we of Paul Revere realize that we must conduct our work upon the same plane of spirituality that we expect of the Directors. We must harbor no resentment nor any of the oth manifestations-of evil which follow in the wake of a _personal attack.

We h,ave repeatedly asserted our mental freedom from resentment or any desire to place the Board of Directors in an unfavorable light. The only light which we wish to st upon anything is that which will reveal to the Field the machinations of animal magnetism upon our Cause. This being our own attitude toward our work and considering the Board of Directors in the light which we have described, we realize that they will not be disturbed by what we say. If, through error cm· our oart, or statements are wrong, the Board can easily coect us; and we frankiy assert again that our sole purpose is to work for the good of the Cause. We shall retract, willingly, any and all state-foments that we have made at any time, provided those statements have been proven to us to be erroeous. Furthermore, we shall gladly sign such a retractio th our own signatures.

The Board, having the highest good of the Cause i

its care^ must be expected to be equally frank in being willing to admit its error, if, after prayerful analysis, it becomes evident that it has erred in any way. In any case, however, and this point must not be forgotten, the Board, - loving, kind and compassionate, can never be ound striking back, fighting persons nor using material methods. The Field would never expect the use of such methods from five persons who have been intrusted with so solemn a

We have attacked animal magnetism, not person, as we have repeatedly said. Who, that has been in the front rank of the work of a Christian Scientist, has not felt the attack of animal magnetism, and who has not at some time gone down under it, or to prevent it, has not soht the help of a loving friend or practitioner?

It is no cause for shame that any of us or all of us have suered in this way. That we have been attacked is probably’ evidece that we have done a work of which to be proud, for animal magnetism surely is not, in belief, concerned with sluggards. No one should blame another, who, in his effort to do his part in world emancipation, has fallen temporarily under this baneful influence.

So no one wishes to blame the Board of Directors; if they, too, are affected by animal ragnetism, much less should they blame themselves. They are under a greater attack, probably, than any other group of its size in the world. It would seem almost strange, if at some time or other, some of the Board did not need help in this respect.

Certainly in Biblical History is notable precedent that

even the most stalwart Christians yielded to the influence of animal magnetism under stress of events. No less a figure than that of Peter fell before its onslaughts more than once; his failure to walk upo the water at the Savi-flour’s bidding and his denial of Jesus after the seizure of the foster to be tried, are instances. Even the beloved disciple, Joh, in company with James, when the Samaritans did not receive· Jesus, asked, “Lord ilt thou that we command re to come down from · heave and consume them, even as Elias·,did?” The most loving and probably most spiritual of ^ll the disciples was moved by animal magnetism to beseech Jesus that the Samaritans be consumed by re. Indeed, if a man of ·so great spirituality as John, should thus seek to destroy those he thought.were not i accord with Jesus, with what compassion ad toler-fiance must we, today, view the ivasio by animal aget-is of the thoughts ad acts of others.

Shall we censure our Board of Directors ·who may also ‘be thus influenced? The members of the Board· are working, practising Christian Scientists as you ad we are. Subject to much the same influences and sufferings, their demonstration· is, perhaps, more difficult than yours or ours because of the great responsibility they carry. As we have continuously pointed out in the previous chapters, the Field must support the Directors metaphysically whatever may be thought of their individual acts.

The members of the Board must, therefore, never be censured for yielding to animal magnetism; they must be supported and sustained. But animal magnetism, wheresoever it may appear, must be exposed and destroyed by treatment. We are sure that our Board of Directors believes this as firmly as we do, and will do everything in their power to nullify its influence.

There seems, now, to be a lack of demonstration in our churches, a reverting to material methods instead of that radical reliance upon Truth which proves to the world what the power of God manifest in human affairs can do for humanity. There has been· a falling o in attendance in our church services. ln this conntion, it is a matt of concern that the prortion of men that attend today is considerably less than it was a few years ago. e use nnot be attributed to the war for the tr^nd toward a decreasing percentage of men in our services began before the war started. We, who collaborate in e writing of these pages, think that our Cause is not fulfilling its highest \destiny, due to the adverse influence of animal magnetism upon the field and upon the officers who have in charge the direction of the affairs of the organization. For this reason, Christian Scientists do not seem to perform the role of world leadership that should follow the years that have elapsed since Mrs; Eddy’s discovery of Christian Scie1ce. We are not responding to Mrs. Eddy’s wonderfully inspiring challenge to every Christian Scientist to unite with her in the spirit of her life purpose, - “to impress humanity with the genuine recognition of practical, operative Christian Science.” (Misc. W. 207)

These are the reasons why we, the authors, are not disturbed by what the Board may think about what we have written. Acting up to a high sense of Science, the · Board can be only scientific, and thus only gd shall come to the Board of Directors, to us and to our Cause.

CHAER EIGHT




Chapter Eight: The Litigation Incident

Did you go to the reading room to nd the artie by Studdert Kennedy, entitled, “The Simplicity That is in Christ” to which we referred in our chapter number 6, “The ‘Soft Vuinerable’ Spot”? Some of our correspondents who did, have written us of the peculiar experiences they encountered when they asked the reading room attendants for the January, 1922, Journal, in which this article appeared.

One correspondent wrote us that when in a reading room in a large city, he asked for the Journal of 1922, the attendant told him that the periodicals were not pnted from 1920 to 1922. When this erroneous statement was disput, the attendant admitted that there was some trouble in Boston during those years but she knew little ^bout it.

Another correspondent told of going into the reading room of a large church in Washington, D. C. He found that these volumes, 1920-1922, were missing from the les. But the attendant confidentially whispered that they could be ob ined from one of the other reading rooms in Washington.

In reply to a letter of inquiry from another branch church regarding the periodicals of that period, the Board of Directors wrote that the reading rm les of e Mother Church included these numbers although they were not considered “authorized” Christian Science literature; that these were included in order to complete the les and it was thought that their inclusion was better than their omission. What an anomalous situation is thus presented! The Reading Room of The Mother Church containing unauthorized Christian Science literature! Only the dilemma that is the mother of inconsistency could prompt such inconsistent reasoning. Surely divine Mind is not its inspiration!

These conditions prompt us to wonder what would be our Leader’s reaction if she should visit today the various cities and be told in each reading room some such explanation for the absence of these periodicals which she labored so arduously to establish. ·

If these statements seem incredible why not go into the reading room of your city and see for yourself the situation that exists there? We shall appreciate hearing from you as to your findings.

The impression is detely disseminated from Boston throughout the Field that the attack of animal magnetism upon our Cause in the days following the last war and known as the “litigation in Boston” is all over now and is definitely finished and settled. This, we feel is not so; we feel it is no more settled than was the first world war with Germany in 1918; furthermore, that everyone who knows anything about the litigation knows down in his hea that it has never been settled and that all the talk about i being settled is but whitewash to keep the matter from being brought up and discussed.

How could it be said to have been finished when such conditions, as we have related, exist in our reading rms all over the country? The Reading Room of The Mother Church contains periodicals that the letters from the Board have declared “unauthorized literature”. Should they not, then, be officially declared unauthorized and destroyed? On the other hand, if the present Board would admit that the action of the former Board in branding the periodicals as spurious was an error now to be corrected, the reading rooms would make an effort to obtain these missing num-fibers so as to complete their les and thus remove this reminder of those troublous days when animal magnetism all but wrecked our Cause. If there are no copies available, should not the Publishing Society be instructed to republish them so ‘as to complete the les of all reading rooms now lacking them?

For the infoation of those persons into whose hands this book may have found its God-directed way and who have become interested in Christian Science since 1922 and consequently know little or nothing of those days when animal magnetism impelled brother to rise against brother, it might be well to explain our use of the term, “litigation in Boston”. We refer to the legal battle in the courts of Massachusetts to determine the respective rights and powers of the. Christian Science Board of Directors on the one hand and the Christian Science Board of Trustees of the Publishing Society on the other, both operating under the Manual of The Mother Church. In addition, the Trustees were bound by and operated under a Deed of Trust executed by Mrs. Eddy in the state of Massachusetts. During the several years from 1918 to 1922 during which time this case was tried, the whole Christian Bcience world became divided into two hostile camps, one supporting the Directors, the other supporting the Trustees. Many of those “loyal to the Directors” seemed unwilling to stop at anything in their effort to “boycott” the peodicals and make a “shell of the Publishing House” as was revealed in the court records of the trial. Scientists, young and old in experience and knowledge, entered a stampede, like a run on a bank, to cancel their subscriptions to the - odicals. Teachers and practitioners by the hundreds took their names out of Journal listings. In Rochester, N. Y. only one name remained from a former list of twenty; cities with a hundred names listed were reduced to twenty- five. Anyone seen reading a Sentinel, Journal or even our Monitor was accounted a heretic and called disloyal; in a mesmeric wave of fanatic frenzy, whole churches voted to prevent the sale of these periodicals in their reading rooms. Oh, how animal magnetism must have laughed at the Christian Science “thinkers”, - falling over themselves in such a frenzy to kill their own peodicals and at the same time inconsistently using on Sundays the Quarterlies published by the same Trustees whose other literature w being derided as spurious.

How easy it would have been for the Board of Directs-tors, in those days, to have sent a message to the Field as follows: “We are having a little difficulty here in Boston with animal magnetism endeavoring to use the doctrine of ‘Divide and Conquer’. But do not be disturbed, let everybody continue to pray and work, do not discontinue your support of the periodicals. They were established by our Leader and are the children of her life work. They can not and must not be harmed. Be obedient to her By-Laws to subscribe for and support them; when this error is all worked out in Boston, all will be well again.” There was no injunction against that kind of advice emanating from Boston. But no such letter was sent; the suit was won by the Directors. Since that time all who, during the litigation continued to subscribe for the periodicals, have been pen-ized in various ways. Many have been made to recant or have been purged from the Movement. One of the best and fairest accounts of both sides of the controversy is to found i Studdert Kennedy’s book, “Christ!tian Science and Organized Religion”, published by the Farallon Press in San Francisco, Califoia.

While we have devoted a good,deal of space to the discussion of the absence of these periodicals from the les of the reading rooms, we feel that there are many other situations needing correction that are also directly attributable to the litigation in Boston, thus corroborating our con-tentio: that the Boston war has not been settled and that if our Cause is not to have a second war, steps must be taken at once to prevent it, for ‘the indications are that animal magnetism is fast marshalling its forces for another attack upon our beloved Cause.

We all know, now, that a different attitude on the part of the Allies, in regard to the first world war, even as late as. Japan’s invasion of Manchuria or Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia, would have prevented Hitler’s action in Czechoslovakia and the subsequent loss of millions of lives. A different action on the part of the Christian Scientists in the Field right now may save, and probably will save, the situation that is everywhere becoming increasingly evident to those who are alert enough to see.

In discussing this matter of the litigation, there is surely no reason why the acrimonious and unloving manifestations accompanying the discussion in 1920 should repeated. We need not forget the Bible admonition in Abraham’s words to Lot, “Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, for we be brethren.” Our effort in these pages is, as we have repeatedly pointed out, to do nothing to set brother against brother, but to unite the brothers in defending their wonderful heritage from the onslaughts of animal magnetism. You all recall the refer-thence we made to the Punch and Judy show, wherein the operator behind the scenes pulls the strings that make Punch punch Judy. Our effort is solely devoted to arousing the. Field to defend against the mesmeric influence that nakes brother punch brother.

The situation in regard to Herbert Eustace is also a

very important reason for our contending that the war in Boston of twenty years ago is not settled. He, as you know, was chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Publishing Society at that time. He was excommunicated by the Directors shortly after the decision of the court was handed down. Since then, he has been made to appear in the minds of the Christian Scientists as if he were a Judas or a Benedict Arnold, who had plotted the destruction of The Mother Church. Instead of love and tolerance extended to a man who had the courage to live up to his highest convictions of what he thought Mrs. Eddy had entrusted to him in her Deed of Trust, he has suered calumny, intolerance and persecution almost as great as Mrs. Eddy herself received. While we, of Paul Revere, do not know the man, we do know the Bible, and the Rule for Motives and Acts in the Manual. Jesus said, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.” And this man’s fruits are good. His writings and books are inspiring and well worth reading; his attitude toward those who excommunicated him has been most Christlike. He has continued to heal and teach as he felt led by God to do and he has outlived all of those who were his opponents during the litigation. His love for Mrs. Eddy and her demonstration is inspiring and probably second to none. As we wrote in the case of the Carpenters we are not upholding them nor their position, much as we should like to; neither are we upholding Mr. Eustace now, much as we should like to do that. This is not our purpose. But we are earnestly contending for the God-given rights of individuals to dier in their thoughts and interpretations of Principle without being penalized or persecuted by a majority with whom their interpretations may not agree. We all know our Leader’s words in regard to knowing when Truth leads by the fewness and faithfulness of its followers. Truth is rarely supported by the majorities, at least not until the minorities have been persecuted and robbed of their vision by the majorities. Surely the ending of the litigation and its consequent penalizing and purging of those who disagreed with the majority point of view could not very well be considered a spiritual demonstration, even by its most ardent supporters.

While Mr. Eustace had a sufficient knowledge of Christian Science to prevent animal magnetism from thwarting his efforts to heal and teach Christian Science in Mrs. Eddy’s name, others have not been so strong and have either recanted or failed to make their demonstrations. We do not like to report anything that we do not know to be facts but we have the report that the original 17th Church in Chicago made an effort to resist the purge, but was unable to do so and finally went into bankruptcy and failed. If any of our correspondents who were formerly members of that church should care to give us the facts, we should appreciate it.

We do, however, know the history of Fourth Church in Rochester, N. Y.; that its present difficulties and what it has had to meet for twenty years are directly traceable to its fearless stand in regard to the litigation. It is still standing. We salute it and extend to it our eaest hope that it will be able to continue. It is but another proof that the “litigation incident”, to use the Japanese expres-^ion, is not finished and settled. We feel that the recent removal of Peter V. Ross from his posts is also traceable directly to the litigation.

While these incidents which we have narrated, and also the seeming condition of the whole Movement at the present time, seem to be effects of an improper interpretation and use of the decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, we, of Paul Revere, feel that the whole “litigation incident” was but an effect of an underlying error that animal magnetism has caused the Field to accept, and has not yet been uncovered and destroyed.

Here is our concept of the situation: When, in 1910, the Board of Directors, bewildered by Mrs. Eddy’s passing and the consequent responsibility this suddenly placed upon them, sought, like Asa of old, not unto the spiritual interpretation of her By-Laws, but unto the lawyers and their legal ruling, they apparently and innently bound themselves to a method which has ever since been flaring fruit after its own kind. We refer to the matter of violating the By-Laws in the Manual by waiving, as though they did not exist, those By-Laws which require Mrs. Eddy’s written consent and approval. We discussed this in Chapter Two, “Our Church Manual”.

The acceptance of this purely legal and human interpretation soon developed the issue of “who shall be greatest” between two brothers, - the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees. Our Leader, recognizing the inherent tendency of the human mind toward domination, and toward the concentration of decisive power in the hands of one or more individuals, determined to offset this tendency so far as she possibly could. To this end she established two separate and distinct authorities. Some six years after she had created the Board of Directors in 1892 and had prescribed their duties of general supervision of the Movement, she deliberately went out of her way to create another authority, to tablish it by law as a “perpetual and irrevocable Trust and confidence” and to stipulate that its members should carry on the business of the Trust strictly “upon their own responsibility” and be alone responsible for “all pamphlets, tracts, and other literature pertaining to said business, using their best judent as to the means of preparing and issuing the same.” These quotations from Mrs. Eddy’s Deed of Trust to the Trustees, its wording, her underscoring in the original deed, all go to show that Mrs. Eddy was desirous of making it as absolute and final as she possibly could and to constitute the Trustees as absolute and final in their field as she possibly could make them. Thus the two brothers, each with separate authorities, were to work together in demonstrated unity, but not the so-called unity we have had since 1922, (the unity of dpotic power), absolutely in violation of Mrs. Eddy’s intention. Since then one brother has subdued and mastered the other and we of Paul Revere feel that the growing unrest and unhappy condition of the field is directly the result of this failure to function as our Leader intended.

The prosperity of the United States is founded on the unity of three branches of government; the Executive, Judiciary and the Legislative, - each separate, distinct and uncontrolled by the others but working together for the common good. If a President succeeds in packing the Supreme Court, not only the rights of free men are jeopardized but the prosperity and harmony of the whole country is a ected. Is not this what animal magnetism has succeeded in doing to our Christian Science Movement?

Are not the prophetic words of Charles Evans Hughes, the distinguished counsel for the Trustees, coming true? In summing up, in his final argument before the Court, he said, “The true harmony for this Church of Christian Science is by studying the teachings of Mrs. Eddy, confo-ing themselves to the truth which the members of the Church believed had been revealed to her, and then, by seeking to act together in their various responsibilities, to have that unity which will promote the cause to which she was devoted. The unity which these gentlemen (Board of Directors) wish, the unity of despotic power, the control absolutely of this entire govement of Christian Science in the Church and its publications and everywhere else - that is the unity which might very well destroy the very faith or the organization for propagation of the faith to which they profess to be devoted.” Mr. Hughes saw it then, more clearly than did the majority of the Christian Scientists. We are now experiencing what he foresaw.

The Directors chose a merely legal interpretation of the By-Laws.

Operation of legal By-Laws required a supreme authority, - a “king to rule over us”.

The Directors, through a legal contest, obtained this human authority.

To preserve it, punishment and penalties were and still are imposed.

Thus the effects of the litigation will be felt until the Field sees that · the cause has been animal magnetism,- not Boards nor -churches nor persons.




Chapter Nine: Thou Shalt Nots

Any student of Christian Science that will view impartially, the personal history of Mrs. Eddy will see at once, that her life embodied a twofold purpose; the discovery of Christian Science, and her demonstration of its teaching by proving its effectiveness in solving all of the problems which arose in the minutia of her daily living.

It was evident to the students that served in her household, that she was steadfast in her determination, that neither she, nor any of them, should ever resort merely to the reasoning and logic of mortal mind for the solution of the problems of everyday life. She demanded that every task be demonstrated, whether it be to cook a meal, arrange the furniture in her room, or whether it be the great work of preparing the Manual of The Mother Church. Nowhere could it be found that Mrs. Eddy swerved from her determination to prove that no duty can be too menial, and no undertaking can be too unimportant, to seek first God’s wisdom in carrying it out. She, undoubtedly, hoped that, by her example and her admonition to her students she had inspired them sufficiently, so that they, too, would resort to the divine Mind alone for guidance in every affair.

So it is indeed tragic, that, so few years after her passing, we nd the officers of the Movement, when faced with a crisis which might shake the very foundations of the Cause, forgetting all that Mrs. Eddy had so laboriously demonstrated for herself and taught to her students. When confronted with so important a decision the Directors sought not to Principle alone,- but appealed to human laws and regulations, - the very antithesis of all Mrs. Eddy had taught and lived and tried so hard to have her students practise. As a result there followed the litigation, that dark chapter in the history of our Movement, the aftermath of which is yet in evidence.

Fifo/ t•Bf6n

The litigation in Boston in 1922 ended with a decision favorable to the Directors. Legally the Directors won the case. Metaphysically, the Directors, the Trustees, the Field and every Christian Scientist lost the case. Animal mag-etism alone Was the victor. It has been exploiting its triumph ever since. A legal victory adjudicates one side alone, victorious. The vanquished submits in humiliation. The aftermath of a legal victory is disappointment, chagrin, bitterness and spiritual dullness. But an honest difference of opinion between two parties, determined to turn to Prints-ciple for a solution rather than to secular laws, can always be settled with no victor, no vanquished, no punishment and no ^lavery. The victory of Principle leaves no heartaches nor enmity ut instead generates love and understanding and tolerance and spiritual growth.

We are not here concerned with the right or wrong of the decision in the Litigation Case. We are concerned with the fact that animal magnetism was the impulse back of the litigation which caused the two Boards to act they did; also the fact that, since that time, it has not been generally recognized that the same belief of animal magnetism, working within our Cause, is yet present today, largely unseen and unopposed.

That this is tue is attested to in one case, by the following incident: some time ago in one of our large cities a

ristian Scientist asked a reading room attendant for an article by Mrs. Eddy in the Journal of February, 1889. The article is of great import to us today. It is upon the subject of animal magnetism, valuable for any student to read and study. The attendant said that the article was available all right and could be read although the subject was relatively unimportant now. He added that Mrs. Eddy herself taught her students to handle animal magnetism but “we, today, do not need to consider it seriously in treating.”

So the aftermath of the litigation carries with it the seed of another contest by giving animal magnetism free rein. The signs are everywhere abundantly evident. We see unhappy conditions in the Field. We see many unhappy Christian Scientists hoping that there will be some change; lking of these conditions and deploring them but doing nothing about them except to attack some church or somebody, or the Board of Directors at Boston, meanwhile leaving the real culprit, animal magnetism, unopposed. The signs of the presence of this malevolent influence are nowhere more evident than in the “Thou shalt nots” of branch church by-laws. The rigid rules for the examination of applicants for membership, based upon categorical questions involving definitions; prying into the financial condition of applicants, whether their bills have been paid or not; how “loyal” they are to the Directors at Boston instead of The Mother Church, to the Manual,, and to the Rule for Motives and Acts; these are all examples. The tenor of these catechetical inquisitions is similar to that which animal magnetism used to foster the animosities and dictatorial proceedings which led to the litigation - namely, an orthodox tribunal wanting to sit in judgment un the acts of others.

One, now all but universal interdiction used in Christian Science churches is the gradual revival of a sort of Judaical classification of sins, the commission of which indicts an applicant as unworthy, and precludes admission to a Christian Science church. This, too, is a product of the

In the book of Leviticus, (Smith and Goodspeed trs-lation), may be found these instructions: “You may eat the following: whatever has jointed legs above its feet with which to leap upon the ground. But all winged insects which simply have four feet are detestable for you.” Later in the same book there are further instructions to this effect: “You must not shave around your temples, nor do away with the corners of your beard; you must not make incisions in your body for the dead, nor tattoo any marks upon yourselves, for I am the Lord.”,

Acts 15:1, reads: “Some people come down from Judea and hegan to teach the brothers that unless they were cir-cumcized as Moses prescribed, they could not be saved.” hi the 11th Chapter of Acts, it is related that Peter was charged “with having visited and eaten with men who were not Jews.” And some mode churches have banned rd-playing, dancing and going to the theatre.

These acts were looked upon as belonging to the general classification of sin. Doers of these things were unworthy of the company of the elect. Today we think the Levitican regulations silly. Who cares, say we, whether an insect has jointed legs or four feet with which to leap upon the ground. But it was serious business to the Israelites. It made a vast difference whether the applicant for membership into the company of the brethren had shaved around his temples or sinfully done away with the corners of his beard. Evidently the Levites considered these habits as evidence of a lack of spirituality, a lack of desire to overcome vanity. In other words, sinful. And surely the company of the elect was no place for the sinful! Besides, what would the public think of a church, a member of which was seen on the street with the corners of his beard trimmed! So, sins were classified very rigidly as you will see, if you take the trouble to read the book of Leviticus. Nothing, however, was· mentioned about admitting these “sinners” and healing them. No! their “sins” branded them, and kept them out.

Christian Scientists are not concerted with the cut of men’s beards, nor with the anatomy of insects’ legs, so we do not ask any applicant about these things nor debar him from membership for these particular “sins”. But many churches have invoked the same sort of procedure; that of prescribing that certain habits shall be classified as more sinful than others and must be overcome before joining a Christian Science church.

Most everyone will agree that whoever may be appointed judges to select the errors which must be overcome before admission to a Science Church, will be sure to omit any errors which the judges themselves may ‘have found impossible to overcome. Perhaps the judges wear glasses or drink tea or coffee or their tempers may not be the most docile or they may have a physical claim. So those are not included and the judges may decide upon smoking and drinking intoxicants as the errors to be overcome by the neophyte before we “shall visit and eat with them” as the Jews might have said to Peter. And so we nd the Levitican applicant debarred from ·’association with the elect” unless he had overcome a vain desire “to do away with the corner of his beard” or had been unable to suppress an inordinate appetite for “winged insects which simply have four feet” instead of satisfying his hunger with “whatever has jointed legs above its feet with which to leap upon the ground.” And we nd the applicant to The Mother Church and most branch churches debarred if he either smokes or drinks intoxicants.

There is very little basis for discrimination between the ideas back of all these restrictions and regulations. It is the old and timeworn method of animal magnetism to create class distinction; to mark the poor sinner as unworthy; to single out his faults and classify them by degrees; and to shun his company.

Lest we be misunderstood in what we have said about smoking and drinking, let us assure the reader that we who write as Paul Revere are in full accord with the posits-tion taken by Mrs. Eddy toward such habits as these. We believe that they should be overcome by every Christian Scientist. But why stop at smoking and drinking intoxi-fonts? On page 406 of Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy has written: “The depraved appetite for alcoholic drinks, tobacco, tea, coffee, opium, is destroyed only by Mind’s mastery of the body.” A desire for tea or coffee then is a depraved appetite. Why not deny admission to those who drink these beverages?

A fact many Christian Scientists do not seem to realize is that the Manual of The Mother Church gives every branch church the right to make its own By-Laws. If a church chooses to admit into its membership smokers, drinkers of intoxicants or any other person, that church is within its rights regardless of what the Board of Directors at Boston, or any other church or any other Christian Scien-theist, anywhere, contends. Article XXIII, Section 10, of our Manual expresses this unequivoca1ly: “In Christian Science each branch church shall be distinctly democratic in its government, and no individual, and no other church shall interfere with its affairs.”

We know well a church, which, in conformity to this By-Law, took the stand that it should not exclude anyone from its membership on the ground, alone, that he smoked, drank tea or coffee, wore glasses or had failed to overcome other claims common to all of us, (Board of Directors, teachers, practitioners and neophytes, alike). The members of this church were devoted to the ideal that a church should “afford proof of its utility” by its healing work, accepting in its membership, not only those who needed physical healing but moral regeneration as well. The mem-fibers were deeply conscious that, while some of their number had overcome smoking, others had not had this claim to meet, so had come into membership without the need to overcome any “sin”.

In the Manual of The Mother Church, nothing is mentioned about smoking or drinking. There is not the slightest reference to excluding applicants from membership for any such reasons. The present instructions issued from Boston advising teachers and others not to recommend persons who smoke or drink are tantamount to a violation of both the letter and spirit of the By-Laws.

The branch church which we have mentioned, therefore, took the position that if smokers and drinkers could be healed more quickly by being members, then, by all means, they should be admitted. It proved the truth and rightness of its position by the members that were healed.

Just as the Directors in 1921-22 sought, by legal means, an authority over the Trustees, relying upon legal statutes instead of Principle, so now we nd the branch churches following, unthinkingly, (as mortal mind would have them do) an officialdom that has returned to the ancient classification of sins. Placing some who have been “purified” in seats of judgment. Creating by-laws directing such as these to “cast the first stone.”

The animal magnetism which sought to legal interpretations of the By-Laws instead of to Principle in 1911; the animal magnetism that impelled the Directors in 1921 to resort to courts instead of to Principle in a contest for authority; the animal magnetism which haunts us still with “thou shalt nots”, and classification of sins; that resorts to circumvention of Mrs. Eddy’s By-Laws, and persecution of those who dier with whatever view officialdom dissemin-states; all these are branches of the same tree, the root of which is animal magnetism bent upon the destruction of our beloved Cause.

The animal magnetism of 1911, 1921, 1943 is the same. It is the attacker of our spirituality. Intent upon the destruction of our Cause, and with all the subtlety of the serpent, it presents to us the apple of “kingship” which, partaking of, will cast us again from the Garden. The way to the gates of Paradise has been clearly pointed out by Mrs. Eddy. Great shall be the day when we shall follow her teachings, not only in word but in Spirit and Truth; when we shall no longer resort to the physicians, as did Asa of old, but when we shall seek only to Principle for guidance; when it shall no longer be said “who shall be greatest”.




Chapter Ten: Our Present Policy—Whither?

“The method of error, to divide and conquer, prevails like an epidemic in the Field, and no office is high enough to be beyond its reach. That is why I have taken a hand in church affairs and intervened. I have been called a pope, but authority has been forced upon me by necessity. Why, the Board had five dear churches under discipline at one time, and to what end? Good people do not change at once from good to evil, any more than bad from evil to good. And who of us can cast the first stone? Our organist-zation is made up of members, and if we do not understand this, must it not disappear from the face of the earth?

Is it not simple? en one sees that Christian Science is

the Way and the only way, he is ready for church membership, and there is no other requirement. Then one’s ability to heal the sick through Christian Science, and this alone, shows his position as a Christian Scientist. Not the cries of Lord! Lord! and not the bowing to ecclestical despotism; but by their fruits ye shall know them.” So wrote our beloved Leader in a letter, a part of which is referred to on page 343 of Miscellany.

In this letter, Mrs. Eddy states that five dear churches were under discipline at one time and asks this question: “to what end?” She says that she wrote to each church “in tenderness, in exhortation, and in rebuke, and so brought all back to union and love again.” (My. 343, 28).

An analysis of this situation compels us to admit that Mrs. Eddy disapproved of the method or policy pursued by the Board; she substituted a higher one of her o which produced immediate results. Then the Board’s method must have been wrong. If, then, a Board composed of students whom she herself had taught and selected for this high office could be wrong, - a Board whose members had opportunity for constant contact and instruction from our Leader, - why should we, of Paul Revere, hesitate to question the policy and methods of subsequent Boards, who have had no such contacts? In writing to the Field, we desire to do nothing to make the difficult task of the Directors more difficult, but neither do we accept any premise that, as individuals or as Directors, they occupy a position that the Field can not analyze and appraise impartially their acts. We are endeavoring to break a mesmerism that has been growing fast throughout the Field, - that the membership cannot think for itself; that all thinking which results in determination of policy must emanate from Boston and that to question the rightness of such policies brands one as “disloyal”. This, of course, is purely priestcraft. While the provisions of the Manual wisely make the Board of Directors a self-perpetuating body, these provisions do not deprive the Field of the opportunity of definitely participating in the selection of their successors. The higher the Field lifts its thought, the higher will be the spiritual standard of the Board the Field demonstrates. Consequently, it is of the greatest importance that the membership never relinquishes its right to review the acts of the Directors as related to the formation of policy affecting the whole Movement. After all, the Field furnishes the money with which to pay the bills and salaries.

Here is a matter of policy about which we wish to speak plainly, but kindly. In doing so, we want to repeat what we have said so often before - we are not trying to cast reflections upon any person or group of persons. Nevertheless, the Directors having gained supreme authority by a legal contest must answer for every act and policy, - since these policies and acts are now their own responsibility.

In a former chapter we referred to the action of the Board of Directors in regard to the Carpenters of Providence, Rhode Island, and the removal from the Christian Science Journal of their names as teachers and practitioners. Now, more recently, the Field is astounded and shocked at the removal of Peter V. Ross, first as editor of the periodicals and later· from the Lecture Board. We have heard for several weeks that his name too, is to be removed from our Journal. Such occurrences, whatever justification they may have in the eyes of the Directors, are serious situations affecting every member of The Mother Church. We, of Paul Revere, are not so much concerned with the merits of the cases that seem to demand such sentences being passed upon some of our outstanding Christian Scien-theists, as we are with the policy pursued.

Presumably the Board, whose action in paroling five churches Mrs. Eddy so strongly disapproved, felt that they had justifiable reasons from the Manual for their actions, and we assume they acted up to the highest concept of Christian Science that they possessed; nevertheless Mrs. Eddy’s concept of her Science did not warrant such a procedure and she proved that there was a better way. We of Paul Revere feel absolutely assured that Mrs. Eddy’s teaching shows that there is a better way of handling the evil conditions.

Do you remember that she says in Miscellaneous Writ-flings: “The notion that one is covering iniquity by asserting its nothingness, is a fault of zealots, who, like Peter, sleep when the Watcher bids them watch, and when the hour of trial comes would cut o somebody’s ears.” We all know that error is destroyed by someone’s seeing its nothingness. And that from the above statement, seeing its nothingness is not covering the iniquity but is the most e ective way of healing it.

As Christian Scientists, we are confronted with the same evil which other people have to meet - in the same forms and oftentimes in more aggravated degree. Where dier is in our method of handling it. We know that we destroy it only on the basis of our seeing its nothingness, which is possible because of our knowledge of the infinitude of God.

To illustrate the point we desire to make, let us pose the question: “Why can not an old theology minister heal a case of diphtheria; why can a Christian Science practitioner take the same case and heal it?” Both are go spiritually minded men, both have the same G, the se Bible, yet the one cannot heal and the other n. Why? It is not sufficient to say that one has less understanding of G than the other. While that is so, let us be more spic. e old theologian^n sees in his patient a poor, mi erable, sick and sinning man; he gets on his knees and implores his God to heal this poor shiner. Like the prophets of Bl, no healing rewards his eaest eos. The practi- stoner starts with a peect God and sees the image and likeness of this perfect God as the man; he denies that ere is any pr sinner. We l know this heals and we all know why. Are there not many persons sitting in our ranks as Christian Scientists, who fail to exrience· the heang they desire, because they still see themselves d others as pr, miserable, suering sinnerl? en men in the Christian Science Moveme are branded up and down the leth of the land by putting them on parole, are those responsible for the branding using the Christian Science method of healing - or does it indicate that “old theology” is sitting in the seats of authority where policies are made? And does this branding dier much in intent and results from the vicious practice described by Nathaniel Hawthorne in his famous book of branding the scarlet “A” un an unfortunate female victim of evil? Did that method heat anything? Has it ever healed anything? Is not the Christian Science method the only remedial philosophy ever discovered for the healing of sin and disease?

What does Mrs. Eddy mean when she writes these words: “You may condemn evil in the abstract without harming any one or your own moral sense, but condemn persons seldom, if ever. Improve every opportunity to correct sin through your own perfectness.” (My. 249, 1-4). Are these just idle words that mean nothing or are they an admonition to be followed?

We referred in a previous chapter to the policy pursued at present in regard to smoking and drinking. We hold no brief for the continuance of either of these two evils, but we strongly contend that the present unscientific policy makes a greater reality of both these errors and thus is making them more difficult to eradicate from mortal consciousness. Most people realize today that the Meth- foist Church accomplished practically nothing in the d struction of dancing, playing cards and going to the theatre, which a few decades ago they considered heinous sins. Even the Methodists themselves today commit all of them.

y does the Christian Science church follow the theological policy of the Methodist Church which failed, instead of following the policy laid down and earnestly taught to her folltwers by our dear Leader? Is not animal magnetism undermining our Movement by having our policies deteined by “old theolo” instead of the teachings of Christian Science?

We should like to illustrate our point by relating an experience with which We are familiar. We know of a teacher to whose name is at least given the usual dignity and go repute accorded by the customary Journal listing. He was standing in the foyer of a large Christian Science church when a man approached him and talked to him, - a man under the influence of alcohol, but who had come to this church to be healed. The teacher, ashamed to be seen talking to this “sinner”, told him to move on and not stand talking to him. The man went into church, but he was not healed of this claim. Suppose, on the other hand, the teacher had been spiritually minded enough to have seen something of the perfect man instead of the poor miserable sinner, - the man would probably have been healed. Mrs. Eddy says that she built up her church on the basis of spiritual healing.

In that little incident regarding the teacher is illustrated the whole present unscientific policy of our church toward this evil. Its advocates do not want the Science Church to be filled with any but “good people”; - do not want smokers and drinkers to be seen on the steps of a Science Church. Would not the world be a better place in which to live if, in front of each Science Church, there was a procession of the lame, the halt, the blind, the sensual, the drinkers going in to be healed and coming out upright, pure and free? Our present policy will never bring this to pass. Oh! for the love not talked but lived!

There is another phase of error along this same line, of which we should like to write very plainly. To our mind, it is more serious than. either the drinking or the smoking and yet its victims are not debarred from church membership. It needs the enlightened and Christian thought of all thinking Christian Scientists in every field for its depredations are in every hamlet, town and city, - where^ ever men practitioners are endeavoring to heal the sick in Christ’s name. We refer to the matter of human love and sex. When a woman comes to a male practitioner for help on a problem, - be the. problem, physical, domestic or any other kind, - often animal magnetism makes he^ mistake his kind effort to help her as one of personal interest in her. She is comforted and healed, but she is also sure tht he is in love with her; then the trouble begins. It makes no difference whether the man has a wife and children and a happy home, the woman is sure that this man is her soulmate that she has waited years to nd. It also makes no difference if there are from one to a dozen other women who feel the same way about the same practitioner, - she is still sure that her love for him is the only one. She then starts possessing him, using every art and artifice known to Eve’s descendents to get him to eat of the apple that the serpent is offering to them both. As there are more females than males, and more females than males in the practice, and as there are more females sick than males, it compels us to present this picture as if the sinner committing the first overt act is the female. There are perhaps many men who as practitioners seem to have this problem to meet and whose wives are unaware of it. They, in their efforts and desires to be true and devoted to their wives are faced with this problem, day in and day out, and all the knowledge of Christian Science they possess is required to resist this most subtle aht of animal magnetism. They need compassionate support, not condemnation.

It makes not the slightest difference to animal mag-aetism whether the male practitioner is married or single, -it is all the same. The Directors, in their efforts to meet it, try the human way, - by selecting officers, lecturers, teachers and others, who are married instead of single. But of course, this does no more good than any other human method of dealing with manifestations of animal magnetism. Neither does punishment of its victims heal or destroy animal magnetism - but leaves it still active to use other victims.

The pity of it is that this phase of animal magnetism strikes openly and viciously at our best,- our best teachers, lecturers, writers, editors and practitioners. Those who know the history of the Christian Science Movement know that this is so and that it is often our good men, our spiritual writers and thinkers who have been attacked, who have succumbed and been beaten down by this sinister octopus of animal magnetism. Before we, in the field, accept from the Directors any castigation which imposes in e ect, the penalty of the “Scarlet Letter”, let us ask ourselves, “Did animal magnetism strike at our header so viciously and so tenaciously because she was a b woman or because she was the highest and purest example of womanhood the world has ever known? It struck and struck and struck in every conceivable form because she was good. And so it strikes at our writers and lecturers and teachers who have been the greatest sources of inspiration and spiritual uplift, - men who have inspired and helped in healing countless thousands by their writings and teachings. The day before they had been branded and disgraced with the “Scarlet Letter”, their writings had been adjudged inspiring and helpful; have they changed, the day after? Not a particle; the only thing that has changed is our thought about them. In considering this, it is well to remember that in the years to come, benefits will continue to be received by the readers of their writings, readers who know nothing of the brand put upon them by the authorities of their day.

Let us take a hypothetical case: Suppose one of the standard bearers of Christian Science - one whose writings have helped thousands - is attacked by animal magnetism in the form of some woman using the Judas words, “I love you.” Under its influence she begins to mesmerically possess him. Everything good and upright in him endeavors to get free, but like the tentacles of a mighty octopus, the more he struggles to get free, the tighter the grasp of the mesmeric thing and seemingly the more difficult. The very nature of the struggle almost precludes his asking for help from others. Finally, the woman, unable to obtain her desires in any other way rerts to exsure and brings do into disgrace and disrepute the one to whom animal magnetism made her say the Judas words: “I love you.” Hate and revenge are now the goveing thought.

Under the present policy, such a one is tried, sentenced, branded with the “Scarlet Letter’’, removed from office and the Field deprived of the inspiration of his spiritual vision; the woman, no longer useful as a tool of animal magnetism, goes her way, forgotten. The organized evil, whose feeling and purpose Mrs. Eddy describes as deadly, on page 177 of Miscellaneous Writings and which has sworn enmity against the lives of our standard bearers, has chalked up another victim to its credit.

Of course, we are not contending that the wrong should continue, if it is occurring, but we are contending that when the Christian Science policy of overcoming this and other evils, becomes similar to the “old theology” one, the results will be the same now as in the days of which Hawthoe wrote. Such methods, we all know, will not destroy animal magnetism. Its success will lend encouragement to the ensnaring of other victims. Evil uses people; people never use evil. Let us of the Field strike at the evil that is picking o our standard bearers; let us strike at the tentacles of the octopus but let us never strike down the poor victim in its grasp. To do so aids only the enemy of our Cause.

And besides, even if this policy were right which we contend it is not, who is so pure, so good, so undeled as to “throw the first stone?” We like the interpretation of John 8:9, by Prof. Gregory of Leipzig: “When Jesus stooped to write on the ground, the woman’s accusers interpreted the act as an admission that they had made out their case. Looking up he said, ‘Let him that is without sin amongst you cast the first stone,’ and again wrote on the ground. The oldest man present looked down to see what Jesus was writing. His name was Eldad. He read: ‘Eldad stole a house from Joram’s widow.’ He did it under the fo of law. But it was true. He could not stone the woman. And he went out. Jesus began to write again. He wrote swiftlJ, for the next scribe had eagerly begun to read. His name was Nahum. He read: ‘Nahum slew Azidad in the desert.’ And the days long gone by came back to him. He saw his sta fall upon his friend when no one was there to see. And he went out. Jesus wrote faster and faster, and the scribes went out faster and faster until none were left.”

Applying the same standard of judgment, we repeat Mrs. Eddy’s question in our opening paragraph: “And who of us can cast the first stone?” Can the Board of Directs-tors? Could you if you were appointed to the Board? Could we of Paul Revere if we were? We can answer only for ourselves. Our answer is in the negative. at is yours?

If the present policy is right, can you conceive of it in operation when the membership of The Mother Church reaches ninety millions? We can not. We feel that it is not right now and that a change must come sometime. We also know that this change can come only as the Field consciousness rises to the point where it will support the Directors in taking the higher way that Mrs. Eddy proved was the more effective one. Can we not all help in supporting the Directors in taking the first steps up this spiritual road?




Chapter Eleven: Policies—Not Persons

It h en the constant effort of the authors that nothing of the nature of a personal attack upon anyone shall be written into these pages. Not only would a per-onal attack accomplish nothing, but it would be entirely contrary to the spirit of The Mother Church By-Laws, the Sermon on the Mount and the animus of all of Mrs. Eddy’s writings. Of the large number of letters that have come to us each month commenting un our pamphlets, few are critical of what we write. Occasionally a writer has left us with the impression that he believes we have indulged in a personal attack on the Board of Directors. ere might be others who share such an opinion. For these we oer the following explanation.

Let us remind you once again that the work, carried on by the group who write as Paul Revere, is done at the expense of much time and effort as well as financial sacri-ce. Obviously there is no financial benet to anybody. The fact that we write under a nom-de-plume obviates the possibility of personal exploitation on our part and for the same reason the reader must judge of the merits of what we write without thought of who the· writer may be. We e doing this because we love the Cause; and because we !ee the peril that confronts it. Large numbers of Christi Scientists are not aware of the danger to our Cause. Our effort is to awaken them to see the danger and consecrate themselves to the prayerful effort that will overcome this seeng evil; an evil that would try to destroy the very Truth of which the world is in such dire need now.

The mention made of the acts of the several Boards which have functioned since Mrs. Eddy’s passing in 1910, h in no case been a personal attack upon any Board mem-fiber. When we speak of the acts of the Board, we do not mean to attack individual Board members, but to call attention to policies which are, presumably, the outcome of e combined demonstration of the Board as a whole. When these policies have been formulated and emanate to the Field they become, in the eyes of Christian Scientists, die-tus or regulations from the Board, not from individual members of the Board. Once published, these emanations from the Board become impersonal so far as the Field is concerned. One more often hears it said by Christian Scientists that “Boston” has ruled thus, than that the “Board of Directors” have so ruled. Any questioning of policies of the Board, therefore, either by invidual Christian Scientists or the writers is directed toward t policies

No one who subscribes to our democratic form of

S,venty-three Government and the Constitution of the United States, and particularly the Bill of Rights contained therein, could possibly challenge our right or the right of any member of The Mother Church to analyze and criticize, if he deems it necessary, any and every act and pronouncement made by the Bod of Directors. Indeed unless Christian Scientists everywhere do subject the policies of the Directors to study an honest criticism, the Field has been derelict in its duty. If we do not test the acts of the Board of Directors by the rules laid down by Mrs. Eddy in our By-Laws, and measure their utterances by the Golden Rule laid down by the Master, we shall have failed in our duty as citizens of this great Cause.

The. Board of Directors at Boston, to a greater or less degree, sets the pace for branch churches and for the great majority of Christian Scientists. e Board is looked to as an example of the highest measure of practical demonstration of the Truth of Christian Science in human affairs. Whether or not the Board is aware of it, or condones it, or deplores it, the heights attained in demonstration by the Field will more often than not be limited to the degree of spiritual animus, love, tolerance and forebearance attained by the Board of Directors.

For example, many churches are now passing a collection plate for war relief after the Wednesday evening services. Mrs. Eddy was very positive and immediate in her denunciation when she heard of some churches which took a collection after a testimonial meeting. She said on page 148 of Miscellaneous Writings, “I specially desire that you collect no moneyed contributions from the people present on these occasions.” To be sure, at the present time, a meeting is called ter the close of the regular Wednesday evening service but that subterfuge to circumvent the spirit of our Leader’s instruction, fools no one. The point is that collections are taken up in branch churches and justified by saying, “they do it in The Mother Church.” Few branch churches even pause to question whether The Mother Church might be in error, - they just follow,

Seve ty-f our

“theirs not to reason why.” It is therefore hardly likely that branch churches and their memberships will demonstrate a higher level of spirituality in the conduct of their affairs than the general level of the Board in the conduct of its affairs.

This condition is not at all surprising. Frequent instructions and admonitions from the Board appear in the “Items of Interest” published in the Sentinel. The present periodicals and their influence upon the thought and acts of the Field are largely what the Board has made them. It must be expected, therefore, that the Board should be looked to by the neophyte, and other Scientists who have had relatively few years experience in the work. It is quite natural that they should accept without hesitation the dictums of the Board. For example, one of the authors of Paul Revere recently attended a Wednesday evening service in a large city. He was shocked to hear read from the desk, five different church notices, every one of which ended with one of the phrases, “By the authority of” or “with the consent of” or “with the approval of” “the Christian Science Board of Directors”. How could a neophyte or the general public possibly accept any conclusion but that such iteration five times was for the purpose of impressing the hearer that absolute and final authority in such matters lay with the Board of Directors at Boston. To these Scientists the organization has always been run this way. It must be right. They know of no higher method of demonstration than they see the Board attain. They are often flushed with the first enthusiasm of the benefits that they have derived from a taste of the beauties of Christian Science and its great healing work. They take the organization as they nd it. They love it, revere it, and too often worship it. They do not dream that any higher demonstration exists than that made by the Board in Boston when it comes to applying the Truth to problems of church organization. And they feel that it is quite logical to take the same process into personal relationships.

When Mrs. Eddy was perlonally with us, she provided

an example for all Christian Scientists in the Field and for the Directors as well. She admonished us to follow her only so far as she followed Christ. How could we know whether or not she followed Christ unless we had studied her life and work? She, therefore, placed upon Christian Scientists the obligtion to study her life and her work before they should follow her. If therefore, Mrs. Eddy admonished us to study her own life and her demonstrations of Christian Science, and do it critically enough to determine for ourselves whether or not she followed Christ, what possible onus could fall upon a Christian Scientist who now seeks to study and analyze and, if it seems expedient, cri icize the policies and acts of the Board of Directors?

As we have reiterated, the Board of Directors are not Mrs. Eddy’s successors. But we look to them to set a high example for the Field. If they do not, the Cause must 1mer. We are aware that the position of the Dirtors is a difficult one. They have a great resnsibility. We know, also, of the weakness of the human mind that does not wish to think for itself. It cries for a “King to rule over us.” But kings and potentates and dictators have no place in the domain of Christian Science. Each person is a law to himself. His ruler is God and none else. But the thoughtless person and the neophyte have not found this ou They demand a ruler. They must crown somebody. So they crown the Board of Directors. The Board may wish it otherwise, but they know it will happen beuse 1mch is the character of the human mind. Unless, however, the Board takes a determined stand not only mentally but outwardly, and proclaims through its publications, letters and admonitions that they do not consider themselves the imccessors of Mrs. Eddy and do not want and will not tolerate hero worship and adulation; unless the Board kes this determined stand they know that the Field will follow them blindly. The Board, indeed, needs our full 1mpport. Its work is difficult not only because of the attitude of unthinking followers but it has also to meet that most insidious of temptations of the carnal mind, kingship. It is indeed a mortal prize hard to resist. And the Bod has that to meet in addition to all the other seeming problems.

owing the temptations in the way of all Board members, and that they are human even as we are, can the right to scrutinize the acts of the human beings in this office be questioned? Who would dare to admit that any Board should be allowed to function forever with none to question its policies?

And so we who write Paul Revere not only study the letters and instructions to the Field which originate with the Board of Directors but we consider that it is our duty to do so. We have studied the utterances of the various Boards since 1910 as laid down in letters and instructions to the Field and to the branch churches. We have become convinced that many policies carried out by the Boards, since Mrs. Eddy’s passing have been inimical to the Cause. We are class-taught students, members of The Mother Church and branch churches, dating back, in some cases, to the time when Mrs. Eddy directed the affairs of the organization. We have studied her letters, methods and admonitions and we have contrasted them with the policies now pursued by the Boards which have taken over the direction of the organization since she left us.

Hundreds of letters are extant written by Mrs. Eddy to her Directors. These Directors were for the most part her students^ At times her criticism of them was sha. She found her own students too often functioning through human will instead of by demonstration. · When this took place she was incisive and immediate in her veto of what they had done. Demonstrations on the part of the Board, however, met with just as immediate approval from Mts. Eddy. Her thousands of letters and manuscripts in the Archives of The Mother Church, and elsewhere, contain a vast wealth of material showing her own methods in demonstrating for herself the Truth which she had discovered in Christian Science. From some of these, it is possible to glean what Mrs. Eddy expected of a Board of · Directors of The Mother Church in the conduct of its affairs. We have examined enough of her letters to the Board satisfy ourselves that what she thus ote contains enough spiritual instruction to solve the question perennially raised when, at the Annual Meeting of The Mother Church, certain By-Laws are repeatedly violated.

For example, on June 6th, 1944, at the Annual Meeting at Boston, there was announced the election of a President, a Clerk, and a Treasurer of The Mother Church. Article 1, Stion 2 of the Manual of The Mother Church states that “e President shall be elected, subject to the approval of the Pastor Emeritus, by the Board of Directors on Monday preceding the annual meeting of the Church.”

The Clerk and Treasurer, according to Section 3 of the same Article, can be duly elected only after having “consent of the Pastor Emeritus given in her own handiting.” The Readers, (Section 4, Article 1), can be elected only after the Pastor Emeritus shall be informed of the names of the candidates.

We who collaborate in the writing of Paul Revere have questioned this procedure for many years. We have asked why each individu Bod since 1910 did not nd a spiritual explanation of this inconsistency. We have had no answer to why no Board h made clear its position in this imant matter. For this is a direct violation of the By-ws of The Mother Church. The last By-w in the Manual clear states that no By-Law or Tenet shall be “ended or annulled, without the written consent of Baker Eddy”. Humanly the Pr Emeritus is not here

give consent to the eltion of ofcs. Mortal mind logic would say that, therefore, the By-w nnot be ced out. But Mrs. Eddy declared that these By-Laws were of God. If they were of G can they not be carried out in some way? Is there no spiritual interpretion? Is there no way to elt officers in consonance with these By-ws which Mrs. Eddy received from God? Is it a rson attk un our pa to bring this imrtant sub- jt to e attention of the Field r thirty yrs of violation of the By-Laws^ No. We do not attack pereonally members of the Board. We think that they are living up to their highest sense of right. But we should be derelict in our duty not to call attention to these policies which we think e wrong.

To what point an inconsistency will lead is sho by the sition taken by the Board at different times toward different By-Laws. The violation of those mentioned above, they evidently condone with some explanation satisfactory to themselves. The practical annulment goes on without protest.

But in 1920 the Board of Directors insisted that others cee to violate Article II, Section 14, to wit: “and it shall be the duty of the Directors to see that these periodi-canals are ably edited and kept abreast of the times.” In fact the Directors were so insistent that that By-Law be not “amended or annulled” that they obtained and accepted the ruling of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to force brother Christian Scientists to obey that By-w, at the se time doing nothing to prevent the violation of Article 1, Section 3 & 4, to which we referred. It seems another insnce of whose bull has been gored.

These facts illustrate mistaken policies and their results. ey indite a lack of demonstration. Was it a demonstration of uth to violate one set of By-Laws and seek and accept a ruling of the courts- enforce obedience of other set? Obviously not. If some of the By-Laws cre not from G which ones did? Did Article VIII, Section 14, which was settl by the courts, come to Mrs. Eddy by demonstrati? If so, did Mrs. Eddy fail in her demonstration when she wro the first article pertaining

election of officers? Are we indulging in a person attk when we mention these inconsistencies? Of course not and we are not brinng up past incidents like the litigation just to criticize or to attk the Board.

We are not being person. We believe we are saying what many e thinking but do not, for one reason or another, dare y for themselves. We are rm in the belief, also, that these issues must be met and decided before the Cause proceeds much farther. We believe that failure on the part of large numbers of Christian Scientists to see these things is contributing largely to the present lack of demonstration, so evident throughout the Field. We must not, therefore, permit ourselves to be influenced by animal magnetism to the acceptance of any direction from a centralized human authority without assurance that such regulations are the result of demonstration.

There is no more reason for a member of The Mother Church to be reluctant to question Board policies than for a citizen of the United States to question the policies of the President and Congress. Indeed, should we ever cease to weigh for ourselves the policies of either our civil govern-foment or church government we shall have allowed to be abrogated the very essence of true democracy; and our government and our Cause will soon fall into the sorry plight of medieval monarchies and mode Fascist states. Let us lea the lesson before it is too late.

We address you in the Field because within your care lies the great hope of universal emancipation from evil through the practical demonstration of Christian Science. Accept nothing written in these pages unless it be loving, and abides by the Golden Rule. The correction of any mistaken policies lies with the Field. These policies emanate from the Board. Support the Board lovingly and con-secratedly but let not your support shrink to the level of accepting every policy, right or wrong. Test the utterances and policies of the Board by the standard Mrs. Eddy set r herself. Follow the Board policies only so far as the Board follows Christ.




Chapter Twelve: A Resume

We have reiterated much in previous chapters as you probably have observed. We have done this for a purpose. The whole subject is complex and difficult. Nearly two thousand years have elapsed since Jesus trod the earth. It was eighteen hundred sixty-six years before Mrs. Eddy rediscovered the Science of Mind healing. The Truth does not come without a struggle. The application of Truth to all problems is not so simple. Its application to the conduct of a religious organization is, apparently, difficult. That is not strange for any organization, religious or secular, has inherent in it a great potential weakness. Organization implies a head, a top ranking person, a ruler. It encourages desire for power. Power begets lust for more power. That is the seed, always, of dissension and finally of disintegration; and seldom does disintegration come without disappointments and chagrin. Thus, like all things mortal and material, its birth impregnates within its body the seed of its own self destruction.

But our Christian Science organization, of all those in the world’s history, should prove that absolute depend-thence upon Truth alone solves all problems of organization, - not by majorities but by a unity of thought which comes to those who determine to reach the solution of every problem by demonstration alone. This can be done and must be done or else we shall gradually nd that we have, instead of the highest type of organization which Mrs. Eddy con- ived, a religio-politico body, acting from human legal statutes alone and subordinating the high sense of self effacement which Mrs. Eddy demanded of her Directors, to that leadership which depends for its continuity upon maintenance of its authority through penalties and punishment.

How do we know these things? How do we see them? The history of religious organizations of the past follow as clearly defined a pattern as any activity of man. One scarcely needs much spiritual discernment to see this clearly and draw the similarity between the influences which caused the fall of those religious bodies of the past and the clearly disceible mental attitude on the part of large numbers of Christian Scientists in the Field toward our own organization.

It is, indeed, the greatest pity that the policymakers

·· of our Cause do not see and profit from the experiences of the past. So much difficulty could be avoided. So much could be accomplished by the methods of demonsation that Mrs. Eddy pointed out to her students in her written instructions, by her personal admonitions, and throughout her writings. The Archives of The Mother Church alone contain enough material left by Mrs. Eddy concerning specific Board problems to guide present Boards to a higher plane of demonstration which could not help but change the whole course of the Movement. Should not these Archives be opened for investigation and study to those interested students sufficiently advanced to understand them? If they were opened such research would be of inestimable value to the Cause. We believe that this is the duty of the Board of Directors. They should certainly nd some practical means by which the Field can have this opportunity. Otherwise how can we ever get the great good that lies buried in these unpublished letters of Mrs. Eddy?

There are several premises which follow through the foregoing chapters. They all lead to the same conclusion. They all establish the same cause. The effects in each case are different but can be traced to the same source. It is difficult to condense these ideas into a few paragraphs but the theme progresses in about this way: A study of the life of Mrs. Eddy reveals the fact that she, herself, made every step one of demonstration. The writing of Science and Health and her other published works unquestionably was the product of her constant communion with the divine Mind. She saw not alone the advantage of going directly to Mind to nd the answer to every problem of life, but she discerned the absolute neceity of so doing, thus by example showing the necessity of our doing likewise if we are to reach the spiritual level which the Truth of Christian Science makes possible for each of us to attain.

becomes evident from Mrs. Eddy’s writings ghty-two that she saw the perils of organization and formed her organization reluctantly. While she was here she directed its affairs through her Board of Directs-tors. Many letters which she wrote to her Boards are extant and these show clearly to the thoughtful student the degree to which Mrs. Eddy insisted that her Boards depend upon demonstration in conduct of the Church matters. She constantly admonished them to do nothing except by demonstration. Her frequent rebukes of the Directors seem to be not so much because of their mistakes, as to rebuke their failure to demonstrate each step. The Boards too often failed in this respect. There is little doubt that Mrs. Eddy, as indeed any spiritually-minded person would, feared honest mistakes less than a departure from demonstration. After Mrs. Eddy left us, the major problem confronting the Board seems to have been that of interpreting the Manual provisions relating to the consent of the Pastor Emeritus in the election of officers of The Mother Church, and other By-Laws that also require the written consent of the Pastor Emeritus. Here was an immediate opportunity for the Board to demonstrate a spiritual interpretation of the Manual provisions which mortal mind said could not be carried out. No explanation having been made to the Field to the contrary, we must assume that, instead of demonstrating a spiritual interpretation of these issues, the Board accepted the mandate of mortal mind and followed a merely legal interpretation of the By-Laws. This act so early in the experience of the Board, after Mrs. Eddy was no longer here to direct, established a trend away from demonstration toward policies based upon the reasoning of mortal mind. Mrs. Eddy had hoped that her church would be conducted through reliance upon divine Mind, - in fight-y-three fact there would be little reason for its existence unless it should be thus conducted. Having embarked upon a course of depending upon human reason in the conduct of affairs rather than divine logic, it is not surprising that mortal mind should be at the helm; and soon another human interpretation of the By-Laws was forced upon the Directors concerting whom should be sufi-preme in authority, the incident being the litigation concerning the publication of the periodicals. While the legal procedure in that litigation pointed toward securing a court interpretation of one of the By-Laws in the Manual the-action, in the final analysis, was but a legal contest to decide whether a group of human beings should rule over the organization. (For an authentic account of that dark chapter of our church history we refer again to that very excellent work on the subject, “Christian Science and Organized Religion”, by Studdert Kennedy and published by the Farrallon Press, Saratoga, California. Mr. Kennedy in an analysis of the causes of the litigation contrasts clearly the two methods which lay before the Directors to settle a difference of opinion as to whose authority should be supreme. They were free to choose a process of legal reasoning and hope that mortal mind courts would sustain their contention; or they could seek a solution by demonstration alone and keep out of the courts. Mr. Kennedy’s imparts-tial presentation of the facts leaves the reader free to draw his own conclusions.) The inevitable aftermath of authority acquired by mortal mind laws rather than demonstration of Principle, has been the setting up of safeguards to shield and maintain official positions thus acquired. This has taken form in restrictions, bans, excommunications, probations, “Thou Shalt Nots”, and a very evident resistance on the part of the Eight’•fou:r Board to any criticism of its acts. The result has been the effort to repress freedom of the individual to speak or to read what he may believe should be read or said as a result of his own demonstration. Very largely, the members of The Mother Church and the Field have accepted, without any effective protest, the gradual tightening of the bands about its freedom of thought and speech. The cause is animal magnetism working so subtly that the majority of working and earnest Christian Scientists do not perceive it or else neglect to do anything about it. The Board, itself, operating under its in-uence does virtually nothing to allay this inu-thence of animal magnetism upon the Field. In fact, one gains the impression that all over the Field, the subject is minimized. Many will not even talk about it, in spite of the fact that Mrs. Eddy devoted one whole chapter in Science and Health to animal magnetism; two lesson sermons each year are prepared upon that subject; “Ways That are Vain” on page 210 of Miscellany is perhaps one of Mrs. Eddy’s most pointed statements upon the subject and explains much of the reason why we become unconscious victims of this heinous evil. What is the cure? To us it is exactly what thoughtless Christian Scientists say it is when they repeat, “Just see the Board and the Move-foment right and all will be well; God will take care of it.” The cure is just that, except, and the exception is of the greatest importance, except that we must first be able to detect the fact that within the organization there is already perceptible the influence of animal magnetism upon the policies of the officials in charge at Boston and upon the thought of the Field. It is our combinL’d responsibility to remove this influence but we shall never do that until we discern the claim that is to be destroyed. If, therefore, we see that claim and free ourselves om it and do the metaphysical work to strike from our great organization the shackles seemingly imposed by animal magnetism, the Directors will then be seen in their true light. We shall aid in freeing them, we shall make their work easier, we shall help them to bring policies in line with complete demonstration in the place of mortal mind reasoning. We shall not only bring great good to the Cause but we shall have developed that universal state of mind wherein we nd ourselves devoted not alone to our own welfare and that of a few patients or families or friends, but there will appear before our vision a larger and a grander view. We shall devote ourselves to that world emancipation from all evil which can be hastened through our help. By our combined efforts to this end we can bring, through our organization, the highest example of government by divine Prints-ciple alone, and thus the world may see the result of harmonious, loving and spiritual cooperation.

A tremendous opportunity lies before us. An organization such as ours, conducted upon Principle alone, taking every step by demonstration, can prove to the world that which it so much needs to learn,-that rulers and kings and dictators are but the puppets of mortal mind; that govement by Principle alone renders contests for authority unnecessary, removes wars, establishes the brotherhood of man, and will build a spiritualized concept that must n-ally lead us out of human organization into an “inheritance incorruptible, that fadeth not away,”-a veritable temple wherein dwelleth righteousness and peace.




Chapter Thirteen: Human Footsteps

Pamphlet Number Thirteen

Our dear Leader writes on page 281 of Miscellaneous Writings, “Among the fts of my students, this of yours is one of e most beautiful and the most costly, because you have signed your names.” She further states that she realized more clearly the next day the responsibility her students assumed in subscribing to Christian Science by sign their names to the gift. Many times we, of ‘’Paul Revere” have thought of these lines of our Leader and we have been moved deeply to see your own signatures upon the hun dreds of letters and checks which you have sent to us. It affects us more deeply. because we realize full well that while those who signed their names to the gift sent to Mrs. Eddy knew to whom it was going where you are willing and fearless enough to sign your names to letters addressed to a nome-plume. We want to assure you that we appreciate your trust in us and will do all in our power not to violate it.

More touching to us and perhaps more significant is what these letters indicate, coming as they do from every section of the country and some from abroad. The letters show, first, that which we so much desired, namely, that the message the pamphlets contain is being appraised on its own merits,-thout influence from a knowledge of the personality of the authorship. Secondly, the letters indicate that we are touching a responsive chord in the minds of thousands of Christian Scientists throughout the country We appreciate Elijah’s feeling as he heard the voice of God call to him in encourage-foment: “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal.” So you, with your letters, have surprised us and enabled us to open our eyes and see that the time to awaken to a more spiritualized method of conducting our Church organization is at hand. This awakening must no longer be delayed. Each year that animal magnetism lulls the Field to sleep the more difficult will be the breaking of the chains that this evil is forging while we sleep.

Most of you probably remember the days of unrestricted immigration into these United States. Europeans and Asiatics were entering in such millions that had the immigration not been checked, the vision of Ameca and all that the name stands for would have been swallowed up in a flood of the very ideas from which our forefathers sought to escape by coming to this country. But some other mode Paul Reveres must have seen what animal magnetism was endeavoring to do to the vision of our forefathers for the people were finally awakened to the peril besetting their heritage. A long hard fight ensued before the gates finally swung shut but it was none too soon.

Many years ago, our dear Leader came out from the orthodox church. At that time she was the only Christian Scientist on earth. She gathered together a little band of twenty-six pilgrims and started her Mayflower voyage upon seas unknown. Animal magnetism, as always, in belief, was alert then and worked many perils and hardships on the little bark in the early days of its voyage. Animal magnetism used, we are sorry to ad- mit, the orthodox theology of that day in an effort to wreck the little organization of Christian Scientists, but, Jed by the spiritual vision of its dauntless Leader, the little church grew and prospered and became a great worldwide Movement - our Chstian Science organization.

Without any effort to proselyte, the little church attracted to its healing fount, in ever increasing numbers, those Christians affiliated with other churches until today, the Christian Science church is composed largely of Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians and former members of practically every other denomination. They sought membership· in this church because its spiritual teaching was sufficient to heal them. This. is as it should be. Nevertheless, we must see to it that animal magnetism does not use this immigration, so to speak, of hordes of “simple seekers of Truth” into our Movement, as a subtle channel for destroying the vision of our Leader regarding her church.

A man of the “old theology” church is given up to die by both his church and his doctor. He comes to a Christian Science practitioner for help. He is healed of whatever may be the seeming malady. But does this healing of a physical disease, accomplished largely by the spiritual understanding of God on the part of the practitioner, does this heal the man of all his “old theology” ideas about man and church and God, ideas inculcated since childhood, perhaps? Of course it does not. The physical healing may come at once but it may be months or years bore he will be healed of this “old theology” for it is deeply imbedded. He often is not even aware that it is an error to be overcome. In this state of consciousness, he may become a member of a Christian Science church. Here his vote on church matters immediately carries as much weight as that of a member who has studied for years or perhaps lived in Mrs. Eddy’s home and watched her methods of spiritual demonstration. Such a new member’s vote is augmented year after year by the votes of hundreds of others coming from his and similar churches, whereas those mem-fibers taught by Mrs. Eddy are not only diminishing in number for they can never be aug-fomented, but the proportion of these newer members gets even larger and larger. The result is that the voting power of the church falls back into the hands of the same “old theology” which these ewer members are supposed to have left behind but of which they have never been healed. Their votes now elect the Board members, the Readers, the State Publication Committees and ultimately the editors of our periodicals and even, indirectly, the Board of Directors in Boston. Thus the spiritual vision of our Leader and her methods are as successfully blotted out by animal magnetism as was spiritual healing from the early church when animal magnetism used Constantine to unite church and state.

Still true to its type and methods, animal magnetism now impels those· of the “old theology”, who in the early days fought and would have none of Mrs. Eddy’s Christian Science, to begin inside of the Church to persecute and excommunicate_ those who still retain enough of the vision of our Leader’s demonstration to refuse to bow the knee to the Baal of the “old theology”. We refer again to the Carpenters as an example of its operation.

Let us suppose again that some disciple like John who lived with Jesus was taught by him and watched his methods of overcoming evil. Let us suppose that such an one suddenly came to earth and began writing of his own experience with Jesus, supplementing those of Matthew, Mark and others. Should such an one be excommunicated and made to appear in the eyes of other Christians as a heretic, and as disloyal to the teach-flings of Jesus, because he taught and wrote of a more spiritual sense of the Christ teachings than his persecutors? We, of Paul Revere say such an one should not be e:·.-communicated. Yet this is exactly what animal magnetism has led the Board of Directo :s to do in effect to the Carpenters who live in Providence, R. I. and whose names have been removed from the Joual largely because they have written and placed in the Library of Congress some accounts of Mr. Carpenter’s experiences while living in Mrs. Eddy’s home and being taught by her. The Carpenters have refused to accept the dictum of the Board to desist in this work. The Carpenters feel that they should obey what they think God is leading them to do rather than obey the edict of the Board of Directors who have, in the past year, removed their names and others from our Journal for this and similar reasons. And, we of Paul Revere agree with the Carpenters.

We have been asked by our readers what human footsteps can be taken to correct these errors to supplement the metaphysical work against animal magnetism. While it is not our province to tell you what to do humanly, nor would it be scientific for us to do so, there are several things that can be done that seem to us quite obvious. One thing we have mentioned before and that is to go to the Congressional Library in Washing- ton and read what the Carpenters have written; then judge for yourself if such writings are right or wrong. If you can not go to the library, make your demonstration of nd-ing someone who has copied them and borrow a copy. Or, better still, go and see the Carpenters in their Christianly scientific home and judge for yourself if these loyal and earnest Christian Scientists are to be dubbed by the personal opinion and edict of five human beings as disloyal to the Cause of Christian Science. Do you realize that this dubbing of the Carpenters as disloyal also dubbs similarly every student of theirs? Do you realize that every student of theirs is classified as disloyal until he goes through class with another teacher? This, every student of a disloyal teacher, is privileged to do and probably expected to do. Suppose the Carpenters have three hundred students lo- cheated in different churches throughout the United States, all of them innocent victims and made to suer because of this edict against their teacher. How is this sort of thing go- ing to help our Cause to prosper? Do you think it is prompted by Truth or by the enemy of Truth? If this can happen to them it is only a matter of years before it can happen to you. Are you going to sit quietly by and do nothing, in_ the way each country of Europe did as Hitler struck down first one and then another, each country hoping, in turn, that its rights would not be invaded? Are you going to let yourselves be influenced erroneously by this action of the Board against these men, and take no human footstep even to ascertain whether or not, the judgement pronounced upon them by the Board is true?

There are hundreds of persons throughout the United States who know the Carpenters and who have visited in their home. Are all these persons to wash their hands of the matter, as did Pilate of old, and say, “This is no concern of mine”? We of Paul Revere are not going to do so. We feel that this is an error that can not be corrected until the names of the Carpenters are reinstated in our Journal. Furthermore, an apology should be broadcast to the Field for the error done to these men. As we have said before, they have nothing to do with these pamphlets and comprise no part of the group who write them. We are interested in their case only because it affects you and all of us just as all countries were affected when Japan was allowed to enter Manchuria and no one protested. How many mothers’ sons would be alive today if some Paul Revere had spoken then. We are speaking to all Christian Scientists to awaken them to the inroads animal magnetism has already made in our Movement when such things can cur. We are us• ing the “Carpenter incident” to arouse you to listen to the call of Paul Revere, “To arms! To arms! The enemy is coming and is inside our very gates.”

What shall we, of the Field, do about it? Are we going to let these men’s names be sullied by those who know not the facts and that sully these men because some others sullied them, to them? Is this the manifestation of the love that we hear talked about so much in our organization? Is this putting into practice the Sermon on the Mount that, our Leader says, is the essence of this Science? Is this the way she would run her church? We think not.

A man afflicted with a claim of gout came to a practitioner for healing. In the course of the conversation the patient said he wished his miserly brother might become interested in Christian Science. “Your brother, a miser?” the practitioner asked. “Yes,” the man said, “the meanest man alive! He cheated me out of a thousand pounds five years ago. But I don’t allow myself to think of him. I haven’t even written to him.” When the practitioner told the patient to go make up his quarrel with his brother,-that it was the discord that had prevented the appearance of perfect harmony in his life, he said, “Nonsense! it has nothing to do with my being sick.” He finally wrote a line to his brother, however, as follows: “Dear old chap. Do you remember how we used to go sh-ing together when we were boys? Your affectionate brother, John.” His brother im• mediately replied, saying that he had been too proud to break the silence and he was returning the thousand pounds. Both were happy to have the quarrel made up and, inci• dentally, the claim of gout disappeared. Would you not agree that the writing of that letter was a good human footstep to take? Was it not a manifestation of love?

Would it be unscientific and unloving for the Board of Directors to write to Herbert Eustace a letter such as this: “Dear Herbert, do you remember the days when Mrs. Eddy was with us and labored so earnestly to inculcate a spark of real love in all of us? We should like to go more than half way in correcting so far as we can, any manifestation of a lack of love on the part of this or preceing Boards, that may have resulted in hard• ship to you and the Cause.” Mr. Eustace, as you may know, was a Trustee of the Pu lishing House in 1920 and was excommunicated at the close of the. “Litigation Incident” because he stood firmly for what he thought was a higher and more spiritual interpretation of our Church Manual.

Let us contrast the spirit of such a letter with the following incident: A practi. tioner in the far West, while treating a patient, mentioned that she had read some of the books of Herbert Eustace. The patient, immediately felt it her duty to notify the Board in Boston. Instead of the Board replying in substance, “What is that to thee, follow thou the Christ”, it immediately summoned the practitioner to Boston. The practitioner went to Boston at her own expense, whereupon she was turned over to a lawyer who warned her that any repetition of the offense of reading something written by Mr. Eustace, would result in her name being removed from the Journal.

In Luke 9, the disciple John is recorded as saying, “Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.” Jesus re-plied, “Forbid him not; for he that is not against us is for us.” Later in the same chapter, the same disciple wanted to rain re down and consume the Samaritans because they did not receive Jesus. Jesus again rebuked him. Jesus’s policy was one of love and tolerance; John’s one of ecclesiaticism.

Must not that same spirit of love that impelled the man with gout to write to his estranged brother become the impelling force back of the acts of the Board of Directors when it deals with what it terms “disloyal students” before any true healing and progress may come to the organization? Is it not the love that is not merely talked but lived that is the first essential to the spiritual leadership and example that the organization and every member of it must show to the world if Christian Science is to ll its proper place in the world?

Is not the same issue involved in the attitude of the Directors toward a woman in Australia who has recently written to the membership of many branch churches, stating that she considers herself Mrs. Eddy’s successor? We have appraised the action of the Directors in handling this recent case on the basis of the cabled statement of the Board to her as quoted in 4er letter. Our purpose is not to censure the Board of Directors, but to show how animal magnetism is influencing their policies and making them ecclesiatical instead of Christianly and spiritually scientific. The apparent first thought of the Board is to get her name out of the Journal. There ems to be no expression of love or toler-fiance to this woman who has fallen under the mesmerism of animal magnetism and made to be self mesmerized into asserting that she is Mrs. Eddy’s successor. The days pre-ceeding her becoming so mesmerized as send out this letter, presumably she was an earnest working Christian Science practitioner-healing the sick in Christ’s name. We, of course, do not know this, but we at least ought to assume it. Now, animal magnetism has struck at her and found a way to use her. One of the great army of practitioners has been struck down by error; what is the duty of other Christian Scientists? Are we suddenly stop loving her? Is taking her name out of the Joual going to heal her? Will it minimize the issue and reduce evil in human consciousness? Is it the ecclesiastical way or the divine way? We, of Paul Revere like to think of the Christian Science Movement as a party of travellers climbing the Alps,-roped together in such a way that should one fall over the precipice, the others would brace themselves and pull up the fallen one. How asinine would be the policy of cutting the pe and letting the poor victim go farther down? Changing the metaphor, who is so sure that he himself is not actuated by the animal magnetism that is using the woman, that he can dare throw the first stone at her? We have stated several times that we think the same animal magnetism that is using this woman has used the Board of Directors and the Field during the last thirty-four years, to build up in consciousness that the Board of Directors is functioning from the basis that they are Mrs. Eddy’s successor. After all, it really makes little difference to animal magnetism,-the would be destroyer of our Cause, whether one person foolishly proclaims that she is Mrs. Eddy’s successor or another conducts himself in that role. Anyone who assumes the position of Mrs. Eddy’s successor needs our most loving help for animal magnetism is pulling him over the cli. Our whole point is that we think the present policy of handling these matters is all wrong, is mostly actuated by “old theology”, is lacking in that quality of “true brotherliness, charitablesness and forgiveness” that our Leader describes in her Manual, Article VIII, Section 1, as the proper method of rebuking sin by reflecting the sweet amenities of Love.

Official Boston is like a hub of a wheel reaching the circumference through the spokes. What the Board does and the policies it formulates, indoctrinates the Field as the correct method. If, unthinkingly, the Field accepts the method pursued in the case of this woman as being the right one, and no one challenges this method just because the Directors have used it, then the whole Movement unconsciously sinks to this level as the proper procedure.

It seems to us who write as Paul Revere that the place where you of the Field can take the most effective human footsteps in the correction of this official indoctrination is in the branch churches and among your fellow members. You can be alert to the encroachments of animal magnetism which advocates a material mindedness in which human and legal methods are urged, in contrast to the spiritual methods of demonstration.

Obviously, the letters which you write us and the sentiments they express are not the kind received by the· Board of Directors in regard to these pamphlets. We get the ones of approval, commendation and suprt whereas the Board probably receive letters of condemnation of what we are endeavoring to accomplish and perhaps containing cries of “Excommunicate them!”, “Excummunicate them!”. As if this method has ever stopped the forward movement of Truth in human consciousness! It would not at the present time help matters materially for you that write us, to reveal your identity by writing to the Board as you write to us. You can do more good, we think, right in your local branch church. You can discourage the tendency among members to accept as a Christian Science procedure the Gestapo policy of one Christian Scientist writing to Boston to ingratiate himself with the Board by making accusations against brother Christian Scien-theists. If we be brethern and bound together with ties of love and a common purpose, why should we tolerate this method of trying to expose the errors of others. And why should $20,000.00 a year men be letting animal magnetism make them stoop to listen to unsubstantiated tales of gossip about fellow Christian Scientists. If the $20,000.00 a year “hub” approves this sort of thing, no wonder our branch churches are reeking with this kind of error as almost no other organization on earth. Animal magnetism has surely reversed our Leader’s demonstration in the branch churches in this respect.

When Mrs. So and So boasts that she complained to the Board of Directors about another Mrs. So and So, we can be alert to inform her lovingly that there is nothing in her act of which to be proud and that it is not only violating the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount, but building up a send Vatican City in Boston; and making of the Board of Directors a clerical and ecclesiastical court. One person disciplined by such a court not only affects the person immediately concerned but builds up in the minds of all others a fear that if they do not act just as somebody else thinks they should, some one will “squeal to Boston” (to use the school boy’s term for such an opprobrious practice) and that they will “be called before the Board”. “Called before the Board” is already getting to be a term among Christian Scientists similar in essence if not in degree to being called before the Inquisition in the days when to read the Protestant Bible was deemed heresy.

