REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
 
 First Church of Christ, Scientist 
 
DUKE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 DIVINITY SCHOOL 
 LIBRARY 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
 
 OF 
 
 irst Church of Christ, Scientist, 
 
 OF 
 
 NEW YORK CITY 
 
 NOVEMBER 4, 1909 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
 
 OF 
 
 First Church of Christ, Scientist, 
 
 OF 
 NEW YORK CITY. 
 
 é 
 
 Containing that portion of said Report which 
 was both read and approved at the Special 
 Meeting, of Church Members and ‘Regular 
 Attendants, held in the Church Edifice, | 
 West 96th Street, New York City, on Thurs- 
 day, November 4, 1909, at two o'clock in 
 
 the afternoon. 
 
_ Aghs Sch.R. 
 J bbs AL, La L379; ee 
 . Fs2z7h 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 In the hope of removing whatever obstacles may lie 
 in the way of the return of this church to the enjoyment 
 of that peace and growth which belong to the children 
 of God, the Board of Trustees beg leave to submit the 
 results of their inquiry to you, after more than a month 
 of tireless labor in arriving at the facts and conclusions 
 
 which are herewith set forth. 
 
 PALSY 23 
 
During the last week of September, 1909, all the mem- 
 bers of the Board of Trustees, of First Church of Christ, 
 Scientist, New York City, except Mrs. Augusta E. 
 Stetson, were requested to confer with the Board of Di- 
 
 rectors of The Mother Church, on September 24th, at 
 
 Boston. 
 
 Mr. Edwin F. Hatfield and Mrs. Isabelle C. Dam 
 were unavoidably prevented from complying with the re- 
 quest. All the other members of the Board of Trustees 
 of this branch church, who had been invited, appeared at 
 the time appointed, and were received informally by the 
 Board of Directors of The Mother Church. They found 
 three other persons present, besides a_ stenographer ; 
 namely, Judge Clifford P. Smith, First Reader of The 
 Mother Church; Mr. Virgil O. Strickler, and Miss Ella 
 G. Young. First and Second Readers, respectively, of 
 this branch church. It was stated, among other things, 
 by Mr. Archibald McLellan, Chairman of the Board of 
 Directors of the Mother Church ; 
 
 1. That the Trustees of this branch church then 
 present at Boston had been invited to the conference not 
 in an official capacity, but as individuals ; 
 
 2. That an investigation was in progress at Boston, 
 and ‘‘ was instituted because of the widespread impression 
 obtained by all Christian Scientists throughout the Field, 
 that there is something wrong with the teachings and 
 
 P24424 
 
practices in First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York 
 City, and that these teachings and practices differ materi- 
 ally from those which obtain in other places ;”” 
 
 3. That no charge nor complaint was then pending 
 against any particular person. 
 
 A synopsis of the testimony, said to be before the 
 Directors at that time, was then given orally to the Trustees 
 of this branch church there present, by Judge Clifford P. 
 Smith, First Reader of The Mother Church, on behalf and 
 by request of the Board of Directors of The Mother 
 Church. The Synopsis contained allegations of a very 
 grave character. A copy of the entire evidence was there- 
 fore requested by the Trustees who were present, for the 
 
 use of the Board of Trustees of this branch Church. This 
 
 request was not granted. 
 
 Two days after this conference, the Acting Clerk of 
 this branch church received the following letter from Mrs. 
 Stetson: 
 
 7 West 96th St. 
 New York, September 26, 1909. 
 Dr. John Franklin Crowell, Acting Clerk, First 
 Church of Christ, Scientist, New York 
 City: 
 
 Dear Dr. Crowell—To-day I received a let- 
 ter signed “J. V. Dittemore, Secretary,’ contain- 
 ing enclosures which purport to be copies of find- 
 ings and orders by the Board of Directors of The 
 First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston 
 Mass. 
 
 As a member of the Board of Trustees of 
 First Church of Christ, Sctentist, New York 
 City, I request that you call a meeting of that 
 
 9 
 
 ~ 
 
Board at the earliest possible time, in order that 
 
 the documents referred to may be laid before 
 
 the Board for such action as may be proper. 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 (Signed) AUGUSTA E. STETSON. 
 
 This request was complied with, and a meeting of the 
 Board was held on October Ist 1909. Mr. Strickler and 
 Miss Young were present, in addition to every member of 
 the Board except Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson. At that meet- 
 ing the following documents were laid before the Board of 
 Trustees: 
 
 September 28, 1909. 
 To the Board of Trustees, First Church of 
 Christ Scientist, New York City: 
 
 I hand you hereunth a letter, and the en- 
 closures therein referred to, dated Boston, Mass., 
 Sept. 25, 1909, and purporting to be written on 
 behalf of the Christian Science Board of Direc- 
 tors. About six weeks ago I was advised by 
 those Directors that a charge then pending 
 against me had been dismissed. Since which 
 time I have had no direct communication from 
 them, until the documents herewith handed you 
 were received by registered mail on Sunday 
 morning, Sept. 26, 1909, I immediately re- 
 quested that a meeting of our Board be called to 
 hear these documents read, and to take such ac- 
 tion as may be proper. As the matter affects 
 me mdividually, in a way that may make my 
 presence undesirable, if not improper, I am ab- 
 senting myself from the meeting. 
 
 I rest in the firm conviction that our Father- 
 Mother God will guide your every action—even 
 that divine Mind which is now manifested in 
 
 3 
 
glory in our beloved Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, 
 through whom I became acquainted with her 
 God—Life, Truth and Love. This God I have 
 endeavored to present and to represent to you, 
 even as I have heard and seen while following 
 my forever Leader, Mary Baker Eddy. 
 
 Let nothing separate you from divine Prin- 
 ciple or from your Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, 
 who will bring us all into the kingdom of our 
 God and His Christ; “But every man in his own 
 order; Christ the first-fruits; afterward they 
 that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1 Cor. 15:23). 
 
 (Signed) AUGUSTA E. STETSON, C.S. D. 
 
 Tue CHRISTIAN ScIENCE BoarD oF DIRECTORS 
 THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, 
 Norway, FatmoutH & St. Paur Sts. 
 
