We may take that up now.
It is not a single if, but a several-jointed one; not an oyster, but a
vertebrate.
1. Did Mrs. Eddy borrow from Quimby the Great Idea, or only the little
one, the old-timer, the ordinary mental-healing-healing by “mortal”
mind?
2. If she borrowed the Great Idea, did she carry it away in her head, or
in manuscript?
3. Did she hit upon the Great Idea herself? By the Great Idea I mean, of
course, the conviction that the Force involved was still existent, and
could be applied now just as it was applied by Christ's Disciples and
their converts, and as successfully.
4. Did she philosophize it, systematize it, and write it down in a book?
5. Was it she, and not another, that built a new Religion upon the book
and organized it?
I think No. 5 can be answered with a Yes, and dismissed from the
controversy. And I think that the Great Idea, great as it was, would
have enjoyed but a brief activity, and would then have gone to sleep
again for some more centuries, but for the perpetuating impulse it got
from that organized and tremendous force.
As for Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the hostiles contend that Mrs. Eddy got the
Great Idea from Quimby and carried it off in manuscript. But their
testimony, while of consequence, lacks the most important detail; so far
as my information goes, the Quimby manuscript has not been produced. I
think we cannot discuss No. 1 and No. 2 profitably. Let them go.
For me, No. 3 has a mild interest, and No. 4 a violent one.
As regards No. 3, Mrs. Eddy was brought up, from the cradle, an
old-time, boiler-iron, Westminster-Catechism Christian, and knew
her Bible as well as Captain Kydd knew his, “when he sailed, when he
sailed,” and perhaps as sympathetically. The Great Idea had struck a
million Bible-readers before her as being possible of resurrection and
application--it must have struck as many as that, and been cogitated,
indolently, doubtingly, then dropped and forgotten--and it could have
struck her, in due course. But how it could interest her, how it
could appeal to her--with her make this a thing that is difficult to
understand.
For the thing back of it is wholly gracious and beautiful: the power,
through loving mercifulness and compassion, to heal fleshly ills and
pains and grief--all--with a word, with a touch of the hand! This power
was given by the Saviour to the Disciples, and to all the converted.
All--every one. It was exercised for generations afterwards.
Any Christian who was in earnest and not a make-believe, not a
policy--Christian, not a Christian for revenue only, had that healing
power, and could cure with it any disease or any hurt or damage possible
to human flesh and bone. These things are true, or they are not. If they
were true seventeen and eighteen and nineteen centuries ago it would be
difficult to satisfactorily explain why or how or by what argument that
power should be nonexistent in Christians now.
To wish to exercise it could occur to Mrs. Eddy--but would it?
Grasping, sordid, penurious, famishing for everything she sees--money,
power, glory--vain, untruthful, jealous, despotic, arrogant, insolent,
pitiless where thinkers and hypnotists are concerned, illiterate,
shallow, incapable of reasoning outside of commercial lines,
immeasurably selfish--
Of course the Great Idea could strike her, we have to grant that, but
why it should interest her is a question which can easily overstrain the
imagination and bring on nervous prostration, or something like that,
and is better left alone by the judicious, it seems to me--
Unless we call to our help the alleged other side of Mrs. Eddy's
make and character the side which her multitude of followers see, and
sincerely believe in. Fairness requires that their view be stated
here. It is the opposite of the one which I have drawn from Mrs. Eddy's
history and from her By-laws. To her followers she is this:
Patient, gentle, loving, compassionate, noble hearted, unselfish,
sinless, widely cultured, splendidly equipped mentally, a profound
thinker, an able writer, a divine personage, an inspired messenger whose
acts are dictated from the Throne, and whose every utterance is the
Voice of God.
She has delivered to them a religion which has revolutionized their
lives, banished the glooms that shadowed them, and filled them and
flooded them with sunshine and gladness and peace; a religion which has
no hell; a religion whose heaven is not put off to another time, with
a break and a gulf between, but begins here and now, and melts into
eternity as fancies of the waking day melt into the dreams of sleep.