Is there not a duty among us all, as lay members of this great organization so to disapprove of this “squealing to a human Board” that the practice will be stopped, and the Christian Science method, namely-denying error’s verity in our own consciousness, be substituted for this old theology method. When our Field consciousness rises to the point where it refuses to accept such practices as being proper Christian Science methods, we shall, perforce, have a Board which will cease to accept them. The Board should be the one to arouse the Field to stop this childish stu that, unless stopped, will drive the best thinkers outside of such an organization. Until, however, the Board sees this, let us of the Field “withhold not the rebuke nor the explanation which destroys error” (S&H, 452); and especially when confronted with this tendency to run to Boston with every problem;

Our Leader in 1910 left to us this organization with which and by which to disseminate Truth to the world. If animal magnetism for thirty-four years has kept its own methods in the saddle, let us pray earnestly for guidance to take the human footsteps that will put spiritual demonstration in its rightful place. We mean to cast no reflection upon the present incumbents of the office of Directors. These men were not the ones who made the decisions in 1910, so it is not persons that are involved but policies laid down at that time and accepted and carried on by thoe following. Let us of the Field analyze the policies and take whatever human footsteps divine Mind leads us to take. We must not in our thinking or acts accept, in spite of ourselves, the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church,-the infallibility of the Pope or of our Board of Directors,-and as a result accept the judgement and decisions of the Board as final, and too nearly infallible to need our consideration.

We, of the Field are the Christian Science Movement; if we awaken and think rightly and act in accord with this thinking, this influx of new Scientists coming from the “old theology” churches will not become indoctrinated with such Catholic doctrines. We, of Paul Revere are sure that if the Field is once aroused and awakened to a realization of how far animal magnetism has already repeated its Romish methods in our Church, each Christian Scientist will be led to take the human footsteps, whatever they may be, that will heal the situation and harm no person.

Help bring this to pass. Send us the names of those advanced students to whom you think it wise and helpful to send these pamphlets, and the money, and we will mail them. Send unsigned lists if you desire to protect your identity.




Chapter Fourteen: Government of Laws—Not of Men

Pamphlet Number Fourteen

Among the large number of letters which we receive every month there is rarely one which disapproves of these pamphlets. Many letters express a desire on the part of the writer to help in the work. Our latest pamphlet pointed out some steps that an individual Christian Scientist can take to serve this purpose. We have tried to be very careful in making such suggestions, for some might believe that we are urging that you take some aggressive action against somebody; against some group of persons; that the Board of Directors should be attacked with the end in view of removing them; or else, that by concerted action the present Mother Church governing sta might be changed and be replaced by others.

This is farthest from our thoughts. Christian Scientists are ever striving to “resolve things into thoughts” (S&H, 269). The entire purpose and scope of Christian Science is spiritually mental. A practitioner does nothing more than to change the mental attitude of his patient; change the base from premises of matter to spiritualized concepts. Christian Scientists in the Field are practitioners for the Cause. The Cause will maintain the spiritual animus and attain the spiritual level reached by the majority of Christian Scientists in the Field; the level will be no higher than that. The Cause is a composite of the mental heights gained by Christian Scientists throughout the world.

There can be no excuses for any condition in which we nd our Cause. Its present government is what we of the Field have made it; not what someone else has made it. The remedy begins with us, not with some one else. The German people may not like Hit-filer. They may realize to their bitter sorrow that he has brought upon the world a tragic situation. But upon whom can we place the blame for Hitler’s leadership? Obviously upon the German people themselves. It may be true that, during the past few years, the removal of Hitler, if it could have been done at all, would have been done only with the greatest difficulty. However, he could have been removed before he rose to absolute power.

There was a time when someone could have discerned the trend of politics in Germany, and action could have been taken to stem the tide of imperialism before it became so deep rooted. The reason why this trend was not seen lies in the subtle mesmerism induced by the propaganda fed to the people by the German leaders. In the guise of acting only for the great good of the people, a few militaristic and autocratic men gained power but only with the consent of the German people. Later, after the people had seen their terrible mistake, it required the combined action of most of the civilized world to undo what the German people themselves could have undone years ago, had they been awake to defend their mental heritage against the trespass of evil minds bent upon using human beings to accomplish selfish ends. The lesson is a cogent one. It reveals two aspects that we ought to ponder well. First, it should impress upon us the terrible consequence of failure to defend ourselves against animal magnetism that would subtly impell us all to accept as an agent of great and loving care for us, the very thing that is bent upon enslaving us. Second, the terrible experiences of this war should transcribe upon our minds with indelible script, that on of the most dangerous, and at the same time most insidious, enemies of mankind is the foe of autocracy, of domination, and dictatorship. The failure to discern the neces-sanity for defense in the first instance leads inevitably to enslavement in the second.

Experienced Christian Scientists see that this war has been fought in order that all men may have freedom of thought and action. Yet throughout the world there is unmistakable evidence that, unless we are active and alert to the machinations of animal magnetism, we shall nd ourselves after the war gradually adopting governments which will prove to be the very antithesis of that kind of government that we believe we have fought to attain.

Even in these United States, along with many forward looking reforms, we are seeing evidences of a design to regiment and take over the thinking of the masses of the citizens of this country. At first the leaders advocate these measures as being helpful to all, but animal magnetism gradually infects these leaders with a lust for power and soon nothing is left of the original good intentions but an outward show designed to fool the people.

We do not like to devote any of the time of our readers, or of our own time, to any academic or philosophical essays. Time is too valuable for that, but, on the other hand, evil, in belief, is subtle and more than a few sentences are required to expose its hidden meanings. Our only interest is the cause of Christian Science, and that it does the most good for the world. We wish mightily to forward that good. It is because we see in our organization the same mesmeric effect that brought on this great war that we write as we do, and devote so much space to the subject. If our beloved Cause is to be saved it is not too soon to act.

The By-Laws of the Mother Church embody strikingly the principles of the Constitution of the United States; similar idealism underlies both. The reason is clear. Both are statements of Principle. Both are designed to preserve liberty. Both were written because someone saw human beings in bondage and, understanding the cause, aroused the people to act. The underlying reason for the present war lies in the violation by a few leaders of the principles embodied in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The present unrest among Christian Scientists is caused indirectly because of violation of the principles which Mrs. Eddy has set forth in our By-Laws. Departure from strict adherence to either the Constitution of the United States or the By-Laws which make up the constitution of our Cause can bring about only one thing; autocracy, autocracy first in Government, second in the church. The consequent action results in taking from every Christian Scientist and every other citizen the privilege and right to think for themselves.

Nowhere that we know of, has the principle back of the reason why Christian Scientists should adhere strictly to our by-Laws, been stated with more clarity than in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It reads as follows: “In the Government of the Commonwealth the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers or either of them; to the end that it may be a GOVERNMENT OF LAWS NOT OF MEN.” (The capitals are our own.)

Here we have the crux of the whole matter. The moment that the function of law has been assumed by men, enslavement begins. Hitler became the law in Germany, Mussolini became the law in Italy. These governments were of men, not of laws. Our forefathers left Europe to escape government of men. That fact was the inspiration of the Declaration of Independence. Yet in our own United States we all remember the recent effort of the executive to “pack” the Supreme Court in order that the Constitution might be more “liberally interpreted”. This is an astounding effort to govern by men instead of by law.

In spite of the great vision of those who wrote the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States; and as clearly as they saw its necessity for a free people, yet we nd that animal magnetism has darkened people everywhere, and government of men has superceded that of laws; and suering is throughout the world. The great vision of our forefathers has been temporarily lost. We hope that it will be regained without too much suering.

Now, what of our organization? What is the analogy? Many By-Laws of The Mother Church are being violated each year. The By-Laws were written by Mrs. Eddy as a revelation of God. They are laws of God. They were written to provide for the Christian Science organization a government of laws not of men. To violate these laws is to substitute the laws of men for laws of God. Government of men brings inevitable woe. Such government takes away human rights; it reduces citizens to slavery. In our organization it is not physical slavery so much as a mental one; a taking away of rights; rights to read what our own demonstration dictates; rights to conduct our branch churches independently, without interference or “influence from The Mother Church or any Branch Church”. Manual of The Mother Church Article XXIII, Section 1: “The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist, shall assume no general official control of other churches, and it shall be controlled by none other.” And in the same Article Section 10, “In Christian Science each branch church shall be distinctly democratic in its government, and no individual, and no other church shall interfere with its affairs.” Finally will be denied even the right of the individual, justly to criticize the action of the authorities in Boston without invoking penalties.

Do you believe that none of these things can happen here? Do you believe that our organization has become so spiritualized that animal magnetism just has no influence over those in authority? The following disproves any such assumption. In 1923 a Christian Science Society placed with the Directors at Boston an application that the Society be recognized as a Branch of The Mother Church. In a letter signed by a secretary of the Board certain questions were asked of the Society. Among them was the following: “Have the applicants accepted the belief disseminated by the late trustees of the Publishing Society that everyone may adopt his own interpretation of the by-laws or that no one should be subject to discipline?” Here was an unequivical stand upon the subject of who shall have the right to interpret our By-Laws. It is quite clear that the Board expected an affirmative answer to that question or it would not have been asked. Unless that church should relinquish the right to interpret the By-Laws, it apparently would be denied recognition. Two years previously to the time when this question was asked, the Directors had sought of the courts a legal interpretation of the By-Laws and forced the trustees of the Publishing Society to accept that decision. The Board’s acceptance of this legal interpretation in 1922 became the basis of operation. The letter written in 1923 and from which we have quoted, shows that the Board was now evidently seeking to impose this legal interpretation upon branch churches.

This demand quoted from the Board’s letter has in no way been removed from its context. We are quite sure that we have not placed any construction upon it that was not implied by the question. If such a demand came to your church from the governing body of the Christian Science organization, whose government do you think you would have if you subscribed to that proposition,-government of men or of laws? Government by divine Principle or mortal mind? What could be the difference, in essence, between this and “packing” the supreme court in order that the executive might nd legal interpretations to suit his own purposes?

The above incident happened in 1923. Here is a more recent one which indicates that the trend has not changed in recent years. The following is quoted from “Items of Interest” which appeared in the Sentinel of December 17th, 1938: “A distinct phase of mortal mind is the temptation to prefer what is irregular or unauthorized to what is provided in the authorized and regular ways. If additional literature on the subject of Christian Science were needed, this need would be recognized and would naturally be supplied by The Christian Science Board of Directors, through The Christian Science Publishing Society, the channel which our Leader has provided.” Think of it! If you really had needed to read anything beyond what the Board of Directors has already authorized, the Board would, of course, have recognized it without your telling them about it, and you would have been provided for, long since! Incredible as such a paternalistic attitude may seem in a great organization such as ours, the quotation speaks for itself. In 1923 the Board had assumed the prerogative of interpreting the By-Laws for Branch Churches; now in 1938 it had assumed the right to dictate to members of the churches what they should read. Naturally animal magnetism would make some such demand follow the first one.

In the Sentinel of February 3rd, 1940, appeared the following, from the Directors: “When considering the reading of the selections from 1 John, it may be helpful· to remember that the pronouns ‘him’ and ‘he’ in the third verse in the original Greek refer to God, or to God coming through the Christ, as some interpreters have stated it. Therefore, these pronouns should be emphasized correctly, so as to bring out the true meaning, which is not man, but God or Christ.” This suggestion coming from the Board is di-recanted to Readers in Branch Churches. The recommendation was made because some Readers interpret that final sentence in the passage quoted as meaning not God or Christ but man. Is not this another violation of Article XXIII, Section 10: “No Interference”? If Readers relinquish to the Directors the right to interpret a verse in 1st John, how soon shall they be asked to change the interpretation of other passages in the Bible, and Science and Health? Knowing mortal mind processes as we all do, such a step is inevitable!

One more quotation will show how far animal magnetism will move a well intention-ed group like the Board who fail to be in defense. For nothing but animal magnetism could impel the Board, not only to violate the By-Laws themselves, but to publish in the Sentinel of March 9th, 1935, an unwitting admission that such a violation had occurred. In explanation of their compiling the book, “First Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany,’’ the Board wrote in this number of the Sentinel as follows: “Years later, in 1908, Mrs. Eddy selected from the periodicals, items she had published there since 1896, and marked them for future republication in a book to be entitled ‘The First Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany,’ a companion volume to ‘Miscellaneous Writings.’ To this second volume were added later items and some few unselected ones by M. Eddy which the Trustees under the Will and The Christian Science Board of Directors found important to reprint.’’

Now let us quote from the Manual of The Mother Church Article XXV: Section 8: “A book or an article of which Mrs. Eddy is the author shall not be published nor republished by this Society without her knowledge or written consent.’’ And yet Miscellany contains articles, according to the quotation above, which were not selected by Mrs. Eddy, for publication. Was this publication of Miscellany a violation of the By-Law quoted above? If not why was the explanation given? Was it to lead the Field to believe that this act of the Directors was not in direct violation of Mrs. Eddy’s wishes as expressed in this By-Law?

We mention these matters not just to bring up things which should be forgotten; mistakes of the past. It is quite clear, however, that many of us have either not considered them mistakes or else have been so blinded by animal magnetism as to overlook them or even not to see them at all. Not to see them is to be blind to the trend, the trend away from government of laws to government of men. Such an international trend in the early years of 1930 resulted in this war. The beginnings of the war came when the citizens of the world were so blinded by propaganda as to fail to discern the subtle influence that was substituting in their minds, the same thing, government of men for government of laws.

Christian Scientists should never allow such influences to grow upon our Cause. If such a beginning is allowed to carry on there can be no possible outcome but years of suering; a Cause with its vision lost; the sufferer;-the whole world. And how hard for those few who may be the remnant left in Israel! They will be forced for the very love of mankind and Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration to endure through toil and suering until the serpent of autocracy has again been met and destroyed; until that government come “whose right it is”, and govement by laws and not by men shall not perish from the earth.

So what can you do? First, you can be alert to see these things. You can disce whenever and wherever animal magnetism is depriving you of your rights; and you can protest. Protest in your church. Protest lovingly and kindly. Remember that those responsible for these acts quoted above did not do so with a direct purpose to enslave anybody. They, undoubtedly, acted in the name of liberty. But the facts, nevertheless, speak for themselves; and the final scene is bondage again for the Children of Israel.

This may seem harsh but animal magnetism gives no quarter. It has no sympathy. It never smooths the fevered brow nor brings peace to the troubled heart. In belief, it is no mean antagonist. To ignore its seeming power is to appease it; to do just what was done at the time of the invasion of Manchuria, Ethiopia and Czechoslovakia. Let us not do that. Let us take heed and be forewarned.

Recently one of· our readers wrote to us that he felt we, of Paul Revere, were building up for ourselves an imaginary antagonist, in our constant reference to animal magnetism. We are glad to get letters like that. They are very helpful. They help us to know whether our message is effective. Then too, we might fall into errors ourselves and not realize it until we have been told. So we invite criticism. It helps us to see the claim of animal magnetism upon us. It spurs us to be in defense.

But we cannot agree with our correspondant in this instance. We think the tactics of animal magnetism, in belief, would be to influence us never to mention it; to be unaware of its influence. The only power that animal magnetism coµfold have is to remain concealed. Hitler enslaved the German people through animal magnetism. What could have stoned the adulterous woman but animal magnetism! But her accusers did not see this until Jesus pointed it out to them. What crucified Jesus but animal magnetism! What oers a crown to dictators, and what impulse makes men accept a crown, but animal magnetism!

A Christian Science church some years ago was served notice that it was about to be sued for debt. The complainant was a Christian Science Practitioner whose name was listed in the Journal; a member in good standing in another branch church in the same city. The church in dire financial stress, wrote to the Board at Boston feeling the need of encouragement and support, and not knowing just what procedure to take with respect to a practitioner sueing a Christian Science church for debt. The Board replied advising the church to seek legal advice. That was all. No word of encouragement; no suggestion of loving kindness. The church had not complained of the practitioner, and had not asked action. It merely acquainted them with the facts. And the reply was to seek legal advice.

That church was passing through deep waters. The Directors could never know what a few words of love and encouragement could have done for that church membership. There was a joint dedication committee in that city. This committee knew of the situation. It did nothing. Here was a Branch of The Mother Church in dire necessity, liable to fail and faced with the possibility of its doors being closed. But no word of love from either the Board of Directors nor other Christian Scientists who knew of the peril in which this church stood.

About that time Mr. Ezra Palmer was clerk of The Mother Church. The condition came to his notice, and he wrote one of the few loving and kind letters that that church ever received from official Boston. Mr. Palmer suggested in a letter pregnant with love that the church need not fear to go on, that the problems could be met with Love if the church would stick to its.. post; and other statements to that effect. The letter was read to the members and tears were in many eyes. It was the only loving and kind expression that had come from anywhere. That letter inspired the church to carry on. It then sought not to legal advice, but to divine Mind. The crisis passed. No suit was brought.

Was it Truth or animal magnetism that caused the Directors to treat that church as they did? Was it animal magnetism or Love that impelled Mr. Palmer to write as he did? This church was saved not because it followed the advice of animal magnetism speaking through the Directors, but because it followed the voice of Love expressed through Mr. Ezra Palmer. That church now holds very dearly, the memory of Ezra Palmer because of that act of love.

The point of all these references is not to discredit the Board of Directors. We do not like to refer to these things, but until it has been seen by Christian Scientists that animal magnetism has its hold; until the Board realizes that the Board itself is not impervious to the influence of animal magnetism, its acts must be questioned. We, of the Field must be more than ever alert to fulfill the obligation of every Christian Scientist to question the acts of the Board.

When shall the healing of our beloved Cause take place? It can only be when love is not just talked but lived. Nothing could do more for the Cause of Christian Science and for the world than for the Board of Directors to express, in its acts and communications to the Field, a true sense of Love. Not just words-but words exemplified by deeds.

So what can we in the Field do? Love. Demand it of ourselves. Demand it of other Christian Scientists. Rebuke platitudinous repetitions of the word “Love”. Any church that receives letters from officialdom that talk Love and do not breathe it, can protest. Dictatorship is not Love. Autocracy is not Love, no matter how well intentioned. Denying the right of others in any way to read or speak is not Love, but animal magnetism. Animal magnetism is the antithesis of Love. But, unseen and misunderstood, animal magnetism has made us believe that a false sense of Love is really Love. This, more than anything else, is what has happened to our Cause. Love is the remedy.

Send us the names of those advanced students to whom you think it wise and helpful to send these pamphlets, and the money, and we will mail them. Send unsigned lists if you desire to protect your identity.




Chapter Fifteen: Slaves to Freedom

Pamphlet Number Fifteen

So many of your kind and appreciative letters have come to us expressing comments-dation for our courage in sending forth these pamphlets, that we are impelled to pause and give heed to the question the letters quite naturally impose upon our consciousness. In discussing this, we do not want to convey any impression to you that we are not exceedingly grateful for these letters. We are. We appreciate every one of them; they are a great inspiration to us. They have, however, prompted the observations we are about to make. The question is this: Why should we, as Christian Scientists and as Americans be commended for having courage to write and to publish our thoughts? From this there follow many other questions that are corollaries: Why should we be afraid of writing as we have? Of what are we supposed to be afraid? Our courage has been commended in these letters but if the writers did not believe there was something to be afraid of, they would not commend us for being courageous. Coming as they do, from various parts of the world, these letters imply a universal state of consciousness which believes there is some thing of which to be afraid. So we ask you and ourselves, “What are we afraid of?”

Is it fear of God? No, surely no Christian Scientist would expect us to be afraid of God, of infinite Good.

Is it then, fear of evil? No, surely no Christian Scientist would expect us to be afraid of evil. Mrs. Eddy clearly teaches that evil has no place, power nor intelligence, except what we allow it to seem to have by believing in evil as something separate and apart from God’s Allness.

Is it then, fear of The Mother Church organization and of the Board of Directors? Is it fear of penalties they might impose upon us for critically reviewing their acts and expressing our opinion that some of their acts are impelled by animal magnetism rather than by Truth? Are these things to be afraid of? From the context of some of the letters we receive, we judge, that, in the minds of those who commend us, they are. And let us reiterate, this state of mind pervades the consciousness of the whole country.

Viewed in all its nakedness, isn’t this something appalling for the Christian Scien-theists to contemplate? Think of it! Afraid of our Church! The Church that our dear Leader spent so many tireless days and nights in prayer and consecration in giving birth to. She had the mother’s fond hope that this child of her life purpose, this Christian Science organization, would move upon the scene of mortal beliefs, so free from the earmarks of all other mortal organizations, that it would appear as a “pillar of cloud by day and of re by night” to the whole world, “leading to divine heights.” (S & H 566)

What would Mrs. Eddy think if she knew that in a few short years her dear church had degenerated into something that Christian Scientists were afraid of;-that in the short space of thirty-four years, animal magnetism has built up a hierarchy so similar to the Roman Catholic Church in its functioning, that we of Paul Revere are being commended for our courage in writing as we have. at would Mrs. Eddy think? Would she think her By-Laws were at fault or that we had failed to understand and obey them? We are sure she never intended to provide By-Laws, obedience to which would greatly multiply fear in human consciousness. We are equally sure that she would tell us that her students had failed, not she. The readers of our pamphlets know that we have expressed, many times, our conviction that this failure exists in the improper interpretation of our Manual since 1910, by both the Field and the Boards in Boston. We feel that the deplorable conditions prevalent throughout the Field impel every thoughtful Christian Scientist to be unafraid to face the possibility that we have all been made by animal magnetism, to miss the way. We need now to nd out where we got o the main highway.

We of Paul Revere feel that it took place shortly after Mrs. Eddy passed. We are not concerned with whose fault it was, but merely with the fact that we got o. Nor is it to be wondered at. Mrs. Eddy, the dauntless Leader, ever present, ever at her post suddenly being removed, the burden and responsibility for the conduct of this great Move-foment was thrown upon the shoulders of five men. The First Reader of The Mother Church was a lawyer (in the opinion of many not rated too highly as a lawyer) but being a lawyer, the Board of Directors in their need of human counsel naturally tued to and accepted the influence of his legal guidance to interpret those sections of the Manual needing Mrs. Eddy’s written consent. The result was that those sections were waived just as if Mrs. Eddy had not written them. And there the Movement left the highway. As we said in our last pamphlet, the government then began to be one of men instead of laws. And today this policy is bearing its fruit,-an organization of fear instead of love and of law.

Anticipating that some of you may question our right to assume that the organization has degenerated into one of fear of heston, merely because we have received letters from all over the Field, commending our courage in writing as we have, we. ask you to make some tests yourselves. Suppose that you get your practitioner or teacher, whose card is in the Joual, to write to the Board of Directors stating that he is not satisfied that the Manual is being obeyed by the Board, when the By-Laws requiring Mrs. Eddy’s written consent are being waived; and that he would like the Board to explain on what grounds, and by what authority and reaning, the Board continues to waive them. Also, that you ask your teacher to state to the Board that he has the right to read or is reading the writings of Mr. Herbert Eustace and Mr. G. A. Kratzer and Mrs. Alice Orgain and others who have dared to think and write fearlessly.

Unless the present Board has changed its position since we have been publishing these pamphlets, your teacher will probably be threatened with the removal of his card from the Journal, for we have abundant proof that this penalty has been imposed upon others on more than one occasion. If those teachers and practitioners who write to the Board are not afraid, let them say, in the spirit in which Daniel trusted his God more than he feared the power of the King, let them say, “We will be the sole judge of what our demonstration prompts us to read and we shall read openly what we please for there is no ‘Index Expurgatorius’ in the Christian Science Church. A card in the Joual is our right under the Manual so long as we are healing the sick in Christ’s name and in accord with the Manual provisions; and Mrs. Eddy never intended that a Journal listing be used as a weapon of fear and of blackmail and of coercion to enable a centralized authority to build up a hierarchy to support itself in power through the fear of its victims.”

“Fear is the weapon in the hands of tyrants,’’ Mrs. Eddy tells us, (Misc., 99) and surely she would not want us to think of the Board of Directors as “tyrants”. She also tells us that “Gomade man free”. (S&H, 227) We came into Christian Science. to realize this freedom. Does not Christian Science teach us how to be unafraid? Then why do we allow ourselves to become slaves to the very freedom it gives us? Why? Only because we have let animal magnetism foist this thing upon our organization. Remember we of Paul Revere have seen, and have copies, of the corespondence of G. A. Kratzer and others whose cards have been removed from the Journal for just such things as we have cited above. These letters expressed fearlessness. We have seen letters of others who have not been fearless and who have bowed their necks to the yoke. Each one who bows en-stables animal magnetism to bind th’ rest more easily.

Let us suggest another test that you can make. Find a teacher whose card is in the Journal, and who does not agree with the attitude of the Board of Directors in making it mandatory for teachers to refuse to countersign applications for Mother Church membership of those who smoke. There are many such teachers. But we should like to know of one who is fearless enough to openly defy this man-made rule;-a rule that has. obtain only in the last few years. If any of our readers can nd such a one we would be pleased to know of it.

There may be many other tests that you can make but we are sure if you make these two, you will nd abundant proof in support of our contention. We should like to _make a prediction to our readers,-ne in which we should like t be proven offing. We predict that there is not a city in this country where you can nd ten practitioners with cards in the Journal who are fearless enough to do as we have mentioned in the first test. Try it and prove us wrong. We think you will nd as Jesus did, that then the excuses will come. One has to bury his father, another has to bury his mother-in-law, another_ has to consider the effect upon his practice but,-all these are just fear in disguise.

Accepting then, the conclusion that the organization has become one of fear instead of love, let us analyze this fear. How did animal magnetism get it started; how does it propagate, and how does it operate, and how are we going to destroy it in order to save our Movement from its effects?

Is it going to be saved by letting animal magnetism alone, ignoring its effects and its activity? Is it going to be accomplished by obeying half of our dear Leader’s instructions and neglecting the other half? We all well know, of course, that Mrs. Eddy says, “Beloved Christian Scientists, keep your minds so filled with Truth and Love, that sin, disease, and death cannot enter them.” She says this on page 210 of Miscellany in one little paragraph. However, immediately following, she. devoted three full pages to explain how animal magnetism works in human consciousness, in the article, “Ways That Are Vain”. This· must be understood if we are to be able to keep our minds filled with Truth and Love.

In the Manual, as you know, she has a section making it mandatory for each mem-fiber to defend himself daily against this influence. Would she have put these admonitions into print if she did not expect us to use them?

A student of Christian Science once stated that he had never read the chapter in Science and Health, called, “Animal Magnetism Unmasked”. When asked why,. h said, “”Mrs. Eddy says that there is no animal magnetism, so why should I read about something that doesn’t exist?” Are not we, in the Field, in exactly “the same position as. this student to whom we have just referred, if we fail to heed and obey her instructions regarding this insidious influence that is undermining our Cause? We all know that there is no animal magnetism; that it is just a belief of a power apart from God; but let us prove that it is but a belief, by destroying its hidden effect upon our Cause. Let us in the Field prevent animal magnetism’s permeating”the whole consciousness with fear of ecclesiastical despotism.

“Evil is not something to fear and ee before, or that becomes more real when it is grappled with. Evil let alone grows more real, aggressive, and enlarges its claims; but, met with Science, it can and ll be mastered by Science.” (Misc. W. 284) In the light of these words of our Leader, should evil be let alone? We of Paul evere feel that ·it should not.

We feel that Mrs. Eddy’s words on page 570-571 in Science and Health apply to us and to all Christian Scientists: “Many are willing to open the eyes of the pple to the power of good resident in divine Mind, but they are not so willing point out the evil in human thought, and expose evil’s hidden mental ways of accomplishing iniquity. Why this backwardness, since exposure is necessary to ensure the avoidance of the evil? B cause people like you better when you tell them their virtues than whe you tell them their vices. It requires the spirit of our blessed Master to tell a man his faults, and so risk human displeasure for the sake of doing right and benefiting our race. Who is telling mankind of the foe in ambush? Is the informer one who sees the foe? If so, listen and be wise. Escape from evil, and designate those as unfaithful stewards who have seen the danger and yet have given no warning.” This is an admonition applying to you and us and to everyone. Remember, the whole Christian Science Movement depends upon you, individually as well as collectively. If it does not, upon whom does it depend? Our own experiences in our orgazation and our understanding of Christian Science and our knowledge of the workings of animal magnetism lead us to believe that our Cause is in grave danger; that animal magnetism is, under cover of material prosperity and popularity, taking it do the road over which all religious movements have traveled, at a rate that is appalling to those who are alert and wiHing enough to open their eyes to see.

Accepting these words of our Leader as instruction-, and guidance of our actions, as she certainly must have intended that we do, let us, in friendly and brotherly fashion, gather around the council table and see how and by what means, we have all allowed our Movement to get into such a state of fear that such as we of Paul Revere should be commended for our courage in writing these articles.

We feel that animal magnetism developed this fear from small beginnings shortly after Mrs. Eddy’s decease. This fear· slowly increased up to the time of the litigation in 1920 and the handing down of the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. From that time, it has increased rapidly until today the whole movement is affected by this latent “fear of Boston”.

Now, how has animal magnetism accomplished so much in so few years? Again, we ask, did Mrs. Eddy fail in her directions to us? Did she intend that the Field should be “afraid of Boston”? We surely must all agree that the answer to both of these questions is a positive, “No.” Then, is there any other conclusion to accept than the one that somewhere along the road we have missed the way either by not seeing and interpreting her written instructions spiritually, or by deliberately disobeying them? We are quite sure that neither the Field nor “headquarters” have been guilty of the latter,-f deliberately disobeying them. If this is so, and we are sure that it is, then animal magnetism must have made us all either overlook or misinterpret them.

The channel through which animal magnetism has developed this ridiculous claim of fear, is that of the indoctrination from Boston throughout the Field, of the belief that excommunication from Mother Church mbership or removal of card from the Journal, as.a practitioner, can be used as a threat of penalty for anyone who dares write as we are doing or dares disagree or openly critize the policy of “headquarters”. If this indoctrination succeeds to the point where it intimidates the free action of individuals to demonstrate their understanding of God’s presence and power, and throttles their individual unfoldment, does it then dier in its effect from the doctrine of dictatorship which Hitler and the Gestapo -use to silence any opposition to their point of view? Does Hitler’s terrible system operate on anything else but the indoctrination.from headquarters into the masses, of a fear that a penalty will occur if the people dare question the wisdom and policy of those at headquarters who make the policy? Is the difference then, anything hut in degree of penalty? In the final analysis there is very little difference in the ultimate result, for the.outcome of the one is. the destruction of the German people; of the other, the destruction of the Christian ience organization. How can we all be sincere in our expressions of love and devotion to Mrs. Eddy and her teaching and at the same time be afraid to do our part in resisting the encroachment of this thipg · that she chapter-tainly did not intend, and-warned against? Certainly no one would contend that the organization she established is in a healthy and prosperous condition if it is operating from a basis of fear and intimidation instead of Love and Truth.

This fear is like any other belief of fear that we encounter in our individual experts-ience. It is met on the same basis. Fundamentally it is this: it is a belief that if a man should be excommunicated from The Mother Church, or should have his name removed from the Journal as a practitioner, in some way or in some degree he would be “excommunicated” from his ability to demonstrate his God; he either would be unable to have patients, or, if he were dependent upon his practice for the manifestation of his sense of supply, he would be unable to meet his financial obligations-in effect, practically unable to contact his God. There is little doubt that if such a man were remove1 from Mother Church membership he would immediately be under something akin to a Roman Catholic curse, and would be an outcast from Christian Science, and deprived of the great good and benet that this organization was intended, by Mrs. Eddy, to provide.

Dear Friends, do you think this picture we are painting is farfetched and imposs-foible? It is not; we can assure you; it is a present day situation right now; it is where animal magnetism has got us in a short thirty-four years since our Leader left our sight. It is not a pleasant picture, is it? We do not like to paint it any more than you like to view it. a

Unfortunately, this fear-state of consciousness exists, in belief, but it is certainly not a law of God (and many have proved it) that any such penalty has to follow either a card removed from the Journal or a name dropped from the roll of membership. Do you really think, do you really accept the sophistry that Peter V. Ross has lost his power to heal and that his writings have lost their spiritual, uplifting and healing power? Do you accept that Herbert· Eustace is an outcast from the divine Principle that heals the sick in Christ’s name? Do you think Jesus or Mrs. Eddy would be throwing a stone at the Carpenters, when Jesus said even to the adulterous woman, “Neither do I condemn thee”? Do you think that the writings of G. A. Kratzer, one of which, “Dominion Within”, Mrs. Eddy said was superb, have ceased to help mankind? Do you think, because the names of these men and many other have been stricken from our Journal, that all spirituality at the same time was removed from their writings? Mr, Kratzer proved otherwise, for in less than a year and half after his name was dropped, 6500 copies were sold to eaest students of Christian Science, the book is still selling and his works are following him. Do you think Mrs. Alice Orgain has lost the power of healing the sick in the name of Christian Science because she dared write her book, “As It Is”, in defiance of the man-made edict that tried to prohibit its publication? And there are increasingly more, dear friends, whose cards have been removed from our Journal, who, you will nd, perhaps, are closer to God and demonstrating more fearlessly and successfully a true sense of God’s ever-presence than many whose cards are still in our Journal.

If there should be any trial or hardship that these earnest Christian Science students have suered, is it not because we of the Field have accepted this Gestapo fear, which animal magnetism has promulgated into human consciousness, that, if one thinks at variance with Boston, he is automatically at variance with God, divine Principle? If the whole Field generally, is in a state of fear of “headquarters”, then shouldn’t we look this fear in the face, go through it and prove its absolute nothingness?

How does this fear become engendered or how did it get such a start? Chiefly through indoctrination,-the same method the New Deal and other dictatorships use; building up, slowly and apparently innocently, a mass consciousness of the superiority and infallibility of those in constituted authority! It is not alone the fault of the headquarters that sends out this indoctrination, but we are at fault as well for accepting it; and not resisting it when it first appears. It is a perfect setup for animal magnetism to use for its own purposes, if we are not alert and aware of its operation. It works so simply and so easily; probably that is why it has traveled so far in a few years.

It is like this: the neophyte, knowing nothing of Christian Science at all, is as ignorant of the new tongue as is the new born babe of the English language. The neophyte comes to a Christian Science practitioner for physical or material healing. If he is wise, he will be receptive; if he is not receptive, he will be told to be. The practitioner thus has every opportunity to influence him in accord with either a higher or lower concept of Christian Science, depending upon the practitioner’s own spiritual development.

Let us suppose a patient goes to a practitioner similar to the one to whom we referred in pamphlet No. 14. Her name is in the Journal as a listed practitioner, at the same time she is suing a branch church for the collection of a debt. This patient naturally assumes that suing a Christian Science church is the correct procedure for a practitioner to get her money, and it may be years before he learns otherwise. The. practitioner, in turn, perhaps, stands in awe of a teacher, and is receptive to anything the teacher tells her, especially if it be her own teacher or some one who, she is told, lived in Mrs. Eddy’s home. The teacher, in turn, looks up in adoration and obedience to some official of The Mother Church, or some editor or Publication Committee or a popular lecturer. Then, at the top, stands the Christian Science Board of Directors of whom all are led either to be afraid of, because they are the dispensers of human good to everyone, including the right to practice, or to look up to them as having a superior knowledge of God and so close to divine Principle that their interpretation of everything is accepted as right. Now, the Board interprets, for instance, that the best way to treat the drinking and smoking problem is to debar students fr membership in the churches until these habits are overcome, thus singling out these two errors and making them more real in human consciousness, in true “old theology” style. There are many earnest teachers and loyal Christian Scientists who do not think this is the scientific way in which to meet these evils but their voices are almost silenced under the pressure of the organization indoctrination machine. The official interpretation has been handed out to the teachers and publication committees in the different states and from these to local churches, to practitioners, to patients, to members, to nonmembers until the indoctrination is so complete that a branch church which does not so debar students is looked upon by indoctrinated churches as “disloyal” to the organization. A branch church, however, is only obeying its Manual rights when it allows neither The Mother Church nor any other church to assume official control over its affairs or policies. (Article XXIII, Sect. 1)

Here is another instance of how subtle animal magnetism is in its use of this indoctrination process. Recently the branch churches have been receiving letters from their publication committees amplifying the notice in the periodicals about holding services in our churches when victory has been achieved in Europe. These letters and the notices read to their congregations from the desks of branch churches, state that these meetings have, “The approval of the Christian Science Board of Directors”. How possibly can the beginner in Christian Science attend our services regularly without being indoctrinated with the thought, so constantly expressed from the desks, that the Board in Boston is a governing and interpreting body for the whole Christian Science Movement and acting as Mrs. Eddy’s successor. These babes in Christ, thus becoming indoctrinated with this thought, that the decision in such matters must rest with “headquarters”, know little of the Manual and how such things are in direct violation of Mrs. Eddy’s own expressed wishes as given in her Manual; these babes later become the officers and policy makers for the branch churches. To think for themselves has now become unthinkable; they must write to Boston to know whether they can hold such meetings or not. Bear in mind, we are not passing judgment on either the rightness or wrongness of holding meetings not prescribed in the Manual; that is for branch churches alone to decide for themselves. We are contending that the branch churches are functioning within their Manual rights even if they held such meetings under the disapproval of Boston officialdom. Only by obeying our Manual can animal magnetism be thwarted in its effort to defeat Mrs. Eddy’s provisions for church organization. Let us all insist that it be done in the conduct of our branch churches. Be not aaid to advote it.

Another instance of animal magnetism’s effort to indoctrinate the Field through the processes we have outlined, and build up this consciousness of fear, is one directed against the personnel of the writers of these pamphlets. A prominent teacher, one who has been a popular lecturer and occupies now a high official position in The Mother Church organist-zation, and whose written articles have been many times an inspiration to us of Paul Revere and to the whole Field, recently devoted almost half an hour, in his address to his assembled Association of several hundred members, to an attack upon the writers of these pamphlets. After a few introductory and welcoming remarks to his students, he excoriated these pamphlets and their authors in a manner which could have little other effect than to throw fear into anyone who would dare read them. We are told that no effort at all was made to answer the issues that we have brought up in these pamphlets; which, incidentally, would be good issues to be discussed in any Association of Christian Scientists. The effort seemed to be devod entirely to indoctrinating the consciousness of these students with the official point of view, namely, that Paul Revere should be repressed.

Whether this was done with or without the knowledge of the Board of Directors, we have no way of telling, but his final charge to his students would indicate that his effort did have their knowledge and consent. He stated that if anyone in his Association could furnish an affidavit as to the identity of the writers of these pamphlets, that there would be no more pamphlets! Could that be done without a knowledge of the Board of Directors? We scarcely think so. It is almost like putting a price on the head of a criminal.

It recalls to our mind the words of William Penn when he was imprisoned for seven months in the Tower of London. for publishing one of his many books in defense of his Quaker faith. He said, “The Tower was the worst argument in the world to convince me, for whoever was in the wrong, those who used force for religion could never be in the right.” And surely this teacher and others ought to know that if what we are writing in these pamphlets cannot be answered except by force, the truth they contain will never be suppressed, but will eventually burst forth.

We assume this teacher means that if he gets some affidavits, he or the Board of Directors would descend to legal means to prosecute and endeavor to convict us for the violation of some technical legal point. This, of course, might be striking the spark that would throw the whole Christian Science Movement into another legal holocaust in the courts. Surely no eaest Christian Scientist, with any recollection of the days of 1919-1922, when animal magnetism was making sport of warring Christian Scientists, would want to do anything to let this be repeated.

What then shall be our attitude toward our Board of Directors, our teachers and our practitioners,-fear of them? Surely not. God is not a God of fear but of Love. Let us hold them in our highest sense of love. ‘fFor perfect Love casteth out fear.” Let us support them with the best thinking we are all capable of; as we have said before they have a job second to none in its importance and responsibility. They are under the greatest attack of animal magnetism the world has ever known. Our Cause depends upon how they meet it.

To support them in this great task, we urge you to awaken yourselves and to awaken the sleeping membership around you. This is again the earnest message of Paul Revere.

Send us the names of those advanced students to whom you think it wise and helpful to send these pamphlets, and the money, and we will mail them. Send unsigned lists if you desire to protect your identity.




Chapter Sixteen: “Even Unto This Day”

Pamphlet Number Sixteen — Paul Revere

Sometimes the critics of these pamphlets call us names. Recently a teacher, who is also an official of the Mother Church, stigmatized the pamphlets as “cowardly and scurrilous attacks upon the Board of Directors at Boston”. It is quite difficult for us to determine, exactly, whether such appellatives are used because the person from whom they emanate believes in “Boston, right or wrong” or whether, on the other hand, our presentation of the issues might have been inadequate.

To be entirely fair to our readers, particularly to those who honestly believe that we are “attacking” the Board of Directors; that we have an “axe to grind”; or that we have some “fancied grievances”; we should like to clarify further some of the objectives of these pamphlets. Let us assure every Christian Scientist that we have not intended at any time to attack the Board of Directors. The word attack implies animosity or envy. We have no such thoughts and never have had. We have no reason, nor any Christian right, to attack anybody. It would be entirely contrary to all that Christian Science teaches.

Let us repeat that neither the obvious nor implied motive that prompts us to write these pamphlets is to do something to the Board of Directors. We have no design leading to removal of them from office; neither do we urge others to make any such effort. We much prefer that the Directors stay right where they are; carrying on the work of the organization; fulfilling its great destiny. Never has the world needed the leadership of Christian Scientists and of the Christian Science organization, with what it stands for, more than it does today. Through the press and radio there are constant repetitions of formulas for lasting peace; ways to deal with friends and enemies; methods to suppress our foes and bring to our friends, prosperity and contentment.

But how can Christian Science and the. Christian Science organization lead unless the organization, within itself, demonstrates that it is free from any tinge of that evil which this war is being fought to obliterate from the world? This war is being fought to remove dictators and regimentation from power. If the struggle has not accomplished this end the war will have been, largely, fought in vain. But there is another and equally important purpose that must be achieved. That which might be called a “dictator complex” must likewise be removed from human consciousness, or those nations which unwittingly permitted dictators to seize power in the past will soon again nd themselves in the barbarous tolls of new Hitlers and new Mussolinis. There will be new names and new faces; different but plausible circumstances surrounding their rise to power; but the same serpent will be hidden in the background; the same design will actuate mortal mind’s moves; and the world will be plunged again into a terrible holocaust. The removal of Hitler and his clique will never insure that Germany will not have another dictator. The fall of the Kaiser in 1919 insured no such thing. To insure the removal of dictatorship from Germany or from any other country there must first be removed that influence which impels the peoples to want dictators. Only the awakening of the German people to spiritual aims and ideals will ever eliminate the constant danger of assumption of power by another dictator. But it is not the German people alone that have been infused with this “dictator complex”, it is one of the weaknesses of the human mind that has never been wholly removed from the consciousness of citizens of every country. And, sad to relate, this “dictator complex” is the great evil that has permeated our own beloved Christian Science organization. If this “dictator complex” is not removed from the Field consciousness and from the consciousness of the Board of Directors, accompanied by a change of attitude toward the Field on the part of the Board, we can look forward only to actual disintegration of our organization as Mrs. Eddy conceived it.

For the very reason that we, who prepare these pamphlets, see that this “dictator· complex” has infused the Field consciousness; ·and that the correction must come at that point; we see that there is no use in merely changing the personnel of the Board. We are attempting, rather, to bring to the Field an awareness of a certain condition that the Field seems unaware of, a mesmeric state of mind in which thousands of Christian Scien-theists look upon the members of the Board as practically infallible; exalt them, and follow their dictates, right or wrong. Such a condition is’so ti·agic-for there is no place where, today, more could be done for the world than in Boston,-within the walls of the office of’ the Board of Directors, under the very shadow of The Mother Church. There, by a simple change of attitude, the end of this war could be hastened; our boys brought home; future world peace insured; and the brotherhood of man established forever upon the earth. (S&H, 340)

Herein lies the great opportunity for Christian Science. The world needs to know that it is this “dictator complex”, not the dicttors, that primarily eng^finders wars. and strife, and puts an end to freedom in the individual and in organizations. The whole philosophy of Christian Science, if lived, would remove wars eternally from the earth and from the hearts of mankind. But it cannot be lived and demonstrated so.as to be a practical example that will impress the world, unless this “dictator complex” shall be removed from our midst; accomplished through a change of attitude on the part of both the Board of Directors and the Field. This “dictator complex” in our organization began be in evidence soon after Mrs. Eddy left us. It has grown quietly, and has been imperceptible, save to a few who have been alert to its gradual infusion into the thought of the Field. Today large numbers of the Field, yes, a majority of the members of Christian Science churches, have been so indoctrinated with the infallibility of officialdom that, almost as one, they pay homage to the utterances of “Boston”. It makes little difference who originates an edict, but if it comes from Boston, it is a mandate to be noted carefully; imitated if possible in local churches; but, on penalty of probation o possible excommunication, not, under any circumstances, to be disobeyed. The personnel of the Board changes, as we all know, but this attitude of thought goes on. We, of Paul Revere, know that in the nal’ analysis the change must come in the composite of the Field consciousness. So we are not, in any sense, attacking the Board. We are not attacking anybody.

If any of you think we exaggerate in our praisal of the attitude of the Field in its exaltation of the Board, let us relate an example. One evening a man came to one of the writers of Paul Revere for help. This writer is not a practitioner but the visitor needed help, and, of course, there was but one thing to do and that was to help him. After his healing this same visitor came to call again and during the converstion was mentioned the article of Mr. G. A. Kratzer entitled, “Dominion Within” (that article which Mrs. Eddy wrote to Mr. Kratzer about and declared “superb”). Upon mention of the book th’e visitor took immediate issue, on the ground that no Christian Scientist should read it. For many years this man has been a member of a branch church and of The Mother Church. He has cupied nearly every office that his church has to give: First Reader, Chairman of the Board, Sunday School Teacher, Assistant Publication Committee, Lecture Committee and others. He has been thoroughly versed in organization. He is a class student of one of our best known lecturers and teachers. His background is nearly complete as far as organization goes. We knew all this so we asked why he spoke so disparagingly of the book. We pointed out that Mrs. Eddy had extolled the article “Dominion Within” when it had been published in the Sentinel. Had it now lost the spirituality that Mrs. Eddy recognized? The answer of this Christian Scientist was that if the Board of Directors had dead that he should not read the book, he would not read it and that was all there was to it. He said the Board had so much more experience than he that he thought the Board must know more about what he should read than he, himself; so he deferred to their judgment. Upon our asking him if he knew the Board personally, he said he did not; neither did he know how much spiritual prog-stress the individual members had made. He had heard that they were very spiritual; “in fact they must be”, said he, “to hold such an important position”. Think of it! Somebody told him the Board was a very spiritually minded group, so from that point on he disregarded Mrs. Eddy’s opinion of “Dominion Within” and yielded his freedom of thought to the Board of Directors; he gave up his birthright of thought and action to five persons whom he did not know but whom, somebody told him, must be very spiritual because they occupy the highest office in the organization,-a position obtained by a vote of three out of four humans. So he lets them dictate what he shall read; he lets them dictate what he shall think about.

Can not any thoughtful person see where that kind of thought leads? Is not that just the kind of mental ground that is fertile for dictators to sow seeds of fascism in? Think of thousands of Christian Scientists nurturing that mental attitude for years and years! Think of Christian Scientists, all over the world holding, in such an exalted state, the five persons who compose the Board of Directors! Think of the mental subservience to such a vision of omnipotence! And, of the greatest importance, think of the e ect of that kind of thought upon the Board! If thousands of Christian Scientists hold such a misconception of the Board, it amounts to mass mental malpractice. Can we blame the Board for accepting sufi suggestions, poured in upon them year after year, if the Field is in such a mesmeric state itself that the Board gets no support in its defense against malpractice? The evil lies at the door of the serpent of animal mag- netism that blinds both the Board and the Field to the fact that such a malpractice goes on; and makes all of us too apathetic to see it, or, if we do see it, too lethargic to do much to correct the condition. We, therefore, bear no malice against the Board of Directs-tors and have no desire to attack them. We have only a great appreciation for their efforts; and a sympathetic sense of the great burdens they bear.

No one should be “attacked”. We of Paul Revere’know that full well. The serpent of regimentation and dictatorship should be destroyed. It has invaded the mind of the Field until it produces numberless persons who talk of freedom, and of Love, and of Truth, and yet hold the Board in the awe that our visitor did. If the.Field does not see this thing, ds nothing about it, shall we, who do see it, keep quiet forever? No, dear friends, we should debase our own conscience, and brand ourselves forever the “cowards” that our critic charges us to be, if we do not continue to reiterate that which our long years of devotion to our dear Cause has charged us to do.

We know, and anybody who undersnds Christian Science at all ought to know, that “cowardly and scurrilous attacks upon the Board of Directors”, as we have been charged with, correct nothing. We have no “axe to grind”. We have no “grievance to be avenged”, as has also been charged. We seek no office. When the Directors have changed and no longer foster and encourage the kind of thought that this man, whom we have quoted, holds toward them, it is possible that pamphlets such as these will no longer be necessary. The moment that this change of thought results in the Directors bringing out in the periodicals, and in messages to the Field, statements that the Board does not want such adulation; that the Board are merely humans even as you and I, and are not Mrs. Eddy’s successors; that they seek spirituality as you and I do; that they do not consider themselves competent to pass upon the spiritual development of the Field at large and of persons that they have never even seen or heard of; and that the Board is not to tell you and me what we shall read or not read, on penalty of excommunication; from the moment that the Board takes that public attitude,-and this is our solemn conviction, - from that moment there would begin an irresistible movement toward a lasting peace, -one which the gates of hell could not break asunder. For from that very moment this “dictator complex” would begin to disappear from the consciousness of the Christian Scientists. The Board of Directors and the Christian Science organization would then assume the spiritual leadership of the world, which is the real destiny of Christian Science as envisioned by Christ Jesus and Mary Baker Eddy.

Another of our acquaintances owned the book, “Teaching and Addresses” of Mr. Edward A. Kimball, (an excellent expose of the workings of animal magnetism, by the way). You may recall that Mrs. Eddy states on page 297 of First Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany that Mr. Kimball’s clear and correct teaching has been and is an inspiration to the whole Field. Therefore, what he has to say on the subject of animal magnetism is well worth study. The Christian Scientist, referred to, owned this book. He found much of spiritual value in it, and said so many times. He attended class with a prominent teacher and lecturer. He had retued from class but a few weeks when he BURNED this book which before had been helpful in healing him. Why? Because either his teacher told him to, as we have proof that other teachers have told their students to dor else this student had become so inculcated with Board worship that the very suggestion that officialdom frowned upon this book was enough to impel him to consign it to the ames.

Remember that this book is an exposure of animal magnetism. It exposes the influence that we are continually saying is back of the present Field attitude tow d the Board of Directors. Would not animal magnetism, in belief, be most anxious to have this book burned in order to save its own sense of life and power? And who would yield to the impulse to bu the book except one so influenced by animal magnetism that his thought had been indoctrinated with a sort of hero worship to the point of ceasing to think for himself. Inciting the buing of bks is an old and tried method of animal magnetism. But it has never halted the march of Truth and it never will. The same influence that makes students, after having gone thugh class, come home and bu a book of Mr. Kimball’s writings and other books such as “Dominion Within”, tried for centuries to prevent public reading of the Bible. Papal authoties vigorously suprted animal magnetism in this effort; and ecclesiastic edicts ordered citizens, into whose hands the Bible fell, to bu it. How similar to present orders to burn “Dominion Within” and “Teaching and Addresses” of Mr. Kimball such medieval edicts sound!

In the twelfth century there lived in the south of France a pious and diligent student of the Bible named Peter Waldo. At that time the only version of the Scriptures in use in Europe was the Vulgate or Latin Bible of Jerome. As a knowledge of Latin was conned to a few persons, the Bible was accessible to but one in many thousands. Peter Waldo became imbued with a great desire that the Bible be translated into common idiom so that it might be available to the masses. With the assistance of friends he translated the Bible into French, and began to circulate it among the French people. This was the first translation in a modern tongue ever to appear in Europe and the effect was electrical. The clergy, in true historical fashion, bitterly opposed Waldo and his efforts to bring the Bible to the common people. The work went on in spite of the clergy; So, again true to form, the clergy summoned the ancient weapon of persecution to their aid. Peter Waldo appealed to the highest church authority of the time, Pope Alexander III, who decided against him. Waldo continued to preach and circulate the Bible, however, insisting that he and his followers should “obey God rather than man”. Persecutions followed thickly upon Waldo and his little band. They were driven from place to place throughout Europe to avoid the wrath of the Pope and the clergy. His followers were burned at the stake, cut down with the sword, hurled from precipices and tortured in every conceivable way in order to destroy them and what they stood for; and to prevent the masses from reading the Bible which the clergy at that period did not “authorize”. How similar this all is to our present bans upon reading that which official Boston now decrees that we shall not read. The persecution for disobedience, of course, takes on a very different form, but the persecution, nevertheless, goes on, “even unto this day.”

In the fourteenth century there lived in England another Christian stalwart by the name of John Wycliffe. He became one of the king’s chaplains during the reign of King John, and his manful defense of the rights of the English Crown against the pre-tentions of the Pope at Rome rendered him very obnoxious to.the Pontiff and his partisans in England. In 1378 Wycliffe was called before a synod of clergy on a charge of heresy. Upon this occasion he “denied that censures pronounced by ecclesiastics were valid, unless they accorded with the will of God”. Then followed the first translation into English that had ever been made of the Bible. In 1384 he was cited to appear before the Pope to answer a charge of heresy. On December 31st of that same year, before having appeared, he was stricken and never spoke again; but the papal vengeance pursued him even into his grave. His books were ordered to be burned and his body torn from the grave and burned also, which infamous decree was carried out to the letter. He had made it possible for laymen to read that which the clergy had not “authorized” and he had held that “men are neither the better nor worse for church censures. but that the destiny of each is determined according to his own spiritual condition as a responsible creature”. And for these “heresies”, his books and his inanimate body were bued. Today Christian Scientists’ bodies are not burned to satisfy official displeasure; but their “unauthorized” books are.

On the 6th of July, 1373, there was born in a small town in Bohemia a child who was named John Hushes. Early in his career John ·Hushes became acquainted. with the writings of Wycliffe and was not long in adopting his views. Convinced of the truth of Wycliffe’s leading ideas Hushes was inspired to become the reformer of th.e church in Bohemia. He preached boldly against the intolerances of the clergy as had Wycli.e in England, The Pope, Alexander V, thoroughly incensed, cited Hushes to appear at Rome, but he refused to go. The Archbishop of Prague then took active measures.against Hushes, and, among other things, burned two hundred of Wycliffe’s books.. Hushes continued to defend Wycliffe as far as he believed him to be right, and declared his willingness to go to the stake if need be in defense of what he believed to be the truth. He was not willing to cease his warfare against the efforts of the clergy to censure and penalize the laity for disobedience of ecclesiastical regulations and bans and, finally, his enemies brought him before the Council charged with “encouraging his iends to resist the mandates of the ArchBishop; with inciting a schism of the state from the church; with appealing from the Pope to Christ”. He was allowed to defend himself but to no avail. His enemies required that he should either recant or suer death.

On the 24th of June, 1415, his books were bued as heretical. He was then conducted out of the city, to an open field, in which a stake and a pile of wood had been erected; and there John Hushes perished in ames. The followers of Hushes in Bohemian took up as to avenge his death, and a terrible civil war of fifteen years’ duration followed. He died largely because he had defended a man who had translated the Bible for the common people, who, the clergy held, should not read what the clergy had not “authorized”; and because he had reaffirmed the teaching of Wycliffe that “men are neither the better nor worse for church censures”. Thus passed John Hushes; his “unauthorized” writings “bued by the clergy”; his copies of John Wycliffe’s “unauthorized” books “bued by the clergy”; and at last his own mortal body “bued by the clergy”.

Had these brave Christians not been willing to sacrifice their lives if need be, that

the common people might read the Bible, who knows whether even today we should have Science and Health? The clergy, those centuries ago, probably felt in all sincerity, just as our officials in Boston feel today, that they knew better than the rank and le what was best suited to the spiritual growth of others, and so they fought such men as Peter Waldo and Wycliffe who declared openly “that the destiny of each is determined according to his own spiritual condition as a responsible creature”. They fought these men and this teaching with re; they imagined that to bu their books and their bodies would stop forever these efforts to liberate those who sought religious freedom. Had the no^ been the “Paul Reveres” in the persons of Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe and John Hushes and scores of other brave men who were willing to risk official displeasure of ecclesiastical authority we might not have our Bible today. Of course animal magnetism would struggle to prevent the Bible being read by the masses, it did it through the same sort of arguments in the twelfth century that it is using in the Christian Science organization today, in the twentieth century, to prevent the reading of anything that has not been authorized by the Board of Directors;-in other words, to force the Field to yield its right of independent thinking to those who, in authority, assume superior ability to think for all the rest.

In the light of all this historic background how can we sit idly by and permit animal magnetism, without opposition, to foist o, in revised form, a thousand year old medieval program, upon a twentieth century enlightened people such as the Christian Scientists of our beloved organization. Burning books has never stopped anybody from doing anything. It did not prevent the translations of the Bible from reaching the remotest corners of the earth and being today’s “best seller”. Neither will it ever stop the circulation of “Dominion Within”, of Kimball’s “Teaching and Addresses” nor scores of other spiritual books in circulation. Do not our tehers and practitioners know this? Have they never read religious history? Does not the Board of Directors know these things? It would seem incredible to us did we not know that animal magnetism used Mrs. Eddy’s very own students to opse even her, while she still was with them.

Who is to blame for this condition? Is it the Board alone? Shall it be corcted by removing the members of the Board? No. We must remove the animal magnetism that lulls the Field to sleep; that prevents otherwise spiritually minded people from seeing the tragedy of following these same intolerant practices which the Board of Directors so naively seems to believe have been buried in the dark pages of medieval history. Think about it, dear friends, pray over it. Save our Cause from such a te. We know full well that attacks upon the Board· will correct nothing; neither will attacks upn anybody else. We are not attacking anybody, as our hectic charges; we are stating facts. You can judge for yourself whether or not many of the practices in the Christian Science organization during the past thirty-five years parallel these acts of past religious intolerance.

Let us reiterate once more that we hope we have not, inadvertently, said anything which seems like a personal attack while we are attempting to expose the work of animal magnetism. Surely in this blessed month of Dember, typifying the time when the great apostle of Love first came into the world, we cannot and must not permit ourselves to feel or express the slightest tinge of acrimony. Let us again assure you that we do not entertain any such thought, notwithstanding those things that we have said concerting the Board of Directors. We are perfectly sincere in saying if there were ever an opportunity for us to be of help to any one or all of the Directors, we should, with all the love of which we are capable, and with the greatest friendliness do anything in our power to help. God has imparted to this group who write these pamphlets many blessings, not the least of which is the great good that the Board of Directors has accomplished, and from which we have benefited. We cannot but remind ourselves of that fact. We are grateful to them for every bit of it.

Soon after you receive this number it will be Christmas, the birthday in the flesh of our blessed Master. Our hearts and our love go out to him and to Mrs. Eddy, those two, to whom we owe more than to anyone else in the world; and to you, dear friends, our hope for your manifold blessings. If we might meet you all, and know you, could come to you on Christmas, and take your hand for a quiet moment, we are sure that you would never believe that we think unkindly toward anyone; for, as we write, our hearts say to you, every one of you, “God bless you, and keep you, and bring you peace.”

Send us the names of those advanced students to whom you think it wise and hel ful to send these pamphlets, and the money, and we will mail them. Send unsigned lists if you desire to protect your identity.

PAMPHLETS PUBLISHED SINCE AUGUST, 1943

PolicieNot Persons.

Government of LawsNot of Men




Chapter Seventeen: The Only Textbooks for Self-Instruction

Pamphlet Number Seventeen — Paul Revere

On December 6th, 1944, we received a letter from Mrs. Alice Orgain, 300 Riverside Drive, New York City, requesting us to “refrain from mentioning my name in your publications, even with evident kindly intent.” A postscript attached to this letter is as follows: “P.S. Would you be so kind as to make the following statement in your next pamphlet: ‘Mrs. Alice L. Orgain has expressed regret that her name and that of one of her books were mentioned in our pamphlet number 15, in view of the great basic divergence of our positions in matters pertaining to the church.’ “ (Signed) Alice L. Orgain.

This letter presents us again with an opportunity to clarify our position and the purpose of the pamphlets we write under the nom de.plume of Paul Revere. Evidently, Mrs. Orgain has seen in our reference to her name and books some thought which we who wrote it do not see, but so far as we are concerned that makes no difference. If she wishes us to insert this paragraph, that is sufficient reason for us to accede to her request. After making this explanation in this pamphlet we shall not refer to her again.

To those of you who have not read our pamphlet number 15, we referred to Mrs. Orgain as one of many earnest and spiritually minded Christian Scientists who have been excommunicated or otherwise penalized for daring to write and to think fearlessly not only as a result of their divine inspiration direct from God alone, but in accordance with their constitutional rights as well. We are holding no brief for her writings; we are neither supporting her position nor opposing it. Furthermore, we know nothing of “the great basic divergence of positions” between what she writes and what we are writing, for we have never read more than a. few pages of anything that she has written. The point we are trying to make, and let us repeat it again and again, is this: that no one should be excommunicated by the Board of Directors in Boston because he has written something which has come to him as an inspiration from God, but which does not meet with their approval. This is the error that is as old as history. We referred to it in our pamphlet number 16 by showing that down through the years men have had their bodies burned for writing and reading something that somebody else did not approve of.

Let us analyze this error; this is the error that we are attacking; this is the error that is wrecking our Cause; this is the error that will continue in increasing degree if not uncovered and destroyed. It is not what Mrs. Orgain wrote, nor what others have written that is the danger; the danger is the historic, belligerent attitude of the Board toward the writings of others, and the meting out of punishment to those who dare defy their edicts. How can the Board so interpret the Manual of The Mother Church and Mrs. Eddy’s teching on this subject unless they are reading her writings through the dark glasses of the same old ecclesiastical mist that has darkened all material history; and neutralized the spiritual vision of every great spiritual light that has dawned upon the scene of human affairs; not excepting even the teachings of Christ Jesus himself!

Let us pull the scales of organization mesmerism from our eyes, and view this ma ter in a dispassionate and even horse-sense manner for a few moments. How could animal magnetism pick a better spot, to block more effectively the armies of spiritual unfold-foment, than to make them all go through the narrow pass of the censorship of a majority vote of five humans comprising a Board of Directors? As you kow, the B_oard, by a majority vote appoints its own successors in office (if we accept the present interpretation of the Manual that blithely waives the requirement in Article 1; Section 5, which requires Mrs. Eddy’s approval of their successors). For the sake of their own ease and harmonious functioning, the Board probably selects from the Field those who think as nearly as possible along their lines.· You can certainly rest assured, for instance, that in voting to ll the next vacancy on the Board, the remaining members will not vote for someone who thinks along the lines that we, of Paul Revere, advocate. Why? Because of our objection to the present Board policies that foster that “Board adulation” from the Field, which goes to establish the “Dictator Complex” to which we referred in pamphlet number 16. The first step, of one on the Board who thinks as we do, would be to initiate the removal of this· adulation sense by casting his vote to have the Board proclaim to the ·Field that this adulation is an error of the first magnitude; destructive to the whole Movement; and therefore must be eradicated. In the present state of Board consciousness such a vote would not meet with the approval of the other members of the Board and there should at once be an inharmony. While such a temporary inharmony might not be so pleasant as is the present, “Peace, Peace, all is Love” state of consciousness, it would nevertheless prove of inestimable value to our Cause.

We stated in paphlet number 15 that large numbers of good Christian people coe into the Christian Science Church from the regular orthodox churches. Many of these persons have been healed of physical diseases but have not been healed of old theologian-cal beliefs, yet it is these persons who comprise the body from which Board members are to be selected. Thus very soo the Board’s general thought and approach toward every church problem that they are called upon to consider, becomes an ecclesiastical instead of a Christianly scientific one.

Over a period of years during which many vacancies on the Board have been filled by the majority vote of the remaining members, we fally obtain a Board expressing certain definite views that have converged into a stated policy so settled and clear cut and so theologically patterned, that a new comer to the Board, not. conforming to this geneally accepted view, would be accounted in error. If he writes and thinks scientifically, and is free from old theology, the presentation of his viewpoint will be as obnoxious to the Board’s state of mind as was the sunlight to Kaspar Hauser when he was brought out of his dark dungeon into the light. As Mrs. Eddy states in Science & Health, page 195, “All that give pleasure to our educated senses gave him pain through those very senses, trained in an opposite direction.” Kaspar did not want anybody to disturb the haony of his black crust and dismal silence. If there had been no one to resist his entreaties to ,be taken back into his dungeon, his successors, if he could have had any, would surely know nothing of the glorious sunshine known only to those outside s cell. If there were no Paul Reveres or other loyal Christian Scientists to arouse the Field, to arouse the Board to the contemplation of other viewpoints- than the theological one; then the Board’s successors and our successors will know nothing of the glorious Truth and spiritual vision given to us by our dear Leader’s years of arduous effort.

If animal magnetism had used this theologic concept to keep the Board alone in the dungeon of darkness, it would be pathetic enough but not· too serious. But when no Christ.stian Science lecture can be given to the world without passing through the censorship of the thought of the Board, then the spiritual altitude of the• Board’s thought becomes a serious· matter.. When, since the. litigation decision.in 1922; not a single article in the Sentinel or other Christian Science periodicals can reach human consciousness in the.Field, without passing through the same censorship, this then becomes tragic. fountain can possibly rise higher than its source. No literature sent out from the Publishing Society can ow to the. Field from any higher spiritual altitude than the level of the thought of the governing Board in Boston: If then this governing Board can indoctrinate the Field with the thought that it is a heinous sin. to be found guilty of reading anything that the Board does not authorize; if the Board can indoctrinate.human co sciousness with a fear that a penalty will ensue to anyone who dares disobey such oft repeated indoctrinations, then the mesmerism of the. Field wil1 be complete, individual. unfoldment will be at an end, the vision of.the Cause will vanish, and the Cause. itself per^ ish. Mrs. Eddy’s warnings about the age being again sunken by animal magnetism into 1900 years of darkest night have been unheeded; and our Cause is faced With this very peril.

Let us not forget that Mrs. Eddy did not make any provision in our Manual for the governing.Board to have _any such direct power over the literature that is sent out to the Field. In directs.t language in Article XXV,,Section 8 of the Manual, she states, ‘Only the Publishing Society of The Mother Church selects, approves, and publishes the books and literature it sends forth.. “ This is another.one of the By-Laws blithely waived by the past and present interpreters ·.and enforcers of our Manual. How aptly Jesus’ parable about the, beam in one’s ow eye being removed before taking the moat.out of his brother’s eye, applies here. If certain By-Laws, that the present Board itself does nQt violate, are violated by others, the Board then sees t to excommunicate and penalize thes_e errant brother Christian Scientists. The By-Laws, however, that the Board itself violates, are just blithely waived; as though Mrs. Eddy had been in her dotage when she left these· By-Laws in the Manual to be enforced the same as any others. Is it not time, dear friends, that we all make a determined effort to awaken from the apathy animal magnetism has superimposed upon us and begin to ask each other, “How can these things be? What are we going to do about it? Is not something wrong? Have we interpreted her Manual wrongly?” Surely something or someone is wrong. We of Paul Revere are willing to wager that it isn’t Mrs. Eddy, aren’t you? For the Field to con tinue to cry, “Peace, Peace,” when there is no peace, but only a silly false sense of security, is going to accomplish nothing. All animal magnetism wants is for us to be’delUded and kept quiet a little longer with the talk of “Love wiII take care of its ·own” so that animal magnetism may accomplish its deadly purpose against our Movement. Is this not just the fulfillment of Mrs. Eddy’s words on page 102 of Science & Health; “So secret are the present methods of animal magnetism that they ensnare e age into indolence, and produce the very apathy on the subject which the criminal.desires.” Do such words always apply to some other Christian Scientists in some other lands or on some other planet? Did not Mrs. Eddy mean for us to be alert to this influence, or did animal magnetism cease functioning as·a destroying influence with her·passing on, and the passing on of her own. students? If she did not mean these words for all of us, why did she write them? For whom did she intend them? The depleted condition of the churches throughout the Field, the quality of the testimonies, the comparative dearth of men at our services as well as the scarcity of strangers at our lectures, all are indicative of where the trouble lies.

But some may take issue with us and ask the question, “Did not Mrs. Eddy arrange to have the various Christian Science periodicals edited and published?” Of course she did. Then does it not follow.that if articles are to be published, Mrs. Eddy must have provided for some one to pass upon their scientific qualifications? Certainly it does. Then is not the quality of the periodicals determined by the spiritual altitude of those -ho pass upon them and admit them for publication? Of course it is. To all of this we agree. Naturally, there has to be some Board or group to be the final word as to what constitutes scientific literature in our periodicals. We do not think that Mrs. Eddy’s intent was fulfilled by the decision in the court in 1921 that combined the executive branch with the scientific press, so to speak, any more than a disease is completely and finally healed by resorting to a material remedy, even though there may ensue a period of temporary relief. Nevertheless, we are not making this point an issue in this pamphlet.

We are, however, making the issue that it is not the province of any Board under Mrs.. Eddy’s Manual, or Deed of rust, to control, through threat.s of excommunication and various other penalties, the writings of other Christian Scientists, when such writings are not intended for publication in the periodicals of The Mother Church. When a Christian Scientist rites down his thoughts of Christian Science in the form of an article, and does not submit his article to the Publishing Society for some group of humans to pass upon, that is h_is business and hi alone, and n Board has any moral nor Manual right to control it. If he sees t to how it to his friends or even to his patients, that is still his business. And he violates no By-Law of the Manual in so doing. The only By-Law that can possibly be construed. as affecting sµch a procedure is Article I, Section 1, which reads as follows: “The Bible, together with Science and Health and other works by Mrs. Eddy, shall be his only textbooks for self-instniction in Christian Science, and for teaching and practising metaphysical healing.” Let us note that this By-Law specifically excludes• as being sanctioned by our Leader, (“for self instruction in Christian Science, and for teaching and practising metaphysical healing,”) everything ever written or ever to be written on the subject of Christian Science, excepting the Bible and Mrs. Eddy’s works. This means, then, that articles in the Sentinel, in the Journal, published lectures, published statements from the Directors, articles in the Monitor and all pamphlets sold in the Reading Rooms are all likewis e excluded by this By-Law.

It -is true that all of these can be helpfuland. contribute to individual development, but, in the final analysis, they are all human opinions,-human interpretations of the Bible and of Mrs. Eddy^s writings,-human efforts to explain and make plainer from different angles, the great fundamental, unchanging, basic Principle contained in these books,- but all subject to the limitations of human censorship. The books alone contain the Prints-ciple. How well our dear Leader knew that these alone contain that which is suitable for self instruction.

Following the same reasoning, what about the custom of the practitioner who hands to his patient, articles prepared by the practitioner, but without having had such articles censored by anyone, or by no other criterion than his.own understanding of God and his own inspiration? Is such a practitioner violating this By-Law? Obviously it must be acknowledged by using simply the horse-sense to which we alluded above, that if it be admitted that it is proper to convey audibly to the patient, the practitioner’s impersonal and metaphysical thoughts without calling up Boston to see if what he is saying meets with their approval, then it must be equally right for the practitioner to hand to the patient these same thoughts written on a piece of paper.

The By-Law does not authorize this practice on the part of the practitioner, but neither does it sanction the use of those so-called “authorized” articles, such as Adam Dickey’s article, “God’s Law of.Adjustment” which probably has been handed to thousands of patients by listed practitioners all over the land. Any approval by any human Board cannot bring Mr. Dickey’s article within the pale of this By-Law any more than it can debar practitioners from giving to patients if they are led to do so, those so-called “unauthorized” articles and written thoughts of practitioners such as we have cited above. No one is going to take “God’s Law of Adjustment” as a textbook; neither is any one going to take the written article of a practitioner as a textbook, when he hands it to his patient.

But this is precisely the experience of one ne Christian Science practitioner who has been excommunicated from The Mother Church. We have in our possession copies of the correspondence of several cases with the Board of Directors, one of which we should like to review. This one relates to the experience of Mr. George A. Kratzer, the compiler of the almost priceless book to which we have referred in our other pamphlets, “Teaching and Addresses of Edward A. Kimball”. Mr. Kratzer was a minister of the gospel, but after coming into Science was almost completely healed of his orthodoxy, as can be readily seen by reading such books of his as “Dominion Within”, where there is not a trace of “old theology”. He states that, as a minister; however, he had acquired that state of mind known among ministers as “Fertility of Mind”-a state of mind that for every sermon worked out, three or four more would crowd his consciousness to be expressed. After he became a Christian Science practitioner this same state of mind became manifested in articles, some of which appeared in the early Sentinels. It was as natural for him to give expression to these thoughts as for a musician to bring forth music and song. Who would think of telling a musician not to bring forth the music that was clamoring for expression?

But this is what the Board of one of the churches in Chicago did when Mr. Kratzer applied for membership. He was refused membership because he would not desist using manuscripts on Christian Science written by himself. Certain members of this church “reported” this fact to the Board in Boston. From a letr to him from the Board of Directors, we quote the following sentence: “It is claimed that you violate the provisions of our Church Manual by the circulation of literature other than that which is published by our denomination and which correctly sets forth the teaching of Christian Science and that you systematicalJy furnish your patients with your own written articles in preference to the literature provided by our Leader and our Publishing Society”. This was the basis upon which he was excommunicated from The Mother Church. Think of it! A man so gifted that wonderful articles on Christian Science owed from his pen as easily as music from a musician’s mind! Remember, too, one of these articles, Mrs. Eddy wrote to him was “superb”. Imagine keeping Paderewski from giving to the public his wonderful concerts unless they had been censored and passed upon by a Board, none of whom could match his ability. Why excommunicate Kratzer? Why not give him a job on the editorial sta of the Publishing Society so as to furnish a proper medium for him to express his God-given inspiration. Ever since that day back there in 1916 there has been, through persecution, calumny and slander, a constant effort to keep his books from being read. Yet the publishers of “Teaching and Addresses” have recently extended the copyright up to 1970 and the publishers say it is sold alJ over the world. We use these books ourselves and we know of many other practitioners and teachers who use them also. But when we do use them, the attitude of the Board of Directors toward these books unconsciously makes us feel as though they were “bootleg” litrature instead of the clear and correct statements of Christian Science which they are.

Why are there from Boston so many admonitions against reading other than “authorized” literature? There is a very simple remedy for this sin, if sin it be,-so simple that it is indeed strange that the Board of Directors have never thought of it. Just’ make the Sentinel and Journal so full of similar articles that there is no need for people to spend three dollars for a book when they can obtain these articles in the Sentinels for ten cents apiece. Instead of harping at people reading things other than “authorized” literature, why not be grateful that people are so eagerly seeking a better knowledge of God that they not only are willing to pay the price to get it, but are even willing to endure the frown of paternal officialdom and risk the threats of penalty. If Mr. Kratzer had been put on the editorial sta instead of being excommunicated, the whole Field consciousness would have been uplifted and enriched by the inspiration of his mind, and the Move-foment would have been saved one of the disgraceful proceedings that have darkened it since our Leader has left us. For example, if but a small fraction of the Carpenters’ wonderful and priceless writings, were put in our periodicals each week, not only would the sales increase, but the people who now journey to the Congressional Library in Washington for the sole purpose of reading and copying them could read them at their own reside in peace and comfort. They would not be forced to read them in secret as did the early Christians who smuggled their Bibles into the attics to read them, so as to avoid the penalties of priestaft. If, as we said in our pamphlet, “Slaves to Freedom” the practitioners and teachers are not afraid of this priestcraft that has been built up in our organization, making it a duplicate of the Romish system, then let us who now read Kimbalrs book, and Eustace, and Kratzer and others, let us then do openly, what we now do in bootleg fashion. There is nothing to be ashamed of in reading what Mr. Eustace has written. If we haven’read what Mr. Eustace has written, how can we judge that it isn’t good, and good for us? Are we depending upon someone’s else reading it and then accepting their verdict as a criterion for us? If it is right for some one else, some of-cial, to read it so as to judge of its merits, then it is right for us to read it. Let us not unconsciously contribute to the building up of “the double doctrine of the church of Rome” in our beloved organization-one doctrine for the initiated and one for the uninitiated.

Are we obeying the 6th Tenet, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us? Suppose your own brother had been excommunicated for standing for his highest sense of right and duty, would you want others to refuse to read what he had written, especially when those writings are healing and helping hundreds and thousands of earnest students? We have referred before to the book, “Christian Science and Organized Relig-ionit by Studdert Kennedy. We recommend again that this book be widely read for the enlightenment of the whole Field in regard to Mr. Eustace and what he stands for. It would be of great benet to the whole Movement.

Each one of you has the God given ability to think and to judge. Therefore arouse yourselves! Read what you are led to read and then judge whether it is good or bad, but let us not condemn something we know nothing about! Is not that what our orthodox ministers tried to do-condemn Science & Health without reading it, condemning it on the hearsay of others? Let us not let animal magnetism make us duplicate that procedure. We are free men, a part of the mogt wonderful organization on the face of the earth, since the beginning of the world. Let us not lose our birthright, our freedom to think, to read and to write what we are d-led to write, with no thought of penalty for so doing. Let us all arouse ourselves, and end this apathy that animal magnetism is using, with the deadly purpose of casting upon our whole organization the deadening robes of old theology; that false sense of God which our dear Leader said, cost her so many years of invalidism.

Send us the names of those advanced students to whom you think it wise and helpful to send these pamphlets, and the money, and we will mail them. Send unsigned lists if you desire to protect your identity.




Chapter Eighteen: Love That Is Lived

Pamphlet Number Eighteen — Paul Revere

In all of the literature of the world there is probably no more sublime expression of love than that contained in the first three chapters of the book of the prophet Hosea. Had the entire compass of the prophet’s work come within the circumference of these few verses, had he written nothing else, his contribution to humanity would have been immortal.

