paper accounts that they offended the physicians, the physicians got up a how about religious fanaticism, and so the religionists have taken it all back. They are now promising not to treat any case except by leave of the physicians and under their direction.

It is pathetic, rather than laughable, that the religion of Jesus Christ should have been reduced to such ridiculous straits. Jesus all along stood out against the doctors and pharisees of His age, confident in the God-given strength He possessed, sure that His powers given Him by the Holy Spirit were more than sufficient to cope with He healed diseases in His day, in spite of the regular, self-appointed physicians.

If one were to start out in the healing of diseases to-day, in the name of Jesus Christ, he would find the physicians opposed to him. Of course he would. The Emmanuel movement

ought to have anticipated this. If they found they could not survive under the criticism of the medical profession it would be time then to quit, not turn the movement over to the physicians to sort out from their patients undesirable cases to be treated by religious ministrations.

The above remarks were provoked by reading the following clipping from a special dispatch dated at Boston, January 28:

(Special Dispatch to The Call.) BOSTON, Jan. 28-Complying with the spirit of sincere criticism the clergy in charge of the Emmanuel movement have virtually placed the work under the control of the medical profession with the co-operation of an advisory board of four physicians. Rules have been prepared governing the selection of patients for the Emmanuel treatment. These rules are:

I-No person shall be received for treatment unless with the approval of and after having been thoroughly examined by his family physician, and a report of the examination shall be filed with the minister's records.

2-No patient shall be referred for

diagnosis or treatment to any specialist or assistant save with the advice and consent of the patient's own physician.

3-All patients who are not under the care of a physician must choose one and put themselves in his care before they can receive instructions at Emmanuel Church.

To those who ask for advice in this clinic there shall be handed a printed alphabetical list of all general practitioners (internists) attached to the visiting and outpatient staffs of certain hospitals. From this or from any other source the patient prefers, a physician is to be selected should the advisory board of physicians decide that nonpatients thus referred to them ought to receivé treatment Emmanuel. None will be treated there. "Through the operation of rules 1, 2 and 3, it will be seen," says the statement accompanying the rules, "that an internist remains throughout in general charge of every case."

at

ine their surprise to find he had no pain, no fever. In fact was resting comfortably. He was tied down for thirteen weeks in July, August and September and did not have a bed sore.

On February 22 he left the house to go out for the first time. He fell down and broke the knee which was cut. After that it did not get stiff. He could walk five or six miles without a crutch or cane.

Was 55 years old when it happened. Dr. Frounfelter gave my mother credit for being a greater healer than he was. L. A. Treesh, my brother, of Comet, Ohio, while working in the woods cut

327

off his toes with an ax. After stopping the blood and pain with his own mentalism, picked up his toes, wrapped them in his handkerchief, put them in his pocket, had Mr. Peter Schaembaedler cut two props from small trees for crutches, with which he walked home. He called a doctor and requested him to sew the toes on again At this the doctor laughed, but to satisfy Mr. Treesh he pasted them fast with court plaster. Those toes grew fast and were of service to him. The bone did not knit fast, but the flesh grew all right. He never walked lame

B

FIRST LESSON

EFORE I proceed to give the first lesson in astrology, I wish to state briefly my attitude toward the subject.

Astrology is greatly misrepresented by some people who profess to understand it, and greatly misunderstood by a multitude of people who profess to believe in it.

It is not the art of soothsaying. Astrologers are not fortune-tellers. No one can read any man's destiny in the stars. It is wholly a mistaken notion that every man has a star which exerts a controlling influence over his life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Astrologers, if they are able to do anything at all, it is simply to assign to people mental peculiarities derived from the date on which they were born.

It is then assumed by astrology that if a person is born on a certain date it gives some clue as to the intellectual makeup that will characterize the person ever afterward. It simply undertakes to depict tendencies. It does not fix fatalities or define happiness.

There is no use to consult an astrologer as to any future detail of life. He cannot tell anything about it. If he is a real a trologer and a well-meaning

IN ASTROLOGY.

person, he will not pretend any such thing.

It surely would be a great thing if every person could start out in life with some intelligent understanding of his own qualifications and natural fitness. It would be a great boon to humanity if such things could be told. Surely, that is enough for astrology to accomplish. If the ancient science of astrology gives us any clue to the innate and inherited tendencies of an individual, it is well worth cultivating.

I would not at this time assert even that much concerning astrology. But I do wish to make myself emphatically understood that astrology is not soothsaying, it is not fortune-telling. It is not telling this girl whom she is going to marry, or that young fellow whether he will succeed in business or not. I ean scarcely find language to fitly describe the moral degradation of any man who pretends to be able to do such things, and accepts a fee for giving such information.