They believe it is a Christianity that is in the New Testament; that
it has always been there, that in the drift of ages it was lost through
disuse and neglect, and that this benefactor has found it and given it
back to men, turning the night of life into day, its terrors into myths,
its lamentations into songs of emancipation and rejoicing.
There we have Mrs. Eddy as her followers see her. She has lifted
them out of grief and care and doubt and fear, and made their lives
beautiful; she found them wandering forlorn in a wintry wilderness, and
has led them to a tropic paradise like that of which the poet sings:
“O, islands there are on the face of the deep
Where the leaves never fade and the skies never weep.”
To ask them to examine with a microscope the character of such a
benefactor; to ask them to examine it at all; to ask them to look at a
blemish which another person believes he has found in it--well, in their
place could you do it? Would you do it? Wouldn't you be ashamed to do
it? If a tramp had rescued your child from fire and death, and saved its
mother's heart from breaking, could you see his rags? Could you smell
his breath? Mrs. Eddy has done more than that for these people.
They are prejudiced witnesses. To the credit of human nature it is not
possible that they should be otherwise. They sincerely believe that
Mrs. Eddy's character is pure and perfect and beautiful, and her history
without stain or blot or blemish. But that does not settle it. They
sincerely believe she did not borrow the Great Idea from Quimby, but hit
upon it herself. It may be so, and it could be so. Let it go--there
is no way to settle it. They believe she carried away no Quimby
manuscripts. Let that go, too--there is no way to settle it. They
believe that she, and not another, built the Religion upon the book, and
organized it. I believe it, too.
Finally, they believe that she philosophized Christian Science,
explained it, systematized it, and wrote it all out with her own hand in
the book Science and Health.
I am not able to believe that. Let us draw the line there. The known
and undisputed products of her pen are a formidable witness against
her. They do seem to me to prove, quite clearly and conclusively, that
writing, upon even simple subjects, is a difficult labor for her: that
she has never been able to write anything above third-rate English; that
she is weak in the matter of grammar; that she has but a rude and
dull sense of the values of words; that she so lacks in the matter of
literary precision that she can seldom put a thought into words that
express it lucidly to the reader and leave no doubts in his mind as to
whether he has rightly understood or not; that she cannot even draught a
Preface that a person can fully comprehend, nor one which can by any
art be translated into a fully understandable form; that she can
seldom inject into a Preface even single sentences whose meaning is
uncompromisingly clear--yet Prefaces are her specialty, if she has one.
Mrs. Eddy's known and undisputed writings are very limited in bulk;
they exhibit no depth, no analytical quality, no thought above school
composition size, and but juvenile ability in handling thoughts of even
that modest magnitude. She has a fine commercial ability, and could
govern a vast railway system in great style; she could draught a set
of rules that Satan himself would say could not be improved on--for
devilish effectiveness--by his staff; but we know, by our excursions
among the Mother-Church's By-laws, that their English would discredit
the deputy baggage-smasher. I am quite sure that Mrs. Eddy cannot write
well upon any subject, even a commercial one.
In the very first revision of Science and Health (1883), Mrs. Eddy wrote
a Preface which is an unimpeachable witness that the rest of the book
was written by somebody else. I have put it in the Appendix along with a
page or two taken from the body of the book, and will ask the reader to
compare the labored and lumbering and confused gropings of this Preface
with the easy and flowing and direct English of the other exhibit, and
see if he can believe that the one hand and brain produced both.
And let him take the Preface apart, sentence by sentence, and
searchingly examine each sentence word by word, and see if he can find
half a dozen sentences whose meanings he is so sure of that he can
rephrase them--in words of his own--and reproduce what he takes to be
those meanings. Money can be lost on this game. I know, for I am the one
that lost it.
Now let the reader turn to the excerpt which I have made from the
chapter on “Prayer” (last year's edition of Science and Health), and
compare that wise and sane and elevated and lucid and compact piece of
work with the aforesaid Preface, and with Mrs. Eddy's poetry concerning
the gymnastic trees, and Minerva's not yet effete sandals, and the
wreaths imported from Erudition's bower for the decoration of Plymouth
Rock, and the Plague-spot and Bacilli, and my other exhibits (turn back
to my Chapters I. and II.) from the Autobiography, and finally with
the late Communication concerning me, and see if he thinks anybody's
affirmation, or anybody's sworn testimony, or any other testimony of
any imaginable kind would ever be likely to convince him that Mrs. Eddy
wrote that chapter on Prayer.