Written more than seven hundred years before Christ, Hosea’s concept of love, had it permeated the consciousness of society, would long since have ended wars and established the brotherhood of man. For here was an act of love far above the sensuous conception and cold conventionality of intellectual attachment and platitudinous repetitions of “Love, Love”. Hosea not only talked love-he lived it. In a metaphor of great beauty he conceived of a God that would pardon the iniquity of His people even though they betrayed Hi. Hosea proceeded to put into practise in his own life, and with his own wife, this concept of God. The paramours of Gomer, his wife, had led her finally to abject slavery through her own transgressions. She had fallen to the lowest depths of degradation, yet Hosea’s quality of Love inspired him to redeem her by the payment of a ransom: “And I said unto her, thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee.” Hosea 3:3 By these acts Hosea defined God, and by them came very close to the heart of divinity; for there are but three definitions of God in the whole Bible and one of these is: “God is Love.”

When Mrs. Eddy was questioned as to the most profound statement in Science & Health she replied: “Blessed is that man who seeth his brother’s need and supplieth. it, seeking his own in another’s good.” 518:17. The application of that statement is at once obvious. God is Love; to know God is to know Love. Hosea knew this and lived it. Christian Science is redolent with Love. Love is the heart and soul of it. Take away love and Science has lost its Christianity. The Christian Science organization was instituted to bring to the world a better application of this Love. Nowhere is the word Love spoken more often than among Christian Scientists. We have caught something of its meaning.

In these pamphlets we have spoken of Christian Scientists and the Christian Sci-thence organization as assuming a role in world leadership. We wish no one to gain the impression that we are concerted with politics as such. We do not expect that our organization is to displace someone or some group that now has an important function in domestic or inteational affairs. It is not that at all. We see a need for a spiritual animus to guide the thoughts of these men in power. We see that peoples throughout the world that are now in the toils of dictators, or enslaved by invaders, will not be truly freed just by casting out of their countries their warlike masters. Enslaved peo-planes will be really free only in proportion as their own national govements become spiritualized. Their govements probably will not become spiritualized until the peo-planes themselves have learned that they need spirituality and demand it of their leaders. These enslaved countries have churches. They have clergies. The people are humanly good. But they must also realize that that does not go far enough. They know that human goodness does not heal the sick. They know that their concept of God does not prevent the invader from despoiling them and their property. They are ready now to be told. Who is to tell them? Should it not be the duty of Christian Scientists to tell them of the great power for freedom that lies in Mrs. Eddy’s scientific concept of God? The world is hungering for this both at home and abroad. Here is our opportunity; not, however, to seek positions of temporal power but to support every effort to promulgate, by teaching and demonstration, the Truth that we know. If we, as an organization, see this need and by demonstration alone, seek to help the world toward an enlarged understanding of God we shall, in spite of ourselves, become world leaders. But we shall be the kind of leaders that Mrs. Eddy was, who sought for herself, as a human being, absolutely nothing. We shall have the kind of leadership that comes to one who has felt the great redemptive power of divine Love, and yearns above all, that the suering and sorrowing may partake of the same blessings that have come to him. There is no politics or self-seeking in that.

It takes more than “much preaching” to prove to the world that we are prepared to do this great work. It requires a far broader vision of our destiny than that evidenced by a Board spending its time in the picayune practice of listening to tales of gossip about someone who reads Mr. Eustace’s books or other books that are unauthorized. Much more is needed than platitudinous repetitions of “Love, Love” to convince a war torn world and ravaged peoples that the truth to be found in Christian Science can redeem the world and prevent another such holocaust.

It is in this sense that we have written before, and repeat now, that Christian Sci-thence and its demonstration should lead the world out of “Chaos and old night”. We have the right, therefore, and should by all means exercise the privilege to examine ourselves individually and as an organization to see whether we are prepared to assume this great obligation; whether we are qualified for this great work. How have we fulfilled our stewardship thus far? How have we conducted the affairs of our own organization life? Have we in the branch churches so conducted ourselves within our memberships as to prove that we are ready for the kind of world leadership that we have described? Has the Board at Boston; and have the other officials of the Movement carried out their stewardship so that the world can look to them for leadership? The evidence would indicate that neither the Board nor we in the Field have done so.

As individuals, however, Christian Scientists have done much wonderful healing. They have proved the power of God in personal affairs in a great measure. Were persons in the enslaved countries to talk with individual Christian Scientists many would discern the great good that Christian Scientists have derived from the study of Christian Science. But, by contrast, were these same persons to investigate for themselves the record of the progress and the conduct of the organization as a whole, they could not fail to see in it the very seeds of dictatorship and regimentation that have already brought them into slavery.

Should they come into the organization they would immediately be told what they must read. They would be told that should they dare to read what Boston did not “authorize” they would be considered in disrepute among the ranks of Christian Scientists, they might even be excommunicated from the church. They would be told that if they suered from weak eyes so that glasses seemed necessary they would be admitted to the ranks of those elect; if they gossiped, if they bore false witness, if they coveted, if they took the word of the Lord in vain; all these and many other weaknesses of the human mind would never be mentioned. But-should they smoke, or should they drink intoxicants, no matter how hard, or for how long they had earnestly tried to overcome these claims of matter, they would be told that these two are especial deterrents on the road to freedom, and they must stand aside until these evils have been overcome. What do you think a starving Greek or a ravaged Pole or an enslaved Frenchman, that has been torn from his family and deported to a German war plant, would say to that? Would he say, “Here lies freedom”? Would he say: “Here is the organization that has proved its rights to the spiritual leadership of the world by its great tolerance and love, here is the way to emancipation, here is the path to permanent peace?” Oh no, indeed! They have chafed under too many restrictions such as these under the invaders of their own countries. If we are truly introspective, if we are willing to admit to ourselves that we can, as an organization, err, then, in the humble opinion of these writers, we must admit that we are not prepared to accept the great charge that Mrs. Eddy expected that we should one day be ready to accept.

A few years ago a branch church, in a city in which there were several branches, took a stand in accord with its highest sense of Principle. A stand at was at vari-fiance with that taken by some of the other churches. It had been oent in every respect to Mrs. Eddy’s requirements in the Manual. However, animal’ mag,netism, used this di erence of interpretation to incite enmity and distrust in the minds of the mem-fibers of the other churches toward this one; to do everything in their power to prevent its progress.

This developed a concerted effort to prevent any and all from joining this church. There ensued a whispered and open challenge that the church was disloyal, that no one who became a member could succeed in being healed or make a financial demonstration.

Soon after one became a member, a campaign began to induce him to sever his mem bership. The church had been loyal to the Mother Church. It had done absolutely nothing to bring down the calumny it suered for years from Christian Scientists.

The animal magnetism that had influenced the members_of these branch churches, also seemed to influence the Board of Directors in Boston, and caused them to put upon this church the added burden of their condemnation, instead of the love and helpfulness that a church should expect from the Bod under such circumstances. The result of all this. was that the church lost members. Also the, weight of this adverse influence was seemingly so great that the church was unable to make the demenstration.of paying the interest on its bonds as the interest fell due. Un fortunately there was in that local field but one teacher. It would, of course, be expected that he would have set an example ‘of loving kindness for all of his students as. well as for the Field, yet animal magnetism seemed to have used him also to exercise an undue control over that field to the extent that this teacher actually advised one of his students that had invested in the church bonds, to demand ·of that church the return of the cash he had invested. This was done with the teacher’s malediction: “The bonds of the church will become but scraps of paper.” Here was a teacher, a practitioner, a supposedly advanced and spiritual Christian Scientist laying down a law that a Christian Science church must fail. Think of the enormity of such a thought sent out to patients; think of the effect of an aggressive mentality such as this, malpracticing on a church, hoping and expecting that it would fail, much as if one, in a t of jealousy, were to wish that another practitioner’s patient would die. Although the activities of this church have been sadly crippled, the church has not failed. It carries on, although still under this attack. It has met all of this in a spirit of love. It has never retaliated. The Board of Dectors knowing of this condition had many opportunities to express love toward that church; to respect it because of its motives; to help to heal it if it needed healing; but under no condition to persecute it. Had the church been in the wrong the only possible scientific thought for another Christian Scientist to hold toward it would be to see it lovingly. The Board of Directors, however, under the same claim of animal magnetism, in effect, abetted the efforts of local Christian Scientists to discredit the church, thereby imposing upon it a ·great additional burden which the church must demonstrate over in order to continue its very existence. In the face of these and so many other similar “carryings on” how can such Christian Scien-theists measure up to the requirements necessary to ll posts of spiritual leadership of the world? How can a Board be ready for spiritual leadership that would hold such an attitude of thought toward a branch church that has committed no crime other than that of maintaining its right to interpret the Manual according to its own highest spiritual inspiration?

At times there have been members of the other churches who have deplored such unloving conduct. They supported this church with their thoughts and spoke for it in pub-folic. One was a woman, who was outspoken in her defense of it, and her declamations were that if the church should be wrong, the way to heal it is to love and help it. Her fellow members, however, were deaf to her pleas. Soon she left her own church and with the greatest love joined the condemned church in order to lend her support to defend it against the malpractise of other Christian Scientists. She was very spiritual, she healed many cases, but it was not long before animal magnetism included her in its attack upon the church.

This woman, probably, largely because of this malpractice from other Christian Scientists, was brought into court charged with a crime particularly distasteful to society and she was sentenced to prison. The church she had joined did not know whether, in the eyes of the law, she was guilty or not as charged. That made little difference to this church so far as its attitude of helpfulness was concerned. Here was an opportunity for it to show a true sense of Love. And it did. The woman was sent to prison. That church maintained her membership thruout her term of several years. It sent food to her. It sent money, it sent its kindest thoughts, it sent literature regularly, and so far· as possible the members visited her. This act on the part of that church seems to us to have parallelled that of Hosea in redeeming his wife out of harlotry. A church that will do such a noble deed as that, does not deserve discredit and opposition and calumny; it deserves support and love and help. Yet what have the Directors said of that church? One of the members of the present Board of Directors at Boston said, “That church is no credit to the movement.” Think of that!-from the highest body of a great spiritual organization whose watchword is Love!

At the time of the litigation between the Directors and Trustees of the Publishing Society a certain practitioner felt that his deonstration had required of him that he continue to subscribe to the Sentinel and Joual and Monitor while the litigation was going on.

He disagreed with the official point of view that was disseminated from Headquarters, that, in order to prove loyalty to the Mother Church the Directors must not be disagreed with, and to prove it every Christian Scientist. must discontinue his subscription to the periodicals. The purpose therefore was to assist t e Directors to subdue the Trustees of the Publishing Society through a process of boycotting the Publishing House and through cutting o its income “Reduce the Publishing House to a shell”, to quote om the court records of the trial.

This practitioner felt that, since Mrs. Eddy herself had instituted the periodicals and urged all Christian Scientists to subscribe to them, his duty was to continue his subscriptions. He felt that the suit could go forward and be settled without anyone discontinuing his subscriptions to the various periodicals; for the controversy was not over the scientific import of what was published. This was not questioned. This practitioner did not assume that either the Directors or the Trustees were right; he did not take sides. He merely felt that he ought to continue to support Mrs. Eddy’s periodicals. He thought that he ought to continue his Journal listing as a practitioner. He did that. But these things as we have just mentioned constituted disloyalty to the Directors in the eyes of the Directors themselves and in the eyes of most Christian Scientists.

When the suit had been finished twenty-eight practitioners, most of whom neve1 knew the man personally, and one teacher, signed a petition to the Board of Directors that this practitioner’s name be dropped from the Journal listing on the grounds that he did not live in “Christian Fellowship” with other Christian Scientists in the Field. He was unquestionably loyal to Mrs. Eddy and to the Mother Church. He worked assiduously in his branch church. He healed the sick and had a practise which probably was as large or larger than that of any of the complaining practitioners. As soon as the Directors had secured control of the publications by legal means his name was dropped from the Journal.

This practitioner, however, went on with his healing work. Some years later he had a patient whom he had healed of several serious difficulties. Although he gave his time with the greatest freedom he remained practically unpaid for his services. (This fact was revealed by the patient, not the practitioner.) Notwithstanding all this, and her public testimony that she had been healed by this practitioner, animal magnetism influenced her to join in the general attack un him and she turned against him for no apparent reason: She did n?t he^itate to circu^ate false test_imony against his character. She did not hesitate to malign him. All of this came to his knowledge. Subsequently this patient was stricken with another serious malady-a belief of malignant cancer. She sought help of several practitioners, other than this one who had first healed her. She received little help and having become almost penniless was taken to a free ward in a municipal hospital, after her physicians had declared that she could not live five days. This practitioner heard of her plight. In spite of the vilification that he knew had been heaped upon him by this former patient, he went to the hospital in the spirit of the greatest love and compassion, and certainly with no thought of compensation. There he oered his services, believing that, having healed this woman before of other scalled incurable diseases he could do so again. The patient was quickly healed and returned to her normal pursuits.

Largely as the aftermath of the litigation incident wherein this practitioner had been guilty of but one oence, that of continuing to subscribe to Mrs. Eddy’s periodicals throughout the trial, his name has been kept from the Journal listing to which he has been on every possible moral and Christian count entitled. The Board of Directors knew of the history of this man. They knev’ this incident of love wherein this man had blessed one that had despitefully used him. They knew of his wide practice, of the many remarkable healings that he brought about. Yet, again and again, when he applied to have his name reinstated in the Journal he was peremptorily refused with the blunt statement that the Board did not consider him ready to be listed in the Journal.

e act of this practitioner parallelled that of Hosea. It was an act of love of the kind seldom met with. It was the kind of practical demonstration of Love that, if all of us lived, if the Board of Directors would practice, would revolutionize the world and prevent wars for all time. The Board has not demonstrated this kind of love in its attitude either toward the church mentioned above nor this practitioner and many oers. It is almost inconceivable that the highest authority in the organization, a group made up largely of teachers, could permit animal magnetism to use them so to lose the true sense of Love as to maintain such an attitude toward sincere and eaest Christian Scientists regardless of how the faults of the persons, if any, may appear to the Board members as their consciousness.

By contrast, we can think only of Mrs. Eddy’s analysis of the act of Mary Magdelene who perfumed the feet of Jesus with oil. Mrs. Eddy asks the pertinent question: “Did Jesus spurn the woman?” The rest we all know. Jesus did not spurn the woman, neither did he condemn her. “He regarded her compassionately.” Have the Board of Directors regarded this practitioner compassionately? No, indeed, they have not. They have spurned both the practitioner and is church.

We are relating these instances to you for no other reason than to illustrate our point. Let us cite another example. We should like to refer briefly to the excommunication of Mr. Herbert Eustace after the litigation. In the preface of his excellent book, “Christian Science, Its ‘Clear, Correct Teaching’.” Mr. Eustace gives a record of letters that passed between him and the Board of Directors, together with something of the events that lead up to his excommunication. The letters speak for themselves without any word from Mr. Eustace. The spirit of the letters from the Board to Mr. Eustace cannot be construed in any possible way as being loving. Far from it, they bespeak a very cold, uncompromising, intolerant and, sad to say, unfair and prejudiced attitude.

Not too long ago a very prominent teacher of Christian Science was reading to his class the history of the litigation. He told of the lawsuit, of the decision first in favor of the Trustees, then its reversal by a higher court. Then he spoke of the fate of the three Trustees, two of whom have passed on, the third being Mr. Herbert Eustace. This teacher concluded his remarks about the history of these three men by saying with no little emphasis, “And they got their just deserts!”

Let us remember that Christian Scientists perhaps more than any other group on earth preach Love. They know that without Love there can be no Life, there can be no Truth. Without Love there can be no Heaven; without Love there can be no God. It is the heart and soul of humanity. The very watchword of a teacher, who is to guide a class of thirty seekers for Truth, should be Love. Students certainly expect in class, of all places to hear love expressed by a teacher. And yet this teacher said of three sincere Christian Scientists who had stood for principle and seemingly had lost, that, “They got their just deserts.” Did he regard them compassionately as Jesus did the Magdalene? No, this teacher spurned these men. He seemed to be gratified by their punishment.

Two had died, the other had been excommunicated from the Mother Church.

Can we not all see that our beautiful Cause which Mrs. Eddy labored so long to establish will perish unless we banish · the animal magnetism that so subtly passes o upon us such unwholesome counteeits of Love? As we of Paul Revere have said so often, the great opportunity, indeed the solemn duty of the organization is to lead the world by example, the example of Love. is is not being done. Our trust is being betrayed.

Let us all awake; stir ourselves to see this evil influence that causes us to act thus.

It is the same animal magnetism. The Board of Directors, and the teacher to whom we have referred, are undoubtedly sincere. They simply do not recognize the imminent peril of animal magnetism, in a false sense of Love, permeating the organization, causing so much of the Field and so many branch churches to follow blindly the unloving acts of the various Boards that have functioned since• Mrs. Eddy left us.

For more than two thousand years we have had the example of Hosea who obeyed the command: “Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the Jove of the Lord, toward the children of Israel.” Hosea 3:1 What if Hosea instead of redeeming his wife from the slavery that had come upon her because of her own transgressions had said, “She is no credit to me”? What if Hosea, when it was reported to him, “Your wife has become a harlot and is now a slave” had replied, “She got her just deserts”? Had Hosea acted thus unlovingly his name would have gone down into obscurity. If the teaching of our teachers cause us as an organization to act thus unlovingly, our Cause will sink into oblivion.

Animal magnetism, in belief, is constantly at work. Our Cause can perish for want of the warmth and compassion of Love. And who shall be responsible? Shall it be the Board alone? No, indeed! The Board of Directors is the Field’s demonstration. Let us support them lovingly. Support them as never before. The hour of need is here. Even years before Christian Science was discovered, the great saviour of our own Republic saw the great and imperative need for love, our beloved country was preserved intact, that Science and Health might be written and freely circulated throughout this blessed land. Abraham Lincoln’s magnanimous attitude toward General Lee and the South exemplified his great Jove for humanity. That love saved a nation. That same kind of love toward Herbert Eustace and others would not only save our 9ause but elevate it to a spiritual altitude that would enable it to bring to all nations upon the earth the healing and redemptive power of Christian Science.

Send us the names of those advanced students. to whom you think it wise and helpful to send these pamphlets, and the money, and we will mail them. Send unsigned lists jf you desire to protect your identity. Our Church Manu.

PolicieNot Persons.

Number nineteen




Chapter Nineteen: Christian Scientists and Organization Scientists

To those of us who have been members of The Mother Church for many years there has come, almost imperceptibly, a realization that today the mental and spiritual attitude of both individual Christian Scientists and the collective body of Christian Scien-theists diers very greatly from the quality of thought prevalent throughout the Field when our Leader was personally with us. A careful and dispassionate analysis of this situation cannot possibly reveal that the change has been a growth spiritward.

In the last ten or twenty years, thousands have come into the organization for healing, and many have been healed, but they have necessarily taken the organization as they found it; they have no way of knowing whether it is better or worse in this respect than in the years preceding. They see beautiful churches, well dressed and happy congregations, and thousands of evidees of organization’s might and power. In comparison with the orthodox churches they emigrated from, this undoubtedly seems wonderful. But to those who have felt the more spiritual state of thought of the earlier years, this material display of activity must appear as different in its significance as did the atm9sphere of the mammoth Mother Church Extension to Mrs. Eddy, in comparison with the original Mother Church edifice. This difference is an indefinable spiritual thing that every spiritually-minded Scientist feels when he goes from the large building to the smaller one. The things of Spirit truly can not be defined in words; they simply are felt.

And so these pamphlets we write have their appeal chiefly to those Scientists who know and realize that something indefinable has gone from the mental atmosphere of our Beloved Cause. The pamphlets naturally might have little appeal to those younger students. Yet these younger students are going to be the standard-bearers of our Cause of tomorrow. What are we older Scientists going to do about it? What is our responsibility? Each month we ask in these pamphlets that you give us the names of those whom you deem ready for the message they contain. What do we mean when we say, “ready”? Do we not mean those in our Cause who are sufficiently advanced to discern the truth of which we write? Yes, but as we analyze it, we really mean more, do we not? We mean those Scientists that are sufficiently scientific to be free from that mental state that is so organization-minded that they would throw these pamphlets into the waste basket, because somebody said they shouldn’t read them. Believing anything or anyone that dares question the infallibility of organization simply must be in error.

Is it not true, though, that at the present time the large majority of Christian Scientists are of this latter type? How are we older Scientists, who are in the minority, going to bring to the majority something they know nothing about; and because they know nothing about it, let animal magnetism influence them to believe that they don’t want to know anything about it? To tell them that there is anything wrong with the organization;-that it is losing its spiritual vision and closely following the historic road of all other religions of the past, is almost futile; and falls on as dull ears as did the words of Noah to the bystanders. He answered their derisive sneers by continuing to construct the ark in order to save mankind from the flood that Noah was sure was inevitably coming.

We of Paul Revere are supported by many, many eaest and conscientious thinkers, from all over this country and abroad, who write and tell us that they, too, hear the sounds of the approaching flood,-that all is not well with our organization. Teachers, too, are beginning to tell their Associations that all is not well; Sunday Schools are often only half · what they formerly were in attendance; congregations have fallen o and Wedensday evening meetings are lacking that vital thing they once had. Do not think, dear friends, that we are voicing these errors for the mere purpose of reciting them; we do not like to emphasize them but they are not isolated and insignificant incidents. Their prevalency reveals a basic underlying error; something wrong. If there were no remedy, it would be idle and foolish for us to be spending the time, effort and money in broadcasting these messages to arouse the Field. We believe they are errors, grievous errors; the result of basic errors at work-errors of policy and because they are errors, there must be and is a remedy for them. The first step toward healing a error is to recognize that there is an error to be healed. We do not like to go on dreaming that all is well because we are told that there is one new church dedicated each week. That sounds big when you first hear it, but it is only fifty-two a year. Think of it; only fifty-two a year in all the world. And let us remember that this does not mean that fifty-two were built; it merely means fifty-two succeeded in paying o their mortgages, many of which have been of long standing for they were not built scientifically as was The Mother Church with all debts paid when the building was complete.

But if there were five hundred beautiful churches dedicated each year, that would mean nothing if the membership were so organization-minded that they lost the spiritual thing that the early churches had and that could be felt by all. The worldwide Roman Catholic organization has many beautiful churches and well attended, too. What does that prove? We have many lectures, many beautiful sermons; so have the orthodox churches. Pple go away in ecstasies from each. What does that prove? How many strangers are there at each Christian Science lecture,-people who have never studied a Christian Science? Precious few. Cities of three hundred to five hundred thousand persons are so little interested in a Christian Science lecture that seldom more than thou, s

What do we mean by the use of these terms, “Organization Scientists” and “Christian Scientists”? Are not all Christian Scientists, Organization Scientists? Yes, they are. For the most part they are imbued with a deep and burning love and devotion to the organization known as the Cause of Christian Science. Are not all Organization Scien-theists, Christian Scientists? No, we are sorry to have to admit that they are not. If any emphasis at all is laid upon the word Christi, far too many are not Christian Scientists. They say they are. They read the Lesson Sermon, or a section or two, every day. They go to church. They usher. They talk Christian Science on all occasions. They adhere to the routine duties called for in a Christian Science Church but they do it in much the same manner as members of orthodox churches fulfill the duties required of them in their churches. So what is the difference? The difference is just this. It is exactly the same dirence in the method of worship that existed between the high priests, Pharisees and elders of the church, and those of Jesus and his disciples. When on the other hand, man made rules and material interpretations of the By-Laws of the Manual, are supplanted by the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments in the thought and conduct of a Scientist he becomes at once a Christian Scientist. As we have quoted before, our Leader says on page 271 of Science and Health, “The Sermon on the Mount is the essence of this Science.” The concordances show over a dozen other pointed refe ences to it, one of which on page 3 of Rudimental Divine Science is as follows: “Genuine Christian Scientists will. no more deviate morally from that divine digest of Science called the Sermon on the Mount, than they will manipulate invalids, prescribe drugs or deny God.” Strong words, these, but they are not ours; they are our Leader’s. If obedi-thence to this admonition constitutes what Mrs. Eddy calls “Genuine Christian Scientists” are we or are we not right in our assertion that the proportion of Christian Scientists in our organization is deplorable in its relation to Organization Scientists?

All through history as we have often reminded the readers of these pamphlets,· organization-minded people in other ecclesiastical orders have ultimately violated every la of the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount as, in the name of the Church, they have watched the spiritually minded writhe in the ames of persecution. All kinds of atrocities have been perpetrated in the name of organization. The early manifestations of persecution did not assume the flagrant and openly atrocious violations of the spirit of the law that always finally developed. The more violent acts were worked up to, gradually, with the participants hardly aware of the ultimate taclysm that their course inevitably led to. Is not our organization today at the beginning of the very same mental development that culminated with the Spanish Inquisition? Haven’t we the same ele-foments in our Church today?

Let us cite a few cases that would seem to indicate that this is true:

Case 1. In a large Christian Science Church filled with about twelve hundred persons, a well-known practitioner got up during a Wednesday night testimony meeting and waffled the people against reading a book called “Dominion Within” by G. A. Kratzer to which we have alluded many times. He said that at first the book was very helpful and he derived much benet from it, but later he found that the book was very mesmeric and that he was only mesmerized into thinking that he had gotten good; that no one should read it, and that the book should be burned. Four of the articles are reprints from the Christian Science Joual and Sentinel and one of them Mrs. Eddy wrote to the au- thor about, saying it was “superb”. So what Mrs. Eddy says is superb this practitioner said mesmerized him. What really happened no doubt was this. He probably learned -that the book had been listed on the index expurgatorius because its author dared violate a rule of priestcraft. This practitioner therefore accepted the argument of animal magnetism that this man’s works should not be read because the author fused to conform to an official edict. Think of it! This organization minded practitioner letting animal magnetism influence him to use the occasion of a Wednesday night service as an opportunity to deprive Scientists of the good that is in this book, merely because the practitioner had accepted someone’s else slanderous attack against the author.

Case 2. You all know of Adam Dickey, Mrs. Eddy’s trusted secretary, the author of “God’s Law of Adjustment,” and Chairman of the Board of Directors dung the Litigation. He states that our Leader before she psed on, made him swear before Almighty God that he would let nothing keep him from writing for the public an account of what took place while he lived at our Leader’s home. For sixteen years he let animal magnetism keep him from obeying his oath. But just before he passed on he obeyed. He wrote as he was led to write by his inspiration from his God, but in doing so and keeping his trust with Mrs. Eddy he wrote some things that the Board did not, in their judgment, think should be published. The Board sent out word to call in the books. In direct violation af Mrs. Eddy’s solemn requirement of Mr. Dickey under oath, that he would publish such a book, the students in the Field instead of accepting the books, blindly obeyed organization laws and mandates and sent in the books. But copies of the book of course were placed in the les of the Congressional Library in Washington. The attendant there told one of the writers of Paul Revere that he had never seen such a disgraceful proceeding. The Christian Scientists, (members of our Church of divine Love and the Sermon on the Mount) came to the library, procured the books, mutilated and literally tore out the pages that they did not like. He said that now any reader is required to be locked in a small cage and the book examined before he would be liberated. Sounds almost like medieval history and the Bible, doesn’t it? Were these disgracers of the name Christian Science, Christian Scientists or Organization Scientists? You be the judge. The book is still there so far as we know. Do you demand the right as a Christian Scientist to have Mrs. Eddy’s wishes fulfilled or not? She wanted that book published. We of the Field have the right to have it, have we not?

Case 3. A woman practitioner on the Board of a large Christian Science Church came to the church Reading Room where one of her patients was the attendant. The practitioner explained that there was a member of the church whom the Board wanted to call before it and mete out discipline. The By-Laws of the church required the signature of three other members before any member could be thus summoned. The librarian knowing no facts about the case demur.red, whereupon the practitioner was indignant because the librarian was not willing to sign even without the facts. Think of this! A practitioner demanding that a librarian, who was a patient, sign a summons to get some person before the Board whose case the librarian knew absolutely nothing about. Was this practitioner an Organization Scientist or a Christian Scientist? She had been in the practice many years; patients coming to her in their innocence would surely be imbued and indoctrinated with this. ind of procedure as a proper Christian Science method. Multiply this thousands of times throughout the Field, as it undoubtedly can be and is it any wonder our Cause is in the condition it is?

Case 4. A young student of Christian Science came to a teacher for help. Previously this student had been healed by another practitioner and so informed the teacher. It beme evident at once that the teacher became incensed at the mention of the other practitioner’s name for the teacher began immediately to vilify and malign him. Pointing to his desk he said (in effect) “I have here affidavits from two women stating that your former practitioner insulted them”. The student did not think to ask of this teacher what he, as a teacher, could possibly be doing with affidavits against another practitioner. Was the teacher without sin that he could save these affidavits as stones to cast at the other practitioner? Was he seeing the truth about the other man ‘even if the accusations were true? Was he obeying the Sermon on the Mount or the veriest ABC’s of Christian Science as taught by our beloved Leader? What did he want the affidavits for? Were they to use to heal the man if he needed healing or were they to be reported to some Gestapo in Boston? Is this the kind of Science that this teacher indoctrinates into the minds of his students? You remember we referred to the same kind of indoctrination in pamphlets Nos. 15 and rn· when another teacher who told his assembled Association meeting of several hundred members that if any of them would or could furnish an affidavit as to the identity of the authors of these pamphlets, he would practically guarantee that there would be no more pamphlets. The policy in each case seems much the same. The difference being that in one case a teacher already has the affidavits; in the other the teacher wants some. If this is the policy pursued by teachers generally and indoctrinated into the minds of all their students who in turn indoctrinate their patients with the same policies (and all this supported by Boston)-is it any wonder our beloved Cause is so sick? How much sicker must the Cause become before the Field begins to realize that in belief it is sick, and begins to apply the remedy?

Case 5. But it is not teachers alone who resort to such methods to obtain convicts-tions, for at almost the same time as that of the above incidents, the Board of Directors, themselves, were using as evidence against a practitioner in good standing several dozen pages that had been stolen from a printer,-actually stolen-torn from books in a printer’s office.

The books had been prepared by this practitioner for sale to the public. The Directs-tors had charged that the practitioner had violated some of the By-Laws in the Manual pertaining to writing books, pamphlets, etc. The Directors were in the process of excommunicating the practitioner and these stolen pages were used in evidence. Whether or not the Directors knew of the theft we cannot presume to say but can any part of this procedure be thought of as spiritual and based upon the Sermon on the Mount? Is there not a commandment, “Thou shalt not steal” that is part of the foundation upon which the Manual is built? Are these organization methods those of the medieval days and of Gestapo Germany? Along the same lines we, of Paul Revere; have definite evidence. that illegal information. regarding the identity of the owners of our Lock Box 1621 was obtained from the Post Office in Washington and conveyed to the present Board of Directors; whether or not at their request we do not know, but we do know that only Organization Scientists would stoop to such methods. No one could nd justification for such acts in the Sermon on the Mount or in any of Mrs. Eddy’s writings.

We.have cited just a few of these incidents,-these errors-merely to prove our point. There are many more that we know about; there are many more that you know about in your respective fields. There are thousands of them throughout the Field at large. It might be said that every organization has such things, things that are wrong. That may be true, but did Mrs. Eddy’s wisdom and great spiritual vision and insight culminate in one more such organization on the fe of the earth? If that is all she accomplished, why belong to it? No, dear friends, she, through great trial and tribulation, gave birth to the Manual of The Mother Church; the Mind that wrote Science and Health wrote also the Manual, obedience to which would enable this great organization of ours to lead the world out of its darkness and misery.

The errors themselves might be overlooked in and of themselves as the natural concomitant of the difficult job of poor humans trying to run so vast an organization. But it is more than that; as we have so repeatedly said, these errors are basic; their prevalence indicates something so basicly wrong that we must all soon give heed to it. The policy itself is wrong; the cause lies not alone with the Directors; the cause lies not alone with the Field; the cause is animal magnetism, putting us all to sleep, so that the organization will cease to function as Mrs. Eddy intended it should. Where there is so much excommunication of spiritually minded men and women going on, let us have instead some real excommunication-the excommunication of animal magnetism operating from within and from without,-making our organization so pattern the mortal organizations preceding it, that it soon may nd itself in the same grave with them. If we think as they did; if we have the same errors that they did; if we take the same method of combating those errors that they did, how in the name of God do we expect to have any different results than they had? Remember, the Roman Catholic Church started out as a result of the spiritual inspiration of those associated with Jesus in his great life work. It was as pure and spiritual as our own dear church was a few years shortly after our dear Leader’s passing. What the Roman Catholic Church is today came as a result of the failure to apply the spiritual teaching Jesus enjoined upon his students. God didn’t take care of it, did He? If He did, do we want Him to take care of us in that way? Mrs. Eddy saw the evils of this system as it operates in human consciousness and she provided means in the Manual by which her church would not and could not duplicate them. Let us look this thing in the face and see where we all got o the track. Let us awake; let us do the excommunicating. Let us excommunicate the animal magnetism that influences the excommunicators to excommunicate our own dear members.

The evil of excommunicating our members is already having its usual results; it always has,-all down through history. We see that Mr. Peter V. Ross’s name is not in our Journal. We hear, (but do not know) that it was removed at his request. We hear, (but do not know) that his students are joining with him to form a separate group of Scientists outside of our beloved Mother Church. If true this is indeed deplorable and pathetic. Many of Mr. Eustace’s students withdrew their membership from The Mother Church when Mr. Eustace was excommunicated in 1922. Mr. Doorly’s students in England are up in arms because of action against him. Is there any quicker way for animal magnetism to wreck the unity of our church and divide it into schisms and groups? It succeeded in dividing the Protestant church into several hundred groups. Are we going to let animal magnetism “divide and conquer” our organization also?

We surely know, as a basis for reasoning, that if all mortal mind organizations down through history have used, as a proper procedure in ecclesiastical bodies, the excommunication of prominent and spiritually minded men because they have disagreed with the governing body, then that can not be the Christian Science method. Christian Science heals; it does not excommunicate; and if the present interpretation of the Manual results in wholesale excommunications, again we ask, is not such an interpretation wrong? This kind of interpretation can only ultimate in an attack upon the personality of someone that offends an autocratic authority, and is in essence an effort on the part of autocracy to maintain itself in power. It usually ends in the ultimate disintegration of the organization using it by dividing it into groups. Christian Science maintains itself and its organization only on a basis of healing all manner of sickness, sin and heresy. When it resorts to other than healing methods to perpetuate itself, the sound of the breakers on the rocks can be heard. How asinine and futile is this policy of excommunication, any intelligent reader of history ought to realize, for it is proverbial that the heretic of yesterday is the hero and saint of today. Usually the heretic is simply one who has gotten a clearer glimpse of God, of reality, than his fellows. Jesus surely was the arch heretic to the autocracy of the high priests and Pharisees of his day. They w^re not satisfied to merely excommunicate him; they paid heir henchman to run about among the crowds and cry, “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” to get rid of his troublesome Truth.

His followers founded a new sect and were called Christians. We of Paul Revere do not want to see founded a new sect of heretical Christian Scientists,- of Ross’s, Eus-tace’s, Carpenter’s, Doorly’s and students of a host of others. We do not want The Mother Church organization to force its best thinkers and most spiritually minded people into another combination outside our Mother Church. We want the Field to arouse itself to the excommunication of the animal magnetism that would make our Church do such a thing, and “forget its duty to God, to his Leader, and to mankind”; the duty of making the Christian Science organization a healing organization, an organization of Christian Scientists, not Organization Scientists.

To this end we ask and urge you to arouse those close to you until the midnight message of Paul Revere has so awakened the consciousness of the whole Field that the animal magnetism that is threatening to throttle our Cause will be uncovered and thereby destroyed. Only by the widest distribution of these pamphlets to those ready for their message can the greatest good be achieved by their use. Will you not, therefore, send us the names of all those you can possibly afford? Send unsigned lists if you prefer to protect your identity.




Chapter Twenty: Animal Magnetism

Pamphlet Number Twenty — Paul Revere

From time to time we receive thoughtful and helpful letters from friendly readers, those who are as anxious as we are that the work that we are doing may accomplish its purpose. As we have said before we welcome these comments, they are very helpful to us. They assist us to present our message more clearly, so that it will not be misunderstood. Recently, however, from some of them, we have gained the impression that the readers have felt that in our references to the subject of animal magnetism we are building up an error in our own thoughts that later we shall have to break down; that we are making a reality of animal magnetism by laying altogether too much stress upon its seeming power.

When we consider the intricacy of the subject it is not to be wondered at that its adequate presentation poses some difficulties. To attach enough importance to the subject to impress the reader with the necessity of self protection carries with it the danger that the authors will be thought to have given reality and power to it. Not that the authors, themselves, think that animal magnetism has any power; it has no power to one who is aware of its seeming presence, and who makes the effort that will destroy it as a false claim. On the other hand there is enough that has been written on the subject by Mrs. Eddy to warn us that one who does not sense the presence of the influence of animal magnetism, and therefore does nothing to protect himself, is in mortal danger. The writing of every one of these pamphlets carries with it the earnest hope that the Field at large may see and treat the subject of animal magnetism in its true perspective.

Again and again we have reiterated that prevalent conditions indicate that the collective body of Christian Scientists known as the “Field” either is not sufficiently informed upon the subject of animal magnetism, or it is too lethargic to protect the Cause against its influence. That many are not only aware of this condition but very apprehensive of it we know from reading the large amount of correspondence that we receive each month from many parts of the world. These letters indicate that large numbers of Christian Scientists are at last aroused to the grave importance of the seeming effect of animal magnetism upon the Cause. Shall we of Paul Revere, then, refrain from presenting our concept of Mrs. Eddy’s admonitions regarding its operation, and our dominion over it?

We have used many examples and cases. We have stinted often to the acts of the various Boards of Directors in support of our conclusions. The examples that we have used have been for the sole purpose of illustrating our points. If we do not use examples we should simply be writing abstract articles-preparing a textbook. We do not need to do that. That has already been done by Mrs. Eddy. It is adequate for every purpose. While we have often mentioned the Board, the Cause is in the condition it is today, in the final analysis, not because of Board acts alone, but because we,-meaning the composite of all Christian Scientists interested enough to consider the welfare of the Cause as a whole, have failed to realize the importance of the subject of animal magnetism, and have failed to take the necessary steps to nullify its seeming influence. But are we who write as Paul Revere laying too much stress upon the subject?

There is probably no phase of Christian Science that is more difficult for the begin-finer to understand than animal magnetism. He finds the subject of Love uppermost in the minds and conversation of Scientists. He is much moved by what, to him, is an entirely new application of the word in human relationships. The idea is very beautiful. He is exalted and inspired by it. To him Christian Science is largely a religion of Love, and to love is the whole of it. This is, of course, true. He does not see, however, that the whole process of evil will be that which would preent Christian Scientists, by the use of one ruse or another, from being loving. After the beginner in Science has some experience in the work he begins to hear something of animal magnetism. This puzzles him at first; then it offends him; then it makes him afraid. Love has been the watchword. That is the subject discussed in public. Little has been said about animal magnetism. Compared to the euphony and beauty of the word Love, the term animal magnetism suggests something crass and mundane. His nerves chill at the very mention of it. He feels that for him Love is enough. While it is perfectly true that “Love is the fulfilling of the law”, yet he does not realize that unless he becomes aware of some of the pitfalls in his way he will fall into one of them. After basking in the sunshine of Love he doesn’t like to be told about pitfalls. Those are error and he doesn’t want anybody to mention error even to warn him against it. He wants to keep talking about Love. In this frame of mind he, too often, with his head in the clouds, steps into one of the very pitfalls that he refused to be warned against. His inspiring forward march into the beauty of Christian Science· comes to an abrupt halt,-and sadly enough, he may not ever know how it happened.

How often many of us have seen young students chemicalize at the very suggestion of animal magnetism. And yet this is not so surprising! Mrs. Eddy in writing of her own experience with animal magnetism said on page 222 of Miscellaneous Writings: “I shall not forget the cost of investigating, for this age. the methods and power of error. While the ways, means, and potency of Truth owed into my consciousness as easily as dawns the morning light and shadows ee, the metaphysical mystery of error-its hidden paths, purpose, and fruits-at first deed me. I was saying all the time, ‘Come not thou into ‘the secret’but at length took up the research according to God’s command.”

If Mrs. Eddy, with her great spirituality and inspiration, found the subject complex; if she hesitated to investigate its purpose and ways, and shrank from the task, is it at all surprising that many of us have found the subject repugnant and difficult to understand? Nevertheless, because of the subtlety of its methods, in belief, animal magnetism may be much more dangerous to our well-being than the more obvious claims of evil known as sickness and pain and sin.

One cannot but be greatly impressed with the gravity with which Mrs. Eddy treated this subject of animal maetism, and the serious results that she foresaw would come to the..Cause and to the world if her followers neglect to defend against its seeming power. This is vividly portrayed in the book “Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy” by her one time secretary, Adam H. Dickey; who it will be remembered is the author of “God’s Law of Adjustment”. Writing of his experience during the time he lived in Mrs. Eddy’s household he relates the following incident which we are quoting from the book: “At one time, when We were all called into her (Mrs. Eddy’s) room, she said,’Where all students have failed is in not knowing how to handle animal magnetism. If we don’t break the belief that mesmerism has power, we are still the victims of mesmerism and it is handling us. Now then, the main point is to keep your watch. Keep your watch. Jesus said,’” Could ye not watch with me one hour?”’ (Matt. XXVI - 40.) Then again she quoted,’”If the good man...”’ (Matt. XXIV - 43.) ‘If you can refeat the mesmerist in this, you can defeat him in all things,’ she continued. ‘He boasts that he can make a law for you, six months ahead, and then work to cover every hour in the night. You must break their supposed laws that they can produce suering asleep or awake.’ After a long talk and many illustrations and admonitions, we were dismissed. We were all re• called in a few minutes and asked,’Now what is the great necessity I have been impressing on you?’ I replied, ‘Demonstration.’ Others said something else. She said, ‘No, you are all wrong. You have missed the importance of the lesson I have just given you. I felt it and called you back to show you your ignorance. The lesson is this,-keep the watch.’ Then we were dismissed. Shortly we were called back again, and she said, ‘What I have to meet, you will all have to meet, now or again. Therefore, know that the mesmerist cannot afflict either you or me with erroneous beliefs.’ We all solemnly promised to’Keep the watch.’ Our Leader responded,’Amen.’ During the course of the talk, she said,’If you will keep your watch, I shall be a well woman. If you stay here until you learn how to handle animal magnetism, I will make healers out of you. I had to do it and did it for forty years, and you must do it. You must rise to the point where you can destroy the belief in mesmerism, or you will have no Cause (or Church). It tried to overcome me for forty years and I withstood it all. Now it has gotten to the point where the students must take up this work and meet animal magnetism. I cannot do. it for you. You must do it for yourselves, and unless it is done, the Cause will perish and we will go along another nineteen hundred years with the world sunk into the blackest night. Now will you rou yourselves? You have all the power of God with you to conquer this lie of mesmerism. The workers in the Field are not healing because they are not meeting animal magnetism which says they cannot heal.’ Then she turned to each one and said,’Will you keep your watch?’ They all answered,’Yes.’-In explanation, she said,’To keep your watch doesn’t only mean to be awake at that hour and be working mentally. It means to do the work and succeed in breaking the mesmerism for the two hours assigned. If you don’t succeed, you haven’t kept your watch’.’’

Please remember that Mrs. Eddy commissioned Mr. Dickey to write these things that Mrs. Eddy said to her students while he was in her home. Therefore what we have quoted above was meant to be given to the world. It was no chance remark dropped by Mrs. Eddy which placed upon Mr. Dickey the solemn obligation to tell these things to the world; it was a promise which Mrs. Eddy asked Mr. Dickey to swear that he would carry out. Let us quote further from these “Memoirs”: “On Tuesday, August 25th, 1908, my bell rang calling me to Mrs. Eddy’s apartment. When I entered her study she was lying on the lounge, where she usually took her rest. Requesting Mrs. Sargent, Mr. Frye and a third student to leave the room, she beckoned me to approach. She extended h^r hand to me; took mine in both of hers, and asked in a deep, eaest voice,’Mr. Dickey, I want you to promise me something, will you?’ I _said, ‘Yes, Mother. I chapter-tainly will.’ ‘Well,’ she continued,’if I should ever leave her^o you know what I mean by that?’ ‘Yes, Mother.’ ‘If I should ever leave here,’ she repeated, ‘will you promise me that you will write a history of what has transpired in your experiences with me, and say that I was mentally murdered?’ I answered, ‘Yes, Mother, I will.’ ‘Now, Mr. Dickey, do not Jet anything interfere with your keeping this promise. Will you swear to me before God that you will not fail to carry out my wish?’

I raised my right hand and said, ‘Mother, I swear before God that I will do what you request of me, namely, write a history of what I have seen and heard from your lips concerning your life.’

Her whole demeanor was one of solemn intensity, and there was an eagerness in her voice and manner such as I seldom saw.

I retued to my room and pondered deeply over what she had said. In a few minutes one of her workers and Mrs. Sargent brought me a sealed envelope. In it was a pen-cilled note reiterating the statement that she had made in our conversation of a short time before.”

Can anyone read such a solemn warning as this and still believe that the destruction of the claim of animal magnetism is not a serious business? Mrs. Eddy never spoke at random. She most assuredly would not have exacted so specific a promise from Mr. Dickey unless she attached the greatest importance to the subject. “You must rise the point _where you can destroy the belief in mesmerism, or you will have no Cause (or Church).” Would it not be foolhardy for us to overlook an antagonist that can, in belief, destroy our Cause and our Church unless we rise to the point where we can destroy it? Shall we cease to mention animal magnetism or to write about it when it may now be doing the very thing that Mrs. Eddy warned her students that it might do? Would not silence upon the subject be the very thing that animal magnetism, in belief, would want? To impose silence would be the simplest way for evil to accomplish its purpose.

That animal magnetism silenced Mr. Dickey, causing him to withhold this information that Mrs. Eddy had charged that he impart to the world is best indicated by quoting Mr. Dickey’s own ·words: “Sixteen years have come and gone since this promise was iade - I still have a strong reluctance to record my memories, although I know this hesitancy is not my own thought, but comes from without.” It is to Mr. Dickey’s credit that after those sixteen years he recognized this influence that he said “comes from without”, and finally wrote and published these “Memoirs”.

It is now thirty-seven years, however, since Mrs. Eddy charged Mr. Dickey with this task, and the book is not available. For, following the mandate of silence imposed upon them by animal magnetism, the Board of Directors caused the book to be withdrawn from circulation. In this manner Christian Scientists have been deprived of the right to read a book which Mrs. Eddy charged should be provided for them to read.

Here then are two instances: First, Mrs. Eddy’s own secretary, according to his own testimony, prevented, by the influence of animal magnetism, for sixteen years from carrying out his duty. Second, after Mr. Dickey finally had risen above this belief of animal magnetism, the Board of Directors acting under the same influence nullified Mr. Dickey’s demonstration by causing the book to be withdrawn from circulation.

Please bear in mind that the authors of Paul Revere are not at this point concerted with the merits of the question of whether or not the book should be published but obviously either the Board of Directors was influenced by animal magntism in withholding the book or else Mrs. Eddy was under its influence when she exacted the solemn promise from Mr. Dickey to write the book. Either Mrs. Eddy or the Board must have been right.

Let us quote now Mrs. Eddy’s words from Miscellaneous Writings, page 222: “The crimes committed under this new regime of mind-power, when brought to light, will make stout hearts quail. Its mystery protects it now, for it is not yet known. Error is more abstract than Truth. ^ven the healing Principle, whose power seems inexplicable, is not so obscure; for th.is 1s the power of God and good should seem more natural than evil.” You will recall the By-law in Article 4, Section 1, of our church Manual to which we ·referred in our pamphlet 17, (“The Only Textbooks for Self-Instruction”) which reads as follows: “The Bible, together with SCIENCE AND HEALTH and other works by Mrs. Eddy, shall be his only textbooks for self-instruction in Christian Science, and for teaching and practising metaphysical healing.” When we realize the full import of this By-Law we must conclude that Mrs. Eddy would not have written carelessly nor say what she did not mean. · Therefore we are sure that she would not have written the sentence, “The crimes committed-when brought to light-will make stout hearts quail” and allowed it to be published in Miscellaneous Writings, without deep consideration of its fief-fect upon our education and its application to our daily affairs. Neither would she have us brush this subject aside as inconsequential or act as though we are afraid even to talk about it. Analyzing this sentence then, and we have in no wise detached it from its context, Mrs. Eddy saw a hidden influence orating in human consciousness in so deadly a manner that when it has been discerned even the most courageous person will shudder that such secret wickedness could be perpetrated in the realm of society. She says fur-anther that “Its mystery protects it now, for it is not yet known.” Beginning at line 29 of the same page Mrs. Eddy tells of her own experience in dealing with this influence of animal magnetism. She says: “I shall not forget the cost of investigating, for this age, the methods and power of error.” Thus Mrs. Eddy felt too this reluctance to investigate or to consider this negative aspect of omnipotent Mind. But, for the welfare of her Cause, she saw the absote necessity that she overcome this reluctance for she says further, “I... at length took up the research according to God’s command,”

Could it be thought for a moment that if this had been an inconsequential matter Mrs. Eddy would have been impelled to publish for all the world to read the fact that the exposure of animal magnetism came at great cost to her? On page 177 of Miscellaneous Writings Mrs. Eddy writes that “The grt battle of Armageddon is upon us. The powers of evil are leagued together in secret conspiracy against the Lord and against His Christ, as expressed and operative in Christian Science. Large numbers, in desperate malice, are engaged day and night in organizing action against us. Their feeling and purpose are deadly, and they have sworn enmity against the lives of our standard-bear-ers. What will you do about it?” What shall we do about.it? Shall we just ignore it? Mrs. Eddy did not warn us over and over against this evil influence without a purpose. It would be a serious matter to write such statements as those above quoted unless they are true. But she means that we shall heed and consider her words for at the end of the article on the same page she declares vehemently: “Answer at once and practically, and answer aright!” If we look to Mrs. Eddy’s words to guide us, and they should be our only guide, in the conduct of our organizaon and for the furtherance of our Cause, how can we possibly ignore that influence that M. ‘Eddy says “in desperate malice” is engaged day and night against us? Let us today “Answer at once and practically, and answer aright!”

The mental opposition to Mrs. Eddy, herself, was tremendous. This is not sulris-ing for with the discovery of Christian Science the knell of evil’s doom was rung. Would not all the seeming forces of evil rally to fight this Truth and concentrate their attack on every standard-bearer of Truth? The attack naturally focused upon Mrs. Eddy. For had she not exemplified in this age the woman of the Apocalypse? “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was fought up unto God, and to his throne.” (Rev. 12:5.) Mrs. Eddy had,brought to the wod the man-child, Christian Science. “And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her,child as soon as it was born.” (Rev. 12:4.) St. John symbolized the dragon as making ready to devour the Truth as soon as it was born into human consciousness, to prevent, if possible, this Truth from being spread throughout the world. For in proportion as Truth becomes universally understood, to that degree the end of all evil will be brought about.

The dragon was no less present in the earthly career of Mrs. Eddy and it is hardly less present today than it was during the earthly mission of Jesus or of St. Paul, of Martin Luther or of John Wycliffe or of scores of others who have devoted their earthly existence to bringing to the world a clearer and more practical way to demonstrate the Truth. The dragon is a persecutor because it fights for its seeming sense of life. The more potent and determined its human opponent, the greater the opposition of the dragon. In a sense every true Christian Scientist is the “Woman of the Apocalypse”. Any person who brings to earth a higher sense of Truth is in a measure the “Woman”. As such, moreover, he will nd himself pursued by the dragon ready to devour the child of his spirituality. The thousand years of darkness was a thousand years of failure to see th the dragon had, in belief, devoured the child of Jesus, namely the Christ Truth. Within four hundred years after Jesus was crucified the child had practically disappeared from the earth. Why had it disappeared from the earth? To the thoughtful student of Christian Science the answer is clear. The Truth disappeared from the sight of people because people did not recognize the presence of the dragon, or animal magnetism as Mrs. Eddy named it, and they did not nullify its hidden influence. So for a thousand years the evils of brutality, sensuousness, caste, absolute and dissolute monarchs, slavery of the common people, and burning at the stake of early Christians, stalked the earth. Evil indeed rode in the saddle. Justice, mercy, democracy and all the ne elements of Christianity were buried in the mists of the dark ages. All this because the dragon of animal magnetism ·was unseen and unopposed. Had its purpose been seen as clearly then as Mrs. Eddy saw it later THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO DARK AGES.

Is any one so naive as to suppose that this could not happen to us if we fail to discern the presence of animal magnetism? Does any one suppose that the Truth of Christian Science will.be shielded any more safely from the dragon in human consciousness, if we do nothing about it, than was the same Truth after it was left to the world by Jesus of Nazareth? Are we more spiritual, or doing more wonderful works than John and Peter and other disciples of Jesus? The Truth that Jesus taught was obscured in human consciousness through a long night of a thousand years of darkness. Is there any reason to believe that the Christian Science organization will not go through another thousand years of darkness if the organization gives no more heed, than it has thus far, to the warnings of Mrs. Eddy against animal magnetism?

Of course we all know that in reality Truth never changes; it is never obscured by darkness; it was here during all of the Middle Ages but the human beings of the world, clouded by animal magnetism. suered because they were unaware.of Truth’s presence. They were not aware of Truth’s presence because they did not understand the belief of animal magnetism.

Mrs. Eddy knew all this. She called the dragon animal magnetism. It is strange now to hear some ristian Scientists belittling the very thought of any claim of animal magnetism. The more that we as the authors of these pamphlets study the admonitions and warnings of Mrs. Eddy, the more we are convinced that we are not over-emphasiz-ing the importance of the subject of animal magnetism and its influence upon our Cause. The unfortunate condition in which we nd our Cause today is the result of nothing more than the failure to discern the reason for it. It must be apparent that a change for the better will not take place until the Field becomes aggressive in its determination to study Mrs. Eddy’s instructions regarding animal magnetism, and to defend against it.

We have here discussed but a few of the acts that Mrs. Eddy has pointed out about animal magnetism and its seeming influence. We have made some of our own coents and drawn some conclusions. We do not ask that anyone shall accept any of these. If, however, what we have said here will help to awaken the Field to tu more and more to the conscientious study of Mrs. Eddy’s admonitions and instructions concerning animal magnetism, then we shall, indeed have proceeded a long way toward the accomplishment of the goal of Paul Revere.

PAMPHLETS PUBLISHED SCE AUGUST, 1943

Our Church Manu.

PolicieNot Persons.

We ask and urge you to arouse those close to you until the midnight message of Paul Revere has so awakened the consciousness of the whole Field that the animal magnetism that is threatening to throttle our Cause will be uncovered and thereby destroyed. Only by the widest distribution of these pamphlets to those ready for their message can the greatest good be achieved by their use. Will you not, therefore, send us the names of all those you can possibly afford? Send unsigned lists if you prefer to pr tect your identity.




Chapter Twenty-One: Peace, Peace—But No Discussion

Pamphlet Number Twenty-One

Under the date of April 3rd, 1945, we wrote to Mr. John Randall Dunn the following letter, (to which up to April 15th, we have received no reply): Dear Mr. Dunn: Lock Box 1621, Washington, D. C. April 3rd, 1945

In your editorial in the Journal of March, 1945, entitled, “None of These Things Move Me,” the last two paragraphs contain statements that move us to write you.

You state that when some of the “faithful officers” are under attack or are being criticized or condemned, the safe procedure for ever.y member of The Mother Church to follow would be to review the By-Laws in the Church Manual and note the provisions thereof which it is the duty of the officers to obey and enforce. Furthermore. that the Field should sustain them in their exacting tasks. With all this we of Paul Revere heartily concur.

As you are probably well aware we have for some time been publishing pamphlets dealing with some of the problems confronting our organization. In almost every one of them we have stressed the necessity for better metaphysical work on the part of the Field to sustain and uphold the hands of our officers at headquarters. We too have stressed a greater study of our Church Manual as a panacea for many of the ills of our organization. Because of the similarity between what we have advocated and the recommendations you have made in your article, we are sure that you are not referring to us when you mention the attack upon “our faithful officials”.

Of course, we do not know to what specific attacks you are referring and therefore can not judge, but regardless of what the attacks may be we think that your article seems to take the attitude of injured innocence on the part of the officers of our church -leaving involved policies undiscussed and unconsidered. We feel that this is the wrong attitude for our periodicals to take. To defend persons is making evil as personal and real as to condemn persons, is it not? Surely withdrawing behind such a screen is not the Christian Science method of healing any situation.

Neither do we accept the proposition seemingly implied by your article, that criticism of the policies of our officials is synonymous with a personal attack upon them. For nothing that Paul Revere has ever written has been actuated by any but a sense of compassion and brotherly love; with a full recognition of the great responsibility that our officials must carry. We believe that nothing of a personal attack has entered into any pamphlet published by Paul Revere. We sincerely hope that nothing has been so con-strutted by any one, including the officials to whom you refer. For them to accept what we have thus written, prompted as it is, by the spirit of love for our Cause that exists in our hearts, would indeed inspire them to echo the words of Abraham to Lot, ‘Let there be no strife between me and thee”, for indeed are we not all brother Christian Scientists united in devotion to our Cause?

In all sincerity, therefore, Mr. Dunn, we suggest that you read the enclosed pamphlet Number 11, “Policies not Persons”, published in July, 1944. In this pamphlet we are sure you will discern the rightfulness of our motives whether or not we may have unintentionally written some phrase that might convey a contrary imwession to the reader. Taking what we have said as a. whole we are sure you will not misinterpret our motive.

For instance. we do not feel that we are attacking Miss Ewing, personally, when we ask you what y-Law in the Manual, Miss Ewing is finding it “Her duty to obey and enforce” when she mailed to the clerks of all the branch churches and societies the recent reprint of the article in the Sentinel regarding interviewing applicants for membership in The Mother Church?.We think that she is not “enforcing” a By-Law, as your article states the officers are doing, but, on the contrary, she is violating one. We also think that the reprint, sent to the branch churches, is a piece of indoctrination. from Headquarters hat is’ a flagrant violation of the Jetter and spirit of several sections of Article XXIII of our Manual.

.There are many vital issues affecting our beloved Cause these days and these can not be solved by an attitude of merely defending personalities. We have presented many issues -in our pamphlets and they are neither going to be solved nor silenced by this method. They need discussion and prayerful meditation and an open-mindedness toward interpretation of our By-Laws that at once precludes priestcraft interpreting for the laity, and at the same time makes for a receptivity that will allow the correct interprets-tation to be discerned. It will also preclude the-assumption on the part of officialdom (as your article seems to us to indicate) that anyone who dares question or discuss these matters is guilty of an “attack upon our faithful officers”.

No group of persons anywhere can assume the position that their interpretation of any document, let alone a book as complex as our Manual, is the correct one and. no others are to be tolerated or even considered. If anyone’s interpretation can not stand the light of honest and sincere discussion, then is it not priwa facie evidence that there is something wrong with the interpretation? We, therefore, solemnly and earnestly ask that if you are going to permit the columns of our periodicals to be used,for the purpose for which you have used them in referring to this matter, then, in the spirit of justice and fai ess, will you not open them to a fearless and o_pen expression of thought regarding these subjects,.or at least use the columns to urge the Field to give more earnest heed to the issues involved? Surely no opprobrium should· be attached to those earnestly seeking to present views other than t\ose held by any one group of thinking people. When individual unfoldment.and expression are throttled by such methods, our Cause is in grave danger. We are sure that you must agree with this, and unite with us in an earnest effort to so open the consciousness.of the whole Field to a better discernment of the spiritual intent of the provisions of the Manual that a solution of the problems confronting our Cause will,be found and nqt covered up with esoteric platitudes that “all is well”.

Let us assure you again, that this letter has been written in the same spirit in which we like to have the readers of the pamphlets of Paul Revere write to us. We shall be glad to hear from you. Yours for the Cause we all love,

This letter to Mr. Dunn is not predicated upon a defense of ourselves. It is prompted by far greater issues than the rightness or wrongness of our poor e orts to help our Cause. We feel that the policy expressed by Mr. Dunn’s words is far reaching and disastrous, and seriously affects the whole Cause. It is a part of the general scheme used by animal magnetism to build up dictatorships. If the rank and le of the people can all be kept mentally asleep while the “faithful officers” each· year deprive them of more and more of their rights; if they, the people, can be indoctrinated with the esoteric thought that everything is all right,-let the faithful officers alone, just trust that they know best and can look after the members better than the members can take care of themselves;-in fact, if the members can only be made to believe that any questioning or disapproval of their acts, or anything at all but blind obedience, will be construed into being dubbed an attack upon our faithful officers,-then the steps leading to absolute dictatorship are well greased and the whole Movement will nd itself sliding into dictatorship without a consciousness of what that really means. But, thank God, the error of dictatorships is falling at the feet of Truth. Dictatorship is a mental thing, not a group of persons. It is like any other error; it uses any person or group of persons not suf-anciently aware of its presence and modes of operation to prevent it. If members can be aroused to a discussion of this error and it be once uncovered and the Christian Science method of treatment applied to it-namely, the realization on the part of the Field consciousness that there is no dictatorship, no persecution, no fear, no dominance or pride of place and power, no commital of unchristian acts “for the good of the Cause”, no such states of mind to personify themselves; after this method of treatment has been applied, we can rest assured that these errors will no longer nd expression in our organization experience.

In this letter to Mr. Dunn, we have referred to Miss Ewing, the Clerk of The Mother Church, having sent to the clerks of all the branches a reprint of the article in the Sentinel of February 17th, 1945, regarding the interviewing of applicants for membership in The Mother Church. Are all the readers of Paul Revere fully aware of the seriousness of this latest piece of indoctrination? Do you realize its full import? Do you see where it leads? Is it not, in effect, exactly the same method of indoctrination as that pursued by Hitler, to educate and indoctrinate the youth of Geany with his ideas of central domination? He realized that Germany’s future lay ih the hands of her youth. Is not the recent fanatical stand taken by the youths of Germany direct_ evidence and proof of the success of Hitler’s method of indoctrination? The clerks and board members of our various branch churches are largely the youths and the inexperienced members. of our branch churches; they are all est and loyal workers and zealous for the good of our Cause. But their very inexperience makes them impressionable to any such set of instructions coming from Boston. They have previously been indoctrinated with the thought that Boston must have more direct contact with divine wisdom than the poor lay members, and that Boston’s interpretation of the provisions of the. Manual. must be more correct than their own. Many, if not most of the branch church Board members and clerks, are more familiar with edicts from the Board of Directors in Boston than they are with the provisions of our God-inspired Constitution -our Church Manual. It is not to be wondered at then, if church after church cancels its present procedure for admitting candidates into membership and substitutes the one sent from Boston. In their youth and inexperience, these Board members do not know that Article XXIII of our Manual definitely makes a branch church disloyal if it adopts The Mother Church form of government. But Miss Ewing tells the clerks that the Board of Directors gives its approval. To them, that is enough; the Board of Directors must know. This is the way it is done. Thus is the whole church membership indoctrinated to violate Mrs. Eddy’s explicit instructions about branch churches. We of Paul Revere felt the awful seriousness of this and we wrote Miss Ewing as follows:

Lock Box 1621 Washington, D. C. April 15th, 1945 Dear Miss Ewing:

At the top of the reprint concerning chuch membership applications that you r cently mailed to the clerks of all the branch churches, we note that you have stated that this mailing was done “with the approval of the Board of Directors”. In all kindness we should like to ask you why you considered that the “approval of the Board of Directors” gives you, as the Clerk of The Mother Church, any authority to send these reprints unless this approval is supported by the By-Laws of our Manual? We are sorry to say this, but their approval does not mean to us what it evidently does to you.. To us the only authority for any act of the officers of The Mother Church, concerning branch churches, is conveyed solely by the Manual and Mrs. Eddy’s writings. We are at a loss to understand, therefore, by what possible interpretation of Mrs. Eddy’s explicit instructions do you accept the approval of the Board of Directors as authority for so flagrantly violating them by sending out this piece of indoctrination literature?

Merely to have published these instructions in the Sentinel would have been bad enough. for even that violates the very intent of the spirit of Mrs. Eddy’s writings, but when the same set of instructions are reprinted and mailed to all of the clerks of the branch churches it at once becomes an open violation of definite by-laws in the Manual.

Does not the Manual prohibit The Mother Church, or any branch church or any individual from interfering with the affairs of any other branch church? Is not a branch church considered disloyal which adopts The Mother Church form of government? In our estimation a church being influenced by this article to adopt this set of instructions for applicants would be in effect, to adopt The Mother Church form of government. Several sections of Article XXIII in the Manual are very definite on this subject.

This reprint, if its instructions were followed, would interfere with the spiritual and intellectual freedom of any church not sufficiently awake to its subtle and indoctrinating influence. We can see no point in your mailing this reprint to the churches other than to influence them or suggest to them that they use it as a guide to the proper procedure to be used in interviewing applicants for membership in their own branch churches.

If this is not what you expect there would be no reason for your publishing and mailing this reprint to all the branch churches. This being so, are you not interfering then, with the rights of individual churches to reflect enough intelligence, direct from Principle, to work out the requirements they think best for their own church govern-foments? What are you all thinking of to send such things to clerks, most of whom, as you are well aware, innocently drink in such suggestions and think that because they come from headquarters they must be adopted? Do you not by this act impugn the intelligence of every church to whom you send this reprint, and practically say to them that they ^annot contact God direct and have no access to the divine intelligence in the matter of who should or should not be admitted to membership?

We most sincerely desire that you will write us and correct us if we have in any way ministerpreted your purpose for our only motive in writing you in this way is to be constructive,-to bring to you the reaction of an ever-increasing number of wakeful Christian Scientists. Yours for the Cause we all, love,

The writers of these pamphlets do not, of course, want to violate. the provisions of the Manual either. It is not our purpose to attempt to influence any member of a branch church to the point of “interfering with its affairs”, but you as a reader of these pamphlets have the right as a member of your church to know what action your own church is taking with respect to this reprint. Has it been protested or has it been accepted and ·acted upon in the spirit of “the king can do no wrong”?

In the letter to Miss Ewing quoted above, you will see that we have taken isstie with Miss Ewing in regard to her statement that she is issuing these reprints “with the approval of the Board of Directors”. We definitely feel that this approval does not convey the right to violate the provisions of the Manual any more than the approval of the Board of Directors would convey the right to violate the commands of the Decalogue or the Sermon on the Mount. But Miss Ewing probably has; like many other well-meaning and earnest Scientists, accepted the thought, unconsciously perhaps, that when the Board of Directors has given its approval to anything connected with· the Christian Science Movement it carries the same authority as though Mrs. Eddy herself has approved it. Can you go to any Science church in our fair land and listen to a single Sunday or Wednesday service and not hear during the reading of the notices regarding. some church activity, such as radio programs, etc., the words “with the approval of the Christian Sci-thence ‘Board of Directors”? In one of our previous pamphlets, we mentioned hearing this phrase used five times during one service. Think of it! How could the many neophytes coming into our church services, hearing these words repeated time and time again, help becoming so indoctrinated with the thought that supreme authority resides in the Board. of Directors that within a few years they become unable to decide the simplest church matter by either their own interpretation of the Manual, or by their own. inspiration from the divine Principle, God? Surely such a perfect system of indoctrination should make Hitler envious.

Who is the authority in the Christian Science organization,- the Manual or the Board of Directors? If the Board of Directors is usurping a power other than that derived from the Manual and thus giving Miss Ewing authority to do what the Manual prohibits, and no church or clerk protests, then our knowledge of the history of the human mind leads us to believe that the Board will constantly enlarge its scope of authority until we have a government of men instead of Principle.

Almost before the ink is dry on the reprint, telegrams are sent to all the clerks by the Publication Committees of the various states stating that the branch churches have the approval of the Board of Directors to hold memorial services for our late President. Whether or not the holding of such services is the proper Christian Science thing to do, we are not going to discuss in this pamphlet although we very definitely think that it is not, but that is only our thought about it. We do, however, want to call attention to this matter that we have been discussing. Who gives the branch churches authority to hold services that are not provided fo in the Manual? Does the Manual give the Board at Boston power to approve or disapprove a branch church action? If the Board gives its permission for a public service to be held and prescribes the form it shall follow and there is no Manual provision for it, who is the final authority for the approval of the meeting? These are serious issues and had better be brought out into the open now and discussed if we want peace and prosperity to come to our Cause.

In writing of prosperity, Mr. John W. Doorly of London, England has recently issued a fifty-one page statement which he has mailed to practitioners and teachers in the United States. We believe that copies may be obtained from Mr. Doorly at number 20 Chesham Place, London, S.W. 1, England. Mr. Doorly is the most recent teacher to have his card removed from the Journal and to be put on parole because his teaching of Christian Science does not agree with what the Board of Directors think it should be. He has been serving our Cause as a practitioner, lecturer and teacher for over thirty-five years. Let us not forget that this action of the Board affects every one of his many hundred students located all over the world. It is serious business, dear friends, but more serious than that aspect, is the attitude that the Field assumes toward one thus acted against. Let us not bow in submission as did the Germans when the Nazis took one prominent outspoken German after another to the concentration camps. Let us not assume that the Directors’ opinion of Mr. Doorly is infallible and that because they see t to take this action, it is prima facie evidence that he must be wrong and they right. Let us abhor the attitude of the practitioner who brushes aside Mr. Doorly’s statement as “just an attempt to justify himself”. Regardless, however, of the attitude of these practitioners who so characterize his statement, no one by the fartherest stretching of his slave-making attitude of “the king can do no wrong”, can possibly characterize the statistics that Mr. Doorly presents as “just an attempt to justify himself”. He presents figures that we of Paul Revere were reasonably sure existed but for lack of time have been unable to assemble. We shall give a brief resume of them as taken from his statement. In the twelve year period from 1932 to 1944 the number of new branch churches reported each year has decreased from 92 to 30. And worse still; in 1941 there was reported a total of 2757 branch churches but in 1944 there was reported only 2753. During the three years from 1941 to 1944. 93 new branch churches were added to the list and yet the total number of branch churches was Jess at the end of the three years than it was at the beginning. These are facts; these are not attempts at self-justification of any person. The practitioners who throw his statement into the waste basket and discourage its being read and discussed on the basis that it is “just an attempt to justify himself” are merely derelict in their duty-seeing our church slide down hill and still cry “Peace, Peace, but no discussion”. We have said many, many times in these pamphlets that in spite of the esoteric platitudes of “all is well”, all is not well and our Cause is sick (in belief) and animal magnetism is running it and not divine Principle and Truth and Love. Read this report of Mr. Doorly from the standpoint of an open mind and judge which correspondence is the most Christlike,- his letters to the Board, or the Board’s letters to him. If all progressive thinkers are to be treated as he has been, how is our Movement to rise above its present level? It is high time that the Field awakens to its heritage and scientifically considers the policies that are resulting in the statistics we have quoted.

To this end we again urge you to arouse those close to you until the midnight message of Paul Revere has so awakened the consciousness of the whole Field that the animal magnetism that is threatening to throttle our Cause will be uncovered and thereby destroyed. Only by the widest distribution of these pamphlets to those ready for their message can the greatest good be achieved by their use. Will you not, therefore, send us the names of all those you can possibly afford? Send unsigned lists if you prefer to protect your identity.

PolicieNot Persons.




Chapter Twenty-Two: The Manual—Our Magna Charta

Pamphlet Number Twenty-Two — Paul Revere

It is a strange perversity of mortal mind that impels men to pit their strength against any odds in order to attain seats of power from which to rule over their fellows. By this impulsion mortal mind sows the seed of schisms, which eventuate in contests for authority that lead on to the destructi.on of the very organizations that mortal mind has set up for itself. There seems to be an inherent trait in human nature to want to be rulers, to strut before a crowd, Mussolini fashion, or to bow in obeisance to someone else who-has seized the power to strut. A large part of the human race falls into one of these two classifications. Either is an error of the first magnitude. The combination of the two,-to strut on the one hand, and to bow and scrape before it, on the other, has been the cause for all the dictatorships in history. What tragedies have not followed in their wake!

The world hopes to be rid of dictators forever; but how shall it be accomplished? The dictators of Europe have fallen. Obviously this is not enough. Others may rise where those have fallen. Dictatorships will be perpetuated just so long as this attitude of mind exists-the mind that demands a king. Dictators over nations and dictators over organizations will not cease to rule until human beings cease to demand a ruler.

Few, indeed, have been those in power who could resist the adulation of the crowd. Few have refused a crown. When, however, the “men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son and thy son’s son also...Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord shall rule over you.” Jesus, too, refused to be crowned a king; and Mrs.Eddy eschewed the popularity that her students and followers tried to shower upon her. Only the truly great have been able to resist the inflation of their egos that a prospect of a crown brings.

As many reasons to grasp a crown have been given by hopeful dictators as there have been dictators. Each has used his own particular set of circumstances to elevate him to office. The plea has almost invariably been that the common people do not know what is best for them; that they will be raised to wealth and happiness by following the unselfish dictates of a new messiah-ne that has remembered the forgotten man, when everybody else had forgotten him.

To a greater or lesser degree mortal mind presents the same pattern to all human organizations-from the mightiest nation down to the smallest group. Few nations in the world’s history have, at their inspired inception, discerned this silent conspirator of animal magnetism hovering over their councils; awaiting only the hour when the glowing beam of idealism shall have been faded by time, and the lethal blanket of ambitious desire has begun, silently, to settle down and smother the light of liberty.

But a few immortal documents, written in the darkest hours of national histories, have provided spiritual stas upon which peoples could lean when all else seemed about to be engulfed in the oncoming rush of destruction, bent upon obliterating the divine impetus in the human race. The Magna Charta and the Constitution of our own Republic, to mention but two, provided each in its own sphere a set of principles around which clear-visioned and staunch thinkers have rallied to meet impending danger time after time. That these documents have been inspired has been proved by their invincible stand, throughout the centuries, against the almost tireless efforts of those that would overthrow them through processes of mortal logic and human reason. Yet they have stood. They have stood no less true; no less inspired; and no less a bulwark, than they did in the ages when they were written. Of such is the Manual of The Mother Church.

But these inspired writings have not been given to the world just to protect the Truth against aggression. They themselves are truth expressed, and expressed so succinctly and comprehensively that all men may understand them. Thus they have shielded the motives and steadied the course of all who have appealed, in times of stress, to their divine reasoning.

Time after time, however, those who have sought predominance of power have suddenly come face to face with some of these documents thafcould never be brushed aside to accommodate their selfish purposes. The Truth has been disceed. It has become articulate in these documents, and so long as these spiritual principles remain for men to read, and men shall practice them, no aggressor can accomplish a bloodless victory over his fellows. So the first line of attack by an ambitious dictator has ever been to accomplish a revolution by a subtle change, or amendment to the principles. Failing in that, the revolt has usually broken out into the open.

To draw a parallel at once to the Christian Science organization since the passing of Mrs. Eddy may seem repellant, but if we do not investigate the records of the past we shall neglect a most important source upon which to draw to guide future action. The progress of our organization has assumed a somewhat different pattern. We have a Board of Directors that, under the influence of animal magnetism, seems to have assumed a superiority that they apparently think their position must maintain, but their motive is not so much a lust for power as a misguided zeal. They appear to be inhibited with an all-absorbing purpose to safeguard the Truth from contamination because they think the Truth cannot survive except through their protection. So they have built a sort of walled enclosure; and in the midst of it they have put the Truth. For protection it is hedged about with all manner of restrictions and bans and regulations never intended by our Leader. Its defences fairly bristle with the big guns that man the walls-the guns of “Thou shalt nots”. Within the precincts of this fortress can be found signs of “fiver-boten” on every side. “Thou shalt not smoke. Thou shalt not drink. Thou shalt not read without the Board’s consent. Thou shalt not write without the consent of the Board. Thou shalt not have a meeting without the consent of the Board. Thou shalt not have a radio program without the consent of the Board. This meeting and that shall be held only with the “approval of the Christian Science Board of Directors”.

Only those inhabitants are allowed within the fort that are in accord with thes_e policies. They read the signs and memorize them. Should a fellow or a neighbor suggest mildly that some course might be taken that could, by some remote possibility, con-ict with a “Thou shalt not”, there are minute men of the group that rise on the instant to question whether this suggestion has been laid before the Board of Directors. Other minute men, prompt to live up to their office, quote from memory ·with great avidity the exact text and verse of one of the verboten signs. And with what great satisfaction they perform their office, and thereby win the approval of other members of their fraternity. All this elaborate defense is designed to defend the Truth, as though it were some tender plant that must be covered at night against a late frost.

It is true that Mrs. Eddy did take measures to correct false statements about Christian Science in the press. The Publication Committee was set up to perform this function. She surrounded her books with copyrights. Finally she provided the Manual of The Mother Church to safeguard the conduct of the organization. With these provisions, however, she left its carrying-on to those who might follow her. Now we nd those entrusted with the enforcement of the By-Laws so overzealous to safeguard the Truth that, in their eagerness to shield it, they have become confused and violate the very provisions in the Manual that Mrs. Eddy left to guide us in carrying on the work of spreading the truth of Christian Science to the world. Thus the Truth is not carried to the world as it should be, and the organization is not fulfilling its destiny of spiritual world leadership. If the Board will devote itself to the work of administering the affairs of the organization according to a more spiritual interpretation of the Manual; then will Mrs. Eddy’s vision be accomplished, and the Truth will be carried “over continent and ocean to the globe’s remotest bound.” (Science and Health, page 559.) There are more than two billion persons on this planet and how many of them have ever even heard of Christian Science?

This misguided policy of the Board has produced, as it inevitably must, a trend toward narrowness and conscriptiveness, a trend which causes honest fovestigators of Christian Science to conclude that the church is hedged about with the same rituals and restrictions and forms that have shackled orthodox church activities for so Jong. It is perfectly logical for thinkers to conclude that Christian Science has nothing for them and refuse to investigate it.

Not only does this sort of thing repel sincere seekers for Truth that are just beginning to investigate Science but ultimately it will result in the breaking away from the organization of those experienced Christian Scientists whose breadth of vision discerns the final disintegration that must follow such a policy. So much of this could be avoided if the members of The Mother Church would devote a sufficient amount of time to the consecrated study of the Manual in order to become not alone familiar with its provisions but to determine for themselves the import of each By-Law, its coordination with other By-Laws, and how Mrs. Eddy intended them to function in The Mother Church and branch church organizations.

