Spirits In Rebellion: The Rise and Development of New Thought

© Braunfell Books 2022, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electrical, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Publisher’s Note

Although in most cases we have retained the Author’s original spelling and grammar to authentically reproduce the work of the Author and the original intent of such material, some additional notes and clarifications have been added for the modern reader’s benefit.

We have also made every effort to include all maps and illustrations of the original edition the limitations of formatting do not allow of including larger maps, we will upload as many of these maps as possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

DEDICATION 4

Preface 5

Introduction 7

PART I — The Nature and Sources of New Thought 9

1 — What Is New Thought? 9

2 — The Sources of New Thought 19

3 — Phineas P. Quimby, Founder 32

4 — Warren Felt Evans, Pioneer Writer 59

5 — The Developing Movement 84

6 — The History of INTA 110

PART II — New Thought Groups in America 149

7 — Unity School of Christianity 149

8 — Divine Science 169

9 — Religious Science 182

10 — Other New Thought Groups 199

PART III — New Thought Outreach in America 205

11 — New Thought Periodicals 205

12 — New Thought Leaders 222

13 — Leaders Outside the Movement 241

PART IV — New Thought Abroad 259

14 — New Thought in Great Britain 259

15 — New Thought on the Continent 292

16 — New Thought in Africa, Australia, and Japan 305

Appendix 318

CONGRESSES AND PRESIDENTS OF INTA 318

Bibliography 320

NEW ENGLAND BACKGROUND 322

MENTAL HEALING OUTSIDE THE NEW THOUGHT MOVEMENT 323

BOOKS BY PRESIDENTS OF INTA 323

BOOKS BY FOUNDERS OF NEW THOUGHT GROUPS, OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THESE GROUPS 325

1. CHURCH OF THE TRUTH 325

2. DIVINE SCIENCE 326

3. HOME OF TRUTH 326

4. PSYCHIANA 327

5. RELIGIOUS SCIENCE 327

6. UNITY 329

OUTREACH OF NEW THOUGHT IDEAS AND PRACTICES THROUGH WRITERS OUTSIDE THE MOVEMENT 330

SPIRITUAL HEALING WITHIN THE CHURCHES 332

THE MORE SECULAR ASPECTS OF NEW THOUGHT 332

NEW THOUGHT PERIODICALS 333

NEW THOUGHT ABROAD 338

1. AFRICA 338

2. ENGLAND 338

3. FRANCE 339

4. GERMANY 340

5. JAPAN 340

GENERAL 340

BOOKS ABOUT NEW THOUGHT OR ITS CONSTITUENT GROUPS 348

Spirits in Rebellion

The Rise and Development of New Thought

Charles S. Braden

DEDICATION

To

The memory of my son

GEORGE WILLIAM BRADEN

1914-1963

Preface

WRITING ABOUT the rise and development of any of the minority religious groups is not an easy task. Concerning their basic ideas and practices there is not so much difficulty, but when one seeks to go back and discover their beginnings and the stages through which they have evolved, it is another story.

In general the libraries have paid little attention to them. Many libraries will not even accept their publications as gifts. And, if they do, they frequently discard them as required by the limitations of shelf-room for what they regard as more important books. This is especially true with respect to periodicals. One must travel far and consult many of the great libraries to find even the more outstanding sources necessary to a comprehensive study. This is time-consuming, expensive, and at times frustrating.

Nor, in general, have the various movements themselves been history-conscious. The Mormons are a notable exception, and Unity has also developed something in the nature of a small research library, dealing chiefly with Unity itself, but to some extent also with other related movements.

Oddly enough even theological libraries have not been interested in such movements, and have only scattered items bearing on one or another of them. For years the writer has sought to interest some seminary library in specializing in this field—if not in all such movements, then in one or more selected ones. At the same time he has urged some of the minority groups to make a definite effort to preserve materials which are of historic interest, if not today, then certainly tomorrow: for the story of these groups is genuine religious Americana—most of them were born on American soil and are the expression of the American mind and spirit at some level.

Happily, Bridwell Library of Southern Methodist University’s Perkins School of Theology has now agreed to develop special collections of material on movements of this sort. Already it has received as a gift one of the finest and most nearly complete collections of Christian Science material in America. The International New Thought Alliance (INTA) voted in 1960 to deposit its older archives at Bridwell, and to provide eventually an entire file of its important magazine, as well as to encourage its leaders to furnish copies of their books as they appear. Bridwell will welcome correspondence with anyone having relevant historical materials—books, pamphlets, periodicals, manuscripts, letters—which he is willing to place in the library.

Religious Science has contributed a long, if not complete, run of its periodical Science in Mind, as well as books written by its founder and by some of its most outstanding leaders. Unity has provided copies of most of its publications. Brother Mandus of England, founder of the World Healing Crusade, has sent most of his publications; the Society for the Spread of the Knowledge of True Prayer (SSKTP), founded by Frank L. Rawson, has contributed an almost entire run of its magazine Active Service, besides some of its books; Nicol Campbell of South Africa has sent his books and some issues of his magazine. All these materials and more already in hand and surely to be contributed will be available to accredited scholars interested in the field. The Pacific School of Religion Library at Berkeley, California, has also become interested in this area.

