Carmen Ariza
Chapter 166 : "Mr. Hitt pointed out in our last meeting that mortal beings are interpretations

"Mr. Hitt pointed out in our last meeting that mortal beings are interpretations in mortal or human mind of the infinite mind, G.o.d, and its ideas. The most perfect human interpretation of G.o.d's greatest idea, Man, was Christ Jesus. The _real_ selfhood of every one of us is G.o.d's idea of us. It is spiritual, mental. The world calls it the 'soul,' the 'divine essence,' and the 'immortal spark.' The Christ was the real, spiritual selfhood of the man Jesus. So the Christ is the real selfhood of each of us. It is not born of the flesh. It is not conceived and brought forth in conformity with human modes. Now was this great fact externalized in the immaculate conception and birth?

It does not grow and decay and pa.s.s away in death. It is the 'unique'

Son of G.o.d which is back of each one of us. But the world has seen it only once in its fullness, and then through the man Jesus.

"Something happened in that first century of the so-called Christian era--something of tremendous significance. What was it? It was the birth of the Christ-idea into the human consciousness. Was the Christ-idea virgin-born? Aye, that it was, for G.o.d, infinite Mind, alone was its origin and parent. The speculation which has turned about that wonderful first century event has dealt with the human channel through which the Christ-idea flowed to mankind. But let us see what light our deductions throw even upon that.

"Referring all things to the realm of the mental, where we now know they belong, we see that man never fell, but that Israel's idea of G.o.d and man did fall, woefully. We see that the Christ-principle appeared among men; we see that to-day it works marvels; we must admit that throughout the ages before Jesus it had done so; we know now that the great things which Israel is recorded to have done were accomplished by the Christ-principle working through men, and that when their vision became obscured they lost the knowledge of that principle and how to use it. History records the working of great deeds by that same Christ-principle when it was re-born in our first century; and we also can see how the obscuring of the spiritual by the material in the Emperor Constantine's time caused the loss of the Church's power to do great works. We are forced to admit the omnipotence, immanence, and eternality of the Christ-principle, for it is divine mind, G.o.d himself. Moses, Elisha, Elijah, the ancient prophets, all had primitive perceptions of truth, and all became channels for the pa.s.sing of the Christ-principle to mankind in some degree. But none of these men ever ill.u.s.trated that principle as did the man Jesus. He is the most marvelous manifestation of G.o.d that has ever appeared among mankind; so true and exact was the manifestation that he could tell the world that in seeing him they were actually seeing the Father. It is quite true that many of his great sayings were not original with him. Great truths have been voiced, even by so-called pagans, from earliest times. But he demonstrated and made practical the truth in these sayings. And he exposed the nothingness of the human mental concept of matter by healing disease, walking the waves, and in other wonderful ways. It is true that long before his time Greek philosophers had hit upon the theory of the nothingness of matter. Plato had said that only ideas were real. But Jesus--or the one who brought the Christ-message--was the clearest mentality, the cleanest human window-pane, to quote Carmen, that ever existed. Through him the divine mind showed with almost un.o.bscured fullness. G.o.d's existence had been discerned and His goodness proved from time to time by prophets and patriarchs, but by no means to the extent that Jesus proved it. There were those before him who had a.s.serted that there was but one reality, and that human consciousness was not the real self. There were even those who believed matter to be created by the force of thought, even as in our own day. _But it remained for Jesus to make those ideas intensely practical, even to the overcoming and dissolution of his whole material concept of the universe and man._ And it remained for him to show that the origin of evil is in the lie about G.o.d. It was his mission to show that the devil was 'a man-killer from the beginning,' because it is the supposition that there is power apart from G.o.d. It was his life purpose to show mankind that there is nothing in this lie to cause fear, and that it can be overcome by overcoming the false thought which produces it. By overcoming that thought he showed men the evanescent nature of sickness and death.

And sin he showed to be a missing of the mark through lack of understanding of what const.i.tutes real good.

"Turn now again to the Bible, that fascinating record of a whole people's search for G.o.d and their changing concept of Him. Note that, wherever in its records evil seems to be made real, it is for the purpose of uncovering and destroying it by the vigorous statements of truth which you will almost invariably find standing near the exposition of error. So evil seemed very real in the first century of our era; but it was uncovered by the coming of Jesus. The exposure of evil revealed the Christ, right at hand."

"But," protested Haynerd, "let's get back to the question of the virgin birth."

"Very well," replied Father Waite. "But let us first consider what human birth is."