From time to time I shall be obliged to continually defend astrology against such superstitious notions. A great many people who believe in astrology have become ashamed to mention the word on account of the many charlatans that have brought it into opprobrium.

Some professional astrologers sought to escape the obloquy of astrology by giving it another name, such as solar biology, celestial philosophy, and the like. But I am proposing to call it astrology, and bear the brunt of the criticism that is sure to follow.

First, because it will bring me the opportunity to give a hard hit at some of the rascals who pretend to be able to write horoscopes at so much per, and who are willing to make predictions concerning any affair upon which they may be consulted. My experience in this subject, in almanac making, has acquainted me with the multitude of people, all over the United States, who seem to believe in astrology. They lay bare the sacred secrets of their lives to the astrologer, in the hope that he may be able to help them. To all such people I have been in the habit of replying, "Astrology cannot advise you in such things.'

Second, it will give me an opportunity to give the claims of astrology fair play. It is a very interesting subject. The study of it is much better for the mind than playing cards or gossiping about one's neighbors. The claims of astrology have been exaggerated, its function has been grossly misrepresented, all of which I intend to bring out from time to time as these lessons proceed.

For those who have no faith in the teachings of astrology let me propose something like this: Suppose we treat the matter as an amusement, as an intricate sort of intellectual game that is played for the mental exercise it gives.

Let us play the game fair. That is to say, we will make a study of astrology and assume for the purpose of the game that the teachings of astrology are true. Then we will go on and undertake to apply it to practical life and see if it works out in real results. We will treat the matter much as we would treat a dream book, which assumes that every little trivial dream has an interpretation. No one believes in the interpretation of those dreams, and yet by some unwritten law there

has come to be a pretty definite understanding as to the supposed meaning of dreams. A great many people amuse themselves by taking note of their dreams and watching for the truth or untruth of such interpretations. Such an amusement, however, has in it no special discipline, nor does it bring us nearer to the real facts of our mental life.

But in adopting astrology as a source of amusement a great deal of instruction is necessarily involved. Whether the application of such instruction to the affairs of life can be made with any degree of certainty or not, need not be discussed at this time. If we are proposing to use the teachings of astrology as a pastime merely, let us so treat it, and we can afford to drop all discussion as to the practical import of it.

We will find the rules of the game are very intricate as we develop it. The first thing we have to learn is that the year is divided up into twelve parts or signs. It will be noted that there are just as many signs in the year as there are months in the year. But we confront a difficulty at once, for the signs are not coincident with the month.

That is to say, the sign does not begin on the first day of the month and end on the last day of the month, but each sign begins about the twenty-first of the month and ends somewhere about the twenty-first of the next month. This takes a slice out of each month. Piecing them together gives us a sign of about thirty days, corresponding to the length of a month.

I do not mean to say that every sign begins on the twenty-first of the month, or ends on the twenty-first. It varies two or three days each way, although the twenty-first is about the average.

Twelve months make a calendar year, beginning with January and ending with December. Twelve signs make an astrological year, but the signs do not begin with January and end with December. They begin with March and end with February. That

is to say, the first sign of the twelve is known as Aries, which begins March 21st, and ends February 23rd.

So, then, if we are to learn how to play the game of astrology we will have to fix in our minds a new year, an astrological year, beginning March 21st of one year and ending on March 23d of the following year.

The first thing we need to learn, then, is the name of each of these twelve signs. And we should learn them in their proper order, for we will need to know them in that order if we are to make any progress whatever. They are, Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, Pisces.

A great many little devices have been invented to assist people in memorizing these names in their proper order. The best way is probably to pronounce them out loud, over and over again, until they come to the mind in a singsong manner, like we have learned the months of the year or the days of the week. This can be shortened a little, perhaps, by memorizing the first letters in the signs. It will be noticed that the first two signs spell a-t, at. And that the last three signs spell c-a-p, cap. This starts off the list and ends the list, and is a little help. The thing we would have to learn, then, is to repeat: AT GC LV LSS CAP.

It is not absolutely necessary to be able to repeat the signs in their proper order, in beginning the study of astrology. Frequent reference to these signs will finally fix it in the mind. The old way of learning the multiplication table by rote failed in many cases. I know it did in mine. It was only after I began to multiply and frequently referred to the multiplication table that I finally learned it. So with the signs, although of course it is a good idea to memorize them.