The writer desires to express his sincere gratitude to many librarians from Boston to Berkeley, from Chicago to Dallas, who have been helpful in one way or another in his quest for material. To the leaders of the various New Thought movements who have given freely of their time and interest he is greatly indebted. Particularly is he in debt to Dr. Robert H. Bitzer, president for many years of INTA, and his staff for many hours of counsel, as well as access to both the earlier and later files of the overall organization of New Thought. To Dr. Raymond Charles Barker, who for more than ten years had urged the author to make this study, and has kept up a steady stream of correspondence and fed into the New Thought Collection at Bridwell materials new and old, especial indebtedness is gladly acknowledged. Other New Thought leaders too numerous to mention by name have been most generous in their help given through personal conference or correspondence.

The author is grateful to all the publishers and individual owners of copyright who have so generously given permission to quote the passage or passages from the books or articles named in each case where used. They include: Abingdon Press, New York-Nashville; Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., Indianapolis; Dodd, Mead and Co., New York; Mrs. Harry Gaze; Harper and Row, Publishers, New York; Macalester Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.; Little, Brown and Co., Boston; Macmillan Co., New York; Dr. Virgil Markham, owner of certain poems of his father, Edwin Markham; the New England Quarterly, Brunswick, Maine; Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Dr. Robert Russell, Denver, Episcopal Church of the Epiphany.

And to authors of other books and articles, either not copy-righted, or otherwise now in the public domain, he also expresses his appreciation (many of the books in the field were privately published and never copyrighted).

And finally, to the American Council of Learned Societies which provided a grant to help defray the considerable expense of travel in the quest for materials, without which the completion of the book would have been impossible, the author expresses his thanks.

It is his sincere hope that this study of a great movement will be a welcome help to followers of one or another of the various branches of the movement in seeing themselves as a part of a movement greater than their own particular branch of it. And to those who stand outside the movement, may it serve as an aid to the understanding of a vital phase of religion that while differing from the usual orthodox expressions in many ways, nevertheless represents essential insights and practices which, once present in historic Christianity, have largely fallen into disuse.

CHARLES S. BRADEN

Dallas, Texas

May 15, 1963

Introduction

NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA was notable for many things. It saw the original thirteen colonies along the Atlantic seaboard expand into a continent-wide nation, the frontier pushing steadily westward to the Pacific; and just at the turn of the century the nation reached out into the Pacific to claim as its own, in trust at least, the far distant Philippine Islands, and was on the way to becoming a world power.

It was a century of industrial expansion, the exploitation of the vast resources of timber, minerals, and oil, as well as agricultural and other riches. Great cities grew up, bringing with their rapid growth its inevitable problems. Churches followed wherever the frontiersmen went, and schools and colleges came soon after. The freedom and challenge of the frontier days, along with what some have called the peculiar bumptiousness of young growing America, gave rise to a great variety of new social experiments, and naturally enough to new forms of religion.

Few periods in world history have been more prolific in the production of new sects, breaking away from the established denominations, adding some new element to distinguish them from the old, or centering pre-eminent emphasis on someone or other element of their religious heritage; or what is of greater significance, creating peculiarly new forms of genuine American religious faith. Many of these were of only passing importance, never became widely held, and finally disappeared; but several of them became national and finally international in character, and have been spread widely over the world.

Where else in the world could a poorly educated farm boy from upper New York announce himself as a prophet of God, produce a scripture, create a new faith, and attract a following from all over America and Europe which, after his death, would found a veritable theocratic empire in the western desert, and finally make itself at home in every state in the union, with missionaries all over the world, carrying the Mormon faith to men everywhere?

Where else in the world could concern for communication with the departed become a popular religion? Psychic experiences have occurred among people of every race, but it was in America that Spiritualism arose as a distinctive religious faith.

Oriental thought, finally brought to the West, reached America and made a significant impact, as it had in western Europe; but it was in America that it became blended with Western thought and Christian idealism, mixed with at least an initial interest in Spiritualism, and finally became the Theosophical Society, ostensibly a philosophy, but certainly, for many persons, effectively a religious faith.

And it was in America where first a definitely religious faith developed around the healing of disease. Healings had occurred in Europe without benefit of physical medicine. Mesmerism had developed as a therapeutic method; but it was in America that it was invested with religious significance and gave rise to a complex of religious faiths varying from one another in significant ways, but all agreeing upon the central fact that healing and for that matter every good thing is possible through a right relationship with the ultimate power in the Universe, Creative Mind—called God, Principle, Life, Wisdom, and a dozen other names by one group or another—since man in his real nature is essentially divine.

This broad complex of religions is sometimes described by the rather general term metaphysical, because its major reliance is not on the physical, but on that which is beyond the physical.

It was the Portland healer, P. P. Quimby, who seems to have started it all, around the middle of the nineteenth century. It was a woman, Mary Baker Eddy, who, healed of a serious ailment by Quimby, first made a religion of it, produced a scripture, Science and. Health, and is regarded by her followers as the final revelator of Truth. Where but in America could such a movement have arisen?

The general movement has proliferated in many directions. Two main streams seem most vigorous: one is called Christian Science; the other, which no single name adequately describes, has come rather generally to be known as New Thought.

Just what is this New Thought?

PART I — The Nature and Sources of New Thought

1 — What Is New Thought?

FEW TERMS can be defined adequately in only a few words or sentences, because they mean something different to different people at different times. Especially is this true of terms employed to represent historic movements that have been in existence long enough to have undergone considerable development either in thought content or in organization. Such a term is New Thought, one loosely used to cover a wide range of philosophical, theological, psychological, and practical approaches to God, to the world, to life and its problems, that had its development within the last hundred years, chiefly in America, though under one name or another it has extended itself over much of the Western world.

