Part 60 (1/2)

The good which the material senses see not is the only [15]

absolute good; the evil which these senses see not is the only absolute evil.

If I enter Mr. Smith's store and take from it his gar- ments that are on sale, array myself in them, and put myself and them on exhibition, can I make this right [20]

by saying, These garments are Mr. Smith's; he manu- factured them and owns them, but you must pay me, not him, for this exhibit?

The spectators may ask, Did he give you permission to do this, did he sell them or loan them to you? No. [25]

Then have you asked yourself this question on the sub- ject, namely, What right have I to do this? True, it saves your purchasing these garments, and gives to the public new patterns which are useful to them; but does this silence your conscience? or, because you have con- [30]

fessed that they are the property of a noted firm, and you wished to handle them, does it justify you in appro-

[Page 300.]

priating them, and so avoiding the cost of hiring or [1]

purchasing?

Copying my published works _verbatim_, compiling them in connection with the Scriptures, taking this copy into the pulpit, announcing the author's name, then reading [5]

it publicly as your own compilation, is-what?

We answer, It is a mistake; in common parlance, it is an _ignorant_ wrong.

If you should print and publish your copy of my works, you would be liable to arrest for infringement of copy- [10]

right, which the law defines and punishes as theft. Read- ing in the pulpit from copies of my publications gives you the clergyman's salary and spares you the printer's bill, but does it spare you our Master's condemnation?

You literally publish my works through the pulpit, instead [15]

of the press, and thus evade the law, _but not the gospel_.

When I consent to this act, you will then be justified in it.

Your ma.n.u.script copy is liable, in some way, to be printed as your original writings, thus incurring the pen- [20]

alty of the law, and increasing the record of theft in the United States Circuit Court.

To The Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, which I had organized and of which I had for many years been pastor, I gave permission to cite, in the _Christian Science_ [25]

_Quarterly_, from my work Science and Health, pa.s.sages giving the spiritual meaning of Bible texts; but this was a special privilege, and the author's gift.

Christian Science demonstrates that the patient who pays whatever he is able to pay for being healed, is more [30]

apt to recover than he who withholds a slight equiva- lent for health. Healing morally and physically are one.

[Page 301.]

Then, is compiling and delivering that sermon for which [1]

you pay nothing, and which you deliver without the author's consent, and receive pay therefor, the _precedent_ for preaching Christian Science,-and are you doing to the author of the above-named book as you would [5]

have others do unto you?

Those authors and editors of pamphlets and periodi- cals whose substance is made up of my publications, are morally responsible for what the law construes as crime.

There are startling instances of the above-named law- [10]

breaking and gospel-opposing system of authors.h.i.+p, which characterize the writings of a few professed Christian Scientists. My Christian students who have read copies of my works in the pulpit require only a word to be wise; too sincere and morally statuesque are they to be long [15]

led into temptation; but I must not leave persistent plagiarists without this word of warning in public, since my private counsel they disregard.

To the question of my true-hearted students, ”Is it right to copy your works and read them for our public [20]