 Boston, Mass. 
 Office of the Secretary 
 
 September 25, 1909. 
 Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson, 7 West 96th Street, 
 New Vork, N. Y.: 
 
 Dear Mrs. Stetson—By order of the Board 
 of Directors I am sending you herewith a copy 
 of the findings and orders concerning yourself 
 this day made by them. 
 
 The copy of their action ts sent you in order 
 to inform you thereof and in order to admonish 
 you concerning .the errors on your part therein 
 pointed out. 
 
 The Board directs me to express the hope 
 that you will accept this admonition and desist 
 from a repetition of the errors which they have 
 pointed out. 
 
 Very sincerely, 
 (Signed) J. V. DITTEMORE, 
 Secretary for the Christian Science Board of 
 Directors. 
 
 4 
 
Saturday, Sept. 25th 1909 
 “The Board of Directors of The First Church of 
 
 Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., met pursuant to their 
 adjournment of yesterday. Present; all of the Directors. 
 
 “* The Directors took up and considered the case of 
 Mrs. Augusta E.. Stetson, a member of this Church and an 
 authorized teacher of Christian Science, as presented by her 
 statements recently made before the Directors and the testi- 
 mony of twenty-five witnesses whose examination was con- 
 cluded yesterday; namely, 
 
 Richard P. Verrall Mrs. A. Aikman 
 
 Miss Marion Stephens Hayne Davis 
 
 Amold Blome Harry Fink 
 
 Miss Sarah Hathaway Miss Margaret Duncan 
 Miss Jessie Colton Miss A. E. Ensworth 
 Mrs. Kate Remer Miss Ida Pope 
 
 Mrs. Margaret Beecher White Arthur Overbury 
 
 Mrs. Mary Freshman Miss Mary Pearson 
 Mrs. Amelia Rowbotham Mrs. Anna Holden 
 Steuart C. Rowbotham Mrs. Letitia Greene 
 Miss Ella Young Miss Mary Pinney 
 Miss Sibyl Huse Mrs. Catherine B. Gillpatrick 
 
 V. O. Strickler 
 
 ‘* After having carefully considered the evidence, the 
 Directors decided and unanimously agreed as follows: 
 
 1. That Mrs. Stetson teaches her students, or those 
 with whom she has been holding daily meetings, that the 
 branch Church of Christ, Scientist, of which she is a member 
 is the only legitimate Christian Science Church in New York 
 City; and she teaches her students, or said group of 
 students, not to regard the other branches of The Mother 
 Church which are in that city as Christian Science Churches. 
 
 5 
 
2. That a considerable number of the witnesses 
 whose testimony the Directors have heard exhibit as Mrs. 
 Stetson’s teaching an erroneous sense of Christian Science, 
 particularly in regard to the application of Christian Science 
 to human needs and conditions; the witnesses whom the 
 Directors have heard being with one exception her students 
 and being a select body of students chosen by her, or a 
 board of which she was a member, to be representative 
 practitioners of Christian Science. 
 
 3. That Mrs. Stetson endeavors to exercise a control 
 over her students which tends to hinder their moral and 
 spiritual growth. 
 
 4. That Mrs. Stetson endeavors to obtrude herself 
 upon the attention of her students in such manner as to ‘turn 
 their attention away from divine Principle. 
 
 5. That Mrs. Stetson practices and teaches pretend- 
 ed Christian Science contrary to the statement thereof in 
 “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” particular- 
 ly by treating persons without their request or consent, and 
 by teaching a select body of her students to do likewise. 
 
 6. That Mrs. Stetson attempts to control and to in- 
 jure persons by mental means; this being utterly contrary to 
 the teachings of Christian Science. 
 
 7. That Mrs. Stetson has so strayed from the right 
 way as not to be fit for the work of a teacher of Christian 
 Science. 
 
 ‘* After having considered these facts in view of the 
 By-laws of this Church applicable to them, the Directors 
 unanimously determined and ordered as follows : 
 
 ].--That the card of Mrs. Stetson be removed from 
 6 
 
the Christian Science Journal, and that the trustees of 
 the Publishing Society be directed not to advertise her 
 as a teacher or practitioner of Christian Science without 
 first obtaining the approval of the Directors. 
 
 2.--That Mrs. Stetson’s license or authority to teach 
 Christian Science be and it hereby is revoked, and that 
 she be and hereby is forbidden to undertake the woxk of 
 a teacher of Christian Science until her fitness for such 
 
 work shall have been proved and decided according to 
 Article XII, section |, of the By-laws of this Church. 
 
 3.--That in order to inform Mrs. Stetson of the 
 action now taken by the Directors and to admonish her 
 concerning the things now pointed out by them, the Sec- 
 retary of the Board shall send to her by registered mail 
 a copy of these findings and orders.” 
 
 The Board of Trustees proceeded at once to the 
 consideration of the communication from Mrs. Stetson, in 
 the light of what had occurred at the Boston conference, 
 held the week previous. It is proper to state, however, 
 that no authenticated copy of the foregoing ‘‘ Findings 
 and Orders’’ was ever filed with the Board of Trustees 
 of this branch church. 
 
 Mrs. Stetson’s communication to the Board contained 
 the statement that she absented herself voluntarily from the 
 meeting. A member of the Board suggested the propri- 
 ety of Mr. Strickler and Miss Young absenting themselves 
 from the executive sessions of this Board, while the questions 
 submitted in these communications were under considera- 
 tion. Mr. Strickler, replying thereto, stated that this pro- 
 
 7 
 
posal met with his entire approval and that he would stand 
 ready to give any information at his command to aid the 
 Board in dealing with the matters before them. Miss 
 Young stated that she was willing to do what the Board 
 of Trustees desired her to do in the matter of withdrawing. 
 Mr. Strickler and Miss Young then withdrew from the 
 meeting. 
 