A concise definition is the statement of purpose adopted by one of the earliest recognizably New Thought groups, the Metaphysical Club of Boston, founded in 1895: To promote interest in and the practice of a true philosophy of life and happiness; to show that through right thinking, one’s loftiest ideals may be brought into present realization; and to advance intelligent and systematic treatment of disease by spiritual and mental methods.

Somewhat later, this same club issued a rather careful statement of the meaning of the metaphysical movement which came to be called New Thought, characterizing in detail its main features. (The numbers employed here were no part of the original statement, but were inserted by the writer to facilitate comparison later in this chapter with certain Christian Science parallels.)

(1) First and most important, the belief that ideals are realities and that all primary causes are internal forces. [2] Mind is primary, and causative, while matter is secondary and resultant. (3) The children of men are living souls now, Children of God...Spiritual citizens of a divine universe (4) As a method of healing bodily disease, and as a cure for social ills and a philosophy of life, it stands squarely on the belief that the remedy for all defect and disorder is metaphysical, beyond the physical, in the realm of causes which are mental and spiritual....It neither denies sickness nor pain...but holds that they are not positive realities...rather negative conditions, the lack of ease, of harmony, of health.

(5) As a philosophy of life,

it takes for its fundamental reality the idea of God as immanent, indwelling Spirit, All-wisdom, All-goodness, ever-present in the universe as a warm and tender Father, and not as a cold abstraction....[6] Evil then can have no place in the world of permanent reality and power. It is not denied that it exists now, but only as an accompaniment of incompleteness...a negative quantity, the absence of good....Sin, and moral evil are largely an ignorant selfishness, ignorant of an Almighty Love under whose divine providence all things work together for good to those who obey its law.

(7) It believes in a divine humanity, a human brotherhood with a divine Fatherhood. (8) It is profoundly religious, it is non-sectarian. It teaches the universality of religion. (9) It believes in present and progressive revelation of truth, but reverently acknowledges our debt to the prophets of God in all ages; especially in the Christian scriptures are found clear and comprehensive statements of the truth that has power to bless, to liberate and to heal....(10) It would proclaim to man his freedom from the necessity of belief in disease, poverty and all evil as a part of God’s plan.

(11) Without a formal creed,

[12] it stands for the practice of the presence of God, reduced to a scientific method, of living a selfless life through union with a power that is Love in action;...[13] a power which can bring sweetness and light and peace to people; [14] rob death of its sting, and pain of its poignancy; [15] takes the terror out of disease...and [16] crowns life with the joy and health and abundance which are the rightful inheritance of every child of God. (Horatio W. Dresser, Spirit of New Thought, pp. 215-24, passim)

Charles Brodie Patterson, one of the truly great early leaders of New Thought, editor of Mind and of the widely circulated Library of Health, discusses these same points in his book, What Is New Thought?

The religion and philosophy of New Thought, he says, has for its foundation Eternal Law. It rests on the Oneness of Life-God-Universal Life-Love-Intelligence in all, through all and above all. As opposed to the old thought, New Thought insists that the truth regarding life and its laws is to be found in man’s inner consciousness rather than in the study of phenomena. Man’s real search is the discovery of his own soul, for there God lives and moves and breathes, even though man may be unconscious of it. We know God or ourselves as we are directed by Love and Wisdom in all our ways, for such knowledge causes us to yield personal will and to desire to live consciously in the universal life. It teaches that evil, as understood generally, has no place in the plan of God. It holds that fear is the root of all so-called evil, all sin, sorrow, disease, and death having their origin in it. But perfect love casteth out fear. It teaches that we have the God-given right to be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect.

New Thought is neither church, cult, nor sect; it asks no allegiance to creeds, forms, or personality, and is quite non-racial. It stands for Universal Brotherhood, teaches that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins, including the healing of the sick; that health, happiness, and success are the birthright of every child of God. There is no future punishment. The individual rewards and punishes himself as he conforms to or opposes the Eternal Law of life. New Thought believes that the great need is not so much a theoretical Christianity as an applied one; that living the Christ life does not so much imply uniformity of creed or form, as being activated by the same inward Spirit, demonstrated by loving helpfulness to one’s fellows.

It holds that all religions and all peoples are at different stages of growth. It makes war on none, but recognizes the right of individuals and groups to work out their faith according to their stage of development. Every man has a right to live his own life in accordance with the highest dictates of his own conscience, for where truth is there must be freedom.

A succinct statement of the central features of New Thought was given in the first Constitution and By-laws of the International New Thought Alliance, as the purpose of the Alliance, which represents broadly the whole range of New Thought. Its purpose was: To teach the Infinitude of the Supreme One; the Divinity of man and his infinite possibilities through the creative power of constructive thinking and obedience to the voice of the indwelling Presence, which is our source of Inspiration, Power, Health and Prosperity.

An article published in the INTA Bulletin of December 15, 1916, attempts to answer the question, What is New Thought? First, as to what it is not: it is not a name of any fixed system of thought, philosophy, or religion, for when molded into a system, it ceases to be New thought. But some things can be said of it. It practices in the twentieth century what Jesus taught in the first. He taught healing; it practices healing He said, Judge not; it sees the good in others. He said, take no anxious thought for tomorrow; it practices divine supply. He taught love and brotherhood; it is demonstrating unity and cooperation. The New Thought is the Christ thought made new by being applied and proved in every day affairs. New Thought is positive, constructive, a philosophy of optimism, the recognition, realization and manifestation of God in Man.