"Now there!" exclaimed Haynerd. "Now you are touching my lifelong question. If I am immortal, where was I before I was born?"

"Of which 'I' are you speaking, Ned?" asked Father Waite. "The real 'I' is G.o.d's image and likeness, His reflection. It was never born, and never dies. The human 'I' had a beginning. And therefore it will cease to be. The human mind makes its own laws, and calls them laws of nature, or even G.o.d's laws. And it obeys them like a slave. Because G.o.d is both Father and Mother to His children, His ideas, the human mind has decreed in its counterfeiting process that it is itself both male and female, and that the union of these two is necessary in order to give rise to another human mind. Do you see how it imitates the divine in an apish sort of way? And so elements of each s.e.x-type of the human mind are employed in the formation of another, their offspring. The process is wholly mental, and is one of human belief, quite apart from the usage of the divine Mind, who 'spake and it was done,' mentally unfolding a spiritual creation. The real 'you,' Ned, has always existed as G.o.d's idea of Himself. It is spiritual, not material. It will come to light as the material 'you' is put off. The material 'you' did not exist before it was humanly born. It was produced in supposition by the union of the parent human minds, which themselves were reflections of the male and female characteristics of the communal mortal mind. It thus had a definite, supposit.i.tious beginning. It will therefore have a definite end."

"And so I'm doomed to annihilation, eh? That's a comforting thought!"

"Your mortal sense of existence, Ned, certainly is doomed to extinction. That which is supposition must go out. Oh, it doubtless will not all be destroyed when you pa.s.s through that change which we call death. It may linger until you have pa.s.sed through many such experiences. And so it behooves you to set about getting rid of it as soon as possible, and thus avoid the unpleasant experience of countless death-throes. You see, Ned, an error in the premise will appear in the conclusion. Now you are starting with the premise that the human 'you' is real. That premise is not based upon fact. Its basis is rank error. All that you reflect of divine mind will endure permanently, but whatever you reflect of the lie regarding that mind will pa.s.s away. Human beings know nothing of their origin, nor of their existence. Why? _Because there is nothing to know about them; they are entirely supposit.i.tious!_ Paul says, in his letter to the Romans: 'They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of G.o.d.' The birth of the children of the flesh is wholly a human-mind process. The infant mentality thus produced knows nothing whatsoever of itself. It has no knowledge; is not founded on truth. It will later manifest hereditary beliefs, showing the results of prenatal mesmerism. Then it will receive the general a.s.sortment of human thought and opinion--very little of it based on actual truth--which the world calls education. Then it learns to regard itself as an individual, a separate being. And soon it attributes its origin to G.o.d. But the prenatal error will appear in the result. The being manifests every gradation of human thought; it grows; it suffers and enjoys materially; it bases its very existence upon matter; it manifests the false activity of human thought in material consciousness; and then it externalizes its beliefs, the consentaneous human beliefs, upon its body and in its environment; and finally, the activity of the false thought which const.i.tutes its consciousness ceases--and the being dies. Yes, its death will be due to sin, to '_hamartio_,' missing the mark. It never knew G.o.d. And that, Ned, is human life, so-called.

"Death is not in any sense a cessation of life. The being who dies never knew what it was to live. Death is the externalization of human, mortal beliefs, which are not based upon real knowledge, truth.

And so, human birth is itself death. Paul said: 'They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit the things of the spirit.' In other words, mankind are striving terribly, desperately, to keep alive a sense of material, fleshly existence. But they can't do it. They are foredoomed to failure, despite the discovery of ant.i.toxins. In the book of Job we read: 'The spirit of G.o.d hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.' Where, then, is the reality in prenatal mesmerism and the drag of heredity? It is all supposition, all a part of the one lie, the 'man-killer.'

"The change called death comes to all mortals. It is the culmination of the human mind's sense of limitation. It does not usher them into immortal, illimitable bliss. It but leaves them upon another seeming plane of mortal thought, there to drag out another sense of existence, unless they have so learned the lesson which Jesus taught as to enable them to overcome death. It will not be overcome for us. That is our work. We have been shown how to do it. Why, then, do we waste our time in trivial things; in the heaping up of useless money; in the vain strife for sensual pleasures? The mortal will live and die, and live and die, until at last he is beaten into line and forced to demonstrate the Christ-principle. Hadn't we better begin that right here and now? Wis.h.i.+ng to die doesn't solve our problems. Suicide only makes us start again, worse off than before. We shall overcome death when we have overcome sin, for the physical manifestation called death is but the externalization in conscious experience of spiritual death--lack of a demonstrable understanding of Life, Truth, Spirit, which is G.o.d, unlimited good."