At one time the Board of Directors evidently emphasized the importance of studying the Manual more than they have recently. In the Sentinel of February 17th, 1945, there appeared a set of requirements which. the Directors pointed out, is being used to interview applicants for membership in The Mother Church from the local district. This list was later mailed to all churches with the suggestion that branch churches might like to use the same list of requirements. In a previous pamphlet we have discussed this act of the Board and expressed our disapproval of it, but there is another issue involved that is so important that we feel it should be discussed at this point. In going over our les we came upon a similar set of requirements published by the Directors in the Sentinel of January 20th, 1940. While the. lists are substantially the same there is an interesting difference in the requirements in the two. Why the change was made we, of course, do not know but the effect upon an applicant mu8t be quite different in each case.

In the list of requirements published in the Sentinel in February of this year the seventh reads as follows: “Does he (the applicant) appreciate the necessity for the Manual of The Mother Church, and is he familiar with its provisions?”

In the list published in 1940, however, the third requirement reads: “That he (the applicant) sees the importance of owning and studying the Manual of The Mother Church.”

There is a vast difference between appreciating the necessity for the Manual and being familiar with its provisions, and “owning and studying the Manual”. It is quite possible for a student to be familiar with the provisions of the Manual and to be sure of its necessity, but for him really to study the By-Laws to be sure that he himself is discerning and obeying the highest spiritual interpretation of them, in order that Mrs. Eddy’s intent and purpose be fully brought out and applied, is quite another thing.

Some Christian Scientists that we know of have worked out a plan tha:t seems to us not only to have great merit but the possibility of solving the urgent and serious problems confronting the Field as a whole. As the plan spreads from one local field to another we can visualize that through it may come the answer that we had hoped to bring about through the publication of these Paul Revere pamphlets.

Briefly the plan is this: small groups of not more than fifteen or twenty persons meet about twice a month to discuss pro and con the controversial questions that would logically follow a study and discussion of individual By-Laws.

For example: this group to which we refer chose as the subject of its first meeting the question: “do such meetings violate any By-Law in the Manual?” No one could take part in the discussion without being greatly encouraged to study the Manual further.

One student who had been an active member of a branch church for many years was greatly delighted with what took place at the meeting. The following day he reported that he had never known until he listened to this discussion that any meeting could be held by Christian Scientists without first getting permission from the Board of Directors. The conscientious and unprejudiced discussion of the subject had revealed unequivocally the fact that there is no provision in the Manual that requires such permission.

Some members of the church admitted that they had never studied the Manual; others had never even owned one. They were, of course, encouraged to purchase one and as this mental stimulus spread throughout the church others that were not even members became interested to purchase and study the Manual also. The result has been that the sale of Manuals in the church Reading Room has tripled.

Should any of our readers desire to form similar groups in their local branch churches we shall be glad, upon request, to supply more detailed information about the plan.

From the point of view of the writers of Paul Revere much of the unrest that pervades the Field today could be removed if Christian Scientists generally could be encouraged by the Board of Directors at Boston to own a copy of the Manual and to study it in some such vitalizing manner as this group has studied it. If, in the “Items of Interest”, in the Sentinel, for example, the Board would call attention to the necessity to study the Manual with the same insistence that they have used in urging that other recommendations be followed, it would awaken a desire in the Field to nd the answer to some of the perplexing questions that are seriously affecting our Cause today. This should be a great help to the Directors too, because from the Field undoubtedly there would come as a revelation, such a spontaneous, universal, spiritual interpretation of the By-Laws that it would result in a change of the whole course of the conduct of the affairs of the organization throughout the world.

In order to be consistent with what we have written we, of Paul Revere, have been careful to study the Manual ourselves and apply our interpretation of its provisions to our pamphlets. For the benet of our readers (and perhaps to check upon ourselves) let us apply some of these By-Laws to our work and see whether the writers of Paul Revere practise what they preach. Let us canvass some of the By-Laws that we might possibly violate. Let us discuss them in print. Perhaps if our conclusions should prove to be wrong someone will set us right, perhaps the Board of Directors will. We do not care much who does it so long as we learn the truth, and do that which is best for the Cause of Christian Science.

The first provision so familiar to every Christian Scientist is the Rule for Motives and Acts, Article 8: Section 1. “Neither animosity nor mere personal attachment should impel the motives or acts of the members of The Mother Church.” What are our m tives? Are they impelled by personal attachment? That could hardly be true for most of us have had no contact with the Board of Directors. Could we be impelled by animosity? We are sure we are not for the Board to us is a very impersonal body. We have no personal grievances and we seek no revenge for anything. In fact we have stated often in previous pamphlets that we are grateful for the great good that the Board is accomplishing. This does not, however, preclude our thinking that they have made mistakes and are still making them, but there is nothing personal about that.

We firmly believe that someone should point out mistaken policies when they are seen, and our authority for so doing is another of the By-Laws in the Manual. Article XI, Section 2: “A member who is found guilty of violating any of the By-Laws or rules herein set forth, shall be admonished in consonance with the Scriptural demand in Matthew 18:15-17.” Paraphrased, these verses read that if your brother shall trespass against you go and tell him his fault. If he shall not hear you take two or three more. If he shall then refuse to hear, tell it to the church. Under the By-Law just quoted any member of The Mother Church who violates a By-Law shall be admonished. The mem-fibers of the Board of Directors are members of The Mother Church. Nothing is said to the effect that a Board member shall not be admonished, so the By-Law must apply to them as well as to the rest of us. Who shall do the admonishing? The By-Law does not say.

This same By-Law includes a penalty for its violation. It is worded as follows: “and if he (a member of The Mother Church) neglect to accept such admonition, he shall be placed on probation, or if he repeat the oence, his name shall be dropped from the roll of Church membership.” Does this part of the By-Law apply with as equal force to the Directors as it does to other members of The Mother Church? If it does, any and all of the who violate any By-Law are subject to have their names “dropped from the roll of Church membership”.

At the moment, however, we are not so much concerned with the question of whether the Board o Directors is violating the By-Laws as whether we are doing any violating by writing these pamphlets. The following is another By-Law appertaining to writing and publishig by a member of The Mother Church, Article XI, Section 10: “If a mem-fiber of The Mother Church publishes, or causes to be published, an article that is false or unjust, hence injurious, to Christian Science or to its Leader, and if, upon complaint by another member, the Board of Directors finds that the oence has been committed, the offender shall be suspended. “

A very few of our readers have accused us of being unjust and injurious but none have ever oered any reasons to substantiate their accusations; furthermore none of the statements of fact that we have made in these pamphlets have ever been challenged. We have, on the other hand, been complimented that we have always been accurate. A spirit of love and helpfulness, to say nothing of common decency, demands that we make the utmost effort to quote accurately in order not to distort facts. On no ground that admits of free speech can our writing be stigmatized as unjust so long as we stick to facts; and further that we publish only such facts, the publication of which will be consistent with the application of the Golden Rule to the case.

If we have made misstatements would it not be the duty of some official at Boston to admonish us to that effect? Indeed would not someone be derelict in his duty not to do so? For Article XXXIII, Section 2 reads as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Committee on Publication to correct in a Christian manner impositions on the public in regard to Christian Science, injustices done Mrs. Eddy or members of this Church by the daily press, by periodicals or circulated literature of any sort.” Our Committees on Publication have made no charge to us that what we have written is either false or injurious. Logic must lead to the conclusion that neither the Committee on Publicati nor the Board of Directors has found the work of Paul Revere to be either false or unjust in its implications; therefore that we are not violating any By-Law. It is true that they may not know our identities but neither do they know the identities of all the news writers for the newspapers that publish derogatory articles against Science. They merely write to the newspapers. Our address is contained in every pamphlet. There could be no difficulty in reaching us through the mails, but this has not been done thus far.

We should like to refer to one more By-Law in connection with these pamphlets, Article VIII, Section 11: “A member of this church shall neither buy, sell, nor circulate Christian Science literature which is not correct in its statement of the divine Prints-ciple and rules and the demonstration of ristian Science. Also the spirit in which the writer has written his literature shall be definitely considered. His writings must show strict adherence to the Golden Rule, or his literature shall not be adjudged Christian Science. A departure from the spirit or letter of this By-Law involves schisms in our Church and the possible loss, for a time, of Christian Science.” The very first pamphlet published by Paul Revere bore the title “Support for_ the Christian Science Board of Directors”. We have urged repeatedly that none shall attack the Directors. They should be supported in their great work with all the right thinking that the Field can give. The Board is doing a great work, they carry heavy burdens, they are under great attack greater, probably, than other similar sized groups in the world. The forces of evil would try by one means or another to nullify their work. Moreover we who edit these pamphlets have been greatly benetted by what the Board has accomplished for the Field generally. They carry on the organization, the activities are worldwide and much addict-tional work has been imposed by the war. We would not add to their burdens one bit.

On the other hand the government of The Mother Church is essentially democratic. “It stands for the inalienable, universal rights of men. Essentially democratic, its government is administered by the common consent of the goveed, wherein and whereby -man governed by his creator is self governed.” (My. 247) Above all else the citizens of a democracy cherish free speech, the right to express their views upon any subject whatever, be it industrial, social, economic, political or religious. Without such free speech and free press no democracy could continue. Neither ·can The Mother Church organization continue without the right of both-for Mrs. Eddy has said that it is “essentially democratic”.

The organization of The Mother Church belongs to no one person or group. It does not belong to the Board of Directors, nor to any official or group of officials, it belongs to you and to all of us. It is in our care. It is our duty to see that it functions as it ought to. It is the duty of all of us to free it from any manifestation of animal magnetism that may appear, regardless of what quarter it may come from-the Board of Directors, Committees on Publication, lectures, branch churches or the Publishing Society. Until we have all risen above the claims of matter entirely, the belief of animal magnetism may come through any source. The moment that we come under the delusion that some person or group of persons has become immune to its influence, and then follow blindly the dictates of such a group, we ourselves have allowed animal magnetism to influence us. If enough of us are thus swayed the whole organization will be dominated by animal magnetism instead of the divine Mind and, for so long a time as that influence lasts, the wonderful vision of Mrs. Eddy will be submerged in obscurity. Throughout the centuries the Magna Charta has stood because its principles are true and its expression inspired. To follow its declarations has brought freedom to men. It has been defended with men’s lives. It has withstood every attack of evil that would hold men in bondage. It has stood because men have studied it, pondered it and lived it. The Magna Charta of our beloved Cause is the Manual of The Mother Church. In Miscellany, Page 251, Mrs. Eddy has admonished us to “Adhere to the teachings of the Bible, Science and Health, and our Manual and you will obey the law and gospel. On Page 230 of the same book she has written that “eternity awaits our- Church Manual.” These admonitions are direct and poignant. Together with the Bible and Science and Health, the Manual is our guide, it must not be neglected. It acquaints us with our God-given rights as free men. It spiritualizes our concept of organization. It is essential for the great good of the Cause that its highest spiritual interpretation be gained. That work cannot be left to the Board of Directors or any other officials at Boston. It is the sacred duty of all of us to study it, ponder it and apply it, for herein lies the hope of our beloved Cause.




Chapter Twenty-Three: The Mother Church—Its Permanency

Pamphlet Number Twenty-Three — Paul Revere

In 1927 the Christian Science Publishing Society copyrighted a little pamphlet entitled, “The Permanency of The Mother Church,” which had a wide circulation, throughout the Field and is still available in most Reading Rooms. This was five years after the terrible and disgraceful legal battle between the Christian Science Board of Directs-tors and the Board of Trustees of The Publishing Society-a struggle in which animal magnetism, acting as the thought of the Board of Directors, was making it appear to them that they were faithfully serving the Cause best by taking this means of settling the age-old question of “Who shall be greatest”, and establishing themselves as a sufi-preme ecclesiastical authority of the Christian Science Movement. The contents of this little pamphlet make it obvious to a discerning reader that it was written to help silence the questions that naturally arose in the minds of those thinking Christian Scientists who saw in this action, and the subsequent decision of the courts, that our Leader’s wishes and intents were being thwarted and violated.

In this pamphlet there are three articles expressing legal opinions handed down by three legal rms. A fourth article is a reprint from the Christian Science Sentinel, written by a Christian Science lawyer, Judge Smith, one time Publication Committee and counsel for the Christian Science Board of Directors. This article is entitled, “Mrs. Eddy’s Expressed Intention”, and even a casual reading should reveal that it is an attempt to justify the Board’s acceptance of the legal interpretation of certain By-Laws in the Manual. These By-Laws are the ones that we have so often referred to previously, requiring the written consent and approval of Mrs. Eddy for the appointment of certain officers of The Mother Church. Acting upon this interpretation the present Board and all of the other Boards since 1910 have blithely waived these requirements just as though they were not in the Manualr else that Mrs. Eddy was in her dotage when she wrote them and left them in the Manual to be obeyed. We stated in our Pamphlet, number 2; “Our Church Manual”, that Mrs. Eddy was not in her dotage; that it was not an oversight on her part, and that she left them in there intentionally. Furthermore we stated that it is an established fact that this matter was brought to her attention repeatedly by her students before she left us in 1910. All the evidence of “Mrs. Eddy’s expressed intention” was and is that she left these By-Laws in the Manual to be obeyed and not to be waived. Christian Scientists should not let themselves be influenced or put to sleep by the legal opinion of Judge Smith and three legal rms, even if published by The Christian Science Publishing Society; for since 1922 The Publishing Society has been functioning under the centralized control of the very ones responsible for the official waiving of Mrs. Eddy’s By-Laws.

There are many loyal and earnest Christian Scientists who conscientiously think that it was our Leader’s intention that The Universal Mother Church (not the local one in Boston) should be dissolved when she was no longer present to guide it, and that she took this means of bringing it to pass. They firmly believe that to carry on the organization by officers appointed without her consent (which consent is required by Article I, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and several others) is a violatiop of the Manual and, in effect, amends it, (which is also prohibited in Article XXXV, Section 3). Reasoning from this presets they conclude logically that The Mother Church should be dissolved. (Let us interpolate here that we, of Paul Revere do not accept this point of view, for as we have stated in previous pamphlets, we firmly believe that these By-Laws, interpreted spiritually, can be strictly obeyed, and the permanency of The Mother Church still t assured.)

This pamphlet of The Publishing Society, “The Permanency of The Mother Church “, to which we are referring seems to be an attempt by legal means alone to refute the logical conclusions of these Christian Scientists, who are so earnestly seeking guidance from divine Principle as to our Leader’s intention. The pamphlet apparently agrees with them that some of the By-Laws cannot be carried out literally, but it disagrees by contending that portions of these By-Laws can be waived without violating the Manual and, that waiving them, does not amend it. The authors of the pamphlet give as their reason for this contention the legal opinions handed down by three eminent legal rms. Except for a short article of eight pages by Judge Smith, the entire thirty-five pages are devoted to these legal opinions, nothing else. Upon this then rests the whole basis of their reasoning, with which or by which they hope to answer those earnest students who are looking for, and are accustomed to having, spiritual and metaphysical reasons for accepting conclusions relative to their interpretations of Principle. What Christian Scientist would be impressed by or accept opinions of three eminent doctors as to the meaning of certain of Mrs.Eddy’s statements in regard to the healing of physical disease as found in the chapter in Science and Health, entitled Christian Science Practice? If this whole thing were not so tragic, it would be ludicrous, would it not? And yet this kind of thing has been indoctrinating the Field for twenty years.

Now let us look at this article by Judge Smith which is the only one where even any semblance of Christian Science reasoning is used. Anµ we do not think there is any too much of it in this for we think he refutes his own contention.

In the first place, on page 5 of the booklet, he quotes a letter written by Mrs.Eddy, that she evidently deemed so important. that she put a note at the bottom of it as follows: “I request that you put this letter upon our church records-M.B.E.” There is a part of the letter, which we are not in any way taking out of its context. After stating that she is not a lawyer and does not sufficiently comprehend the legal trend of certain copy, Mrs. Eddy says: “upon one point, however, I feel competent to advise, namely: Never abandon the by-laws nor the denominational government of The Mother Church. If I am not personally with you, the Word of God and my instructions in the by-laws have led you hitherto and will remain to guide you safely on,...The present and future prosperity of the cause of Christian Science is largely due to the by-laws and government of ‘The First Church of Christ, Scientist,’ in Boston. None but myself can know, as I know, the importance of the combined sentiment of this church remaining steadfast in supporting its present by-Jaws. Each of these many by-laws has met and mastered or forestalled some contingency, some imminent peril, and will continue to do so. Its by-laws have preserved the sweet unity of this large church,... Many times a single by-law has cost me long nights of prayer and struggle, but it has won the victory over some sin. “, What a picture of our Leader do these immortal words convey!

But what a perversion of Mrs.Eddy’s purpose is the use to which this letter has been put. First: Judge Smith quotes in his article an important Jetter of our Leader. Second: This Janette^ of our Leader urges her followers to support her by-laws.

Third: Judge Smith uses this same letter to justify his contention (by implication through its association with the legal opinions in the booklet) that many very important parts of these by-Jaws should be waived.

Fourth: The whole article has been inserted in a booklet, printed by The Christian Sci-thence Publishing Society which is operating under the control of the Board of Directs-tors.

Fifth: The purport of this booklet is to add legal opinion in support of Judge Smith’s reasons why Christian Scientists should waive some of Mrs. Eddy’s by-Jaws. Surely dilemma is the mother of inconsistency! Is it not high time that some Paul Revere or many of them urge Christian Scientists to awaken and study their Magna Charta until they know that they do not have to rely on such reasoning to support their conclusions? Not only has the time for thinkers come, but the need for them.

If obedience to its by-laws has, as Mrs. Eddy says, “preserved the sweet unity of this large church” does not a contemplation of its present disunity, its excommunications, its unrest, and its diminishing number of churches formed each year force the conclusion that these things are the result of disobedience of the by-Jaws? If each by-law cost our Leader such “nights of prayer and struggle” in order to be sure that she was divinely guided, by what sophistry of animal magnetism do we allow ourselves to accept lawyers’ opinions as authority for waiving and thereby disobeying important parts of so many by-laws?

Since when have Christian Scientists had to resort to legal rms to interpret this spiritual Manual that our Leader has left for our guidance? Do we all have to become lawyers to interpret it intelligently and follow its rules? In our poor humble opinion, this booklet is a piece of official propaganda published to bolster up a position. The re-sultans of the twenty years since its publication have proved the position to be untenable; and it has led our Cause down hiJJ instead of up. We think many of its statements are misleading, and are taken out of their context in order to prove a point that really can’t be proved by any such methods,

Let us illustrate. On page 4 of the little booklet, Judge Smith in support of his contention quotes three ordinary legal phrases from Mrs. Eddy’s Deed of Trust of 1892, page 134 of the Manual, conveying the land for the Church edifice. These quotations are “her heirs, executors, and administrators”, “their legitimate successors in office forever”, “a perpetual body or corporation”. From these three ordinary legal statements found in almost any legal document, he deduces the marvellous conclusion contained in the following words: “Thus, she alluded to the possibility of her passing on and expressed the intention that the administrative body of The Mother Church should continue to function perpetually.” To the casual reader, the lay member of the Christian Science church, who, evidently, it is assumed, does not know his Manual very well, or is not supposed to think unofficially if he does, this conclusion of Judge Smith’s is likely to be accepted.

Will our readers just turn to page 133 ·of our church Manual, the page preceding the one on which the above quotations appear; section 10 reads as follows, “Whenever said Directors shall determine that it ·is expedient to maintain preaching, reading or speaking in said church in accordance with the terms of this deed, they are authorized and required to reconvey forthwith said lot of land with the buildings thereon to Mary Baker Eddy, her heirs and assigns forever by a proper deed of conveyance.” Here Judge Smith says it is perpetual and uses three ordinary legal phrases to substantiate his contention, while on the preceding page, Mrs. Eddy as quoted above, has provided for a time when it may be inexpedient to carry on the church, and makes a provision for turning the church property back to the Trustees under her will.

One more instance of a seemingly misleading statement in the article by Judge Smith, “Mrs. Eddy’s Expressed Intention”, is found in the last paragraph of the article on page 8. He states that “Here then are six deliberate and formal acts (two of which we have referred to) in which she alluded to the possibility that she might not continue to participate in the administration of The Mother Church and in which she expressed the intention that it should continue, nevertheless, to exist and to function as a permanent institution.” He then says and we quote: “And why not? The Mother Church is the principal part of Mrs. Eddy’s plan for cooperation and unity between Christian Scientists for the present and future prosperity of Christian Science.” This statement is nothing but a human opinion of Judge Smith, written authoritatively but with nothing that he has quoted lending the slightest support for its acceptance. Nevertheless he makes the following conclusion and we quote: “Therefore, the friends of Christian Science can con-dently depend on Mrs. Eddy’s words to an interviewer in 1901 (The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany, page 342), “The continuity of The Church of Christ, Scientist,...is assured.” Will our readers just open Miscellany and see how misleading is this statement? It is obvious at a single glance that Mrs. Eddy is not referring to The Mother Church at all, in her talk to the reviewer, but to the Church of Christian Sciencthe Cause-and stating that its continuity is assured. While Judge Smith quoted correctly so far as the actual words are concerned, the arrangement in his article is such as to give the impression, if the reader does not go to Miscellany for the original of the quotation, that Mrs. Eddy is referring to The Mother Church whose permanency the article is supposed to establish. We trust that animal magnetism did not induce Judge Smith to make this arrangement knowingly and intentionally.

While we are exposing some of the fallacies in accepting these legal opinions as conclusive evidence that it was Mrs. Eddy’s expressed intention that The Mother Church should be permanent, and while we are taking exception to such apparent propaganda methods, we are not, on the contrary, taking the position that it was her intention that The Mother Church should be dissolved. We are taking the position however, that the policy pursued in such writings indicates that_ Judge Smith has not discerned Mrs. Eddy’s intention; that the Board of Directors hasn’t, and that the Field in general hasn’t. Therefore instead of the Board’s authorizing booklets to be issued, appartly with no other thought than to indoctrinate the Field into unthinkingly accepting such conclusions, we are taking the position that it would be helpful if the Board would publish a booklet admitting that they do not know the answer; that no Board has found the an-answer, and that until the answer is found the Board is trying to do the best it can see to do under the circumstances; further, that the Board would like all teachers, practitioners and students to unite with them in conscientious study of the Manual to so elevate consciousness that a spiritual interpretation of the Manual can be disceed. Such a spiritual interpretation will not require legal opinion to bolster it, neither will it require disobedience to Manual provisions to make it operative. We believe, if the Directors would issue such a call it would immediately be met with such a wave of intelligent, responsive support that the spiritual, scientific answer to these problems would be revealed. As our Leader has written on page 342 in Miscellany, and from ‘hich Judge Smith has quoted: “It will evolve scientifically. Its essence is evangelical. Its govern-foment will develop as it progresses.” Of course we know that the scientific spiritual govement of our Church will come regardless of who or what obstacle animal magnetism tries to put in the way or whether or not the directors issue such a call.

As a step toward this unfoldment, however, is it not fitting and a part of wisdom to examine the writings of our Leader, and review the situation in the light of retrospects-tive analysis; then try to discern the place our Leader intended The Mother Church to occupy in the thought and consciousness of both the Field and officialdom?

Anyone who will take the trouble to think, and to face the facts honestly, should have no difficulty in recognizing that the Christian Science Church is fast going the way of other churches. In a short thirty-five years since our Leader has left us those older Scientists who knew our church before the days of the litigation in 1920 know with deep concern that something precious has gone out of our church-something that the new members know nothing about and can never know under the present regime. The church was founded merely to propagate Christian Science but, little by little during these years, the church has come to occupy a larger place in the consciousness of Christian Scientists, than has the Science itself. Is it not a curious fact that Christian Scientists with the history of orthodox Christianity before them, should have fallen down and worshipped the human institution of “church”. They have mistaken a means, and a temporary one at that; for the end in view, much as the early Christians dei-ed the human Jesus and lost sight of the spiritual idea, the Christ, Truth, which it was Jesus’ mission to demonstrate. Gradually the formalism, the bigotry, and the spiritual stagnation inseparable from such a worship, are settling down upon our beloved Cause and attempting to strangle it.

The recent church action against Mr. John Doorly in London, against Mr. Peter V. Ross, the Carpenters and others less prominent in our Movement, is only the natural and inevitable fruit coming from the vine planted shortly after the litigation, when the Directors sent to each practitioner desiring his card in the Journal the infamous question-attire which surely put Church above Science. In this questionaire which every practitioner was required to sign, the moral and spiritual qualifications of the practitioners were scarcely referred to. The only matter in which the Directors seemed to take the slightest interest was the attitude of the practitioners toward the former Trustees of The Publishing Society and towards the Directors themselves. A practitioner might be healing patients that the supporters of the Directors had failed to heal; he might teaching his patients genuine and fundamental Christian Science; that, however, made no difference at all; the only important question was, what was his attitude towards the victorious Church authorities. The animal magnetism that prompted this question-attire is the same culprit that is prompting the action against the Carpenters and all those who dare put Science above Church. It is this same animal magnetism that has made, “think with Boston, or at any rate avoid expressing your opinion if you don’t”, the watchword of the Christian Science Movement today, and the only -sure path to favor and preferment. It has culminated in the cry up and down through the Field, “No salvation without the Directors’ approval” and this same animal magnetism has created a state of consciousness in which there has developed a tendency to acquire merit in the eyes of headquarters. Instead. of a goal of higher attainment in spiritual healing, it has substituted a goal to be reached by cultivating the favor of the hierarchy through strict conformity to the official point of view.

One of our readers wrote us that after the organization battle of 1919-22 the sale of Mrs. Eddy’s works fell from $775,544 in 1919, the year the litigation began, to $375,241 in 1924, two years after it ended. Our readers may check these figures for themselves.

Do these evils then, which seem so attendant upon this current practice of worship-ping the Church instead of demonstrating the Science, indicate that the church organization at present “so retards spiritual growth” that the time has arrived in which material organization “should be laid o” according to Mrs. Eddy’s own words? (Refit. 45) On the other hand, do they indicate that the disobedience of the Manual is producing a wrong sense of Mother Church, and that that concept is all that should be laid o? Will not a more conscientious study of the Manual produce a more spiritual interpretation of it and in this spiritual interpretation be found the answer to these momentous questions? Can not the Field best serve our Cause by a more comprehensive study of the Manual? Is it not from the Field that the answer must come?

Another of our readers has written us as follows: “It was not from the organized religion and civilization of the great city of Ur that came the spiritual thinking of an-ancient times but from the Patriarch Abraham who left ease, security and friends to go alone into an unknown land where he could worship God as his conscience dictated. “It was not from the organized priesthood of the tribe of Levi that came the wonderful spiritual leadership of Israel but from the lone individual prophets who thought clearly and were tireless and unafraid. “It was not from the learned chief priests and pharisees of organized Judaism that came full spiritual understanding and demonstration but from the lowly Jesus. “It was not from the theological organization of Rome that came the voices which awakened the world from the materiality and ecclesiasticism of the Dark Ages, but from the martyrs, Peter Waldo, John Wycliffe, John Hushes and Martin Luther. “It was not from the established Church of England that came the urge to greater freedom which gave birth to spiritual America, but from the Separatists who left church, country and friends to seek God as Pilgrims across the Rea. “It was not from the organized churches of America that came the spiritual discovery of impersonal Christian Science, but from a lonely woman who listened to the voice of God and gave to all mankind.”

The spiritual vision of “Mrs. Eddy’s Expressed Intention” regarding her Church will not come into human consciousness by indoctrinating the Field with the misleading statements and recital of mere legal opinions such as are contained in the booklet disseminated by official headquarters, “The Permanency of The Mother Church”. It may well be, however, that the dawn will come as the Field is awakened by Paul Revere to the necessity of a more spiritual study and knowledge of its sacred Magna Charta. As our Leader says in Science and Health, page 566, “Stately Science pauses not, but moves before them, a pillar of cloud by day and of re by night, leading to divine heights.”




Chapter Twenty-Four: Christian Science or Ecclesiasticism—Which?

Number twenty - four ee

With the publication of this current issue of the Paul Revere pamphlets we shall discontinue, for the present, the regular monthly issues. By no means, however, has the work of Paul Revere been finished for it is definitely our intention to continue these publications in a larger form at least once every six months. There is no evidence that the seeming need that inspired the publication of these pamphlets has ceased to exist. However the reports that we have had frnm all over the Field lead us to believe that much has been accomplished. We ought not to cease our efforts until the consciousness of the whole Field has been awakened. The decision that we shall take this step has been entirely a matter of our own demonstration, without the advice or counsel or pressure from anyone outside our own group. We believe it comes from the divine Mind. For this reason and this reason alone we are following this course. We may do something different at a later time if it seems to be the result of demonstration to do so.

The work of distribution must still go on. The first twelve numbers we expect soon to be ready for distribution in book form. The pamphlets in the second series, numbers thirteen to twenty-four, will still be available in any quantity as single copies. We ho that our readers and friends will continue to help in the circulation of both the book and the pamphlets. Only in this way-by the widest distribution of them can the greatest good be accomplished by their use. As we have mentioned before, the circulation already has extended to many parts of the world: to Canada, England, Australia, India, South Africa and Hawaii; and this in spite of war time restrictions.

Let us thank you again for your helpful and cooperative letters. These letters have come in ever-increasing volume. It has sometimes been difficult to answer them all promptly, for we have our regular duties to perform. The work of Paul Revere must be attended to in addition to our regular jobs. Without the support and encouragement of these letters we might not have had courage to carry on the work. By these we have known that our efforts have been effective. We have quoted from some of these letters. Recently we have received one for which we are particularly grateful. It compensated all of us for much effort on our part. The letter came from a person whose experience with the Board of Directors has parallelled that of many others who have been unscien-tically treated by the officials at Boston. The letter was written at length. We shall quote only in part: “I applied for recognition in the Journal. I was turned down after three years of suspense, mostly the outcome of gossip and jealously in the local field. I was reported for reading books which inspired me, especially Kimballs’, which I can say one student bued! I openly said that I would not have my reading or thinking controlled or influenced.

“Your papers have helped me tremendously to see our Directors in a better light. It helped me to lose all sense of irritation, or the slightest sense of antagonism. I realized through reading them that we indeed must treat to uphold them-cease to criticize them and condemn-and treat to destroy the error-separate it from belief in person. Then we need fear nothing-there is nothing to fear.

“It is not your ‘courage’ I admire-but the plain clear statement-clear as crystal-that we can see the ways of both error and Truth-the one struggling, the other calmly going on. “As you say ‘courage’ suggests fear and what is there to fear?

“I am intensely grateful to divine Mind for guiding these papers to me-so unsought by me. God is blessing you for this work as it will bless the whole world. Our movement was on the brink-but-I feel it will now be saved, not through your wor.k only-there are many others quietly working too, and it’s all one big whole. We are all ONE.”

Here is one who felt unjustly dealt with by the Board of Directors, one who felt that he had just cause humanly to “criticize and condemn”. Yet the pamphlets we have published helped him to “see our Directors in a better light,” to lose all sense of irritation, or the slightest sense of antagonism toward them. For such a person as this who has felt that he has been wronged to “lose all sense of irritation or the slightest sense of antagonism” toward them, as a result of having read these pamphlets, is a high tribute to the effort we have made always to permeate our thoughts and writings with nothing but the highest sense of love and tolerance toward the Board of Directors. This, indeed, is ·a sense of love that is lived not merely talked; and when it shall permeate the whole organization beginning with the Board of Directors and extending to every Christian Scientist in the uttermost parts of the earth, it will revolutionize the world. It is the sense of love that says without dissimulation: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. Such a one truly loves his enemies; and with him “The Golden Rule will not rust for lack of use.” (My 213)

Think of an organization ·filled with Christian Scientists who will still uphold and support the Board of Directors, as this practitioner has done, in spite of any injustice that may have come to them through the agency of the Board. Think too, of a Christian Science organization, all the members of which, by their right scientific thinking have objectified a Board that will express to every individual Christian Scientist everywhere in the world the kind of love that the practitioner who wrote this letter has manifested toward the Board-upheld them, and refused to condemn or criticize them.

When this sense of love has become the theme of the periodicals; the aim and endeavor of every member of the Mother Church; when its beauty lightens the page of every letter that comes from Boston to the Field; when, indeed, the very life of the or-zanization is permeated with the sweetness and warmth and tenderness of Love, then shall the organization fulfill its great destiny.

Since this number is to be the last pamphlet for the present let us summarize what we have written thus far. Mrs. Eddy has warned her students over and over again against the disastrous effects of ignoring what she has written concerning the belief of animal magnetism, and the necessity of sufficient defense against it. (One whole Paul Revere pamphlet, number twenty, was devoted to a discussion of this subject, with numerous references from Mrs. Eddy’s admonitions to her students to be ever on guard against this malevolent influence.) To the earnest, spiritually minded student it is obvious that the difcul-ties that confront our Cause today have their root in this failure to study and understand the claims of animal magnetism and its method of operation, and to destroy it as Mrs. Eddy has directed. This failure to handle animal magnetism has produced two complements-tary effects in our organization: (a) a state of consciousness which makes a few persons in Boston feel that they ought, by virtue of their positions, to dictate to others. (b) a state of consciousness which makes those in the Field only too willing to be dictated to. Dictators often nd opposed to them inspired Magna Chartas that have been written to curb the unrestrained ambitions of dictators. The first step of dictators, religious and secular, has been an effort to nullify, through amendments, these bulwarks of liberty and freedom. Our Magna Charta, the Manual of the Mother Church, absolutely pr hibits any amendments whatever. The Board of Directors, however, under the influence of animal magnetism having, apparently, failed to discern a spiritual interpretation of the Manual, has actually amended it, in effect, by violating repeatedly many of its By-Laws. This is the very thing that Mrs. Eddy wished to guard against. The Field, under the same influence, having failed also to discern a spiritual interpretation of the Manual has consented, without protest, to these violations. Continued violations of the Manual must inevitably lead to proposals that the Manual has become outmoded, that its provisions cannot be carried out legally, and therefore the By-Laws should be waived.

In the final analysis, if a healing does not take place, the only logical conclusion must be that, in a few years, the Manual will be cast o as unworkable; the government of the Mother Church will finally fall into men’s hands, and we shall have a government of men not of laws.

If we Christian Scientists,-Board of Directors and Field alike-do not handle prop erly this serpent of animal magnetism, and permit this fal step to come to pass, are we not failing to heed Mrs. Eddy’s explicit warning, given in her own words which we have quoted in pamphlet number twenty as follows: “Now it has gotten to the point where the students must take up this work and meet animal magnetism. I cannot do it for you. You must do it for yourselves, and unless it is done, the Cause will perish and we will go along another nineteen hundred years with the world sunk into blackest night.” In the opinion of these writers, and of many others who refuse to be blinded to the facts, the Cause has travelled far along this route toward oblivion.

It is not strange that animal magnetism, in belief, should bring great pressure to extinguish the spiritual light that Christian Science holds aloft to lead the world out of “chaos and old night”. Where would animal magnetism strike most effectively? Would it not be the Board of Directors, who occupy the highest official position in the Move-foment? From the standpoint of animal magnetism’s claim of intelligence attempting to destroy our Cause, that would be the place to begin its work; and if the Board listens to its silent arguments, animal magnetism can then influence the periodicals, the Publication committees, the policies of the Monitor, the general attitude toward branch churches and branch church activities, and finally individual Christian Scientists. This indoctrination process is the means by which the vision will gradually be lost, the greatest spiritual influence that has ever come to Christendom be obscured, and another dark age be upon us.

Do we say, in our complacency, that such a thing cannot happen to our Cause?-Was not Jesus crucified-were not the early Christian thrown to wild beasts-were not the translators of the Bible brutally murdered and burned at the stake? And all these things after the greatest spiritual teacher the world has ever known had come to the world, and demonstrated what he taught!

History relates that within three hundred years after the crucifixion primitive Christian healing had practically disappeared from the earth. It has been but seventy-five years since Mrs. Eddy discovered Christian Science; if present tendencies are not checked who can safely predict that Christian Science may not also have disappeared from the world in even less than three hundred years.

We who write these pamphlets are not fear-mongers. We are not agitators. R ports have come to us recently that officials in Boston are saying that these pamphlets are being written by a “disgruntled practitioner”. How untrue that statement is. On the face of it, it is obviously false for we have often repeated that these pamphlets are written by a group of Scientists.

Furthermore, we of Paul Revere love the Cause above all else. Our own interests, our work, our time, our incomes, all have been subordinated to the Cause of Christian Science. Some of us are practitioners of long standing who, in addition to maintaining heavy practices, are giving freely of our time to make a further contribution to help the Cause by publishing these pamphlets. We are not disgruntled. We wish to harm no one, least of all the Board of Directors or any other official of the organization. We have repeatedly said that we seek no office. We should like every member of the official body of The Mother Church to stay right where he is. If our·efforts can help our dearly beloved Cause carry out its destiny, we shall have reward enough in the great spiritual awakening that shall come to the world through.the universal apprehension of the princi-planes of Christian Science. We cannot declare too often or too sincerely our great love for the demonstration of Mrs. Eddy and what it has meant to us. We honor her, and we respect every earnest student of Christian Science who is striving to unite with her-to “drink... the living waters of the spirit of my life-purpose,-to impress humanity with the genuine recognition of practical, operative Christian Science.” Misc. 207.

We would not place one small obstacle in the path of any official of The Mother Church. But can we noffeel as we do and at the same time disce the spiritual weakening of our organization as a whole? And can we not point out this dangerous tendency in others without our lessening our love for the Cause? Mrs. Eddy has said, (My 4.) “A genuine Christian Scientist loves Protestant and Catholic, D.D. and M.D..”, yet she exposed their errors-shall we not have an equal right to expose error within our own organization? Indeed, we are sure that all fair minded students will agree that we not only have such right but we should be derelict in our duty if we do not exercise it, and write of a condition that not only we, ourselves, have seen but many others as well. After all, it must not be forgotten that we are writing to intelligent men and women, spitually minded men and women, persons who have had experience in Science and the organization-who have reason and logic at their command-surely they not only can stand hearing the uncensored facts, but demand them.

Having pointed out some of the errors that seem to confront the Field, it is only fair that at the same time, we point out, what, in our opinion is the remedy. Study all that Mrs. Eddy has written in her published works relative to animal magnetism. In acordance with her By-Law, Art. 4, Section 1, these works “shall be his only textbooks for self-instruction in Christian Science.” It is· to these works, and these works alone, that every. Christian Scientist must turn for proper self-instruction about this imports-tant subject. (There are, however, works. of other Christian Scientists which give valuable aid to this study, and which throw light upon Mrs. Eddy’s own attitude toward animal magnetism as expressed audibly to her household, and to others with whom she talked. Among these works are: “Teaching and Addresses of Edward A. Kimball, C.S.D.” Compiled by G. A. Kratzer. “Whoso Readeth Let Him Understand” by Herbert W. Eustace, C.S.B. “Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy” by Adam H. Dickey. For a clear and correct account of an outstanding instance of the the way in which animal magnetism successfully operated read: “Christian Science and Organized Religion” by Studdert Kennedy. This is an account of the litigation in Boston in 1919-1920 to which we have repeatedly referred. A study of the influence of animal magnetism upon our Cause will ex-plain why we in the Field have been apathetic to the growth of autocratic power within our organist2station; and will thus enable us to overcome it. A study of the subject of animal magnetism will remove from the Field the lethal influence that causes officialdom to be looked upon as practically infallible. A study of this subject will show why for years we, in the Field, have accepted a legal interpretation of the Manual, and acted upon that interpretation, instead of searching for a spiritual interpretation which would explain the legal inconsistencies. To throw o the influence of animal magnetism from our Cause will be to bring about a universal study of the Manual to glean its spiritual interpretation. A wide study of the Manual will bring to light a spiritual interpretation of the Manual that will reveal Mrs. Eddy’s intent and purpose, and make it possible to operate the organization under the provisions of the Manual as they now stand without violating or amending any single By-Law. An organization guided by a spiritual interpretation of the Manual of The Mother Church must be for eternity. Time cannot destroy it. Dictators cannot control it. It will become an example and a spiritual beacon for the whole world.

Nothing can hasten this great end more than intelligent, earnest and scientific support for the Christian Science Board of Directors. Criticism and condemnation of them can never accomplish this purpose. They are eaest, honest men and women. They are, without the slightest doubt, doing the very best they know how to do; and under most trying circumstances. Suppose that we, ourselves, here in the Field, should be subjected to the combined forces of all the agencies of evil determined to annul the work of Mrs. Eddy-we should not nd it easy. Yet it is against such evils that the Board of Directors must stand,-year in and year out. For this reason we urge all, as we have said so often, to support the Christian Science Board of Directors in every good work they do. If they err, and being human of course they do, our recourse is to support them with the kind of thought that will enable them to see and overcome their errors, in the same way that our Leader admonishes us to act toward other members of the church. But we must never support the Directors as though they, by virtue of their of-ce, must always be right and every one who disagrees with them be wrong. The right kind of support is the application of the highest sense of divine Love. It is doing untQ others as we would have them do unto us. This is, indeed, all of the “law and the prophets”-it is the whole of Christian Science for Christian Science is the law of God and God is Love.

Could there be a time more auspicious than now to bring to the world the peace “that passeth all understanding” which is Christian Science. Peace formulas, world courts, leagues of nations, all are sounding brass and tinkling cymbals without the spiritual spark which will sometime light the torch of true world freedom. Wars more bitter, more destructive and more consuming will follow one after the other until the kind of peace is made that depends for its permanency upon the willingness to carry all dier-ences to the court of divine Mind. Since our blessed Master trod the earth no one had seen the practical benefits of the Science of Christ, and given it to the world, until our beloved Leader discovered Christian Science. This Science has been given into the charge of all Christian Scientists; to heal and regenerate more than just a few of the earth’s teeming millions; it has been given us that it may be lifted onto the highest mountain tops; that it may dra unto it the hungering and thirsting in the darkest corners of this earth and that they shall see and hear what “God hath prepared for them that love Him.”

The nations of the world are more than ever before seeking and yearning for that which will heal and save-and Christian Science has it for them. But their eyes have been “holden that the: should not know Him” and how shall they know Him unless we bring the freedom of this glorious Truth to them? How shall we tell them unless we, ourselves, are free;’each free in his own right to declaim the Truth-joyfully and spontaneously-everywhere; to read it, to write it, to speak it fearlessly,-uncensored and unapproved by any except the voice of divine Mind; free to shout it from the housetops, to tell it to the man in the street, to speak it through the radio; free to tell to the world, each in his own way, the great and wondrous Truth that “healeth all thy diseases.” Christian Science brings this. freedom-ecclesiasticism withholds it.

Send us the names of those advanced students to whom you think it wise and helpful to send these pamphlets, and the money, and we will mail them. Send unsigned lists if you desire to protect your identity. PAMHLETS PUBLISHED SINCE AUG°ST, 1943

Govenment of LawNot of Men.




Chapter Twenty-Five: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin”

Notes on the Manual and Deeds of Trust.

Paul Revere’s concept of the way in which the Manual of e First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, can be strictly obeyed and can function as its author, Mary Baker Eddy, presumably intended that it should.

Number Twenty-five

Copyright 1946 by

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America. In deepest admiration

for the work they have done, we dedicate these pages to those few intrepid Christian Scientists whom we have mentioned, and the many we have not mentioned who, in their adherence to Principle alone, have dared defy official frowns and have laid their earthly all upon the altar; who have been persecuted and ostracized by their contemporaries; who have become martyrs to Christian Science organization ecclesiasticism, and thus have become identified with that spiritual remnant which, throughout all history, has held aloft the torch of the individual’s freedom to demonstrate Principle undisturbed and untrammeled by another’s concept; thus, by their devotion, they have sustained the inherent right of the individual to read, write or speak as he is led by Principle, and so have prevented this precious freedom from being lost to human consciousness through the efforts and edicts of animal magnetism’s agent -ecclesiasticism. * * * * The Authors

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” John Philpot Currants “What I say unto you I say unto all, WATCH.” Christ Jesus.

“Can watching as Christ demands harm you? It cannot. Then should not ‘watching out’ mean, watching against a negative watch, alias, no watch, and gaining the spirit of true watching, even the spirit of our Master’s command? It must mean that.”

Mary Baker Eddy

During the six months that have passed since the last Paul Revere pamphlet was issued we have not been idle. We have been taking stock, appraising, studying and, so far as possible, fitting ourselves by demonstration for a new and higher step. We have become inwardly conscious of something very like the prelude to an event of the greatest import to the world, perhaps a new spiritual awakening, a stir that portends great progress and great good for mankind,-a fulfillment of our Leader’s hope.

As most of our readers well know, the sincere desire of the Paul Revere group has been to do its part to awaken the Field consciousness to a higher sense of true support for the Christian Science Board of Directors in its work for the Cause. There lies within the scope of their authority more influence for good than that possessed by any other five human beings. The future course of this world, for good or evil, may be determined, in a measure by the decisions they make. For the sake of mankind it seems a solemn duty for all of us to support the Board of Directors with our highest spiritual thoughts.

The authors of Paul Revere have been asked many times to present their concept of a spiritual interpretation of the Manual of The Mother Church whereby every By-Law can be obeyed literally and at the same time in no way violate the spirit contained therein. Until now our sense of demonstration has led us to withhold our idea of such an interpretation.

During the two years that the Paul Revere pamphlets have been published the issue of Manual interpretation has come more and more into the foreground in the composite of Field thought. The letters that we receive from all parts of the world are insistent that the subject shall be no longer ignored, and that anyone who can provide a solution, or ideas that may lead to a solution, ought, as a duty, to set them forth in such a manner that the Field and the Board of Directs-tors at Boston may study them. Thirty-five years is all too long for the organization of a great spiritual Movement such as ours to carry on its operation in direct and unapologetic violation of the specific instructions of its Founder. It is, indeed, time that the Field and the Board of Directors unite in an effort to solve, in a spiritually cooperative manner, this seeming problem.

The present attitude of so large a number of Christian Scientists leaves no doubt that they are being impelled to demand such action because of the low ebb of spirituality, and the seemingly sick condition the Cause has fallen into. This appears to mark a point from which the next step must be a higher one, and thus begin the long climb to the spiritual heights of Patmos from which may be seen the goal before us all: “And I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”

This higher step seems to the authors of Paul Revere to be that of the clarification of the Manual provisions which have been the subject of so much controversy since Mrs. Eddy’s passing. The time surely has come when a more spiritual interpretation of these By-Laws will free us all from the awful and age-old curse of ecclesiasticism and dogma. When this has been accomplished we shall, undoubtedly, be led step by step onward and upward until we reach the spiritual church “that passeth not away.”

The authors, therefore, with the deepest love and respect for our dear Leader’s vision, herein set forth their concept of the deeper meaning of her intent expressed in the By-Laws of The Mother Church. Washington, D. C. January 1, 1946

HUSH-”YOU JUST HEAL THE SICK”

When we published our last pamphlet in August of 1945 we informed our readers that we should, from time to time as the occasion seemed to demand communicate with you fur-anther through these pamphlets. Since the termination of the war in Asia and Europe there has been an increasing amount of correspondence from foreign countries, a growing demand for the pamphlets in book form as well as single copies. There is no evidence anywhere that our work has been finished. In fact from a review of the past few months, and an appraisal of the effects of our efforts, we are more than ever convinced not only that much has been accomplished thus far, but that to stop now would be to discourage the thought and effort of those who have so loyally supported and helped us. There are still many to be awakened who will welcome the inevitable emancipation from the mortal mind sense of hierarchy that for the past thirty-five years has gradually been built up in our beloved organization.

We, who write these pamphlets, are convinced that the time is close at hand when a great change will be seen in the temper and general attitude of the entire Field toward the conduct of the organization, and a realization of the imperative necessity for a higher interpretation of the Manual of The Mother Church in its literal and spiritual elucidation. If you could but read with us the large amount of correspondence we have received which discusses the subject of Manual interpretation you would, we are sure, agree with us that the Field is surely awakening to the problem. Another evidence of this awakening is the publishing in the periodicals of some discussion of the issue that we have touched upon in previous pamphlets. For example: the recent article by John Randall Dunn in the November Journal, 1945, “Eternity Awaits Our Church Manual”. Such articles are very gratifying to us for this fulfills one of our dearest objectives-the open discussion of these hitherto hidden or taboo topics.

In answer to the questionnaire that we recently mailed to you asking your views as to whether the organization should be carried on as it is, in flagrant violation of many provisions of the Manual, we have had many exhaustive and highly thoughtful replies. They show, beyond a doubt, that the Field, not only in the United States but in foreign lands as well, is keenly alive to the situation as it exists in Boston today. Space does not permit that we discuss these replies here. We can only report to you now that the tenor of them indicates that Christian Scientists are thinking seriously about the subject, and desire to give voice to their thoughts. We can also report further that the writers of these letters are not content with the apparent effort on the part of officialdom to keep the subject quiet. They are almost unanimous in pointing out that after all these years during which The Mother Church organization has been operated in violation of so many of the requirements of the Manual, some explanation on the part of the Directors of the basis on which they are operating should be forthcoming. Furthermore, that if the Board of Directors do not provide some logical and scientific interetation of the Manual as a basis for their acts then it will fall upon the Field to provide such a spiritual interpretation-one that will permit of an obedience to every one of Mrs. Eddy’s By-laws in the conduct of the organization. This our Cause has looked for for thirty-five years-but in vain.

The solution of this whole problem, in the opinion of Paul Revere, will provide the key to a door which, when opened, will present to Christian Scientists a vista of glory such as they have not yet beheld. It seems to us that the settling of this question on such a basis will bring to the world a spiritual awakening, the impact of which will shake the very foundations of world thought with as great a tremor as that produced by the sudden appearance of the atomic bomb. In fact we are convinced that within the scope of the great possibilities for spiritual awakening that will come from the· settle-foment of this question lies the antidote for the untold material destruction that might folk>w a general dissemination of the secrets of the atomic bomb. Matter is hastening with almost meteoric speed toward its own destruction. If we are not for-tied spiritually to meet its oncoming rush we may be engulfed; and unheeding Mrs. Eddy’s warning we may go through another nineteen hundred years of darkness unless we speedily arouse ourselves to the spiritual animus that will not cease its research until an answer has come by demonstration alone. It is our own conviction that we are about to have such an answer; and that with it will come a world awakening that will mark the beginning of a new epoch-not by reason of some one’s new idea or some one’s recent discovery but by means of the release that will come to the spiritual idea which our Leader has brought to the world, and which for so long has been buried in the grave clothes of the letter of ecclesiastical organization. Its release can bring a surge of spirituality that can penetrate the remotest bounds of this globe and shine in the darkest corners of the earth. ‘It can, indeed, beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruninghooks. It can end wars and bring to men universal brotherhood and peace. Shall we of Paul Revere cease our efforts, no matter how arduous, if we can contribute one iota to so grand a purpose?.No indeed, dear friends, and there can be no sacrifice too great. The writers of Paul Revere have been maligned, condemned and branded “unloving” but let us assure every person who reads these pamphlets that our solemn purpose shall not swerve from that work which we hope may forward, even in the smallest degree, the accomplishment of such an exalted goal.

Many have asked us concerning our own solution of this seeming problem of Manual interpretation. We have not felt, heretofore, that the time to present it had come. Perhaps now it has come, and later in this pamphlet we shall give it to you. But first we must bring to you certain conditions that have come to our attention since publishing our last pamphlet. They may seem to digress from our main theme but they are important facts for you to have, provided you are not already aware of them. They preface, therefore, what we have to say later in our presentation of our own interpretation of the Manual.

As you may realize we get reports from all over the Fi’eld of what is going on in thought. We hear of talks of various representatives from Boston and what they say. We are told of instructions that State Publication Committees are giving out concerning Paul Revere. We hear of what some teachers say to students, and we hear reports of association meetings. Since these come from all over the world we glean a reasonably accurate impression of what large numbers of Christia Scientists are thinking about official policies; and we get the interpretation that Scientists are placing upon disseminations from Boston. We have had a very definite reaction from the Field recently that officials at Boston have adopted a studied attitude toward these pamphlets, and have disseminated it through various sources by which it can be expected to permeate the Field thought and influence it against reading anything that Paul Revere has written. The design, we are told, is to create indifference and apathy toward anything that leads the Field to question these matters that we have been bringing to your attention since August 1943. Let us give you an example reported to us lately.

A teacher and former lecturer now occupying one of the most important posts in Boston, who for convenience we shall designate “Mr. X”, recently held his association meeting which was attended by a large number of persons om various parts of the United States. Mr. X began his morning session by entering immediately into a discussion of the fief-forts of those who, in his opinion, are engaged in attacks upon the organization; whose design is to impair and impede its progress. He pointed out that there have always been such “attacks”. There were when Mrs. Eddy was with us and they still persist. Mr. X felt, therefore, that they should be discussed for the enlightenment of the students and visitors. Thereupon for upwards of an hour he discussed these “attacks” in detail. He took them up one at a time. First he discussed, a book recently written by a man named Corey. This has been widely advertised. The writers of Paul Revere have not read the book and know nothing about it. Mr. X, however, excoriated it at length.

He then went into the history of the “discipline” of Mr. John Doorly. Mr. X paid considerable tribute to the accomplishments of Mr. Doorly, his good record in the organization, his ne work as a lecturer, and his long, successful experience in healing work. But now that Mr. Doorly has been branded by the Directors at Boston as “disloyal” Mr. X seems to be wholly in accord with the action of the Directors in placing this stigma upon the name of Mr. Doorly. Mr. X apparently believes that Mr. Doorly deserves the punishment meted out to him by the Board, and that the Field would be. better o with Mr. Doorly under probation until he should epent, than for him to continue teaching-this despite his previous excellent work as a Christian Science practitioner, lecturer and teacher. Mr. X referred to a pamphlet sent out to the Field by Mr. Doorly in which he set forth his case. Mr. X had evidently read at least some of the pamphlet for he said; in effect, “I defy anyone to read it and tell what it is all about.”

We, who write these pamphlets, have read Mr. Doorly’s statement d it is our opinion that if you will read nothing more than the Board of Directors’ letters to Mr. Doorly you will have a reasonable conception of what has happened to him. Furthermore, you will undoubtedly receive an impression of the Board of Directors that will lead you to question with the greatest gravity the wisdom of placing so solemn and grave a responsibility as the discipline of any spiritually minded individual, or even the judgment of the degree of his spirituality, in the hands of five persons who could write such letters as those which Mr. Doorly has published in his pamphlet. The impression of the whole matter conveyed to the association meeting by Mr. X, however, was that Mr. Doorly was wholly in the wrong, the Board’s decision was just, Mr. Doorly is getting his just deserts, so forget te whole thing -and that is that.

Then came the next recalcitrant in the eyes of the Board, Mr. Peter V. Ross. Here Mr. X was elaborate in praise of Mr. Ross as lecturer, teacher, practitioner and writer for the periodicals. He pointed out that we all had been inspired by his work But the Board had found it necessary to discipline Mr. Ross. For his failure to write scientifically? No. For failure to teach scientifically? No. For failure as a lecturer or practitioner? No. But the Board had affidavits. It had been collecting them for a long time. They had gotten them from persons who watched Mr. Ross, persons who investigated Mr. Ross’s personal habits. They got what they were looking for. The watchers watched, and they got evidence. They made affidavits, They brought them to the Board and the Board judged. Probably the charges against Mr. Ross were as true as the charges made against Joseph by Potiphar’s wife, but the Board convicted and the Board punished. Their sentence was to mete out punishment to Mr. Ross. But Mr. Ross is not the only sufferer; all of Mr. Ross’s students suer also; just as Mr. Doorly’s have, and Mr. Carpenter’s and students of other teachers whom the watchers have watched and brought in affidavits about for one charge.or another. At the present rate there will be more. Perhaps we are having a “purge’’ to cleanse the Movement. We know of another teacher that boasted of having affidavits against a practitioner of high motive and spirituality. Unfortunately for that teacher the practitioner was unable to stand against such unscientific and unchristian attacks and passed on. So this collection of af-davits has become useless.. In a previous association address Mr. X himself had asked his students for affidavits against Paul Revere.

The number of disciplined teachers is growing fast, so fast that the Directors. have apparently felt that the status of the students of disciplined teachers should be announced publicly. In the Sentinel of November 10th, 1945, therefore, under Items of Interest are directions to guide the conduct of such students. “They are not eligible to attend an assort-ciation meeting until they have been retaught or their teacher has been restored to full standing as such.” Think of the awful effect upon all of these innocent students who have been correctly taught. Admittedly, no charge has been brought that Mr. Ross’S teaching has been contrary to the principles of Christian Science as Mrs. Eddy has given them to us. These are the principles that a teacher is expected to· teach to his students. By Board admission, this Mr. Ross has done. Yet his students must now be retaught. Why? Will they get purer Science from another teacher? Evidently not. What Mr. Ross has given them has, without question, been pure Science,• according to Mr. X. But the stigma the Board has thrown about Mr. Ross’s name falls directly upon his students. They must renounce Mr. Ross and his teaching, when no one questions his teaching. The whole proceeding is· inconsistent with the love and principle of fair play that are indigenous to Christian Science. It can be explained only as an evidence of animal magetism influencing persons to attempt to protect an organization of human beings from crumbling,-under the pretext of safeguarding the Truth, which needs no protection. No one can review the record of such a procedure dispassionately and believe that Mrs. Eddy ever intended that her organization be so conducted. No organization could possibly be built upon this basis and succeed in carrying to the uttermost parts of the earth the great Truth that will emancipate mankind.

The image which appeared to Nebuchadnezzar in a dream typifies human organization and its cetain end. “Thou, 0 king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image’s head was of ne gold, his breast and arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the cha of the summer threshingoors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. And shall the God of heaven set up a. kingdom, which shall never be destroyed.”

Indeed, the “brightness” of our great Movement is excellent. Its head is of ‘nest gold, and its arms of silver are reaching out with a cup of cold water in Christ’s name to revive famishing humanity. But its misguided zeal proves it to be without love, and the organization stands upon feet of clay, and “He that judgest the whole earth “ will finally smite with the stone of wisdom the image which attempts to stand upon feet of ecclesiasticism, dictatorship and intolerance for they are feet of clay. The symbolism is complete when the God of heaven shall set up “a kingdom which shall never be destroyed:...and it shall stand forever.” May not the great effort now being made to interpret the Manual spiritually be the stone of wisdom which shall smite the human organization’s feet of clay; and through the discernment of the true church, which obedience to Mrs. Eddy’s By-Laws will bring, set up a church or kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and it shall stand forever? Indeed, dear friends, we of Paul Revere believe so. And we believe, further, that the time is close at hand.

Either our organization is conducted spiritually, or it is not. Either those who conduct its affairs are tolerant, loving and compassionate, or they are not. If they are not, the organization is doomed to fail. They must be judged by their acts and their speech. In the words of the wise Gamaliel: “If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.”

But to return to the association address of Mr. X about whom we have been writing. After reviewing the case of Mr. Ross he came at length to the subject of Paul Revere. He characterized the pamphlets as “attacks” and noted that it was very difficult, in his opinion, to tell just what the writers of Paul Revere are getting at or trying to accomplish. “One thing,” said he, “the pamphlets are certainly very unloving”, and he hoped that none of his students would waste time on these “attacks” by reading such literature. “Just let them alone” said he. “Ignore them and this attack will die out just like all the rest have over the years.”

It is reported to us that the beginning of the afternoon session was again devoted to organization matters, then followed some very ne and uplifting spiritual and metaphysical remarks. After this Mr. X returned to the subject of the Board of Directors. He pointed out the great responsibility carried by these five members and the excellent work that they are doing. (After using the hackneyed sophistry that “’the Movement is governed by God from beginning to end,’ don’t forget that” he then nullified this admonition by warning his students to let the Board of Directors alone, not to question their policies; and be sure not to read Paul Revere. Then followed the crux of the whole address so far as this part devoted to discussion of the organization is concerned. What Mr. X said might be paraphrased as follows: The Board is a group of the most earnest and devoted men and women. They have one of the most difficult jobs in the world. They are subject to constant attack. But they are conducting the affairs entrusted to them in a manner which is beyond question.

And then he told his students with the greatest emphasis that their work is to heal; that the function of Christian Sci-thence is to heal. Therefore do the job of healing and let th.e Directors do theirs of running the organization. Spend no time discussing the Directors and their problems and how they conduct their office-just heal the sick.

We, of course, agree that part of this advice is correct. Every Christian Scientist should heal the sick. It is his work. Had the admonition of Mr. X ended here no exception could be taken to the statement. It is always sound advice to instruct students to heal the sick, but to couple the instruction to heal the sick with the advice to refrain from even questioning the Board policies becomes a twofold admonition which takes from the one part the sincerity it deserves and adds to the other the barbed arrow of propaganda. In other words it is right that a teacher should impress his students to focus their attention and efforts upon healing the sick, but when in the same breath the teacher says just heal the sick and don’t question the Directors, so they can do anything they desire regardless of whether it is scientific or not, that is another thing entirely. This manner of statment evidently succeeded, for, judging by their remarks, it evidently indoctrinated the students, for after the meeting was over there seemed to he a series of murmuring echoes from the association members: “Just heal. Don’t question the Directors. Just heal.” (Probably not one of his students realized the inconsistency of his urging upon them the necessity to heal the sick after spending so much time in reciting the errors of Doorly, Ross, Paul Revere and others. Not a loving, helpful or healing thought urged toward those who had dared incur the ecclesiastical frowns. Whose students are to help heal them, if, indeed, they need healing?)

Within a week after the association meeting we heard from two other sources in cities far distant, that others had passed along this same kind of advice to students who questioned the organization activities; said they: “You just heal the sick. That is your job. Never mind what Boston is doing.”

Perhaps as you read you have already drawn your own conclusions. Reports coming from widely separated points repeating almost the same words seem to indicate a policy. We do not know whether it began with the Board of Directors or some other officials in Boston. But there seem to be three broad divisions of the effort to quell any interest in such events as the discipline by the Board, of Mr. Ross and Mr. Doorly, and of the writings of Paul Revere:

First: You just heal the sick. Forget all about the Board of Directors and organization problems. Let somebody else look after them. You just heal the sick.

S ond: Do not question the acts of the Board of Directors. Do not discuss with others their poli-.cies and edicts. You just heal the sick. ·

Third: Read only “authorized” literature. Just pay no attention to Paul Revere, or the history of the Board action against Mr. Ross; or Mr. Door-ly’s own account of his side of the story. Just ignore them all. · They will soon he forgotten and their activities will stop through lack of interest. on the part of ‘Christian Scientists.

So there it is. Indoctrination through practitioners, teachers and their associations, of the policy of: “Ignore them and anything that is ever said or written about th.e Board of Dectors that even discusses their policies; never question any of their acts; and refuse to read any circulat literature that the Board does not authorize. You just heal.”

Can you not see, dear friends, that such. indoctrination coming through teachers and practitioners has a far-reaching influence upon students and patients, and indirectly upon the whole world? Could it succeed it would accomplish just what the organization leaders seem to want: a blind and submissive obedience to all Board edicts, and a worshipful obeisance to five persons who are, in the eyes of unthinking patients and students, infallible. But this policy, shall not succeed. Could you but see the worldwide correspondence that comes to us every month we are sure that you would agree with us that it will not succeed. Yet we all must watch. The propaganda is subtle. “You just heal, and don’t question the Directors” coming from a teacher is a powerful argument. It is a lethal dose when it is given to divert their minds from the democratic constitution which confers upon men freedom of speech, and of thought; when it diverts their minds from contemplation of the sad plight in which we nd our Movement today and of the remedies which might be applied to correct it. Let none of us be fooled by honeyed words. Let us carry on until this vital question has been answered. Search for its solution for therein lies world freedom.

We, ourselves, have· taken issue· from time to time with the acts of officialdom. We have entered our own protest in writing. We have had little satisfaction in the form of recognition or refutation from the Directors or other officials to whom we have directed our questions. Following are two letters which we are giving verbatim, in line with our policy to keep you informed of what we, ourselves, have done to protest against what we consider to be violations not only of the essence of the Manual but disregard of the simple spirit of love and brotherly kindness. Lock Box 1621, Washington, D. C. September 26th, 1945. Mr. William D. Kilpatrick, Committee on Publication; 107 Falmouth St., Boston, Mass. Dear Mr. Kilpatrick:-

We note that our Leader prescribes in Article XXXUI, Section 2 of our Church Manual certain duties for the incumbents of the Publication Committee of The Mother Church, and outlines certain correct procedure.for them to follow. We note.among other instructions given therein that even i^posits-tions on the public or injustices done our Lead.er are to be cor-recanted “in a Christian manner.” We see nothing in this By-Law nor in any of our Leader’s writings that gives any license to attack or impugn the reputation or character of the authors of such articles. ·

Mr. Orville Towne, former state Committee for the state of New York, related to us at one time that the written a tacks upon our Leader and the published articles against Christian Science were so unjust and s0 vicious that he would have to jump up from his desk and walk around the block until he could clear his thought sufficiently to enable him to write in a Christianly manner a reply that was loving and worthy of the great office he held. Most of the correction written by the various State Publication Committees and published in the Sentinels have attained this same degree of excellence.

We are therefor much surprised at the numerous reports coming to us from our readers, of the slanderous remarks made by some of the Committees against the authors of the Paul Revere pamphlets. We also are surprised at the medieval attitude of these committees toward the published statement of John Doorly of London, England, even, in his case, to the point of calling “upon the recipients to tu in their respective copies to him, (the State Publication Committee) without reading them” to quote from one of our corrects-pondents. We are loathe to believe that you as the appointed manager of these committees authorize in this day and age such ludicrous actions and such violations of the letter and spirit of our Leader’s instructions.

Among the several slanderous statements attributed to you directly is the one to the effect that the name of one of the authors of the Paul Revere pamphlets is known to the Board of Directors and that he is a “disgruntled practitioner from Rochester, N. Y. using a Washington address as a blind.” You are reported to have even mentioned the name of this practitioner. Is there anything in the Manual section referred to above, that gives as your duty, the right. to slander the author of some article to those inquiring about it? Does this constitute your idea of meeting the attack, if attack it be, to your sense? The more that you use your office and that of your assistants throughout the country for the purpose of slandering other Christian Scientists with whose views you do not agree, the more evidence you furnish that all is not well at headquarters. If what is written in the pamphlets is unjust or untrue or incorrect, why is it that your office has not fulfilled its reason for existence by publishing a correction of the things published by Paul Revere to which your sense objects?

Do not current slanderous attacks upon the authors of articles emanate from the same carnal mind tha:t has prompted slanderous attacks for the last forty years upon our Leader’s character simply because the slanderers were unable to meet the Truth contained in our Leader’s writings? Isn’t that method as old as the hills?

Would it not be more becoming to your great office and the Cause it represents if you would refrain from saying anything at all about the identity of the authors of Paul Revere if their writings so disturb you that you cannot lovingly refute in a Christian manner what Paul Revere publishes in his pamphlets? Moreover, did you not say in your association meeting last year something to the effect that if any of your students would sign an affidavit as to the identity of the authors of the Paul Revere pamphlets you would practically guarantee their discontinuance? If you and the Board of Directors have now achieved this great feat of knowing our identity, why have you not fulfilled your guarantee to your students? Is it possible that the students have found no Manual authority for furnishing such affidavits?

As members of The Mother Church, we are interested in having you carry out the provisions laid down by the Manual for the conduct of your office and not at all interested in your guarantee to your students. We are, therefore, awaiting your publication ‘’in a Christian manner” of the material in our pamphlets which you deem untrue or incorrect. With best wishes, we are Yours for the Cause we all love, Lock Box 1621, Washington, D. C. October 10th, 1945. Mr. William D. Kilpatrick, Committee on Publication, Boston, Mass. Dear Mr. Kilpatrick:-

On September 26th, we wrote you in a friendly and courts-teous manner in regard to some reports that had come to us about the activity of some of the State Committees on Publication of which you are the appointed head. To date we have received no reply to our communication. Apparently you have chosen to ignore it; you have neither denied the state-foments we made in our letter nor have you given us any assur-fiance that we can expect your office to take immediate steps to prevent a recurrence of those actions of your committee to which we object. Neither have you given us any assurance that we can expect a published article or an article for us to Plblish answering or refuting “in a Christian manner” any of the statements in our pamphlets to which you have taken exception and which you have been reported to have characterized as “attacks upon our Cause”. This, as we pointed out in our letter, is our understanding of the proper procedure for the Committee on Publication to follow in such cases, according to the requirement laid down by Mrs. Eddy in the Manual, Article XXXIII, Section 2..

If, as you have been reported as stating, you know the identity of the authors of.these pamphlets, then you must be ·aware that they are all members of The Mother Church and, as such, are surely entitled to the courtesy of a reply from your office. We should like to paraphrase Abraham’s immor. tal statement to Lot and say to you, Let there be n6 strife between us, for we be brethren, all of us Christian Scientists, members of the same Mother Church and working for the same Cause that we all love. We have no issue with you personally but our purpose in publishing these pamphlets is to awaken the Field until its aroused consciousness finds the solution for the things at headquarters that are threatening the very life of our organization.

We referred in our letter to the remarks made by you at your association a year ago and the time spent in express-’ing your disapproving opinion of our activity. We understand that you will be holding your association meeting in a few days and we wish to remind you that when you personalize what you deem to be error by making remarks that condemn or excoriate persons, you are doing something that has neither warrant nor license, either as a teacher or Publication Committee. Nothing in the Manual nor in the teaching of our Leader can possibly justify such a procedure as took place last year. Furthermore, we think it is only fair to remind you that from all over the world we have reports from persons who are vitaUy interested in the work that Paul Revere is doing and enthusiastically approve and endorse it. There may be some such interested persons present at-your association as there have been at other associations and groups of Christian Scientists and who do not, by any means, share your conception and human opinion of the work being done by these pamphlets.

Therefore, if you do not want to furnish us with more material that is. indicative of the way in which animal magnetism is operating throughout the Christian Science organization, we advise that you be more circumspect in your remarks. Yours for the Cause we all love, Daniel 5:25 Thou (present organzation) art weighed in the balance, and art found wanting.

Let us now present an aspect of the situation other than the one referred to by Mr. X in the foregoing. The Bible states, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Jesus, in saying this, was referring to the acts of men. Chapter-tainly this statement can be used as a criterion by which the correctness of a policy can be judged. The letters that come to us from all over the Field evidence, in a measure, the quality of the fruit that certain policies are producing. From some of the many interesting ones that come to us, we have quoted.in the past. We should. like to quote the following paragraphs from one recently received. It is from a reader in England. “Dear Friends:

Recently, it has been my privilege· to read some of your pamphlets which, coming so soon after the sentence passed upon Mr. Peter V. Ross and Mr. John Doorly, have awakened me to the danger threatening our Movement.

., “I am not personally acquainted with Mr. John Doorly but had hoped to ask him for Class Instruction this spring because I know of and have experienced the resµlts of his teaching through one of his students.

“For seven years the dly life and the mighty healing work performed by this dear woman have been an inspiration to e, providiig all the proof one needs of the correctness of this teaching.

“The first shock came when Peter V. Ross was suspended. Up to that time I had no idea of anything being wrong at Headquarters. It would be. impossible for me’ to forget the first C. S. lecture I ever heard which was given by Peter V. Ross in London. Perhaps, you can imagine my joy when I tell you I had been healed, instantaneously, of a belief of Malignant Cancer, the second time I visited a Wednesdiy evening meeting. Then, ten days later I heard his lecture on ‘Christian Science, what it is and what it does’. How I needed that message because I knew nothing at all of C. S. beyond this wonderful healing which came to me through a testimony. Later, his articles in the Literature were a source of joy and gratitude. Now, the mazed, impossibility of grasping the fact of his suspension.

“A little later John Doorly was accused of ‘Being unt to teach C. S.’ The world seemed suddenly to have gone completely mad. Apart from the arbitrary injustice meted out to the teacher is the cruelty to all his students. One is conscious that there must be thousands of these unhappy people all over the globe, whose lives have been disrupted, seemingly without thought.

“May I express my gratitude for your scientific efforts to uncover to the field just how it is being fooled by Animal Magnetism.”

Can any reader of this letter doubt the sincerity of its author? Can anyone fail to be impressed by the picture it portrays of the ravages to our Cause that animal magnetism is producing? Is it any wonder that the number of Christian Science churches is decreasing instead of increasing? It is reported there are ten less in America today than a year ago. Can anyone possibly believe that the noble and intelligent woman who founded and made provisions for the continuance of this Movement made them in such a manner that this kind of fruit will be the product of obeying her instructions? These are serious and tragic pictures to behold and they cannot be passed over lightly by excoriating or maligning the authors who write the Paul Revere pamphlets, or calling them names, or trying to discredit them, or trying to nd means to stop them in the work they believe God has led them to do.

We have tried to the best of our ability to write in such a manner that our pamphlets will not appear as an attack upon any person or group of persons, or appear to be calling names. This, we have repeatedly brought to the attention of our readers. Our purpose, we iterate and reiterate, is to review and analyze policies.

Mrs. Eddy states in Miscellaneous Writings, on page 288, “Wisdom in human action begins with what is nearest right under the circumstances, and thence achieves the absolute.” Does anyone suppose, by the farthest stretch of the imagination, that the power of God, that has enabled Mr. Peter V. Ross to help hundreds of cases as indicated by letters such as the foregoing, can be terminated by the action of a majority vote of five persons in Boston? Does anyone suppose that because the Board of Directors in the performance of their Manual duties, have deemed it the nearest right to deprive this man of his card in the Journal as a teacher, that there is no higher way, especially when the Board’s acts have resulted automatically in disenfranchising, so to speak, his hundreds of innocent students, as class-taught students, and caused them to be dubbed students of a disloyal teacher? Does that action seem to be one that would have the approval, written or otherwise, of the Pastor Emeritus? Could it possibly be conceived that it was done in the name, spirit and teaching of Mary Baker Eddy? We of Paul Revere certainly do not think so.

The whole teaching of Christian Science in regard to the healing of disease, sin and error of any sort is one that by its process reduces evil to its common denominator,-nothingness. Christian Science does not teach its followers to balloon error until it is so expanded that it reaches over the oceans to the uttermost parts of the earth. If this action in regard to Mr. Ross, Mr. Doorly, the Carpenters and other prominent thinkers is the Christian Science method of healing evil and destroying it, what then is the mortal mind method-the old theology method? Are these two methods now becoming synonymous? Is the Christian Science method, -the one our Leader taught-is this method one that underlies or advocates personalizing error about somebody, causing it to spread from mouth to mouth, even using the State Publication Committees for this purpose? Does this heal anything? This picture of evil spread up and down the land by gossiping tongues, shocking everybody who hears it, is not a pretty picture but it is the fruit of a definite policy, the policy that we of Paul Revere want to question.

At this point we should like to interject an apology to Mr. Ross and his students. In our pamphlet Number 19, we allowed ourselves to depart slightly from our policy of publishing only that which we know to be true. We stated as follows: “We hear (but do not know) that his students are joining with him to form a separate group of Scientists outside of our beloved Mother Church. If true, this is indeed deplorable and pathetic.” We desire to state that we have letters from Mr. Ross and also from his students to the effect that this is not true. Our observation is that he and his students are conducting themselves in a very dignified and Christianly scien-tic manner and are proving a credit to our Cause and to themselves and we want to assure them that they have from us ou^ very highest regard.

In considering the policy referred to above that produces this kind of fruit let our readers remember that our motive is to ascertain a solution, and not merely to criticize something without o ering a solution. If as a result of our efforts we arrive at the conclusion that the present fruits are good and desirable; are the inevitable results of being obedient to Mrs. Eddy’s provisions, we shall have at least the satisfaction of having made an exhaustive analysis of the situation. We shall not have merely accepted a conclusion because we have been afraid to look the issue fairly in the face, nor accepted, without thinking or questioning, conclusions that have been handed down to the laity by ecclesiastical tribunals. If on the other hand, we nd that the fn^it is not good, then we shall propose a remedy.

In making this analysis we shall proceed by taking up one by one the V?,rious “fruits” that ripen as a result of pursuing certain policies and then judging by these fruits whether or not these policies can be justified or should be condemned or changed.

For the sake of arriving at a correct conclusion, let us assume that the Directors are acting up to their highest and most conscientious sense of what is right in the performance of their duties, according to the interpretation of the Manual that has been current both in the Field and in official circles since the passing of our Leader. As we have said many times, we believe that they are good Christian men and women, elected or appointed to ll one of the most important posts in the world, and subject to the most intense and virulent attacks.of animal magnetism ever to be directed to any body of persons and thus they need our· most earnest and conscientious support. That they are doing their duty as they see it, we have not the slightest doubt. But we question the interpretation that makes them see as their duty the things that they are doing in the name of duty. We have no doubt that even the Roman Catholic priesthood, holding the clothes of those spir-•itually minded thinkers burning at the stake or stretched on the rack, were actuated by the thought that this was their duty under their interpretation of the Bible. We know today that it was not the priests who were at fault but the sense of duty actuating them. So we shall assume that our Directs-tors and officials are actuated by the highest sense of their duty as they perceive it under their interpretation of our Leader’s instructions.

Let us assume for the sake of making our point that Mr. Ross, Mr. Doorly, Mr. Kratzer, Mr. Irle, Mr. Eustace and all the others who have been put on the rack up through the years have all been given.a fair trial under the present· interpretation of the By-Laws; and have been found guilty of all the things of which· they have been accused. We do not agree at all that they have had a fair trial. Any fair-minded person reading Mr. Doorly’s statement, including the letters from the Board of Directors, must at once have realized that in his case. he certainly had no fair trial. Likewise the letters from the Board of Directors, written to Mr. Kratzer in 1913, of which we have copies, and especially the Board letters which appear in “Clear, Correct Teaching” by Herbert W. Eustace, testify loudly to the unfairness of decisions that can be handed down and punishments inflicted by the frenzy of ecclesiastical fervor. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the trials have all been fair and the men found guilty.

Let us now consider exhaustively the resuits of the following propositions:

That the Directors’ present interpretation of the Manual justifies them in putting on probation those whom they nd guilty of the charges.

That the Manual makes it their duty to do this and makes them derelict in their ·duty if they do not do it. We of Paul Revere will consider these two propositions but based only upon the Board’s interpretation.

But now let us look at the results of action based upon such an interpretation. We have referred previously to the disastrous effect of such action upon thousands of students who are innocent of any crime other than that of being the pupils of teachers who have been placed on probation. The article in the Sentinel of November 10th, 1945 to which we have referred passes this o lightly but it is a serious affair and not one to be passed o lightly.