A pamphlet published by a prominent New Thought minister, Elmer Gifford, under the title, New Thought Defined (Pasadena, n.d.) may be taken as fairly representative of what its contemporary exponents consider its nature to be. It is, he writes, a theory and a method of mental life with special reference to healing and the quickening attitudes and mood which make for the improvement of conditions generally. But it is more than a theory and a method, it is a life, for it has literally meant life to millions of people. It stands squarely, he asserts, on the faith that

the correction of all defect and disorder is metaphysical and spiritual, boldly claims that we are spiritual beings and that we came forth from God sound and whole....It does not deny the body but would honor and glorify it as the instrument of an immortal spirit....It in no way regiments the thinking of its adherents nor prescribes what they shall or not read or study. It stands for the principle of liberal tolerant worship.

The term New Thought is used to convey the idea of an ever-growing thought...man is an expanding idea in the Mind of God, and is held forever in the Mind of God, functioning under and operating through the law of Mind in Action.

New Thought as now taught is the creation of a perpetually advancing mind. It is not satisfied with any system originating in other ages, because systems do not grow, while Mind does. Mind is always expanding and reaching out for a better definition of itself. As Mind advances, the old forms die, because they no longer serve or satisfy men’s needs....New Thought can never therefore be a finished product and if it remains truly New Thought, it will never be completed enough to creedalize it.... Change is the changeless law of the universe. Indeed change and growth are the silent mandates of Divinity...thought can never be final and still remain thought. New Thought, he says, we think of as a science because Science is demonstrable and the knowledge of Truth is demonstrable. New Thought is definitely committed to finding and revealing the good and the beautiful in life. It is dedicated to the development of latent possibilities in man. New Thought is constructive, never destructive; it teaches men to live not to die....The adherents of New Thought worship God Omnipotent in whom ‘we live and move and have our being,’ and of which we are perfect individualizations. Our God is not an absentee God, but a Universal Mind and Spirit that permeates all nature and finds its highest expression through and as the mind of man revealing himself to man continually through the reasoning mind and the whispering inward voice of intuition. We teach men the unity of themselves and God, so that in the exaltation of their own spirit they may say as the Master, ‘I and my Father are one.’

Elsewhere, in the sections on the various groups which are or have been a part of the International New Thought Alliance (hereafter written INTA), it will be seen how similar they are, while differing at points both in belief and practice. Christian Science has chosen to dissociate itself rather sharply from the New Thought Movement, and to claim a unique revelation of truth given to it through the Founder, Mrs. Eddy. But in order to see how close Christian Science is to New Thought, it will suffice to quote a few statements taken from Science and Health or Mrs. Eddy’s other writings paralleling statements given in summary of the nature of New Thought. This is not of course to argue that New Thought and Christian Science are identical, for they differ significantly at a number of points; but only to show that they are both facets of the same general thought movement, sometimes described as the Metaphysical Movement.

Here then are certain statements taken from the Boston Metaphysical Club’s summary of New Thought in parallel with others taken from the writings of Mrs. Eddy, with an occasional word of comment:

NEW THOUGHT—CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

The references here are to page and line of Science and Health and Mrs. Eddy’s Miscellany, Miscellaneous Writings, Retrospection and Introspection, and No and Yes.

1. All primary causes are internal forces.—...divine Science declares that they [forces] belong wholly to divine Mind, are inherent in this Mind... (S&H, 124:28-30)

2. Mind is primary and causative.—From the infinite elements of the one Mind emanate all form, color, quality, and quantity, and these are mental, both primarily and secondarily. (S&H, 512:21-24)

3. Man is a living soul now, a child of Cod, a spiritual citizen in a divine universe.—The universe of Spirit is peopled with spiritual beings, and its government is divine Science. S&H, 264:32-265:1. Man is the blessed child of God. (S&H, 573:18)

4. The remedy for all defect and all disorder is metaphysical, beyond the physical, in the realm of causes which are mental and spiritual.—The Christian Scientist, understanding scientifically that all is Mind, commences with mental causation, the truth of being, to destroy the error. (S&H, 423:810)

5. God is immanent, indwelling Spirit, All-Wisdom, All-Goodness, ever-present in the universe.—The only logical conclusion is that all is Mind and its manifestation, from the rolling of worlds, in the most subtle ether, to a potato-patch. (MW, 26) God is...Spirit.... (S&H, 465:9-10) The attributes of God are justice, mercy, wisdom, goodness, and so on. (S&H, 465:14-15) 1. God is All-in-all. 2. God is good. Good is Mind (S&H, 113:16-17)

6. Therefore evil can have no place in the world as a permanent reality; it is the absence of good.—...evil has in reality neither place nor power in the human or the divine economy. (S&H, 327: 20-21) "It is unreal, because it presupposes the absence of God. (S&H, 180:12-14)

7. It believes in a divine humanity, a human brotherhood, and a divine Fatherhood.—One infinite God, good, unifies men and nations; constitutes the brotherhood of man... (S&H, 340:23-24) In Science we are children of God... (S&H, 572: 8-9) The divinity of the Christ was made manifest in the humanity of Jesus. (S&H, 25:31-32).