 At this same meeting (October Ist) a resolution was 
 approved by the Board that the Directors of the Mother 
 Church be requested to supply a complete copy of the 
 evidence taken in Boston, for the use of the Board of 
 Trustees of this branch church in the conduct of this 
 inquiry. This resolution was communicated to the Direc- 
 
 tors of The Mother Church in a letter dated October 1, 
 1909, which reads as follows : 
 
 October 1, 1909. 
 The Chairman of the Board of Directors, The 
 First Church of Christ, Scientist, Bos- 
 ton, Mass.: 
 
 Gentlemen—On Friday last, when six of 
 this Board of Trustees had the pleasure, upon 
 your invitation, of meeting the Board of Direc- 
 tors of the Mother Church informally in Boston, 
 it transpired that a great deal of testimony had 
 been taken from some twenty-five of the practi- 
 tioners who have been associated with this 
 branch church. This testimony, as outlined by 
 Judge Smith, appeared to be of a serious nature ; 
 but as a bare outline of only some of the testi- 
 monies was given by him, you will recall that a 
 request was then made for a copy of all the tes- 
 timonies. Judge Smith said he would rather not 
 let it be given out until further action was de- 
 
 8 
 
termined upon. Since then, action has been 
 taken by your Board, involving one who is not 
 only a member of this branch church, but a mem- 
 ber of this Board of Trustees. Therefore, hav- 
 ing in view our duty in the premises to properly 
 consider this matter, we now make request that 
 this Board be promptly furnished with copies of 
 the examination of and testimony given (in any 
 manner) by each and every member of this 
 church who was called upon to appear before the 
 Directors in the investigation relating to “the 
 teachings and practices in First Church of Christ, 
 Scientist, New York City,” or im any manner re- 
 lating to the teachings and practices of any of 
 its members. 
 
 In view of your recent assurance that it 1s 
 your desire, as it is surely ours, to come into 
 closer understanding with each other, we feel no 
 doubt but that you will see the wisdom and 
 justice of granting this, under the circumstances, 
 most reasonable request. 
 
 Judge Smith said on Friday last, “Let the 
 present occasion be taken as an overture made 
 on the part of the Directors of the Mother 
 Church towards the branch church in New York 
 City. Let nothing in the way of formality, or 
 form, or anything of that sort, interfere with 
 the endeavor to come into closer understanding.” 
 Anticipating, therefore, an early and favorable 
 response, we are, 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 IETS BOARD OF TRUSTEES (OE 
 Hiei CaOnRCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, 
 INGE VIVOTCK Cli: 
 By (Signed) Edwin F. Hatfield, Chairman. 
 John D. Higgins, Clerk. 
 
 9 
 
This request was not granted, as is shown by their 
 reply of October 4th, which reads as follows : 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BoARD OF DIRECTORS 
 OF 
 THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, 
 Norway, FarmoutH & St. Pau Sts. 
 
 Boston, Mass. 
 Office of the 
 Secretary 
 
 October 4, 1909. 
 The Board of Trustees of First Church of 
 Christ, Scientist, of New York City, 
 No. 1 West 96th Street, New York 
 City: 
 
 Gentlemen—W e are in receipt of your letter 
 of the 1st inst. and regret the attitude which it 
 reveals. Your letter seems to indicate that you 
 think you have no duty to perform unless tt be 
 to review and pass upon the action of this Board. 
 
 You have been informed of certain irregular 
 practices of members in your church, disclosed 
 by an investigation conducted by this Board, and 
 these same facts are as open to you as they were 
 to us; moreover, the lamentable conditions which 
 exist and which have existed for a long time are 
 within the personal knowledge of the Chairman 
 of your Board, the two Readers, who are ex- 
 officio members thereof, and many other persons 
 whom we did not summon. What you should do 
 ts to obtain the testimony of these people and 
 do your duty. Under the circumstances this 
 Board calls upon you to wake up to the serious- 
 ness of the situation, make your own investiga- 
 tion and act without fear or favor. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BOARD Ga 
 
 RECTORS. 
 
 By (Signed) J. V. Dittemore, Secretary. 
 
 10 
 
On the same day that this letter was received, Oc- 
 tober 5th, the Committee appointed to prepare a plan of 
 procedure for the inquiry, made its report, based on the 
 assumption that Mrs. Stetson, Mr. Strickler and Miss 
 Young would absent themselves from the meetings of the 
 Board, in accordance with the action taken on the day the 
 Committee on Procedure was appointed. 
 
 The Inquiry was accordingly commenced on this 
 basis, and all the former Reading Rooms practitioners were 
 requested to appear before the Board of Trustees, at the 
 Board Room at 4 o'clock P.M. on October 12th. 
 They all responded at the time and place appointed and 
 were informed of the inquiry and of the wishes of the 
 Board of Trustees in regard thereto, by the reading of the 
 following document : 
 
 ANNOUNCEMENT. 
 
 “Recent events have imposed upon his Board the 
 duty of inquiring into the conditions and practices that have 
 obtained in this branch of The First Church of Christ, 
 Scientist, Boston, Mass. 
 
 “Tt is requested that during this inquiry you will not 
 discuss with each other, or with any other persons, either 
 the fact of the inquiry being in progress, the facts out of 
 which it arises, or what would be proper evidence in such 
 an inquiry. You are requested also not to discuss the 
 proper action of the Board, but to keep constantly in mind 
 the fact that there is only One Mind, manifested always in 
 each and every idea of God, and that no other mind exists 
 or can appear or express itself through any one connected 
 with this inquiry. Also that each person concerned in this 
 
 11 
 
inquiry is a manifestation of that Mind and is governed by 
 divine Principle. 
 
 ‘* Without prejudicing his testimony, any witness may 
 declare the spiritual facts, even when recounting the oc- 
 currences under investigation, thus aiding the Board to as- 
 certain the occurrences and to administer any discipline 
 found just and proper, without unduly fixing in conscious- 
 ness any falsities that may have been believed and declared 
 by anyone heretofore. 
 
 ‘* You will be questioned, not only as to occurrences, 
 
 but regarding the teachings of Mrs. Augusta E Stetson 
 and Reverend Mary Baker Eddy. 
 
