THE EFFECTS OF MIND ON BODY AS EVIDENCED BY FAITH CURES.1 By HENRY H. GODDARD, A. M., Fellow in Psychology, Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, -Shakespeare. Perhaps no question is forcing itself upon the attention of society, concerning which there is so little knowledge and so much prejudice, as the question of the value and rights, of the new methods of treating disease, included under the comprehensive term,-"Faith Cure." In some one of its forms it is making its appearance on all sides. The medical man has it to contend with: he finds a patient has left him to try a mental practitioner; or else he is called to treat a new patient upon whom "mind cure" has failed. The legal profession has occasionally to decide whether the mental healer is guilty of mal-practice, or the friends and relatives of a deceased person guilty of "culpable neglect " because they trusted to some form of mental therapeutics and did not consult the recognized doctors of medicine. The minister meets it as a more or less persistent theological doctrine, which he must either uphold or denounce. Finally, no person can see a friend enduring a lingering illness, unbenefited by the arts of the physician, without having this new method urged upon him, and without having at least the beginnings of a query in his own mind as to whether there is "anything in it" or not. And if the friend who looks on, how much more does the sick one himself, wearing out the weary hours of suffering, watching the weeks grow into months and the months into years, with no improvement, wonder if, since everything else has failed, it may not be worth while to try the prayer cure or hypnotism or Christian Science. Whenever one of these people in any one of these different classes attempts to find a basis for a rational conclusion, or facts In this paper we have attempted to present a brief survey of the field, that portion of the data which is of most psychological interest, and some of the conclusions, from an extended study of mental therapeutics. We hope to present in a later publication an extended report of all the work referred to. to help him to a wise decision, he invariably finds such a confusion that, as a rule, he gives up in despair. Mind cure suggests psychology, and the psychologist is appealed to for the laws of mind which may explain the phenomena and give the rationale of the question. But the psychologist is silent; or at most can only say: The relation of mind to body is unknown to us, and in the nature of things will probably never be determined." It is the method of the "New Psychology," however, to collect all the facts possible, in relation to such questions, in the belief that, in time, these facts which at first are so isolated as to be without any apparent relation, may eventually be so numerous and so complete that they will fit into each other, and exhibit a more or less perfect picture. It is believed, that even if this study yields no new relations in psychology, it at least puts together facts that may sometime be of value to the psychologist, and will at once appeal to all who are interested in the practical side of ameliorating human ills. In the following pages, we propose to give a brief account of the principal forms under which the practice of treating disease without drugs, appears; next to show the relation of these to each other; and finally select one-the so-called Mental Sciencefor a fuller treatment. This will be followed by such explanation as we are able to give by correlating it with more scientific practices in the same line; concluding with a little speculation on some of the deeper problems suggested by the facts presented. We have alluded to "Faith Cure" practices as among the new methods of treating diseases. As a matter of fact the principle is as old as human history, and only certain claims and certain methods of applying it are new. Of these new forms probably the most pretentious as well as the best known is Christian Science. The school of "Healers" known as Christian Scientists, own allegience to, and claim as the discoverer of the practice, Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy. The book which contains the doctrines of the sect is believed to have been written by Mrs. Eddy under divine inspiration. Mary Morse Baker was born in Bow, N. H., July 21, 1821. Her father was of Scotch descent. As a child, Mary was sickly and hysterical; not able to attend school much and consequently received very little education. December 12, 1843, she married George W. Glover, an architect, of Wilmington, N. C. Mr. Glover died suddenly of cholera in May, 1844. One child-a boy-resulted from this marriage. After about fourteen years she married Dr. Patterson, a dentist, of Franklin, N. H. He was a man of excellent character, and did everything possible for his wife. In 1862, Mrs. Patterson went to Portland to be treated by Dr. Quimby's mental methods of curing disease. In 1865 she obtained a divorce from Patterson. Her first publication was copyrighted in 1870, and she published "Science and Health" in 1875. In 1877, she married Asa Eddy, of Lynn, Mass. In 1879, she organized a "mind healing church," of which she became pastor in 1881. She also established her "Metaphysical College" in 1881. Her husband, and also her adopted son, Foster Eddy, assisted her in the college. Mr. Eddy died suddenly in 1882. In 1889, she closed her college, and since then has devoted herself to the advancement of Christian Science theories through her writings. The growth of the organization has been rapid and large. Mrs. Eddy now resides in Concord, N. H., and is seldom seen even by her most devoted followers. "Science and Health" is in its 160th edition, and her other writings have passed through many editions. These writings, particularly "Science and Health," contain the authoritative creed of the organization, the foundation of their theory and practice. The teaching is a sort of absolute idealism. Mind is divine; mind is all. Sin and sickness are delusions of "mortal mind." The "treatment" consists in the assertion that sickness is not a reality but only a "belief." The acceptance of this view by the patient is the cure sought for. The following account, received from a Christian Scientist healer, in answer to our syllabus, will probably give as clear an idea of the philosophy, theory, and practice of Christian Science, as it would be possible for us to give in the space at our disposal. I suppose the object in sending me these questions to answer is to learn the character of Christian Science method or principle of healing; and so the answers take up the subject as viewed from that standpoint. If you find them unintelligible or unsatisfactory, it is because of the wide difference between the bases of methods built up from a material, mental or bodily cause, and a wholly metaphysical