Christian Science, as its name indicates, is an interpretation of the religion that was taught and practised by Christ Jesus. Any one who, without hostility, reads the Christian Science text-book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" by Mrs. Eddy, will find it to be based on the Scriptures, and will find in it a more obvious correspondence or plainer consistency with the Bible than is furnished by any of the more popular interpretations. Such a reader of this book will see that it contains a statement of knowledge or science concerning God, man, and the universe, with which he may or may not agree, but which is plainly ethical, scientific, and religious in character. Be it called orthodox or heterodox, when compared with either primitive or recent Christianity, the system of thought presented as Christian Science is plainly Christian in basis and purpose. If this be true, it would tend to promote the health, morals, and spiritual welfare of its adherents; and it is a matter of common knowledge that a multitude of intelligent people bear witness to these benefits from this teaching.

Independence within the field of science is favored by enlightened public opinion, because such independence is essential to progress. There would be small hope of advancement if those who endeavor to extend the scope of human knowledge, or to correct it, were obliged to square their views with the beliefs which for the moment are prevalent. It is largely from the teachings of original and independent thinkers that the world gains more knowledge and true knowledge.

The fact, therefore, that Christian Science differs from the opinions which are at present held by the majority of people respecting the cause and cure of disease, furnishes no reason why the government should attempt to hinder or suppress its practice. It is generally known that the medical theory and practice with respect to this matter has been profoundly modified since the teaching and practice of Christian Science began, and at least in part by reason thereof. In these forty odd years the use of drugs has greatly diminished, various drugless systems have gained a wide vogue despite ridicule and opposition, and the mental element in the cause and cure of disease is more and more taken into account by all schools.

While the various schools of medicine differ from each other as to the nature and cure of disease, Christian Science differs from them all by regarding it as primarily and essentially mental (as a product of false belief, an image of material sense, a state of mortal thought), and by curing it with a method that is at once mental and spiritual; that is, with the power of Truth, in accordance with the law of Mind, through the prayer of spiritual understanding. These points also mark the line between the practice of Christian Science and the use of suggestion or hypnotism; in other words, Christian Science uses truth as such, and utilizes the normal, natural, and incessant action of spiritual law in human affairs.

It is to be observed, however, that one of the propositions just stated is to some extent acceptable to what the world calls science, and that both of them are fully authorized by the teaching and practice of the only infallible physician known to history. Natural or physical science admits that the nature of matter is unknown, the one thing definitely known about it being that it is not what it seems. Philosophy of the idealistic kind holds that matter is a subjective state of the human mind, while Christian Science takes the next and final step by explaining that things seem to be material only to a material sense of things, and by declaring that this material sense is the false element of human consciousness.

Of course everybody recognizes that the so-called human consciousness includes what is partly true and partly false: this is proved by universal experience; but Christian Science has declared anew the Principle of true consciousness,—the source, substance, and power of true thoughts. Absolute Truth is known spiritually. The knowledge which knows is derived from God; it is the spiritual reflection of the Mind that is Life, Truth, and Love. Therefore, whatever is most unlike divine Life and Love is most contrary to Truth, is most unreal. Such is the nature of disease; in the words of Mrs. Eddy, in "The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany" (p. 349), "Disease is a mental state or error that Truth destroys."

The nature and cure of disease, as now made known by Christian Science, was first taught and illustrated in the work of Christ Jesus. His treatment of disease as primarily and essentially mental is shown, for instance, in the case of the woman who "was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself." She had been in that condition for eighteen years, and the disorder was as physical as disease can be, yet he spoke of it as mental. He said that Satan (evil) had bound her, and he "loosed" her by annulling the false law of evil with the absolute law of God. (See Luke xiii. 1-1.)

So also in the case of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, "which had an infirmity thirty and eight years." After healing him, Jesus said, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." (See John v. 1-15.) At another time, when his method of healing was questioned, the Master said that he "cast out devils" "with the finger of God," which is to say that he cast out evils by the power or law of God. (See Luke xi. 14-22.) Evil, of course, is mental: it is the evil element in the so-called human mind; and its identity with disease was plainly implied by the question, "Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?" (See Matthew ix. 2-8.)

Jesus' prescription for all personal disorder was tersely stated in these words: "Cleanse first that which is within ... that the outside ... may be clean also." Paul summarized the practice of Christianity in similar terms: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." So did Peter: "Arm yourselves likewise with the same mind." There is no reason for limiting the scope of this practice, since its Principle is universal. The great Teacher applied it to physical healing; so did Peter, Paul, and others; such was the practice of the early Christian churches (see James v. 13-16); and the results which followed in the first centuries are again being shown in the twentieth century.

In the final analysis, sin and disease consist alike in a lack of mental rightness. Although suffering from sin does not always take a physical form, it may do so; and if it does, the physical effect follows the mental cause. Prevention or cure must therefore deal with false or evil causation, and must do so by means of true or spiritual causation. Any means short of this can result in nothing better than palliation or temporary relief.

From these explanations, it should be evident that the issues between Christian Science and the various schools of medicine are questions of both religion and science; and it should be equally evident that the state ought not to decide them for its citizens, and has not the power to do so, unless the state ought and has the power to establish criteria of religious and scientific truth. In other words, a statute designed to interdict the practice of Christian Science would necessarily rest on the assumption that the majority of people, acting collectively as the state or government, may rightfully determine for all citizens what shall be considered actual knowledge, true science, or ultimate truth with respect to such topics as the character and attributes of God, the nature and substance of being, the mode and efficacy of prayer, the nature of health and disease, the relations between mind and matter, and similar subjects. Surely such legislation would be wholly outside the scope and province of civil government. No one would think of passing a law to accomplish such results directly; nor should the same be done indirectly.

In many countries where this article will be read, state religion in its most rigid form is a thing of the past, and there is no public sentiment in favor of state medicine. But let us inquire what constitutes a state religion. We are apt to forget the lessons of history. State religion in its most rigid form results from the recognition by the government of one system of religion to the extent of forbidding outward or practical dissent from it. In a modified form state religion signifies the giving by the government of preference or privilege to one system of religion.

And what would amount to the adoption of a state medicine? State medicine corresponding to the most rigid form of state religion would result from any law that would recognize one system of medicine to the extent of forbidding outward or practical dissent from it. For example, this would result from a law that would recognize medicine to the extent of forbidding a purely mental and spiritual system to be practised. This is precisely what American and Canadian legislatures have been besought by political doctors to do, and in some states laws have been passed which were designed to have this effect. In fine, state medicine like state religion is an accomplished fact when the government approves one or more systems of healing and tries to compel the people to accept it or them to the exclusion of others.

Compared with this, a more suitable means for staying the wheels of progress cannot be imagined. Where it has been applied to religion, the truth of the subject has been best known to dissenters; and the same would undoubtedly come to pass in the case of medicine or healing. The attempt to circumscribe knowledge or science by law would be ignorant, and it would tend to promote the consequences of ignorance. State medicine, so far from promoting health, would foster disease, for it would tend to limit and retard the means for gaining dominion over disease; therefore enlightened public policy does not merely tolerate independence of authority in religion and science, but demands it as essential to progress.