|It is reported of Mrs. Eddy that every morning as she arose from her
bed she repeated the following prayer: "Clad in the panoply of Divine
love, human hatred cannot reach me." Her followers have expressed great
admiration for this, the "Mother's daily prayer." But to be forever
thinking of human hatred, and to live in constant dread of it, shows
a broken-down mind. Only a person haunted by the fear of human hatred
would beg daily to be delivered from it. If on getting up every morning
a man were to say, "To-day my liver shall not hurt me," one would have
reason to conclude that he was suffering from liver trouble.
To deny human hatred every morning is also proof positive of an alarmed
conscience. Macbeth saw Banquo's ghost everywhere and dared it with his
"avaunt" and "hence," even as Mrs. Eddy, seeing so much of human hatred,
ran under cover of "the Divine panoply" the first thing every morning.
Is that the way to prove that "all is mind," and that there is nothing
to fear?
Is Christian Science Scientific?
|Two words spell the name of this so-called "health
religion"--"Christian" and "Science." Let us see if there is anything
scientific about Christian Science. To begin with, men of science never
try to suppress inquiry, because inquiry only helps to advance their
cause, which can advance in no other way.
Science is investigation. Eddyism, on the other hand, is a dogma.
Science is knowledge, verified, classified, and placed within the reach
of all. Eddyism is a _copyrighted_ cult.
Science is free; in science we do not have to secure permission before
observing, studying, inventing, or teaching. But Mrs. Eddy reads out of
church the independent thinker or practitioner.
Science is open to new truths. Christian Science claims to be a final
revelation. For any man or woman to profess to be the custodian of the
last word on religion, and then to copyright the same, is not only the
negation of all science, which means increasing research and unhampered
discovery, but it is also the most objectionable kind of monopoly.
Science always accepts truth for authority, and never authority for
truth. Christian Science, on the contrary, rests on the sole authority
of Mrs. Eddy's _Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures_.
The fundamental difference between Mrs. Eddy and a scientist like
Charles Darwin, for example, is that, while the latter confines himself
to such statements as are investigable, Mrs. Eddy puts forth claims
which defy investigation. Let me give an example. The founder of
Christian Science solemnly declares that even the price she should
charge for a course of instruction in metaphysics was dictated to her
by the Deity himself: "When God impelled me to set a price on Christian
Science--mind healing--I was led to name $300 as the price." And she
adds: "This amount greatly troubled me. I shrank from asking it, but was
finally led by a strange providence to accept this fee." It must have
been a _strange_ providence, indeed! But can a claim of that nature be
verified? If we desired to make sure whether the Supreme Being, with the
destinies of ten thousand worlds upon His mind, found the time to fix
also the dividend rate upon Mrs. Eddy's investment in Christian Science,
how would he go about it? How shall we make sure that the Deity did not,
on the contrary, plead with her to be satisfied with a more moderate
profit?
While in Salt Lake City I enjoyed the opportunity of an interview with
a prominent Mormon. Finding me willing to listen, the gentleman told me
how Joseph Smith had received a visit from the angels who delivered
to him the originals from which were copied the articles of the Mormon
belief. When I expressed a desire to see the "heavenly" documents, my
informant replied that Joseph Smith had returned them to the angels.
Is such a statement investigatable? And what is not investigable lies
outside the province of science. Neither Mrs. Eddy nor Joseph Smith
can be put in the same class with Charles Darwin, who advances no
propositions which forbid verification.
Is Christian Science "Christian"?
|Eddyism is no more _Christian_ than it is _scientific_. Between the
teachings of Jesus and those of the Boston lady there are irreconcilable
differences.
It is the claim of practitioners in Christian Science that they
are following the example and applying the method of the founder of
Christianity in the healing of the sick. This is one of the "telling"
arguments used by Christian Science lecturers in their appeals for
converts. But if it can be shown that the method of Jesus was in many
respects radically different from that prescribed by Mrs. Eddy, the
claim that her religion is founded upon the teachings and practice of
Jesus falls to the ground. In a pamphlet issued by the Christian Science
Publication Society and copyrighted we read as follows; "Jesus proved
for all time and for all Christendom that the origin of disease was
_mental_, and He healed it with _mental medicine_." Can that statement
be squared with the practice of Jesus as we find it described in the
Gospels? The evangelist St. John relates the cure of the man born blind
as follows: "When he [Jesus] had thus spoken, He spat on the ground and
made clay of the spittle, and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with
the clay and said unto him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.'" Is that
the Christian Science way of healing the sick? Do Christian Scientists
use clay or spittle? Do they "anoint" the sick with salve of any kind?