"And the Church, Protestant and Catholic, with their ceremonies, their Ma.s.ses, and--"

"They have woefully missed the mark, Ned. They are all but spiritually dead. But I see protest rising in our good friends, Doctor Siler and Reverend Moore, so I will hasten on, for we have much ground still to cover.

"Now, knowing that birth is a humanly mental process, is it possible that the man Jesus was 'born of a virgin'? Quite so; but, more, _no man ever conceived and born in the way human beings are generated has ever begun to approach Jesus in degree of spirituality_. If he had been born in human ways, is it likely that he would ever have developed such intense spirituality? Well, not in a brief thirty-three years or so! And, on the other hand, if he had come into the world in some way other than by being born of a woman, would he have been understandable at all to the human mind? I think not. He would have been wholly in the realm of the mental, far above human perception. If he had been conceived by the union of the two s.e.xes, as is the mortal-mind mode of generation, would he not have been too material to have so quickly developed that spirituality which made him the light of the world at the age of thirty-three? I think it is a fair question. The theory of the virgin birth at least seems to meet the need of a sort of middle course, whereby the man should not be too human to be the channel for the great measure of spirituality with which he was endowed, and yet should be human enough to be appreciable to other human minds.

"Remember, the Jesus who has been reported to us must have regarded matter as unreal, as nothingness. His works plainly show that. And they as plainly show that he came from the Father. His whole life was such as to render the virgin birth almost a necessity, as I see it.

How otherwise can we explain him? And from a study of the Gospels I simply can not avoid the conclusion that his knowledge of the allness of G.o.d rendered matter such a nonent.i.ty to him that he overcame all material laws, overcame the world of matter, and even at the last dematerialized his material body. It's an astonis.h.i.+ng thought--and yet, who can show that it is not true? There are some things that reason insists on our accepting, despite the paucity of human records."

"I believe, Mr. Waite," said Doctor Morton, "that the Gospels according to Mark and John make no mention of the virgin birth. Is it not so?"

"Quite true," replied Father Waite. "And I will go further: Biblical research during the past few years seems to have established the conclusion that Mark's Gospel antedates the others, but that prior to it there existed a collection of sayings by Jesus, called the _Logia_.

This collection of sayings seems to have been originally written in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. Now Matthew Arnold tells us that the Gospel narratives pa.s.sed through at least fifty years of oral tradition before they became fixed in the form in which we now have them. Of course it is quite possible that the story of the virgin birth arose during those fifty years, for we can imagine how the life of Jesus was then discussed! Matthew and Luke alone speak of the virgin birth. Mark's Gospel we believe to have been written by Mark himself. And we believe that Papias, who wrote about the middle of the second century, spoke truly when he said: 'Mark having become (or having been) Peter's interpreter, wrote all that he remembered (or all that Peter related) though he did not (record) in order that which was said or done by Christ.' In other words, even as Renan admits, the Gospel of Mark must be taken as authentically his. Now Matthew's Gospel depends for most of its data upon Mark and the Collection of sayings. Mark's Gospel does not mention the virgin birth; the Collection probably did. Also, Matthew probably did not write the Gospel attributed to him; but he almost certainly did write the Collection of sayings, from which in part the present Gospel according to Matthew was compiled. Luke's Gospel was undoubtedly written by the physician Luke, Paul's companion, and depended largely for its data upon Mark's Gospel and the Collection of Matthew. Yet we can not say that the omission of mention in the Gospels according to Mark and John of the virgin birth renders the story a legend, in view of our own present great knowledge of the const.i.tution of matter, of material laws, and of the fact that the virgin birth is at least rendered credible by the subsequent very extraordinary career of Jesus.

Moreover, remember that our New Testament is a small book, and that it is quite probable that a great ma.s.s of literature existed on the subject of Jesus and his work, and that it is possible that other of the disciples wrote treatises, perhaps many of them. How many of these touched on the subject of the virgin birth we may never know. Perhaps none; perhaps all. But this conclusion at least we must accept: the validity of the story of the virgin birth does _not_ rest with the four Gospels which have come down to us out of the great ma.s.s of literature which probably once existed. Rather is the probability of the immaculate conception a function of our present knowledge of matter, its pseudo-laws, and the great fact that the entire life of Jesus as reported in all the Gospels lends weight to the belief that his birth was not in the ordinary mortal-mind manner."