I do not wish to impose my opinion on any one who will not permit
it, but such as it is I offer it here for what it is worth. I cannot
believe, and I do not believe, that Mrs. Eddy originated any of the
thoughts and reasonings out of which the book Science and Health is
constructed; and I cannot believe, and do not believe that she ever
wrote any part of that book.
I think that if anything in the world stands proven, and well and
solidly proven, by unimpeachable testimony--the treacherous testimony of
her own pen in her known and undisputed literary productions--it is that
Mrs. Eddy is not capable of thinking upon high planes, nor of reasoning
clearly nor writing intelligently upon low ones.
Inasmuch as--in my belief--the very first editions of the book Science
and Health were far above the reach of Mrs. Eddy's mental and literary
abilities, I think she has from the very beginning been claiming as
her own another person's book, and wearing as her own property laurels
rightfully belonging to that person--the real author of Science and
Health. And I think the reason--and the only reason--that he has not
protested is because his work was not exposed to print until after he
was safely dead.
That with an eye to business, and by grace of her business talent,
she has restored to the world neglected and abandoned features of the
Christian religion which her thousands of followers find gracious and
blessed and contenting, I recognize and confess; but I am convinced that
every single detail of the work except just that one--the delivery of
the Product to the world--was conceived and performed by another.
APPENDIX A
ORIGINAL FIRST PREFACE TO SCIENCE AND HEALTH
There seems a Christian necessity of learning God's power and purpose to
heal both mind and body. This thought grew out of our early seeking
Him in all our ways, and a hopeless as singular invalidism that drugs
increased instead of diminished, and hygiene benefited only for a
season. By degrees we have drifted into more spiritual latitudes of
thought, and experimented as we advanced until demonstrating fully the
power of mind over the body. About the year 1862, having heard of a
mesmerist in Portland who was treating the sick by manipulation, we
visited him; he helped us for a time, then we relapsed somewhat. After
his decease, and a severe casualty deemed fatal by skilful physicians,
we discovered that the Principle of all healing and the law that governs
it is God, a divine Principle, and a spiritual not material law, and
regained health.
It was not an individual or mortal mind acting upon another so-called
mind that healed us. It was the glorious truths of Christian Science
that we discovered as we neared that verge of so-called material life
named death; yea, it was the great Shekinah, the spirit of Life, Truth,
and Love illuminating our understanding of the action and might of
Omnipotence! The old gentleman to whom we have referred had some very
advanced views on healing, but he was not avowedly religious neither
scholarly. We interchanged thoughts on the subject of healing the sick.
I restored some patients of his that he failed to heal, and left in
his possession some manuscripts of mine containing corrections of his
desultory pennings, which I am informed at his decease passed into the
hands of a patient of his, now residing in Scotland. He died in 1865 and
left no published works. The only manuscript that we ever held of his,
longer than to correct it, was one of perhaps a dozen pages, most of
which we had composed. He manipulated the sick; hence his ostensible
method of healing was physical instead of mental.
We helped him in the esteem of the public by our writings, but never
knew of his stating orally or in writing that he treated his patients
mentally; never heard him give any directions to that effect; and have
it from one of his patients, who now asserts that he was the founder of
mental healing, that he never revealed to anyone his method. We refer
to these facts simply to refute the calumnies and false claims of our
enemies, that we are preferring dishonest claims to the discovery and
founding at this period of Metaphysical Healing or Christian Science.
The Science and laws of a purely mental healing and their method of
application through spiritual power alone, else a mental argument
against disease, are our own discovery at this date. True, the Principle
is divine and eternal, but the application of it to heal the sick had
been lost sight of, and required to be again spiritually discerned
and its science discovered, that man might retain it through the
understanding. Since our discovery in 1866 of the divine science of
Christian Healing, we have labored with tongue and pen to found this
system. In this endeavor every obstacle has been thrown in our path that
the envy and revenge of a few disaffected students could devise. The
superstition and ignorance of even this period have not failed to
contribute their mite towards misjudging us, while its Christian
advancement and scientific research have helped sustain our feeble
efforts.