 “You will all await the further call of the Board, each 
 in the room formerly occupied as a practitioner’s office in 
 the church, Miss Colton and Mr. Verrall using the rooms 
 on the mezzanine floor which they formerly occupied. 
 You will each be called to appear individually before the 
 Board. While you await this call, the following books 
 are commended to your careful consideration: The 
 Bible, Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures, by 
 Mary Baker Eddy, Discoverer and Founder of Christian 
 Science, and the Manual of The Mother Church.” 
 
 Thereupon, Mr. Strickler protested in writing against 
 the Board’s proceeding with the inquiry in the absence from 
 the meetings of both Readers. In order to get the benefit, 
 at the outset, of all that Mr. Strickler might have to say, he 
 was Called as the first witness, on Tuesday, October 12th. 
 Notwithstanding the protest previously made, Mr. Strickler 
 appeared before the Board and began to give his testimony. 
 Before the meeting of the following day, and before the 
 conclusion of Mr. Strickler’s testimony, a second written 
 
 12 
 
protest was made by Mr. Strickler against the further pro- 
 gress of this inquiry, during the absence of both Readers 
 from the meetings of the Board. In order that there might 
 be no doubt whatever as to the regularity of the proceed- 
 ings, it was deemed best to call a meeting of the Board of 
 Trustees to consider this matter. Such a meeting was held 
 on October | 4th, all the members of the Board being pre- 
 sent, including Mr. Strickler and Miss Young, the ex-officio 
 members. ‘Thereupon the Board of Trustees appointed a 
 Committee of Inquiry composed of all the members of the 
 Board except Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson, and the two Read- 
 ers of this branch church who have no nght to vote at 
 Board meetings, even though present. “The Committee thus 
 appointed was composed of the following persons : 
 
 Edwin F. Hatfield, Chairman 
 John Franklin Crowell, Secretary 
 Mrs. Suzanne S. Thomas 
 Mrs. Isabelle C. Dam 
 Joseph B. Whitney 
 Adolph Rusch 
 Wm. H. Taylor 
 John D. Higgins 
 
 Something should here be said regarding the legality, 
 as well as the propriety of this course. As to the propriety, 
 the members of the Board of Trustees were unanimous in 
 desiring to conduct the inquiry, without either Mrs. Stetson, 
 Mr. Strickler, or Miss Young being present during the ex- 
 amination of the other witnesses, and yet so as to procure 
 all testimony that would lead to a just and nghteous judge- 
 ment. The course pursued accomplished both these pur- 
 poses. Mrs. Stetson and Mr. Strickler were both fully 
 
 13 
 
heard at the beginning of the inquiry. The Committee 
 then had the benefit of all Mr. Strickler wished to say before 
 
 proceeding with examination of the other witnesses. 
 
 As to the legality ; the by-laws of this branch church 
 vest in the Board of Trustees, and in the First Reader, 
 co-ordinate rights, (Article XI, section 1), in the adminis- 
 tration of the church discipline. Either the First Reader 
 or the Board of Trustees may initiate the action with a 
 view to discipline. Mr. Strickler had been in possession 
 for many months of the chief alleged facts upon which 
 this inquiry was initiated by the Board of Trustees on 
 October Ist, only a few days after the Board was officially 
 informed of the things complained of. Having initiated 
 the inquiry, the Board of Trustees had the night to prose- 
 cute it according to its judgment. Mr. Strickler mentioned 
 some of the alleged facts to a member of the Board of 
 Trustees in August. That member thereupon informed 
 Mr. Strickler that the matter was a proper one for him 
 (Mr. Strickler) to bring officially to the attention of the 
 Board of Trustees. Mr. Strickler did not then bring the 
 matter to the attention of the Board of Trustees of this 
 branch church, though he attended two meetings of the 
 Board after that conversation, prior to the time when the 
 Directors of the Mother Church moved in the matter. 
 Indeed Mr. Strickler has never brought the matter to the 
 attention of the Board of Trustees officially. It came 
 before the Board by Mrs. Stetson’s initiative, taken Sep- 
 tember 26th, the day she received the letter above referred 
 to from the Secretary of the Christian Science Board of 
 Directors. 
 
 Before the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry, 
 uu 
 
the Board of Trustees considered carefully a phase of the 
 pending question which was of prime importance, though 
 of a prelimimary character, namely, the question of the res- 
 pective jurisdictions of The Mother Church, and of this 
 branch church in respect to the matters under considera- 
 tion. While the Board of Trustees was duly considering 
 this grave question, not previously raised in the history of 
 this branch church, accusations that the Board was derelict 
 in or oblivious to its duty, were heard on various sides, and 
 from sources which might have been expected to manifest 
 a more Scientific attitude. These accusations were voiced 
 even from the witness chair by persons who are within the 
 jurisdiction of this branch church, and who were at that 
 time before the constituted authontties, sitting in their official 
 character, and therefore representing our beloved Leader, 
 Mary Baker Eddy, and responsible to her and to God for 
 the mghteousness of their conduct and judgment. The 
 giving of due consideration to this question of jurisdiction, 
 and to certain constitutional questions connected therewith 
 has enabled the Board and the Committee of Inquiry to 
 see more clearly the way of duty and to walk therem, and 
 thus to avoid trespassing upon the nghts of the constituted 
 authorities of The Mother Church, and of individual mem- 
 bers of this branch church. This consideration was so 
 helpful to the Board and to the Committee in prosecuting 
 this imquiry, that a concise statement of this phase of the 
 matter seems to be proper at this point. 
 
 In her unfailing and ever watchful wisdom, our 
 beloved Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, has organized her 
 Church so that The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in 
 Boston, Massachusetts, has complete and perfect authority 
 in the jumisdiction defined for it in the Christian Science 
 
 15 
 
Manual. Branch churches are also perfectly self-governing 
 within the jurisdiction granted to them by the same Church 
 
 Manual and by the same authority ; namely, Mary Baker 
 Eddy. 
 
 It is as imperative that the branch churches protect 
 their rights and perform their duties within the realm 
 marked out in the Manual for them, as it is that The 
 Mother Church officers protect the rights and perform the 
 duties imposed upon them. In this way only can the 
 Kingdom of God and of His Christ be effectually es- 
 tablished among men. For either of these authorities to 
 neglect the proper performance of their respective duties, or 
 to trespass upon the province of the other, would be diso- 
 bedience to our Beloved Leader on the part of Officers, 
 Directors, Trustees, or Readers, whether of The Mother 
 Church or of a branch church. 
 