8. It is profoundly religious.—This Science is the essence of religion... (My., 178)

9. It believes in present and progressive revelation.

(This is the greatest point of difference between the two groups. Accepting Mrs. Eddy as final Revelator is the first requisite of Christian Scientists today, the thought and statements of her followers being strictly limited to her private vocabulary.)—Truth cannot be stereotyped; it unfoldeth forever. (No, 45) But Mrs. Eddy’s writings show that she increasingly regarded her doctrine as a terminal revelation of all Truth ...this final revelation of the absolute divine Principle of scientific mental healing. (S&H, 107:5-6) Christian Science is absolute; it is neither behind the point of perfection nor advancing towards it; it is at this point and must be practised therefrom. (My., 242)

10. It would proclaim to man his freedom from the necessity of belief in disease, poverty, and all evil as a part of God’s plan.—Through discernment of the spiritual..., man will...find himself unfallen, upright, pure, and free... (S&H, 171:4-8, passim) To fear them [sickness and death] is impossible, when you fully apprehend God and know that they are no part of His creation, (S&H, 231:27-29) ...can Life, or God, dwell in evil and create it? (S&H, 357:30-31)

11. Without a formal creed. (This ideal has been largely realized in New Thought, though a tendency may be noted in some groups toward a type of orthodoxy of belief and practice.)—Mrs. Eddy declared hers a church to commemorate the words and works of our Master, a Mind-healing church, without a creed, to be called the Church of Christ, Scientist, the first such church ever organized (Ret. 44), asserting that practical manifestations of Christianity constitute the only evangelism, and they need no creed. (Ret. 05) However, there is a set of twelve Tenets, printed in the Church Manual, which every member of the Mother Church must accept in writing, and the teachings of Mrs. Eddy are asserted with a dogmatic rigidity the equal of that found in most Fundamentalist orthodox churches.

12. It stands for the practice of the presence of God reduced to a scientific method; of living a selfless life through union in thought with a power that is Love in action.—Christian Science is demonstrable (S&H, 112:4)..."demonstration is Immanuel, or God with us..." (S&H, 34:7-8) "Where the spirit of God is, and there is no place where God is not, evil becomes nothing. (S&H 480:2-4) ...let us labor to dissolve with the universal solvent of Love the adamant of error,—self-will, self-justification, and self-love,—which wars against spirituality and is the law of sin and death. (S&H, 242:16-20)

13. Bringing sweetness and light and peace to people:—Teach...that they find health, peace, and harmony in God, divine Love. (S&H, 416:32-417:2)

14. Robs death of its sting, though not specifically denying its reality;—The forever fact remains paramount that Life, Truth, and Love save from sin, disease, and death...‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ (S&H, 164:23-29, passim)

15. takes the terror out of disease;—The only reality of sin, sickness, or death is the awful fact that unrealities seem real to human, erring belief, until God strips off their disguise. (S&H, 472:27-29)

16. crows life with the joy and health and abundance that are the rightful inheritance of every child of God.—Divine Love blesses its own ideas, and causes them to multiply,—to manifest His power. Man is not made to till the soil. His birthright is dominion, not subjection. He is lord of the belief in earth and heaven,—himself subordinate alone to his Maker. (S&H, 517:30-518:4) ...to all mankind and in every hour, divine Love supplies all good. (S&H, 494:13-14)

But if there are similarities there are also very real differences.

I once asked a man who was for years a well-known Christian Science leader, though he has since withdrawn from the Christian Science organization, what he thought of as the differences between New Thought and Christian Science.

There are three, said he, which are clear and unmistakable: (1) The authoritarianism which has grown out of Christian Scientists conviction that Mrs. Eddy’s teachings constitute a final revelation has been no part of New Thought and its outlook. Truth continues to reveal itself, nor has any human organization the authority to declare what the Truth is. (2) Negativism has always dominated and still does dominate the Christian Science Movement. Mrs. Gestefeld, once an ardent follower of Mrs. Eddy, could charge that Christian Scientists are the most fear ridden people on earth. (Jesuitism in Christian Science) On the other hand, the New Thought groups have accentuated the positive, and enjoyed a pervadingly intuitive optimism impossible to the Christian Scientist, preoccupied as he obviously is with mortal mind’s Malicious Animal Magnetism (M.A.M.). (3) Christian Science is utterly opposed to materia medica. Most New Thought followers take no such absolute position in regard to co-operation with doctors in the treatment of disease, though obviously preferring nonmedical means. Most will say, with some unorthodox Christian Scientists, that they see no fundamental reason why effective co-operation may not occur without sacrifice of principle.

A corollary of these, he adds, is that New Thought groups are therefore likely to be less dogmatic, more tolerant, and more open to the progressive development of their thought.

In all this it should probably be indicated that there are various levels of thought and practice within both New Thought and Christian Science—even in the writings of Mrs. Eddy herself. Some Christian Scientists are less dogmatic than others and tend in the direction of New Thought, while some New Thought followers approach much more closely to Christian Science than others.

But perhaps in general, the Christian Scientist who made the distinctions above noted was right in indicating that a predominant emphasis in New Thought in general is on the creative power of thought. You visualize what you desire and bring it into manifestation. There is in some sayings of Mrs. Eddy support for such a view. She once made the remark that sufficiently intense thought could produce anything from a rose to a cancer. But, he avers, this was but a passing assertion buried in a mass of contrary material. While the emphasis of New Thought, he says, is on creative thinking, in Christian Science it is on ascertaining the already established truth of reality, or the perceiving, realizing or demonstrating of what is already true, however obscured by belief, an assertion with which some leading New Thought writers would readily agree. The differences in this area are not so clearly and sharply distinguishable as in those noted above.