Since our first Edition of Science and Health, published in 1875, two
of the aforesaid students have plagiarized and pirated our works. In the
issues of E. J. A., almost exclusively ours, were thirteen paragraphs,
without credit, taken verbatim from our books.
Not one of our printed works was ever copied or abstracted from the
published or from the unpublished writings of anyone. Throughout our
publications of Metaphysical Healing or Christian Science, when writing
or dictating them, we have given ourselves to contemplation wholly apart
from the observation of the material senses: to look upon a copy would
have distracted our thoughts from the subject before us. We were seldom
able to copy our own compositions, and have employed an amanuensis
for the last six years. Every work that we have had published has been
extemporaneously written; and out of fifty lectures and sermons that we
have delivered the last year, forty-four have been extemporaneous. We
have distributed many of our unpublished manuscripts; loaned to one of
our youngest students, R. K--------y, between three and four hundred
pages, of which we were sole author--giving him liberty to copy but not
to publish them.
Leaning on the sustaining Infinite with loving trust, the trials of
to-day grow brief, and to-morrow is big with blessings.
The wakeful shepherd, tending his flocks, beholds from the mountain's
top the first faint morning beam ere cometh the risen day. So from
Soul's loftier summits shines the pale star to prophet-shepherd, and
it traverses night, over to where the young child lies, in cradled
obscurity, that shall waken a world. Over the night of error dawn the
morning beams and guiding star of Truth, and “the wise men” are led by
it to Science, which repeats the eternal harmony that it reproduced, in
proof of immortality. The time for thinkers has come; and the time for
revolutions, ecclesiastical and civil, must come. Truth, independent of
doctrines or time-honored systems, stands at the threshold of history.
Contentment with the past, or the cold conventionality of custom, may no
longer shut the door on science; though empires fall, “He whose right it
is shall reign.” Ignorance of God should no longer be the stepping-stone
to faith; understanding Him, “whom to know aright is Life eternal,” is
the only guaranty of obedience.
This volume may not open a new thought, and make it at once familiar. It
has the sturdy task of a pioneer, to hack away at the tall oaks and cut
the rough granite, leaving future ages to declare what it has done.
We made our first discovery of the adaptation of metaphysics to the
treatment of disease in the winter of 1866; since then we have tested
the Principle on ourselves and others, and never found it to fail to
prove the statements herein made of it. We must learn the science of
Life, to reach the perfection of man. To understand God as the Principle
of all being, and to live in accordance with this Principle, is the
Science of Life. But to reproduce this harmony of being, the error
of personal sense must yield to science, even as the science of music
corrects tones caught from the ear, and gives the sweet concord of
sound. There are many theories of physic and theology, and many calls in
each of their directions for the right way; but we propose to settle the
question of “What is Truth?” on the ground of proof, and let that method
of healing the sick and establishing Christianity be adopted that is
found to give the most health and to make the best Christians; science
will then have a fair field, in which case we are assured of its triumph
over all opinions and beliefs. Sickness and sin have ever had their
doctors; but the question is, Have they become less because of them? The
longevity of our antediluvians would say, No! and the criminal records
of today utter their voices little in favor of such a conclusion. Not
that we would deny to Caesar the things that are his, but that we
ask for the things that belong to Truth; and safely affirm, from the
demonstrations we have been able to make, that the science of man
understood would have eradicated sin, sickness, and death, in a less
period than six thousand years. We find great difficulties in starting
this work right. Some shockingly false claims are already made to a
metaphysical practice; mesmerism, its very antipodes, is one of them.