being. Please relate the facts connected with the cure of any physical ailment, without medicine. Mention in same way any disease prevented in similar manner. The facts as revealed by a study of Christian Science, show that the only agency ever effective in curing disease, is some faculty of mind; that matter having no potency in and of itself, it follows that the exercise of mental belief, ascribing certain degrees, qualifications and results, either to the drug or material process, is what restores the patient. But suppositional faith, basing its reasoning on the evidence of one or more of the physical senses, is unreliable, since it can only reason uncertainly from effect to cause; causation thus being an unproven hypothesis, liable to be found only another effect on deeper investigation. Christian Science shows such reasoning to be useless, since not understanding how the phenomena of disease is dissipated, the patient is liable to recurrence in the same or another form, and is unable to prevent or to cure himself. Christian Science starts with a demonstrable fact for its causation, found in a self-evident, self-existent Principle of Mind, and reaches an understood and knowable cure through its application in a scientific process. What was the nature of your malady? It had none. Disorganization is not an entity to be characterized. How long had you been afflicted with it? Ever since the belief that disease was a substantial entity, instead of a negation. How did you first discover that you were a victim of disease? Give fully your symptoms. By a consciousness of limitation, i. e., finiteness. How did the idea come to you that you could be healed? If suggested by some person, what was your estimate of that person? The conviction that limitation was an error, as shown by the inability and suffering it brought; and that it was right to be well; and sickness was a wrong. Suggested by a sense of justice. Was your cure instantaneous? Yes. If so, how did you know that you were cured? By the instant receding of disease; and the corresponding increasing of health and strength. Did you know it at the time, or not until later? At the time; since mind first perceiving the truth, its objective manifestation begins to appear. Did you have to test it, before becoming convinced that a cure had actually taken place? No; it brought its own self-evident proof with it. If not instantaneous, how rapid was it? How do you know that it was any more than a natural recovery? It was natural recovery. There is no other genuine recovery, since health (omipotent and self-existent intelligence), when left to itself, without any erroneous interference, will do its own work naturally. Was there any new feeling in the diseased part at time of recovery, or in any part of the body? If so, describe and explain what you thought it meant. No. The disappearance of sensation left the body free to respond to any use the mind would have for it. Since the more intense the sensation, the more powerless the organ to act harmoniously; it follows that the theory that matter is conscious intelligence, is a causative error, expressing itself in disease. Christian Science proves this true, for, by correcting this mistaken theory, the afflicted organ is relieved, and becomes free to be adapted to any action the mind may demand of it. Have you ever doubted your complete cure, or bad a relapse? If so, give reasons for your first doubt, or the occasion of your first realizing that you were not permanently cured? To what do you attribute the relapse? To what your cure? No. A principle is a complete whole, hence can manifest nothing less. Any appearance of relapse or failure comes from lack of principle. Ist, to the fact that mind creates all phenomena. 2nd. That the instant a fact is seen to be true, all previous theories, regardless of age or sup posed substantiality, disappear as realities from that mind. 3rd. That the phenomena of the theoretical conception also vanishes with it, since effect cannot exist without its cause. If you have ever tried to get healed by any of these methods, and failed, relate the circumstances. Failure followed every effort to find health, until Christian Science was understood and demonstrated. Allopathy, homeopathy, hygiene, rational systems, surgery, sanitarium treatments, mind cure, willpower, all failed. To what do you attribute your failure? To a mistaken belief that the eternal mind-principle of health was a material condition; that it could be lost and re-created by some material mechanism, and was dependent upon physical conditions for its existence and manifestation. Please answer the following questions relating to your own personality, with great care. Age? Temperament? Disposition? Complexion? Married? Do you now, or did you as a child, choose or avoid responsibility? Did you, or do you, prefer solitude or companions? Were you precocious, backward or normal, in the matter of learning to write, walk or talk? What was your health in childhood? This paragraph is unanswerable from Christian Science basis, since it deals with mentality only, and recognizes physicality as the manifestation of mistaken, changing, human belief; having no fixed character of its own, and subject to constant correction. If you were healed in answer to prayer, kindly describe the circumstances, and answer the following questions in addition to the above. If by prayer is meant a petition to set aside fixed law and its penalties to please some favored petitioner, decidedly, no. If it means a humble, steadfast desire for spiritual, mental, and bodily wholeness, recognized as a God-given right to all, to be received in proportion to man's intelligent understanding of the God-nature and its operation; yes. What had been your religious experience previous to your cure? I found nothing in popular religions or philosophies of any practical value. What was your idea of the efficacy of prayer? It had none beyond a blind faith in the petitioner, resulting in a manifestation of self-mesmerism. How did the faith that you could be cured, first come to you? Realizing the fact that disease was discord, led me to seek every means possible to find the harmony which is health. State any doubts that you had. Neither doubts nor certainties; as it was simply another experiment. What plan had you formulated, or what conditions did you expect to have to fulfill before you could be healed? Obedience to any requirement; as would be expected in giving a fair trial to any system. Did it happen as you had planned, or did you change your views of the matter? If the latter, how did you come to change your views? The positive proof of the disappearance of disease, left no room for questioning the presence of health or the success of the means employed. Was the final result in any way contrary to your expectations? If so, how? I had no expectations. |