"I accept that," said Hitt. "I believe you are right."

"And I," said Carmen, "can not see that the origin of the human channel through which the Christ-principle flowed to mankind is of any consequence. The principle has always existed. Jesus said that it existed before Abraham. It alone is the important thing."

"Very true," replied Father Waite. "It has been said that the immaculate conception was the result of Mary's realization that real man is the son of G.o.d. This is a beautiful thought. Certainly Jesus did seem to manifest some such metaphysical idea. Perhaps Mary was a woman of tremendous force of character. Perhaps it did come to her that her son should be the Messiah of his race. Jesus certainly did acquire the messianic consciousness--and thereby upheaved the world.

But, whatever the human mode of birth, certainly the Christ-principle was brought into the world because of the world's tremendous need. It came as a response. It is only the confusing of the Christ with the man Jesus that is so largely responsible for the weakness of orthodox theology.

"But now, referring again to the Bible, let me say that the Pentateuch is composed of a variety of doc.u.ments written by various authors. We have no positive proof that Moses had aught to do with its authors.h.i.+p, although parts of it may be based on data which either he originated or sanctioned. The books of Samuel exhibit a plurality of sources. The book of Isaiah was written to record the sayings of at least two persons, both men of marvelous spiritual vision. The Song of Solomon was originally probably a Persian love-poem. The book of Job ill.u.s.trates the human-mind problem of suffering, and the utter inadequacy of philosophy to heal it. It is a ringing protest against conventional theology.

"But it is with the New Testament that we are particularly concerned, for we believe it to contain the method of salvation from human ills.

None of the original doc.u.ments are extant, of course. And yet, the most searching textual criticism goes to show that the New Testament books as we have them to-day are genuine reproductions of the original doc.u.ments, with but very little adulteration of erroneous addition by later hands. This means much to us. I have already spoken of the first three Gospels. The book of Acts certainly was written by the author of the third Gospel, Luke. First Peter was composed by the disciple Peter, or was written under his sanction. The Gospel of John and the book of First John were written by one and the same author--but whether by the disciple John or not, I can not say. If this great disciple did not write the Fourth Gospel, at least his influence seems to be felt all through it. The probability is that he knew what was in it, and approved of it, although the actual composition may have been by another, possibly a very learned Greek. To me, the Fourth Gospel is the most masterly work ever composed by man. It stands absolutely alone. The criticism that John, being a Jew, could not have composed it, falls before the greater truth that, having become a Christian, he was no longer a Jew. He was a new creature. For how could he have been other, seeing that he had lived with Jesus?

"And now as to Paul, who contributes about one-third of the New Testament. I have mentioned the letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans as indisputably his. To these we can add, with scarcely less weight of authenticity, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians. As to the Epistles to Timothy and t.i.tus, there is still doubt. These letters were written to the various Churches chronologically, as I have mentioned them. It has been said that Jesus was way over the heads of his reporters. That was inevitable. Even Paul misunderstood him at times. But--and here is the important fact for us--Paul's letters exhibit a marvelous spiritual growth in the man, and show him at last to be the grand master-metaphysician of the Christian era. Has it ever occurred to you that what the Gospels tell about is almost wholly spiritual? The material is all but neglected by their composers.

Indeed, with the questions of time and place, the Gospel narrators seemed to have been but slightly concerned. But with the delineation of the Christ--ah! that was their theme. They were not writing a biography. They were painting a spiritual portrait. In the light of this great truth the apparent lack of harmony in the Gospel narratives loses significance. And how little there is in the Gospels of theology, of inst.i.tution, of organization! How trifling are creed and doctrine, how little are Catholicism and Protestantism, compared with the stupendous fact that G.o.d is, and that His truth, the Christ-principle, is still here to-day and available!

"And so with Paul, he was expounding the 'method and secret' of the Christ. And he first had to work up to it himself. He may have thought, when he wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians, that the man Jesus would come again in the skies, with great pomp and surrounded by the Saints. But in his second letter he states plainly that the Christ will come when the 'old man' is laid off. Not much occasion for misunderstanding there, I think. Indeed, after Jesus so clearly stated that the kingdom of heaven was within men, the marvel is that there could have arisen any confusion whatsoever on the subject of the second coming of the Christ."