 The duty and the spiritual benefit of obedience are the 
 same in both cases, and the consequences of disobeying are 
 inevitable; whatever may seem to be the relative importance 
 of the duties imposed upon one or the other authority. As 
 this is a branch church, the supreme question confronting its 
 constituted authorities and also its members is, first, to gain 
 a perfect understanding of, and then faithfully to perform its 
 own duties irrespective of what other authorities or persons 
 may or may not do. 
 
 Branch churches in their corporate capacity must pre- 
 suppose the faithful performance of duty by The Mother 
 Church officials in matters concerning only individual mem- 
 bers of The Mother Church. Each church must do its 
 own duty in the light of the facts laid before it, and of its 
 
 16 
 
own understanding of our beloved Leader’s teaching and 
 practice of Christian Science. 
 
 The Directors of The Mother Church have no au- 
 thority to review the action of a branch church in a matter 
 falling within the jurisdiction: of the branch church. The 
 constituted authorities of the branch church have no nght 
 to review the action of the Directors of the Mother 
 Church, in a matter falling within the jurisdiction of that 
 church. 
 
 Branch churches have no jurisdiction over teaching. 
 Therefore, the question whether any person shall or shall 
 not teach Christian Science cannot properly come before a 
 
 branch Church. 
 
 The authorities of this branch church are bound to 
 judge according to the evidence before them, and in ac- 
 cordance with the law as laid down in the Bible, the 
 Manual, Science and Health, and in Mrs. Eddy’s other 
 writings. In the formation of this judgment, the findings 
 and orders of the authorities of The Mother Church cannot 
 properly be taken into account, for judging either in ac- 
 cordance therewith or contrary thereto. The authorities of 
 The Mother Church have no right or power to interfere 
 with the affairs falling within the jurisdiction of a branch 
 church. Neither have the individuals who happen at the 
 moment to be the authorities of The Mother Church 
 any such nght, either as individuals or as officials. This 
 is clear from Article XXIII, Sections 1, 3 and 10 of The 
 Mother Church Manual. 
 
 Article XXIII, Section 1, on “‘ Local Self Govern- 
 ment,” reads in part as follows: ‘‘ The Mother Church 
 
 17 
 
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.” 
 
 Article XXIII, Section 3, forbids a branch church to 
 adopt the Manual of The Mother Church, thus compelling 
 them to adopt such by-laws for their own self government 
 as may be necessary or desirable to supplement the pro- 
 visions of The Mother Church Manual, applicable to 
 
 branch churches. 
 
 Article XXIII, Section 10, on‘‘ No Interference,” says 
 in part as follows: ‘‘In Christian Science, each branch 
 church shall be distinctly democratic in its government, 
 and no individual and no other church shall interfere with 
 its affairs.” 
 
 Having in view these general principles regarding the 
 respective jurisdictions of The Mother Church and of 
 branch churches and the rules of the Manual applicable to 
 the matters under consideration, the members of this branch 
 church can more easily comprehend the report of the 
 Committee of Inquiry, now to be submitted as the 
 Report of the Board of Trustees. 
 
 18 
 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF 
 INQUIRY. 
 
 First CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, 
 New York City. 
 
 This Committee was appointed by virtue of the reso- 
 lutions approved by the Board of Trustees at a meeting 
 held October 14, 1909, all the members of the Board 
 being present; also Mr. Virgil O. Strickler and Miss 
 Ella G. Young, First and Second Readers, respectively, 
 of this branch church. The Committee organized on the 
 day of its appointment, by electing Mr. Edwin F. Hat- 
 field as Chairman, and Dr. John Franklin Crowell as 
 Secretary. The Committee has not ceased since that 
 day to devote itself to the duties that devolved upon it; 
 though the members of the Committee were all preoccu- 
 pied with their personal and business problems, it was 
 found possible to hold two sessions daily except Sun- 
 day. Some sessions were held on Sunday, there being 
 in all thirty-five sessions, during which over 1,000 pages 
 of typewritten testimony were taken. Every member of 
 the Committee was present at practically all the sessions, 
 except Mrs. Suzanne S. Thomas, whose residence is not 
 in New York City, and whose family ties imposed upon 
 her certain duties of an imperative character during the 
 
 19 
 
progress of the inquiry, which made it impossible for 
 Mrs. Thomas to attend the sessions regularly. 
 
 The Committee is unanimous in the following state- 
 ment of facts, deduced from the evidence before it: 
 
 I. First Church of Christ, Scientist, New York 
 City, is a loyal branch of The Mother Church, and is an 
 organic part of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, 
 founded by Mary Baker Eddy, and of which she is the 
 perpetual head. 
 
 IJ. Error cannot work through any person to sep- 
 arate this branch church from the Mother Church, or to 
 separate loyal members of this branch church from our 
 beloved Leader or from anyone who is conquering error 
 and manifesting the Christ Mind more and more. 
 
 III. This branch church derives its existence and 
 also its rights from the action of Mary Baker Eddy, and 
 recognizes her as supreme in spiritual leadership. 
 
 IV. This branch church has grown, in a little more 
 than two decades, from a small beginning to its present 
 proportions, notwithstanding the fact that a number of 
 Mrs. Erddy’s students, who were members at its organiza-. 
 tion or in the early days of its existence, withdrew from 
 its membership, and formed other branch churches in this 
 city, while this branch church was still young in years, 
 few in numbers, and apparently feeble in power. 
 
 V. The same character of opposition which mani- 
 fested itself toward this church through those who with- 
 drew from its membership and formed other branch 
 churches in this city, subsequently manifested itself in 
 
 20 
 
other parts of the country and has widened and inten- 
 sified itself up to this present time. Proof of this fact is 
 in the possession of this branch church. 
 
 VI. This opposition persistently formulated and 
 assiduously circulated false reports regarding this branch 
 church, Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson, and other of its mem- 
 bers. This circulation of falsehoods still continues. 
 