Christian Science, with its acceptance of Mary Baker Eddy as more than a mere teacher, healer, or organizer, though she was all of these, but rather as revelator of Divine Truth, early developed under her guidance and close personal direction a tight centrally controlled institutional form quite different from that of the more centrifugally inclined New Thought Movement. Although, along with New Thought, Christian Science has generally, at least in theory, exalted Principle above personality—and solid support for this can be found in Mrs. Eddy’s own writings—actually, in Christian Science Mrs. Eddy has provided a personal center around which loyalties could develop and have developed to a degree which has caused many outside the movement to declare that she has been deified (a charge categorically denied officially by the Christian Science church).

But it was she who produced by inspiration the textbook of Christian Science, Science and Health. It was she who dictated the form of organization the movement assumed. It was she who by directives handed down from time to time as need arose, and adopted by the growing organization, provided the Church Manual under which the church today operates, and which by specific declaration of the Founder can never be amended, since there is written into it the declaration that only with her written approval can this be done; and now of course her hand has been stilled by death. And the Board of Directors, first named and then their powers fixed by her directives, can operate only within the framework of this book of discipline, regarded, just as Science and Health is, as a divinely inspired book.

All this was lacking in New Thought. To be sure, P. P. Quimby was regarded as the founder of the movement, but there was no sense of personal attachment to him or to Warren F. Evans or the Dressers that was in any way comparable to that of Christian Scientists toward Mrs. Eddy. Of New Thought it could be said that it was like the famous general who mounted his horse and rode off in all directions. Not even after well over a half-century has it been able to effect more than a rather loose International Alliance to which the loyalties of many are but weak and sometimes shifting.

As a result of Mrs. Eddy’s attempt at complete control of her movement and of its ideas, some very able persons were alienated, and in the case of a few, such as Mrs. Emma Curtis Hopkins and Ursula Gestefeld, they became outstanding leaders in the development of New Thought. But this happened oftener in the earlier than the later years. A few have attempted to set up rival organizations, but none have achieved permanence. Annie Bill organized the only one that had any considerable degree of success, and it has not survived in any recognizable form. A loosely organized group of persons who followed John Doorly, a leading English Christian Science leader, who was expelled from the church because of alleged deviation from the official interpretation of Christian Science, carry on in England chiefly the healing and teaching of Christian Science as he taught it and they think of it. They maintain a publishing house, the Foundational Book Company, for the printing and circulation of Mr. Doorly’s writings and their own, but they regard themselves still as quite definitely Christian Scientists. And there are other similar groups in Switzerland and Germany, as well as in America.

In America, the Great Litigation of 1919-21 settled for all time the legality of the control of the Mother Church by the Board of Directors and forced a number of able leaders either to resign or be expelled from the Church. Herbert Eustace, who led the opposition and forced the matter into the courts for settlement, never ceased to practice and to teach Christian Science after being excommunicated by the church, and he had a considerable following. One of his books bore the title, Christian Science; its Clear, Correct Teaching. But his work was never organized as other than the Herbert Eustace Association, just as in the case of most teachers. There has been a general reluctance on the part of those who have been expelled or have withdrawn from the church to effect any kind of organization. The general distrust of organization, expressed in Studdert-Kennedy’s Christian Science and Organized Religion, is clearly seen and illustrated in the case of Arthur B. Corey, who has probably a larger following than any other Christian Science leader outside the church.

Mr. Corey was a very successful practitioner in Chicago and First Reader in one of the larger churches in that city. Class-taught by Bicknell Young, he was an intensive student of Edward Kimball and other prominent teachers of Christian Science through possession of an unparalleled collection of full transcriptions of their Primary and Normal Class teachings. Thus, though he had never himself taken the Normal Class Instruction, which is little more than a repetition of what has already been given in the Primary class, he was thoroughly familiar with the content of instruction in it as given by some of the greatest of the teachers. It serves mainly the purpose of certification of those who can be chosen as members of the very limited class given to only thirty persons once every three years, by the Christian Science authorities. It is thus a part of the very system to which Mr. Corey had come to object. During the six years when he was listed in the Christian Science Journal registry he had become convinced that if Christian Science were indeed a science and the Truth which shall make men free, it belonged to all mankind and should not be limited in its access to the people through the closed system of Class Instruction imposed by the church.

To bring the inner teachings out into the light for public scrutiny, he eventually wrote a book, Christian Science Class Instruction, resigning from the church with its publication in 1945. Since that time his treatise has gone into some twenty printings, is circulated in the thousands today all over the world, and is studied by many Christian Scientist and New Thought leaders. Not only did he publish this book, but he proceeded to teach frequent and very large classes not limited to the thirty pupils annually allowed each church-franchised teacher, and he continued in the general practice of Christian Science for another dozen years. In 1957 he withdrew his name from all public listings as practitioner, in order to devote fuller attention to writing and to the worldwide promotion of interest in and exploration of genuinely scientific disciplines in the approach to God.

Mr. Corey became immensely popular and was besought to set up an organization. This he has steadfastly refused to do, because of the basic conviction that organization involves containment and control incompatible with any genuinely scientific thought. He has declined to align himself with any group. Ernest Holmes, founder of Religious Science, at one time sent representatives to talk with Arthur Corey and later came himself to confer with Mr. Corey, with the apparent view of bringing him into leadership in Religious Science. But to no avail.

