rather in form than in spirit, and will gradually melt away. We would rejoice with all people when they rejoice. In whatever way any body of people, calling themselves Christian Scientists or by any other name, bring greater happiness and a higher and truer knowledge of life to others, instead of finding fault, let us gladly indorse that which they have accomplished. We know that whatever good is wrought is of the Spirit of God-in both thought and work.

In defining the principles professed by the New Thought followers, we are free to admit that they do not always adhere to their highest ideals; but exception should not be taken to the law, but rather to the failure to live up to its requirements. The New Thought teaches that we should live from the center of life outward; that we should recognize the power of God working within us to will and to do. There should be such an outflow of faith and love and hope from the soul into the mind of man that his thought would really become transfigured, his body transformed, and God's kingdom expressed "on earth as it is in heaven." We believe that any reform that shall ever come into the world will not be through a work that deals solely with the external life, but will have its inception in the heart -in the soul and life-of man; that there is no problem in life that cannot be solved through a knowledge of the law of God as it is written in the heart of man-and obedience thereto. The New Thought stands for a vital Christianity that goes to the very heart of things; that pays no attention to the letter or the form, but creates both letter and form for itself in perfect accord with the inner word.

We have, therefore, no desire to build up any sectarian organization or to tear down any that now exists. We would say, with Paul, that "the unknown God whom ye ignorantly worship, him we declare unto you." God-who is in all, through all, and above all-worketh within you to will and to do. Having no sectarian organization, yet offering the right hand of fellowship to members of all religious denominations; having no belief in creed or dogma, yet recognizing the full rights of all who desire and feel the need of both: the New

Thought Movement has not come to destroy, but to fulfil. It has not come to tear down, but to build up; yet that building will not be made by the hands of man, but will abide in the hearts of the people-wherein their minds will become strengthened and their bodies be made whole.

While the movement is an aggressive one, it would antagonize no body of people. It is aggressive for the fundamental position it takes, being affirmative from beginning to end. It affirms the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of God-with all that these words imply. It stands for a gospel of peace and good-will to all men. It is optimistic throughout. It declares that it is easier for man to be well and happy than to be the reverse. It is easier to go with the law than to put one's self in opposition to it. Losing the idea of itself as a sectarian religion, it finds itself in reality a Universal Religion. CHARLES BRODIE PATTERSON.

New York.

III. ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARD THINGS
NOT SEEN.

IN with the phrase, set that it is taken in the same

IN dealing with the phrase, "attitude of the Church," it is

sense by the reader as by the writer. It is in its broadest signification that I shall use the word Church-the mass of Christians, organized and unorganized, wherever found, whatever called. As thus defined it has no way of declaring itself, and so the phrase for my purpose stands for the attitude of its members, clerical and lay. Sheep follow the shepherd. Many laymen echo their minister. Therefore, it is with the position of the clergy toward metaphysical research that my remarks will have most to do. That their general bearing is as truth's trustees hostile to interference with a trust, as stewards of divine mysteries accountable for stewardship, as officers of a church militant contending for faith once for all delivered to the saints, with neither eye nor ear for anything else-this is well known. That it ought to be as truth's seekers also, ready to receive

the additional revelations which Christ promised through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, open-minded enough to investigate fresh phenomena, even though their environment be as humble and unprepossessing as that of the first Revealer and his fisher-folk, this is the proposition that I have set myself to maintain.

My choice of this theme is due to the curious contrast between profession and practise presented by the Church in regard to one of the most interesting movements of the nineteenth century. It accepts the New Testament miracles of healing, which rest on ancient testimony of witnesses whose crossexamination has not come down with their story, and rejects the tales of mental healing which are supported by modern evidence in the mouths of living witnesses who are able to stand the most rigid questioning. For two thousand years it has been professing faith in the teachings of Christ as to the efficacy of mental operations in the cure of bodily ills, but its practise has been to put faith in doctors and drugs. Multitudes of our fellow-citizens are at this moment performing cures under a literal interpretation of Christ's language, and the Church refuses to investigate their works and reads them out of its holy courts as sinners. Is it consistent to reject as incredible testimony of the nineteenth century while accepting that of the first?

