Indifferent
toleration of the imperfect conditions of human life, or joyless resignation to the belief that such conditions are inevitable, may be called content; but the term is properly applied only to the glad satisfaction that one feels when he has learned the real purpose of life and labor, and is working toward the fulfilment of this purpose.
In
Luke's Gospel we read that when the Pharisees objected to the acclamations of the multitude, on the occasion of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the Master said.
How
to get "out with the sinner and in with the saint" is a perplexing problem prior to the advent of Christian Science in individual consciousness, but this Science begins at once to unfold to humanity the spiritual unity existing between God and man, and through such unfolding the unreal nature of so-called mortal life is brought to light.
As a teacher of Christian Science I should not hope to give an adequate meaning of its teaching by the abstract declaration, "There is no matter," for such a statement without previous preparation would mislead the student, It seems to declare the unreality of creation, when in fact it is intended only to deny the material, false conception of it.
To Christian Scientists the so-called miracles of Jesus were not supernatural, but divinely natural, the phenomena of Science, and were the proofs the Master gave that his works were of the Father.
Regardless of what one may believe or disbelieve concerning the claims made for Christian Science as a "medicine" for the curing of diseases and the conservation of healthy manhood, those who listened to the address of Bicknell Young last night were impressed with his scholarly manner and splendid ability to present his case, and his liberality based upon the basic teaching of that Science which he claims is the product of thought.
In the face of the numerous cases of healing by the power of prayer and belief and without the aid of drugs or surgical instruments that are reported in the daily papers with increasing frequency in these latter days, are we stubbornly to cling to nineteenth-century materialism and sit in the seat of the scorner, who says that it is all a fake, that he does not know why it is a fake, but that it must be a fake, and that therefore it is a fake?
