The exegesis of Genesis which Mrs. Eddy presents in "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" (p. 541) contains the following: "Genesis iv. 8. Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him;" upon which she comments, "The erroneous belief that life, substance, and intelligence can be material ruptures the life and brotherhood of man at the very outset." Here our Leader sets before us the reason why the brotherhood of man has not been realized throughout the ages of human history. The belief that life rests upon a material foundation, is encompassed by matter, and is supported by it, has prevented the demonstration of true brotherhood,—that unity which, of a necessity, has a spiritual basis, because, in Truth, there is but one Father, in whom all men live and move and have their being.

No Christian would deny that an important obligation of his religion upon its adherents is the recognition of that spiritual unity termed the brotherhood of men. Christ Jesus' frequent reiteration of the great fact of the fatherhood of God has its necessary corollary in his doctrine of spiritual brotherhood. The same thought is inextricably woven into the fabric of Christian Science. The Father-Mother God is the sole creator of a perfect universe, infinite and eternal, in which all men are brethren, since all are ideas of the one Mind. The understanding that infinite Mind is All-in-all leaves no opportunity for the recognition, propagation, or promotion of any power other than the divine All, which could by any possibility operate as creator or founder of a competing kingdom.

Christ, the ideal Truth, which promotes good-will among men, also makes for the peace of nations, for international amity, and the progress of spiritual unfoldment among all mankind. Through invoking the Christ alone is advanced the general welfare, a purpose to which Christians the world over should be whole-heartedly devoted. Institutions, almost countless in number, which promote good-will among men, are praiseworthy in so far as they bring to mortals a better sense of unity, interdependence, selflessness, and the joy of serving one another. But, strange almost to the point of inexplicability is the situation between nations. In place of the brotherly love which is the cement of society, in the relations between nations extreme selfishness, jealousy, resentment, and, all too often, bitterness and hatred seem to exist, making them potential, if not active enemies. Notwithstanding that men of different races live peacefully together under the same flag, as citizens of one country, between the parent nations of the same races hatred and antagonism often exist.

The true Christian does not entertain evil thoughts of his neighbor, keep aloof from him, and regard him as an enemy; but rather he looks upon him as a friend actuated, like himself, by a sense of respect and kindliness. No more can a nation, if performing its Christian duty, hold itself aloof from its sister nations, especially when in need, either through fear of troublesome entanglements or of infringing selfish interests. Fear in a nation is no more commendable than in an individual; no more praiseworthy is selfishness. Where in Christian teaching can one find justification for national selfishness more than for individual self-seeking? Is not the import of the Master's message to mankind the necessity to serve one another? What other meaning can one attach to that beautiful example of humility and loving-kindness, when, just prior to the last supper, the Master performed the lowly service of washing the disciples' feet? Does not this incident imply the need for a most loving and beneficent attitude toward all our fellow-men?

Does Christian obligation cease at the international boundary? If not, how then is the conclusion warranted that men in groups termed nations are relieved of the responsibility, which devolves upon individuals, to perform to the utmost their Christian duty, both in letter and in spirit? What improvement in the affairs of the world would not follow such a custom once established among the nations? Armament would be obsolete; defenses against one another would be torn down; and the whole strength of the nations might be given to the promotion of that perfect peace on earth and good-will toward men which the angels proclaimed as the purpose of Christ's coming. Should not all Christians, then, support the steps which lead in this direction?

All good may not be possible of accomplishment at once; but that should not delay the beginning, or prevent the doing of the thing at hand, which would in any degree promote international amity. The prophet's admonition, "Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little," well illustrates a process which is no less applicable to the healing of national consciousness than that of the individual. But a beginning must be made. Shall we not support and cherish the opportunities that now offer for the nations to move toward establishing true brotherhood? In the Boston Globe of December, 1904 (Miscellany, p. 278), Mrs. Eddy gave this message to the world: "Nothing is gained by fighting, but much is lost. Peace is the promise and reward of rightness. Governments have no right to engraft into civilization the burlesque of uncivil economics." And she adds in the following paragraph: "The Principle of all power is God, and God is Love. Whatever brings into human thought or action an element opposed to Love, is never requisite, never a necessity, and is not sanctioned by the law of God, the law of Love. The Founder of Christianity said: 'My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.'"

Albert F. Gilmore