"I believe," interposed Reverend Moore, "that the Epistle to the Hebrews contains statements of belief in a judgment after death, in a heaven, a h.e.l.l, and everlasting life, not wholly consistent with your remarks."

"The Epistle to the Hebrews," returned Father Waite, "was not written by Paul, nor is it quite consistent with his letters. But, read Paul's wonderful eighth chapter of Romans. Read his third chapter of First Corinthians. Read all his letters in the order in which I have mentioned them, which was as they were written, and you can not fail to grasp his marvelous expanding perception of the Christ-principle; the nothingness of the material concept; the impotence of the lie that opposes G.o.d, and const.i.tutes all evil; and the necessity of right-thinking if one would work out his salvation from the errors that a.s.sail mankind. Paul shows that he pa.s.sed through a 'belief period,' and that he emerged into the light of demonstrable understanding at last. If men had followed him they never could have fallen into the absurd theological beliefs of foreordination, infant d.a.m.nation, the resurrection of the flesh, and all the other theological horrors and atrocities of the centuries.

"Yes, the Bible is, as Arnold said, based on propositions which all can verify. The trouble is, _mankind have not tried to verify them_!

They have relegated all that to the life beyond the grave. I fear a sorry disappointment awaits them, for, even as Paul says, they will be after the change called death only what they were before. It is like recovering from a case of sickness, for sickness and death are alike manifestations of mortal thought. We awake from each still human, still with our problems before us. We must break the mesmerism of the belief that the practical application of Jesus' teachings must be relegated to the realm of death, or to the unattainable. We must apply the Christ-principle, and learn to hit the mark, for sin is always weakness, never strength.

"And remember this: having acquired a knowledge of the Christ, we are bidden to acknowledge him--that is, to _act-our-knowledge_. Many of the world's philosophers have worked out great truths. But they have rested content with that. Many scientists, knowing that matter is unreal, nevertheless conduct themselves _as if it const.i.tuted the one and only real fact of existence_! Is error like truth? Decidedly no!

It is truth's exact opposite. Is truth real? Certainly it is! Then its opposite _can not_ be real. The human mentality holds the belief that there is something apart from G.o.d, spirit. That belief becomes objectified in the human mentality as matter. And within matter is contained all evil of every sort and name. Evil is not, as the philosophers would have us believe, a lower form of good. It is not 'good in the making.' It is always error, the direct opposite of truth. And if truth is real and eternal, error can not be. See the grave mistake in which Emerson became enmeshed. He said: 'There seems to be a necessity in spirit to manifest itself in material forms.' Now follow that out to its logical conclusion. If spirit is synonymous with G.o.d, then G.o.d manifests Himself in both good and evil, fair and foul, life and death--and which is good, and which bad? All is alike the reflection of G.o.d. No, my friends, rather accept Jesus' statement that evil is the lie, of which no man need be afraid, and which all must and shall overcome. And the 'old man,' with all his material concepts of nature and the universe, must and will be laid off, thus revealing the spiritual man, the image and likeness of the one divine Mind.

"Now, just a few words about miracles, the great stumbling block to the acceptance of the Gospels. Are they, together with the entire Gospel narrative, legendary? If so, they must have arisen during those fifty years between Jesus and the recording of the narratives.

But this very period is covered by Paul's letters, which record his thought. And even the most relentless of Bible critics admit the genuineness of Paul's authors.h.i.+p of the Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Thessalonians, and the Galatians. If the Gospel narratives are legends, they grew up and found acceptance in fifty years. A pretty fair miracle in itself, when we take into consideration the inherent incredulity of the human mind! As Dean Farrar says: 'Who would have _invented_, who would have merely _imagined_, things so unlike the thoughts of man as these?'

"Now Paul must have been acquainted with men who had seen and known Jesus. And we are forced to admit that Paul was a very strong, sane man. These legends could not have grown up in his day and been accepted by him. And as long as there were men living who had known Jesus--and that must have been as late as the last quarter of the first century--the true events of Jesus' life could hardly have given way to a set of childish legends. As a matter of recorded fact, the various Christian Churches had accepted Jesus within thirty years of the crucifixion. And, too, the words of Paul and the Synoptists were written at a time when the sick were still being healed and even the dead raised by the practical application of Jesus' teachings. Hence, miracles did not astonish them.