Do they counsel bathing or washing for curative purposes?
Moreover, Jesus, in reply to the question of His apostles as to the
cause of the man's blindness, clearly states that the origin of this
man's disease was not in human error or mentality:--
_And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or
his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that
the works of God should be made manifest in him. (John ix, 2-3.)_
The meaning of this text is that the man was born blind, not as a
punishment for his or his parents' sin, nor because of mortal mind, but
that through him God may be glorified. Could that text be quoted to show
that blindness is a "mental" disease caused by unbelief or selfishness?
or could it be quoted to prove that the man was not born blind, but only
_thought_ he was blind? Where is the evidence, then, that "Jesus proved
for all time and for all Christendom that 'disease was caused by mortal
mind,' and that 'mental medicine' was the only remedy he used?"
Was Jesus in the habit of using words to mislead his hearers, of saying
things the real meaning of which would remain hidden for nearly twenty
centuries--until Mrs. Eddy could place her _key_ (from three to six
dollars a key) upon the market?
The evangelist St. Mark gives another instance of Jesus's method of
healing which is again totally different from Mrs. Eddy's:--
_And they bring unto him one that was deaf and had an impediment in his
speech, and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.
And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his
ears, and he spit and touched his tongue._
Will the Christian Science healers explain the functions of the "hand,"
the "fingers," and the "spit" in "mental medicine"? If it be answered
that Jesus resorted to material means to illustrate the power of
the spirit, etc., it would follow that material means may be used to
advantage, and that there is no such feud between matter and mind as the
Eddyites proclaim.
Many other texts could be quoted to show that Jesus used material means.
He touched the bier, he laid his hands on the patient, which is the kind
of manipulation vehemently denounced by Mrs. Eddy in her comments on
mesmerism. The "touch" so frequent in the miracles performed by Jesus is
downright heresy in Mrs. Eddy's system of healing.
_Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers
diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of
them. (Luke iv, 40.)_
Again, Jesus recommends to his disciples dieting by way of abstinence
from food--that is, fasting--for the healing of obstinate diseases.
Evidently he believed that dieting increased one's healing power.
In the same pamphlet published and copyrighted by the Christian Science
Publication Society, the author, William R. Rathbon, member of the Board
of Lectureship of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston,
writes: "He [Jesus] gave himself no concern about physical symptoms...
He cared little about what the sick man had been eating, but much about
what he had been thinking." In the New Testament, however, nearly every
patient's symptoms are described, to which Jesus listened without a word
of protest and with apparent consent. Had the evangelists believed, as
the Christian Science lecturers teach, that disease is purely mental,
they would not have gone into details in describing physical symptoms.
"And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years" (Mark
v, 25.) Does not that describe the nature and duration, as well as the
physical effects, of the woman's disease?
"Lord, have mercy upon my son, for he is a lunatic" (Matt, xvii, 15).
"And one of the multitude said, Master, I have brought unto thee my
son"; and then the father proceeds to describe the symptoms of his son's
malady: "He foameth and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away" (Mark
ix, 17).
In all these cases there was not a word of rebuke from the great healer
because of the symptoms described.
Jesus himself, on one occasion, asked for certain physical details
before proceeding to heal the patient:--_And he [Jesus] asked his father
[the father of the sick youth], How long is it ago since this came unto
him? (Mark ix, 21.)_
What difference did it make when or how the disease was contracted if it
is true that "Jesus proved for all time and for all Christendom that the
origin of disease was mental, and he healed it with mental medicine"?
Perhaps the motive for representing Jesus as indifferent to the physical
condition of his patient is to excuse the Christian Science practitioner
for his ignorance of the human body and his contempt for physical
science.
But the most irreconcilable difference between Jesus Christ and Mary
Baker Eddy is in the spirit in which they performed their miracles.
Jesus does not appear to have had any financial schemes in his head. He
tells his followers to give freely the power which they have themselves
freely received. The idea of taking money for a cure, or charging a
large sum for the purpose of encouraging appreciation for his gifts,
would have shocked the Jesus of the Gospels. The mere suggestion
that some day a woman would copyright and commercialize this "divine
power" would have made him indignant beyond expression. It is impossible
to believe that the Jesus who said, "Get you no gold, no silver, nor
brass, neither two coats, nor shoes," and also, "Freely ye received,
freely give," could have the remotest sympathy with a woman who not only
_sells_ what she calls "the power of God," but has also secured by
legal procedure "a corner" on it. Mrs. Eddy's religion, then, is no more
Christian than it is scientific. Had she been dealing in food products
instead of in religion, the use of a false label would have made her
liable to prosecution.