 VII. These reports were given currency, even in 
 Christian Science circles. When directed against Mrs. 
 Stetson they included charges of personal ambition, per- 
 sonal control, malpractice, hypnotism, mesmerism, etc., 
 even to the extent of disloyalty to the Cause and to Mary 
 Baker Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian 
 Science, by entertaining the expectation of robbing Mrs. 
 Eddy of her position as the Leader of Christian Science. 
 When directed against this church, these reports were 
 more vague, but were of a corresponding character, such 
 as love of material wealth and power, ambition to over- 
 shadow The Mother Church, subjection to personal 
 control, mesmerism, hypnotism, etc. These reports peri- 
 odically re-embodied themselves during the past two 
 decades, varying from time to time, but never losing their 
 false character of holding Mrs. Stetson, this branch 
 church, or some of its members in error, more or less grave. 
 
 VIII. These false reports were engendered and 
 developed by malicious animal magnetism, which is the 
 opposite and the opponent of Christian Science, and they 
 were circulated by persons who did not properly protect 
 themselves against aggressive mental suggestion, as en- 
 joined by our beloved Leader in The Mother Church 
 Manual, Article VIII, Section 6. 
 
 21 
 
IX. The widespread circulation of these unwar- 
 ranted reports throughout the Christian Science Field, has 
 kept many persons away from this branch church who 
 would otherwise have come to its services and extended 
 the right hand of Christian Science fellowship to its 
 members. 
 
 X. Loyal to our beloved Leader and to the 
 Truth of Being, this branch church and its loyal members 
 have fought the good fight of faith, and have not despaired 
 of the day when the members of this branch church will 
 all be recognized by their brothers of other Christian 
 Science churches, as made in the image and likeness of 
 God, and as manifesting the Christ Mind, instead of in 
 subjection to error in its aggressive and hideous forms. 
 
 XI. It is the purpose of this branch church to obey 
 the by-laws that have recently been promulgated, also all 
 by-laws that may hereafter be lawfully promulgated, even 
 as it has heretofore obeyed the existing by-laws, as under- 
 stood by the constituted authorities of this branch church. 
 
 XII. Although this inquiry included general con- 
 ditions prevailing in this branch church, it soon became 
 apparent that the conditions alleged in evidence taken 
 were almost entirely confined to what had been done and 
 said in practitioners’ meetings, and to their effect upon 
 the general body of the church. For this reason the hear- 
 ings were preeminently occupied with the part played by 
 the persons directly participating in these meetings. 
 
 XIII. This assemblage of practitioners appears 
 
 never to have had any formal authorization. It simply 
 grew up out of the common desire of persons similarly 
 
 22 
 
occupied to benefit by regular association for mutual im- 
 provement, and we find that there is quite general agree- 
 ment among witnesses as to what took place in these meet- 
 ings, but that there is a fundamental difference in the atti- 
 tude of witnesses toward statements made and occurrences 
 that took place at said meetings. During the past year 
 Mrs. Stetson made numerous mental defences against 
 hostile manifestations toward this branch church, as well 
 as toward herself. With regard to these defences, prac- 
 titioners appear to have grouped themselves into two 
 classes. Nineteen practitioners consider them as justifiable, 
 defensive declarations in handling error. Four or five 
 now appear to have regarded this kind of defence as 
 amounting to malpractice upon persons whose names were 
 mentioned. To the smaller group of witnesses the use 
 of persons’ names without knowledge or consent is the dis- 
 tinguishing mark of malpractice; the larger group insists 
 that self-defence against mental aggression of known per- 
 sonal agency is a legitimate and indispensable method of 
 maintaining their position against mental assassination and 
 as efficient practitioners in Christian Science. The evi- 
 dence plainly discloses that Mrs. Stetson’s teaching and 
 practice were clear on the fundamental differences be- 
 tween treatment and self-defence against aggressive mental 
 malpractice. 
 
 XIV. AI practitioners agree that the treatment 
 of a person in whose relations to them the aggressive men- 
 tal attitude is wanting is always conditioned upon the 
 person’s knowledge or consent, and that unless this con- 
 senting condition is present, the attempt is malpractice. 
 This has been their uniform teaching. 
 
 28 
 
XV. This Committee finds, therefore, that there 
 are these two conceptions extant in this church of what 
 constitutes proper self-defence in the handling of error. 
 A large majority of the witnesses called are positive in 
 their statements :— 
 
 (1) That the use of names of absentees was con- 
 fined to the handling of aggressive mental suggestion in 
 the effort to defend this branch church organization and 
 its members against malpractice from without its fold. 
 
 (2) That in no case where mental aggression was 
 wanting, were the names of persons ever used by Mrs. 
 Stetson in handling error in these meetings. Nor did she 
 teach such uses. On the contrary, she taught that such 
 use of names would be unwarranted invasions of the men- 
 talities of innocent persons, and hence malpractice. Al- 
 though one or two of the witnesses testified that the aggres- 
 sive mental relation was wrongly assumed by Mrs. Stet- 
 son to exist, a majority of witnesses agreed that Mrs. 
 Stetson had ample knowledge of aggressive mental sug- 
 gestions, attacks or hostile acts on the part of persons 
 where names were taken up by her in defence of this 
 branch church and of herself. In view of the widespread 
 hostility generally pervading the Field, resulting from 
 misrepresentations regarding this branch church, and the 
 activity of disaffected ex-members of the church, the fact 
 of aggressive mental attitude was placed beyond dispute. 
 
 XVI. We find that Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson has 
 not manifested resentment nor malice toward any of the 
 Directors or Officers of The Mother Church or the Pub- 
 lishing Society, or toward any other person. 
 
 24 
 
XVII. We find that Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson has 
 manifested in a marked degree the divine love enjoined 
 by Jesus Christ, and by our beloved Leader, which loves 
 enemies, prays for those that despitefully use and perse- 
 cute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely, 
 
 for Christ’s sake. 
 