A person of deeply inquiring mind, Mr. Corey feels that he is finished with organization, and he goes his independent way. He heads the non-profit Farallon Foundation at Los Gatos, California, a federally recognized religious-educational facility which publishes the Corey writings, as well as the above mentioned Christian Science and Organized Religion by Studdert-Kennedy and the works of a number of other authors. He is a deeply committed Christian Scientist who believes that Christian science is truly a science and therefore not to be taught as fixed dogma, but allowed to progress and disseminate itself like mathematics, independently of institutional sponsorship. He has tried to bring it to the man in the street in his Personal Introduction to God, and maintains a worldwide association with persons who read his works and seek his counsel.

Joel Goldsmith is another who was once a Christian Scientist, but is no longer within the church. Some have thought of him as a New Thoughter, and it is true that his books are found everywhere on the book tables of New Thought groups and he lectures sometimes for New Thought groups—or if he is not lecturing under their direct auspices, he draws New Thought followers to his talks in considerable numbers. His movement, which is little if anything more than a personal following, he calls the Infinite Way. His ideas seem to be in thorough agreement in most essentials with Christian Science, yet he is independent. Whether his movement will take a more definite organized form it is too early to say.

In contrast to highly organized and institutionalized Christian Science, New Thought may thus appear to be more a point of view than a movement, or a movement rather than a closely organized institution. But New Thought institutions have developed, a number of them, each with some difference from the others in thought or in emphasis, and considerable difference in techniques and methods of operation. Some of these have chosen to maintain themselves apart from the attempted grouping into the overall organization, the International New Thought Alliance (INTA). Some individual leaders and their groups have remained outside any of the limited or regional groups which have arisen around some dynamic leader or some particular emphasis, essentially independent of any connection beyond their local center. Yet they are exponents of the general New Thought point of view.

One of the great difficulties in building a nationwide or international organization has been the strong individualistic element in New Thought. Since knowledge of God—aided, to be sure, by scriptures and the recorded insights of others—is ultimately a highly personal, intuitive, experiential matter, how can it submit to any limitation upon its freedom of expression? Even when New Thought adherents enter into organization, they are likely to be extremely watchful that there be no encroachment upon that spiritual freedom. They wear lightly, therefore, their institutional loyalties. And this hardly makes for organizational strength.

There is usually a deeper loyalty to the particular group which best represents the thought of a given individual, than to the overall organization through which the various New Thought groups cooperate. One is likely to be more closely linked to Unity, for example, than to the International New Thought Alliance if one belongs to both. This is natural, and may be roughly paralleled with the greater felt loyalty of a member of a local Methodist church to the Methodist church in general than to the National or World Council of Churches, to which of course the Methodist church belongs. Thus the International New Thought Alliance is under constant scrutiny, and in some cases judgment, at the hands of the members of the constituent bodies, just as the National and World Council of Churches are at the hands of Methodists and the other denominations which adhere to them. There is here, however, one difference, namely, that individuals as well as organizations may be members of the International New Thought Alliance, while neither local churches nor individuals, but only denominations, may belong to the overall National and World Councils of Churches.

Whence came this New Thought Movement? What are its sources? Who were the pioneers that first gave it form? Who were its early leaders? How was it organized, and how did it develop? What are its constituent bodies? How has the idea spread? How has it penetrated into the general culture of which it is a part, through prominent leaders, through literature, art, drama? How far has it reached beyond the limits of the land of its origin, and how? These are the subjects of our inquiry. Let us first look at the possible sources.

2 — The Sources of New Thought

THE TERM New Thought as descriptive of a movement which had its rise near the middle of the nineteenth century is not a happy one to be employed in the mid-twentieth century. For new is a relative term, and has relevance only to those who know what the old was, over against which it stands out as new. As a matter of fact, much of what was included in New Thought in the earlier day was not new at all. Almost all of its major ideas had appeared at some period in the history of the Christian faith, or, if not there, certainly in some of the other religions of the world. As an expression of philosophic idealism, its basic belief could be traced certainly as far back as Plato; and did not P. P. Quimby, the founder of the movement, claim only to have rediscovered Jesus’ method of healing, and in this claim find the support of Mrs. Eddy in her earlier career?

New Thought embraces a wide range of thought and practice. Teachers and practitioners of New Thought healing are in considerable disagreement at a number of points; but always there are discernible in the variants two distinctive emphases: a practical concern about healing humanity’s ills, and an ideology or theology which explains to the practitioner’s satisfaction the sources of the healing power—basically an idealistic philosophy, with definite religious overtones.

Perhaps the thing that is really important about New Thought—or, more broadly, the whole metaphysical movement, which includes Christian Science as well as New Thought and other developments also—is that it represents a merging of the two emphases. The idealistic philosophers never carried out what New Thought sees as the logical implications of their thought, namely the healing of disease, and many who were working practically toward the cure of disease by mental means found no support in religion or philosophy for the methods they sought to employ. It was in New Thought that these two were combined, and it was in the person of P. P. Quimby that they were first linked together in ways which ultimately produced what is known today as New Thought.

That Quimby consciously took his ideas from any one particular thinker, or indeed any particular school of thought, it is quite impossible to prove at this remove in time, since he nowhere makes specific reference to any outside source from which his ideas came. But we do know what the major intellectual currents of the time were, and there is no doubt that whether consciously dependent upon them or not, he does express the central ideas of one of the three important thought emphases of his time in New England.

