The decline in church attendance, the thinning-down of church-membership, the frank breakaway from its teaching and practice on the part of the present and rising generations, are the chief topics of discussion at all church conferences, and recur even in the secular press with a frequency which argues a wide-spread concern and interest, and also a deep-rooted suspicion that in all this change and decay there are omens for the Christian churches. And so there are; but, unfortunately, there seems to be no readiness to recognize the real facts of the case. It is assumed simply that the heart of man is desperately wicked, and that for the time being spiritual things are being neglected, although the truth is that our society has already passed through its phase of intellectual materialism, and has entered upon a new one. And so we have much talk of lapsed masses, of corner boys, and parading of the streets, love of pleasure and sport, worship of Mammon. Now, the corner boy is older than the churches themselves, and in the ratio of population there was probably never much less of him than there is now. And if the modern mania for sport is abnormal, we may safely assume that its perfervid devotees are not procured at the expense of the church. The truth is that the corner boy and the football maniac do not touch the fringe of the problem. In the absence of corners to lean against, and football matches to watch and read about, their type would lie in bed, smoke, and read "Snippets" or a penny "blood."

The problem the modern church has to face is rationalism in the widest sense of the term. It came inevitably with popular education and the acceptance of a scientific theory of evolution which revolutionized philosophy. From the moment these things struck down fear and superstition, upon which the religion of our fathers so largely throve, religion had to base itself solely upon the higher emotions and reason. The best type of modern Christian holds his beliefs because they seem to him reasonable. Only the crudest type of secularist, however, will argue that rationalism gives uniform conclusions. It never does and never will; and what the churches fail to recognize is, that from this ferment of rationalism there are emerging new religions more adapted to modern needs than the old.

The problem of the Christian church, however, has to do largely with "the vulgar error of numbers," and from this point of view its most formidable rival of the future is unquestionably Christian Science. "Numerically insignificant in this country," say the clergy, refusing to hear the voice of the revolution thundering afar, until, too late, its waves engulf them. My proposition is that the churches are emptying today largely because thoughtful people (not indifferentists) are dissatisfied with their teaching, and are meantime going to no place of worship at all. These people are seriously looking out for a more satisfying religion, and the figures go to show that Christian Science will have to be reckoned with in this connection. What are the facts?

It is only thirty-two years since The Mother Church of Christian Science in Boston, Massachusetts, was founded and chartered. In March, 1904, after a quarter of a century of life, it had some six hundred churches and over two hundred and twenty societies from which its churches are formed. Today no less than twelve hundred and sixty such churches and societies advertise their meetings in The Christian Science Journal. It has planted itself firmly in every continent. Of the sixty-two churches in the British Isles only three are located in Scotland, but then it is only ten years since eight members of The Mother Church established the movement north of the Tweed by forming a society in Edinburgh—in east-windy, west-endy Edinburgh, where it takes almost ten years to get on nodding terms with your next-door neighbor. But even so the hall in Pitt street, which has housed the congregation hitherto, is shortly to be discarded in favor of a handsome church, seated to accommodate six hundred and thirty people. If the history of other towns is any guide, it will scarcely be well in use before funds will be required (and therefore immediately raised—they manage these things) for the founding of Second Church of Christ, Scientist, in Edinburgh.

Treating Christian Science as a fad, I never appreciated the bitter opposition of the medical profession to Christian Science until I studied the list of its practitioners, the accredited healers of the church. In America, the birthplace of this modern religion, there are some twelve hundred churches and societies, but the number of practitioners is vastly more. In Chicago, which has only nine churches, there are over four hundred practitioners. Boston, with one church, has over one hundred and fifty practitioners, and New York one hundred and sixty for twelve churches and societies. Even in the British Isles, recent though the movement here is, there are two hundred and twenty practitioners, including three in Glasgow and seven in Edinburgh. It may be noted that only a fraction of these are men, probably not more than a tenth of the whole, but none of them are half-timers, amateurs. It is a condition of certification as a practitioner that the applicant be not engaged in any other profession or vocation than Christian Science healing.

The constitution of this church is democratic. In Article XXIII, Sect. 1, of The Mother Church Manual the following provision appears: "The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist, shall assume no general official control of other churches, and it shall be controlled by none other. Each Church of Christ, Scientist, shall have its own form of government."

That people are healed through Christian Science no impartial observer can deny, and the orthodox Christian must without evasion answer two questions before he can deny the possibility of this. In the first place, is there any valid reason for assuming that when Christ gave his followers the command to heal the sick, he did not mean it literally? And if he did so mean it, did he limit the command to his immediate disciples, or was he commanding the impossible? On another plane, are all those who testify to it likely to be either deceitful, blind, or ignorant? Is it conceivable that up-to-date business America would support seven or eight thousand practitioners and a thousand highly expensive churches for the pleasure of flattering a cheap deception? Temperance enters into these matters. I am neither a Christian Scientist nor likely to become one, but, standing apart and viewing the facts judicially, I do think the orthodox churches should wake up and join issue with this new religion, which claims not only to be more scientific than they, but more Christian also. And let them beware of disparaging without investigation the "proof from healing," lest they be as the Jewish doctors contending with the man who was born blind. "A fig for your contentions, explanations, evasions," he said in effect. "One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." Christian Science stands on that.