"Our own inability to perform the works attributed to Jesus is hardly sufficient ground for denying the belief that he really did them. For what is a miracle? Certainly that the greater portion of the New Testament was written by a few fishermen, a publican, and a tentmaker is one of the most stupendous miracles on record! And the miracle of miracles is Jesus Christ himself! Because Jesus is reported to have healed the sick, raised the dead, and walked the waves, all in opposition to material laws--the so-called laws of nature--the world says the reports are fantastic, that they are fables, and that his reporters were hypnotized, deluded! And yet I tell you that he did not break a single law! He did act in defiance of the so-called testimony of the physical senses, which has always been accepted by mankind as law. We now know what that sense-testimony is--human, mortal thought.

He did rise above human consciousness of evil. And because he did so, he instantaneously healed the sick. A miracle expresses, not the beliefs of the human mind, but the law of G.o.d, infinite mind, and makes that law conceivable to the human mentality. G.o.d's laws are _never_ set aside, for by very definition a law is immutable, else it ceases to be law. But when the human mind grows out of itself sufficiently to perceive those laws and to express them to its fellow-minds, the result is called a miracle. Moreover, the ability to perform miracles is but a function of spirituality. A miracle is a sign of one's having advanced to such a degree of spirituality as to enable him to rise above material consciousness and its limitations, which are called laws. The consciousness that knows no evil will perform miracles. The early Christians did great works. These works were the 'signs following,' and attested their knowledge of the allness of G.o.d. A miracle is simply a proof of G.o.d. Carmen--"

"Lewis!" protested the girl.

"Let me say it, please. Carmen _knew_ that no power opposed to G.o.d could hold Sidney. And the 'sign' followed. Yes, she performed a miracle. She broke a human-mind, so-called law, a limitation. She proved G.o.d's law of harmony and holiness--wholeness--to be omnipresent and omnipotent. And, mark me, friends, _every one of us must learn to do likewise_! Not only must the Church obey Jesus and do the works which he did, but every individual will have to do them himself."

"His works were done for a special reason, Mr. Waite," interposed Reverend Moore. "They were to testify to his messiahs.h.i.+p. They are not required of us."

Father Waite silently regarded the minister for some moments. Then he went on gently:

"It seems incredible that the plain teachings of Jesus could have been so warped and twisted as they have been by orthodox theology.

Christianity is _so_ simple! Why should even the preachers themselves condemn the one who seeks to obey Christ? Mr. Moore, the real man is G.o.d's highest idea of Himself. The human mind makes mental concepts of G.o.d's man. And Jesus was the grandest concept of G.o.d's idea of Himself that the human mind has ever constructed by means of its interpretations. He was the image of truth. One of his grandest characteristics was his implicit obedience to his vision of the Father. And he demanded just as implicit obedience from us. But he bade us, again and again, _heal the sick and raise the dead_!"

"We heal the sick! We have our physicians!"

"Yes? And Asa had his physicians to whom he turned--with the result that he 'slept with his fathers.' There is no more ironical statement in the whole Bible than that. We turn to our physicians because we have no faith in G.o.d. _Materia medica_ physicians do _not_ heal the sick. They sometimes succeed in causing the human mind temporarily to subst.i.tute a belief of health for a belief of disease that is all.

But Jesus and the early Christians healed by true prayer--the prayer of affirmation, the prayer that denied reality to evil, and affirmed the omnipotence of G.o.d. And that was done through an understanding of G.o.d as immutable law, or principle."

"Would you pray to a principle?" demanded Reverend Moore, with a note of contempt in his voice. "I prefer my own concept of G.o.d, as one who hears our pet.i.tions, and pities us, and not as a lifeless principle!"

"G.o.d is principle, Mr. Moore," replied Father Waite, "in that He is '_that by which all is_.' And in order to be such He must be, as the Bible says, 'the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.' He must be immovable, regardless of human pleading and pet.i.tion. And so true prayer, the prayer that draws an answer, is not an objective appeal to Him, but is an intelligent application of the Christ-principle to all our problems and needs. Such prayer will remove mountains in proportion to the understanding and motive back of it. And such prayer does not seek to inform the Almighty of the state of affairs here among men, informing Him that evil is real and rampant, and begging that He will stoop down and remove it. It is the prayer that manifests man's oneness with the infinite mind as its image, reflecting a knowledge of the allness of good and the consequent unreality and powerlessness of evil, the lie about it. It was healing by such prayer, Mr. Moore, that the Episcopal Synod rejected only recently.

Instead of doing the healing themselves by means of the principle given them, they still plead with G.o.d, the immovable and immutable, to do it for them, provided the very uncertain science of _materia medica_ fails.