In general there were three widely divergent outlooks upon the world current in the New England of the first half of the nineteenth century. First of all, there was orthodox Christianity, chiefly in its Calvinistic interpretation, which had successfully held the field in New England until near the beginnings of the nineteenth century, and was still in the middle of that century largely the popular form of the Christian faith.

But there had come a strong liberal reaction against this rigid tradition which had given rise to the Unitarian-Trinitarian controversy and had split the Congregational church, the strongest of the New England denominations. The liberal wing had established itself as the new Unitarian church, and this was the prevailing faith of the intellectuals of the period. Most of the outstanding preachers of the period were Unitarians.

Reacting strongly against the thoroughly Protestant view of the authority of the scriptures upheld by a more or less mechanical concept of revelation, which made the Bible an infallible book, equally inspired in all of its parts, the Unitarians were themselves thoroughly Protestant in insisting on the Bible as a primary source of the Christian faith, but a book to be used with discretion—a discretion imposed upon man by reason of his possession of the power of reason which he was obliged to use in the area of religion as in other areas of thought.

The dominant philosophical influence underlying their revolt was that of John Locke, and his theory of knowledge. It was simply that the only avenue of certain knowledge was through the senses. His system had been characterized as sensationalism as over against idealism, which holds that knowledge may also come by way of intuition. It was really a phase of the struggle between science and religion, at a time when scientific advance had not yet reached its full stride in the direction which ultimately led to the widely held logical positivism of our own time.

It was in reaction against this sensationalism of the Unitarians that the third group to be distinguished in New England arose and flourished for a time—the comparatively small but extremely vocal group known as the Transcendentalists. And it is in New Thought that is to be found the continuing emphasis on the peculiar Transcendentalist concept of intuition as a basic source of the knowledge of reality; its teaching concerning the nature of man as essentially divine or possessing divine qualities; and its fundamentally idealistic view of reality and the universe. The dependence on Transcendentalism of the earliest figures in New Thought may not have been conscious, but it was real.

Transcendentalism has been variously defined. Perry Miller, who edits an anthology of Transcendentalist writings (The Transcendentalists: An Anthology [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950]), calls the Transcendentalist Movement fundamentally an expression of a religious radicalism in revolt against a rational conservatism, a protest of the human spirit, he says, even in its more fatuous reaches, against emotional starvation. (p. 8)

George Ripley, one of the more illustrious of the group, calls the Transcendentalists persons who believe in an order of truths which transcend the sphere of external sense, whose leading idea is the supremacy of the mind over matter; who maintain that the truth of religion does not depend on tradition nor historical facts, but has an unerring witness in the human soul. They believe, he says, that there is a light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; that there is a faculty in all—the most degraded, the most ignorant, the most obscure—to perceive spiritual truth when distinctly presented and they also believe that the ultimate appeal in all moral questions is not to a jury of scholars, a hierarchy of divines, or the prescriptions of a creed, but to the common sense of the human race. (From a letter to his congregation, The Transcendentalists, p. 225)

Orestes A. Brownson, in reviewing a book on the gospels by Andrew Norton, chief critic of Emerson’s Divinity School address, reveals a Transcendentalist mind at work, not alone in the field of religion, but also in the political world. He insists that Norton rests all the value of the gospels on the fact that they can be proved to have been historical. To the Transcendentalists, he says, the question of the genuineness of the four gospels is a matter of comparative indifference, for they have in themselves the witness for God, and may know the things whereof they affirm. With these, Christianity is not a mere matter of opinion but of experience, and they can speak of it as something they know, which they have seen, felt, handled. That is, knowledge does not come solely through the senses or even reason, but intuitively, experientally. He then goes on to say that the philosophy underlying Norton’s position is equally fatal to democracy. This philosophy, he writes,

disinherits the masses. It denies to man all inherent power of attaining to truth in religion....In politics it does the same. It destroys all free action of the mind, all independent thought, all progress, all living faith. It cannot found the state on the inherent rights of man; the most it can do is organize the state for the preservation of such conditions, privileges and prescriptions, as it can historically justify, (p. 208)

The doctrine that Truth comes to us from abroad, he continues, cannot coexist with true liberty....The democrat is not he who only believes in the people’s capacity for being taught, but...he who believes that reason, the light which shines out from God’s throne, shined into the heart of every man, and that truth may indeed...kindle her torch in the inner temple of every man’s soul whether patrician or plebeian. It is only on the reality of this inner light, and on the fact that it is universal in all men and in every man, that you can found a democracy which shall have a firm basis and which shall be able to survive the storms of human passions, (p. 208)

The little group which came to be called by others (not by its own members) Transcendentalists was quite local in its makeup. But it had a far-reaching influence out of proportion to its numbers, because of the men and women who belonged to it. It was apparently formed at the suggestion of Dr. William Ellery Channing, the great Unitarian preacher, who after talking with George Ripley invited several persons to a meeting for serious discussion. The first meeting was disappointing. A second was held, but, Emerson recalls, with no permanent effect. But gradually a small number of young Unitarians, who were in revolt against Unitarianism, drew together and met from time to time for an afternoon of serious conversation in each other’s homes. Among them were George Ripley, Margaret Fuller, Ralph Waldo Emerson, greatest of them all, Bronson Alcott, Orestes A. Brownson, Dr. Hodges, Theodore Parker, James Freeman Clarke, William H. Channing, and others. There was no concerted action among them other than the founding of a magazine, the Dial, edited by Margaret Fuller, which lasted through but four years, serving chiefly to publicize the thought