ALFRED T. SCHOFIELD, M.D., ON CHRISTIAN SANITY. 17 



did you were covered with them. Washing was utterly futile 

 as a protection, etc., etc., therefore why wash ? Hence he had 

 given up the unequal conflict — ^reasonable again. I am indeed 

 informed with regard to washing that Mrs. Eddy had the 

 strongest views on ablutions, and in her monumental work she 

 decrees that babies are on no account to be daily washed, 

 declaring such a practice to be neither "natural nor necessary " 

 (p. 413). 



Indeed, I have often said that it is really only because this 

 sect does not practise what it preaches, that its members pass 

 as sane ; which they no doubt are. To profess that body and 

 digestive organs are non-existent, and that the necessity for food 

 is an error of mortal mind, is all very well so long as you show 

 your sanity by not acting on it ; but if one did act on it, one 

 would be in danger of the asylum. So far I have not heard of 

 any of the sect who have done so. Common sense here triumphs 

 over dogma. 



To return to our theme. Keason alone does not represent a 

 balanced mind any more than emotion alone. Common sense 

 does, which I have suggested is reason balanced by emotion. 

 Perhaps some still better definition may be arrived at in the 

 discussion, which I hope may be at any rate partly con- 

 structive. 



It is very interesting to note that before S. Paul had any 

 spiritual illumination at all, when he was still Saul, in his own 

 words (Acts xxvi, 11) he was exceedingly "maniacal"' ; while on 

 the other hand, when he spoke before Festus the words of truth 

 and soberness, he was deemed a maniac (the same word). 



I have already cited the remarkable passage (ii Cor, v, 13), 

 where it is asserted that we may be beside ourselves, and yet 

 sane at the same time. The former describing the transports of 

 joy of the saint in the Divine presence, the other the sobriety 

 and calm of the man in this world of sorrow. 



As I have already pointed out, and may here repeat, no oscilla- 

 tions constitute insanity, but a fixed loss of balance does. 

 We have shown the standard of sanity varies with country and 

 race, but we may go farther, for the individual estimate varies 

 almost as much as the standard of right and wrong, according to 

 which " one man may steal a horse, while another may not look 

 over the hedge." Of course in so speaking I do not consider the 

 legal aspect of insanity. 



For instance, with regard to Christian sanity, (1) to believe in a 



c 2 