Hitherto we have never, in a single instance of our discovery, found
the slightest resemblance between mesmerism and metaphysics. No especial
idiosyncrasy is requisite to acquire a knowledge of metaphysical
healing; spiritual sense is more important to its discernment than the
intellect; and those who would learn this science without a high moral
standard of thought and action, will fail to understand it until they
go up higher. Owing to our explanations constantly vibrating between the
same points, an irksome repetition of words must occur; also the use of
capital letters, genders, and technicalities peculiar to the science.
Variety of language, or beauty of diction, must give place to close
analysis and unembellished thought. “Hoping all things, enduring all
things,” to do good to our enemies, to bless them that curse us, and to
bear to the sorrowing and the sick consolation and healing, we commit
these pages to posterity.
MARY BAKER G. EDDY.
APPENDIX B
The Gospel narratives bear brief testimony even to the life of our great
Master. His spiritual noumenon and phenomenon, silenced portraiture.
Writers, less wise than the Apostles, essayed in the Apocryphal New
Testament, a legendary and traditional history of the early life of
Jesus. But Saint Paul summarized the character of Jesus as the model
of Christianity, in these words: “Consider Him who endured such
contradictions of sinners against Himself. Who for the joy that was set
before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at
the right hand of the throne of God.”
It may be that the mortal life battle still wages, and must continue
till its involved errors are vanquished by victory-bringing Science; but
this triumph will come! God is over all. He alone is our origin, aim,
and Being. The real man is not of the dust, nor is he ever created
through the flesh; for his father and mother are the one Spirit, and his
brethren are all the children of one parent, the eternal Good.
Any kind of literary composition was excessively difficult for Mrs.
Eddy. She found it grinding hard work to dig out anything to say. She
realized, at the above stage in her life, that with all her trouble she
had not been able to scratch together even material enough for a child's
Autobiography, and also that what she had secured was in the main not
valuable, not important, considering the age and the fame of the person
she was writing about; and so it occurred to her to attempt, in that
paragraph, to excuse the meagreness and poor quality of the feast she
was spreading, by letting on that she could do ever so much better if
she wanted to, but was under constraint of Divine etiquette. To feed
with more than a few indifferent crumbs a plebeian appetite for personal
details about Personages in her class was not the correct thing, and she
blandly points out that there is Precedent for this reserve. When Mrs.
Eddy tries to be artful--in literature--it is generally after the manner
of the ostrich; and with the ostrich's luck. Please try to find the
connection between the two paragraphs.--M. T.
APPENDIX C
The following is the spiritual signification of the Lord's Prayer:
Principle, eternal and harmonious, Nameless and adorable Intelligence,
Thou art ever present and supreme. And when this supremacy of
Spirit shall appear, the dream of matter will disappear. Give us the
understanding of Truth and Love. And loving we shall learn God, and
Truth will destroy all error. And lead us unto the Life that is Soul,
and deliver us from the errors of sense, sin, sickness, and death, For
God is Life, Truth, and Love for ever.--Science and Health, edition of
1881.
It seems to me that this one is distinctly superior to the one that was
inspired for last year's edition. It is strange, but to my mind plain,
that inspiring is an art which does not improve with practice.--M. T.
APPENDIX D
“For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in
his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come
to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you,
What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them,
and ye shall have them.
“Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask
Him.”--CHRIST JESUS.
The prayer that reclaims the sinner and heals the sick, is an absolute
faith that all things are possible to God--a spiritual understanding of
Him--an unselfed love. Regardless of what another may say or think
on this subject, I speak from experience. This prayer, combined with
self-sacrifice and toil, is the means whereby God has enabled me to do
what I have done for the religion and health of mankind.
Thoughts unspoken are not unknown to the divine Mind. Desire is prayer;
and no less can occur from trusting God with our desires, that they may
be moulded and exalted before they take form in audible word, and in
deeds.
What are the motives for prayer? Do we pray to make ourselves better, or
to benefit those that hear us; to enlighten the Infinite, or to be heard
of men? Are we benefited by praying? Yes, the desire which goes forth
hungering after righteousness is blessed of our Father, and it does not
return unto us void.
God is not moved by the breath of praise to do more than He has already
done; nor can the Infinite do less than bestow all good, since He is
unchanging Wisdom and Love. We can do more for ourselves by humble
fervent petitions; but the All-loving does not grant them simply on the
ground of lip-service, for He already knows all.