To discredit mental healing is indeed to be expected from those of the clergy who think that they need to use Christ's miracles of healing as proofs of his divinity. To admit that a mere man can by an operation of his mind so influence the mind of another as to cure that other's bodily disease would in their judgment destroy the force of their argument. They assume that assertion of the divinity of Christ implies denial of any divinity in man. In order, therefore, that they may continue to use the miracles of healing to prove the former, they will not even look into occurrences that on their logic might be an argument for the latter. They easily get rid of the inconvenient fact that the New Testament is filled with accounts of men doing those things by the assertion that those men were

specially empowered by Christ, and the power died with them. Fiat miracles are now in as much dis-esteem among theologians as fiat money among financiers; and the modern school holds that Christ worked his miracles in accordance with, rather than in defiance of, law. But new and old alike agree in maintaining that the power, however exercised, did not survive the early Christians. When confronted by the last reported saying of Christ, that among the signs which should follow them that believe was that of healing the sick without the aid of drugs, the old school claim that Christ only referred to the believers of that age; and the new say the passage is a forgery. When asked for reasons why the power should have been limited in time and person, and to explain what Christ meant when on a prior occasion he implied its existence in men who did not follow him, they can think of no better answer than the suggestion that the questioner is a reviler whose lack of faith renders any reply needless, or a simpleton whose credulity makes it useless.

Let it not be thought that it is my intention in this paper to put forth any plea in favor of Spiritual Science. I am merely calling attention to the desirability of consistency in metaphysical research. My reading of history, my intercourse with my fellow-men, and my communion with myself have forced upon me the chastening conviction that it is we who profess and call ourselves Christians, we ourselves, who are the most unblushing violators of the Christian law of liberty of thought and action as formulated by St. Paul in the fourteenth chapter of Romans. It is a familiar principle that, in making a generalization, one may not ignore a single fact in his collection of data. I have heard parsons in my own branch of the Catholic Church point to its marvelous growth during the nineteenth century as evidence that Almighty God is behind its progress. So be it. But when I find that in the last two decades of the same century the believers in Spiritual Science, professing to heal in His name, have so increased as to outnumber the Episcopalians two to one, and hear the same divines denounce them as unchristian, then, as a man who wishes to be both

candid and logical, I ask myself, What is the value of that kind of reasoning? If parson argues the favor of God in his own case, why deny it to his neighbor? Hence it is that I appeal for fair treatment of persons with whom we may not always agree, and for open-mindedness as to facts that may overturn some of our pet theologies. Above all, in affairs of such vital importance let not the officers of our churches emulate the indifference of the Roman deputy, before whom St. Paul was haled for troubling the people about spiritual matters, and of whom this statement has come down, "Gallio cared for none of these things."

St. Paul's division of all things into those that are seen and those that are not seen is peculiarly apt for my purpose, because the line is so drawn that the objects of a church and of a metaphysical society are found on the same side. He tells us that those that are seen are temporal and those that are not seen are eternal. It would seem to follow that matter is the result of mental causation. No building however imposing, no painting however beautiful, can come into visible form without having first existed in the mind of its human creator. Does it not fairly flow that the universe must have been in Eternal Mind prior to its material manifestation? But, says some scientist, do you accept evolution; and if so, how can you postulate the preëxistence in an unseen Mind of seen things that are constantly changing? My answer may be given in the felicitous words of David: "Thine eyes did see my substance yet being imperfect, and in Thy book were all my members written, which day by day were fashioned when as yet there was none of them." Did not that ancient poet have at least a glimmering of mental causation and material evolution?

The Church and metaphysical associations being found on the same side of St. Paul's line, we are next to inquire as to any subdivision that may separate them. Is religion merely a branch of metaphysics? Is there a soul as well as a mind? The Church claims that there is. It may well be that science will some day teach us that the human soul is an evolution from