Another effect of the action brought about by this interpretation is that it builds up in the minds of the laity a universal and persistent consciousness that Mrs. Eddy transferred her authority to five men whom she did not know, and that the Board of Directors in effect becomes Mrs. Eddy’s successor, possessing the highest authoritative intelligence for the final interpretation to the Field of our Leader’s teachings. Once this impression obtains throughout the Field, in the slightest degree, that the Board in Boston is Mrs. Eddy’s successor, it produces effects of far reaching significance and is fraught with potential danger to every Christian Scientist everywhere in the world. This mistaken belief that the Board of Directors is Mrs. Eddy’s successor automatically impregnates the minds of those accepting such a doctrine, with an inferior sense of their own ability to demonstrate Principle. All down the ages, this is the underlying basis that has resulted in the enslavement of the many to the power of the few._ It begins with small encroachments and ends in the complete subjugation of the mass consciousness. This “inferiority” state of mind produces an impression that one sure path to favor and preferment in the Christian Science organization today is to “think with Boston”, or at any rate, “avoid expressing your opinion if you do not.” All this tends to suppress honest and independent thinking by creating a fear of the ostracism and isolation that a disagreement, however sound, with the official view, involves.

This subservient attitude develops a corollary condition, which is also far-reaching in its effects. This condition causes many members of The Mother Church to conceive it their duty, like tattling school children to report to the Board of Directors, directly or indirectly through officials, the conduct and actions of their fellow members of which they disapprove, while they themselves remain obscurely in the background. This produces in our Movement a highly developed form of Gestapo to which these members report in order to enhance their own standing and prestige with officialdom in Boston.

We of Paul Revere have been confident for many years that Mrs. Eddy did not transfer her authority to five persons and would not build up an ecclesiastical hierarchy of such centralized control over the destinies of Christian Scientists-their thinking, their reading, their writing, their teaching-that is so contrary not only to the spirit of all of her teaching but so un-American and undemocratic and unchristian that it could not and would not and should not survive in a democratic age and country. No one in his right mind, knowing anything of Mrs. Eddy’s human wisdom, to say nothing of her divine intelligence and inspiration, would so question it as to believe that she would leave By-Laws for her organization that could be so interpreted that obedience to them would result in condemnation and penalties, and produce results little different from those meted out by ecclesiastical tribunals down through the centuries; and which have proved as inadequate to heal human frailties as the use of Hawthorn’s Scarlet Letter.

If the policy referred to, of excoriating, condemning and penalizing person, used at the hub-headquarters-seems to spread through the many spokes of the wheel to the circumference-the Field,-is it any wonder that our Cause is in the seriously diseased condition that it seems to be today?

Let us cite a case to show how far-reaching such a policy at headquarters is and how detrimental. A First Reader in a branch church was informed that the Second Reader serving with him at the desk was reading one of the books oh Christian Science that was not “authorized” and was on the “index expurgatorious”. This First Reader became so incensed at this “afoul crime” he thought the Second Reader was committing,-the crime of reading something that somebody else had read and pronounced not good,-that he demanded she report her action to the Board of Trustees of eir church or he would do it himself. She refused, and rightly said it was no one’s business what her demonstration led her to read. Let Us bear in mind that her job as Second Reader was to read from the Bible, the citations from the Lesson Quarterly. This is what she had been elected to do and she did it, earnestly and well. She had only six months more of her term to serve. If the busybody First Reader had listened to Jesus’ admonition “What is that to thee, follow thou me,”-had realized the truth about the woman, in his own consciousness, (if he thought her to be in error), what he would have saved that church! The membership in the church all became disturbed and joined with the First Reader in condemnation of the woman. Under the weight of the combined condemnation-which, of course is malicious mental malpractice,-and as a direct result of it, the woman resigned and was impelled by error to sue the First Reader. The newspapers in the city came out with ugly headlines to the effect that the Second Reader of a Christian Science church was suing the First Reader for a large bill of damages for allegedly robbing her of her practice. Animal magnetism certainly made a mountain out of a molehill and added much disrepute to the Christian Science Movement.

Suppose instead of condemning and making the error seem more real in the consciousness of the church members, -he had remembered Mrs. Eddy’s words in “No and Yes,” page 41, “There are sinners in all societies, and it is vain to look for perfection in churches and associations.” And her further words in “Miscellaneous Writings,” pages 210-211, “Love your enemies, or you will not lose them: and if you love them, you will help to reform them.” If, in the beginning, he had put into practice this more loving and scientific method of seeing the spiritual fact about the Second Reader, and her act of reading what she deemed right, would not such an attitude have contributed toward helping her make her demonstration over the error, even if it had been an error, which we insist it was not? Would he not have used this method if the Second Reader had manifested a physical claim; and would not the use of this method have saved the church from irreparable harm? Would not this have been the correct method to use even though the offense had been a more flagrant violation of the human code of ethics than the mere reading of a so-called “taboo” book? Does not Mrs. Eddy say in “First Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany,” “You may condemn evil in the abstract without harming any one or your own moral sense, but condemn persons seldom, if ever. Improve every opportunity to correct sin through your own perfectness.”? (At this point, we of Paul Revere might be asked why we are not using this method of correcting our own consciousness of the errors we think we see in the organization, instead of uncovering to the Field the phases of animal magnetism that seem at times to be handling those at headquarters. The answer is-as we have repeatedly said-that we are not condemning persons, but we are exercising our right to review policies. This may make it seem necessary, at times, in uncovering the error that results from the use of wrong policies, to refer to persons that are seemingly responsible for the use of these policies; but this is far different from condemning the persons as individuals.)

If the First Reader had thought it necessary for the good of the church to expose the error he thought he saw in her for reading this book should he not have made the effort to arouse support for the Second Reader by directing thought to the handling of the animal magnetism that would cause in-harmony at the desk, and consequently in the church. In the final analysis was he not, in condemning her, more handled by animal magnetism than she was, when he allowed animal magnetism, through organization ecclesiasticism, to impel him to interfere with someone’s else right to think and to read? If he had used the scientific method referred to above, all of this disgraceful disturbance would have been avoided. ·

And so we see that the method used at headquarters-the method of condemning persons, penalizing them and indirectly the ones associated with them-has become the policy·of the circumference as well as the hub, so that the whole Cause is being so saturated with the influence of animal magnetism’s ethods that our organization will soon go the way of other religious organizations, or become “just another church.” What is there to prevent it? If we act and think and function in the same manner as the orthodox church, why do we assume that we shall have any different end? Is God going to do more for us if we think no differently? Of course not.

If the present interpretation of the Manual justifies these penalties, then do not such results indicate quite clearly that such an interpretation cannot possibly be right? Surely Mrs. Eddy was inspired to leave us in her Manual some better provision. While she was here and acting as Pastor Emeritus with supervisory jurisdiction over all other officers, and with power to remove them from office if they failed to function as she had taught them, the By-Laws in the Manual could function. You will recall that we mentioned in Pamphlet number 10 that while she was still with us, the Board of Directors had five churches under discipline which she took over and in a short time restored harmony. While this disciplinary method could be used under Mrs. Eddy’s supervision while she was here, because of her great spiritual vision and love for mankind, it is apparent that its use has not been successful since her passing, even though those in authority have been actuated by the highest motives in their effort to perform their duty in accordance with their concept of the provisions of the Manual.

Mrs. Eddy’s wisdom in thus judging her students, even those whom she had taught and who were on the Board of Directors, was borne out by the fact that, after she passed, these same students who had been taught by her, removed her name as Pastor Emeritus from the list of officers in the Manual, and it was omitted for several years, from about 1911 to 1924. Subsequently her name was replaced and now occupies its proper position at the head of the list of officers. Mrs. Eddy probably realized from similar experiences while with us, that while she herself was governed by divine Principle, she could see that few of her followers were, relatively speaking, so governed, and therefore, was unwilling to entrust the government of her church, when deprived of her supervision and inspired guidance, to any single person or to any five persons whom she did not know or had not taught.

She therefore has provided in her By-Laws, wonderfully inspired woman that she was, a means by which animal magnetism can be circumvented, and her church established so strongly on the rock that ecclesiasticism-animal magnetism’s age-old weapon, would be dehorned and prevented forever from blocking the individual unfoldment of the members of her church. It is recorded that she stated in effect that she expected that the present form of her church government would change within fifty years. Therefore, we must be approaching the time when a better sense of church government should evolve as a result of strict obedience to her instructs-tions.

We of Paul Revere are positive that Mrs. Eddy’s vision provided a wonderful plan by which her By-Laws, when taken in conjunction with the Deed of Trust of 1892 and that of 1898, can be interpreted in a manner which, when understandingly obeyed, will produce a fruit far different from that produced today-an interpretation far higher than has generally been envisioned either by the various Boards or the Field. This plan permits of an interpretation which we have hinted at in some of our previous pamphlets-one which provides for the continuance of the Christian Science organization without disobeying any single provision of the Manual.

The interpretation which we are about to discuss more fully seems to us to be more worthy of Mrs. Eddy, and we should like to present it to you for your consideration. It is as revolutionary to the human mind as the atomic bomb, so wedded is the human mind to a material sense of govement. Mrs. Eddy says that the government of her church “will evolve scientifically” (My. p. 342). But would anyone say that the present policy is the result of scientist c evolution? Far from it! It checks scientific evolution! It has all the familiar ear,arks of the curse of ecclesiasticism throttling spiritualization. History portrays only too clearly that where scientific evolution has been checked, revolutionary ideas may be necessary to allow evolution to evolve.

Until the present policy of our church-organization has produced sufficient “sick fruit” to awaken even the dullest thinker to the realization that something is wrong, thoughtful consideration of something besides ordinary methods of human wisdom will be checked; and the provisions of Mrs. Eddy’s wonderful and divine wisdom will be so obscured that its fruit will have little Opportunity to be manifested in human experience. We, therefore, ask that you give this revolutionary idea your earnest and conscientious consideration.

For years, we of Paul Revere have felt that there wa^ an intimate and interlocking relationship between the provisions of the Manual and the Deed of Trust to the Directors of 1892, and the Deed of Trust to the Trustees of The Publishing Society of 1898,-that the necessity to waive certain provisions of ten By-Laws in the Manual to make them operative in selecting officers and appointees of The Mother Church, forces the pathetic conclusion that these By-Laws were not divinely inspired, and that Mrs. Eddy made ten blunders in compiling the Manual. The “litigation incident” which we have so repeatedly referred to as having never been settled, waived the Deed of Trust to the Trustees as though it did not exist. We feel that in this Deed, and in its relationship to the other Deed and in its relationship to the Manual, is to be found a solution for the ills that are menacing our Cause today. Ever since this “incident” the authors of these Paul Revere pamphlets have been endeavoring to nd the solution that we felt was lying dormant, awaiting the day of evolution, un-foldment and discernment. We feel sure that the error that is back of the trouble in our Movement has been growing ever since the days when Mr. Kratzer made his first protest in 1913, shortly after Mrs. Eddy passed away; that it is due to an erroneous interpretation of our Leader’s instructions in these Deeds and in the Manual. It has seemed to us recently that the time is appropriate to present to our readers our own idea of the solution for those ills in our Movement to which we have been calling your attention for the past two years. We were just in the process of studying these three docu-foments with the view of working out a clearer and more understandable presentation of our ideas, when at that very mo-foment one of our readers sent an inspired little booklet that we are attaching to this pamphlet of ours. It has been written anonymously and for the good reasons given by the author. It was apparently written several years ago, but like all such things, has been quashed and kept from any wide circulation by animal magnetism’s active agencies. But as God provided that Moses be hidden in the bulrushes until he was strong enough to emerge and take up his work of leading the children of Israel out of bondage, so in the bulrushes of today God has hidden from the modern Pharoahs a few of these little booklets until the Christian Science Movement has become sick enough to listen to their message. The booklet better expresses our thoughts than we could express them ourselves and we are sure that its coming to us unsolicited is one of pure demonstration and not “happenstance”-that it is for a great purpose. We of Paul Revere should like to be among the first to do honor to the person who spent the hours of time and effort necessary to bring forth this little booklet. We trust that all of our readers will read it with an open mind.

As we have said many times, we are sure that our dear Leader must have left some provision for the evolution of her Cause other than the transference of her authority to five persons whom, ultimately, by necessity she could never know; that even if she should entrust her authority to five persons as her -successors, she must have realized that the pressure of animal magnetism would be so great, in belief, that they could not possibly function for long without degenerating into an ecclesiastical body that would try to govern the speech, action and activities of Christian Scientists.

It is obvious that, even humanly such an arrangement would be wrong because as the Movement grew to ninety millions it would be unworkable. For example, you will recall that in one of our pamphlets we related that a member of a branch church gave a testimony at a Wednesday eve-fining meeting regarding Mrs. Eddy’s healing work. Within three weeks, he received a letter from the Board of Directors in Boston stating that it had been reported to that Board that he had made such and such a statement, and asked him to write them whether or not this reported action was true. When there are ninety million Christian Scientists and all of them giving testimonies can it be possible to conceive of such a Board functioning effectively, if, indeed, that action can possibly be thought of as a type of effective operation?

If, then, there should ever be a time when the Movement should be freed from such a Gestapo interpretation of the Board’s functions, when would that be, and where would the provision to free it come from? The Manual cannot be amended. So if the provision is there to take care of the increased needs of the Cause when it grows to ninety millions, it must of necessity be there in the Manual now. If it would be impossible for the Board to function in this way at ninety millions and be obedient to the Manual, then it must be impossible now. And of course, it is impossible now. It is an insult to Mrs. Eddy’s intelligence to think that she provided an arrangement by which a Board would be justified in writing such a letter to any branch church member and still be obedient to her By-Laws, or that she had blundered, and had written the By-Laws so loosely that the Board could usurp such a right and then nd a plausible interpretation to justify their acts, with the result that in a short thirty-five years they have been able to indoctrinate the Field into such a state of consciousness that the members of a branch church would submit to such an encroachment upon their Manual rights without protest. Of course it is absurd to think Mrs. Eddy did anything of the sort. The Manual as she wrote it is an inspired document, and within itself lies the correct and sci-entic solution of its spiritual interpretation: the seed of its own evolution is within itself. Our work is to awaken, open our dull eyes and see it.

We of Paul Revere do not feel that the solution of the problem that confronts us can be discerned by the reasoning that has appealed to so many-that of resigning from the organization when the individual has attained the spiritual altitude where he feels he no longer needs the organization, or where he feels he has worked beyond the necessity of the organization in his individual experience. To explain his resignation, the student usually quotes Mrs. Eddy’s many references to the need of organization in only the earlier stages of growth. This is very true; it does take care of him individu-ually, perhaps, but where does it leave the organization, the thing Mrs. Eddy spent many arduous years in perfecting so that this Truth could be spread most effectively into the world consciousness? Does this not leave the organization in the hands of organization-minded mentalities,-mentalites that think it incumbent upon themselves to exercise a Gestapo system on any who dare to think independently of Boston, or even on students who in branch church testimony meet-flings express t^eir gratitude for healings? While individually, members nd it easy and pleasant to resign from an organization where such a system operates, have they no duty, no loyalty to the dear woman who discovered and gave to us this great Truth, this thing that we all love, tlis Christian Science? “Go, if you must, to the dungeon or the scaffold,” our Leader rousingly urges (Misc. W. 99), “but take not back the words of Truth.” If excommunication be the “stake” let us go to the “stake” rather than resign, for “martyrs are the seed of the church”. Does not resignation leave the thing we love in the hands of those responsible for the policies that we do not love? Should we not ·be absolutely sure that we are positive of its being demonstration before we resign? Should we not remain lovingly in the organization? It is ours-it belongs to us. Would it not be far better to stay in the organization until we have healed what needs healing, and changed what needs changing; thus finally bringing out the high sense of organization that our Leader intended?

Suppose the Christian Science Movement awakened some morning to the startling announcement that the Christian Science Board of Directors had entirely changed their policies in line with a new and higher interpretation of the Manual, and that, in consequence, they were going to function in a new and entirely different manner, so that no longer could Christian Scientists report to them the acts of their fellow Christian Scientists or furnish the Board with affidavits regarding their conduct. Suppose the Board of Directors should no longer act as though they were Mrs. Eddy’s successors, nor answer questions concerning the proper interpretation of certain rules and By-Laws, nor tell teachers how to teach, nor tell students what they shall or shall not say in the Wednesday evening meetings? Suppose they stopped telling practitioners how to practise, and stopped telling any one of us what we shall read or shall not read; stopped telling us what personal habits constitute sins, and what do not,-in short, suppose we should suddenly nd that in its way of functioning, the Board, from this time forth, should no longer in any capacity whatsoever, attempt to supervise our acts, our conduct or our thoughts. Suppose that from now on forever, each one of us should be free to be guided by his own interpretation of Principle, and in the words of our Leader (Article VIII, Section 6, of the Manual), “By his works he shall be judged-and justified or condemned.”

What a bomb this would be to the whole Christian Science Movemenr at least to a large part of it! Those Christian Scientists that have been so mesmerized that they can not think without the approval of Boston would be as at as the people of Hiroshima! In fact they would be worse o, for they would be believing that they had lost their contact and approach to God. For these, what wailing and wretchedness and hopelessness might follow such a catastrophe! But this would be but temporary, for soon they would turn more unreservedly to God, and out of the ashes of this phoenix re would rise the most beautiful, the most wonderful Renaissance ever to reach mankind-our dear Leader’s vision for her followers-the only way by which they could emancipate themselves from all forms of human bondage, and thus, lead the world to an absolute reliance upon Principle alone.

In presenting our solution of the whole problem of organization we have attached herewith an anonymous pamphlet which epitomizes our concept of the way in which a Board such as we have outlined could function; the organization could continue for the present; the ecclesiastical evils incident to organization be eliminated, and every By-Law of the Manual be strictly obeyed.

We are fully aware that in presenting these ideas we are “running counter to the mortal belief, the so-called. law, that organization, even complex organization, is essential to growth and development: but inasmuch as the principle business of the Christian Scientist in this mortal dream is the breaking of mortal mind laws, it may be worth while righl now to consider seriously the desirability of beginning to sci-entically break the mortal law of organization, which has so long and so firmly held humanity in bondage.”

The following notes are the result of a lo11g and detailed study of the Manual and Mrs. Eddy’s other works, together with the deeds of trust of September 1st,. 1892 a11d of January 25th, 1898, signed by her, with a view to arrii•ing at a right conclusion on the qu^stion of the govern-foment of the Christian Science Church. The writer has endeavoured to put aside human desires and to be guided by divine Principle alone ; and it has been very encouraging to nd how the subject has unfolded, and how the Manual in particular has been illumined. These notes the writer oers to the dispassionate consideration of other Christian Scientists.

They are issued anonymously, partly because it is desired that they may be considered on their own merits, and partly because the author has no wish to euter into controversy concerning them. As Gamaliel said, “if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it”.

NOTES ON THE MANUAL AND DEEDS OF TRUST.

What were Mrs. Eddy’s intentions with regard to the organization of the Christian Science movement when she should have passed away? To answer this question there is only one really satisfactory method available, namely, to study her published \Vritings, especially the Manual, and the deeds of trust signed by her. It is useless to take any notice of things that people aver she said to themselves or to others. Even with the best wish in the world to state things accurately, it is always possible that such people may misrepresent her, either through inaccuracy in reporting what she said or through inability to grasp her meaning; and in this connection one should always bear in mind that the more spiritually minded the person is who makes a statement, the more liable they are to be misunderstood.

It is a curious fact, and one which must have struck many Christian Scientists, that Mrs. Eddy made many of the by-laws in the Manual impossible of strict fullment in the event of her being no more with us. To many such members of the movement the thought probably curred that Mrs. Eddy did not wish to refer to her possible passing away; that the omission to provide for her passing arose throh an oversight, they did not care to suppose-it would have been so contrary to her character., In these circumstances the vast majority of Christian Scientists assumed that the constant demand in the by-laws for Mrs. Eddy’s approval or consent, often in her own hand writing, could be disregarded now that it could no longer be complied with. There can have been very few indeed who thought differently. The Christian Science Board of Directors, therefore, continued to apply the by-laws mechanically, disregarding the constant demand for Mrs. Eddy’s consent or approval, and Christian Scientists, feeling the same way, approved their action. And it is only recently that the whole theory of government of the Christian Science Church has been widely questioned and a new and startling int of view has been put forward, namely, that Mrs. Eddy meant exactly what she wrote! It was a way she had, yet in this matter of church government Christian Sci theists had refused to credit it, so wedded is the human mind to a material sense of government.

After all, Mrs. Eddy had hinted fairly clearly in the Manual itself what her intentions with regard to the Mother Church really were, for in the last by-law of all she had stipulated that no by-law was to be amended without her written consent.: Is not the persistent disregard of the demand for her approval or consent tantamount to amending the by-laws in which this demand occurs? In framing certain by-laws as she did, Mrs. Eddy made them impossible of fullment, in. fact self-annulling, in the event of her passing on, and in giving her written consent to, or rather in her establishment of, such by-laws she gave her written consent to their annulment.

Why, it may be asked, did she not say definitely that she intended the Mother Church to cease when she should gofor that, as will be shown later, is the effect of obeying the by-laws. Was it Mrs. Eddy’s way? Was not her way to leave the movement as far as possible to do things by demonstration? She must have known that if she had given definite instructions as to her intentions-, the movement would have followed them blindly like a flock of sheep, but of what spiritual value would this have been? One can get some idea of Mrs. Eddy’s views on the question from the last paragraph on page 8 of the Message for 1900. Rather than give definite instructions about the matter she left Christian Scientists to work out the question in the proportion that they were able to overcome the fear and sense of limitation that would resist the progressive abandonment of the organization.

On page 342 of Miscellany Mrs. Eddy is reported as saying that the government of the Church of Christ, Scientist “ will develop as it progresses.” Does this mean that its organization is to become more and more complicated or less and less so? On page 4G of Retrospection and Introspection Mrs. Eddy said she learned ‘’ that organization is requisite only in the earliest periods in Christian history.” Note should be taken of the word “ earliest.’” This statement Mrs. Eddy has never taken back, and when we consider the fact that since the publication of Science and Health thought has been moving at an increasingly rapid pace, we shall see that such ‘’ earliest periods ‘’ would in these days be soon outgrown. Not that Mrs. Eddy intended all organization to cease at her passing. Far from it. Evolution, not revolution is the true line of progress, though where evolution is checked, revolution may be necessary. As a matter of fact, if Mrs. Eddy’s instructions as given in the Manual and the deeds of trust are followed obeditly, the natural evolution of the Chrch of Christ, Scientist is assured.

Really the key to the situation lies in the first and last by-laws of the Manual. The last by-law provides that the Manual shall not be altered, but read just as Mrs. Eddy left it. The first by-law provides that the officers of the Mother Church are to consist of the Pastor Emeritus, a Board of Directors, etc. Ever since Mrs. Eddy’s passing, therefore. the attempt has been made to carry on the Mother Church without its chief officer, the officer to whom is given in the by-laws the supervision over all its other officers, an officer who cahnot be replaced! It is clear, then, that the Mot:1er Church, by which is meant the worldwide organization of that name, ceased on Mrs. Eddy’s passing, leaving Christian Scientists to demonstrate their membership of the true Church governed solely by divine Principle.

But.did this make it impossible to carry on the organization? No! The Deed of Trust pages 128-134 of the-Manual enables The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., to continue, though the powers of its Directors, powers which (in the deed) are in no way subject to Mrs. Eddy’s supervision or approval, are limited to those specified in this deed and in that of the Christian Science Publishing Society. At the same time the branch churches · could continue under Art. XXIII, Sect. 6 (last sentence}, whilst the Christian Science Publishing Society can continue indefinitely under its own “ perpetual and irrevocable,. deed of trust, which gives all necessary powers to the Trustees, who, by the way, need not be members of the l\Iother Church (see para. 9 of the Publishing Siety deed of trust). Thus it will be seen that instead of a highly centralized organization, such as Mrs. Eddy deemed necessary during the pioneer stage of the movement, there would be an almost entirely decentralized one, The First Church of Christ, Scientist being a special church and thus diering from the other churches, societies, and meetings in the movement, whilst the Publishing Society also would be a thing apart.

People are liable to think that there would then be no further use for the Manual. Let them read it with the above points held in view, and they will nd that only then will it begin to unfold really spiritually, in the same way that Mrs. Eddy’s other works unfold. To regard it merely as a set of church rules, is to hinder this unfoldment. The extract on page 3 of the Manual indicates the true spirit in which Christian Scientists should regard the Manual. The by-laws are not “ dictatorial demands, such as one person might impose on another,” nor are they in the nature of “ absolute doctrines destined for future generations,” as so many people seem to regard them. ey were a “ help “ designed · · to maintai the dignity and defence of our Cause,” and if they had been obeyed we should have been spared the spectacle of the lawsuits of recent years.

Let us now consider the effect of the disappearance of the Mother Church on (1) The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass.; (2) the branch churches; and (3) the Christian. Science Publishing_ Society.

The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass.

Presumably the disappearance of the Mother Church would involve the cessation of all fother Churr:h membership.

It will be noted that all the appointments, except those of the Directors and Readers, were for one year only, and that all required Mrs. Eddy’s approval or consent for their renewal.. This would allow existing officers, after Mrs. Eddy’s decease, to settle up the affairs of their respective offices (actually they would have had about half a year, as· things turned out), after which some of the offices would have ceased, whilst others would have had to be arranged for under the deeds of trust. The governing consideration is that no appointment involving Mrs. Eddy’s approval or consent could be carried out in accordance with the Manual. Strictly speaking, the universal Mother Church ceased to exist at Mrs. Eddy’s passing, and The First Church of Christ, Scientist continued under its deed of trust.

The chief dutv of the Directors under the deed of trust would have been: and is, to “ maintain public worship in accordance with the doctrines of Christian Science in said church “ (see para. 3, page 131}, for which puose “ they are fully empowered to make any and all necessary rules and regulations.’’ They would thus be able to appoint a Clerk, a Treasurer, and two Readers, besides officers and teachers for the Sunday Schl, which should be all that would be necessary for the purpose. Presumably the Clerk and Treasurer would be members of the Board itself, as was the case in Mrs. Eddy’s time. No doubt, t, the Readers in office in December, 1910, would have continued to the end of their three years’ term.

Apparently the church was to be a church without mem-fibers, for para. G, page 132, states that “ The congregation which shall worship in said church shall be styled ’ The First Church of Christ, Scientist.’ “

Going on to para. IO, page 133, we see that The First Church of Christ, Scientist was not to continue indefinitely, but that Mrs. Eddy foreshadowed a time when it would be “ inexpedient to maintain preaching, reading or speaking in said church in accordance with the terms of this deed,” after which the land and building were to be reconveyed to her assigns, who would be what are known as the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy.

An interesting point is that the Directors are to constitute “ a perpetual body or corporation “ (see para. 1, page 130), so that the Christian Science Board of Directors would apparently outlive The First Church of Christ. Scientist itself, a fact of some importance when one considers the administration of Mrs. Eddy’s residuary estate.

No further lecturers would be appointed, the approval of the Pastor Emeritus being no longer obtainable (Art. XXXI, Sect. 1), and the existin lecturers would have term-inflated their duties at the end of the year for which they were appointed.

No further teachers could be appointed and the Board of Education would be closed, for the reasons that the President, Mrs. Eddy, ne\·er resigned nor authorised the vice-president to take her place (Art. XXVIII, Sect. 4); that the approval by the Pastor Emeritus of the teacher in the Board of Education could no longer be obtained (Art. XXVIII, Sect. 2); and that the si nature of the President is required on all certificates issued (Art. XXX, Sect. 3), and thus no further certificates could be issued.

It would seem, in fact, that Mrs. Eddy, once her supervision was removed, arranged for the cessation of the personal exposition of her teachings under the official sanction of headquarters, except by the Christian Science Publishing Society, which would itself be subject to the criticism of all Christian Scientists. What this means, was seen just after the Directors’ nominees took possession of the Publishing Siety in the early part of 1922, when the inclusion 0£ spiritualistic teaching in an editorial in the Moniter brought down an avalanche of criticism from the field.

Exactly what Mrs. Eddy intended with regard to the teaching of Christian Scien.ce after her departure, is not t easy to discover. The passage commencing “ Any student,” on page 318 of Miscellaneous Writings, would seem to indicate what sh considered the qualifications foa teacher. If the Manual is obeyed, however, and the Mother Church dissolved, the question of teaching may be trusted to unfold. Mrs. Eddy has said, on page 218 of Miscellany: “ My published works are teachers and healers,” and on page 136 of Miscellaneous \Vritings: “ You can well afford to give me up, since you have in my last revised edition of Science and Health your teacher and guide.’’ Such state-foments as these would seem to indicate that Christian Scitists should turn to Mrs. Eddy’s works alone for right instruction as to what Christian Science really teaches. It is an interesting fact that on the last page (364) of Miscellany Mrs. Eddy says that “ the practitioner... should teach his students to defend themselves from all evil, and to heal the sick,” which would imply that every practitioner should teach, though not necessarily in regular classes.; and the real diploma for a teacher is described on pe 358 of Miscellaneous Writings, where Mrs. Eddy reminds us that “ The student who heals by teaching and teaches by healing, will graduate under divine honors, which are the only appropriate seals for Christian Science.”

An interesting point to notice is that on page 315 of Miscellaneous Writings Mrs. Eddy allows “ Christian Scientists, all over the world, who are letterly t and specially spiritually fitted for teachers,” to teach three classes annually, whilst in Art. XXVI, Sect. 4 of the Manual she not only limits teachers to one class annually, but arranges for the Board of Education, after 1907, to hold only one class triennially-this, in spite of the enormous growth of the Christian Science movement. The inference is that Mrs.. Eddy saw· the need for personal instruction diminishing, and it is pose that she might have stopped it if she had continued with us. lecturers and teachers could no longer be appointed in accordanc^ with the Manual after Mrs. Eddy’s passing. The same remark applies to the Committee on Publication for the Mother Church, the Committee who was to be “ manager of the Committees on Publication throughout the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Ireland “ (Art. XXXIII, Sect. 1). The disappearance of the Mother Church would naturally involve the disappearance of the Committee on Publication for the Mother Church, and it is an interesting fact that only the countries named above should be mentioned, these being probably the only countries where Christian Science had obtained any fthold worth speaking of at the time the by-law was made, nor did Mt. Eddy alter it before her passing. After that, a Committee on Publication for Massachusetts could be elected. by ‘’ the Christian Science Board of Directors,” in accordance with Art. XXXIII, Sect. 3, second para. Presumably the appointment by the Christian Science Board of Dirtors of the “ Committee hr the counties in which London, England is situated,” would lapse, even though Mrs. Eddy’s approval is not required, as it is quite outside the sphere of the duties assigned to the Directors by the deed of trust.

Again, there could no longer be a President of the Mother Church, Mrs. Eddy’s approval of his appointment being required (see Art. I, Sect. 2), and the Mother Church having been dissolved, there would be no need for his services, as the annual meetings of the Mother Church would cease.

As regards the other appointments formerly made by the Directors of the Mother Church, “ the editors and the manager of The Christian Science Publishing Society ‘’ (Art. I, Sect. 3) could not ·be elected by the Directors, either under the Manual, for ‘’ the consent of the Pastor Emeritus given in her own handwriting “ is required, or under the deed of trust on pages 128-134 of the Manual; they would therefore be appointed by the Trustees of the Christian Science Publishing Society under para. 6 of the Publishin Society deed of trust.

It has been stated by the author of the pamphlet “ The Manual and The Mother Church” that the Christian Science Benevolent Association is a trusteeship or syndicate. If so, it ought never to have been started by the Directors without Mrs. Eddy’s definite approval at the time (see Art·. I, Sect. 8).

As regards the Mother Church Reading Rms (Art. XXI, Sect. 2), it would seem, if the Manual is to be obeyed,, that The First Church of Christ, Scientist should maintain “a Readiag Room “ (Art. XXI, Sect. 1), and that it should invite other Boston churches to unite with it in maintaining. any other Reading Rooms that might be considered neces-ry in Boston. Though the maintenanc of a Reading Rm is not, strictly speaking, included among the duties of the Directors specified in para. 3 of their deed of trust (page 131), still the instruction in the Manual that. ’ Each church of the Christian Science denomination shall have a Reading Rm ‘’ would presumably authorise this step, and justify the Directors in appointing a Librarian without obtaining Mrs. Eddy’s approval (Art. XXI, Sect. 2).

To sum up what has been said before. On Mrs. Eddy’s passing, the Morer Church, that is to say the Church with a universal membership of which Mrs. Eddy was the head, ceased to exist, and the membership of the Mother Church ceased with it. The Christian Science Board of Directors ceased to be Directors of this Church under the by-laws and continued, under the deed of trust on pages 128-134 of the Ianual, as Directors of the First Church of Christ, Scientist (which might still, possibly, be called the Mother Church in view of its special nature-Act XXXlV, Sect. 2 would seem to warrant this). As such they would keep services going in the Mother Church, for which purpose they could elect a Clerk and Treasurer from their own number, and two Readers, and officers and teachers for the Sunday Schl, from outside; they would also appoint a Librarian, and a Committee on Publication for the state of Massachusetts. They could no longer appoint lecturers or teachers or a President for the annual meeting, which would cease with the universal Mother Churc^. Thus, instead of being ‘’ the governing board of the Christian Science demonina-tion “ (see Notice of issal, dated March 17, 1919, delivered to Mr. Rowlands) they would be the governin body of The First Church of Christ, Scientist only.

The branch churches.

It would appear that Mrs. Eddy, recognising that her relinquishment of “ her place as the head or Leader of The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist “ would involve the dissolution of the universal Mother Church, desired to pre^ vent the branch churches fr dissolving· t, for in the last sentence of Art. XXIII, Sect. 6 she provides that in such an eventuality “ each branch church shall continue its present form government in consonance with The Mother Church Manual “-ven though t Mother Church of the by-laws had ceased to exist.

The question then ases: Would the existing branch churches continue to be branch churches, and could new branch churches be organized? The next secti, Sect. 7, would seem to supply the answer, as it is therein provided that a branch church ‘’ shall not be organised with less than sixteen loyal Christian Scientists, four of whom are members of The Mother Church.” If the dissolution of l I the Mother Church involves the dissolution of its membership this would no longer be possible, nor would it be possible to have Readers who would comply with the first sentence of Art. III, Sect. 6. It might be said that membership of the Mother Church prior to Mrs. Eddy’s passin would satisfy all necessary requirements, but it would probably be more consistent to allow that the cessation of the universal Mother Church involves the cessation of the “ branch church “ character of what were formerly branch churches. This would not prevent these churches from continuing in their present form, as Churches of Christ, Scientist; it would merely change their relationship to the central Boston church. The Christian Science Board of Directors would no longer have control over those who were members of the Mother Church up to Mrs. Eddy’s passing, and of course no further members could be elected nor am· excommunicated. Anyone who is inclined to be disturbed at this, had better read Art. XI, Sect. 13, where Mrs. Eddy says: “ Each church shall separately and independently discipline its own members,-if this sad necessity curs.”

The chief direction in which the authority of tlie Christian Science Board of Directors has been felt, is in their power to remove cards from the periodicals (see A. XXV, Sect. 9). It is interesting, however, to nd that nothing is said with regard to their power to prevent cards from being placed in the periicals, which power would appear to lie entirely with the Christian Science Publishing Siety (see Art. XXIII, Sect. 6, and Art. XXV, Sect. 8). What with one thing and another, it would appear that the power to advertise the services of any Christian Science organization, and, after Mrs. Eddy’s passing, to cease to advertise them, has rested entirely with the Christian Science Publishing Society. It is, indeed, open to question whether such advertising was meant to continue; this, however, is a point which Mrs. Eddy seems to have left to the Publishing Society itself.

Another point which arises is whether existing branch churches should keep the titles “ First Church of Christ, Scientist,” and so on, when they ceased to be “ branch “ churches, and whether new churches in the same place should take on fresh numbers (see Art. XXIII, Sect. 2). In this connection it is well to consider the point that the aim of the Christian Science movement should be to have less and less organization instead of more and more, and finally to dispense with material organization altogether; in these circumstances it is probable that the building of churches would be discontinued, and the tendency be to have a larger number of smaller organizations rather than a smaller num-fiber of larger ones. If this is so, the new organizations might call themselves Christian Science Societies, the word “ branch “ never being used in the Manual, or elsewhere, in connection with such an organization, though possibly it is implied (Manual, page 7 4); or else they could put up a notice “ Christian Science services,” as has been done at Swiss Cottage, London. Probably the best arrangement would ha,·e been for all Christian Science Churches and Societies existing at Mrs. Eddy’s passing to retain their titles, and for the title ‘’ Church of Christ, Scientist ‘’ or “ Christian Science Society “ to be conned to them.

In Art. XXXIII, Sect. 1 and Art. XXXIII, Sect. 3 Mrs. Eddy provides for united action for protection against unfavourable legislation and stress attacks-in so far as organization can assist in giving this; and though these by-laws apply to branch churches it would no doubt be in order for the Christian Se1thence movement to continue to apply them.

One of the essentials for a church to be a branch church, is that its Readers should be members of the Mother Church. After Mrs. Eddy’s passing and the dissolution of the Mother Church this was no longer strictly possible, but all Christian Science organitions should endeavour to full this· condition as nearly as they can. It is probable that existing branch churches would have appointed as Readers those who were members of the Mother Church before Mrs. Eddy’s passing, until the supply of suitable persons was exhausted. But this is taking. a rather material view of the matter. What, it may be asked, are the esstials f 34 of the Manual. Roughly they amount to the following: The student must be “ a believer in the doctrines of Christian Science “ and use the Bible and Mrs. Eddy’ works as his only textbooks (Art. IV, Sect. 1); he must be “ Free from Other Denominations “ (Art. IV, Sect. 2); and, presumably, and finally, he should have a certain amount of experience in Christian Science work. The extent to which any member or attendant at the services measured up to these requirements, should be possible of determination by the other members of the local organization. An active, spiritually minded Christian Scientist who satisfied these requirements, would be far more suitable for readership than a slack and materially minded member who had been borne on the roll of the pre-1911 Mother Church-and there must be many such!

Presumably the Committee on Publication “ for the counties in which London, England, is situated,” since he could no!0finger be appointed by the Christian Science Board of Directors, would cease to occupy the position of “District Manager “ (Art XXXIII, Sect. 3). It would, however, probably be still advisable to have one Committee for the four counties,. and this Committee could be appointed on similar lines to the Committees in other parts of England. Throughout the consideration of this question of branch churches it will be noticed that although these churches would have lost their “ branch “ character, it would still, in most matters, be better to proce on lines as similar as possible to the Manual arrangements for branch churches, and to scrap details of organization when no longer considered necessary.

The Christian Science Publishing Society.

Before considering the position of the above after Mrs. Eddy’s passing it may be well to say a few words about its position before that date.

That the Publishing Society, which is the same as saying the Trustees (see para. 2 of their deed of trust), had full control over their publications, subject to Mrs. Eddy’s supervision, is evident, not only from paras. 3 and.8 of their deed of trust but also. from Art. XXV, Sect. 8 of the Manual If “ Only the Publishing Society of The Mother Churcl, selects, approves, and publishes the books and literature it sends forth,” subject to Mrs. Eddy’s approval, it is very evident that the Directors have no say in the matter. To give to Art. VIII, Sect. 14 the meaning that was given to it in the lawsuit between the Directors and 1+ the Trustees, that is to say, that it places the supe1s1on of the publications iA the hands of the Directors, is to y in the ce of Art. XXV, Sect. 8 of the Manual and paras. 3 and 8 of the Publishing Siety deed of trust. To the Dirtors-ossibly because, so long as they were the Directors of a universal Church, they would be in touch with a larger number of Christian Scientists-was given the privilege of electing editors, subject to Mrs. Eddy’s consent (Art. XXV, Sect. 4); and lest they should be tempted to appoint Christian Scientists who might shine as healers but be otherwise unfitted, they were enjoined to appoint able a^d progressive editors. \Vith Mrs. Eddy’s passing this power lapsed, and both editors and business manaer would then be elected, under para. 6 of the Publishing Society deed of trust, by the Trustees, who, as already pointed out, need not be members of the Mother Church (see para. 9 of same deed).

It is interesting to note that the Committee on Bible Lessons has always been appointed by the Trustees, under para. 7 of the deed, and that Mrs. Eddy arranged that a copy of the 73rd and of subsequent editions of the Manual should be kept by each of the three bodies in the movement who would continue after her passing, namely, the Directors, the Trustees, and the Committee on Bible Lessons (Art. XXXV, Sect. 2). No provision was made for copies to be kept by the Board of E

Both before Mrs. Eddy’s passing, under Art. XXV, Sect. 3 of the Manual, and after, under para. 10 of the Publishing Society deed of trust, the Directors have had “ the power to declare vacancies in said trusteeship for such reasons as to them (the Board) may seem expedient.” That this power was never intended by Mrs. Eddy to be employed in the case of a difference of opinion between the whole Board of Directors and the whole Board of Trustees with regard to a que^tion which lay within the province of the Trustees, is shown by the fact that the filling of the vacancy, in the event of Mrs. Eddy herself not desiring to ll it, i left to “ the remaining trustees.” It should be noted that the Directors are empowe·red to “ declare “ a vacancy, which looks as if action in the matter should already have >5 been taken by the remammg trustees, 1 the nature of urging their colleague to resign (they have no power to dismiss him). To give a purely arbitrary meaning to this power, as was done by the Supreme Court in the lawsuit, was to annul the provisions of Art. XXV, Sect. 8 of the Manual and of paras. 3 and 8 of the deed of trust, though it prob^bly saved the movement from being split in two, in view of the temper of mind of the majority.

After Mrs. Eddy’s passing the Publishing Society would have continued under its own “ perpetual and irrevocable trust “ (see preamble), the Trustees taking the appoint-foment of editors and business manager out of the Directors’ hands, as well as the power to remove cards from the Journal. The power to approve cards seems to have rested with them throughout, though no doubt they would have acted in consultation with the Directors, as they did in various other matters. They would apparently continue to pay over to the Treasurer of The First Church of Christ, Scientist the net profits of the business (see para. 4 of deed and Art. XXV, Sect. 2 of Manual}, such profits being utilised for the upkeep of the church building (per capita taxes would have ceased) and of no. 38G Commonwealth Avenue. The duty of the Directors to provide suitable buildings referred to in Art. I, Sect. 7, would lapse, as it is not among the duties provided for in the deed of trust on pages 128-134 of the Manual. The cost of providing land and buildings would have to be met by the Trustees out of the profits of the business, in accordance with para. 4 of the Publishing Society deed of trust.

And now a word with regard to Christian Scientists and the periodicals. As long as Mrs. Eddy was alive and the Directors had the privilege of electing editors and the general manager subject to her consent, the Publishing Society was the Publishing Society of the Mother Church (see Art.

XXV, Sect. 8), and the priodicals published by it were the

organs of the Mother Church (see Art. VIII, Sect. 14). After Mrs. Eddy’s passing and the dissolution of the Mother Church the periodicals could hardly be so described, and Christian Scientists would not, presumably, be required to subscribe for them, the provisions of Art. VIII, Sect. H applying probably only to the early days of their establish-foment. The Publishin Siety would have to ensure that the periicals were so gd that Christian Scientists, and others, would want to subscribe for them. Whether Mrs Eddy’s re^uest, as reproduced on pages 352-3 of Miscellany, would still hold good or whether it was intended solely for the starting o of the Monitor, is a point for each Christian Scientist to decide. Here aga the Publishing Society should make the paper so go that Christian Scientists, and others, would feel compelled to buy it, for their own benet.

So much for the organization that Mrs. Eddy provided for after her passing. It should, however, be borne in mind that Mrs. Eddy stated, on page 45 of Retrospection and Introspection, that she learQed “ that organization is requisite only in the earliest periods in Christian history,” and that such “ earliest periods “ would in these days be soon outgrown. How, exactly, the putting o of organiz-station is to come about, it is impossible to say. Probably it will be an individual affair. “ Growth,” writes Mrs. Eddy, on page 359 of Miscellaneous Writings, “ is restricted by forcing humanity out of the proper channels development. or by holding it in fetters.”

There will be those who cling naturally to organization; those who would like to dispense with it, but feel that the time has not come to do so altogether; and those who neither desire it themselves nor think it necessary for the spiritual growth of humanity. What is really important, however, is that all of Mrs. Eddy’s followers should realise the essential unity of their aims and be content to leave those students who do not see eye to eye with them as regards method^. free to follow the line they honestly believe to be the best, thus expressing the essentials of true democracy and Christian brotherhd.

We should remember that there is only one eternal, universal Church, of which all God’s children are members, and that there is only one church government, the govern-foment of ivine Principle, of Truth and Love; and we should seek to demonstrate this Church and its divine government.




Chapter Twenty-Six: The Knell of Ecclesiasticism

A further discussion of Paul Revere’s concept of the way in which the Manual of The Mother Church can function as Mrs. Eddy intended. Number Twenty-Six

In previous pamphlets, we have pointed out many evidences of the growth of ecclesiasticism in our beloved organization, instances that are appalling to those Christian Scien-theists who knew our cause in the days before the litigation. Shortly after our Leader left us, and before the litigation, these evidences of animal magnetism grasping for power became more and more apparent. However, they were isolated cases and not so generally known, but since the litigation they have been increasing in number and importance, and, as we have pointed out, indicate that there is something fundamentally wrong in the administration of the affairs of our Move-foment. Originally, in the days immediately following Mrs. Eddy’s passing, these conditions might have been handled individually, but now because of the increasing number this seems to be impossible.

The situation might be likened to that of a man who, owning a piece of shore property, found the amount of debris on his beach so great that it seemed almost impossible to remove it piece by piece. Consequently he waited for the high tide that would eventually come in and wash all the debris away. Being disturbed at the discordant conditions now so prevalent, criticizing or condemning those who are deemed responsible for the conditions, removing these persons from of-fiance and replacing them with others, resigning om the organization, or in any other manner making the error more real in human consciousness, will not remove the debris from the beach of our Movement. All these add more power to evil’s claim of power.

The only thing that will wash away these evidences of ecclesiasticism is a high tide of spiritual thinking, a spiritual awakening that will rise in its might, heal the situation, and give us an organization free from this phase of animal magnetism.

This tide of awakened spiritual consciousness is already coming in. Its momentum is in the hands of us all. We can hasten or retard its progress. To the degree that each individual Christian Scientist studies more receptively our Leader’s directions in the Manual and in the two Deeds of Trust, and gains a better understanding of her intent in regard to carrying on her organization, to this degree will he be enabled to send forth into human consciousness that quality of metaphysical thinking that will accelerate the ow of the tide and bring about more quickly the healing of the present situation.

In the following pamphlet, we present to our readers a fuller description of our concept of Mrs. Eddy’s plan for the functioning of her organization now that she is no longer with us. July 10th, 1946 Washington, D. C.

If the constitutional form of government in the United States could be violated to the extent that the Supreme Court could be packed with men so subservient to the Chief Executive that their decisions could be swayed or in any way inu-enced by him, then the design of Government conceived by our forefathers would be in jeopardy, the evils of the old European systems would again be upon us, and we should be back where we were when kings controlled courts, and people had no means of securing justice for their grievances.

The early colonists were familiar with experiences of king-controlled courts, and so grievous had been the results of familiarity with such experiences, that, in the writing of the Constitution, they exemplified their determination that such type of government should not be successfully transplanted from Europe to the American shores.

When Mrs. Eddy wrote the Manual of The Mother Church and the Deeds of Trust of 1892 and 1898,-comprising as these do, in effect, the constitution of the whole Christian Science organization,-she, under God’s guidance, provided definite safeguards so that when she should no longer be with us, the so-called executive branch should not dominate or control Field opinion by means of the all-important Publishing branch. She must have foreseen that, without her supervision, the Executive Board might so control all avenues of communication to the Field, that ultimately this domination would be as disastrous to the Christian Science Movement as the domination of the judiciary by the Chief Executive would be to the country.

Surely, with her rare vision Mrs. Eddy could see that if the Trustees of the Publishing Society,-the men responsible for the material which goes into our periodicals,-could, by any means, be made subservient to the Christian Science Board of Directors, then the Board could control, designate, or determine what should or should not be published in our periodicals. As a result of this subserviency, animal magnetism could claim to build an ecclesiastical power so despotic that our · whole movement would soon degenerate into an organization similar to the Roman Catholic church, in which the central power is so supreme that the masses have but little freedom even in the ordinary affairs of human life.

If the Directors, in addition to controlling the material that is published in our periodicals, could succeed in creating throughout the Field, a miasma of fear in which it is deemed unscientific and dangerous to read Christian Science literature other than that which has been supervised and “authorized” by themselves, then they would be in the position where they could easily mould thought into the acceptance of any point of view they desired. Moreover, they could promulgate, without fear of opposition, any doctrine or policy they wished the Field to accept. To us, the use of this method seems to be a dangerous step along the papal road, and we all know where that road leads. Is this not the place toward which organization seems to be heading at the present time? Must not the end of this road be the inevitable consequence when one Board subjugates the other, contrary to Mrs. Eddy’s expressed intent?

Recently a number of articles regarding church organization have appeared in our periodicals, and, judging by their contents, it seems possible that some of them may have been carefully prepared for the purpose of meeting and of stemming the current of thought that has been aroused throughout the Field by the Paul Revere pamphlets. A number of these artist-cles in question give, we believe, an erroneous impression. A case in point is the article by Daisette D. S. McKenzie entitled, “Benefits of Organized Church Activity,” which appeared in the Sentinel of March 9, 1946. In it Mrs. McKenzie discusses the litigation between the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees (1919 to 1922), and gives an impression quite contrary to the facts, as we see them.

Recently, we wrote Mrs. McKenzie the following letter regarding her article. Up to the present we have received no reply. Mrs. Daisette D.S. Mckenzie, 10 Concord Ave. Cambridge, Mass. Dear Mrs. Mckenzie:- Lock Box 1621 Washington, D. C. May 20th, 1946

Your article. in the Christian Science Sentinel of March 9th, 1946, entitled: “Benefits of Organized Church Activity” is a splendid portrayal of the many activities of the Christian Science Movementactivities that our Leader designed, or founded, for the dissemination of Truth into human consciousness. But, because it includes what seems to us to be’ some very misleading statements, we, of Paul Revere, feel that its effect is pernicious. However, we are very glad that it has been published at this particular time for it furnishes an opportunity for consideration and discussion of the subjects to which you refer.

Judging from the correspondence that comes to us daily, and from all over the world, there are many Christian Scien-theists who desire this discussion. They are no longer content to accept-with the finality they formerly did-ecclesiastical decisions, policies and interpretations emanating from Boston. No longer are they willing to accept these verdicts blindly, as having the sanctity and infallibility of an ancient Sanhedrin. They are now becoming aroused,-so much so that no article can come from Boston without being subjected to the scrutiny it deserves from those who can no lo^ger be put to sleep with the sophistry that “all is well”, when everywhere indi_cations are so prevalent that all is not well (except in the absolute). In order that the subjects affecting our Cause today may be considered by the membership of our great organization, it is necessary for these subjects to be brought out of the obscurity into which animal magnetism has seemed to relegate them.

With all due respect to your, long and faithful years of earnest service in the Christian Science Movement-and this we greatly admire,-we of Paul Revere approach your article quite impersonally, just as though its author were unknown to us. We are concerned only with policies, not with persons. On this impersonal basis, we are judging your article. In fairness to you, we should like to state that this letter.that we are now writing may be published in a future pamphlet. We should very much appreciate a reply, and in further. fairness to you, we want you to know that we shall be glad to publish also, whatever you may write to us; or, if you prefer, we shall be happy to have you reply through the medium of our Christian Science periodicals.

To the lay mind, the beginner in C. S. and the younger student, we are confident that your article will have the effect we assume you desire, namely, that they will be impressed with the great organized activity of The Mother Church, and the benefits accruing to one affiliating himself with it. All this is undoubtedly ne and true. Your references to Mrs. Eddy, describing her as Founder, and linking her name with Melchizedek, Abraham, Elijah, and Christ Jesus, and bringing out what is a well known fact,-that she was the only one who founded an organization to impart a knowledge of Truth to the world-leaves a ne glow of appreciation of our dear Leader in the minds of the readers. The aptly chosen quotations from our Leader’s writings, all add to this glow. The effect upon the unalert student, aglow with this light, is that he is apt to accept unthinkingly your concept of the “prolonged litigation” to which you refer in the last part of your article. In the spirit of love and kindness, Mrs. McKenzie, we take exception to several statements in this article which seem to us to be misleading. In so doing, we have no personal feeling except one of deep regret that it seems necessary to take issue with you.

At the bottom of the first column on page 398 of the Christian Science Sentinel of March 9th, you state, in regard to the church organized by our Leader in 1879, “it has never ceased its spiritual and visible growth”. We feel that this is not an entirely correct statement. Of course, there are new people coming into the ranks of Christian Science every year, but can you say that the “visible growth” of the church has never ceased, when in 1945-according to Mr. Doorly’s figures as published in his pamphlet,-there were ten less Christian Science churches in America than there were in 1944? Surely this is not “visible growth”! By 1945-thirty-five years after Mrs. Eddy’s passing-should there not be a hundred or more churches added every year, if our organization is to manifest the growth naturally to be expected as the result of our Leader’s untiring efforts to plant in human consciousness “the spiritual idea of church” to which you refer? Has’not animal magnetism lulled us’to sleep “by stupefying illusions” (S&H, page 95)? Is there not something wrong with the administration of the affairs of an organization, when this organization loses ten churches in one year-especially when you consider the fact that this same organization has, as its basis, the propagation of the most wonderful revelation of Truth that has been given to the world since the time of Christ Jesus? In view of this actual loss in numbers, can you truthfully say that there has been no cessation in our church’s “visible growth”?

As for “spiritual growth”, we have many letters that attest to the fact that since “the litigation incident”, there has been a definite loss of that wonderful, sweet, spiritual something that our Movement had prior to 1919, when brother rose up against brother in the courts of our land. And here we take issue with the statements at the bottom of page 399 of your article-statements which refer to this litigation. We feel that the impression the reader would gain from them would be. almost the exact opposite of the facts as we see them from another side of the prism. We repeat that we do not wish to judge your motives in writing this article, but it would seem as though the whole article is written in such a way as to influence the reader to accept what we believe to be a false impression of the issues involved in that tremendous controversy. We of Paul Revere and many other earnest, thinking Christian Scientists do not accept the conclusions that you have drawn in the above mentioned paragraph.

In referring to the “litigation incident”, you state that it was “an effort to break” the unity of our church, and that “the deepest prayer of our hearts was that we might stand in rm defense of our God-inspired foundation and triumph over the argument of separation”. You further state that, “after several years of prayerful demonstration, the reward came in the decision of the Supreme Court of Mass. upholding our Manual and our Leader’s intent, and the Publishing Society remained safe and secure under the wing of The Mother Church”. What wonderful, high, and lofty sounding phrases! Most of them are strictly correct, in and of themselves, yet, linked together, they convey an impression very far from the facts. It is unquestionably true, according to the Manual and also the Deed of Trust, given by Mrs. Eddy to the Trustees of The Publishing Society in 1898, that it was our Leader’s intent that The Publishing Society should never be separated from The Mother Church, but should function in cooperation with it-and in this sense, “under the wing of The Mother Church”-but never under the domination of The Mother Church!

Separating The Publishing Society from The Mother Church and separating it from the domination of The Mother Church, are two vastly different things. You state in your article that “our Leader says in the Manual that the work of The Christian Science Publishing Society should be inseparable from The Mother Church, and all its revenues revert to the Church”. And then you state, “over these questions there was a prolonged litigation”. How dare you make a statement that is so misleading? A statement, that if accepted as a fact would make the reader believe that the litigation was an effort on the part of The Publishing Society to thwart Mrs. Eddy’s intent, to break the unity that she’ had established and to prevent the revenues from reverting to the Church. This is not a fact; nor is it a fact that the litigation was the result of a controversy over the two questions mentioned above. It was rather the culmination of a prolonged effort on the part of the Board of Directors of The Mother Church to bring The Publishing Society under its complete domination and control. The decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Mass. rendered this effort successful, and has resulted in the subjugation of The Publishing Society by The Mother Church for the past twenty-five years.

In your article, you imply that this decision handed down by the Court prevented the breaking of the unity that existed between The Publishing Society and The Mother Church, and so upheld Mrs. Eddy’s intent. It did, in one sense, prevent the breaking of this unity and to this extent, it upheld Mrs. Eddy’s intent. However, on the other hand, it violated it, for, while she intended that The Publishing Society should be inseparable from The Mother Church, she never intended that it be dominated by The Mother Church. She made it impossible for either to function properly except in cooperation with the other. The wording of the Deed of Trust of 1898 is concrete evidence that, while Mrs. Eddy intended that there should be complete cooperation between The Mother Church and The Publishing Society, yet she went out of her way to create this separate Trust for the publication of her literature. In this Deed of Trust she establishes a separate-though cooperative -authority by law a ‘’perpetual and irrevocable trust and confidence.’ (We have italicized these words because the photographic copy of the Deed of Trust exhibited in the Court, shows that these words were underlined by our Leader, indi-cheating that she did not consider them a mere legal form but that she wanted them interpreted in their full significance.) The terms of this Deed stipulate that the Trustees of The Publishing Society shall carry on the business of the trust strictly “upon their own responsibility”, employ all the help necessary, “discharge the same in their discretion”, and be alone responsible for “all pamphlets, tracts, and other literature pertaining to said business, using their best judgment as to the means of preparing and issuing the same”. Everything pertaining to this Deed of Trust-its wording, its underscoring, its interlin-eations show a definite intent that has not been upheld but violated for the past twenty-five years-the years since the litigation.

Furthermore, if Mrs. Eddy’s intent regarding this Deed of Trust had not been constantly challenged after her passing, there would not have been, and there could not have been any such litigation as ensued for three years between 1919 and 1922. If animal magnetism had not obscured from the consciousness of Christian Scientists, Mrs. Eddy’s intent, they would have seen that her intent was to use this Deed of Trust as a bulwark and a defense against the encroachments of the age-old enemy, ecclesiasticism, that now seems to have our Cause by the throat. And if this is not shaken o, it will choke out all spirituality and reduce our church to just another material organization-what a far cry from our Leader’s intent!

The terrible legal battle that took place from 1919 to 1922, was the carnal mind’s challenge to our Leader’s great effort to prevent the curse of despotic ecclesiasticism from taking possession of her organization. Up to the present, animal magnetism seems to have won; Mrs. Eddy’s intent as defined in her Deed of Trust has been sidetracked. But the battle is not over! Your article gives the impression that it is. We of Paul Revere are sure that, before long, the Field will realize that the battle is not ended, and they will demand that the terms of the “perpetual and irrevocable trust” be fulfilled.

Such articles as yours in the Sentinel and such efforts as the present administration apparently is making to gain support for itself by sending Mr. Kilpatrick up and down the land to make addresses which he begins by stressing the import-fiance of church unity, but which he ends by falling to the level of making a mere personal appeal for loyalty to his employers -these and similar human efforts to pacify the Field may postpone or delay its awakening, but they cannot prevent the uncovering-and eventual correcting-of anything that is not in line with Mrs. Eddy’s expressed intent. Then, and only then, shall we have the unity that is worth writing about.

Instead of the decision of the Supreme Court of Mass. resulting in a “triumph over the argument of separation”, as you state, we feel that, in many ways, it enhanced and accents-tuated the separation that for three years had torn apart and shocked the whole Christian Scientist Movement and converted the Movement into two armed camps. This decision seemed to justify and give power to the representatives of the majority to “purge” from the Movement the dissenting minority. This “purging” began immediately following the rendering of the final Court decision in 1921 when the Directors sent out the infamous questionnaire to all practitioners and teachers listed in the Christian Science Journal. This questionnaire was used as a basis for determining “loyalty”, and it was surely animal magnetism’s own child and it did its parent’s bidding. It did not heal any separation; it still further divided the ranks of the Movement. “Purging” from a movement-by one means or another-a minority of its independent and fearless thinkers, is not a God-inspired method of procedure. The first evidence of this “purging” was the excommunication of Mr. Herbert Eustace, and the same purging has continued in various forms down through the years to the present day. But the days of 1922 are not the days of 1946. The “purging”. that was supported with such acclaim by the great majority of Christian Scientists in 1922 is not so supported in 1946. This “purging” policy has had twenty-five years in which to bring forth fruit. And today that fruit is of such quality that all may see that there is something wrong with our Cause. The very necessity that prompts your article and the pitiable attempts by the Committee on Publication to gain support for the Directors by earnest pleas, is evidence of that fact.

Today the Christian Science Movement is slowly awakening. It is beginning to question whether the error is not in the excommunicators rather than in the excommunicated. Christian Scientists are getting one eye open. But subsequently they will get both eyes open. Then they will see that the error is neither in the excommunicated nor in the excomnrnnicators. They will see that the error is the age-old curse of ecclesiasticism that animal magnetism is using in its attempts circumvent our Leader’s intent. They will see how prophetic were the words of Chief Justice Hughes in summing up the matter in his argument before the Court,-words we are sure you must be familiar with. Mr. Hughes was not a Christian Scien-theist but with a vision worthy of the most spiritually minded Christian Scientist, he said: “The true harmony for this Church of Christian Science is gained by studying the teach-flings of Mrs. Eddy, conforming themselves to the truth which the members of the Church believed had been revealed to her, and then, by seeking to act together in their various responsi-bilites, to have that unity which will promote the cause to which she was devoted. The unity which these gentlemen (the Directors) wish, the unity of despotic power, the control absolutely of this entire government of Christian Science in the Church and its publications and everywhere else-that is the unity that might very well destroy the faith or the organization for the propagation of the faith to which they profess to be devoted”. This is the kind of unity that has been preached and practised for twenty-five years. This is the unity which your article is apparently endeavoring to preserve and uphold; this is the unity that is now having the results that Mr. Hughes foresaw. This is animal magnetism’s unity-a unity that requires constant and continual disobedience to our Leader’s explicit directions in our Manual to make this false sense of unity even seem to exist.

For thirty-five years, the By-Laws in her Manual-the Manual that your article says the Court decision upheld-the By-Laws requiring Mrs. Eddy’s consent or approval, have been disobeyed. They have been waived as though they did not exist. Is this upholding the Manual? We feel sure that if these By-Laws had been correctly interpreted, they would not have been waived during the years since our Leader’s passing in 1910, and the “litigation incident” with its attendant evils and separations, would not have occurred, and the necessity for explaining this incident would not now face official Boston.

You rightly associate the name of the Founder of the Christian Science Movement with the greatest spiritual figures in history. Does not disobedience to the Founder’s explicit directions, as given in her Manual, tend to bring discredit upon her whom you would honor? Does it not convict her of blunts-dering, if, in order to have a successfully functioning organization, her directions have to b·e waived? We of Paul Revere also want unity-unity founded on obedience. Only thus can we honor the dear woman we all love, the Discoverer of Christian Science and the Founder of its organization.

We feel that her organization must have this unity of obedience in order to attain its full spiritual growth. We also feel that it can continue to function without waiving or disobeying the By-Laws. We explain our concept of how this can be done in our latest pamphlet, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin”.

Hoping that you will read this letter with an open thought and that what we have written will promote a better sense of understanding, and tend to bring about the unity we all so desire, we are, Yours for the Cause we all love,

In support of the statements that we have made in this letter to Mrs. McKenzie let us quote some excerpts from the court records of the litigation of 1918. From a letter written on October 8th, 1918 by the Board of Directors to the Board of Trustees we quote: “ the Christian Science Board of Directors propose as a general rule to exercise its supervision of the publishing department of The Mother Church with, and through the Trustees of the Christian Science Publishing Society. Nevertheless, this Board (Board of Directors) reserves the right to adopt any mode of action that may be appropriate or necessary, in any particular situation, to fulfill its legal, moral, and spiritual responsibilities.”

In this same letter, the Board of Directors contended that, “...the trusteeship which she (Mrs. Eddy) granted at that time (1898) was a secondary and subordinate grant. It cannot be regarded as independent;... The power of this Board to declare vacancies in the trusteeship of the Christian Science Publishing Society (Manual: Article 25, Section 3) was doubtless intended to establish the superior relation of this board to that trusteeship beyond question...”

(Incidentally, we of Paul Revere must interject at this point our query, “By what authority did the Directors make these contentions? What perversion of reasoning made them bold enough to assert that it was doubtless Mrs. Eddy’s intents-tion to establish the “superior relation of this Board to that Trusteeship “? Was not this a presumption of authority on the part of the Board based on human legal wisdom instead of the divine wisdom which prompted Mrs. Eddy’s system of checks and balances of power?)

The letter of October 8th from the Directors, from which we have quoted, was in reply to a letter from the Trustees dated September 30th, 1918, in which the Trustees had said, in substance, that the two Boards, designated and constituted by our Leader, each having its own well defined work-one being the governing Board of the church and its activity, and the other the governing Board of the Christian Science Publishing Society and all of its publications, must inevitably cooperate at every point. And this cooperation could be accomplished only by a mutual respect for each other’s Boards and their respective work.

In reply to these statements, the Directors stated that they (and we again quote from their letter of October 8th.) “must, however, expressly disallow the claim of the Trustees that their recent interpretation of the Deed of Trust dated January 25th, 1898 is conclusive. Such a claim if conceded, might destroy the unity of the Christian Science Movement for the same reason that a similar claim made by certain States in 1861 in regard to the American Constitution, threatened to break up and destroy the American Union.”

(Here we of Paul Revere must again interpolate. To us the above statement by the Directors is simply analogy gone wild and completely perverted. Historically in the unfoldment through all recorded ages of government and political science, our American Govement is known as the system of checks and balances; with three major, interlocking, independent;· equal branches,-all subject in final responsibility to free and regular elections. Nothing cah be more obvious than that Mrs. Eddy, i her plan of church government, ·took a leaf from the renowned and historic American system of checks and bal-fiances between equal, independent, and at the same time intertwined sources of assigned responsibility and specified duties. But what an audacious perversion for the Directors to present an analogy of the American form of government as being controlled by one “supreme authority” when it is in fact, the one outstanding government in the world in which there is not a single “supreme authority” but a government which functions under a system of coordinated responsibility.)

But this is not all. We shall continue our quotation from the Directors: “Of necessity, there must be a board or body having superior authority in such an institution as that which represents Christian Science. If the Trustees of the Christian Science Publishing Society were not subordinate to the Christian Science Board of Directors, there would be two boards having equal authority in regard to the same affairs; a situation which at once would defy metaphysics and invite failure in business.”

(Again, we of Paul Revere ask, “Whose metaphysics would be deed,-Mrs.Eddy’s or the lawyers that spoke for the Directors? Is the wisdom of these lawyers so spiritual that it can be deemed superior to that of our Leader? Can the wisdom of these lawyers be allowed to supercede the provisions Mrs. Eddy left in her Manual for her idea of church govern-foment, and be allowed to practically rewrite or amend her Manual provisions? Here is Mrs. Eddy’s own wfsdom, expressed in her own words in Section 8 of her Deed of Trust to the Trustees, “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 judgement as to the means of preparing and issuing the same, so as to promote the best interest of the Cause,...” Again, whose words are to be followed, Mrs.Eddy’s or the lawyers’ that speak for the Directors?

In further support of our statements in the letter to Mrs. McKenzie, we quote from the court record three questions put by the Trustee’s counsel to Mr. Eustace, Chairman of the Board of Trustees: Mr. Whipple’s question: ‘Before reading the paper attached, I will ask you, Mr. Eustace, if you had ever in any form of words, directly or indirectly, expressed an intention, or to your knowledge, had any of the trustees expressed any intents-tion of separating the Christian Science Publishing Society from the Mother Church?’ Mr. Eustace’s answer: ‘Absolutely never.’

Mr. Whipple’s question, ‘Or to do anything else except to work under the Deed of Trust in unity with the Board of Directors?’ Mr. Eustace’s answer, ‘That is all.’

Mr. Whipple’s question, ‘And have you ever, at any time, either directly or indirectly, or has either of the other Trustees, to your knowledge, expressed an intention not to follow Mrs. Eddy’s wishes as expressed in an authoritative form?’ Mr. Eustace’s answer, ‘Never.’

Nothing that we of Paul Revere can add can more completely refute the impression given to readers of Mrs. McKenzie’s article than these quotations. These statements that we have given are matters of court record and can be substantiated by any reader desiring to do so.

As we have pointed out in this letter and in previous pamphlets, the waiving of many of the By-Laws in ‘the Manual, and the utter disregard of the Deed of Trust of 1898, have in effect, removed the very bulwarks that Mrs. Eddy built up against the. encroachments of ecclesiasticism. While Mrs. Eddy was with us the By-laws requiring her consent or approval acted as a “check”, so to speak, against the operations of this form of animal magnetism should it claim to handle those in authority in The Mother Church.

We deeply appreciate the sincere efforts of the Board of Directors to administer the affairs of the organization in line with their highest concept of right, and we have a compacts-sionate realization of the tremendous problems that confront them every day. However, we think it is highly improbable, when once the “checks” provided by Mrs. Eddy’s wisdom had been removed, that any five hunan beings would be able to withstand the subtle temptation presented by animal magnetism to acquire power not in line with Mrs. Eddy’s intent. That Mrs. Eddy evidently thought it improbable that there could be found five persons whom she could trust to conduct her organization without her personal supervision, is evidenced by the fact that she left By-laws in the Manual requiring her consent or approval, and four of them pertain directly to election of the officers of The Mother Church. If, then, Mrs. Eddy could not trust her own students-those whom she had taught and knew well-to elect officers without her approval, how could she trust subsequent Board members whom she neither taught nor knew-not only to elect officers but also to carry on the other affairs of her organization? Thus Mrs. Eddy foresaw that some provision had to be made that would force us all, when she would no longer be with us, to rely absolutely upon Principle alone, and thus supercede dependence upon her and her personal approval. These provisions are now apparent when the waiving of the By-laws is accepted as the only alternative, now that her approval can no longer be obtained. These provisions come to light, however, when it is realized that there is another alternative-that of obeying the requirements of the Deed of Trust of 1898 as well as that of 1892. Against the time when her approval or consent could no longer be obtained,and thus could no longer act as a check to those mesmerized by the temptation of power, she provided these Deeds of Trust. The checks, provided in these Deeds, act as a defense against the encroachments of animal magnetism that would place undue power in the hands of ecclesiastical tribunals. As we see it, the only reason that these checks and restrictions have not been more generally discerned in the past, and are not now so discerned, is not because Mr. Eddy did not make them plain, it is because mortals are so prone to accept ecclesiasticism as the order of the day, that they cannot readily conceive how human affairs can be administered without it. Consequently, when this ecclesiasticism interfered with an un-ecclesiastical interpretation of the By-laws mentioned above, then the governing Board simply waived them as though they did not exist.

Mrs. Eddy says in clear language on page 270 in Science and Health, “The pride of priesthood is the prince of this world. It has nothing in Christ.” On page 497 (ibid) she says, ‘’The martyrdom of Jesus was the culminating sin of Phari-seeism. It rent the veil of the temple.” The ecclesiasticism that existed before Jesus’ time reached its zenith in his death. His teachings rent the veil of this ecclesiasticism. Then what happened. It didn’t stay rent! Ecclesiasticism started all over again and, during the middle ages, it waxed even greater in power and despotism; and ecclesiastical courts exercised jurists-diction even in civil affairs. Martin Luther and other reformers reduced somewhat its claim to power. Then in more recent years Mrs. Eddy came upon the scene. Certainly no one could seriously contend, that, after having fonded an organization, she would leave for its guidance, instructions, which, when obeyed, would result in bringing her church under the same claim of ecclesiastical power· that animal magnetism used to mesmerize the church of the middle ages. We are sure that she came to rend again the veil. Jesus’ healing philosophy was reversed by subsequent orthodox theology, and, through animal magnetism, the healing power he taught was lost to human consciousness until Mrs. Eddy reversed the reversal. In like manner, Jesus’ teaching regarding the evils of ecclesiasticism were reversed by subsequent priestcraft until again Mrs. Eddy reversed the reversal.

Animal magnetism’s effort. to reverse her demonstration over ecclesiasticism began shortly after Mrs. Eddy’s passing, and was similar to that which was made to reverse Jesus’ demonstration. It was decided by foolish legal sophistry, that, as Mrs. Eddy was no longer here, the By-laws requiring her approval or written consent should be waived. We say “foolish” because the Bible says, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” Could anything be more foolish than for men to prate loudly about obeying the Manual, and rightly say that it is inspired, and then deliberately accept the legal opinion that resulted in the waiving of the very By-laws that they claim were God-inspired? Through this foolishness - this waiving of the By-laws that Mrs. Eddy had deliberately left in the Manual for the purpose of circumventing ecclesiasticism, -animal magnetism claimed that it could circumvent all that our Leader had accomplished for the deliverance of mankind. But it reckoned this time without the rare wisdom and vision of our Leader. With a wisdom so divine, that, as we of Paul Revere begin even faintly to glimpse its infinite scope, we pause as did Moses before the burning bush, in sheer awe of its wonder. We see how simply, yet in what perfect detail, this great woman has provided for her church a means of complete protection from ecclesiastical domination. It is evident, from the fact that she refused again and again to remove from the Manual those provisions requiring her consent or approval, that the retaining of these By-laws was an integral part of a definite plan. This plan was undoubtedly completed before she left us, and, if her students had been spiritually minded enough, they could have discerned it, when, after her passing, they were called upon to function without her personal supervision. But because there seemed to be no one in authority possessing sufficient spiritual vision to grasp her intent; and because there seemed to be no human way to obey these By-laws without dissolving The Mother Church, then, as a result of having accepted legal opinion instead of relying upon demonstration, the Directors simply waived the troublesome By-laws.

As we see it, this act opened the way for such an encroachment by ecclesiasticism; that today our organization seems to be “sick.” This “sickness” is forcing the advanced thinkers to the realization that, for the last thirty-five years, there has been something fundamentally wrong with the administration of the affairs of our Movement, and they are now reaching out and earnestly searching for some more scientific plan of operation.

In a previous pamphlet we explained our concept of the plan that we believe Mrs. Eddy designed and intended her followers to use in order to defeat the claim of ecclesiasticism. (See “notes on Manual and Deeds of Trust” in our pamphlet entitled “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.”)

What is this claim of ecclesiasticism that we talk so much about? How does this affect us individually? How does it affect the Christian Science organization collectively? How will it affect the world ultimately? The answer to these questions involves so much explanation that we shall not attempt to go into a further discussion of it at this time. However, lest our readers think that we are building up some formidable enemy with real power to wreck our Movement, let us say that, in all we have written from the beginning on this subject, we realize that we are dealing only with an illusion, a myth, nothing claiming to be somet^ing, a lie of mortal mind that would usurp the power of divine Mind. It is true that Mrs. Eddy defines error as nothing, but she also says, in Sci-thence and Health, page 252, “A knowledge of error and its operations must precede the understanding of Truth that destroys error-.” And she also says in Retrospection and Introspection, page 64, “It is scientific to abide in conscious harmony, in health-giving, deathless Truth and Love. To do this, mortals must first open their eyes to all the illusive forms, methods, and subtlety of error, in order that the illusion, error, may be destroyed; if this is not done, mortals will become the victims of error.”

In a future pamphlet, we shall discuss the subject of ecclesiasticism more fully, but for the present, we wish to stress only what we believe is Mrs. Eddy’s plan for defending her Movement against this evil. Her words quoted above would alone justify our efforts to open the eyes of the Field to “The illusive forms, methods, and subtlety of error,” in order that this illusion of ecclesiasticism may be destroyed. Uncovering the error is the first step to take; the next and most important step is defeating it after its illusive nature and subtlety have been uncovered.

The two Deeds of Trust form a vital part of Mrs. Eddy’s plan for defeating this phase of Animal Magnetism. Most of us are familiar with the Deed of Trust of 1892 which may be found in the back of the Manual. But the Deed of Trust of 1898 does not appear in the Manual, and consequently is not so well known. This Deed plays such an important part in Mrs. Eddy’s plan for the proper functioning of our organization-now that she is no longer with us-that we all should be familiar with it. In order that our readers may better understand our concept of Mrs. Eddy’s plan as outlined in “Notes on the Manual”, included in our previous pamphlet, we have had the Deea of Trust of 1898 printed in pamphlet form, and it is now ready for distribution to our subscribers and others who may desire it for study on this subject. And as our readers become more familiar with the provisions of this Deed we can discuss it more understandingly.

To those who have not thought deeply on the subject of ecclesiasticism and its e ect upon our Movement, it is quite appalling to contemplate our church organization nctioning under a Board, deprived of its usurped power to sit in judg-foment on fellow Christian Scientists,-a Board such as we described on page 35 of our pamphlet “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Up-harsin”: “Suppose the Board of Directors should no longer act as though they were Mrs. Eddy’s successors, nor answer questions concerning the proper interpretation of certain rules and By-laws, nor tell teachers how to teach, nor tell students what they shall or shall not say in the Wednesday evening meetings. Suppose they stop telling practitioners how to practice, and stop telling any one of us what we shall read or shall not read; stop telling us what personal habits constitute sin, and what do not,-in short, suppose we should suddenly nd that in its way of functioning, the Board from this time forth, should no longer in any capacity whatsoever, attempt to supervise our acts, our conduct or our thoughts. Suppose that from now on forever, each one of us should be free to be guided by his own interpretation of Principle, and in the words of our Leader (Article 8, Section 6, of the Manual), ‘By his works shall he be judged-and justified or condemned.’” It may take time and demonstration to be willing, and able to rise to the heights necessary to perceive how the organization and the Cause can prosper with a Board functioning in this manner. Some of our readers who have not studied suf-anciently the Deed of Trust of 1898, in connection with the plan we have outlined as our concept of Mrs. Eddy’s intent, do not see how the organization could possibly continue to function if there were no Board to act as a centralized control. As more study is given to the subject it will be discerned, however, that the plan does not do away with the Board of Directs-tors. It merely deprives them of the ecclesiastical powers that they never should have been permitted to exercise in the first place. Of course, there must be a Board to take care of the business affairs of the church, but it should not be a Board that can interfere with the scientific progress of individual Christian Scientists. In a church composed of persons who have been taught that God is demonstrable Principle, and available to all, there is no provision nor necessity for an ecclesiastical tribunal to sit in judgment on the progress of fellow Christian Scientists. Every Christian Scientist, in his relation to others, has peen taught that he has enough to do in making his own demonstration from sense to Soul,-to mind his own business and to follow Jesus’ admonition: “What is that to thee, follow thou me.” This advice is universal in its application, and of course, includes the members of the Board of Dirctors, and if adhered to by them would carry out Mrs. Eddy’s plan and thereby avert the danger of ecclesiastical central power. The provisions of the Deed of Trust make this action on the part of the Directors imperative. That such a solution as outlined in our pamphlet, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Up-harsin,” is accepted and approved by Christian Scientists throughout the world is evidenced by the many letters we have received from those who have read this pamphlet. The following letter is one of many: April 11, 1946.