 XVIII. Personal control, as alleged in our hear- 
 ings, appears in most complaints to amount to nothing more 
 than advice given against or in favor of courses of con- 
 duct, acts or relations that were deemed prejudicial or 
 otherwise to the individual’s welfare. The habit had 
 grown, upon the other hand, among some, of bringing 
 to Mrs. Stetson such personal matters as had no reason- 
 able ground for any proper claim to her attention. Prac- 
 titioners are repeatedly appealed to for advice in domestic 
 and business affairs, and acting on such advice is some- 
 times characterized as “personal control.’’ In the treat- 
 ment of patients, such cases have been reported as advising 
 persons to leave their employers, on the ground that the 
 relation stood in the way of the person’s spiritual safety 
 or of the patient’s recovery. In other cases, it was alleged 
 of some that they were not entirely free in selecting their 
 places of abode, because of being warned against asso- 
 ‘ciating with others who were opposed to the teachings of 
 Christian Science, or were known to be disloyal to this 
 church. Several objected to the rule which discouraged 
 absences or lateness at practitioners’ meetings as being 
 personal control. There were a few complaints at not 
 feeling free to visit other churches in this city during times 
 of service in our own church. Finally, there was the 
 allegation that undue influence was attempted, although 
 
 26 
 
the allegations are not wholly in accord with statements 
 in other parts of testimony given. 
 
 XIX. Practically all of the cases of alleged con- 
 trol were not regarded as objectionable at the time, but 
 appear to have been so viewed later. The attitude of 
 the complainer, in probably no individual case, amounted 
 to an abdication of personal responsibility by reason of 
 any attempt at control, of which the facts are known. 
 On the contrary, the net weight of evidence is preeminently 
 to the effect that so-called control by practitioners and by 
 Mrs. Stetson was welcomed rather than resisted. To per- 
 sons of spiritual discernment, the intuitive foresight of the 
 competent practitioner, balanced by common sense in re- 
 gard to human matters, has undoubtedly had the effect 
 in this church of developing the moral fibre and strength- 
 ening the moral force of individual character. Instances 
 of actual personal control are comparatively insignificant 
 in proportion to the advantages derived from the mental 
 and moral co-operation of practitioner and patient, or of 
 teacher and student in this church. 
 
 XX. This church has always borne its share of 
 
 the burden of establishing and extending the Cause of 
 Christian Science in this City and State. 
 
 Whatever its shortcomings may have been or are 
 now, it has not sulked in its tents when the enemies of 
 the Truth made attack. It has neither been niggard with 
 its energies nor its resources in defending its fellow work- 
 ers under prosecution for exercising the rights and liberties 
 of the Sons of God in the healing ministry. Notably, as 
 its official records show, it has contributed liberally to such 
 
 26 
 
expensive prosecutions as the White Plains case, in which 
 Mr. John C. Lathrop, of Second Church of Christ, Scien- 
 tist, New York City, was the defendant in one case, and 
 John M. Goodwin in the other; also more recently to ex- 
 pensive litigation in a neighboring portion of New Jersey, 
 where the local membership was ill prepared to bear the 
 burden alone. 
 
 XXI. This defensive service extended to the halls 
 of the State Legislature, to which, whenever occasion re- 
 quired, men and women from among our membership were 
 ready to give unsparing efforts to guarantee to Christian 
 Scientists their Constitutional rights as God-fearing citi- 
 zens of this State and nation. The battles fought in legis- 
 lative committees by representatives of this branch church 
 were fought in behalf of the entire Field, because of the 
 lead which this State has long taken in legislative progress 
 on new issues such as are raised by the advent of a new-old 
 religious power in the life of the people. Not boastingly, 
 therefore, but rejoicing in the privilege of service, has this 
 branch church caused public opinion to respect its voice 
 in demanding the recognition of the nights of religious 
 worship and spiritual workers in Christian Science. 
 
 XXII. In the relations of the membership of this 
 church with nearby churches in Christian Science, the 
 measure of fellowship, according to evidence presented, 
 has been somewhat limited by the fact that, to no incon- 
 siderable extent has the membership of other local branch 
 churches been made up of persons who, for reasons deemed 
 sufficient to themselves, have withdrawn from this church. 
 Where those reasons were of a protesting character, the 
 conditions of further fellowship were not entirely favorable 
 
 27 
 
on account of the attitude of outgoing members. Finally, 
 there is no doubt that estrangements of membership from 
 this church have contributed a considerable contingent of 
 disaffected brethren to the other branch churches of greater 
 New York and vicinity. Under the circumstances, what- 
 ever the causes may have been, it is in evidence that the 
 progress of Christian fellowship was from this particular 
 source not generally strengthened. 
 
 XXIII. Among the complaints alleged for with- 
 drawals of disaffected persons, were criticisms of teach- 
 ing, undue personal control, favoritism, and similar repre- 
 sentations of an unofficial character, which were never 
 brought to the attention of the authorities by anyone will- 
 ing to vouch for them as charges. There is probably no 
 large religious congregation where similar conditions are 
 not constantly present. It must needs be that offences 
 come, and where the standard of spiritual growth and the 
 requirements of individual effort are such as to demand 
 little for self but much for the Cause, there is apt to be 
 a falling away where faith and strength are not vital 
 enough to hold the members in unity of purpose and 
 spiritual power. 
 
 XXIV. We find, therefore, that it has been always 
 assumed that every member of this branch church has had 
 ample work within the folds of its own body to occupy 
 the attention of anyone desiring to grow. For that reason, 
 occasional visits to other church services were discouraged. 
 Instead of being a fault to discourage fellowship of this 
 particular character, general religious judgment would no 
 doubt regard it as a proof of fidelity to the vows of mem- 
 bership. 
 
XXV. In more particular respects, one of the chief 
 complaints is that the members of this church have been 
 taught that this is the only legitimate Christian Science 
 Church in New York City. The denials of this allegation 
 compare with the affirmations of it as about four to one. 
 The actual relations likewise disprove the truth of the 
 claim that such is the view accepted in general among our 
 members. On the contrary, there could be no such 
 measure of good will as actually exists, if such a view as 
 that were current in the members’ conception of relations 
 with other churches. “The Committee therefore finds that 
 any such allegations affecting church relations have not 
 been sustained. 
 
