The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-05-17

His lecture follows:
 In the Christian Science text book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" by Mary Baker Eddy (p. 345), there is the | following remarkable statement, "When the omnipotence of God is preached and His absoluteness is set forth, Christian sermons will heal the sick"
 To preach the omnipotence and to set forth the absoiuteness of | God must necessitate an under standing of God. And here we ar- rive at the first and most impor- tant query which the above sem tence might well call forth, name- ly, What Is God? We cannot, if we are observant, conclude that man. kind has an exact knowledge of the nature of God.
 And so, If I tell you that the Principle of Christian Science heal seem unintelligible to you unless you know what Is the Christianity scientific explanation of God. DEFINITION OF GOD
 The very fact that there is a creation, that we exist and have strength and intelligence, proves | that there must be 8 creator or a first cause. This first cause must necessarily be the first or primal power, intelligence, and life. In other words, there must be funda- mentally one cause, one power, one intelligence, and one Life. Now creation cannot proceed from both intelligence and 'non-intelll- gence. power, and impotence, life and death. Fof if intelligence is cause. non-intelligence Is not cause. Hence the great fact that I the primal cause, power, intelli- gence, and Life Is One.
 We are now entitled to ask, What is the nature of this one cause or power. that in the words of the Bible "spake, and 1t was done"? Is 1t good. or Is 1t evil? It cannot be both, for as we have seen, 1t is one in its very essence. Let us be quite clear on the fact that if 1t were evil all creation would be evil, all power would be evil, all intelligence would be evil. and all life would be evil. Being evil. this first cause would be self destructive. If the first cause were evil or destructive. chaos would be natural: and evil being natural would be the right or good thing | to happen. Hence evil would be good. But this cannot be so. Fur | thermore, our experience shows us that good Is natural and construc- tive. The natural conclusion, and may l say the inevitable conclu- sion. is that the primal cause or power is absolutely good.
 Let us add one more very i'm portart word. namely. Love.
 I think that you will again ad- init that If that first cause were the opposite of love 1t would be hatred. Now hatred never does a ything but destroy. And If we had a first cause that Is destruc- tive in its nature we are again re- duced to an absurdity. Christian Science takes the old Testament definition of God as 1T AM" and couples 1t with the terms we have used above, namely, cause. intelli- gence. good, Life. Love. Does not this imply that God, the one infi- nite Mind. Is utterly free from con- ditions or limitations? In other words, God is absolute. Here let me read to you few lines from the Christian Science textbook, on page 46b.
 "Question--What fig God? .4
 Answer--God is incorporeal, d. vine. supreme, infinite Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Lifo. Truth, Love.
 "Question--Are there terms sym onymous?
 "Answer--They are. They refer | to ono absolute God"
 Someone may now say, Well, that may seem very logical. but how am I going to approach God like that? How am going to pray If want help or comfort?
 | Let us take one of the Bible definitions of God, one that Is very familiar to all Christians, namely. that God is Love. Remembering what we have previously seen. that Is, that the one primal cause has no conditions or limitations, let us ask ourselves if the ordinary idea of supplication Is the best way In which to approach infinite Love. The ono primal or infinite Love surely does not need to be recon- ciled to mortal shortcomings. does not need to be asked to do some" thing.
 TO illustratc: Suppose that two | individuals were in a similar trou- blc, and that they desired to pray for divine help. Let us suppose also that one of them said or thought, God help me-" meaning thereby. May God help mo: and that the other said or thought. God helps me-" meaning, God actually does hclp me: which of these two would be the more likely to obtain the help desired? Christian Science says that the second way Is the most efIicacious. The first expres. sion may carry with It great doubt as to the possibility or pro- priety of Gods help, whereas the second Is an assertion of q fact, and implies no doubt at all. do not mean to say that the first method is wrong. Not at all. It expresses q desire, and desire Is the very foundation of true prayer. But the second manifests some grasp on the fact that the great primal cause, which is good and Love. IS in its very nature n help-"a very J present help in trouble" In defn- ing the prayer of Jesus Mrs Eddy writes (Science and Health, D. f2) that his humble prayers were deep and conscientious protests of Truth,--of mans likeness to God and of mans unity with Truth and Love-"
 Now when evil and disease come into your life are you going to sit down meekly under them. and call them the will of God--the will of that one great cause which is eter- nally loving and good? Are you merely going to ask God to remove them, wondering all the time if medicine. climate, or an operation will do it better? Or are you going. as Jesus did, to protest the truth. namely, that the first great cause Is good, absolute. infinite Love. and therefore that disease or evil does not belong to you, and that you cannot be guilty of 1t?
 So long as the Israelites prayed