Your pamphlet has been read and read. It is balm to my grieved and wounded spirit. It has given me back my Manual and the promise of a Christian Science organization that is not an ecclesiastical one, but one by which we can give Christian Science to the world. It has given me a Board of Directors and a Publishing house in the true sense that I only glimpsed before. I was thoroughly convinced that Mrs. Eddy intended The Mother Church as an organization to be discontinued at her death-and I was afraid of what you might say-what your plans might be. Of course that was only M. A. M.-and your plan has just filled me with joy and gratitude and I feel you are the instrument in God’s hands for arousing the C. S. church.

Your vision of what is ahead of us filled me with hope, joy, courage and inspiration and words cannot express my gratitude for all you have done for us. The books you pointed out as helpful in awakening us, have been purchased and are being read and studied with much profit.

You have indeed been to me a “Paul Revere”. You could not have selected a more appropriate title. I do not think of you at all in a personal way but as a John the Baptist arousing the slumbering organization to a realization that they were lost if they did not wake up. I knew something was wrong but did not know what. •Thank you for telling me. I shall work, watch and pray for the Cause in every way God points out to me. With love and best wishes, Most sincerely yours for the Cause.

The provisions made by Mrs. Eddy in her Deeds of Trust cannot be discerned by those who, in the darkness of the val-foley, are convinced that there can be no possible alternative to waiving the By-laws requiring Mrs. Eddy’s approval.

When, however, they are receptive. and willing to accept that there may be an alternative then, in this state of mind they will see that the Deeds of Trust provide steps that lead to the heights where government by Principle alone can be envisioned, and where ecclesiasticicm shall have been forever silenced.




Chapter Twenty-Seven: A Plea for Open-Mindedness

Pamphlet Number Twenty-Seven

Since the publication of the pamphlet, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” outlining Paul Revere’s concept of the way in which the Manual of The Mother Church can be strictly obeyed and function as Mrs. Eddy intended it should, a world wide interest has been aroused. Comments upon the subject as we have presented it have been nearly all favorable. Most of those who have written us have said that they are studying the Deeds of Trust of 1892 and 1898 in conjunction with the Manual of The Mother Church. We are sure that, from this consecrated effort, will come an increased understanding, not alone of the aims and purposes that Mrs. Eddy conceived for her organization, but of her vision and great wisdom in providing so wisely for its continuance.

We cannot help but realize, however, that a suggestion such as we have made may come as a shock to some Christian Scientists if they have given little or no thought to the problem. The plan may seem to be a radical departure from the procedure of our Mother Church government since the time of Mrs. Eddy’s passing. This fact, however, should not deter anyone from serious and thoughtful consideration of the ideas set forth.

It cannot be logically denied that the present operation of The Mother Church organization under the Manual does not conform to the specific instructions in the By-laws. Consequently any effort to demonstrate a change that will permit of absolute obedience to Mrs. Eddy’s By-laws is a commendable undertaking. The presentation of the result of any one’s demonstration, therefore, merits serious and sympathetic consideration and study.

It is not disloyal to Mrs. Eddy, to the Cause, nor to those who at present direct the organization, for any student to seek to demonstrate a solution to this perplexing problem. There is no valid reason why such a one should be criticized by fellow Christian Scientists or censured from Boston. It would be as unscientific to blame a student for attempting to solve this problem as to censure him for trying to demonstrate over a claim of sickness or lack. In the pages that follow we present further thoughts upon this whole question. We have analyzed some opm10ns presented in opposition to our conclusions, and answered them in accord with our demonstration. We have presented further re-sultans of our study of the Deed of Trust of 1892 (which begins on page 128 of the Manual) and the Deed of Trust of 1898 which Mrs. Eddy has referred to in Article XXV: Section 1 of the By-laws. Because both are supplementary to the Manual, both require our study to understand the function and purpose of the Manual. It is only through study of these two Deeds of Trust in conjunction with the Manual that a complete understanding of Mrs. Eddy’s wise provisions for the continuance of her organization can be had. November 1, 1946 Washington, D. C.

Any one who really studies Christian Science realizes that to be a Christian Scientist, and to know God, requires an open mind. Demonstrations are made by refusing to accept things as they seem to be. They are made by looking through and beyond the evidences of the material senses and thus discerning the Infinite. Such is the way true Christian Scientists progress, the way they become demonstrating Christian Scientists.

The principles that Mrs. Eddy discovered, and has set forth in Science and Health and her other published works, are expositions of Truth. Hence they are unchangeable. Christian Scientists have proved them over and over again in individual experience; and they accept her writings as having been inspired.

But the question of organization and church, and the method of disseminating the Truth to the world, becomes quite another matter. Here are involved questions of time, place, persons and many other factors that are dependent upon human relationships. Truth does not depend upon persons, or what they do or how they act. Truth is unchanging; but the manner in which the Truth is brought to the world’s population does have to do with persons and their relationship to each other. It is at this point that the church and church organization become an intermediary between Truth and its application to human affairs.

This premise being te, the necessities of church and the organization may vary with time and conditions, and with the thought of the human beings for whose benet they have been organized. Mrs. Eddy made several revisions of Science and Health to make the subject-matter clearer and “elucidate scientific healing and teaching.” (Refit. page 83.) In the third edition there is a whole chapter devoted to “Demonology,” with an exposure of the machinations of animal magnetism that was not repeated in later volumes. At one time students taking class instruction were permitted to go through class more than once with the same teacher; pupils in Sunday School wer,e not permitted to attend after the age of fourteen. There were constant revisions of the By-laws made by Mrs. Eddy throughout the years.

But nona of these revisions of the Manual or Science and Health changed one iota the principles set forth by Mrs. Eddy in the first edition of Science and Health. Mrs. Eddy discovered Christian Science in 1866. The facts of her discovery never have changed. Her elucidation of these facts and her presentation to the world did change with the passage of time. Had we no other precedent than these acts of Mrs. Eddy it would be logical for us to expect that, as we advance, we shall need to meet changing conditions of thought with changing methods of organization, provided, of course, that we do not change any of Mrs. Eddy’s specific instructions.

The Manual was entirely adequate to direct the affairs of the organization so long as Mrs. Eddy was here, but as soon as she passed on so many of the By-laws became inoperative that, in effect, there can be no organization within the meaning of the By-laws. For it requires violation of the very first ones even to elect officers to carry on the organization. Since she has provided for the operation of the church organization in the event that the Manual becomes inoperative, through the impossibility of carrying out the provisions of the By-laws requiring her consent, there can be no possible reason why every Christian Scientist should not study intensively, and make known his findings concerning the question of Manual interpretation.

It would naturally be expected that the first to lead in the search for a way to avoid these Manual violations and still carry on the work of the Cause, would be the Board of Directs-tors at Boston, and those who assist in carrying on the organist-zation. It would be expected not only that they would lead the search but would encourage every Christian Scientist in the Field to assist in the work. We know of nothing that has emanated from Boston to lead the Field to believe that the officials there are sympathetic towards this effort on the part of other Christian Scientists. Neither do we know of any evidence that those in Boston are doing anything about it themselves. On the other hand there seems to be a very decided antagonism on their part against the Field making any such effort.

We now have what appears to be an official declaration of their attitude in the speech of Mr. George Channing delivered at the time of the Annual Meeting, and which appeared in the Sentinel of July 13, 1946. It is entitled “Our Duty to Our Leader.” We hope our readers will procure copies and read the speech carefully. By doing so you should gain a clear perspective not only of what Mr. Channing thinks but what would seem to be the viewpoint of the Directors as well, for since the whole policy of the Board of Directors has been to allow no speech to be made on the subject of Christian Science without their approval, it is certainly unlikely that, upon an occasion so important as the Annual Meeting at The Mother Church, Mr. Channing’s speech should have been given without their approval. Since, in addition, the speech was later published in the Sentinel it is quite safe to assume that it had their approval.

This being true, we now have an outspoken declaration of how the Board of Directors feel about the Field studying this question, and to put it tersely, they are not in favor of it. They not only do not like it but Mr. Channing, at least, does not seem to like it if anybody discusses the question at all. The speech seems to be a catagorical denunciation of any and all who question the right of the Board of Directors to permit the continual violation of the Manual in electing officers, year after year, contrary to Mrs. Eddy’s instructions.

We, of Paul Revere, do not question for a moment Mr. Channing’s motive in saying what he has in this speech, nor the motive of the Board in permitting it to be published, but that does not alter the fact that he has stated many half truths, and made misleading statements. It is all so illogical that one feels the speech must be that of a zealot who is intense in his belief that it is his righteous duty to say what he says, logic or no logic. Since there are misleading statements in the speech we feel that as many of them as time and space will permit, should be refuted and the facts pointed out, leaving our readers to question for themselves such other remarks of Mr. Channing as may challenge their opinions.

Mr. Channing has been careful not to mention a person as the object of his opprobrium. At the beginning of his speech he refers to the “false state of consciousness” which “masquerades as something else and gets itself accepted by the unwary.” Now no person is indicated here or anywhere else in his speech. He does come perilously close to it on page 1232 of the Sentinel where he refers to the “deceiver who begins his attack on the Leader and her administrative Board by cunningly stating that the Board must be supported and then proceeding blandly to persuade all who might listen that support ould be thoroughly withdrawn.” was entitled “Support for the Christian Science Board of Directors.” The volume containing the first twelve pamphlets carries this title. But perhaps Mr. Channing does not know this. He does not mention Paul Revere so we shall have to assume that when he refers to a “false state of consciousness” he is generalizing, and he does not mean Paul Revere. Whatever he does mean by this “false state of consciousness,” it comes in for a good deal of opprobrium in his speech. It is altogether a villain, but at the same time the reader will observe that Mr. Channing attributes to this culprit a good many points of view held by Christian Scientists in the Field-not a few of which are held by Paul Revere. At any rate he makes this false state of consciousness synonymous with any opinion that diers with his and the Board of Directors’ upon this subject under discussion. It does not leave much tolerance for the honest opinion of earnest seekers for the truth about this question of Manual interpretation. Neither does it lend any encouragement to Christian Scientists to express themselves even if they have demonstrated any helpful suggestion, for if Mr. Channing’s views are those of Boston and the Board of Directors, any contrary views will probably meet with stern disapproval, if not outright rebuke. However, the Paul Revere pamphlets are a medium through which honest opinion can be expressed, so let us go on to discuss another point asserted by Mr. Channing in his speech.

On page 1230 of the Sentinel, Mr. Channing states: “The Christian Scientist will also recognize as an attack upon the Leader any assertion, however tempered, that The Mother Church cannot function because Mrs. Eddy is not here in person to approve the ‘decisions and demonstrations of the Directors.” Here we agree with Mr. Channing that it would be “an attack upon our Leader” if it were asserted that the organization “cannot function because Mrs. Eddy is not here in person to approve the decisions and demonstrations of the Directors.” But nowhere in any pamphlet have we made such an assertion, “tempered” or otherwise. It is true, however, that in “The Notes on the Manual” included in our pamphlet, num-fiber 25, it is brought out that The Mother Church as the universal Mother Church ceased to exist when Mrs. Eddy passed on because the By-laws in the Manual requiring her consent could no longer be obeyed. However, it was clearly stated that the organization as “The First Church of Christ, Scientist,” could and should continue to function under the Deed of Trust of 1892, under which her approval or consent is not required for the functioning of the organization.

On page 1230 of the Sentinel, Mr. Channing, in referring to this Deed makes a misleading statement when he says that in this Deed of Trust Mrs. Eddy expressed her intention “that the administrative body of The Mother Church shall function perpetually.” The fact is that nowhee in this Deed does Mrs. Eddy mention The Mother Church, but in Section 6 (see Man. page 132) she does refer to the church as “The First Church of Christ, Scientist.”

On page 1230 where Mr. Channing refers to the Deed of Trust of 1898, he again makes a misleading statement when he says that Mrs. Eddy indicates “that The Mother Church is intended to coexist with the trust.” And again in this Deed, as in the one of 1892, Mrs. Eddy does not mention The Mother Church but she does refer to “The First Church of Christ, Scientist.” To Mr. Channing, The Mother Church and The First Church of Christ, Scientist, are apparently synonymous. And so they were, while Mrs. Eddy was with us, but after he passing an entirely different situation arose.

As we of Paul Revere see it, the term, “The Mother Church” designates the church which functioned under Manual provisions, as well as under the Deed of Trust, while Mrs. Eddy was with us, and when she could safeguard it with her consent and approval. But she made other provisions that would function when the time came that she would no longer be with us, and when her consent or approval could not be obtained. These provisions, as we have said before, are included in the Deed of Trust of 1892 which Mr. Channing misquotes.

The provisions of the Deed of 1892 gave to the Directors only limited power and authority. This authority was enlarged under the provisions of the Manual and functioned while Mrs. Eddy was at the helm and could give her approval or consent. After her passing, when she could no longer personally guide or control the governing board, and when the By-laws in the Manual requiring her consent could no longer be obeyed, the broad powers delegated to the administrative Board under the provisions of the Manual should have been definitely reduced and their duties should have been again restricted to those outlined in this Deed. At this point, The Mother Church should have ceased to function as the universal Mother Church and the organization should have carried on under the Deed of Trust as “The First Church of Christ, Scientist.” In this way Mrs. Eddy’s instructions would have been obeyed and not a single By-law in the Manual would be violated.

By refusing to remove from the Manual, provisions that required her approval and consent, and that could not possibly be obeyed after her passing, Mrs. Eddy displayed what might be called her greatest wisdom in connection with the protection of her church against the encroachment of ecclesiasticism. This wisdom is so far.reaching in its effects upon the Movement directly, and upon the world indirectly, that as we contemplate it, we pause-we stand in awe as we behold its vast significance. No wonder our Leader persistently refused to yield to the urgings of her students to remove from the Manual those By-laws requiring her approval or consent!

As the result of this momentous decision, she placed the governing Board in the position at the time of her passing, either of disobeying the Manual provisions or of returning to the original provisions of the Deed of Trust, by which they would be shorn of all centralized control over the Movement.

If she had listened to her students and removed the By-laws in question she would have left the Directors in complete control of the organization, unrestricted by her guiding hand, and we should be in danger of having permanently - just what we already seem to have today - an organization reeking with ecclesiastical despotism. We should all bow our heads in deep gratitude that our Leader’s vision and wisdom were so great that they provided a solution that would sooner or later come to light, and result in the ecclesiastical control proving to be but a temporary sickness instead of a permanent dispensation.

To return to Mr. Channing’s speech in the Sentinel; at the bottom of page 1228 he has said: “Too often it (this false state of consciousness.) comes in pseudo respectability arguing its right to correct The Christian Science Board of Directors for doing what regularly tus out to be exactly what Mrs. Eddy is requiring of them.” Is she requiring that the Board regularly violate her By.laws? Here is a sample of the reasoning that has ied to the very condition in which the Cause finds itself. Who is the judge that is telling the Board that they do what “regularly turns out to be just what Mrs. Eddy is requiring of them”? She alone can answer that, not Mr. Channing. Can it be possible that the Board of Directors are convinced too, as Mr. Channing seems to be, that they never act except exactly as Mrs. Eddy is requiring of them? According to Mr. Channing he comes in “pseudo respectability” who argues his right to question whether or not the Board regularly does as Mrs. Eddy would have them. Later in his speech Mr. Channing says of the honest questioner, “Too often it is deceptively everything but what it actually is-a subtle and insistent disagreement with Mrs. Eddy herself and an effort to render both her and her works a cipher.”

It seems to these writers that so many of Mr. Channing’s remarks lose the right to consideration by the reader because they impugn the motive of those who disagree with his point of view. It is not disagreement with Mrs. Eddy herself to question the acts of the Board, and yet that is exactly what Mr. Channing seems to infer. Had he conned his discussion to refuting merely the opinions of those who disagree, instead of charging that, because they express such opinions, their motives must be wrong, his speech would have been entitled to far more serious consideration. As it is, his intolerance discredits his whole speech.

It is sad indeed, that our beloved Cause has reached a point in its organization where one may not voice an opinion of the acts of those in Boston without being subject to charges such as Mr. Channing has made. This sort of effort to besmirch the motive of a person because he holds an honest opinion with which another disagrees is the source of great evil. It suppresses free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. It fallows the soil in which to sow seeds of dictatorship and ecclesiasticism. This is the thing that Paul Revere has constantly written of. It is the Dictator complex, that tries to suppress inquiry by intimidating the inquirer. It is born of fear.

We should like at this point to quote a letter that we recently received after the writer of the letter had read our pphlet “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” in which we discussed our concept of a way in which we believe the organist-zation can be conducted in conformity with Mrs. Eddy’s specific instructions, and without violating any of the By-laws in the Manual. Here is a person who has expressed an opinion contrary to that held by Mr. Channing and the Board. We ask that you read this letter with a sincere effort to get the writer’s point of view. Has he been sincere or is he attempting, as Mr. Channing has said of others, to shake confidence in Mrs. Eddy and suggest that the mistakes are, after all, hers? Dear Sirs;

I received the last pamphlets for which I am most grateful especially the one “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Uphar-sin.” Above all the translation of the Manual. I was not only greatly pleased but I might say surprised and I do not think that I should be exaggerating to say shocked.

It certainly is the most revolutionary idea that I have ever been confronted with, but after having made a careful study of the whole article, I feel certain that it must be the correct solution to our present condition. This question of the correct interpretation of the Manual of The Mother Church and the Board of Directors is not a new question to my mind. Well do I recall the Litigation, and many long hours of discussion were held with other sincere students of Christian Science in regard to these questions, and I must confess I have never been able to conform my thoughts to the present procedure of the Board, and as things have gradually developed into a more ecclesiastical form of worship I became more restless.

Through this new spiritual interpretation of the By-laws I can visualize vast changes, new progress, and Christian Science permeating into every form of worship as our organist-zation becomes less material and assumes a spiritual body. Cannot one just see the spiritual idea spreading all over the world, into every home and church, into every world activity.

True, this idea is such a contrast to the old theological idea of religion it is sure to shock and frighten many for not everyone can accept a progressive idea without a struggle.

Truly this is a wonderful demonstration of the operation of divine law and government. No such solution ever entered my thoughts, even though I realized that we are not using a scientific translation of the Manual and I am certain that all the discord and disintegration that is taking place all through our Movement is due to this very fact.

Naturally an error in principle will result in an error in effect and working from a misconception of law, harmony cnnot be manifested. It is most certain that Mrs. Eddy never left anything incomplete nor imperfect in her organization; I knew if it seemed to be so it must be my wrong concept, and when I read this I knew it must be the answer. Yours very truly,

The writer of this letter, obviously, is not in agreement with the Board of Directors, nor Mr. Channing. He has had long experience in the work and has thought much about Manual interpretation. He feels that the present difficulties in the Movement, which he calls “discord and disintegration,” are due to failure to use a scientific interpretation of the Manual By-laws. Then he sees beyond, and what possibilities there are for growth of Science all over the world as a result of a scientific solution of the question.

Can anyone seriously believe that this Christian Scientist can be attempting to plant suggestions that the mistakes are, after all, Mrs. Eddy’s or that he is coming in “pseudo respectability” to repudiate the work of Mrs. Eddy and “make her work a cipher”’? No, indeed, this letter is a sincere. honest and thoughtful presentation of a point of view-and one that must be respected. It has come as a result of years of thought and consideration of the way in which the organization has functioned under present policies; and he believes they are wrong. He gives his reason: “Mrs. Eddy never left anything incomplete nor imperfect in her organization.” And then he says: “I knew if it seemed to be so, it must be my wrong con- cept.” Yet to read Mr. Channing’s remarks one must con- clude that all who express the point of view of the writer of this letter are impelled by motives designed to bring the Cause to destruction, and eventually to repudiate Mrs. Eddy herself.

It seems to the writers of Paul Revere that this person has the one point of view that could, in a very short time, solve completely and for all time, this seemingly perplexing problem. Let us quote the statement once more. “It is most certain that Mrs. Eddy never left anything incomplete nor imperfect in her organization; I knew that if it seemed to be so it must be my wrong concept.” Every earnest student of Christian Science, if he comes upon a statement in Science and Health he does not at once understand, immediately begins to study it from the standpoint that the statement is correct because it came to Mrs. Eddy through inspiration. It is just this point of view that the student who wrote this letter is taking toward those By-laws that require Mrs. Eddy’s consent, for he says in effect, Mrs. Eddy did not leave things poorly thought out, her works were inspired, if I do not understand, that must be my wrong concept-not her error.

Is not this the approach to the problem that will bng its solution rather than that of Mr. Channing in his speech? Condemnation of persons and their motives will never solve it. Apparently neither the Board of Directors nor Mr. Chan-fining see this point. They seem entirely unwilling to admit that their own concepts of the reasons for Mrs. Eddy having left the By-laws as she did may possibly be wrong. If the Board reasons from this viewpoint, and nothing they have said indicates otherwise, they would naturally approve Mr. Channing’s castigation of the viewpoint of the writer of this letter we have just quoted. Again let us say that we think it is not Mr. Channing’s wrong motive or that of the Board of Directors, that impels them to take such a stand, but it is animal magnets-theism that has led them to believe that their position is the only correct one; and so should brook no questioning of it. On the other hand let no one be scared o by the insinuations in Mr. Channing’s speech. In spite of all he has said in his speech the fact still remains that the all-important question of why the By-laws are being violated has not been answered. If the Board of Directors, or a thousand others, do not want any of us to ask why, that cannot stop our continuing to ask. Let us keep right at it. The time will inevitably come, when those responsible for these violations must answer this vital question.

But while we are asking let us continue to support the Board of Directors with our loving thoughts. We must not condemn them. As we have so often pointed out in the Paul Revere pamphlets, it is animal magnetism that is the author of mistaken policies, persons are but the instrument of animal magnetism. It scored in the litigation, let us see that it does not score any longer. Let it not use us, nor Mr. Channing, nor the Board of Directors as its tools. Thus by our defense against its seeming power we shall meet the onslaughts of evil, prove its nothingness, and carry this glorious Truth that Mrs. Eddy has left as our heritage, to the uttermost parts of the earth.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE LITIGATION UPON PRESENT BOARD POLICIES

On February 4th, 1898 - ten days after the date of the Deed of Trust given by Mrs. Eddy to the Trustees of the Publishing Society - Mr. McKenzie, one of the Trustees, received the following letter signed by Calvin Frye - Mrs. Eddy’s secretary: “I send you herewith a sheet which Mother wrote a few days ago for the trustees, but wanted to send by messenger.” On this sheet were written three rules for the guidance of the Trustees (See back page of photographic copy of the Deed of Trust of 1898 issued recently by Paul Revere.) It was sent by messenger from Concord to Boston. It seems to us that Mrs. Eddy, by the act of sending this letter by messenger instead of by mail, was endeavoring to stress the importance of the message it contained. Because part of rule number two is particularly pertinent to the subject we are discussing, we quote as follows: “Learn by experience and careful comparison to know whence cometh your conclusions. ‘Try the spirits’ before acting, look over the purpose that the enemy might be trying to accomplish and so avoid the snare.” Had she felt that the Trustees would be alert to test their acts and decisions, and to detect the purpose the enemy might be trying to accomplish, she probably would not have felt it necessary to send this message. When Mrs. Eddy gave this admonition-this solemn waffling-to the Trustees to be alert to detect any attempt of “the enemy” to thwart the carrying out of her purpose, was she not stressing the importance of the part that the Deed of Trust was to play in her plan of church government after she was no longer with us? That this warning was heeded is evidenced by the tenacity with which the Trustees maintained the sanctity of the Deed of Trust up to and through the terrible days of the litigation, and when they were forced to lay down their trust by the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.

The “enemy” that Mrs, Eddy referred to was apparently animal magnetism and, while not personal, appeared to operate in the attitude assumed by the governing Board which we described in a previous pamphlet, and which was evidenced by the letter of October 8th, 1918 written by this Board to the Trustees and from which we quote; “. the trusteeship which she (Mrs. Eddy) granted at that time (1898) was a secondary and subordinate grant. It cannot be regarded as independent;... The power of this Board to declare vacancies in the trusteeship of the Christian Science Publishing Society was doubtless intended to establish the superior relation of this Board to that trusteeship beyond question “

This attitude was an evidence of “the enemy” that the Trustees needed to be alert to, and as we have said above, they were. They were faithful to the end even when such faithfulness brought upon their heads the opprobrium and anathema of the whole Christian Science Movement in a frenzy second only perhaps to that of the crowd surrounding the man Jesus and crying, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him.” They were alert and faithful to the last. Just hear their words, written in a letter dated November 25th, 1921:

“From the beginning, we have sought only to conform to Mrs. Eddy’s wish, faithfully to carry out the high purpose of her trust and to obey the law of the land.

“We diered from the Directors in our interpretation of what our Leader’s wish and purpose were, and she could not speak to us in person.

“We therefore sought legal interpretation of her legal instrument which declares our duty, and to that we are willing to subordinate our cherished beliefs. That interpretation has now been given. It is authoritative, and, as to us, final.

“We shall cooperate with the Directors - who, as the law has been declared, are entitled to dominate the trust - in the appointment of our successors.” Boston, Mass.

(signed) Herbert Eustace Lamont Rowlands Paul Harvey

Referring again to the “enemy” against which the Trustees were warned, was not its purpose “to divide and conquer”? It did divide, but it.has not conquered. However today the mortal heritage of the litigation is with us; its influence has not been destroyed, The same arguments that were used to support the contentions of the Directors in 1918 have been carried down to 1946, and Mr. Channing has resorted to them to support the policies of the present Board of Directors. Until the fallacy of these arguments is seen, the consequences of the litigation and its evil influence will still be a factor in the discord that is disrupting our Cause today.

Let us refer to something else in Mr. Channing’s speech that seems to be a direct heritage of the litigation. “The Mother Church must continue to function because she herself (Mrs. Eddy) desires it to do so. And it must function without her personal presence, because it would not now be possible for it to function otherwise and, as a matter of fact, she was too wise to require the impossible, and as a matter of law, the impossible cannot be required.” Now that is just what the Board of Directors had contended in 1919-1922, that Mrs. Eddy was not here to give consent in writing to certain elections, therefore she would not require the Board to follow the By-laws because “as a matter of law the impossible can not be required.” Judging by the acts of that Board, and every Board in office since, they have seemed to be entirely oblivious to the simple fact that because it is impossible to operate the organization as it functions now, without violating Mrs. Eddy’s instructions, there may be an alternative way to carry it on. We all admit that Mrs. Eddy was “too wise to require the impossible” but when we admit that statement let us admit another premise that seems entirely fair-that Mrs. Eddy was too wise to attempt to perpetuate an organization by the use of a set of By-laws that would require her perpetual presence to operate. Had she expected to be perpetually present, she of course, would not have made a will.

Think of the small respect for Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration that would prompt any Christian Scientist to aver that she would announce her intention to perpetuate her church, and then straightway write a set of By-laws that could not be followed after she left us; that she was so short sighted as to provide us with a set of By-laws that she knew could not be operated without being amended, then added another By-law to prevent their being amended, then expected that we should operate the organization anyway under such a contrary state of facts. If, however, we accept as a premise that Mrs. Eddy recognized that the By-laws could not be operated after she left, and to prevent anyone’s trying to operate them, she added a By-law to prevent amending them, we have established a logical conclusion in keeping with Mrs. Eddy’s wisdom and spiritual insight. Mr. Channing, on the other hand, apparently never considering that perhaps Mrs. Eddy had a purpose in doing as she did, draws his conclusion in these words: “This is the impregnable basis upon which The Mother Church is standing.” The logic advanced by Mr. Channing, and apparently ap. proved by the Board of Directors, depends upon the premise that Mrs. Eddy has forced us into the inconsistent position wherein we must violate, or in e ect amend, By-laws that cannot be amended. And “This is the impregnable basis upon which The Mother Church is standing,” to quote Mr. Channing again.

Why not look this problem in the face and not be afraid of it? Either these By-laws are of God and can be followed without compromise, or they are not of God, and are not the result of Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration. The question must be decided. It cannot forever be avoided. We of Paul Revere, and a growing number of Christian Scientists all over the Field, believe that Mrs. Eddy knew just what she was doing when she wrote these By-laws. We believe that she had a purpose in writing them just as she did. But we do not believe she thought that any Board of Directors would fall back upon the weak assertion that they ought to violate Mrs. Eddy’s instructions because a human court of law said it would be legal to do so.

Let us now consider the influence of the acts of the Board of Directors during the litigation upon our present Board policies. It is quite obvious to every Christian Scientist that conditions are the objectification of material thinking. The analysis of any situation such as the Field finds itself in today is, an analysis of the thought that produced it, and perpetuates or attempts to perpetuate it. As we have r.epeated-ly said, the Field thought is, five apt to reflect the ideas that originate in Boston and are given out through the periodicals, as well as by speakers sent out to address the Field. The policies of the present Board are apt to be those that have been handed down by preceding Boards, unless there has arisen some person, or persons, who will not adhere to tradition because it is tradition, but who will subject traditional policies to scientific scrutiny, and decide whether they follow in the line of Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration.

Now to show the reasoning that might impel the present Board and Mr. Channing to fall back upon the reasoning followed in Mr. Channing’s speech (that the By-laws must be violated because “as a matter of law the impossible cannot be required”) let us quote again from a letter from the Board of Directors to the Trustees of the Publishing House written on October 8, 1918, one year before the litigation began. “Of necessity there must be a board or body having superior authority in such an institution as that which represents Christian Science. If the Trustees of the Christian Science Publishing Society were not subordinate to The Christian Science Board of Directors, there would be two boards having equal authority in regard to the same affairs; a situation which at once would defy metaphysics and invite failure in business.” (The italics are ours.) Stop and consider the import of these statements. Here was a group of five Christian Scientists, occupying the most important office in the Movement, supposedly ne meta-physicians, who would say in print that two Christian Science Boards, having equal authority, could not work together in harmony because it would “defy metaphysics.” Think of the enormity of the belief of animal magnetism that.could successfully project such a thought into the minds of the unsuspecting Directors that wrote that letter. Is it any wonder the litigation followed? It could have been only the great vision of Mrs. Eddy, and the thoroughness with which she established it in consciousness, that ever saved the Cause at all when those to whose direction the Cause had been entrusted had been deluded by animal magnetism into a reasoning so utterly an-antagonistic to the first principles of Christian Science.

Picture it for yourself. Here were two Boards, one composed of thr.ee persons, the other of five. Eight Christian Scientists selected, we assume, because of their superior metaphysical knowledge and spiritual growth. Here they are confronted with a problem that seems to have more than one solution. Three persons of one Board are convinced that their viewpoint is correct. Five on the other Board are equally sure of their own stand. Yet there is but one right answer. That answer lies in the divine Mind. It is metaphysical work that brings us into harmony with divine Mind. This is the task of Christian Scientists. They are trained in metaphysics. They are to set aside personal viewpoints to listen to the still small voice of Truth - and act only after being sure that the answer has come as a result of demonstration. This is what metaphysics means. It could have no other meaning in this letter from the Board of Directors to the Publishing House.

Yet the Board Directors asserted, in effect, that eight persons could not, through metaphysical work and right thinking, reach an agreement when a question had been raised that had more than one solution, for says the letter, such a situation would “defy metaphysics.” What a sad thought that at the very top of our beloved Movement there could be Christian Scientists that were convinced that divine metaphysics could not solve a disagreement between three Christian Scientists on the one hand, and five on the other: that there must be one group having “supreme authority.” There must be a ruler! It seems hard1y possible, to think our Board of Directors at Boston under any circumstances whatever, would have made such an assertion as this, the very antithesis of all Mrs. Eddy taught. Is it any wonder that a litigation ensued to decide whether the Board of Directors should have supreme authority or not?

Can it not be seen that the whole trouble within the Field and in the Movement today can be traced to that phase of animal magnetism that, since time began, has deed metaphysics, and claimed for itself the authority that it claims metaphysics does not have? Would not animal magnetism seemingly set its trap to catch the unale metaphysician by asserting that certain human conditions defy metaphysics? The Board of Directors in 1918 appear to have been caught in this snare. They accepted animal magnetism’s claim. They apparently believed and succeeding Boards seem to have accepted the belief, that the case they declared “deed metaphysics” prior to 1918 was healed by a mortal mind court deciding that the Board of Directors should have supreme authority.

This authority assumed by the Directors after the litigation, has been passed on from one Board to another. New Boards do not come into being in toto. The changes come gradually through the retirement first of one Director and then another, whose successor is chosen by the remainder. In this way tradition and traditional practices are perpetuated. With one new member coming on at a time, the older members e likely to dominate policies, and the new member must have an unusually independent mind to combat the policies of the rest of the Board. Then too, any new member probably would not be admitted if the Board knew in advance that he would be unfriendly to their policies. Thus the cycles go on, but the policy followed now had its beginning in the sort of illogic that animated the letter of October 8, 1918 written by the Board of Directors to the Trustees.

So we are suering today from the misguided zeal of the Board of Directors of 1918. The same animal magnetism that prompted the Board then is operative today. It s.eems to say through Mr. Channing that Mrs. Eddy’s By-laws cannot be followed because “as a matter of law” the impossible cannot be required. By violating the Manual as their predecessors in office did in 1918, the present Board gives assent to the same claim of animal magnetism, namely: that the situation defies metaphysics.

Oh that our eyes may be opened to see the folly that we have been led into by the subtleties of that which would destroy the foundations of our great Cause and bring to naught the discovery of our Leader. Do we of Paul Revere really support the Board of Directors? Yes - emphatically yes. But with all our hearts we long that they shall gain the point of view that those who disagree with them can, at the same time, support them with their right thinking. Wh en this comes about the Cause shall have made a great stride forward.

Thus it can be seen that the error that prompted the litigation has never been destroyed. It is operative in the Move-foment today. It has been growing more arrogrant, as such errors have always done throughout history, until it is ripe for destruction. We, of Paul Revere, have been criticized for mentioning the litigation, with the charge that it is all over and ought to be forgotten. But the wrongs of the litigation have never been forgotten. Their origin has been obscured and a bold attempt made forever to silence reference to them, so the neophite in Christian Scienc e may not learn of them, and the practices that brought on the litigation be continued, but those students, like the writer of the letter quoted herein, who lived through the litigation, have never forgotten nor overlooked the fact that present wrongs exist because past wrongs have not been repudiated. These wrongs must be repudiated. They must be completely removed by our demonstration or they will persist until they have been self-destroyed, and the Movement may be set back centuries in the process.

By a little tolerance all this can be avoided. A genuine desire to study the problems of the Cause, a willingness to admit that because so many sincere Christian Scientists throughout the world are disturbed, we ought to investigate the reason; and an open-mindedness that permits of a sincere effort to correct errors after we have found them; all of these will lead to emancipation from the evils which had their beginning through the failure in 1910, to see the influence of animal magnetism on the officials at Boston, and upon the great majority of the Field who followed them blindly.

A study of the Manual from the premise that the revel-station of Mrs. Eddy’s intent concerning the By-laws does not defy metaphysics, but that the application of divine m.eta-physics to the problem must bring the solution, this kind of study will, without the slightest doubt, bring the answer we have sought so long. The answer will bring with it the vision of our correspondent whose letter we have quoted, “the spiritual idea spreading all over the world, into every home and church, into every world activity.”

The writers of Paul Revere have pondered this problem for years. Many of us were active in the work through the years of the litigation. We have felt it our duty to make an effort to demonstrate a solution. We have set forth the result of our demonstration in our pamphlet, “Mene, Mene, Tekel Up-harsin.” We ask that our readers study and think about it. We have sent a copy to each Director. We ask that they consider the plan. But let us not leave the question unanswered. It does not defy metaphysics. That is absurd. No problem defies metaphysics. It is equally absurd to ask demonstrating Christian Scientists to forget the whole thing and continue to violate Mrs. Eddy’s instructions because the “impossible cannot be required.”

Let us then study the little pamphlet, “Notes on the Manual,” that is included with our own pamphlet number twenty-five. You will need the Deed of Trust of 1898 (of which we have copies), for a full comprehension of the plan outlined but even without that, you can get a general idea of the way in which Mrs. Eddy’s instructions can be obeyed, and the Cause carry on as we believe she intended it should. We ask nothing more than that you approach the study of this little pamphlet with no mental reservations.

The question of Mrs. Eddy’s intent for her organization does not defy metaphysics, and nothing that mortal mind can do will forever stifle the onward march of an inquiring mind animated by a spiritual desire to follow Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration. Let not animal magnetism influence any seeker for Truth to believe that, because his search leads him to conclusions that dier from the Board of Directors, he is a “deceiver”;or that his search is a pseudo respectable one; or that he is engaged in a heinous effort to reverse Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration. Let him rather continue to strive and to search. His search will be rewarded, and when it is there will fall upon him blessings that cannot be numbered. The advent of a new dawn for our beloved Cause is at the threshold of fulfillment. A new spiritual idea struggles for recognition. Let us welcome its coming, and hasten to prepare the way. Then when it has come, we shall behold a new world indeed, the old shall have passed away.




Chapter Twenty-Eight: The Continuity of the Spiritual Universal Mother Church

Pamphlet Number Twenty-Eight

Just so long as one is afraid of something, he cannot expect to be at peace. Often he must, as a Christian Scientist, rise in the strength of his understanding of God, ce the fear and go through the seeming re and prove its nothingness. In this pamphlet, in addition to analyzing an article written by Mr. ldam H. Dickey, which is being referred to as the complete nnswet to the Paul Revere pamphlets, we of Paul Revere have attempted to show what we believe would be the effect upon our beloved Cause in the event that the material worldwide Mother Church should be dissolved as a consequence of obedi-thence to Mrs. Eddy’s By-Laws in our Church Manual. This we have done in an effort to allay somewhat the fear that seems to grip the heart of the average Christian Scientist when he so much as contemplates the possibility of such a dissolution. We have endeavored to show that this fear, like all other brands of fear, is groundless, and that the fear of the evil is greater than the evil that is feared. Instead of a catastrophe overtaking our Movement, should this dissolution take place, we believe it would be a marvelous unfolding of the divine plan-a plan that by its very nature indicates its divinely inspired origin.

To those thoughtful Scientists realizing the human facts in regard to our Cause today, and who are deeply concerned and inclined to feel depressed at the condition our Movement seems to be sinking into at present, we say, take heart and rejoice. Each excommunication of prominent and advanced thinkers from our Movement, together with other evidences that history is again repeating itself, is, in one sense, a good sign for it seems apparent that not until the inevitable results of ecclesiasticism are so flagrant that they are visible to all, will Mrs. Eddy’s followers see and learn for themselves that eccl siasticism is a claim of evil that must be faced and overcome. As one of our readers has pointed out, Mrs. Eddy classified it most significantly when she included it in the same category with sin and sinner in the title to one of her chapters in her book, “Retrospection and Introspection” - the chapter she names, “Sin, Sinner, and Ecclesiasticism,” thereby showing that it is a phase of evil to be handled and reduced to its nothingness. Therefore ecclesiasticism is not a great power, a something to fear and ee before, or “that becomes more real when it is grappled with” to use Mrs. Eddy’s words on page 284 of Miscellaneous Writings. It is not a real something that has our Cause by the throat and for which there is no re:nedy. Mrs. Eddy has already provided a most potent and effective remedy. As the great-appearing Goliath was overcome by a little pebble in the hands of one who was led by God, so this age-old Goliath of ecclesiasticism goes down before the pebble that our Leader’s God-given wisdom has put into the hands of her followers,-the pebble of simple obedience to her By-Laws.

We show in this pamphlet that Mrs. Eddy did not establish nor intend to have established a great central organization controlling individuals and churches nor was the central organization that she established and supervised while here, to be a permanent form of government. It was merely the means that God directed her to use to establish locally in every community all over the wide world the practice and demonstration of scientific spiritual healing; the natural result of the mighty spiritual animus and activity that she unloosed in human consciousness. The Mother Church, under her supervision, was a means to an end. From her first move in its establishment, she kept it on a spiritual, nonlegal basis, entirely separate and distinct from the Publishing Society;-its entire control under her protection, and its every activity from the very beginning limited in its tenure to her personal direction. The whole thing, as she conceived it, is one unified, consistent, completely-intend-grated whole,-each step leading to the next, growing naturally from it,-an ascending fulfillment to the completion of Mrs. Eddy’s establishment of the free and unfettered individual understanding and practice of Christian Science. With Mrs. Eddy’s passing, the “Mother” period (the period in which the organization was under the direct guidance and protection of the Mother thought as exemplified by Mrs. Eddy) was ended. The church had grown to the point where it was possible for it to stand on its own feet with each member turning directly to the one Father-Mother God for guidance and directs-tion. This individual reliance upon Principle was what Mrs. Eddy authorized. When our organization makes the demonstration of giving to the world what she authorized-the spirit and understanding of Christian Science-instead of the material decisions and ultimatums of a human Board, then-what healing and responses from a thoughtful world will all but overwhelm our church! Then only will our Leader’s prediction for the twentieth century, on page 22 of Pulpit and Press, be possible of fulfillment: “If the lives of Christian Scientists attest their fidelity to Truth, I predict that in the twentieth century every Christian church in our land, and a few in faro lands, will approximate the understanding of Christian Sci-thence sufficiently to heal the sick in his name.”

It is our desire that the contents of this pamphlet may serve to break somewhat the fearful mesmerism that so shackles our Movement at the present time and thus prevents the fruition of Mrs. Eddy’s divinely-inspired plan for her church. February 1, 1946 Washington, D. C.

As Paul Revere galloped through the countryside on that memorable night in 1775, doing his duty as he saw it to do, and calling upon the patriots and lovers of liberty to arouse themselves and to unite in defense of their freedom, he probably little realized the magnitude of the event in human his tory that was being ushered in! Not only were the first skirts-mishes in a war between two countries about to take place, but issues of great moment and of far-reaching significance were about to be decided. Of wars, there had been many. They were not new in human experience. But the war that was starting as Paul Revere rode through the night was not just a war between two countries, or a war to enable one country to throw o the yoke of another. Its import was far greater than either of these, for in the struggle that ensued, a hitherto unrecogniz principle that would emancipate the human race was being bo into mortal consciousness. From this prints-ciple evolved a concept of freedom hitherto unknown to mankind.

The doctrine laid down a year later by Jefferson, Monroe, Patrick Henry and others in the Declaration of Independence, was fought for and defended by those valiant patriots who, ke Paul Revere, were doing their duty as God gave them the light. This doctrine of universal freedom and equality was,anathema to those selfishly entrenched European powers which, for years, had held masses of mankind in bondage to the belief that a few controlled the many. The principle, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” was unknown and unheard of before the American colonies unfurled eir challenge to the world. The world of today has witnessed the result of the undaunted courage of those patriots, and has seen the changes that have been wrought in human history as the outcome of their brave efforts. The example of such men should serve to nerve the endeavor of every liberty-loving person to do his duty today as conscientiously and fearlessly as did those early champions of American liberty. The fight for liberty goes on, but the warfare to which we refer is not political,- it is ecclesiastical. The call to arms has been sounded again! You, our readers, are the patriots of today, who, through love of the Cause of Christian Science are rallying to its defense.

We of Paul Revere wish to take this opportunity to tell you of the splendid work you have done in spreading the message contained in our pamphlets. You have done more than you can possibly realize. In the beginning, the pamphlets were sent to a mere handful of experienced workers who had been in the practice for many years, and, largely as a result of their efforts and of those to whom they have circulated our message, these pamphlets have gone not only all over, this country but they have gone into many foreign lands as well. And the demand for them grows daily. Each individual may feel that he can do, or is doing, but little to help in spreading the mes-age that will arouse the Field to the necessity of handling the error that today is claiming to hold our Movement in its grasp. But, as each one who sees the danger at hand does his part to send out the word to those whom he deems receptive, the aggregate of those who receive it will be great. It will comprise a tremendous and ever-increasing force that will counter the misinformation now being disseminated through many organization channels, and will succeed in awakening the Field and in leading to the liberation of our beloved Cause so that it will function as Mrs. Eddy intended it should. Let no one say, “I am only one; I can do so little.” Our Leader quotes on page four of Pulpit and Press, “What if a little rain should say: So small a drop as I Can ne’er refresh a drooping earth, I’ll tarry in the sky.” This thought is as applicable now to the efforts of our readers as it was to Mrs. Eddy’s students when she used it in her Dedicatory Sermon in 1895. If you could see, as we do, the mass of letters in our les that come from all over the world, you would be able to visualize how extensive and far-reaching is the work of which your effort is a part. We tell you this to assure you that you are doing a great work and to encourage you to even greater effort.

Three years ago, when we of Paul Revere first launched these pamphlets, we sent them out as a bugle call to arouse the Field to a better support of the Christian Science Board of Directors. There seemed to be such a great need to awaken Christian Scientists as a whole to the necessity of handling the claim of animal magnetism which, through the mesme sm of ecclesiastical domination or control, would, if possible, enslave our Cause. In the beginning, we did not fully realize how vast an issue was at stake or how far-reaching would be the result of our efforts. We did not at first realize how firmly entrenched the age-old lie of ecclesiasticism had become in our Movement. We did not realize how self-satisfied and intolerant was the attitude of those already under the domination of this mesmerism,-a mesmerism which down through history has attempted to crush out spirituality, and to hold the world in bondage to its despotic control. Nor did we realize that our first small efforts to uncover the encroachments of ecclesiasticism in our organization would call forth so quickly and so completely, the marshalling of all ecclesiastical forces in an effort to crush out even the slightest attempt to uncover its machinations.

The growing circulation of our pamphlets has resulted in a barrage from organization channels comparable, in a way, to that which was hurled by the might of the British empire at the little band of colonists who, for five years following 1776, defended the ag of their freedom. Today all the forces of ecclesiasticism are being unlimbered to uphold and defend a position as untenable as that of the British in 1776. The vio lent nature of the attack against our pamphlets is a proof of the effectiveness of our united efforts. It seems to be of the utmost importance to ecclesiasticism’s supporters to crush out the message that these pamphlets contain. The situation is comparable to a four-alarm re, where all available resources seem to be hurrying to the scene.

In earlier pamphlets, we have referred to the complete and far-reaching developments of the organization’s methods for spreading its own propaganda-methods comparable only to those employed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. To Christian Scientists who have not had their eyes opened to this situation, what is happening today will serve as a present illustration. During all the thirty-five years since Mrs. Eddy’s passing, there have been earnest thinkers who have seen, as we see today, this octopus of ecclesiasticism, which, in belief, has been slowly gathering our beloved Cause into the grasp of its slimy tentacles. Many of these thinkers have sounded a warning of this danger and have protested against it, but their messages were largely unheeded so long as the Cause was growing and prospering and everyone seemed happy. But today it is different. The situation is such that Scientist:fists everywhere are seeing that something is wrong.

We should like to quote here from a letter written by a good student who contributed to the periodicals while our Leader was still here. This letter was written to a member of the Christian Science Board of Directors in September, 1921, which was the time when the Christian Science Movement was waiting for the decision to be handed down by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the “Litigation Incident,” to which we have often referred. This letter says: “Under the circumstances, one can not escape the conviction that amid the seeming complication of error in the Movement, the one overshad owing issue, far more vital even than that pertaining to the present status of the periodicals, is this, ‘Shall the Church of Christ, Scientist, be governed after the pattern of the church of Rome, in which an ecclesiastical hierarchy claims exclusive authority to interpret spiritual truth for the membership and makes allegiance to its sovereignty in such matters, a test of loyalty and orthodoxy; or shall scope be allowed its adherents to demonstrate the Principle of Christian Science according to their God-given understanding!’’ That this letter fell on deaf ears is obvious, for the Directors at that time took no steps to avert the danger which threatened our Cause, and which tO day, twenty-five years later, seems to be engulfing it. Today the organization is using many of its far-reaching channels as the means of indoctrinating the Field with misrepresentation of the message contained in our pamphlets. The State Committees on Publication disseminating information teachers addressing their associations, addresses from the platform of The Mother Church, articles in the periodicals, misinformed practitioners, some of whom have not even read our pamphlets-all of these are being used as channels to malign, to slander, and to discredit those persons reputed to be connected with Paul Revere. They are being used to impugn our motives, to misrepresent our message, to accuse us of attacking the church. the Directors, and of attempting to tear down our church Manual, to destroy the organization; and finally even to discredit Mrs. Eddy herself.

The apparent purpose of all this misrepresentation is to so stamp our pamphlets with official disapproval that Christian Scientists will neither care nor dare to read what we write. Simultaneously with this effort to discredit and silence us, comes another e ortthat of deluging the Field with artist-cles pertaining to the subjects that we have discussed, giving false impressions of these subjects, but, at the same time, avoiding answering the questions we have raised on the issues involved. To prevent the masses from reading anything except that which has official approval, and then to indoctrinate the masses with the point of view desired, is the method used by the Roman Catholic church. Is this to be the method of the Christian Science organization today, as it was, to a de-greets, at the time of the litigation? This process-this big gun -used by animal magnetism seemed very effective at that time. However, is not this “gun” too wo, too antiquated, and too obvious to be as effective in 1947 as it was in 1919?

Through the entire period of the litigation, the Trustees of The Publishing Society, scientifically and magnanimously published, without comment, in the Christian Science Monitor, a complete and verbatim account of the court proceedings-thus leaving Christian Scientists in the Field free to draw their own conclusions. Not so, however, did the Christian Science Board of Directors of that time. To all appearances, they did everything possible, directly and indirectly-even to the extent of violating a court injunction-to influence the Field not to subscribe for, buy, or read, the Christian Science periodicals, under the penalty of being considered disloyal. The result of this effort to intimidate kept a large majority of Christian Scien-theists from reading the true, verbatim, uncommented-on account of the trial printed in the Monitor. Apparently for the purpose of eluding the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts court which had enjoined the Directors from taking any steps that would interfere with the activities of The Publishing Society, there was set up in New York state, a committee known as “The Executive Committee of the Christian Science Delegates of New York State.” This committee had as its professed object, the dissemination of reliable information concerting the “situation in Boston.” Through bulletins issued by this committee and similar ones in other states, the Field was indoctrinated with the point of view that “headquarters” wished the Field to accept. Most of the Field accepted it, swallowed it, “hook, line, and sinker.” And because of the general accept-fiance of that point of view, most of the Field today has no knowledge of what took place at that time. After the final decision was handed down, and the Directorsby legal means -had obtained their objective of control of the periodils, article after article began to appear to support, and to establish more firmly, this ecclesiastical point of view with which the Fld had been indoctrinated. Thus the Field was mesmerized into accepting a point of view that was made to order for them! They were as innocently “ecclesiasticised” as the Germans were Nazied and the Roman Catholics Romanized. Therefore it is quite natural that, twenty-five years later, when, in uncovering the operations animal magnetism has been using to build up the claim of ecclesiasticism, we of Paul Revere open the closet door and the skeleton of “the Litigation Incident” falls out, that the whole force of the organization is used to obstruct our efforts. The methods that were used twenty-five years ago to prevent the acceptance of any opposing point of view, were so successful at that time that the same methods are naturally resorted to all over again today. But it is absurd to think that they will work now! The world has changed! The world has learned what propaganda methods can do to indoctrinate whole masses of people. Therefore Christian Scientists will be more alert now to what these methods are designed to accomplish than were the Christian Scientists in 1919. They will demand that these questions we are asking be answered-not evaded.

Let us summarize the methods resorted to today which are merely a repetition of those used twenty-five years ago. First. Indoctrinating the Field with misrepresentation of the authors of Paul Revere in the hope that Christian Scien-theists will not read for themselves what we write.

Second. Flooding the Field with perverted reports of what we write.

Third. Sending out articles dealing with the issues that we bring out, but never directly answering them.

All this is done through the influence of animal magnetism in order that ecclesiasticism can continue to remain in power.

Practitioners returning from Boston to their respective fields are telling their fellow Scientists that they have the an-answer to the Paul Revere pamphlets. They then refer to an article published in the Sentinel of December· 1st, 1923. This is another of those “supporting articles” to which we have referred earlier in this pamphlet. It was written by Mr. Adam H. Dickey and is entitled, “The Continuity of The Mother Church.” It seems obvious-judging from the tone of this and other articles written at that timethat in spite of the outcome of The Litigation, the Field was becoming restive and evidently not full satisfied with what had taken place. Assuming that Mr. Dickey and those whose viewpoint he upheld were sincere and conscientious in their support of what they thought was right, nevertheless. we feel that he, and the other supporting writers talked all around the essential point. Now we ask our readers to procure copies of this article of Mr. Dickey’s or to read it in the reading rooms, for we are about to discuss it and in:doing so we wish to be fair. Therefore, we recommend that you read what he writes even though, under threat of penalty, you are warned by the organization’s agents not to read what we write,-presumably for fear that you will be informed of the facts we present. “THE CONTINUY OF THE MOTHER CHUR”

The first part of Mr. Dickey’s artie is devoted to showing that the following statement on page 45 of Retrospection and Introspection had been taken from its context, and was being used to support the “erroneous argument” that it was “Mrs. Eddy’s expectation and desire that The Mother Church should be dissolved were she ever to relinquish her place as head of The Christian Science church.” The statement that Mr. Dickey refers to, is often used by those Christian Scientists who conscientiously feel that organization tends to impede spiritual growth. It reads as follows: “Despite the prosperity of my church, it was learned that material organization has its value and peril, and that organization is requisite only in the earliest periods in Christian history.” Mr. Dickey affirms that this statement, written by Mrs. Eddy thirty years previous to 1923, “referred to the occasion in 1889 when our Leader actually did dissolve the material organization of The Mother Church.” at a misleading, misstatement of fact this is! There was no Mother Church nor First Church of Christ, Scientist in 1889 to be dissolved! The concept of church known as The Mother Church was not existent until. in 1892; Mrs. Eddy organized “The First Church of Christ, Scientist.” Here &re Mrs. Eddy’s own words taken from page 18 of her church Manual-and they are not applied out of their context: “On the twenty-third day of September, 1892, at the request of Rev. Mary Baker Eddy, twelve of her students and Church members met and reorganized, under her jurisdiction, the Christian Science Church and named it, The First Church of Christ, Scientist.” How could Mrs. Eddy have dissolved e Mother Church in 1889, as Mr. Dickey says, when no such church had even been born? What then was the church that Mrs. Eddy did dissolve in 1889? It was the church for which she and twenty-six of her students had obtained a charter in June, 1879. These students extended a call to her to become their pastor. is little church was called the “Church of Christ, Scientist.” This is the church of which our Leader writes on page 44 of Retrospection and Introspection: “When I was its pastor, and in the pulpit every Sunday, my church increased in numbers, and its spiritual growth kept pace with its increasing popularity; but when obliged, because of accumulating work in the College, to preach only occasionally, no student, at that me, was found able to maintain the church in its previous harmony and prosperity.

“Examining the situation prayerfully and carefully, noting the church’s need, and the predisposing and exciting cause of its condition, I saw that the crisis had come when much time and attention must be given to defend this church from the envy and molestatio of other churches, and from the danger to its members which must always lie in Christian warfare. At this juncture I recommended that the church be dissolved.” Please note that Mrs. Eddy says in her own words that it was “at this juncture” that she recommended that her church be dissolved, and for the reason “that the crisis had come when much time and attention must be given to defend this church from the envy and molestation of other churches, and from the danger to its members which must always lie in Christian warfare.” These are the reasons she gives for its dissolution, which are vastly different from those given by Mr. Dickey. By quoting only part of Mrs. Eddy’s words, and by rearranging their order, Mr. Dickey arrives at a ridiculous an illogical deduction thus giving his readers an entirely erroneous impression. He says: “So long as The Mother Church was operating under a charter issued by the state, the church was, according to the language of the charter, ‘subject to the limitations, duties, and restrictions, which by law appertain thereto.’ Every Christian Scientist knows that it would be impossible to conduct a ‘spiritually organized’ church such as The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist, under a legal charter or. organization, which could at any time be modified or an-. annulled by a state law. Therefore, in accordance with the directs-tion of infinite wisdom, our divinely inspired Leader dissolved the material organization and later reorganized her church on 3 spiritual basis as a voluntary religious association, thereby taking it out of the grasp of morl mind and placing it in the hands of God.’’ Words! Words! Words! Beautiful words, but just words! Would any Christian Scientist have the temerity today, twenty-five years later, to assert that our church is out of the “grasp of mortal mind and in the hands of God”? In all seriousness, and in the name of common sense, how could Mr. Dickey advance the argument that the church is out of the “grasp of mortal mind” and “in the hands of God” because the church having a legal state charter is dissolved and late; reformed into one without such a charter? He says, “it would be impossible to conduct a ‘spiritually organized’ church such as The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist under a legal charter or organization, which could at any time be modified or annulled by a state law.” Of course it would! We hetily agree, but it would be equally impossible to conduct a ‘spiritually organized’ church under the centralized control of an ecclesiastical Board! In the ultimate effect upon the church, it makes but little difference whether animal magnetism uses a small group of state legislators to “modify and annul” the church charter, or whether animal magnetism influences a small group of Directors to “modify and annul” the church By-laws left us by Mrs. Eddy.

Mr. Dickey, after referring to the laws of the State of Massachusetts which Mrs. Eddy used to enable the church to hold property without organizing, says “Does this look as though our Leader expected that The Mother Church, the ‘spiritually organized Church of Christ, Scientist. in Boston’ which ‘still goes on,’ should be dissolved, and her lifework abandoned and cast aside by some ill-advised Christian Scientists of the future”? Mr. Dickey gives a false impression by his use of Mrs. Eddy’s words, “the spiritually organized Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston” as though it were synonymous with the materially organized Mother Church which had its beginning under the Deed of Trust of 1892 and is The Mother Church that is functioning today. Mr. Dickey apparently neglected to account for the three years that elapsed between the dissolution of the Church of Christ. Scientist, in 1889 and the rector-ganization of the church in 1892 under the name of “The First Church of Christ, Scientist. in Boston.” (See Manual, p. 18) During these three years, there was no material organization of any kind whatever; and it was to these three years immediately following the dissolution of the Church of Christ, Scientist, in 1889, that our Leader’s words apply. In speaking of this unorganized church, she says “Adding to its ranks and influence, this spiritually organized Church of Christ, Scien-theist, in Boston. still goes on.”

Does any Christian Scientist by the farthest stretch of the imagination think that an organization in which1 at one time, two Boards were engaged for over two years, in a maior legal battle is “the spiritually organized church” to which our Leader is referring in the above quotation?

Does any Christian Scientist assert that a church that continuously violates its own By-Laws and builds up an ecclesias- tical hierarchy is a “spiritually organized church,” and “out of the grasp of mortal mind and in the hands of God” and is e one to which our Leader referred above?

Does not the recent pamphlet sent out by Mr. John Doorly of London, England, in which is published the correspondence between him and the Board of Directors relating to his excommunication from The Mother Church-does this not support our contention that animal magnetism has so tightly grasped our beloved Cause in the tentacles of ecclesiasticism that it is high time for us all to wake up, to throw o this octopus and to see to it that our church is taken “out of the grasp of mortal mind” and placed back “in the hands of God”? In the little pamphlet of Mr. Doorly’s there is one statement that ouht to shock every Christian Scientist out of his slumber. He r counts: “A group of thirty-seven Christian Science students from all over the United States, unable to believe that the Boad of Directors would place their teacher on probation “on hearsay evidence,” went to Boston “to see the Board and place the facts before them.” They were met by a “legal represents-tative” of the Directors, who asked them if they were aware that they were “approaching the highest ecclesiastical court in the land.” Think of this, dear readers! Here is an admission from a legal representative of the Board that it is “the highest ecclesiastical court in the land”! Does ·not this admission of an “ecclesiastical court” explain the shocking excommunication of Mr. Doorly, and indicate that such excommunications are apt to increase rather than diminish. And further does not this admission emphasize what we of Paul Revere have maintained from the beginning-the need of the greatest love and metaphysical support that the Field can give our Board of Directors, in order to handle the animal magnetism that is claiming to mesmerize the Directors into so misinter preting the By-Laws, that they believe they are acting in line with their highest sense of duty?

We wish to thank Mr. Doorly for having the courage to stand by his convictions and for giving to the Field his en-Hghtening correspondence with the Christian Science Board of Directors.

Now let us go back to another paragraph of Mr. Dickey’s article-he states, “It should be remembered also that in Mrs. Eddy’s will she left her property in trust to the Board of Directors of The Mother Church for future administration, to promote and extend Christian Science as taught by her. This action on the part of our Leader would certainly never have been taken had she not -expected her church to continue.” Again Mr. Dickey seems to have missed the point. Of course she “expected her church to continue”! She also expected the Board of Directors to continue; she provided for their perpetuity in her Deed of Trust of 1892. But nothing in these sentences of Mr. Dickey’s which we have just quoted contributes any support to his contention that Mrs. Eddy intended the universal Mother Church to continue as a material organization, or that the Board of Directors should exercise centralized control over the organization or assmue the position of being Mrs. Eddy’s successor.

Judge Clifford Smith, in an article published in the Christian Science Journal of February, 1924, entitled “Our Chur is Built to Stand,” says “Her (Mrs. Eddy’s) last will consisted mainly of bequests, permanent in character, to “The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts.” Please note that, according to Mr. Smith, Mrs. Eddy did not leave her property in trust to the Directors of The Mother Church (as Mr. Dickey says) but “to The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachuetts.” Is it not apparent that there is nothing in either Mr. Dickey’s or Mr. Smith’s statement that would give consolation to anyone trying to prove that it was Mrs. Eddy’s intention that the material worldwide Mother Church, with its centralized control should stand if she were no longer here to approve its administration?

In Mr. Smith’s article to which we have just referred, he quotes the words of Mrs. Eddy from page 342 of First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany as follows: “The continuity of the Church of Christ, Scientistis assured. It is growing wonderfully. It will embrace all the churches, one by one, because in it alone is the simplicity of the oneness of God; the oneness of Christ and the perfecting of man stated scientist - focally.” It is well to note in passing that, since her church is not now “growing wonderfully,” nor is it embracing “all the churches,” there must be something wrong. Instead of growing and increasing, the number of churches is diminishing for -as we have repeatedly pointed outin 1945 there were ten less churches than in 1944. Judging from this record, how can the Christian Science church ever expect to “embrace all churches”? How can our church grow with the octopus of ecclesiasticism around its neck? How can it accomplish what our Leader intended for it, when her God-inspired By-Laws are being disobeyed or waived continuously?

In Miscellaneous Writings on page 261, our Leader says,

‘’Christian Science not only elucidates but d^monstrates this verity of being; namely, that mortals suer from the wrong they commit...’’

Does this not apply to our Movement collectively as well as to the individual? We of Paul Revere have never asserted that those persons, whose decisions were responsible for our Movement taking its first disobedient steps, made those decisions with the intention of building up an ecclesiastical domination as soon as our Leader left us. We believe that those decisions were made ignorantly, with no idea of how far-reaching they would be nor how far away from Mrs. Eddy’s intent they would lead her Movement. On the contrary, we have persistently and insistently declared that students of Christian Sci-thence, who were as close to Mrs. Eddy as were those in authority at the time of her passing, should have been able to discern that Mrs. Eddy, with all her spirituality and inspiration and vision and closeness to God, would not, and could not, have made for her church a set of By-Laws that, if obeyed, would produce a condition such as we nd our beloved Church of Christ, Scientist in today. Considering this condition alone and completely disregarding the question of the interpretation of the By-Laws, is it not obvious that, if the present administration of our church government is in obedience to Mrs. Eddy’s instructions, then there must be something wrong with her instctions-a conclusion that we of Paul Revere are not at all willing to accept. But is there any other conclusion that can be accepted by those who contend that her instructions are today being followed? Is there any way to explain the present situation other than that her instructions were not a sufficient guide to enable her Movement to withstand the attack hurled by error at her church during the first thirty-five years after her passing? Is thts not tantamount to saying that she had blundered and that her Manual was not inspired of God? Are you, dear reader, willing to accept such a conclusion? We are not; a thousand times no! We maintain that she was inspired; that she did not blunder in leaving her By-Laws as she did; that it is the administrators and interpreters of her By-Laws who blundered.

Brushing aside all the profuse verbia of this article of Mr. Dickey’s and similar articles-which only serve to throw a smokescreen around the real issue,-we ask why our oft-repeated question still remains unanswered? Our question is, “Why are Mrs. Eddy’s By-Laws being disobeyed or waived as though they did not exist?” Almost all the articles sess “obedience to the Manual” and to our Leader’s implicit instructions, and then the writers blithely proceed to justify disobedience to the Manual.

Christian Scientists are well aware that many Bible verses seem to have an entirely different meaning when read in the light of an understanding of Christian Science than they have when the same verses are read from the old theology point of view. Orthodox theology uses Bible verses to support the old “re and brimstone” concept of man’s destiny, and Christian Scientists use the same verses to show the relationship of God to man as His image and likeness. In the same way, Mr. Dickey uses a letter written by Mrs. Eddy in 1903 to the Board of Directors to support his mere human legal point of view, while we of Paul Revere use the same letter to support what we b,elieve to be the spiritual and scientific point of view. This letter is frequently quoted by Christian Scien-theists. It is as follows: “Upon one point, however, I feel competent to advise, namely: Never abandon the denominational government of The Mother Church. If I am not personally with you, the Word of God and my instructions in the by-laws have led you hitherto and will remain to guide you safely on, and the teachings of St. Paul are as useful today as when they were first written.” Mr. Dickey then goes on to say, “If the utterances of St. Paul have not become obsolete through the passage of centuries, what right has anyone to assume that the By-Laws and instructions prepared by our Leader for the perpetual government of The Mother Church should lose their significance because of the lapse of a few years?” We join him in lng the same question. In addition, we wish to know why the passage of a few years or even a few months after our Leader left usshould warrant Christian Scientists taking the first step toward making our Leader’s instructions obsolete? Is there any surer way to lead to the ultimate and complete repudiation of the entire Manual than by beginnin^ to disobey and to waive, in a wholesale manner, the very By-Laws that Mr. Dickey declares were divinely inspired’? He supports his statement by saying: “Read the inspired utter-fiance of our Leader in the following words taken down fiver-batim by the writer (Mr. Dickey) as they fell from her ps: ‘I prayed God day and night to show me how to form my church and how to go on with it. I understand that He did show me, just as much as I understand that He showed me Christian Science; and no human being ever showed me Christian Science. Then I have no right or desire to change what God has directed me to do; and it remains for the church obey it’.” Now let us look at the ludicrous picture that Mr. Dickey’s article thus presents. Mrs. Eddy writes certain By-Laws for the guidance of her church. We agree with Mr. Dickey and others that these By-Laws were inspired by God and we think that By-Laws so divinely inspired should chapter-tainly be obeyed. Mr. Dickey’s way of interpreting those By-Laws-notwithstanding that he was our Leader’s faithful secretary for so long-is comparable only to the manner in which hundreds of faithful ministers, both before and after Mrs. Eddy’s time, have read the Bible, studied it, and even preached from it, and yet have never seen in it the healing message that our Leader saw and that she gave to the world. This spiritual blindness-this “having eyes and yet not seeing”-explains why so many of our Christian Science lecturers, teachers, practitioners, and earnest, conscientious students, have for years taught and read and quoted from the Manual without ever having discerned the spiritual import it contains. It is this lack of spiritual perception, that, in the final analysis, is responsible for the long years of violation of the By-Laws.

Now to sum up the whole effect of Mr. Dickey’s article: it is, as we have pointed out earlier in this pamphlet, an effort to further support the indoctrination that had been going on ever since our Leader left us. This indoctrination was similar to the advance and rear guards of an army. An unseen struggle had been taking place. The forces of ecclesiasticism were engaged in a constant battle to convert our organization into a centrally controlled hierarchy -the very opposite of that which our Leader intended,-and this was accomplished in spite of all the estoppages she provided to prevent such a situation from ever developing. The advance guard of indoctrination had to prepare the way if the ecclesiastical forces were to succeed in reversing Mrs. Eddy’s intent for her church government. From the time of her passing until 1919, the advance guard was insidiously at work moulding thought for that which was to take place in the great battle which we have named “The Litigation Incident.” Those who were humanly responsible for this moulding were probably as unconscious of the part they were playing in this great struggle as were those who were being moulded. We feel sure that they thought they were carrying out Mrs. Eddy’s instructions to the letter, which of course, they could not have been doing, for, if her instructions had been followed, there never would have been such a shocking spectacle as “The Litigation Incident.” After that event was over and the ecclesiastical forces had apparently won the struggle,-temporargy at least-then the rear guard of indoctrination had to become active in explaining and justifying ecclesiasticism’s unscientific victory. Mr. Dickey’s illogical and incorrect article is a fair sample of this activity. Regardless of the nature of such articles, the rear guard’s use of them was highly successful. It so satisfied t4e Field that “All is well,” that the Field settled back into its comfortable slumber, in spite of the fact that attempts have been made throughout the years by those who were not asleep, to arouse it. And now that we of Paul Revere have sounded the bugle call to awake, the rear guard is aroused also, and the violence of its attack is increased as we uncover the machinations of animal magnetism and its effect upon our Movement.

Now let us further show what effect we believe this and similar articles have, not only upon the neophyte but even upon older students who ought to be able to think for themselves. Here is the picture:

First. The Christian Science periodicals are to the b^in-finer what elemental arithmetic is to the grammar school pupil. To him, all is so new in Christian Science that he quite naturally never questions any statements made in these periodicals. If he does not understand what is written in these articles, he is told that the fault lies in his ignorance and not in the artist-cles and that he must approach all Christian Science literature with a receptive frame of mind. Consequently, responding to this thought, the young student is receptive to whatever ideas the literature contains and to him it is, “thus saith the Lord.”

Second. Now he is told that Mr. Dickey was for many years secreta to Mrs. Eddy and was in daily attendance upon her, and also that he was chairman of the great Board of Directors. And so lr. Young Student is so impressed with the personality and official position of the author that he - proaches the article all aglow with an inward feeling of uplift and fervor before he has even read a word, and consequently, he does not weigh too carefully what the author writes. He unconsciously concludes that this must be almost as good as word from our Leader herself. This conclusion is, of course, all wrong.

Third. Now, the reader on December 1, 1923, is in a proper frame of mind to be unconsciously led anywhere.

Fourth. Mr. Dickey presents his opening sentence as follows: “An erroneous argument is now being industriously circulated throughout the Field to the effect that it was Mrs. Eddy’s expectation and desire that the present organization of The Mother Church should be dissolved were she ever to relinquish her place as head of the Christian Science Church.” Mr. Young Student, having accepted the impression that Mr. Dickey is right, quite naturally assumes that when Mr. Dickey labels an argument erroneous, it must be erroneous.

Fifth. Another paragraph begins: “Now comes the enemy of Christian Science with its argument. ‘We have outgrown organization; it is time for church organization to cease’.” Mr. Dickey says it is an “enemy” that argues that “it is time for church organization to cease.” While it is true that only an enemy would want to destroy the organization, still, what the new student does not realize is that this argument in no way precludes the dissolution of the present form of centralized and ecclesiastical control of the organization.

Sixth. Another paragraph starts: “No more fallacious position could be taken by anyone desiring to follow our Leader in Christian Science than to assume for a moment that she ever supposed that The Mother Church would attain be dissolved.” Mr. Dickey says so; to the reader, it must be so. The reader has not learned that this is only Mr. Dickey’s human opinion, and that the letter that he uses in his article in support of his opinion does not really support it. Seventh. Another paragraph begins: “It is pitiful to witness the attempts of some well meaning but misguided students of Christian Science in their efforts to improve on Mrs. Eddy’s plans for the conduct of her church.” Now Mr. Young Student,-not knowing that Mr. Dickey and those assort-ciated with him have continuously waived her By-Laws and disobeyed her instructions ever since she passed,-is really sorry for anyone who thinks differently than Mr. Dickey on these matters.

Eighth. The concluding sentence of Mr. Dickey’s article is: “Christian Scientists should beware of the snare set by mortal mind at this time to trap the unwary into a position of disloyalty and disobedience to the most cherished wishes of our revered Leader.” And so, perhaps, Mr. Young Student of the 1923 days, laid down the article with the feeling of great gratitude that Mr. Dickey’s wisdom had saved him from the “snare” of the “enemy.” In perhaps the same manner, do the readers in 1946 feel that this article of Mr. Dickey’s is the an-answer to all that the writers of Paul Revere have said in their pamphlets. What a monstrous perversion it all is! But Mr. Young Student and Mr. Old Student, too,-not knowing where facts end and perversion begins-are by now so completely “sold” on the idea that Mr. Dickey seems to be trying to sell, that they fail to see how Mr. Dickey’s use of Mrs. Eddy’s own words mislead the reader.. Dickey wishes to save the “unwary” from being put “into a position of disloyalty and disobedience to the most cherished wishes of our Leader.” Yet it is he, who, through perverting Mrs. Eddy’s own words, makes it appear that by disobeying the By-Laws and by building up a strong centralized government, we should be carrying out Mrs. Eddy’s “most cherished wishes.” Is he not, unconsciously perhaps, setting the very “snare” of which he warns the “unwary”? Surely Mrs. Eddy’s “cherished wishes” could not have included the type of ecclesiastical government that we have today. Is it not the “disloyalty and disobedience” of those who defend this ecclesiastical system that would prevent the fruition of our Leader’s “most cherished wishes”? However, in spite of the false impressions that the readers of Mr. Dickey’s article may be “snared” into accepting, our own sense of love and charity makes it impossible for us to believe that Mr. Dickey intended deliberately to mislead. We are sure that he was sincere and believed thoroughly what he wrote, even though his method of explaining it and trying to support it, was so illogical and so contrary to the facts, that only those mesmerized by the indoctrination of previous years could possibly believe it. What a wonderful day it will be for the world when this mammoth mesmerism is dispelled for the whole Christian Science Movement, and when all may see that the very By-Laws in the Manual that the organization waives as impossible of being obeyed, constitute a set of estop-pages that comprise a bulwark, a veritable cornerstone, upon which she built a church that would be free from the very things that Mr. Dickey defends in his article. Our Leader’s whole plan ts into one God-directed, unified whole-a “seamless garment,” a setting, so to speak, in which the material, organization accompaniments will be used only as supports to develop and establish, in individual consciousness, the word and practice of Christian Science. She did not build or establish a central, controlling, Boston, Christian Science organization. Her instructions, correctly interpreted, show that such an organization was neither authorized by her, nor legitimate in Christian Science. She knew that this type of government would not establish Christian Science; she knew that Christian Science could and would be established only by the worldwide practice of the healing work. To this end, she placed in the Manual, one estoppage after another to prevent organization from drowning out this spiritual afflatus.

On page 230 of The First Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany, Mrs. Eddy says: “Notwithstanding the sacrilegious moth of time, eternity awaits our Church Manual, which will maintain its rank as in the past, amid ministries aggressive and active, and will stand when those have gone to rest.” We of Paul Revere are sure that when Mr. Dickey wrote his article and quoted this statment of Mrs. Eddy’s, he did not realize how much comfort and encouragement the last part of it would give to those who, like Paul Revere, see the present danger to our Cause. When “ministries aggressive and active,” which are responsible for such articles as this one by Mr. Dickey and similar ones by Judge Smith and-more recently-by Mrs. McKenzie, Mr. Bell, Mr. Channing and others to which we have referred,-when “these ministries” shall “have passed to their rest,” our Church Manual will be obeyed and “will maintain its rank” as it did when our Leader was hettie. · In the preceding pages we have endeavored to show how illogical and misleading are the statements made by the author of the article; “The Continuity of The Mother Church.” It is obvious that these statements of Mr. Dickey’s were made with the idea of defending a position that logical reasoning proves cannot be defended, and, because it can not be logically defended, illogical reasoning and distortion had to be resorted to.

Now instead of all this illogical, defensive reasoning, let us reason logically and not be afraid to follow through to where the logic leads. As we have stated previously, we heartily agree with Mr. Dickey that our Leader prepared these · By-Laws “under the unerring direction of divine wisdom.” Therefore, it is obvious that there must be a scientific way to obey them. If Mrs. Eddy’s spiritual vision and inspiration, derived from the divine wisdom, prompted her to give instructions to the members of her church not to go into a certain field without her consent, and this consent they were unable to obtain, do you think it would be obedience for them to go into the field without it? And if those who went into the field without her consent, encountered dangers and difficulties and mounting evils, do you not think these evils would be due to continued disobedience?

For thirty-five years the Christian Science organization has been getting deeper and deeper into the mire of the field that should not have been entered without Mrs. Eddy’s consent. Knowing that her consent could not be obtained after her passing, Mrs. Eddy, in leaving these By-Laws in the Manual, practically said, “Keep out”! We of Paul Revere fmly believe that Mrs. Eddy used this scientific method of telling her students to keep out of the field of centralized control and ecclesiastical administration of her church government. We say that we believe this was Mrs. Eddy’s way, for was it not her way to leave the Movement to do things as far as possible by demonstration? She must have known that if she had given definite instructions as to her intentions, the Movement would have followed them blindly like a flock of sheep, but of what spiritual value would this have been? Rather than give definite instructions regarding her intentions, she left Christian Scientists to work out the question in proportion to their ability to overcome the fear of facing the issue that strict obedience to her By-Laws might seem to entail. Because of the inability of official Boston, and Christian Scientists in general, to understand how the organization can continue to function if obedience to the By-Laws entails the dissolution of the centrally controlled Mother Church they are appalled, and following the line of least resistance, disobey the By-Laws. When sufficient suering from this disobedience compels them to develop a higher spiritual sense, they will face the fear, prove its nothingness, obey Mrs. Eddy’s instructions, and nd the true sense of church government, free from the mesmerism of ecclesiasticism. This will be the government that Mrs. Eddy said would “evolve scientifically.”

On page 342 of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany, are Mrs. Eddy’s prophetic answers to the questions put to her by a correspondent of the New York Herald in an interview at her home in April, 1901:

“How will it (The Church of Christ, Scientist) be governed after all now concerned in its government shall have passed on?”