Now, we have the twelve signs before us, and we have learned that each sign occupies about thirty days, the same as the months. That they begin and end on March 21st, or what is known as the vernal equinox, or the

329

day when spring begins. Thus the sign year goes from spring to spring, instead of from January to January.

If this lesson is simply read over once it will be of very little use to those who intend really to begin the study of astrology. The lesson should be studied and memorized. Then as the lessons proceed they will become easier and easier. But if you neglect to learn thoroughly the first lesson, discouragement will await us further

on.

The second lesson will appear next month, and I expect they will continue to appear without any interruption until we have gone over the whole subject.

Do not take the matter too seriously. We are simply learning to play a very intricate game, which will afford us a great deal of amusement and instruction, and if in playing it we convince. ourselves that there is something in the claims of modern astrology, all well and good. If not, no harm is done.

Remarkable Eyesight.

By Mary A. Osborne, R. F. D. No. 93, Boyne, Michigan.

T

HE April number I am reading from cover to cover. It is interesting and helpful to get the in

ner thoughts as well as the experience of so many up-to-date thinkers. If I could be instrumental in placing the Journal for one year at least in a few hundred homes here I would do it. One drawback I find is that families are overwhelmed with dailies and magazines.

On page 206 of the Journal Dr. C. E. Patterson handles truth or advanced thought in such a reasonable and understandable way I trust that he will become a constant contributor and so help out many who are coming into the light and spiritual understanding. begin to realize that in order to receive, we must also give out to others; give the best we are capable of.

I am seventy-three years old; my eyes are not weak, neither do they show defect except when I had grippe

or hay fever there seemed too much moisture. I read and write without glasses because they are no help. I think I have referred to my birthday month of September 6th, 1836.

A good remedy for mites in hen houses is one pint of pure tar to one gallon of kerosene. The kerosene cuts the tar and the mites stand no chance.

Charcoal as a Dentifrice.

By Frederick N. Seitz, 238 Elm St., Albany, New York.

I

N REPLY to the critic of R. H. Henderson, D. D. S., L. D. S., Toronto, Canada, on page 7 of January issue of this Journal, "Charcoal as a Dentifrice," I ask you, sir, who is the authority that warns not to use charcoal for teeth-cleaning? Are the so-called authorities always right? Is not always one authority against the other? Much could be said about this, but I cut it short because the readers of this Journal know all about it themselves.

What I wrote for the readers of this Journal is not a mere theory, but real experience-used for many years by myself and many others who took my advice to their advantage.

This dentifrice is not my discovery. I found the prescription many years ago in a paper, and knowing that carbon and calcium are great constituents of the human being, I gave it a trial and found it cheap and efficacious.

I never have had trouble with my gums or throat, or a bad breath from the mouth ever since I used the powder, neither could I observe any ill effects on any of those who used the same through my advice.

Charcoal is an antiseptic in every way; it takes away foul breath, expels gases and putrid matters from the body; it is used in tons annually by Allopaths and Homeopaths for disinfecting purposes.

No one of the readers of this Journal has to fear any bad effects as to the gums or enamel of the teeth; the bad effect can only be found in the den

tists' pocketbooks, and that's the matter why people should be misled.

I know about seven different recipes for dentifrices, but I published charcoal and chalk as the best, most natural, without containing any poisonous ingredients whatever.

Besides, all please take notice what section 3 and section 4 of the article

(Critic's) says. It reads: "Charcoal is insoluble; that is, it does not dissolve in the fluids of the mouth," etc. Further, section 4: "The fluids of the mouth acting on the lye," and so on.

coal forms a dilute

Mr. Henderson's critic is good; it improves things; but this Critic is contradicting in itself and cannot stand the test.

T

Smallpox Prevalent.

HE other day I received a letter from the health officer of this city. The letter reads as follows:

"On account of the prevalence of smallpox at this time in the city, we respectfully ask your co-operation in checking the spread of the disease by promptly reporting all suspicious eruptive cases, and by insisting on vaccinating all unvaccinated persons, so far as you can."

I was astonished to learn that smallpox was prevalent in the city. I had not heard of any smallpox, although of course we were hearing continually about vaccination.

Happening to fall in with the secretary of the board of health the other evening, I asked him if there was any smallpox in the city. He replied that there was not a single case of smallpox in the city. The last case of

suspected smallpox had been discharged. He also told me that there had not been a death from smallpox in over two years.

What does the health officer of this city mean by sending out a letter to physicians, making the statement that smallpox is prevalent, when not a sinle case exists in the city, and not a single death had occurred for the past