 XXXVI. In the testimony taken by this Commit- 
 tee a class of allegations occurs of a rather different char- 
 acter from those involving malpractice, personal control and 
 relations to other churches. These allege the existence of 
 wrongful attitudes towards human relations, particularly 
 the marriage relation, the parental relation and the rela- 
 tions of the sexes generally. In teaching the spiritual 
 precepts of the Christian Scriptures, emphasis has been laid 
 upon certain aspects of the human relations with a dis- 
 quieting effect upon some hearers. But it is impossible 
 to teach Christian Science without some such attendant 
 effects. Indeed, the rule in Christian Science which must 
 govern the efforts of individuals to spiritualize their char- 
 acters and purify their relations, requires that they emerge 
 out of the consciousness occupied with the minding of the 
 flesh which leads to death, and into that minding of the 
 spirit which demonstrates life eternal. 
 
 XXVII. We find that the teachings relating to 
 
 29 
 
the human relations, as such teaching has been given in 
 practitioners’ meetings, have not been in any essential re- 
 spect different from those presented in the Chapter on 
 Marriage in “Science and Health with Key to the Scrip- 
 tures” by our beloved Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, and 
 in other writings of hers, in her books and periodical 
 articles. There is no evidence presented that Mrs. Stet- 
 son’s teaching to her classes, in her public addresses in the 
 Church, or in her associations with the congregation, has 
 departed from Christian Science teachings, nor has her 
 influence been anything other than an encouragement to 
 the moral and spiritual improvement of men and women 
 as individuals in their dutiful relations one with another 
 under rightful human arrangement. And the Commit- 
 tee does so find. 
 
 XXVIII. The effect of Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson’s 
 teaching and example upon persons who are now mem- 
 bers of this branch church is proven to be as follows: (a) 
 To promote in a marked degree the moral and spiritual 
 progress of the members of this branch church. (6b) To 
 free great numbers of them from sickness and sin to which 
 they were in bondage previous to their coming in touch 
 with her. (c) To enable many of them to acquire such 
 an understanding of Christian Science, such a love and 
 loyalty to Mary Baker Eddy, and such consecration and 
 obedience to God, divine Principle, that they too have 
 been enabled to free many of their fellow men from sin 
 and sickness in their various phases. (d) To secure for 
 those who heeded her teaching and example, present lib- 
 eration from previous personal contagion or control, and an 
 ever increasing exercise of the freedom of the sons of God 
 
 Lf) 
 
—those who realize that they are really made in the image 
 and likeness of Spirit; and are therefore not material, but 
 spiritual; not mortal, but immortal. 
 
 XXIX. First Church of Christ, Scientist, New 
 York, is the outgrowth in the main of Mrs. Stetson’s 
 efforts toward the establishment of the Cause in this City, 
 in co-operation with persons who have been turned by her 
 influence and that of her students into the path of Chris- 
 tian Science. 
 
 No words seem more appropriate than those in the 
 two following letters, one addressed to Mrs. Augusta E. 
 Stetson personally, for placing in the corner-stone of this 
 building; the other addressed to Mrs. Stetson, Mr. Hat- 
 field, and others, when the labors of building this church 
 edifice were successfully ended, and the necessity for its 
 proper protection had come: 
 
 Pleasant View, Concord, N. H. 
 To Mrs. A. E. Stetson: 
 
 Beneath this cornerstone, in this silent, 
 sacred sanctuary of earth's sweet songs, peans 
 of praise and records of omnipotence, I leave 
 my name with thine in unity and love. 
 
 (Signed) MARY BAKER G. EDDY. 
 
 November 30th, 1899. 
 
 81 
 
Pleasant View, Concord, N. H. 
 December 3d, 1903. 
 
 Mrs. Augusta E. Stetson, First Reader; Gentle- 
 
 men, Edwin F, Hatfield, Adolph 
 
 Rusch, William H. Taylor, Steuart C. 
 Rowbotham, John D. Higgins: 
 
 Beloved Students—Your telegram in which 
 
 you present to me the princely gift of your mag- 
 
 nificent church edifice in New York City is an 
 
 unexpected token of your gratitude and love. I 
 
 deeply appreciate it, profoundly thank you for 
 
 it, and gratefully accept the spirit of it; but I 
 
 must decline to receive that for which you have 
 
 sacrificed so much, and labored so long. May 
 
 divine Love abundantly bless you, reward you 
 
 according to your works, guide and guard you 
 
 and your church through the depths; and may 
 
 you 
 
 “Who stood the storm when seas were rough, 
 
 Ne’er in a sunny hour fall off.” 
 Lovingly yours in Christ, 
 
 (Signed) MARY BAKER G. EDDY. 
 
 32 
 
In conclusion, your Board of Trustees desires to 
 assure the Congregation that at all times the interest of this 
 branch church will be fully protected, and that all ques- 
 tions which have arisen in regard to the proper practice 
 of Christian Science in this branch church, will be finally 
 and properly settled, in accordance with our beloved 
 Leader, Mary Baker Eddy’s, teaching and practice of 
 Christian Science, before the Board of Trustees of this 
 branch church ceases to take every possible step for the 
 accomplishment of this end. 
 
 (Signed) Epwin F. HATFIELD, 
 Chairman. 
 (Signed) JOHN FRANKLIN CROWELL, 
 Secretary. 
 Fer Committee of Inquiry. 
 
 The foregoing report was submitted by said Com- 
 mittee to the Board of Trustees on the 4th day of Novem- 
 ber, 1909, and duly approved by said Board, and ordered 
 presented to the meeting of the Church held on said 
 November 4th, 1909. 
 
 (Signed) Epwin F. HATFIELD, 
 Chairman of the Board of Trustees. 
 
 (Signed) JoHN D. Hiccins, 
 Clerk. 
 
 88 
 
t 
 
 guy 3 43 
 DEC 1250 
 WAY2@ 'gp 
 
 JUL 21 
 
 ‘a - 
 j ee 
 
 Library Bureau Cat. no, 1137 
 
Dives. 289.5 F5O7R 231,23 
 _Report of Board of Trustees 
 
 First Church of Christ, Scientist 
 
 ISSuien TO 
 
YOE6909E0d 
 Pi