“It will evolve scientifically. Its essence is evangelical. Its government will develop as it progresses.”

“Will there be a hierarchy, or will it be directed by a single earthly ruler?”

“In time its present rules of service and present rulership will advance nearer perfection.”

So, Mrs. Eddy’s great wisdom left her church government to evolve by demonstration, and it surely is evolving these days.

Let us now present what we believe would be the situation today had the church government, during the past thirty-five years, “evolved scientifically” in accordance with Mrs. Eddy’s intent; and if it had kept out of the “field of ecclesiasticism.” We of Paul Revere believe that we would now have a growing and prosperous organization that would function as follows:

Services would be held in the present Mother Church edifice in accordance with Mrs. Eddy’s Deed of Trust of 1892. (Manual p. 128) The congregation worshiping in this church would be styled, “The First Church of Christ, Scientist.!’ (Manual p. 132)

Present branch churches would continue to function under their present form of government in consonance with the church Manual. (Manual p. 70) New churches would organize anywhere and everywhere that local Christian Scientists-untrammeled by any central or official Boston control-felt the desire or need for such organizations.

The present Publishing Society would continue to publish the periodicals in accordance with the Deed of Trust of 1898. (Manual p. 79)

A Board of Directors would act in perpetuity under the Deed of Trust of 1892, empowered by this Deed to “maintain public worship in accordance with the doctrines of Christian Science in said church (The Mother Church edifice in Boston), and for this purpose they are fully empowered to make any and all neessary rules and regulations.” (Manual p. 131) The Board of Directors are also empowered to transact whatever necessary business is incident to caring for the land and property of the church edifice. (Manual p. 132) This Board, however, would have no centralized control, assumed or warranted, over the affairs of the churches in the Field; and would, in no way, be looked upon as Mrs. Eddy’s successor or as an authority or guide for individuals or for the churches in the Field. (Manual p. 70)

A Board of Trustees would act in perpetuity under Mrs. Eddy’s Deed of Trust of 1898, (Manual p. 79) empowered by this Deed to “energetically and judiciously manage the bus-iffiness of The Publishing Society on a strictly Christian basis, and upon their own responsibility. They shall have direction and supervision of the publication of the 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.” (See Deed of Trust of 1898, reprinted by Paul Revere.) This Board of Trustees would, however, cooperate with the Board of Directors, but would not be under their domination and control as they wrongly are now, and have been since 1921. Mrs. Eddy doubly guarded against this error-the error of having the publishing department of her organization controlled or dominated by the Directors. This she did, first, in the words of the Deed of Trust that we have just quoted, empowering the Trustees to “manage the business of the Publishing Society...upon their own responsibility”; second, in the words on page 81 of the Manual, “Only the Publishing Society of The Mother Church selects, approves, and publishes the books and literature it sends forth.” When the demonstration over ecclesiasticism is made, and obedience to our Leader’s By-Laws and instructions has sho from the Board of Directors the centralized power that they have assumed-absolutely contrary to Mrs. Eddy’s intention, -then there would be no longer the material worldwide Mother Church such as we are all familiar with today, but there would still be the strong, united and active organization of Christian Science. Its strength would be determined not by the human sense of power that comes from a strong, centralized organization operating as does the Roman Catholic Church, but on the contrary, its strength would be determined by the spiritual ability of the members of each church to demonstrate Christian Science by healing the sick and sinning and raising the dead. This church would be comparable to the “spiritually organized church of Christ, Scientist” which resulted from the dissolution of the church in 1889. This dissolution was (to quote Mrs. Eddy’s words on page 44 of Retrospects-tion and Introspection) “immediately followed by a great revival of mutual love, prosperity, and spiritual power.” She further says on page 45 of the same book, “A new light broke in upon it, and more beautiful became the garments of her who ‘bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace’.” Would not a new light again break in upon our organization if the present worldwide Mother Church were dissolved?

To avoid ambiguity let us define the terms we have used in this pamphlet and will use in subsequent ones relating to this subject.

Material worldwide Mother Church. This is the term we use to designate that church commonly known today as “The Mother Church” with its centralized control.

The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston. This is the term we use to designate the congregation that worships in The Mother Church edifice. (See Manual p. 132) We of Paul Revere feel that the combined Christian Science churches of the world would constitute the Christian Science organization or the Movement. As the individual lobes of an orange make up what is known as the orange, in the same way would the individual churches make up the organization, but needing no more centralized control or domination of one church by another than do the lobes of the orange need any centralized orange control to make them into a good orange. The only centralized control that the orange needs is not in itself but in the Mind that forms the real orange. The only centralized control that the individual Christian Science churches need is the Mind that forms the real concept of church.

The Spiritual Universal Mother Church. This is the te we use to designate the only Mother Church that would be left when l of our Leader’s By-Laws are obeyed. Obedience to those By-Laws which require her approval or consent would terminate the present material worldwide Mother Church-the church that has a governing Board wielding a centralized control and power (including even the power of excommunication). The Mother Church that would be left would be the Spiritual Universal Mother Church which would be synonymous with the church that Mrs. Eddy defines as “The structure of Truth and Love.” (S&H 583) It does not require the filling out of an application blank to unite with this church; but it does require individual spiritualization of consciousness which will be gained by obeying the By-Laws in our “eternity-awaited Church Manual,” and also by living in obedience to the Tenets given to us by Mrs. Eddy on page 497 of Science and Health. To quote the words of our Leader; (Ibid. 35) “We can unite with this church only as we are newborn of Spirit, as we reach the life which is Truth and the Truth which is Life by bringing forth the fruits of love,-casting out error and healing the sick.”

Only as the continuity of the Material Worldwide Mother Church ceases, will there be discerned this true Spiritual Universal Mother Church, whose continuity is forever assured.




Chapter Twenty-Nine: The Fruit of Obedience

Pamphlet Number Twenty-Nine

Without doubt one of the reasons the Board of Directors, in office immediately after Mrs. Eddy’s passing, failed to obey the By-Laws in the Manual requiring her written or oral approval, was their inability to foresee the result of obedience. They were, evidently, quite unable to visualize where such obedience would lead The Mother Church and the organization, and for this reason accepted the easier course.

This course was to disobey the By-Laws. It could be justified by recourse to a mortal mind statute permitting violation to the By-Laws requiring Mrs. Eddy’s consent. The Directors acted under this statute and embarked upon a course of disobedience. Their successors in office have not deviated from it.

Considering the immediate change that would seem to follow obedience of the By-Laws it can be seen why the Directs-tors hesitated. Yet to hesitate to obey_ Mrs. Eddy’s specific instructions was to yield to the influence of animal magnetism. The pressure from mortal mind, in belief, must have been very insidious following Mrs. Eddy’s passing, for that would be the time when its enemies might expect the Cause to fail. It did not fail, but the failure of the Board of Directors to obey has placed upon succeeding generations of Christian Scientists the necessity to undo by their demonstration, the evil that seems to have come to the Cause as a result of that persistent disobedience which has continued for over thirty-five years.

The Board was placed in a difficult position because of Mrs. Eddy’s passing. If they obeyed the By-Laws literally they would be confronted with what seemed to them to be an almost impossible situation. To disobey would, in effect, amend the By-Laws,-which Mrs. Eddy has specifically forbidden. Confronted with this choice they disobeyed. The only infer-thence we can draw today is that they disobeyed because they feared the consequence of obedience.

Yet the very act of obedience begets its own recompense. Of this we have many infallible proofs throughout Bible history; and none more striking than the faith of Abraham who, “When he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith Abraham, when he was tried, oered up Isaac: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead.” It is this quality of faith in obedience which, down through the spiritual history of Israel, has encouraged and sustained each succeeding generation to cast not away its confidence, but to have patience that “after ye have done the will of God ye might receive the promise.”

When we have learned this lesson we shall hasten to obey our By-Laws. But we shall not go out upon an uncharted sea, nor into an unknown land, for Mrs. Eddy has already mapped out the way for us. June 1, 1947 Washington, D. C.

Almost every effort toward reform throughout the history of mankind has been made through organization. No great work nor worldwide movement has been carried very far without first being organized into officials, sub-officials and laymen, who devise channels of communication and influence. In churches, businesses, armies and social organizations, the premise has been accepted that no idea can be carried around the world except by material organization.

Yet over the long period of human history most every material organization has completely disappeared after a relatively short period of time. These organizations have not vanished from the scene because of the temporal character of that which mankind has attempted to organize, for innumerable organizations have been formed in a vain endeavor to safeguard even the truth itself. The constant failure, however, to perpetuate any material organization, secular or ecclesiastical, must lead to the conclusion that material organizations cannot be perpetuated. Furthermore the reason lies in the fact that they have within themselves weaknesses which lead, inevitably, to their self-destruction.

There is abundant evidence that Mrs. Eddy was well aware of this fact. Yet she, herself, formed the Mother Church with all its attendent activities, and its branch churches. She not only established this material church organization, but in the Deeds of Trust of 1892 and 1898 she provided for still another material organization of a different sort which is to carry on after the material Mother Church has ceased. Her provision for these organizations, in the face of historical precedent, might seem to present an anomolous situation were it not that she explained her position in this respect on page 45 of Retrospection and Introspection. “Despite the prosperity of my church, it was learned that material organization has its value and peril, and that organization is requisite only in the earliest periods in Christian history. After this material form of cohesion and fellowship has accomplished its end, continued organization retards spiritual growth, and should be laid o,-even as the corporal organization deemed requisite in the first stages of mortal existence is finally laid o, in order to gain spiritual freedom and supremacy.”

In the early days of the Movement Mrs. Eddy refused to form a church. Yet faced with the insistent demand of the human mind for organization she reluctantly formed her church. For this act to be consistent with her conviction expressed in the foregoing quotation, Mrs. Eddy must have formed it because the human mind had not advanced to a point where it could encompass the vision of a spiritual concept of church,-a church that could carry the truth to the world without the benet of an ecclesiastical organization. Hence to “suffer it to be so now” she established The Mother Church with its activities and branches. The unique manner in which she established The Mother Church organization, however, did not provide for its perpetuity but actually provided for its own termination. For obedience to Mrs. Eddy’s instructions would have compelled its dissolution at her passing. But at the same time providing a definite means for disseminating the Truth in a manner so divinely inspired as to reach the thought of a struggling, searching, but withal organization-minded world.

While the very thought of terminating The Mother Church may seem startling, the process is not at all involved it means simply, obeying the By-Laws, and nothing real is thereby lost. Mrs. Eddy has written many of the By-Laws so that they become inoperative without her written consent. Obviously that cannot be had now. Therefore to continue to function under these By-Laws is to disobey them-which is wrong. Such a course cannot be justified in any manner whatever.

On the other hand,-and herein is shown-Mrs. Eddy’s great wisdom-had the Board of Directors obeyed the By-Laws as they are written the Board would have been compelled immediately to turn to the Deeds of Trust of 1892 and 1898 for further guidance. Since these Deeds of Trust are provided for in the Manual there can be nothing shocking about that for they merely supplement the Manual. They provide for the continuance of “The First Church of Christ Scientist,” in Boston, Massachusetts, the “Christian Science Board of Directors,” and the Christian Science Publishing Society.

Had the organization been operated during the past thirty-five years under the Deeds of Trust, in cooperation with the Manual, we should have had all these activities, but there would have been this all important difference, the Board would have been shorn of all centralized control over

And so today, by the simple act of obedience to the By-Laws on the part of the Board of Directors, and supported by the Field, ecclesiastical control will disappear from our church government; and a great step will have been taken toward the ultimate release of all church government from the age-old fetters of despotic control that have shackled the freedom of movement in church organizations throughout history. Not only will our own church be released but we shall have set a pattern for all church governments to follow.

While, as we have pointed out, the Deeds of Trust, operated in conjunction with the Manual, would remove from the Board of Directors all centralized control, the Deeds do not in any way retard the work of spreading the Truth to the world. The Manual would assume the position Mrs. Eddy intended it should in guiding the Movement. The work for the Cause would be carrie on in enlarged measure, and with far greater effectiveness. At the same time there would be brought to pass a tremendous advance away from the material concept of organization toward a more spiritual one.

It seems clear that Mrs. Eddy did not think it wise, in so many words, to specifically order the complete throwing o of all material organization at the time of her passing. On the other hand she must have felt that as Christian Scientists study the whole matter of organization they will finally learn for themselves that to obey her By-Laws will lead to the gradual elimination of all material organization. It will be clear, at the same time, that to continue to disobey the By-Laws will breed more of the confusion and dismay that we see all around us in the Field today.

Too often in the past, the remedy sought to correct the ills of organization has been to withdraw from one organization and form another, or to destroy one and form another in its place. But the definite instructions left us by Mrs. Eddy present no such destructive process. For to obey the Manual provides for a gradual transition out of one belief of organization into an improved belief of organization-an organization that has been freed from the deadly curse of ecclesiastical despotism.

There can be no question that the principles of Christian Science lead to the emancipation of the individual from the fetters of mortal mind. Whatever organization is to be carried on can justify its existence only so long as, directly or indirectly, it forwards this purpose.

When Mrs. Eddy formed The Mother Church she reserved for herself a certain amount of control over the acts of its officers and indirectly its members. Because of her high spiritual concept, and her position as Discoverer and Founder, it was entirely fitting that she maintain this control. She did not, however, pass this control on to a successor. To leave such control with any Board of Directors would place in the hands of five persons a veto power upon the demonstration of individual Christian Scientists. Such a power would, inevitably, lead to dictatorial practices which would divert the organization from its avowed purpose of helping the individual make his own demonstration. Mrs. Eddy wrote the By-Laws in such a way, however, that obedience to her instructions will forever release the individual Christian Scientist from organizational control. Thus she has provided for an organization fully equipped to spread the truth throughout the world, but with the individual free from any restrictions upon his effort to demonstrate his highest sense of God. Such a sense of organization is unique in the history of the world. Nothing like it has ever been known. It is an organization free from ecclesiastical domination. It begins and ends with the effort to help raise the individual on the basis of the Golden Rule.

Furthermore, just as Mrs. Eddy’s higher concept of organization serves to free the individual from centralized control, in the same manner individual churches of the Movement will be made free to make their demonstrations without interference from any outside authority. At present churches are not free from dictation from the organization.

For example some years ago it was decided at Boston to prohibit from joining The Mother Church anyone who had not demonstrated over the smoking habit. There is no By-Law in the Manual authorizing such procedure. But because of the stand taken by Boston it is assumed throughout the Field that it amounts to disloyalty for a branch church to admit into membership those who smoke,-even though they might have been admitted with the expectancy of their being healed. But let a church admit into its membership those who smoke, in an endeavor to heal them, and the weight of organization will be brought to bear to put that church into disrepute. The opposition from the organization is, obviously, not on the basis that the church tries to heal smokers, but that it heals them in a way not prescribed at Boston. This policy seems to be more concerned with preserving the so-called sanctity of organization than healing the individual. This condemnation from the organization arises from the same in-uence of animal magnetism that made the Pharisees condemn Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were not concerned with the momentous fact that Jesus healed the sick, but they were mightily concerned with the fact that his healing work challenged their official positions.

The placing of arbitrary restrictions of this sort upon the membership is all part of an authoritarian process which has eventuated in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the officials at Boston. Once Mrs. Eddy’s By-Laws have been obeyed, however, such central control and official judging of the spiritual altitude of members will be eliminated. Since there would be no longer any regulation concerning those who smoke, there would be no stigma attached to a church which, in an effort to heal those who smoke, admits them to membership. There could be no sanctions placed upon any church by Boston. It would be no concern of one church what method another church took to heal those who smoke, for once the By-Laws have been obeyed each church will be democratic in its government so far as it is related to any other church or to Boston. Through obedience each church will be free to work out its own destiny according to its individual demonstration not according to a pattern designed by those at Boston, wh^ five laid down rules and regulations which Mrs. Eddy never prescribed. Until the Field is awakened, however, to insist that the By-Laws in the Manual be obeyed, the Cause will proceed no faster and go no further than the limits of the vision of those at Boston permit.

But what will be the effect of obedience? It may seem upon first consideration that much we have long held dear will suddenly be taken from us with nothing to replace it. The change seems drastic. For if the By-Laws are to be literally obeyed, under the very first one in the Manual there cannot be a complete ll of officers. Under the second By-Law there can be no President. Under the third there can be no Clerk, Treasurer, or Editor and Manager of the Christian Science Publishing Society, and no manager of the general Committee on Publication in Boston. Under the fourth By-Law there can be no Readers, and under the fifth there can be no Board of Directors. What then will become of The Mother Church? Will it disappear?

To answer, let us repeat that we are here concerned with obedience. We urge nothing except to obey Mrs. Eddy’s instructions in the Manual, knowing that by obedience nothing shall be lost. It is true that to obey the first five By-Laws in the Manual will cause The Mother Church, with a Board of Directors exercising centralized control over the Movement, to cease. There will no longer be a material “Mother Church.” But as provided in the Deed of Trust, p. 132 of the Manual, there will be “The First Church of Christ, Scientist” in Boston, Massachusetts. There will be services identical with those now being held, and they will carry on in the same Mother Church edifice now used. There will be Readers, a Board of Directors, and such other officers as may be necessary to “maintain public worship in accordance with the doctrines of Christian Science in said church.” (Manual p. 131) There will be the Christian Science Publishing Society functioning under the Deed of Trust of 1898. (Manual p. 79) There will be the Monitor, Journal, Sentinel, Quarterlies and such other publishing activities as are now carried on. There are other changes, to be sure, but whatever they may be or wherever they may lead the very first duty of every Christian Scientist is to obey.

Those who rely upon human reason alone to guide their progress, are fearful to undertake the first step until the ultimate effect of every step to be taken has been clearly discerned. It seems essential to this quality of thought that every road and bypass that is to be traversed, must be explored- before the.i ourey can begini Very little· is left to the divine Mind to illumine the path as the journey proceeds. This, however, is not the spiritually-minded Christian Scien-theist’s way. He has innumerable examples to prove that when he has seen the first step, his duty is to obey. Failure to obey God’s direction because the ultimate goal cannot be seen is contrary to everything in Mrs. Eddy’s teaching. The By-Laws came to Mrs. Eddy as an inspiration from God. It is our duty to obey them, knowing that nothing but good can come to us when we obey God’s voice.

Mrs. Eddy has made it easy for us to obey. She left specific instructions in the Manual and in the Deeds of Trust that clearly outline the steps to be taken. We are not called upon to go out into an unknown land without chart or compass, we have been told what to do. These instructions mark a change, but this change will not result in the destruction of our organization but will result in an improved belief of organist- zation. This improved belief will mark a milestone in the history of the world. By the simple act of obeying the Manual we shall have established an organization set aside for the service of the church and the Cause, but free from any central control over the speech and acts of church members. Think of the tremendous importance of such a step! In our textbook Mrs. Eddy has pointed the way leading to the emancipation of every individual from all worldly beliefs. She has left an organization designed to carry the textbook, and other Christian Science literature, to every part of the world. But within that organization lies no authority, actual or implied, to impede or interfere with the freedom of thought or action of any student of Christian Science, whoever or wherever he may be.

Having provided the individual with his “chart and compass” the duty of the organization that Mrs. Eddy left ceases so far as the individual is concerned. He is free to steer his course spiritward as rapidly as his spiritual perception will permit. He can have no prohibitions nor restrictions from the organization to hold him back. When he needs help he can expect to get it as he does now, from a practitioner or another Christian Scientist. “The rich in spirit help the poor in one grand brotherhood, all having the same Principle, or Father; and blessed is that man who seeth his brother’s need and supplieth it, seeking his own and another’s good.” (S&H p. 518). The spiritual thought that one employs to heal, is always in proportion to his understanding of divine Principle; but it will not be necessary for the healer to be “authorized” by anybody. He can refute “all opponents by his healing work.” He will not need to declare his loyalty to any person or group of persons. His loyalty will be expressed in the best possible way,-by his devotion to the principles of Christian Science.

Under the Manual there can be no Board of Education and no teacher in the Metaphysical College, for under Article 28, Section 2, “The teacher (of the Board of Education) shall be elected every third year by said Board, and the candidate shall be subject to the approval of the Pastor Emeritus.” The Board of Directors does not have the right to elect a teacher without Mrs. Eddy’s consent. Their assumption of that right in disobedience to the By-Laws has placed i the hands of the Board the prerogative of sending into the Field teachers who have been indoctrinated with the views of the Board. Teachers and their students exert a great influence upon the thought of the Field, and through them practically the whole Field can be inculcated with the prevailing official point of view.

If this Manual provision for the Board of Education had been obeyed at the time of Mrs. Eddy’s passing, and subsets-quent thereto, this source of indoctrination would never have existed. Had the Directors obeyed the Manual and functioned under the Deed of Trust they would never have had control over those who teach. Therefore obedience would immediately remove that potentially dangerous channel of influence.

Undoubtedly the reason the Board, at Mrs. Eddy’s passing did not obey the Manual was fear of the consequences that would follow such obedience. The reason the Board of Directors today does not obey the Manual must also be fear. Ask any member of the Board of Directors today if he thinks Christian Scientists should obey the Manual and he would of course say “Yes.” If he did not so reply he is not qualified to be at the head of the Movement. Therefore the only reason he would counsel others to obey the By-Laws and does not obey them himself must be fear,-fear that to obey Mrs. Eddy’s instructions will bring evil to the Cause.

Evil will not come upon the Cause if we obey. Therefore let us overcome the fear of the consequence of obedience. Let us cease to waive any By-Law requiring Mrs. Eddy’s consent. This determination, on the part of the Field, that the By-Laws must be obeyed because obedience to Truth is a law of God, will so support the Board of Directors that they will no longer fear to take the steps so clearly outlined. Let us suppose, for example, that nine out of every ten Christian Scientists in the Field should see this so clearly that in their support of the Cause they would write to the Board of Directors something like this, “Do not be afraid! Go ahead! Obey every By-Law. Stop waiving those requiring Mrs. Eddy’s consent. We will support you in this stand.” What do you think would be the effect? We think the Board would lose all fear of fancied evil consequences, and take immediate steps to follow where Mrs. Eddy leads.

In the thirteenth Chapter of Numbers it is related that at the very beginning of the wandering of the Children of Israel, after they had left Egypt, twelve spies were sent into the p^omised land to “see the land,” and “the people that dwelleth therein.” Ten of the spies returned with a report of great walled cities, and of a land inhabited by giants “and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” Caleb and Joshua alone · among the twelve declared, “Let us go up at once and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.”

But the people rejected the truth told them by Caleb and Joshua, they believed the land was inhabited by giants, and were afraid. Because they disobeyed and failed to accept the truth,. they were sentenced to wander forty years in the wilderness, when, all the time, the promised land was right at hand.

Christian Scientists are beginning to see that our beloved Movement, because of disobedience to our inspired Leader, has also been wandering in the wilderness of confusion and doubt for nearly forty years. Let us not continue this disobedience but, by our obedience, retr^ce our steps and enter the promised land. There are no giants there. There are no obstacles that obedience will not remove. Let us not accept any longer the premise that because of a mortal mind legal technicality the By-Laws cannot be obeyed. Let.us hasten to obey them at once. And “Step by step will those who trust Him nd that ‘God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble’.” (S & H p. 444).




Chapter Thirty: Reversing the Reversal

Pamphlet Number Thirty

Over a period of nearly four years, we of Paul Revere have published twenty-nine pamphlets, in which, among other things, we have discussed at length the claim of animal magnetism appearing as ecclesiasticism-with all its attendant evils. It may seem to some of our readers that we have been attributing to this form of error some inherent power or entity,-that we believe it exists as a creation apart from God, and that its power, as evil, is real. This would indicate a belief, on our part, in two creations, or a belief that God is not the only power, the only source, cause, or creator. Whereas, th.e fact is that we unreservedly accept the teaching of Christian Science that there is only one creation and that God is the only power, the only source, the only cause, and the only creator. However, it is difficult for anyone to uncover and discuss any phase of evil, without making it appear that he is uncovering it as something, rather than as nothing-as. an illusion or as a truth seen in reverse.

Our beloved Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, taught Christian Science to her first student in 1867and to her first class in 1870. Into her last class-held in 1898, she gathered students -seventy in number-from all over the nation, and the subject she taught in this class was Love. A member of the class asked, “Is there to be no discrimination made between good and evil?” Mrs.Eddy answered in part: “Ah, you have asked me that which is the hardest thing in Christian Science. Evil must be seen and denounced............... Wisdom as well as love is necessary.” (Tomlinson’s Twelve Years with Mrs. Eddy, page 91.) “Expose and Denounce the Claims of Evil”

Science and Health, our textbook is explicit on this subject of seeing and denouncing evil. “Expose and denounce the claims of evil and disease in all their forms, but realize no reality in them.................. To put down the claim of sin, you must detect it, remove the mask, point out the illusion, and thus get the victory over sin and so prove its unreality.” (page 447) “You uncover sin, not in order to injure, but in order to bless the corporeal man; and a right motive has its reward. Hidden sin is spiritual wickedness in high places. The masquerader in this Science thanks God that there is no evil, yet 1erves evil in the name of good.” (page 453) “Many are w;filling to open the eyes of the people to the power of good esident in divine Mind, but they are not so willing to point out the evil in human thought and expose evil’s hidden mental ways of accomplishing iniquity.

“Why this backwardness, since exposure is necessary to insure the avoidance of evil?...It requires the spirit of our blessed Master to tell a man his faults, and so risk human displeasure for the sake of doing right and benefiting our race. Who is telling mankind of the foe in ambush? Is the informer one who sees the foe? If so, listen and be wise. Escape from evil and designate those as unfaithful stewards who have seen the danger and yet have given no warning.” (pages 570-71.)

In this thirtieth Paul Revere pamphlet, therefore, before we enter into a discussion of Mrs. Eddy’s plan of church government, we should like to clear up, if possible, any misapprehension our readers may have derived from what we have written in our previous pamphlets in our e orts to uncover and denounce the claim of ecclesiasticism. ‘’The Reverse Error Is True?’

Mrs. Eddy says on page 442 of Science and Health “. truth cannot be reversed, but the reverse of error is true.” Consequently, as an ecclesiastical form of church government is animal magnetism’s attempted reversal of true church government, the reverse of this attempted reversal is the true form of church government. Our Leader also says, ibid 267, “... by reversal, errors serve as waymarks to the one Mind, in which all error disappears in celestial Truth.” Therefore, any error, when reversed or translated back into Mind-and everything in the so-called material universe must be translated back into Mind-indicates or serves as a “waymark “ to this one Mind. Anything that claims to exist apart from this Mind must be a false concept or a misstatement of Mind.

In Miscellaneous Writings, page 57, our Leader writes, “By the law of opposites, after the truth of man had been demonstrated, the postulate of error must appear.” An old story has been told which carries with it a great metaphysical fact. It is said that once upon a time someone, in talking to the devil, asked him how he could have created such a dreadful, material universe-so full of sin, sickness, hate, war, and evil of every sort. The devil replied, “Nonsense! I didn’t create anything. I didn’t have to. I just told a lie about everything God created.” However, this lie of the devil has its great use as Mrs. Eddy frequently points out. In Unity of Good, page 36, Mrs. Eddy writes, “The use of a lie is that it unwittingly conrms Truth, when handled by Christian Science, which reverses false testimony and gains a knowledge of God from opposite facts, or phenomena.” In the same book, on page 53, she writes, “Now a lie takes its pattern from Truth, by reversing Truth. So evil and all its forms are inverted good.”

The Truth Always Precedes the Lie

In order to have a lie, there must first be a fact about which to lie. Consequently, the fact precedes the lie. Howeve, animal magnetism attempts to substitute the lie for the truth-in other words, to reverse the truth. This being the case, should not Cnristian Scientists, at all times and under all circumstances, reverse this attempted reversal?

A lie, in and of itself, has not one iota of power. It has to be believed by someone in order that it may even seem to have power. Malicious animal magnetism, claiming to operate as aggressive mental suggestion, pours its lies into the thought of anyone that will accept them. This acceptance endows these lies with the semblance of power which they, of themselves, do not possess, and provides a channel through which evil may appear to operate. Therefore, the more people who can be mesmerized into believing these lies, the more powerful the error claims to be. However, all of error’s claims are in belief only, and as we understand the falsity of these beliefs, we are not deceived by them. Mrs. Eddy says further, “A knowledge of error and its operations must precede that understanding of Truth which destroys error,... “ (S&H p.252).And in Retrospection and Introspection, page 64, “It is scientific to abide in conscious harmony, in health-giving, deathless Truth and Love. To do this mortals must first open their eyes to all the illusive forms, methods, and subtlety of error, in order that the illusion, error, may be destroyed; if this is not done, mortals will become the victims of error.”

If, as Christian Science teaches, erro in all its forms is simply a misapprehension of Truth, then all that really exists is the truth expressed as fact, though oftentimes seen in reverse-as a negative interpretation of what the fact is. When we understand this, we no longer view error as an entity, nor do we attempt to destroy it as such. We simply reverse the reversal, or the negative appearance, and so arrive at the truth. e Reverse of Ecclesiasticism Is Te Church Govement

To apply this reasoning to the claim of ecclesiasticism, about which we have written so much, we wish to say that we are not d2foaling,with it at all as an entity, but simply as a lie, or a truth seen negatively. Consequently, as ecclesiasticism is sp, cically a lie about true church government, is it not incumbent upon all of us as genuine Christian Scientists to reverse this lie and thus arrive at the truth about which it is the lie. Furthermore, must we not reverse and so handle this belief of malicious animal magnetism that it can no longer claim to mesmerize those in authority in Boston-as well as the Christian Science Field-into accepting this lie that ecclesiasticism is true church govement.

Thus in obedience to the clear teachings of our Leader with regard to exposing error, we of Paul Revere have been attempting to uncover the claim of ecclesiasticism which we believe is responsible for the ignoring of Mrs. Eddy’s express proyisions in the Manual but not to uncover this claim of error in order to injure, but to awaken us all to its unreality.

The Only True Govement Is Government by Dine Mind

The foregoing leads us to the point where it may be asked, If ecclesiasticism has no real existence, but is simply the negative interpretation or counterfeit of true church government, -then what is the truth about which this counterfeit is the lie? In other words, by reversing this lie, what “priceless verities” do we nd “just at hand”? As Christian Scientists, we know that man is rightly governed only when he is “governed by his Maker, divine Truth and Love.” (S&H, p. 106)

It is well known that, in the beginning, Mrs. Eddy did not expect to organize a church. However, she finally was led to do it as a “concession to the period,” as a “suer it to be so now.” (Misc., page 91.) Can any Christian Scientist doubt for one moment that, in so doing, our Leader, under God’s sure guidance, gave us the highest form of human church govern-foment that could function, not only while she was here to “Mother” it but the highest and best form of church gove-foment that would promote the growth of her Cause after her passing?

A careful study of the Manual, the Church Deed of Trust of 1892 (Manual, page 128) with its amendment of 1903, (Manual, page 136) and the Publishing Society Deed of Trust of 1898, together with all the steps that Mrs. Eddy took in connection with her church organization from its very inception, shows one consistent whole-one “seamless robe.” Furthermore such a study should make absolutely clear to every Christian Scientist why, in the Manual, Mrs. Eddy provided for the discontinuance of her own Mother Church government after her passing; and why she authorized another plan of govement to function in the place of the one that she had used to establish Christian Science under her own personal control and direction. We of Paul Revere are convinced that the Christian Science Movement should acquaint itself with these facts in order truly to evaluate the situation as it claims to be today; then to decide whether the Christian Science church is at present being governed by ecclesiasticism’s so-called form of church government or by Mrs. Eddy’s plan of true church government.

The ecclesiastical form of church government is, of course, the reversal of Mrs. Eddy’s plan of true church govern-foment. What, then, are the facts regarding Mrs. Eddy’s plan of government for the Christian Science Movement that ecclesiasticism has, for the time being, succeeded in reversing?

Ecclesiasticism has, in effect, reversed the Manual by disobedience to the By-Laws relative to the functioning of The Mother Church, especially in its relation to the Field and to the branch churches.

According to the Manual, neither the Directors nor any one else is permitted to amend or annul the By-Laws. For on page 105 Mrs. Eddy has left the following specific injunction as the final By-Law: “No new Tenet or By-Law shall be adopted, nor any Tenet or By-Law amended or annulled, without the written consent of Mary Baker Eddy, the author of our text book, Science and Health.”

However, although the By-Laws have not been directly amended or annulled, official Boston, through misinterpretation of Mrs. Eddy’s instructions,-and the Field through accepting this misinterpretation-have, in effect, abandoned the By-Laws. Indeed, this abandoning is exactly the method used by ecclesiasticism to reverse the plan of church govement so divinely established by our Leader. In other words, true church government has been reversed by abandoning the instructions left by Mrs. Eddy which, if followed, would have completely dissolved, at the time of her passing, the material Mother Church organization-the organization which (as we explain later) she established, directed, and controlled for the purpose of completing her task of founding Christian Science. To accomplish this complete dissolving, our Leader used the same estoppel phrase, in substance, that she used to prohibit any altering whatsoever of her written text in the Manual. That phrase is “without the written consent (or approval) of Mary Baker Eddy (or the Pastor Emeritus).” In the Manual, Mrs. Eddy attaches this at requirement, or it substance, to the election or appointment of every officer, as well as to every function and every activity of her Mother Church, in precisely the same manner that she attaches this requirement to any direct altering of the Manual text itself.

Furthermore, the Manual has, in e ect, been reversed by abandoning several of its major provisions that were designed to completely protect the Churches of Christ, Scientist from all outside interference; in other words, from the slightest attempt to control the demonstration of the individual Churches of Christ, Scientist. The Manual establishes each Christian Science church as a law unto itself in its acceptance of the Bible, Science and Health, and our Leader’s other writings, as the sole basis for its completely self-governed and absolutely unfettered practice of Christian Science.

Undoubtedly Mrs. Eddy foresaw that evil in the form of ecclesiasticism would, by this very method of abandoning the By-Laws, attempt to nullify the government and organization that she had founded; for in February, 1903, Mrs. Eddy wrote the Directors the now-famous “Never abandon” letter.

The original of this letter is reproduced in Powell’s “Mary Baker Eddy” between pages 204 and 205. Mrs. Eddy first wrote: “Never change the By-Laws...” Afterward, she crossed out the word “change” and wrote above it the word “abandon”: “Never abandon the By-Laws nor the denominational govement of The Mother Church.” Again, it is probable that Mrs. Eddy so clearly foresaw malicious animal magnetism’s attack through “abandoning” the By-Laws that she added a stscript to this letter in order to emphasize its importance: “N. B. I request that you put this letter upon our church records. M.B.E.”

In the Powell biography this letter was given the title “NEVER ABANDON THE BY-LAWS”; yet to “abandon “ the By-Laws, is exactly what this lie of ecclesiasticism seems to have led the Directors to do, and the Christian Science Move-foment to acquiesce in. In this· letter, Mrs. Eddy stresses her great plea: “If I am not personally with you, the word of God, and my instructions in the By-Laws have led you hitherto and will remain to guide you safely on... The present and future prosperity of the Cause of Christian Science is largely due to the By-Laws and the government of ‘The First Church of Christ, Scientist’ in Boston...Each of these By-Laws has met and mastered or forestalled some contingency, some imminent peril, and will continue to do so.”

The moment the Christian Science Movement stops doing the things Mrs. Eddy warned us against doing and begged us not to do-in other words, when we stop “abandoning” the By-Laws and start obeying every one of them just as Mrs.Eddy left them for our guidance and government, then,· this obedi-thence will instantly destroy this more than “imminent peril” of ecclesiasticism, and without question will restore and preserve “the sweet unity of this,church”!

Specific Reverss

Here, then, are the specific reversals of Mrs. Eddy’s true church government that are the direct result of ecclesiasticism’s abandoning of numerous By-Laws in the Manual:

Ecclesiasticism has reversed the relationship that Mrs. Eddy authorized between the Churches of Christ, Scientist on the one.hand, and her two charitable Deeds of Trust on the other hand (the 1892 Church Deed of Trust to the Directors and the 1898 Publishing Society Deed of Trust to the Trustees). The organization, functioning under this reversed relationship, has completely reversed Mrs.Eddy’s divinely directed plan, and has assumed the power to dominate and to bind, instead of to serve, the free, self-governing Churches of Christ, Scientist.

The one basis required by the Manual in order to become a member of the Christian Science organization is to be a believer “in the doctrines of Christian Science” and to accept the teachings of the Bible, Science and Health, and Mrs. Eddy’s other writings. (Manual, page 34.) Ecclesiasticism has reversed these simple requirements by demanding, in addition to what Mrs. Eddy authorizes, that the Christian Scien^ theist accept its claim that the Directors are the supreme authority and governing power in Christian Science both of the churches and individual Christian Scientists; that the Board is the sole an^ final interpreter of Christin Science, with author. ity to decide what Christian Scientists shall read, say, think, buy, sell or circulate, and what they shall teach or practice as Christian Science!

This lie of ecclesiasticism has reversed the relation Mrs. Eddy established between her two public, charitable trusts. From its very inception in 1883, Mrs. Eddy always kept the Christian Science Publishing Society absolutely apart from her church organization. In 1898, she did not put the Publishing S0-ciety and its Trustees under the Directors and her 1892 church Deed; but in a similar but wholly separate “perpetual and irrevocable” Deed, she made the sacred bond of these Trustees to her personally, not to the Directors. The great trial in 1919 was instigated by the Director’s demand that the Trustees accept the Director’s ecclesiastical claim of supreme authority over them, instead of accepting the sacred bond of this Trust Deed with Mrs. Eddy. Our Leader, in these two public, charitable Trusts, clearly left two separate, independent Boards, each to demonstrate God’s supreme authority in the true government in Christian Science. This lie of ecclesiasticism has reversed the cooperative functioning of these two Deeds and in so doing, has made the Trustees wholly subservient to the Directors.

Ecclesiasticism has reversed the Manual from its status of spiritual guide back into the “grasp of legal power.” (Misc., page 140) Within a week after Mrs. Eddy’s passing in 1910, the Directors announced to the public that they could carry The Mother Church government right on. This. decision was based on the fact that their lawyers had advised them that, according to law, a condition in a contract that can not be fulfilled may be waived. Since the Directors could not get Mrs. Eddy’s consent, as required in many of the By-Laws, they contended that they were legally justified in waiving them. Thus at the outset, the Directors put the Manual into the grasp of legal interpretation. Nine years later in the great trial, the Directors argued to the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the Manual modified and changed the 1898 Publishing Society Deed of Trust. Naturally this Court could judge only from its own basis of law and not from the basis of Christian Science. The Christian Science Field at that time supported the Directs-tors in the effort to gain a decision by which the Court would rule legally on the Manual, which meant, of course, to justify the Directors “legal” waiving all of Mrs. Eddy’s divinely inspired estoppels in the Manual. The lie of ecclesiasticism is solely responsible for the Manual now being under legal interpretation, which is the direct reversal of spiritual interprets-tation.

Ecclesiasticism has reversed the principles and teaching of Christian Science^both in the Manual and all of Mrs. Eddy’s other works-on such vital subjects as supreme authority, governing authority, interpreter, law, obedience, discipline, and similar basic subjects in Christian Science practice.

However, the fog of this malicious animal magnetism can certainly be largely dispelled as Christian Scientists come to see how all of Mrs. Eddy’s forty-five years of founding Christian Science constitute one unified whole, leading to, and in complete unity with, her final plan of church government.

In her founding work, Mrs. Eddy had two main periods of organization, and in this pamphlet, we of Paul Revere propose to survey briefly these two main periods. We do this because we are confident that the facts regarding these two organiza-tio.n periods will help everyone to understand better ourLead-er’s instructions in the Manual.

Mrs. Eddy’s Periods of Organization

Our Leader’s first period of organization was from 1876 to 1890; her second period was from 1892 to 1910. Mrs. Eddy’s purpose in the first period was the launching of her local, absolutely free churches. Her purpose in her second period was to bring these churches-in the unfettered, individual practice of Christian Science-to full world founding and world accept-fiance.

In her first period, Mrs. Eddy-unquestionably under divine guidance-was led to use one set of steps to launch her churches. In her second period, she was led to use other steps to bring these churches to full world founding. When the Christian Science Movement understands the wholeness and oneness of Mrs. Eddy’s institutional development from 1876 to 1910, the reason will be clear why-when she completed her full founding in 1910-she left instructions for still a third Rtep which provides for carrying on her organization after her passing, for “the purpose of more effectively promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science” as taught by her.

Mrs. Eddy’s First Period Oanization

In her fst period, Mrs. Eddy used four institutions, each unfolding in logical sequence to the final accomplishment of launching the local churches of Christ, Scientist. These four institutions were as follows: First, the Christian Scientist Association, comsed of her own students; second, the Boston Church of Christ (Scientist); third, the Massachusetts Metaphysical College; fourth, the National Christian Scientist Assort-ciation.

In 1876, Mrs. Eddy formed the first Christian Scientist Association by gathering six of her immediate followers in orderly meetings for the purpose of instructing them in the steadily unfolding truths of Christian Science. This was her first major step in organization, and the first of the various means that she used, from time to time, to fulfill her divinely appointed task of establishing Christian Science.

By 1879, Mrs. Eddy’s following had grown sufficiently fot her to take her second major step in organization. This was done at a meeting of the Christian Scientist Association in the spring of that year, when, on a motion of Mrs. Eddy, it was voted to organize a church to be called “Church of Christ (Scientist).” “The charter for the Church was obtained in June, 1879, and the same month the members, twenty-six in number, extended a call to Mary Baker Eddy to become their pastor.” (Manual, page 18) Mrs. Eddy makes it clear that she did not organize her church until she had fully demonstrated that the Christian churches would not accept Science and Health and Christian Science. This second step in organization enabled Mrs. Eddy to reach increasingly large audiences. With the founding of her Boston Church of Christ (Scientist), our Leader began her great ten years of labor for the Cause in Boston.

In 1882, she opened her Massachusetts Metaphysical Col-legend, and, by the time of its closing in 1889, she had taught over four thousand students. This third step in organization was of vast importance in preparing Christian Scientists for the launching of the individual churches as well as for the individual practice of Christian Science. However, one further step was necessary before this launching could be achieved. The Field consciousness had to be brought into orderly cooperation before the great step of organizing the local, absolutely free churches could be taken.

Consequently, in 1886, our Leader took her fourth institutional step by having the Field organize, under her Presidency and direction, the National Christian Scientist Association, which, in contrast to the Association of her own students, included the pupils of the teachers in the Field-in short, it was the Field’s Association. The primary purpose of this fourth institutional step in her first period of organization, was to get the Field into that spiritual state of consciousness, necessary for the ultimate of all of her four steps-namely, the launching of Christendom’s most unique institution, the free, unfettered Churches of Christ, Scientist, having no creed or rites, but based only on the full acceptance of the teachings of the Bible, Science and Health, and Mrs. Eddy’s other writings.

By the time our Leader had organized the National Christian Scientist Association in 1886, Christian Science had become the “Boston craze” and “the talk of drawing rooms.” In the very same year, the first local church was formed in Oconto, Wisconsin. By the year 1889, Mrs. Eddy had also thoroughly established Christian Science in Chicago and New York. Thus it was that twenty-three years after her discovery of Christian Science and after ten year^ of intensive leadership in Boston, Mrs. Eddy had established Christian Science with a real following.

With this purpose accomplished, she saw that the time had come to conclude her “official” personal leadership, to dissolve her four central organizations, and to turn the thought of the Field to the wider founding of the Churches of Christ, Scien-theist. Thus, at the annual meeting of the National Christian Scientist Association in June 1889, Mrs. Eddy issued a call for all Christian Scientists to direct their thought to the forming of the local churches. The following is an excerpt from her letter to the Association:. “To my beloved students:-I earnestly recommend that you appoint a committee to look after church work and organization. Give it free discussion. The churches should be organized under the title of ‘Churches of Christ, (Scientist).’ They should have an independent form of government, subject only to the moral and spiritual perceptions, and the rules laid down in Matthew 18: 15, 16, 17. “

Here was the fruition of Mrs. Eddy’s four institutional steps in her first period-the one end for which each and all were aimed. In September, 1888, she had resigned as President and member of the Christian Scientist Association of her own students, and in May, 1889, sent her final resignation as Pastor of the Boston Church. Now, as a step toward concluding her official connection with her organizations, Mrs. Eddy-at the same time that she wrote the above letter to the National Christian Scientist Association-resigned as its President and member. These acts of resigning by Mrs. Eddy were not at all what -to the human sense-resigning usually means. Mrs. Eddy was not withdrawing from a single one of these posts spiritually. As the record shows, she went right on with them spiritually, and, because of this wholly spiritual basis, more effectively than ever before.· What Mrs. Eddy did in these re: signings was to “dissolve” her humanly organized or material status in each position; to replace it with a status resting wholly on a voluntary association in the bond of divine Love. The record shows conclusively that Mrs. Eddy’s leadership was more powerful and far-reaching after she had transplanted the material sense of her position into its spiritual reality than it had been before. In the same way that she dissolved her official position with each of her institutions for a higher and more spiritual sense, she also dissolved her four organizations from their material status into the real bond in Christian Science-the “Voluntary Association of Christians, knowing no law but the law of Love.”

In September, 1889, Mrs. Eddy dissolved her first organization-the Christian Scientist Association of her own students, from which she had resigned the year before. She did this because-to quote her own words-”it is more in accord with Christian Science for you to unite on the basis of Love and meet together in the bonds of affection, from unselfish motives and the purpose to benet each other, and honor the Cause. Therefore I strongly recommend this method alone, of continuing without organization, the meeting together.”

In October, 1889, as fully recorded in Retrospection and Introspection, pages 48-49, Mrs. Eddy dissolved the Massachusetts Metaphysical College for reasons that she makes explicit and clear. She says, “the fundamental principle for growth in Christian Science is spiritual formation first, last, d always, while in human growth material organization is first;... mortals must learn to lose their estimate of the powers that are not ordained of God...”

In November, 1889, Mrs. Eddy wrote to her Boston church: “So I admonish this Church after ten years of sad experience in material bonds to cast them o and cast her net on the spiritual side of Christianity. To drop all material rules whereby to regulate Christ, Christianity, and adopt alone the golden rule for unification, progress, and a better example as the Mother Church.” In carrying out Mrs. Eddy’s recommendation to dissolve, the church met on December 2nd, 1889, and fully obeyed Mrs. Eddy’s spiritual direction for organization. The following resolution was adopted: “The members of this Church hereby declare that this action is taken in order to realize more perfectly the purposes of its institution as an organization viz. growth in spiritual life and the spread of the ‘glad tidings’-and that they will continue as a Voluntary Association of Christians knowing no law but the law of Love, and no Master but Christ in the exercise of all the ministrations and activities,” but rather it went right ahead on a more spiritual basis. In fact, Mrs. Eddy says, in speaking of the dissolution of the church: “This measure was immediately followed by a great revival of mutual love, prosperity, and spiritual power.” (Refit.p.44.)

Mrs. Eddy did not dissolve the National Christian Scientist Association until May, 1890. At the time of its dissolution, this organization voted: “We, the students in the United States and elsewhere, who use the Bible, and Science & Health, given through Rev. Mary B. G. Eddy, as our sole textbooks in the ministrations, teachings, and promulgation of Christian Science, and employ and accept no designation but that of Christian Scientists, hereby resolve ourselves into a Voluntary Assembly of Christians... The members of the Assembly understand the letter of their Teacher, and their present action, not as tending toward disintegration, but to the contrary, as footsteps in the way to the real union-that in the consciousness of divine Principle. They adopt, for the government of their relations, instead of the observances of men, these words of the Master, ‘This is my commandment that ye be loving one to another according as I loved you’...”

Thus in 1890, Mrs. Eddy ended the fourteen years of the first period of her unfolding plan of church government, with the dissolution of her fourth and final institution, and with the launching of the local churches.

We of Paul Revere earnestly ask our readers to ponder the deep significance of this historic fact in Mrs. Eddy’s founding, namely, that, as she set Christian Scientists to organizing their own free, self-governed, local churches, she removed every vestige of organized, central authority and control, and set up a spiritual ideal of true church government, as opposed to the material or ecclesiastical form of church government. “The Spiritually Organized urch of Christ, Scientist, Still Goes On.”

Between Mrs. Eddy’s first and second periods of organization, there was a period of a little over two years when there was no materially organized Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, but this period was-as has already been quoted-at-tended by “a great revival of mutual love, prosperity, and spiritual power.” Think of it! No material organization, no Boston church membership, no centralized control, yet the church, as a “Voluntary Association of Christians,” continued right on with “a great revival of mutual love, prosperity, and spiritual power”! If the present material Mother Church were dissolved in accordance with the estoppels in the Manual, would not the effect undoubtedly be identical with that which followed the dissolution of Mrs. Eddy’s first organization in 1889, when it was freed from its material bonds but continued right on as a “Voluntary Association of Christians, knowing no law but the law of Love”? And because the true sense of organization is in exact accord with the Principle of Christian Science, where all are wholly governed by God alone, would not the reinstatement of Mrs. Eddy’s true plan of church govern-foment inevitably be followed by the same spiritual rebirth and progress that was so apparent after the dissolution of her church in 1889?

In speaking of this period which immediately followed the dissolution of the church in December, 1889, our Leader fur-anther.says: “The history of that hour holds this true record. Adding to its ranks and influence, this spiritually organized Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, still goes on. A new light broke in upon it, and more beautiful became the gar-foments of her who ‘bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace’.” (Refit. p. 44) Think of it, dear reader, no material organization, and yet Mrs. Eddy speaks of it as the “spiritually organized Church of Christ, Scientist,” which she says “still goes on”! Surely the animus which inspired this “spiritually organized Church” does still go on, and it will surely come to light when the trappings of ecclesiasticism-”the cha of error”-have been dissolved “with the fervent heat of Truth and Love.” (S&H, p. 565.)

Mrs. Eddy’s Second Period of Organization

Its One PurposeCompleting the World Founding of the Churches and of Christian Science.

Mrs. Eddy began her second main period of organization in 1892. It continued until her passing in 1910. The records indi-hecate that Mrs. Eddy’s purpose throughout this period was not to build a permanent, centralized control in Boston; but, from Boston, to found, throughout the world, the free, unfettered, individual practice of Christian Science. To accomplish this purpose, Mrs. Eddy used three institutions. Each was in line with, and a direct outgrowth of, the institutional steps of her first period.

Two of these institutions, the public charitable Deeds of Trust-the church Directors’ Deed of 1892, and the Publishing Society Trustees’ Deed of 1898-were indispensable to Mrs. Eddy in this final period of her founding. Not only were they indispensable in order to complete her forming of true church government, but it is apparent that their further purpose was to enable the organization to carry on after our Leader’s passing, when it could no longer function under her personal directs-tion and control.

The third institution-the first and second being the Deeds of Trust referred to above-was her Mother Church, established (reorganized) in September, 1892. Until Mrs. Eddy concluded her founding in 1910, this institution-in practice-embraced the other two, as all were uner her direct guidance and control.

Reorganization of the Church

Nearly a year before Mrs. Eddy reorganized her church, she wrote prophetically in her. first edition of Retrospection and Introspection-published in November, 1891: “This church may nd it wisdom to organize a second time for the completion of its history. This, however, is left to the providence of God.” Note that in this prophecy, she says that if she rector-ganizes her church, the purpose will be for “the completion of its history.” Thus she waited, “sta in hand” (Misc., page 158) for God to show her whether or not it would be wisdom “to organize a second time.” God leads forward and not backward, and so, when the word came, our Leader went forward and reorganized her church on September 23, 1892. Although Mrs. Eddy reorganized The Mother Church as a means of completing her church history and to make the practice of Christian Science available to the whole world, yet when this church, under her God-directed “Mothering,” had served its purpose, she, through the estoppel clauses in the Manual, authorized its dissolution to take place after her passing. That does not mean that she authorized the dissolution of the organization or of the local (or branch) churches, but only of the centrally controlled Mother Church in Boston.

The dilemma that presented itself in 1910, at the time of Mrs. Eddy’s passing, was the inability on the part of the Directors to see the way to obey the estoppel clauses in the Manual, and, at the same time, to carry on the organization. Their decision to “abandon” the By-Laws in effect by waiving the estoppel clauses, has resulted in reversing Mrs. Eddy’s plan of true church government. In more recent years the way has unfolded by which these estoppel clauses can be obeyed and the organization still carry on. This way, if followed, would result in the reinstating of Mrs. Eddy’s plan of govern-foment for her organization.

From the time of publishing the first edition of Science and Health in 1875 to the concluding of her founding in 1910, our Leader repeatedly stated her position on the subject of organization. We quote the following excerpts from her writ-flings in order to show that her thought on the subject of organization had not changed throughout the years. In the first edition of Science and Health, published in 1875, she says: “We have no need for creeds and church organizations to sustain or explain a demonstrable platform, in healing the sick, and casting out error.” (Page 166.) On page 181 of the same edition, she writes: “Church rites and ceremonies have nothing to do with Christianity, and more than this, they draw us toward material things: hence away from spiritual Truth, and all Truth is spiritual.”

Fourteen years later, in 1889, at the time of the closing of her central organization, Mrs. Eddy, in her article entitled, “The Way” (Misc. pages 355-359) reiterates her original posits-tion on organization: “Material organization is requisite in the beginning; but when it has done its work, the purely Christly method of teaching and preaching must be adopted.” Note she says: “must. be,” and not “may be,” adopted! Again, in speaking of the dissolution of her first church organization, she writes: “Despite the prosperity of my church, it was learned that material organization has its value and peril, and that organization is requisite only in the earliest periods of Christian history. After this material form of cohesion and fellowship has accomplished its end, continued organization retards spiritual growth, and should be laid o,-...” (Refit. p. 45).

Three years later, in 1892, at the time of the organization of The Mother Church, Mrs. Eddy again reminds us, in her statement recorded in Miscellaneous Writings, page 91, that her idea of organization had not changed one iota since the publishing of the first edition of Science and Health in 1875: “It is not indispensable to organize materially Christ’s Church. It is not absolutely necessary to ordain pastors and to dedicate churches: but if this be done, let it be in concession to the period, and not as a perpetual or indispensable ceremonial of the church. If our church is organized, it is to meet the demand, ‘suer it to be so now.’ The real Christian compact is love for one another. This bond is wholly spiritual and inviolate.” One might wonder why Mrs.Eddy, holding the above concept of organization, and considering the fact that her church was progressing so successfully without organization as a “Voluntary Association of Christians,” would “organize a second time.” Is it not apparent that her purpose in making this second temporary concession to organization was because God directed her to do so in order to complete her church history, and does not the “completion” of its history mean the completion of the history of the “Mothering,” or founding of the local independent churches, as well as to establish the free, unfettered, individual practice of Christian Science?

The Structure of Mrs. Eddy’s Reorgition

In organizing her church the second time it is apparent that Mrs. Eddy was determined to do it on a purely nonlegal, non-property-holding basis. Consequently, in order to establish her church on this nonlegal basis, she resisted all pressure from her students to organize legally and insisted upon three fundamental requirements for the reorganization of her church. These are fully set forth by our Leader, over her own signature in the July and October Journal in 1892. The first requirement was that all church property be kept entirely separate from her purely church organization. This separation she accomplished by her Deed of Trust of September 1, 1892, which established the Christian Science Board of Directors for the purpose of holding, under this Deed, all church property. The Directors were also required by this Deed to build a church edifice, and to maintain regular services therein. This is the Deed of Trust which is so important to all Christian Scientists, for it is the Deed under which the First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston should be functioning today-if the-Manual were being obeyed. Mrs. Eddy’s second requirement in reorganizing her church in 1892 was that it be established on a wholly nonlegal basis. Consequently, twenty-three days after Mrs. Eddy had established the Deed of Trust for the purpose of legaliy holding the church property, she and twelve of her students-rr.}mbers of her former church-met and formed The Mother Church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, as a nonlegal, voluntary Association.

The third fundamental requirement in Mrs. Eddy’s rector-ganization was that the Publishing Society should be kept entirely separate, not only from the church but from her September 1st, 1892 Deed of Trust Directors. So important did Mrs. Eddy consider this complete separation of The Christian Science Publishing Society from her church organization that, in July, 1892.-two months previous to her reorganization-she had all the monies returned to the donors because, in a circular sent out without her knowledge, the Trustees of the Building Fund had advertised that the donations would be used both for the building of the church and for additional rooms for the use of The Publishing Society. It seems to be apparent from Mrs. Eddy’s article in the October, 1892 Journal, that the monies were returned because of the attempt to combine the Publishing Society activities with the church. It was the combining of these two activities to which Mrs. Eddy was so definitely opposed from the very beginning.

In this same Joual article, Mrs. Eddy explains that, in her letter in 1889 donating the property for a church building, she objected to combining the church with the Publishing Society. At the close of her article, she says that pressure had been brought to bear on her not to explain this fact fully to the Field, but-to quote her own words-”the power that overruled the writing of Science and Health, is, to my sense, overruling and compelling this simple statement of facts.” Ecclesiasticism, using both the Board of Directors and the Field, has combined into one, that which she almost desperately tried to keep separate. For in 1892, in founding her church, as well as in the 1898 Publishing Society Deed, she had made it a point to separate the Publishing Society and the church.

Purpose of ThreeFold Separations

In this threefold separation Mrs. Eddy insisted that the property should be held separate from the church, the Publishing Society should function independently of the church, and the Deed Directors and the Publishing Society Trustees should function independently of, though in cooperation with each other. In this way Mrs. Eddy was laying the foundation for her world founding of the free, self-governing, local churches-churches which were to carry right on even after the centrally controlled Mother Church had been dissolved in obedience to the estoppels in the Manual. This threefold separation which Mrs. Eddy fought so hard to maintain, has, through the lie of ecclesiasticism, been reversed by the present violation of the Manual with regard to the estoppel clauses. This reversal,-accepted by both the Directors and the Field-has combined the Church of Christ, Scientist, the church property, and the Publishing Society, all in direct disobedience to Mrs. Eddy’s instructions. The result is that the centralized control in Boston has thwarted Mrs.Eddy’s plan for free, self-governing, local churches, and the free, individual practice of Christian Science. The assumed ecclesiastical control that of-cial Boston claims to have over the churches, over the Field as well as over individual Christian Scientists, is entirely contrary to the teaching, practice and instructions of Mrs. Eddy. However, may we not rejoice that this lie has been uncovered, that it is being seen for what it is, and consequently, is becoming ripe for destruction. “God reigns, and will ‘turn and overturn’ until right is found supreme.”· (Misc., page 80.)

Mrs. Eddy’s first important step after the organization of The Mother Church in 1892, was the building of the church edifice in Boston. She refers to this edifice in Miscellaneous Writings, page 141, as “our prayer in stone,...the monument upreared, of Christian Science........... “ This building was begun in 1893 and completed in 1895. In speaking of her church as a symbol of Love, rather than as a material edifice, she writes, in the same letter in Miscellaneous Writings: “All loyal Christian Scientists hail with joy this proposed type of universal Love: not so, however, with error, which hates the bonds and methods of Truth, and shudders at the freedom, might, and majesty of Spirit,-even the annihilating Jaw of Love.”

In March, 1893, just as Mrs. Eddy w^ getting ready to take her first step in building the edifice, she gave to her own Association her immortal instructions on “Obedience” (Misc., p. 116). In these instructions she did not ask her followers to look to her or to obey her. The claim of ecclesiasticism operating in our Movement today, however, demands unquestioning obedience to the Directors. But not so, did Mrs. Eddy! She scientifically states that neither she nor any human source has the right to demand our obedience. She says: “Obeying the divine Principle which you profess to understand and love, demonstrates Truth............ Be sure that God recants your way; then, hasten to follow under every circumstance.” (Misc., page 116-117.) It is true that our Leader expected Christian Scientists to follow her God-inspired instructions but she never required obedience to persons or human opinions. In fact, did she not very definitely say (Mess. ‘01, page 34) “... follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ”? What a wonderful renaissance there would be in our Movement today if our Board of Directors would emulate Mrs. Eddy’s example!

In her sermon that marked the dedication of the church edifice on January 6, 1895, our Leader gives us this absolute definition of what our Mother Church in Christian Science really is: “... our true temple is no human fabrication, but the superstructure of Truth, reared on the foundation of Love, and pinnacled in Life.” (Pul., p. 2.) “May all whose means, ener-fogies, and prayers helped erect The Mother Church, nd within it home, and heaven.” (Pul., p.11.) Heaven excludes all material sense of church and organization, hence the church of which she here speaks is the spiritual Mother Church which can never be dissolved, but goes on forever. Mrs. Eddy Declin Gift of Church and Call to Ptorate

In March, 1895, after the church edifice had been com-p1eted, the Directors wrote Mrs. Eddy: “...we hereby present this church to you as a testimonial of love and gratitude for your labors” and “... respectfully extend to you the invitation to become the permanent pastor of this church...” (Pul., page 86.) Our Leader “respectfully” declined the Director’s gift of the church and the invitation to become its “permanent pastor.” However, in her letter of declination, written March 23, 1895, she says: (ibid 87) “If it would comfort you in the least make me your Ptor Emeritus, nominally.” Christian Scientists should carefully note that in her reorganized Mother Church, Mrs. Eddy accepts no official position but only the “nominal” one of “Pastor Emeritus” which is only an honorary position based on love and respect, and desire for the guidance of the one so designated.

The building of the church edifice in Boston unquestionably aroused the world’s attention, and awakened and enlarged the vision of Christian Scientists everywhere. There is no question that our Leader’s spiritually-awakening instructs-tions given to the Field at that time-as to whom to look for direction; what our Christianly scientific work is and how to do it; what obedience is and to whom to give it-are as much needed to awaken Christian Scientists today as they were then. Mrs. Eddy refused the gift of the material Mother Church, even though she held it up as the symbol of her spiritual ideal. Should it be thought strange therefore that, at the time of her passing, she left instructions in the Manual for its material dissolution in order that the material might be replaced by the spiritual ideal? This material dissolving would not mean the end of its functioning any more than the dissolution in 1889 of Mrs. Eddy’s first Boston church meant the end of its “ministrations and activities,” for it continued right on with a “great revival of mutual love, prosperity and spiritual power,” constantly “adding to its ranks and influence.” (Refit., page 44.)

We of Paul Revere believe if, today, the material Mother Church were dissolved in obedience to Mrs. Eddy’s instructs-tions, then exactly the same status would be established under the 1892 Deed of Trust, and precisely the same results would be assured, that Mrs. Eddy describes in the dissolution of her first organization in 1889. Obedience to the By-Laws in the Manual which definitely provide for the functioning of the individual churches independently of each other and of any centralized control, ought to make it easy for the churches, and all Christian Scientists, to accept this dissolving of the materially organized Mother Church. Does not Mrs. Eddy teach and does not the Manual conrm that every church and every individual Christian Scientist should be governed, not by persons or organizations, but by God and God alone? lished, the edifice completed, and herself accepted as Pastor Emeritus, Mrs. Eddy gave to her church the first edition of the Manual. On the morning of fay 24, 1895, the First Mem-fibers-which included the Directors-met and read a communication from our Leader. She wrote in part: “I cannot be your Leader unless I have the power to guide you when you need this guidance.” (If today, by disobeying the instructions that she left for our guidance in the Manual and the two Deeds of Trust, Christian Scientists abrogate her power to guide us, are we not practically admitting that she is no longer our Leader?) In the same letter, she wrote, “I will pray earnestly and watch for God to guide me in knowing that I am right in my decision before entering a complaint against a member of this church. And from long tests, I know He will show me the way that is just and then I will follow it.”

At Mrs. Eddy’s request, the First Members went directly from this moaning meeting to Pleasant View where they conferred with our Leader. Here we quote from the First Members’ record of that meeting at Pleasant View: (She) “told us why she had called us to her, to inform us of the awful error that is working in our midst and warned us of our danger. She spoke of those who were constantly working against the success of the Cause and instructed us how to meet scien-tically the error of this hour. Her instructions were of incalculable value to us and if duly heeded will save us from falling into the evil that is plotted against us.”

At the afternoon meeting at Pleasant View, Mrs. Eddy gave the First Members a By-Law to vote a church Manual and instructed them to return immediately to Boston for an evening meeting. This By-Law which was read at the evening meeting, stated, in part:

“This church shall have no Leader but its Pastor, the Bible and Science & Health. One member of this church shall not be guided by another.

“One good member is no more than another good member to this church. Personal attachment or enmity shall not inu-thence the action of the members of The Mother Church toward each other. God alone shall be their God.” (This admonition was eventually enlarged into the Rule for Motives and Acts which we have in the Manual today, Article VIII, Section 1).

Then followed: “voted: that in accordance with our Leader’s recommendation The Mother Church shall have a church Manual.”

Is it not apparent from the talk that Mrs. Eddy gave to the First Members on the afternoon of the day on which the Manual was voted, that she realized that they were asleep and needed to be awakened to “the awful error” that was working in their midst? And because she was the only one who knew enough to handle the animal magnetism that was trying to destroy her church, is it not evident that her purpose in having the church Manual, was to provide a means by which she could reverse and defeat animal magnetism to the degree necessary for her to complete her task and her “church history” in the establishment of Christian Science? How could anyone doubt this, when Adam Dickey’s book, “Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy,”-written at her request-quotes her as saying in her last days, “where all students have failed is in not knowing how to handle animal magnetism. If we don’t break the belief that mesmerism has power, we are still the victims of mesmerism, and it is handling us. Now, then, the main point is to keep your watch, KEEP YOUR WATCH. You have all the power of God with you to conquer this lie of mesmerism. The workers in the Field are not healing because they are not meeting animal magnetism which says they can not heal.”

In line with this admonition and in the light of subsets-quent events, does it not seem reasonable to suppose that, after closing out the means and methods that she herself had used, she would provide methods better fitted for individual growth in Christian Science when she should no longer be personally with us to “keep the watch” and to guide and direct? When Christian Scientists grasp this fact, even in a degree, we shall lose the notion that Mrs. Eddy set up a centrally controlled organization as anything but a tool for her own use in carrying out her own purpose of establishing worldwide Christian Science. We shall further see that after her work had been completed and closed out, she did not intend that the Christian Science Board of Directors should go right on trying to do th her tls, that which she alone could do.

The office of the Manual was twofold: First to enable Mrs. Eddy-while she was yet with us-to guide and direct her organization so that she could successfully carry out her world founding of Christian Science. Second, to act as a spiritual guide for the churches and all Christian Scientists in their relationship to each other. Since Mrs. Eddy has completed her task of world founding, the second office alone remains.

However, the lie of ecclesiasticism has mesmerized those in authority in Boston into viewing our Manual in an entirely different light. They have accepted it as their legal, disciplina authority by which they claim the right to control the entire Christian Science Movement. In other words, under their present interpretation of the By-Laws, they claim the authority to control what Mrs. Eddy intended to be the separate Publishing Society Deed of Trust; also the churches and all individual Christian Scientists with regard to what they shall read, or circulate. This interpretation of the Manual is a complete reversal of the purpose for which our Leader gave us this God-inspired document. Mrs. Eddy once told a member of her household that the purpose of the Manual was to bless and encourage the students, to guide them wisely, but never to inculcate a human discipline according to mortal mind, which would endeavor to force others into doing and thinking what they should. Then she added: “When will the students learn to utilize and interpret the By-Laws correctly? They are not intended to restrict nor to produce hardship.” This was our Leader’s estimate of our Manual. However, by waiving the estopple clauses which provide for the dissolving of the material Mother Church, and by assuming to take Mrs. Eddy’s place as Leader, official Boston has tu ed the Manual’s spiritual guidance into human authority and autocratic control. Full obedience to our Manual would at once destroy this false interpretation, and would restore its true functioning as spiritual guide.

Mrs. Eddy Transfers Powers of Government

In 1889 and in 1901, Mrs. Eddy transferred all the powers of church government from the First Members to the Board of Directors, whose tenure of office, as Directors of The Mother Church, she limited to her own personal direction and control. She undoubtedly did this-at least, in part-in order to carry out more effectively her guidance of the greater activities that she started in 1898 and 1899, when she provided for the lecturing, the management of all the Committees on Publication, etc. As she transferred the powers of church government from the First Members to the Directors, she attached to the election or appointment of all church officers the requirement of her consent or approval. From the very first Manual, Mrs. Eddy kept full control of The Mother Church. Its government was her government. She was its “Mother” and the human mother period passed with her passing. When Christian Science had gained a sufficient degree of world acceptance through the work of the individual churches, Mrs. Eddy’s task of establishing scientific Christianity was completed and the “mothering” was concluded. Consequently, all the By-Laws in the Manual calling for her personal supervision, can be obeyed only by the closing out of the centrally and now ecclesiastically controlled Mother Church and by the reinstating of Mrs. Eddy’s plan of true church government. The Deed of Tst to the Publishing Socie!ty

As a further step in the establishment of true church government, Mrs. Eddy, on January 25th, 1898, executed the Deed of Trust to the Christian Science Publishing Society as a “perpetual and irrevoble trust and confidence.” And here may we remind our readers of Mrs. Eddy’s hard-fought but successful battle in July, 1892, when an effort was made to combine the activities of the Publishing Society with those of The Mother Church, by the sending out-without Mrs. Eddy’s knowledge-a call for funds that included the Publishing Society as well as the church. As we have already said, when our Leader learned that the funds donated were not for the building of The Mother Church alone, she had all the funds returned to the donors, to insure that the Publishing Society would be kept separate from her church. In fact, all the way from 1883, Mrs. Eddy had kept the Journal and the Christian Science Publishing Society separate from the church. When she was dissolving her central Church organizations in 1889, she gave the Journal not to her Boston church, but to the Field organization of the National Christian Scientist Association. Finally, in the 1898 Deed of Trust, she provided for the “irrevocable” and forever separation of the organization of the Publishing Society from the Church. So much has been said with regard to this 1898 Deed in previous pamphlets that there is no need to repeat the details again. By now, all readers of Paul Revere know that this Deed created a self-perpetuating Board of Trustees to whom Mrs. Eddy gave authority over all the Christian Science literature with the exception of her own writings. To this Board of Trustees, she gave absolute authority “to manage the business of the Publishing Society on its own responsibility without consulting her.” (Deed of Trust, 1898.)

From 1898 to 1910, the Christian Science Board of Directs-tors, who then were directly under Mrs. Eddy’s supervision and control, apparently cooperated harmoniously with the Board of Trustees of The Publishing Society, who were also under her supervision and control. However, in 1910, soon after Mrs. Eddy’s passing, the claim of ecclesiasticism, which had been smouldering even in her time, now came out into the open and seemed so to handle the Christian Science Board of Directors that they demanded for themselves supreme authority. The culmination was the “Litigation Incident” of 1919-22, which has resulted in nullifying, at least up to the present, the Deed of Trust of 1898, and in making the Board of Trustees subservient to the Christian Science Board of Directors-the Board which has been recently called, by one of its own attorneys, “the highest ecclesiastical court in the world”. Since 1922 until the present, this lie of ecclesiasticism-this negative interpretation of true church government-has assumed more and more its self-appointed right to govern and control the Christian Science Movement, not only in disobedi-thence to Mrs. Eddy’s plan of true church government as outlined in the two Deeds of Trust, but also in direct disobedience to many By-Laws in the Manual. At the same time, those who were largely responsible for this disobedience were among those who claimed-and rightfully-that the Manual was as equally inspired as Science & Health!.And those today, who flagrantly disobey and “abandon” its By-Laws, still admit the Manual’s God-inspired origin. How dare we, as Christian Scientists, disobey that which we admit comes from God, even though a human court of law has established our legal right to do so!

Use of Estoppel Clses

In 1901, for the first time, Mrs. Eddy had her Manual By-Laws in such form that obedience to them would automatically dissolve The Mother Church at the time of her passing. She had accomplished this by the transference in 1899 and 1901 of the church government from the First Members to the Board of Directors; and also by changing the provisions in the Manual so that no officer of The Mother Church can be elected or appointed without her consent or approval. Her approval is also required for the appointment of lecturers, of the Manager of Committees on Publication, and teachers of the Metaphysical College. In this way, Mrs. Eddy concentrated all The Mother Church government under the control of the Directors; and then by the use of estoppel clauses requiring her consent or approval for the functioning of The Mother Church activities, this control was automatically taken from them, when, after her passing, her consent or approval could no longer be obtained.

Mrs. Eddy’s Will to Directors

In spite of the fact that she thus deprived the Directors of all centralized control at the time of her passing, she provided them with enlarged activities and high responsibilities by making her will in such a manner that she bequeathed to them the entire management of her estate. This estate was to be used for exactly the same purpose as she had defined three years before for the Christian Science Publishing Society in the 1898 Deed of Trust. In other words, the purpose as stated in this 1898 Deed is identical with the purpose stated in her will to the Directors, made in 1901. It is stated as follows: “The purpose of more effectively promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science as taught by me.”

In this will, just preceding this large assignment to the Directors, she had legally conrmed her threefold main institutional system. This system is made up of the Christian Sci-thence Board of Directors as authorized by the 1892 church Deed of Trust, the Board of Trstees, as authorized by the 1898 Publishing Society Deed of Trust, and the Churches of Christ, Scientist. The legal authorization for this third institution, the Churches of Christ, Scientist,-for the forming of which Mrs. Eddy had issued a call in her letter of June 1889 to the National Christian Scientist Association-is indicated by her trust provision of January 31st, 1898, setting aside $100,000.00 for the building of her own branch Church of Christ, Scientist, in Concord, N. H. Her will puts these three main institutions all on an equal basis - none controlling the other, but all equally bound in the one purpose of scientifically demonstrating spiritual cooperation. Mrs. Eddy’s Signature Required on Teachers’ Certicat

In the same year-1901-for the first time, Mrs. Eddy’s signature was required on all teachers’ certificates issued by the Metaphysical College. In the face of this By-Law, which still appears in our present Manual, (Article XXX, Section 3) is it not obvious that our Leader intended that the College be closed, when, after her passing, her signature could no longer be affixed to these certificates? Is not what we have just said in connection with the closing of the Metaphysical College equally true in connection with every vital function of The Mother Church, where Mrs. Eddy’s consent or approval, written or otherwise-is required in order to carry on. There might be some question or misgiving in regard to dissolving the centrally controlled Mother Church, the Metaphysical Col-legend, etc., in obedience to the Manual, had our Leader left no provisions for carrying on the activities of the church organization and of The Christian Science Publishing Society. However she did leave definite provisions for both. These provisions are to be found-as we have already said many times -in the Deeds of Trust of 1892 and 1898. The first Deed provides for the functioning, not of The Mother Church, but of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston-without centralized control. The second Deed provides for the publishing of Christian Science literature, separate and apart from the jurisdiction of the church.

In June, 1902, Mrs. Eddy sent forth the call for two million dollars to build the extension to The Mother Church, which was to stand, and does stand, in symbol, as “a superstructure high above the work of men’s hands, even the outcome of their hearts, giving to the material a spiritual significance.... “ (My., page 6.) This extension was to provide a more adequate building for the continuance of services under the supervision of the Board of Directors. (See Deed of Trust of 1892, Manual, page 128.)

Further Steps Leadi to mpletion of Mrs. Eddy’s Work in 1910

It is interesting to note that there are other acts of Mrs. Eddy that seem unquestionably to point to the fact that it was her intention that The Mother Church government-but not the government of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston-should end at her passing. For instance, in 1903, she changed the name of the “First Members”-whom she had already eliminated from having any authority in the gove-foment of her church-to “Executive Members.” Since 1901, they had had no outlined duties to perform, and their relationship to The Mother Church was apparently of a wholly spiritual nature. At this same time, 1901, Mrs. Eddy also changed her title from “Mother” to “Leader,” forbidding anyone thereafter calling her “Mother.” (Manual, Article XXII, Section 1.) Remember, that all these incidents, from 1901 to 1910, that we are citing, illustrate Mrs. Eddy’s steps all in line with, and leading to, the completion of her work at the time of her passing in 1910, and the dissolving of her Mother Church govern-foment.

In 1903, Mrs.Eddy added the fifth By-Law Director, thus clearly distinguishing the Board of five members, as provided for in the Manual, from the Board of four members, provided for in the 1892 Deed of Trust.It was this Deed of Trust Board of four members that she authorized to continue after her passing. Also, in 1903, Mrs.Eddy, for the first time, had the Manual copyrighted in her own name. In this way, it would become her unquestioned right to provide for the annulling of any or all of its By-Laws at the time of her passing. In the Manual of 1906, after the dedication of The Mother Church Extension, Mrs.Eddy made provision for the continued functioning of “each branch church” should she “relinquish her place as the head or Leader of The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist.” (Manual, Article XXIII, Section 6.) No mention is made in this By-Law for the continuance of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, for that had been fully provided for by the Deed of 1892.

It is further interesting to note that, from 1889, when the first organization was dissolved, to 1892, when The Mother Church was organized-in other words, during the period when there was no organized church in Boston-119 local churches were formed. This shows, does it not, that the functioning of the branch churches does not depend upon a centralized organization in Boston? Indeed, does not Mrs. Eddy say in the Manual, Article XXIII, Section 1: “The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist, shall assume no general official control of other churches, and shall be controlled by none other.

“Each Church of Christ, Scientist, shall have its own form of government. “ Also in Article XXIII, Section 10, she writes, “In Christian Science each branch church shall be distinctly democratic in its government, and no individual, and no other church shall interfere with its affairs.” We often hear it said that the “branches” could not exist without the paret vine,-and this thought is brought out by Judge Clifford Smith in the latest edition of the pamphlet called “The Permanency of The Mother Church”-yet, as we have already said, during the nearly three year interim between 1889 and 1892, there were many churches formed that had no relationship to the then-dissolved Boston church. Churches of Christ, Scientist, are not based, founded, or dependent upon a human organization, but upon God, divine Principle and His Word, alone.

The Beginng of Mrs. Eddy’s Final “Withdrawal Period”

From 1907 to the time of Mrs. Eddy’s passing in 1910, was her final “withdrawal period.” In 1907, she made her last general revision of Science & Health. After that time, the changes she made were conned to numerous individual statements of marvellous spiritual instruction. It was also in 1907 that she was attacked in court by her own family and relatives who attempted to discredit her character and disprove her sanity. This attempt, if it had been successful, would have resulted in discrediting Christian Science. However, Mrs. Eddy was richly vindicated in the judgment of the court and in the judgment of the world, thus leading to the world’s acceptance both of her and of Christian Science.

