She still thinks the name of Our Mother not applicable to her; and she is also able to remember that it distressed her when it was conferred upon her, and that she begged to have it suppressed.  Her memory is at fault here.  If she will take her By-laws, and refer to Section 1 of Article XXII., written with her own hand—­she will find that she has reserved that title to herself, and is so pleased with it, and so—­may we say jealous?—­about it, that she threatens with excommunication any sister Scientist who shall call herself by it.  This is that Section 1: 

“The Title of Mother.  In the year 1895 loyal Christian Scientists had given to the author of their text-book, the Founder of Christian Science, the individual, endearing term of Mother.  Therefore, if a student of Christian Science shall apply this title, either to herself or to others, except as the term for kinship according to the flesh, it shall be regarded by the Church as an indication of disrespect for their Pastor Emeritus, and unfitness to be a member of the Mother-Church.”

Mrs. Eddy is herself the Mother-Church—­its powers and authorities are in her possession solely—­and she can abolish that title whenever it may please her to do so.  She has only to command her people, wherever they may be in the earth, to use it no more, and it will never be uttered again.  She is aware of this.

It may be that she “refuses adulation” when she is not awake, but when she is awake she encourages it and propagates it in that museum called “Our Mother’s Room,” in her Church in Boston.  She could abolish that institution with a word, if she wanted to.  She is aware of that.  I will say a further word about the museum presently.

Further down the column, her memory is unfaithful again: 

“I believe in . . . but one Mother Mary, and know I am not that one, and never claimed to be.”

At a session of the National Christian Science Association, held in the city of New York on the 27th of May, 1890, the secretary was “instructed to send to our Mother greetings and words of affection from her assembled children.”

Her telegraphic response was read to the Association at next day’s meeting: 

“All hail!  He hath filled the hungry with good things and the sick hath He not sent empty away.—­Mother Mary.”

Which Mother Mary is this one?  Are there two?  If so, she is both of them; for, when she signed this telegram in this satisfied and unprotesting way, the Mother-title which she was going to so strenuously object to, and put from her with humility, and seize with both hands, and reserve as her sole property, and protect her monopoly of it with a stern By-law, while recognizing with diffidence that it was “not applicable” to her (then and to-day)—­that Mother—­title was not yet born, and would not be offered to her until five years later.  The date of the above “Mother Mary” is 1890; the “individual, endearing title of Mother” was given her “in 1895”—­according to her own testimony.  See her By-law quoted above.