The Daily Missoulian., 1909-07-25
THE EMMANUEL MOVEMENT AND CHRISTIAN SCIENCE


child is told. You do not wish to be
liar" and he has no reason for be-
lieving this except the mere fact that
he Is being told, SO his acceptance of
he is taught a scientific, truthful rea-
son Why he does not wish to be
liar. the conviction Is likely to be last
ing, for it's foundation is in truth. 1t is
more than a mere suggestion. While
by the aid of Christian Science the
sinner learns that sin brings suffer-
ing, the inevitable fruit of false life
it immediately gives him hope by the
revelation that he is slave only to
an unreal master. This gives him
courage to try and to succeed in his
battle to overcome evil. Mark the sug-
gestion. You will do just what | tell
you. for you and / are good friends
Is it safe to accept an argument SIM
ply because one is on friendly terms
with the one who presents it, or SIM
ply because it is his declaration? 1t is
only safe to accept and act upon that
which is positively right. and we can
always U6 sure lHdt we are IlSlll II WE
are arguing from the standpoint that
God is good, that the child is his like
ness and manifests only the good
characteristics of good. Take DR.. Wor-
cesters argument, you are brave
boy" The question is. where is the
evidence. since the senses declare that
he is not a brave boy? He who he
lieves material evidence could not be-
1ieve that the child is a brave boy
and for such an one to declare that he
is brave boy is to declare what the
suggestionist believes to he a false
hood There could, therefore. be no
effect from such an argument except
in the confidence imposed in the one
who presents it and the will force
that accompanies it.. The argument in
itself could have no force whatever.
Is this method scientific? Is there any
thing about it that is definite, precise
or accurate? In what way does it sug-
gest Jesus method? Take again the
argument. You will be able to speak
without hesitation or stammering."
What is the basis of such an argu-
ment? If it Is founded upon the pros
pect Of Improvement. it is not based
upon a certainty and, at best, could be
"nthirg more than wish that the pa
tient might be able to speak without
stammerng. Is such a suggestion more
rational than the argument of the
Christian Scientist that stammering is
no part of Gods child. no part of Gods
creation, that the child itself is spirit
ual and perfect, and there is, therefore.
no ilnperfection in him? Such an ar
gument is founded upon the everlast-
ing truth. 1t is advanced with posi-
tive assurance by the practitioner and
carries strong conviction to the pa
tient 1t corrects the false sense Of
mans true nature and the ills attend
ing this false sense therefore depart
The Distinction.
Although we may concede to every
non-material method, by which results
are sought the propriety of being
called mental, yet we must learn to
mark the distinction between that
which is mortal-that which results
from the action of the so called morta,
mind-and that which is spiritual and
immortal, the action of the divine
mind. 1t is not always easy to deter
mine. from external observation. the
difference between the effect of Chris
tian Science and that of mental sug-
gestion. for, SO far as concerns the
Outward appearance, the improved con-
dition of the supposed beneficiary of
mortal mind influence is very similar
to that of a beneficiary of Christian
Science. The chief distinction is likely
TO be seen in the mental and moral
status of the individual. Jesus knew
this when He counseled that we Judge