In February, 1908, Mrs. Eddy added to Science & Health the three lines closing the chapter on Christian Science Practice: “Christian Scientists, be a law unto yourselves that meP-tal malpractice cannot harm you either when asleep or when awake.” Under the caption “Take Notice” (My., p. 236) our Leader writes: “I request the Christian Scientists universally to read the paragraph beginning at line 30 of page 442 in the edition of Science & Health which will be issued February 29, (1908). I consider the information there given to be of great importance at this stage of the workings of animal magnetism, and it will greatly aid the students in their individual experiences.” On the next page (ibid. 237), she writes, under the same caption, “Take Notice”: “To Christian Scientists:-See Science & Health, page 442, line 30, and give daily attention thereto.” These admonitions seem to indicate that she was soon to withdraw and to leave Christian Scientists to do their own work without her personal guidance. An excerpt from Adam Dickey’s “Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy” seems to support this conclusion. He quotes Mrs. Eddy as saying to a group of workers assembled in her home: “You must rise to the point where you can destroy the belief in mesmerism, or you will have no Cause (or church). It tried to overcome me for forty years and I withstood it all. Now it has gotten to the point where the students must take up this work and meet animal magnetism. I cannot do it for you. You must do it for yourselves, and unless it is done, the Cause will perish and we will go along another nineteen hundred years with the world sunk into the blackest night. Now will you rouse yourselves? You have all the power of God with you to conquer this lie of mesmerism.”

You will remember that in 1903, Mrs. Eddy changed the name of the “First Members “ to “Executive Members.” Now, in June, 1908, she requested them to cease functioning entirely. This group was the first phase of the original govern-foment of The Mother Church that Mrs.Eddy dissolved, thereby prefiguring the complete dissolution of The Mother Church three years later. In requesting the “Executive Members “ to dissolve, Mrs. Eddy said: “... the purpose of my request was sacred. It was to turn your sense of worship from the material to the spiritual, the personal to the impersonal, the denominational to the doctrinal, yea, from the human to the divine.” (My., page 139.)

In the same year (1908 ), our Leader abolished Communion in The Mother Church, but not in the branch churches. With regard to the abolishing of The Mother Church Communion, Mrs.Eddy wrote to the Field: “Beloved Christian Scientists:-Take courage. God is leading you onward and upward. Relinquishing a material form of communion advances it spiritually. The material form is a ‘Suer it to be so now,’ and is abandoned so soon as God’s Wayshower, Christ, points the advanced step. “ (My., page 140.)

In 1909, Mrs. Eddy had to rebuke animal magnetism as it seemed to appear, in a New York branch church, in an attempt to hold on to a personal sense of her as Leader. No statement of Mrs. Eddy’s can more conclusively convey that, in place of her personality and her personal Mother Church government, Christian Scientists must nd The Mother Church spiritually, as their ideal in spiritual guidance; and that the Churches of Christ, Scientist, must build “on the wholly spiritual foundation, than which there is no other.” Mrs. Eddy said in part: “I have crowned The Mother Church building with the spiritual modesty of Christian Science, which is its jewel. When my dear brethren in New York desire to build higher,-to enlarge their phylacteries and demonstrate Christian Science to a higher extent,-they must begin on a wholly spiritual foundation than which there is no other, and proportionably estimate their success and glory of achievement only as they build upon the rock of Christ, the spiritual foundation. This will open the way, widely and impartially, to their never-ending success,-to salvation and eternal Christian Science.” (My., page 357.) Thus almost at the end of her forty-five years of glorious founding of Christian Science, our Leader here gives to every Church of Christ, Scientist, the exact recipe for its success in Christian Science, and the only founts-dation upon which it can build.

The passing of Mrs. Eddy on December 3rd, 1910, automatically brought to a close her second period of organization. It also automatically brought into operation her “Thou Shalt Nots” in the Manual and closed out forever her centrally controlled Mother Church government.

Necessity of Understanding Each of Her Major Steps

As we pointed out, early in this pamphlet, it was in 1876 that Mrs. Eddy took her first step in organization through the formation of the Christian Science Association. If we, as Christian Scientists, wish to grasp her final work and plan, we must understand each of her major steps-which we have attempted to outline briefly-as it unfolded into its place in one unified whole, and resulted in the complete establishment of Christian Science. We shall then see clearly that the steps our Leader took and the means she used were those of her neces-sanity in accomplishing her task. We shall see also that the needs of those who followed would necessarily be wholly different from her requirements as Discoverer, Founder, and Leader.

The Mother Church was not a central organization controlling individuals and churches nor a peanent means of activity to be perpetuated after her passing. It represented Mrs. Eddy’s controlled spiritual leadership for the completion of her task; and its By-Laws are not to be waived to suit the occasion but are to be strictly followed. In Article XXXIV, Section 2 of the Manual, Mrs. Eddy stresses the fact that The Mother Church is “Mary Baker Eddy’s Church.” And in accordance with her definition on page 583 of Science & Health, this church was her demonstration of “the structure of Truth and Love”, the human symbol of that which “rests upon and proceeds from divine Principle”. With almost every major change in Science & Health, came major changes in her “steps”, and, after the Manual was adopted in 1895, there also came major changes in the Manual. Again, as we have already brought out earlier in this pamphlet, our Leader prophesied in the first edition of Retrospection and Introspection that she might have to reorganize her church “in order to complete its history.” Every statement Mrs. Eddy established as Christian Science was a demonstrated, a proven statement. Her church became her proving ground, and when she had completed her work, she had completed her proof, and so, of course, she had completed her “church history.” Thus she left in the Manual the By-Laws which, if obeyed, would close out the offices and activities of The Mother Church which had served their purpose under her supervision. The office of the Christian Science Board of Directors would however, remain to function under the Deed of Trust of 1892, which empowered the Directors “to make any and all necessary rules and regulations” in order to “maintain public worship in accordance with doctrines of Christian Science” (Manual, page 131) in the church edifice in Boston as long as they deemed it expedient. Also the Directors, under the terms of her will, have the far larger task of administering her estate for “the purpose of more effectively promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science.” (Mrs. Eddy’s Will to the Directors) The Manual would be left as a spiritual and moral guide for all Christian Scientists in their practice of Christian Science. In leaving in the Manual the By-Laws that could not properly function after her passing, our Leader practically asked Christian Scientists to let her completed church alone, and to follow the specific plan she left for their guidance in her two Deeds of Trust-Deeds that can in no way be twisted into warranting a centralized, ecclesiastical, organization, but that call for the free, independent, local activity and practice for all Christian Scientists. Mrs. Eddy says in Science & Health, page 406: “Like our nation, Christian Science has its Declaration of Independence. God has endowed man with inalienable rights, among which are self-government, reason, and conscience. Man is properly self-governed only when he is guided rightly and governed by His Maker, divine Truth and Love.” No mention is made here or elsewhere of the government by an “ecclesiastical court” in Boston!

Key To True Obeence

Of course, Mrs. Eddy could easily have made the at state-foment, “When I am no longer with you, dissolve The Mother Church.” But the question is, would not Christian Scientists then have blindly followed her instructions? Consequently, was it not necessary for her to leave the provisions in the Manual as she did in order to make the dissolution the result of demonstration? In the Message for 1900, Pages 8-9, she writes: “I sometimes advise students not to do certain things which I know it were best not to do, and they comply with my counsel; but, watching them, I discern that this obedience is contrary to their inclination. Then I sometimes withdraw that advice and say: ‘you may do it if you desire.’ But I say this not because it is the best thing to do, but because the student is not willing-therefore, not ready-to obey.’’ In short, Mrs. Eddy knew that Christian Scientists could not obey her until they were “willing” and “ready to obey”-until they understood Christian Science sufficiently to be ready to be directly gov-eed by divine Principle, without her personal guidance. The key to this readiness is, of course, the ability to handle animal magnetism in its attempted reversal of true church government especially in the form of intolerance, self-righteousness, mad ambition, and personal desire for place and power, to say nothing of “the soft palm, upturned to a lordly salary” (S&H, page 142)-all of which are made manifest in the lie of ecclesiasticism.

It is only fair to say that, in the bewilderment of the first hours after Mrs. Eddy’s passing, those in authority in Boston might have been so confused that they were unable to get a clear picture of Mrs. Eddy’s intent. But it is difficult to understand how the claim of ecclesiasticism could have so mesmerized them in the following years, that the result was the “Litigation Incident” of 1919-22 and the subsequent situation as we have it today. No wonder we of Paul Revere have made an appeal to every working Christian Scientist to support the Board of Directors by handling the animal magnetism that seems to be “working in our midst” today! No wonder Christian Scientists need to “reverse the reversal,” by seeing that this negative appearance is not a self-constituted evil power, but only a lie, which “takes its pattern from Truth, by reversing Truth,” and which in the ultimate is only “inverted good.’’ (Unity of Good, page 53). Oh, let us not be mesmerized by this form of “inverted good,” but let us see it for what it is, and, by reversal, let us claim the “spiritual behest” which awaits us. (Mess. 1902, page 19).

Have We “Ket The Watch?”

Referring again to the “watch”-already quoted-(that Mrs. Eddy set for every Christian Scientist on page 442 Of Science & Health,) let us ask ourselves, have we “kept the watch?” Have we been alert? Have we done our part in keeping mental malpractice from harming our Movement? Have we put the healing work of Christian Science first and the functioning of the organization-the “suer it to be so now”-second? Or have we, in our zeal for organization, overlooked the most important point of all, namely, strict obedience to our Leader’s instructions? If we have overlooked this vital point, if we have not been obedient to her instructions, does that not indicate that we have not “kept the watch”? The attempted ostracism and even persecution of those who disagree with “official Boston”; the promiscuous reporting to “headquarters” of those who dare to be governed by Principle rather than by persons; the condemnation of those who dare to exercise their right to read literature which has not been submitted to Boston to be designated as “authorized literature” (a term which, by the way, Mrs. Eddy never used in her published writings and which did not appear on the back of the title page of these writings until several years after Mrs. Eddy’s passing)-does not all this further indicate that the “watch” has not been kept? And is it not because of our failure to keep it that the enemy which Mrs. Eddy said, more than forty years ago, was “working in our midst,” has succeeded in deceiving “the very elect” and in betraying our Movement into the clutches of ecclesiasticism? If this is humanly true of the Christian Science Movement today, what is the remedy?

Is it not first, to awaken to the “awful error that is working in our midst”; to awaken to the realization that the administration of our church government since Mrs. Eddy’s passing has been in direct disobedience to her instructions both in the Manual and her two Deeds of Trust-in other words, that we have gotten “o the road?” Is not the remedy secondly, to heed Mrs. Eddy’s admonition to “keep the watch,” and, through clear, fearless thinking to “meet scientifically the error of the hour”-the malicious animal magnetism that has put us to sleep, and which, acting as the impulse of our own thought, has made us content to stay “o the road” because it is too much effort to retrace our steps, or because we are afraid to trust God to lead us into the “land of Promise”-the church free from ecclesiasticism? And is not the remedy thirdly and finally, to obey our Leader’s instructions and to reinstate her plan of true church government, which she said would “evolve scientifically” after her passing and “develop as it progresses?” (My. page 342).

Many Christian Scientists are now in the process of taking the first two steps in applying the remedy. At the moment it may not be clear just what human footsteps to take in order to bring about the final reinstating of our Leader’s plan but these will evolve as a result of awakened consciousness, and as a result of looking to God, and not to persons, for guidance and direction. If we are faithful in “keeping the watch” and in doing fearlessly what we feel divinely guided to ao-regardless of persons or Boards or the threats of a centrally controlled church government-then, surely Mrs. Eddy’s prediction for her church will come to pass. She says in Pulpit and Press, page 22: “If the lives of Christian Scientists attest their fidelity to Truth, I predict that in the twentieth century every Christian church in our land, and a few in faro lands, will approximate the understanding of Christian Science suf-anciently to heal the sick in His name. Christ will give to Christianity his new name, and Christendom will be classified as Christian Scientist.” When this is accomplished, we shall indeed have reversed the reversal! “WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOSTON

AND ROME?”

Just as we were writing the last pages of “Reversing the Reversal,” the report of the Annual Meeting of The Mother Church appeared in the Christian Science Sentinel of June 28th. After reading this report, and especially the “Word from the Christian Science Board of Directors,” in connection with “The Mother Church: Its Place, Its Authority, and Its Mission in the Modern World,” we of Paul Revere feel that we should like to make a few brief observations with regard to some of the statements made therein.

In arriving at a proper appraisal of this report, Christian Scientists should be alert enough not to be mesmerized by the recital of the number of new churches, nor the number of new practitioners, nor the riches in the treasury, as a proof that those who administer the government of The Mother Church have correctly interpreted Mrs. Eddy’s instructions or that they are obedient to them, nor as a proof of the spiritual attainment of our Movement. If these alone are the standards of measurement of spirituality and progress, then, by the same standards, the Roman Catholic church has correctly interpreted, and is obedient to the teachings of Christ, Jesus, and is the most spiritually elevated group on earth. Indeed, the concept of our Mother Church as portrayed in the Directs-tor’s message, is so similar to that held by the “Holy Roman Church” and so contrary to that taught by our beloved Leader, that every Christian Scientist, loyal to Mrs. Eddy’s teaching, should immediately challenge it. the Board of Directors is another one of those attempts of ecclesiasticism, through the far-reaching mediums that it is using, to soothe and cajole the slowly awakening and thinking masses of Christian Scientists into taking another nap, by assuring them that “all is well,” “all is prosperous,” and that any rumblings that question the “Place,” the “Authority,” and the “Mission” of the Mother Church are only the vaporings of some dissatisfied, disgruntled, or disobedient members of the church. As is usually customary when anyone is trying to uphold an untenable position-a position that cannot be supported by facts, lav, or logic-resort is taken to associating erroneous statements so closely with undisputed facts tnat the casual or unalert reader, unconsciously accepting these erroneous statements, does not challenge them.

An instance of such procedure occurs on page 1114 of the June 28th. We quote: “The Mother Church is the watchful and tender guardian of human consciousness in its ascent God-ward.” What a startling misstatement of scientific fact! What an outrageous evidence of ecclesiasticism’s claim to power! In the opinion of Paul Revere, nothing could be more contrary to the teachings of Mrs. Eddy than such a statement! There is no authority whatsoever in anything that Mrs. Eddy ever wrote that would justify such a claim. It sounds like a declar-station straight from Rome! The “Holy Mother Church’’ of the Roman Catholic hierarchy claims the same prerogative to guard, guide, and punish that our Directors are claiming for themselves. No group of mortals-not even those who administer the government of The Mother Church-are, or can be, the “guardian of human consciousness.” It is the Christ, Truth, alone that is our guide and guardian “in our ascent Godward.”

This statement about The Mother Church being “the watchful and tender guardian of human consciousness in its assent Godward,” is so flagrant a violation of man’s “inalienable rights” of self-government, that, in order that it might be swallowed even by those who ordinarily accept anything that comes from “headquarters,” the writers of the message to the Annual Meeting-in line with the procedure referred to above-closely followed this preposterous statement by some statements of self-evident facts. This procedure illustrates the truth of Mrs. Eddy’s words on page 371 of Miscellaneous Writings, “........... error always strives to unite, in a de-nition of purpose, with Truth, to give it buoyancy.” Immedi-stately following the sentence in the Director’s message referred to above, are some obvious statements of truth, such as “Christ is the way....... “ “Christian Science enables all mankind to follow in this way...........” “Christian Science does this because it reveals the promised Comforter.” All of these statements are, of course, facts and are accepted by all Christian Scientists.

Then comes another statement of truth, followed so closely by a half-truth, that only those “keeping the watch”-referred to earlier in this pamphlet-would challenge its implication. The sentence is as follows: “Our divinely inspired Church Manual is rooted in this revelation, and in it the authority of The Mother Church has its source.” This is, of course, a fact as far as it goes. But how could any “watch-keeper” be mesmerized into believing that, altho our “divinely inspired” Manual is the source of “the authority of The Mother Church,” the same divinely inspired Manual has to be disobeyed in order to maintain this authority? Would not the alert “watch-keeper” end this sentence as follows: “Our divinely inspired Manual is rooted in tnis revelation, and in it the authority of The Mother Church has its source, and in it also the authority of The Mother Church as a material organization has ITS DISSOLUTION AND END”?

In this same message on page 1114 of the Sentinel, our Directors further say, that to them “falls the mandatory duty of applying church discipline, independently of the branch churches.” Oh, does not “keeping the watch” mean refusing to be put to sleep by such statements made by any Board! What the Board of Directors, appointed by Mrs. Eddy or appointed with her consent, could do under her supervision, is one thing; and what a Board of five persons appointed without her consent or approval, can claim to do without her supervision is quite another thing-especially when their acts break the very By-Laws they are asking the Field to accept as “God-inspired”. Mrs. Eddy clearly states in the Manual (Art. XI, Section 13) “Each church shall separately and independently discipline its own members......... “ Furthermore, since the Christian Science Board of Directors has had no right to function as a central governing body since Mrs. Eddy’s passing, it has no right to administer discipline of any sort. Discipline-”if this sad necessity occurs” (Article XI, Section 13)-must be left to the individual churches.

The Directors also state (Sentinel, page 1114) that, in the peormance of the “important duty” of applying church discipline, the Board “is guided by our Leader’s precepts and example.” Right here, as an illustration of Mrs. Eddy’s “precepts and example,” we should like to call to our reader’s flatten-tion a letter sent by Mrs. Eddy to the Christian Science Board of Directors on July 22, 1902, in which she says in part: “I have learned that our able lecturer, Dr. Sulcer, is suspended until further orders. I hereby request you to reinstate him or retain him in office, whichever applies to the situation.” The charges against Dr. Sulcer related to his personal conduct but in spite of this, Mrs. Eddy requested his reinstatement. \Five know that there were occasions when Mrs. Eddy approved of church discipline, but we know also that these occasions were rare indeed. With a disobedient member of First Church of Christ, Scientist in New York, she was patient for many years. In further support of our concept of Mrs. Eddy’s “precepts and example,” we should like to quote from page 140 of the book written by Bliss Knapp, entitled: “Ira Oscar Knapp and Flavia Stickney Knapp, C.S.D.” One of the early cases that came before the Directors was a charge of immoral conduct against a First Member who was a student of Mrs. Eddy. From the evidence submitted, the Directors were convinced that the charges were sustained. They, therefore, removed the individual from membership in the church, and took his practitioner’s card out of the Christian Science Jour-final. When Mrs. Eddy heard of this case, she asked the Directs-tors to restore her student to full church membership, including his office as a First Member, and to replace his card in the Journal.

In view of these cases and in view of the frequency with which discipline is now ceing meted out by “headquarters”- and especially in disobedience to Article XI, Sections 2, 6, and 13 of the Manual-should not those who are “keeping the watch” ask themselves if indeed the Directors are really being “guided by our Leader’s precepts and example” after all? If “in their decisions, the Directors are governed by their understanding of our Leader’s instructions for her church” as they affirm on page 1115 of the Sentinel, may there not be something wrong with their understanding? It is, of course, true, as they state, that the “preservation and fulfillment of her intent are paramount.” But, Oh, alert “Watch-keeper” could “her intent” be so contrary to her “precepts and example” and to her God-inspired instructions both in the Manual and^in her two legally established Deeds of Trust?

In the light of all that we of Paul Revere have said earlier in this pamphlet with regard to Mrs. Eddy’s more than forty years of founding Christian Science, does it seem possible that she who said: “Follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ” (Mess. 01, page 34) would expect us to look to persons instead of to Principle to guard and to guide,-that she would expect us to accept the decisions of five human beings instead of implicitly obeying the precepts that came to her from divine Mind and that she set down in the Manual, a divinely inspired document that, unlike her two Deeds of Trust, she kept out of the hands of human law? “Proportionately as we part with material systems and theories, personal doctrines and dogmas, meekly to ascend the hill of Science, shall we reach the maximum of perfection in all things.” (Misc., page 232.)

From beginning to end, the message of the Directors to the Annual Meeting seems to imply that the Christian Science Board of Directors and The Mother Church are synonomous terms. Oh, let us not be deceived! Let us not be mesmerized by aggressive mental suggestion into believing that any Board can function as an entire church or that it can take Mrs. Eddy’s place or speak with the same authority with which she spoke! Let us obey her instructions in the Manual and the Deeds of Trust and let us accept the admonition in the “Rule for Motives and Acts” (Manual, Article VIII, Sect. 1): “In Science, divine Love alone governs man.” Let us turn directly to God, and not to persons, for guidance and direction. Let us reject the suggestion that it is necessary for us to write to Boston to nd out what we may, or may not, say, read, write, think, or do! In other words, let us reject the Roman Catholic belief that we must have an “intermediary” in order to reach God. Let us no longer hear it said: “What is the difference between Boston and Rome”! Let us remember,-in the words of an unknown author-that “All the good law and all the good order which the church or state enjoys today may be traced back over some route to the words and deeds of men who rebelled against the kind.of law and the kind of order that they found administered by its ‘constituted guardians’; to the men who dared to appeal from the ‘keepers of divine truth’ to divine truth itself-from the ‘trustees of God’ to God Himself.” Let us all replace the phrase “loyalty to the Directors,” with the phrase “loyalty to God”! Then, and only then will our Christian Science Board of Directors be truly supported, Mrs. Eddy’s plan of true church government be reinstated and the reversal really be reversed!




Chapter Thirty-One: Democracy Under Attack

Pamphlet Number Thirty-One

The issues of life under a democracy lie largely with the individual. No form of govement interferes less with individual development than a true democracy. To the Christian Scientist the ultimate goal of all endeavor is to rise above the claims of human existence into the atmosphere of divine Mind wherein the only government is God’s government. It must follow, per se, that the government that leaves the individual with the greatest freedom to work out his own salvation, and attain complete release from the trammels of mortal existence, is the one nearest right.

Obviously any human government must eventually be superseded by the governmment of divine Mind alone, for when every individual attains a completely spiritual status, human government will not be necessary. No human laws, no legislative bodies, no police, no navies or armies will be required in a state where divine Mind alone rules. Until such a state be reached, however, some sort of government seems necessary in both secular and church affairs.

The government of the branch churches of Christ, Scien-theist has been established by Mrs. Eddy to act entirely in accord with democratic principles. The government of the material worldwide Mother Church, however, is not a democratic one. Its govement is not maintained with the consent of the governed. Its membership has not the privilege of selecting the highest officers in the church, for the Board of Directors is a self-perpetuating body. As we have pointed out in previous pamphlets, provision has been made through the Deed of Trust of 1892, (Manual p. 133) to continue services in the Mother Church edifice, but the congregation shall be styled “The First Church of Christ, Scien-theist,” not The Mother Church. While for an indefinite period The First Church of Christ, Scientist may carry on, there is a definite provision in this Deed of Trust that services may, ultimately, be discontinued; for “whenever said Directors shall determine that it is inexpedient to maintain preaching, reading or speaking in said church in accordance with the terms of this deed, they are authorized and required to reconvey forthwith said lot of land with the building thereon to Mary Baker G. Eddy, her heirs and assigns forever by a proper deed of conveyance.”

It should be noted that the Board known at present as the Christian Science Board of Directors-the one operating under the Manual of The Mother Church-is not identical with the Board of Directors named in the Deed of Trust of 1892.

The Board of Directors of five members named in the Manual, and requiring Mrs. Eddy’s written consent for its perpetuity would, if it had acted in obedience to Mrs. Eddy’s instructions, have voted to dissolve itself in June 1911. Since the Annual meeting of The Mother Church for the election of officers for one year is held each June, no elections could have been held later than that date, and be in accord with the By-Laws requiring Mrs. Eddy’s consent.

On the other hand the Board appointed under the Deed of Trust is composed of four members only, instead of five now serving in The Mother Church. This board of four is empowered under the Deed, as quoted above, to discontinue services in The Mother Church edifice whenever they deem it exped indent to do so; and they are so empowered without recourse or advice from any other person or body.

It should be observed that the government of this Deed of Trust church, “The First Church of Christ, Scientist,” is not a democratic one any more than is the government of the present Mother Church. It is to be governed by the Board of four members without recourse. In fact no provision has been made for this church to have any membership at all. It is the “congregation which shall worship in said church” that shall be styled The First Church of Christ, Scientist. It does not have a membership in the usual manner and after the pattern of the branch churches, for no membership is provided for. Consequently all necessary rules and regulations for the conduct of the church are made by the board of four members appointed under the Deed of Trust. Should this board determine it inexpedient longer to carry on services in The First Church of Christ, Scientist, the congregation would then be free to form a church of its own under the democratic plan of government prescribed in the Manual for the present branch churches. The services could not be held in The Mother Church edifice, to be sure, but some other church building could be found.

It must be assumed that Mrs. Eddy foresaw the possibility that the time would arrive when The First Church of Christ, Scientist should be dissolved; for the reading of Section 10 of the Deed of Trust of 1892, is that “whenever” the Directors shall determine it inexpedient to continue services, they shall be discontinued. The reading of the text “whenever” instead of “if ever” seems to infer that Mrs. Eddy not only considered it possible, but probable, that such an event would sometime take place.

Since Mrs. Eddy has made no provision for The First Church of Christ, ientist, beyond its dissolution and the return of the property to her estate, future organizational procedure is left to individual demonstration of those Christian Scientists that had been members of its congregation.

If at some future date, the Deed of Trust Board of Directs-tors should nd it inexpedient to continue services in The Mother Church edifice, then all that would remain, so far as church organizations are concerted would be the Christian Science churches throughout the world; answerable to none but their own constituents; organized in consonance with the pattern of government of branch churches provided for in the Manual; and entirely democratic in form of government.

It sees quite obvious that Mrs. Eddy did not look un the material Mother Church and The First Church of Christ, Scientist as organizations after which all future organizations should patte, or she would not have established both subject to dissolution; the one through her passing, and the other at the discretion of four Directors.

On the other hand, nowhere in the Manual does she provide that the other churches in the Field shall be discontinued. It is the churches that are hierarchial in form of government that are marked for termination. The democratic government exemplified in the present branch churches is evidently meant to be rried on for an indefinite time, or until it has been superseded by a higher and more spiritual form of government not yet discerned.

On the other hand the universal spiritual Mother Church and the spiritual By-Laws in the Manual are for time and eternity. They cannot be terminated by legal procedure nor at the will of any group of human beings. “The structure of Truth and Love,” and “whatever rests upon and proceeds from divine Principle” cannot cease. The By-Laws that support such a church are spiritual in character and apply to a spiritual concept. The spiritual precepts embodied in the Rule for Motives and Acts, The Daily Prayer, One Christ and the like are for eternity and shall stand. They shall not only stand for eteity but they never had a beginning. The true, or spiritual Mother Church, the structure of Truth and five, is a mental concept, and no provision can be made for its dissolution because it cannot possibly be dissolved. In it there is no room for vicarious atonement or salvation. ach individual is left without let or hindrance to search for God and demonstrate his way according to the degree of his own understanding, without any inhibitions from an outside source.

Human progression seems to be one that begins with the individual who for security or to attain a higher spiritual level, merges with a collective enterprise or organization or church only to revert finally to the point from which he started-in-dividual demonstration. Salvation is not to be achieved by organization but by emancipation from organization, for organist-zation retards spiritual growth. Whatever hastens that emancipation, therefore, benefits the human race. Whatever retards it is to be put o. Human history has been a continual process by which individuals have striven for salvation from the flesh; then fearing the depredations of those who would seize their freedom, have banded together with others for security. They have placed a governor over their affairs then, inevitably, have striven to free themselves from their self-imposed rulers.

Despotic control is inherent in human government and, while at its inception, despotism may not show itself in its true colors, the seed is sown at the very instant central government is established-and the cha of despotism grows with the wheat of democracy. It has happened over and over again. It is almost inevitable in human history.

There are signs in the world today of a tremendous attack upon democracy. In some quarters it is an outside attack of a tolitarian state upon its democratic neighbors. In others it is a trend within the govement itself which indicates that the subtle foe of individual growth is at work from within.

The growth of such a trend within either church or secular government cannot always be laid to wrong motives. Too often the motive is the highest but the subtle influence of the animal magnetism of acquired power sways men’s reason and democracy succumbs to despotis No one will affirm that the motive of the Board of Directors at Boston is, or has been, wrong. The Board members have undoubtedly, convinced themselves that the spiritual growth of Christian Scientists all over the world is vastly accelerated by the Board supervising their reading.

It is a subtle influence that deprives the individual of complete dominion over his own thoughts. For him to yield his right of decision to another’s thought is to take his government from the divine Mind, where it belongs, and give it to a human being. It should be the aim of every one of us to be guided wholly by the divine Mind in every detail of life. And in proportion as we are thus guided we live a harmonious and ever expanding existence and benet every one with whom we come into contact.

To a Christian Scientist, independence of thought is absolutely essential in order to be directed by God. There can be no time in his adult life when it should be compulsory for him to allow others to make his decisions for him. Even to confer such power upon another voluntarily is an exceedingly dangerous thing to do, for it is only by complete subjugation of his own will to tne divine Will that complete emancipation from the material world can be accomplished. The seeming success of mortal mind depends upon its ability to prevent us from hearing the voice of Truth, for to the degree that we hear the voice of Truth we cannot hear the voice of the carnal mind.

The conclusion is incontrovertable. Freedom lies in complete independence of thought and action; despotism gains power when we yield our thoughts and acts to another’s will. All attacks upon democracy attempt to seize from the individual his independence of thought, but whether the effort is made with a good motive or an evil one makes little dier-thence in his ultimate fate. The fact that the present goverent of The Mother Church may be acting with the highest motive, when it attempts to usurp the right of Christian Scientists to read what they think best, does not alter the serious consequence to the Christian Scientist of his act of yielding that right to the Board of Directors.

It is when problems seem to become complex that the human mind is baffled. The more complex the problems grow to be, the more puzzling and difficult the solution seems to be. Then the more prone we are to become busy with our o immediate affairs, and willingly leave the search for an answer to someone else. At such a time the persuasiveness of almost anyone that oers an easy solution is welcome. The temptation to let others do our thinking for us is great even minor affairs. But when the majority yield to that temptation in govement the seed of despotism is sown.

When our forefathers came to America social life was relatively simple. Communication was conned mainly to individuals and communities in close proximity. Whatever diver-sanity of interests might arise were conned within such narrow limits, and to so few persons, that they were comparatively easily reconciled. Through modern acceleration of transports-tation and communication an individual is not influenced alone by his immediate neighbor or community, but by the acts of persons in remote parts of the earth as well. The result is that, when such distant interests are brought into conflict, they are difficult to reconcile. The complexities of these modern problems are apt to confuse the individual that has been accustomed to thinking in terms of persons and small communities; he is often too busy with things he thinks of more immediate personal importance than world problems, and he gladly leaves their unsnarling to someone else-in fact to almost anybody that promises an easy solution.

Such delegation of responsibility may seem beneficial in the beginning but, too often, it leads to an assumption of more and more power by the one upon whom reliance has been placed, and the seed of despotism and greed, which eventually leads to war, takes root.

In the countries of the world that have been dominated by despots, control has been achieved through taking advantage of the tendency of individuals to yield the right of decision to someone else.

In the early stages of Hitler’s rise to power in Germany the economic situation seemed complex and difficult. Hitler oered a solution which the Germans accepted. They yielded the right of government to him d he gradually seized more and more power until he dominated all German national exist-thence. The basic reason for Hitler’s brief success lay in the fact that the people permitted him, little by little, to gain control over the right of speech and self-expression of individual Geans, until they were unable to express themselves at all without being subject to punishment meted out by Hit-filer. Had the very first encroachments made upon German independence been thwarted, the second World War might have been avoided.

It is not easy to dislodge mortal mind when it has become entrenched. The time to dislodge it is when it first seems to appear, if we would save ourselves the suering that inevitably comes from yielding to it.

Mortal mind first confuses us then oers an easy way out. To accept what it. oers is to yield dominion to mortal mind. Having done this the only way to avoid the disaster that will be sure to follow, will be to retrace our steps and throw o the stifling influence that eventually will sap our mental and physical powers unless annulled.

Mrs. Eddy was wise to admonish every member of The Mother Church to “defend himself daily against agressive mental suggestion, and not be made to forget nor to neglect his duty to God, to his Leader, and to mankind.” (Manual p. 42.) Defense against aggressive mental suggestion is to defend against any influence that would, in belief, prevent our accepting thoughts and ideas from the divine Mind, and mesmerize us into listening to suggestions of the carnal mind which are bent upon destroying us.

The very impulse to allow an ecclesiastic body to prescribe our reading or speech is nothing short of aggressive mental suggestion. It may seem an easy way to attain spiritual growth, but to allow such suggestions to move us to confer such a basic privilege upon others is the first step toward complete subjugation of thought. It is the first false move leading to despotism.

A friend of the writer, a man of many years experience in Christian Science church work, once declared that he would not read anything that the Board of Directors at Boston had not “authorized.” He gave as his reason that he was sure they knew much better than he did what was good for his spiritual growth. In effect, he did just what the Germans did before the war when they thought Hitler knew so much better what was good for them than they did.

My friend, probably, has had an untroubled church life, for he has carried on in conformity to the rules laid down at Boston rather than the democratic processes prescribed for branch churches in the Manual. So he goes on deferring individual decisions relating to his spiritual welfare to the Directors instead of turning to the divine Mind. Naturally the more complex finis church and individual problems seem to be the more often he will defer to the Board of Directors. Inevitably his own powers of decision will weaken as he gives up dominion over his own thinking.

There is a very ne book written by Charles Francis Stocking called “Thou Israel.” The book is in the form of a novel but the writer has a profound knowledge of the working of animal magnetism and a thorough grasp of the prints-ciples of Christian Science. The Prolog is a narrative which beautifully portrays the effort of Lot to persuade Abram to return to security in Egypt when hard pressed by his foes, Abram’s steadfast refusal, and his subsequent rescue by Melchisedeck. It is a narrative of great inspiration and should be helpful to any spiritually minded reader.

In the story itself a Dr. Roake endeavors to establish a medico-religious body by merging the orthodox churches with a medical association, hoping thereby to dominate both religion and medicine. His efforts to organize such a body, and his failure because of the spiritual-mindedness of a young girl who opposes him is the theme of the story.

In the story a senator named Chaddock, thinking to forward his own plans. yields his independence of thought little by little to Dr. Roake, until the senator becomes hardly more than a babbling imbecile, subject only to the will of Dr. Roake. Such a story is, of course, fiction and the sequences exaggerated; nevertheless, potentially, that which happened to senator Chaddock could be the fate of every person that submits his will to that of another.

It is the purpose of mortal mind to control others by depriving them of their dominion. Since it has no dominion of its own, mortal mind gets what it seems to have by stealing it from others. Any Christian Scientist that permits the Board of Directors to influence his decisions, regardless of how good their motives may be, has opened his mind to the encroach-foment of that phase of animal magnetism which, if not seen and destroyed, would eventually deprive the individual of his power of volition. Yet since 1910 the animal magnetism of inferiority has so permeated churches and individual thought in the Field, that a belief in the omniscience of the authorities in Boston has become almost a fetish; and their decisions are largely accepted without questioning.

When Mrs. Eddy passed on the problem confronting the Directors seemed complex indeed. She had written the By-Laws and caused them to be enforced. She passed upon the qualification of each elected officer. She had governed the organization and was the final word in its operation by virtue of the fact that she had conceived it, organized it, and put it into operation. She was as much its directing head as the owner of any business. So long as she was here she continued to direct it. When she passed on, however, it appeared to the casual thinker that since Mrs. Eddy had directed the organization as its supreme head, she meant that it should be continued in the same manner and that a head should be appointed to succeed her.

The Directors in 1910 seemed to have jumped to that conclusion, so they appointed themselves as Mrs. Eddy’s successors. They did so even though their act violated Mrs. Eddy’s instructions given in the By-Laws of the Manual of The Mother Church. They evidently reasoned from the mortal mind premise that no organization can function properly without a titular head empowered to make laws, to judge,, and to enforce punishment.

Reasoning from such a premise it is quite reasonable to expect they would assume themselves to be Mrs. Eddy’s successor; r a premise based upon mortal mind logic could only lead to a conclusion formulated by mortal mind.

The decision thus made and adopted, the weans of mortal mind were necessarily used to maintain their stand. Their subsequent acts brought inevitable opposition from those spiritually-minded enough to see the animal magnetism back of their position. They fought the opposition, not with demonstration, but with interdictions and penalties. e Field, perplexed by the sudden departure of Mrs. Eddy and the complexities of the situation confronting it, deferred to the Board of Directors and accepted its dictums; unthinkingly, of course, as animal magnetism would have it, and the judgments and penalties soon mounted in number.

Today, more and more punishments are being meted out by the Board of Directors at Boston. Many of these penalties imposed by the Board not only violate Christian principles but the fundamental rights conferred upon every citizen of the United States by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights, Article VI reads that the accused shall enjoy the right “to be confronted with the witness against him.” Such a statute is not only in accord with simple justice but is indigenous to democracy itself. Mrs. Eddy has incorporated this principle of jurisprudence in the Manual of The Mother Church in a literal quotation from the Bible in the words of Jesus himself.

This is to be found in Article XI, Section 2. “A member who is found violating any of the By-Laws or Rules herein set forth, shall be admonished in consonance with the scriptural demand in Matthew 18:15-17.” “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church.”

But one of the first acts of despotism in maintaining its assumed power is to abrogate this behest, and to convict the accused without the benet of a fair trial. It is part of the attack upon democracy. It was part of the Nazi technique in Germany and the Fascist in Italy. It has been one of the weapons of despotism throughout ecclesiastical history.

It is sad, but nevertheless true, that this fundamental of human justice has been flagrantly violated by the Board at Boston. The Board may have acted from motives that the members considered above reproach but the result of their acts has been to infringe upon the individual rights of Christian Scientists in the Field, abrogate Mrs. Eddy’s By-Laws, and annul the Gofden Rule. This may seem to be a serious indict-foment but the effort to purge the Movement of those the Board deems inimical to the Cause has led to just such injustices.

The Cause, however, belongs to the Field and it is a serious error of omission for the Field to leave these acts unchallenged. There is no reason why Christian Scientists throughout the world should not raise their voices in protest. It is a duty that should not be deferred, for the roots of despotism sink deeper and deeper when they are undisturbed.

Recently we have received a copy of the correspondence between a Christian Science practitioner of twenty-five years standing, and the Christian Science Board of Directors. We refer to this as a case in point. \Five are citing it, not because of the personality of the practitioner involved, but because we are concerned that such a procedure could take place in the Christian Science Movement and be left unchallenged. The cor-respondene to which we refer has been printed and can be obtained by anyone who is interested.

This correspondence includes all the letters that passed between the Board of Directors and the practitioner, and speaks for itself. The facts are included in detail in these letters. For the benet of those who are not familiar with the case the principal points follow.

The practitioner has been a successful and active worker in the Field for more than twenty-five years. For twenty years of that time her name has been listed in the Christian Science Journal. She was accused by the Board of “supporting and engaging in criticisms of The Mother Church and of aiding in circulating unauthorized literature which misrepresents our Leader’s purpose in establishing a church.” She denied these charges and asked for an opportunity to go to Boston and face her accusers. This was denied and she was convicted on hearsay testimony-without even being given the opportunity to meet “face to face” those who had made the charges, and to refute their unproven testimony. After considerable corrects-pondence her name was summarily removed from the Journal.

It is almost inconceivable that a Christian Science Board could act in so unjust a fashion. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, provides that “The accused in any district of any state in the Union shall have the fight to be informed of the nature and cause of his accusations and be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The removal of this practitioner’s name from the Joual constitutes a violation not only of the teaching of Christian Science but also of the spirit and the letter of one of the most vital principles in our Constitution. Not only is it a violation of a cardinal precept of democracy but of Christian justice as well.

The foregoing was an act of the Board at Boston. But this invasion of individual rights is not con ned to Boston. The virus has spread. We have a letter from a reader of Paul Revere which we here quote.

“My branch church heard I was reading other books than Mrs. Eddy’s ‘authorized literature.’ I was first reported to my teacher. Then I was called before my church Board. I told them I felt capable of choosing good books-that I had found much good in them, also said I would continue to do the same. I had shared these books with some of my friends and also patients. So I was dropped from the membership roll.”

Probably the Board of The Mother Church and the Board of this branch church have been motivated by a desire to protect the truth which they believe has been entsted to their particular care. But in their zeal to protect the truth they have violated the truth by invading the inherent right bestowed on every individual in a democrlcy to exercise independence of thought and action.

The course these Boards have pursued, if they only could be brought to see it, has been repeated so often down through history as to be almost monotonous in its regularity. So often a basic truth has been established through determined effort and sacrifice. Relatively small groups have been entrusted with some responsibility for its dissemination. Those so entrusted have assumed that along with the responsibility to disseminate it, they have also been charged with the responsibility to protect it. And they employ almost any means to carry out their fancied obligation.

All this confers power. Power begets the desire for more power. The attainment of more and more power leads gove-foment to throw safeguards about itself to preserve its exist-thence. The safeguards are always followed by more and more incursions into the lives of the governed, who begin to chafe under the restrictions but are powerless to combat them individually. Since an individual is restrained by a system of punishments, such a government can be corrected only by united action. This action rarely comes, however, until the acts of government become so overt that the mass of those so gov-themed are roused to rebellion, and the offending government is displaced.

In each of these cycles the action is brought about by more and more violations of democratic principles, and by obstructing individual development and progress in the guise of general good. The pattern is always the same. It is the determination of government to seize control of the individual and to assume dominion over his acts.

In the government of the branch churches, as distinct-anguished from the government of The Mother Church, the branch churches are democratic in structure. The worldwide material Mother Church, as a human organization, was not de’11ocratic even when Mrs. Eddy was here. The Board of Directors was not elected by the consent of the members of the church. For, says Sect. 5, Art. 1 of the Manual, “They shall ll a vacancy cccuring on that Board after the candidate is approved by the Pastor Emeritus.” The members of The Mother Church did not have a voice in this election for no member can be added to the Board, according to the Manual, until after the candidate is approved by the Pastor Emeritus. Mrs. Eddy not only had the power of veto over any candidate for the Board but she also could veto any important step taken by the Board. Contrariwise the branch church governments are essen-t:ally democratic in every respect and they are so established to conform to Mrs. Eddy’s own instructions in the Manual. Every member of a branch church is accorded a vote in the election of its Board. The will of the membership is paramount and binding upon the Board. It is altogether a democratic process of government.

When Mrs. Eddy was here the government of The Mother Church was, in effect, a hierarchy, but Mrs. Eddy undoubtedly left the majority of decisions to the Board. She retained the right, however, to exercise a veto power if she saw t. Such a govement, though not democratic in form, was, undoub edly, the kind Mrs. Eddy considered necessary to establish the work in the Field. Knowing the great wisdom she showed in all her official acts, we must assume that such a government at that time was needful for the Cause to be established and the Truth to be spread throughout the world. Nevertheless, she established a democratic form of govement for the branch churcheone quite the reverse of that of The Mother Church itself.

The church having been established with Mrs. Eddy as its titular head, when she ceased to act in that capacity it would be essential to select a successor, in order that the organization might car on in the same manner it had before her passing. But the By-Laws do not provide for a successor!

On the contrary, Mrs. Eddy provided for the dissolution of the organization as it functioned when she was here. This provision is an indirect one, to be sure. She did not say specifically that The Mother Church should be abandoned at once but she made it impossible to carry on its govement without abrogating many of the By-Laws in the Manual. She had prepared the Deeds of Trust to meet this contingency, so that the activist-ties essential to spread the truths of Christian Science should go on under the directions she had specified.

On first thought one may question how the truths that Mrs. Eddy taught can be brought to the world unless The Mother Church organization continues as we know it today. However, the literature distribution will not stop. Science and Health and Mrs. Eddy’s other works will still be published and circulated. Under the Deed of Trust of 1898 the Publishing Society is to prepare and distribute the Christian Science Jour-final and Quarterly for use in “the Christian Science chures.” Since there would be churches using the Quarterly for their Lesson Sermons, and the Manual for their guide,-and suitable provision could be made for teachers and lecturers as conditions seemed to require,-there would be nothing to prevent spreading the truth to the entire world as effectively as before.

A pamphlet has recently been written and issued by Mr. Alfred H. Grindrod. It contains an excellent discussion of the present trend of thought in the Field as related to the problem of obedience to the Manual and the government of The Mother Church. The pamphlet is relatively short, well written, and easily read. It can be had by writing to Alfred H. Grindrod, 90 Dranseld Road, Sheffield 10, England. The pce for each pamphlet is 2/6.

Among other things Mr. Gindrod has pointed out the exag gerated importance accorded the work of the Board of Directs-tors by the Field,-and apparently by the Board members themselves. He does not belittle in any way the work the Board carries on, but he calls attention to th^ fact that the Board may have delegated duties to itself that are not intended under the Manual. For on page 56 of the Manual, Art. XIII reads: “Meetings of Board of Directors. Sec. 2. The an-annual meeting of the Christian Science Board of Directors, for electing officers and other business, shall be held on Monday preceding the annual meeting of the Church. Regular meet-flings for electing candidates for membership with The Mother Church, and for transaction of such other business as may properly come before these meetings, shall be held on the Friday preceding the first Sunday in June, and on the first Friday in November of each year. Special meetings may be held at any time upon call of the Clerk.”

The Manual provides three regular meetings of the Board each year, yet we understand they meet most every day. Has the Board taken upon itself duties that Mrs. Eddy did not intend it to assume? Three meetings a year would allow for the transaction of a very small amount of business, yet this is the time regularly alloted by Mrs. Eddy for the Board’s entire year’s business.

The Manual also provides a salary of $2500 per year for each member of the Board-subject to increase to be sure-but far less than they are reported to receive now. Incidents-tally, two of our readers have recently written to the Board to inquire what salary the Board members now receive per annum. These inquirers being members of The Mother Church, and contributors to the salary of the Board, indirectly, through yearly dues and subscriptions to various periodicals, felt they had a right to ask such a question. The Board answered that such information was not given to the Field by the Board.

Mr. Grindrod’s point concerting the provision in the By-Laws for only three regular meetings of the Board each year is well taken. It emphasizes the comparatively minor import-fiance that Mrs. Eddy attached to the Board’s position in Mother Church affairs.

The aim of this Paul Revere pamphlet, and, indeed, of every pamphlet we have written, is to uncover the phase of animal magnetism that has influenced the various Boards of Directors since 1910-innocently but none the less dangerously-to undermine the democratic principles upon which the government of branch churches, and the rights of members of The Mother Churh, have been built. These encroachments have been gradual but aggressive. They are symbolic of the attacks of mortal mind throughout history in its efforts to deprive man of his God-given heritage of freedom of thought and speech.

The Directors are doing nothing that has not been tried by those in power in church governments century after century. Many of their policies spring from the same source from which the motivating purpose back of the Sanhedrin sprang when it brought about the crucifixion of Jesus. They have been the same as those of the church in its persecution of John Wycliffe, Peter Waldo, John Hushes, Martin Luther, and others who represented an enlightened thought,-but whom the church feared because it might lose its grasp of power over the individual. The attacks upon the freedom of the early American colonists stemmed from the same mortal mind that incited these earlier efforts to inhibit personal freedom.

Few documents have eve1· been written that have set forth the rights of the individual with such clarity as the Declaration of Independence. Let us here quote part of the second paragraph of that immortal, spiritual document: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suer, while evils are sufi erable, than to right thmselves by abolishing the forms to Which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpa-tions, pursuing invariably the same object, evidence a design to reduce them to absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw o such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Force is not the way of spiritually-minded Christian Scientists. We do not right our wrongs that way. But when continued usurpations of individual rights evidence a trend toward autocratic control and human directives it is not alone our right, but our solemn duty to search out the causes and rise in protest against them.

As the writers of Paul Revere have pointed out over and over for nearly five years the cause lies in the fact that those who direct the Movement have yielded to the suggestions of animal magnetism which first would confuse and perplex them, then lead them into committing acts contrary to the very essence of the spirit of the Manual of The Mother Church and the Golden Rule. Maintenance of official position has led to prohibitions and penalties which have invaded individual rights, and struck at the whole democratic way of life.

This attempted invasion of democratic rights has been growing in political states and governments throughout this present century. It brought about the first World War and culminated later in the second World War. Both were fought to preserve democracy and individual rights. Almost parallel with this growth of despotism in power politics has been the gradual encroachment upon the rights and privileges bestowed upon every Christian Scientist by divine right, and the human rights conferred by the Manual of The Mother Church.

It is almost as though all the forces of despotism had entered into a conspiracy to wipe democracy from the world. It can be nothing but an agency of the carnal mind that would attempt to deprive man of the individual right of speech and action. It is an assault of animal magnetism directed against that which is the highest form of government that we know in human affairs,-either religious or political.

But not only have those in Boston yielded to this influence, we in the Field who have tolerated this condition for so many years, have contributed to the seeming success that animal magnetism has attained. The same animal magnetism that would make the leaders aggressive in their determination to seize power would cast a spell of apathy upon those who follow them. The serpent of despotism, unopposed, poisons the consciousness of its victims, and its deadly artifice thereby accomplishes its purpose.

The writers of the Declaration of Independence were right. “Mankind are more disposed to suer, while evils are suer-able, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” We in the Field have been too long disposed to permit this form of animal magnetism to continue its work without protest. Our protest now is not to abolish anything, for error is unreal. It is to insist upon that which is real. It is to insist upon the kind of government that Mrs. Eddy has provided for us in the Manual of The Mother Church. It is to support the Board of Directors so long as they obey the Manual as Mrs. Eddy has written it, and to rise in protest when they do not.

Paul Revere’s ride ushered in the dawn of a new day for the Colonies determined to have a free government. Nothing new was created, nothing that is not to be man’s right through all eternity was sought. Man’s right of self government was the issue when Paul Revere rode in 1776, and it is the issue in this twentieth century message of “Paul Revere.”




Chapter Thirty-Two: Paul Revere Author Excommunicated

Pamphlet Number Thirty-Two

In the summer of 1948, just five years after the publication of the first pamphlet, Paul Revere published a circular letter stating that the authors were ready and willing to reveal their identity to anyone sufficiently interested to inquire. The letter sent to those who inquired was the first statement made publicly by the authors, that definitely established their identity. In making this statement, they were not unmindful of the fact that in so doing they were furnishing official Boston with what it lacked before, namely, proof of who the authors were-proof that the Board of Directors might use if they sought to discipline the authors with the traditional weapon of excommunication. We should like to point out at this juncture that there had been little doubt that the Board of Directors for at least three years previous to our writing this circular letter had known the identity of Paul Revere. In 1945 we received information that the dictatorial attitude of the Board of Directors towards the Board of Trustees of the Publishing Society was on the verge of precipitating the whole Movement into turmoil and confusion through another lawsuit between the Board of Directors and the Board of ustees. Animal magnetism seemed about to succeed in again rending the whole Movement as it had in 1919-1921. Upon receiving this information, we sent a teleam to the Board of Directors at Boston asking them whether they felt we could serve the Cause better by bringing this issue to the attention of the Field in the Paul Revere pamphlets, or by remaining silent. Almost immediately a long distance telephone call came from headquarters at Boston to Mr. Walter H. Wilson in Washington, D. C., asking him to make no reference to the matter in the pamphlets because it already had been settled. Mr. Wilson is, as you may know, coauthor with Mr. Karl N. Smith of Rochester, N. Y., of these pamphlets. The telegram to the Board had been signed by Paul Revere with no other address than the Post Office Box number. The telephone call from the Board had come to Mr. Wilson at his Washington office address. This shows clearly that the Board of Directors, even as early as 1945 was coizant of Mr. Wilson’s connection with the Paul Revere pamphlets. As a matter of fact, the authors have correspondence from the Board of Directors written three months after the first pamphlet was published, showing that they then knew the identity of the authors, but had been unable to take advantage of this knowledge to discipline them because the information had been obtained from the Post Office department in such a manner that for the Board to use it would not only involve themselves but those from whom the information had been obtained. Thus, even though the Directors knew the identity of the authors there was no action taken by the Board until after the publication of the circular letter of 1948 disclosing who the authors were. publishing this letter, the authors felt that the message of Paul Revere had been presented under a nom-de-plume for a sufficient length of time to be judged on its merits alone. It had been accepted throughout the Field uninfluenced by a knowledge of the personality of the authors and the time had now come when their identity should be revealed in order that the issues presented in the pamphlets might be discussed openly and clarified by the authors, even though it involved the possibility of their excommunication from The Mother Church. As our readers will recall, the authors have consistently and persistently maintained the position that they do not feel that resigning from The Mother Church in protest against the manner in which its affairs are being administered, is the best method for them to pursue-they believe that if either resignations or excommunications are to be-wholesale excommunications would more effectively aid the Cause than wholesale resignations made in protest. And so, if by revealing their identity, they were to be excommunicated from The Mother Church, they should but be paying the cost of having been a member of that immortal band who, do through the ages, have, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” They did not have to wait long, however. Within a few weeks, Mr. Wilson received a call from Mr. James Watt, Publication Committee for Washington, D. C. Mr. Watt stated that he was calling at the request of the Christian Science Board of Directors, and as their emissary, in regard to Mr. Wilson’s connection with the publication of the Paul Revere pamphlets, and in connection with his membership in The Mother Church. Mr. Watt stated that the Board considered the pamphlets detrimental to the Cause of Christian Science and wished Mr. Wilson to discontinue their publication. Mr. Watt disclaimed any knowledge of the purpose of the Board in sending him, other than to report to the Board of Directors the attitude of Mr. Wilson in regard to the publishing of these pamphlets. A discussion of about an hour ensued, in which Mr. Wilson endeavored to present a real picture of the purpose of the pamphlets and of a seeming necessity for their publication, but refused to discuss them from the standpoint that if he continued to publish the About two weeks later, Mr. Wilson received another call from Mr. Watt and this time Mr. Watt was accompanied by his secretary, Miss Endres. Miss Endres was presumably present as a witness to substantiate any charges made by Mr. Watt, for in the discµfission which ensued she said nothing. Shortly after their call, Mr. Wilson received a letter from the Board of Directors. This letter, together with his reply, and the letters resulting in his excommunication from The Mother Church explain themselves and reveal only too well the sad condition of our beloved Cause. The letters follow: THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST in

Boston,.Massachusetts Office of

Mr. Walter H. Wilson November 24, 1948 Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Wilson, Confidential We regret to inform you that complaints have been led with this Board charging that you have “the name without the life of a Christian Scientist” (Article X:J, Section 1, Manual of The Mother Church by Mary Baker Eddy) in that you have participated in the publication of the so-called “Paul Revere” pamphlets, the apparent purpose of which has been to injure or destroy The Mother Church and its essential activities as they were established by our beloved Leader. Mr. James Watt and Miss Charlotte M. Endres, both of whom are members of The Mother Church, have admonished you in accordance with the provisions of Article, Section 4, of the Church Manual. This Board will meet at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, January 5, 1949, in the Board Room, 107 Falmouth Street, Boston, Massachusetts, in accordance with the provisions of Article XI, Section 1, of the Church Manual, to consider all of the evidence before us, both for and against you, in order to decide what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken with reference to your status as a member of The Mother Church. Any evidence which you desire to present in your behalf, md which pertains to the subject of this meeting, should reach us on or before the date of this meeting. It will be given our careful consideration, and preferably should be in affidavit form. You may be personally present at the hearing if you so desire. If it is your intention to be present, please notify us to that effect on or before December 17, 1948, so that we may set aside sufficient time to hear you in person. We deeply regret that it has become necessary for us to write you this letter. Sincerely yours, Dear Friends:- 1701 16th St., N.W. Washington, D. C. December 15, 1948 I thank you for your letter of November 24, 1948, stating that complaints have been led with your Board that I have “the name without the life of a Christian Scientist,” in that I have participated in the publication of the Paul Revere pamphlets, “the apparent purpose of which is to injure or destroy The Mother Church and its essential activities as they were established by our beloved Leader.” So far as the statement of my having “the name without the life of a Christian Scientist” is concerted, my twenty-five years of healing work as a practitioner, and my many years of activity in branch church work, refute any such statement. My record is known to hundreds whom I have healed, and others with whom I have been in daily contact. Since it is a simple matter for you to satisfy yourself as to this fact, if you so desire, I see no point in appearing at your meeting in order, personally, to deny any such statement. Should this alone be the issue, therefore, I would decline to appear or present affidavits to refute so fse a state-foment. On the other hand, if the charge of my having “the name without the life of a Christian Scientist’’ is based entirely upon the fact that I am one of the authors of the Paul Revere pamphlets, and that you believe the pamphlets are written for the purpose of destroying The Mother Church, I shall be glad to appear before your Board to defend the pamphlets and their authors, and show, from my point of view, that they are not inimical to the Cause of Christian Science, and that the motive of the authors is in no way to destroy The Mother Church or any of its essential a tivities. Furthermore, if, as a result of meeting with your Board, I should become convinced that we have been wrong, in whole or in part, in the position we have taken in the Paul Revere pamphlets, I shall be glad to publish a retractionr I will even go so far as to discontinue their publication entirely. Revere pamphlets, but only the coauthor of them with Mr. Karl N. Smith, it is incumbent upon me that I enter into no discussion as to policies and future action concerning the pamphlets unless Mr. Smith is present to participate in and fitness the discussion. Therefore, if it meets with your approval both Mr. Smith and I will come to Boston and meet with your Board on January 5, 1949 at 2 P. M. Sincerely Yours, Walter H. Wilson

THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST

in Boston, Mass. Office of Dec. 27, 1948 AIR MAIL Registered; personal, return receipt requested Mr. Walter H. Wilson Washinon, D. C. Dear Mr. Wilson, Condenal This will acknowledge your letter of December 15 which has now received our consideration. We note your statement that Mr. Karl N. Smith is the coauthor with you of the so-called “Paul Revere” pamphlets, and your request that he be permitted to attend the meeting of this Board to be held on January 5, 1949, for the consideration of the charges concerning your membership in The Mother Church. Since the charges to be considered in this instance concern you only, we do not think it necessary or advisable that Mr. Smith should accompany you on this occasion. As stated in our letter to you of November 24, the charge that you have “the name without the life of a Christian Scientist” (Article XI, Section 1, Manual of The Mother Church by Mary Baker Eddy) is based upon your participation in the publication of the pamphlets mentioned above. If it is your desire to be present at our meeting, will you kindly inform us definitely to that effect on or before Friday, December 31, so that our agenda may be arranged to permit sufficient time to hear you in person. Sincerely yours, Apt. 144, Hotel Chastleton 170116th St., N. W. Washington, D. C. January 1. 1949 Dear Friends:- I thank you for your letter of December 27, relative to the proposed meeting of Mr. Smith and myself with your Board on January 5, 1949. It is quite satisfactory for it made me sure of what I could only suspect before. My letter to you was worded in such a way that your reply would indicate to us and subsequently to the readers of our pamphlets-an ever increasing number of alert Christian Scientists all over the world-whether you were really interested in stopping the publishing of the Paul Revere pamphlets or whether you were just interested in bringing me to trial because of my connection with them. Your unwillingness to meet with Mr. Smith and me and discuss on their merits the issues that we bring up in these pamphlets indicates either that you are unable or afraid to answer us, or that your only interest in seeing me is purely disciplinary. In his call upon me as your emissary, Mr. Watt stated that in your opinion these pamphlets were detrimental to the welfare of the Christian Science organization and that as a member of The Mother Church you wished me to desist in their publication. I assured Mr. Watt that our les were filled with letters from all over the world which quite refutes your human opinion about their effect, and furthermore, if your request for me to discontinue their publication was in the nature of a threat to my membership in The Mother Church-that if I did not discontmue them, my membership would be involved-I was not interested in any further discussion of the subject. In his first visit, Mr. Watt seemed quite vague as to the real purpose you had in asking him to call upon me and seemed to have a sanguine hope that a meeting with your Board would re-sultan in a healing of the present situation. When I told. Watt that as late as last February, I had received a lett^r from your Board stating that no good purposes could be achieved by such a meeting, he reminded me that since that time Miss Gwalter and Mr. Craig had been elected to your Board and that possibly their contribution to the thought of the Board had changed its attitude toward the Field. With this I heartily concurred and assured Mr. Watt that under the conditions imposed in a former letter to you, I would be very willing to meet with your Board in regard to the pphlets, on the basis of the merits of the issues involved but under no circumstances would I be interested in a meeting with you with the threat of excommunication hanging over me as a punitive measure if I did not stop the publication of the pamphlets. I asked Mr. Watt if you believed that a threat of excommunication, or even excommunication itself, would terminate the publication of the pamphlets. I assured him that even if I were excommunicated nothing of the sort would take place-that, instead, it would only enable us to furnish our readers with further proof that an ecclesiastical despotism was throttling our Cause. Does history show that excommunication has ever stifled the so-called heretics-meaning by the term “heretics”, those who dare disagree with the decisions, policies and interpretations of so-called constituted authority of an ecclesiastical organization? I assured Mr. Watt that if you are right in your contention that these pamphlets are detrimental to the best interests of our beloved Cause, and if your purpose is not merely punitive in desiring me to discontinue them, then there is a very easy and simple way to stop them, namely, to sit down with the authors and go over the issues brought out in the pamphlets and answer them. The writers are open to reason and logic and demonstration. If you can show us that we are wrong and that our contentions in the pamphlets are incorrect, we will publish but one more pamphlet, in which we will state you have convinced us, without threats or pressure of any kind, that what we have written is wrong, and consequently we will discontinue any further publications. There was nothing vague in the attitude of Mr. Watt in his second call upon me in regard to the purpose of his call. It was definitely in relation to my membership in The Mother Church, for he said so and wished to know if I would “repent”. Whether or not he used the word “repent” at your instigation, or of his own volition, I do not know, but considering the history of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and their use of the phrase, “repent, or be excommunicated,” whoever is responsible for the use of the word “repent” in relation to my connection th the Paul Revere pamphlets and my membership in The Mother Church should have thought twice before he used such a word. the issues involved in its use now in the Christian Science Movement were not so serious for the world, it would surely be ludicrous. It is true the word “repent” is used in the past tense by Mrs. Eddy in the Manual in connection with membership in The Mother Church when our Leader was here and maintained supervision over the Board of Directors. But to suppose that an interpretation of her By-Laws is correct that empowers a set of five persons whom our Leader could not possibly know, with the right to demand of other Christian Scientists, that they “repent or be excommunicated,” ought surely to awaken even the sleepiest Christian Scientist to a realization that someone had flagrantly misinterpreted our Leader’s instructions and By-Laws. It is inconceivable that our Leader would be so lacking in intelligence as to formulate By-Laws that would keep alive in the consciousness of her followers a phrase of Roman Catholicism so abhorrent and repugnant to every otestant who knows the history of the Dark Ages and the medieval Roman Catholic Church, and even its present one. Of course, I told. Watt to report to you that I would not “repent” and I assume that he did so. Not that I would be adverse to repenting if I felt that I had done something wrong, but “repent or be excommunicated,” never!! In this case I do not think I am doing something wrong. I assured Mr. Watt that I felt confident that you were acting up to your highest sense of what constitutes your duty under your interetation of the Manual. So am I and those associated with me. Our love for the Cause and our sense of duty is as great as yours. No excommunication that you can inflict can separate us from the real and only Mother Church there is, nor make us leave it or fight the Cause Mrs. Eddy gave so much to establish. It is still our church and no one can really put us out of it. All that we are we owe to Mrs. Eddy’s hard and arduomi forty-five years’ work in giving this great Truth to the world and the establish-foment of a church to spread it. In writing these pamphlets we were inspired solely by our gratitude to Mrs. Eddy and a sincere desire to correct as far as we cn what appears to us to be a flagrant violation of her explicit instructions. These pamphlets are not the product of the mind of a “disgruntled practitioner’’ as has been disseminated to the Field from Boston. Surely we would not waste time and effort in sending them out if there were not some higher underlying motive than revenge or retaliation. On the contrary, we are sending them forth because of a deeseated conviction that our Cause, the Cause we all love so dearly, is in serious danger despite the prosperity that is made to appear on the surface. Your love of this Cause impels you to take your methods-our love of the same Cause impels us to take our methods. And who is to be the judge of whether or not it is the excommunicators who are having “the name without the life of a Christian Scientist” or those excommunicated? Our readers and an ever increasing number of earnest, thinking Christian Scientists are growing more sure every day as the excounications of fearless and conscientious members of The Mother Church increase, that it applies to those who are so mesmerized as to think they can steady the ark of Truth by excommica-tions. Your letter states that the charges against me concert me alone and therefore you do not think it necessa or advisable that Mr. Smith should accompany me. My letter to you states quite definitely that the only reason that I would even consider being present at such a meeting as you propose is to defend the pamphlets against your charges that they are detrimental and that their apparent purpose is to “injure or destroy The Mother Church and its essential activities as they were established by our beloved Leader.” I, however, do not think it advisable that I should meet with your Board for the purpose of defending these pamphlets or discussing their policies without Mr. Smith, their coauthor, being present. Therefore, I shall not be present on January 5, 1949. If, at any future time, you decide that you are willing to meet with us and discuss in a friendly and Chstianly scientist c manner the issues involved, we shall be glad to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

Walter H. Wilson.

THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST

in Boston, Mass. Office of January 7, 1949 Mr. Walter H. Wilson, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Wilson, PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL This will acknowledge your letter of January 1, 1949, in which you stated that you did not think it desirable to attend our meeting on January 5, 1949, at which consideration was to be given to the question of your membership in The Mother Church. It is the considered judgment of this Board in the light of all of the information which has come to us that the purpose of the so-called “Paul Revere” pamphlets is to injure or destroy The Mother Church and its essential activities as they were established by our beloved Leader, Mary Baker Eddy. You have admitted your activity in the authorship of these pamphlets, and have been lovingly and earnestly admonished by two members of The Mother Church in accordance with the provisions of the Church Manual by Mrs. Eddy. At our meeting which was held on January 5 in accord-fiance with the notice given you in our letter of November 24, 1948, we voted to remove your name from the roll of membership of The Mother Church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts. It was with deep regret that we found it necessary to take this action for the protection of the Cause of Christian Science. Its purpose is not to punish but to heal. For about twenty-five years this Board has patiently and lovingly worked with you hoping for the healing of the fundamentally wrong attitude on your part which necessitated the removal of your practitioner’s card from The Christian Science Journal where it had appeared during the year 1922. It was removed at the end of that year for the reason, among others, of your failure to live in Christian fellowship with other Christian Scientists and because of your bitter and violent attacks on the other practitioners and the authorized teacher of Christian Science in the city in which you were then practicing. Our records indicate that you applied many of the same epithets to the other workers in that city at that time which you now employ in the “Paul Revere” pamphlets in attacking other loyal members of The Mother Church. We note also that it was at that time that you were actively supporting the unsuccessful e orts of certain members of The Mother Church to overthrow its government and its Manual. Your three applications to have your card reinserted in the practitioners’ directory of The Christian Science Jour-final, extending up to as late as 19,41, were all carefully and sympathetically considered. Investigation of the facts each time, however, indicated your unfitness to be recognized as a listed practitioner, this despite earnest efforts to help you and to heal the wrong thinking which was causing the continuing difficulty. Since the refusal in June, 1943, of your most recent a plication to have your card reinserted in the Journal, your activities in writing and publishing certain pamphlets could properly be described as an effort to work against the Cause of Christian Science and against our Leader. With the eaest hope that you will turn honestly and humbly to Mrs. Eddy’s writings and the Bible and nd therein that which heals and satisfies, and with all best wishes for your welfare, we are

Sincerely yours,

To this letter of January 7, 1949, Mr. Wilson made no reply. As it refers to situations that are not familiar to our readers, and in justice to Mr. Wilson, a few words of explanation may help in presenting the true picture from our side of the prism. Mr. Wilson took up the study of Christian Science in 191Z; was class taught in 1917, and after spending four years in the home of his teacher, in Baltimore, Md., felt guided to enter the public practice of Christian Science in January, 1921, in Rochester, N. Y. This was the time when the whole Christian Science Movement was divided into two mentally armed camps as a result of the litigation in Boston. This litigation was the culmination of the effort on the part of the Christian Science Board of Directors to complete its control over the entire Movement by subduing the Board of Trustees of the Publishing Society. This effort to control was in direct violation of the specific provisions of the irrevocable Deed of Trust of 1898 by which Mrs. Eddy created and established the Publishing Society. At this time when the majority of the practitioners were removing their names from the Christian Science Joual as an evidence of their “loyalty” to the Board of Directors, and cancelling their subscriptions to the periodicals, and when the churches were preventing their reading rooms from selling the periodicals, Mr. Wilson applied for a card in the Journal as a practitioner, on the basis of his healing work. His application was accepted. He felt that the periodicals were established by our Leader and should be supported and that the healing of the situation in Boston was not to be met scientifically by “boycotting’’ the periodi-canals nor by “making a shell of the Publishing Society” as was stated to be the purpose of the Board of Directors in the record of the trial. When Mr. Wilson’s name first appeared in the Journal in January, 1922, his was the only one listed in the directory for the city of Rochester, N. Y.,-all of the other practitioners having requested that their names be removed. Shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts was handed down in favor of the Board of Directors and all those practitioners who had requested that their names be removed from the Journal were now having them reinserted, the only teacher in Rochester at that time,-”loyal” and “faithful’’ to his Board of Directors-signed a petition to the Christian Science Board of Directors to have Mr. Wilson’s name removed from the Journal. This petition he caused to be circulated to all of the practitioners in the city and all but three of them-some twenty-seven in all-signed it. As a result of this petition, the charge was made that Mr. Wilson was not living in fellowship with the other Scientists in the Fieid. This charge was apparently based on his refusal to discontinue his subscriptions to the periodicals during the litigation. Following this charge, Mr. Wilson had voluminous correspondence with the Christian Science Board of Directors in which he endeavored to show that, while he was practically alone in Rochester in his sufi port of the periodicals, he at no time had ever had an argu. foment or controversy or even a discussion. with the other practitioners who had signed the petition. In fact, as he had only recently moved to Rochester, he ha met only a very few of these practitioners. In spite of his efforts to explain his position to the Directors, his name was finally removed from the Journal. Nevertheless, this did not deter him from continuing in the practice or making repeated efforts to have his name reinserted in the Journal. In fact, three times during the next twenty-five years, he made application tor reinstatement. However, in spite of a record of very successful healing, each of his applications was rejected on the same basis-that he was still not living in fellowship with the other Scientists in his Field. He was told that there had been other Scientists who had originally taken the same stand in regard to the periodicals that he had, but who had been led to see that this stand was error, whereupon their names were then reinserted. He was told that if he would do likewise, he could have his name put back in the Journal. However, not believing that the stand he had taken was error, he refused. Thus for all those years he actually was denied his name in the Journal because of his stand in regard to the litigation of 1919-1921. The statement of the Board of Directors in their letter of January 7, 1949 that they had “lovingly and patiently worked” with Mr. Wilson for twenty-five years in the hope of healing him is pure falsehood. At no time was there ever any evidence of love, nor even human fairness. It was one continuous effort to have him repent or be purged, the same kind of “loving” effort that had succeeded in purging from our lVIovement today some of the most spiritually minded and clear thinking Scientists of our time. During twenty-five years of continuous practice, Mr. Wilson, together with many other Scientists had seen the development of this ecclesiastical despotism. When the third application for a card in the Journal was rejected, he, with Mr. Karl N. Smith, felt led to start the publication of the Paul Revere pamphlets. In no sense, however, was this step decided upon as a result of any personal sense or hurt because Mr. Wilson’s applications had been rejected, but rather because of a genuine effort to do all that could be done to help correct this growing abuse of power in our church organization. While the foregoing may seem to be a recitation of personal history, the correspondence with the Director is not included for any personal reasons, but because it indicates the adamant and intolerant attitude of the Board of Directors toward anyone who dares to question their supreme ecclesiastical point of view. The letters show Mr. Wilson’s willingness to meet with them and discuss the issues that have been brought out in these pamphlets for the last six years, and even the willingness of the authors to discontinue the publication of the pamphlets if the Board can prove them wrong in their contentions. But the letters show no willingness on the part of the Board of Directors either to meet with the authors or to discuss the issues involved; they show, instead, a determination to invoke the aid of animal magnetism’s age old weapon of excommunication. They show, too, an utter failure on the part of the Directors to realize that when they say “cease the publication of these pamphlets or we shall excommunicate you,” they are ignoring the lessons that long centuries of religious history should have taught them, namely, that the act of excommumcation of those who oppose the dictatorial use of temporal power will never silence the voices raised in protest. We read of the ecclesiastical excommunications of the past and are inclined to be tolerant and dismiss them as a product of the Dark Ages. However, in this day of struggle between the forces of democracy and those of dictatorship, it is too tragic to dismiss lightly the thought that our Board of Directors is being so mesmerized by animal magnetism as to imagine it can, by the use of excommunications, make into another dictatorship this free and democratic organization founded by the inspiration of our Leader. Our Board should by example be leading the world of today out of dictatorships instead of allowing animal magnetism to mesmerize it and the Field into believing that the Christian Scientists can not think for themselves, but must have somebody in Boston, some “higher-uppers” to do it for them, some “king to rule over them,” someone to interpret God for them. Furthermore, for the Board to believe that it is obeying Mrs. Eddy when it inflicts excommunication on any and all who openly refuse to accept its interpretation is the quintessence of animal magnetism!! Excommunication will neither frighten the authors of Paul Revere into subjection, nor will it cause their efforts in behalf of the Cause to cease or even diminish.These efforts will continue until the consciousness of Christian Scientists so rises through a clearer understanding of our Leader’s teachings and instructions that the mesmerism engulfing the Board will be forever broken! This improved consciousness will manifest itself in a Board healed of its ecclesiastical and despotic tendencies, which will, in obedience to our Manual, reinstate the true form of church government established by our Leader. Will it not be wonderful when all the channels of the organization now being used by the Board of Directors to indoctrinate the Field with propaganda which attempts to justify the despotic control of official Boston, will be used to disseminate to the Field the glad tidings that henceforth all Christian Scientists must look to God for guidance and direction and not to a Board in Boston? Furthermore, when this Board, in obedience to the estoppel clauses in our Manual and Mrs. Eddy’s instructions in the 1892 Deed of Trust, confines its church activities to The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, then will the present reign of ecclesiasticism cease, and the government of our church will have evolved that much nearer perfection. Then it will be free to demonstrate further steps in its scientific evolution as prophesied by Mrs. Eddy on page 342 of Miscellany. In response to the question as to how her church should be governed after all those who were then concerned in its government should have passed on, she replied: “It will evolve scientifically................. Its government will develop as it progresses. In time its present rules of service and present rulership will advance nearer perfection.”



About the Authors

WALTER H. WILSON

Walter Wilson was born and raised in Metuchen, New Jersey, and was a graduate of Rutgers University. He became a student of Christian Science in 1912 and joined the Mother Church in 1916. He was class taught in 1917, and after spending four years in the home of his teacher, he entered the public practice of Christian Science in Rochester, New York. He was in continuous practice in that city until he moved to Washington, D.C. in 1945. He continued his practice there for two more decades, until he moved to Florida.

Mr. Wilson was one of the founding members of Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist, Rochester, New York. In 1949, his name was removed from the Mother Church membership roles because of his co-authorship of the Paul Revere pamphlets, which exposed the violations of the Church Manual and the resulting decline of the Cisan Science organization.

He served his leader, Mary Baker Eddy, very well as a public practitioner for over fifty years, “healing by teacng d teaching by healing” in accordance with her instructions in Miscellaneous Writings. Mrs. Eddy says, “The student who hea by teaching and teaches by healing, will graduate under divi honors, which are the only appropriate sea for Christian Science.” Indeed he has done ts. “Well do, good and faithful servant.”

KARL N. SMITH

Karl Smith was born in Upstate New York and was the son of Elmer Smith, a revered Christian Science practitioner. He was raised and educated in Rochester, New York, where he attended Sunday School and as an adult attended First Church of Christ, Scienst.

Early in his business career he entered the brokerage business and in 1932 he started his own investment rm. He was a talented musician and a man of broad and deep scholarship.

Shortly after e formation of Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist, Rochester, New York, Mr. Smith became a member of that body and seed as First Reader for two terms. Over the next thirty years he served in all other leadership positions within the church.

Karl Smith took Class Instruction wi William D. Kilpatrick, C.S.B. He was a member of the Mother Church from his youth, until removed from membership by the Board of Directors for his co-authorship of the Paul Revere pamphlets.

His devotion to Mrs. Eddy and to the advancement of the Christian Science movement were exemplified by his ceaseless efforts to awaken the Christian Science field to the violations of the Church Manual, the increasing despotic control of official Boston, and the resulting effects of is destructive course. His eos have done much to hasten this awakening and for this we give him divine praise.



Note Bene

Mrs. Eddy has warned her students over and over again against the disastus effects of ignoring what she has written concerning the belief of animal magnetism, and the necessity of sufficient defense against it. To the earnest, spiritually minded student it is obvious that the difficulties that confront our Cause today have their root in this failure to study and understand the claims of animal magnetism and its method of operation, and to destroy it as Mrs. Eddy has directed. This failure to handle animal magnetism has produced two complementary effects in our organization: (a) a state of consciousness which makes a few persons in Boston feel that they ought, by virtue of their positions, to dictate to others. (b) a state of consciousness which makes those in the Field only too willing to be dictated to.

Dictators often nd opposed to them inspired Magna Chartas that have been written to curb the unrestrained ambitions of dictators. The first step of dictators, religious and secular, has been an effort to nullify, through amendments, these bulwarks of liberty and freedom. Our Magna Charta, the Manual of the Mother Church, absolutely prohibits any amendments whatever. The Board of Directors, however, under the influence of animal magnetism having, apparently, failed to discern a spiritual interpretation of the Manual, has actually amended it, in effect, by violating repeatedly many of its By-Laws. This is the very thing that Mrs. Eddy wished to guard against. The Field, under the same influence, having failed also to discern a spiritual interpretation of the Manual has consented, without protest, to these violations. Continued violations of the Manual must inevitably lead to proposals that the Manual has become outmoded; that its provisions cannot be candied out legally, and therefore the By-Laws should be waived.

In the final analysis, i a healing does not take place, the only logical conclusion must be that, in a few years, the Manual will be cast o as unworkable; the gove-foment of the Mother Church will finally fall into men’s hands, and we shaH have a govement of men not of laws.



Karl N. Smith & Walter H. Wilson

Print this page


Share via email





Love is the liberator.