Prayer cannot change the Science of Being, but it does bring us into
harmony with it. Goodness reaches the demonstration of Truth. A request
that another may work for us never does our work. The habit of pleading
with the divine Mind, as one pleads with a human being, perpetuates the
belief in God as humanly circumscribed--an error which impedes spiritual
growth.
God is Love. Can we ask Him to be more? God is Intelligence. Can we
inform the infinite Mind, or tell Him anything He does not already
comprehend? Do we hope to change perfection? Shall we plead for more
at the open fount, which always pours forth more than we receive? The
unspoken prayer does bring us nearer the Source of all existence and
blessedness.
Asking God to be God is a “vain repetition.” God is “the same yesterday,
and to-day, and forever”; and He who is immutably right will do right,
without being reminded of His province. The wisdom of man is not
sufficient to warrant him in advising God.
Who would stand before a blackboard, and pray the principle of
mathematics to work out the problem? The rule is already established,
and it is our task to work out the solution. Shall we ask the divine
Principle of all goodness to do His own work? His work is done; and
we have only to avail ourselves of God's rule, in order to receive the
blessing thereof.
The divine Being must be reflected by man--else man is not the image and
likeness of the patient, tender, and true, the one “altogether lovely”;
but to understand God is the work of eternity, and demands absolute
concentration of thought and energy.
How empty are our conceptions of Deity! We admit theoretically that
God is good, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, and then we try to give
information to this infinite Mind; and plead for unmerited pardon, and a
liberal outpouring of benefactions. Are we really grateful for the good
already received? Then we shall avail ourselves of the blessings we
have, and thus be fitted to receive more. Gratitude is much more than a
verbal expression of thanks. Action expresses more gratitude than speech.
If we are ungrateful for Life, Truth, and Love, and yet return thanks to
God for all blessings, we are insincere; and incur the sharp censure
our Master pronounces on hypocrites. In such a case the only acceptable
prayer is to put the finger on the lips and remember our blessings.
While the heart is far from divine Truth and Love, we cannot conceal the
ingratitude of barren lives, for God knoweth all things.
What we most need is the prayer of fervent desire for growth in grace,
expressed in patience, meekness, love, and good deeds. To keep the
commandments of our Master and follow his example, is our proper debt to
Him, and the only worthy evidence of our gratitude for all He has
done. Outward worship is not of itself sufficient to express loyal
and heartfelt gratitude, since He has said: “If ye love Me, keep My
Commandments.”
The habitual struggle to be always good, is unceasing prayer. Its
motives are made manifest in the blessings they bring--which, if
not acknowledged in audible words, attest our worthiness to be made
partakers of Love.
Simply asking that we may love God will never make us love Him; but the
longing to be better and holier--expressed in daily watchfulness, and in
striving to assimilate more of the divine character--this will mould and
fashion us anew, until we awake in His likeness. We reach the Science
of Christianity through demonstration of the divine nature; but in this
wicked world goodness will “be evil spoken of,” and patience must work
experience.
Audible prayer can never do the works of spiritual understanding, which
regenerates; but silent prayer, watchfulness, and devout obedience,
enable us to follow Jesus' example. Long prayers, ecclesiasticism, and
creeds, have clipped the divine pinions of Love, and clad religion in
human robes. They materialize worship, hinder the Spirit, and keep man
from demonstrating his power over error.
Sorrow for wrong-doing is but one step towards reform, and the very
easiest step. The next and great step required by Wisdom is the test of
our sincerity--namely, reformation. To this end we are placed under the
stress of circumstances. Temptation bids us repeat the offence, and woe
comes in return for what is done. So it will ever be, till we learn that
there is no discount in the law of justice, and that we must pay “the
uttermost farthing.” The measure ye mete “shall be measured to you
again,” and it will be full “and running over.”
Saints and sinners get their full award, but not always in this world.
The followers of Christ drank His cup. Ingratitude and persecution
filled it to the brim; but God pours the riches of His love into the
understanding and affections, giving us strength according to our day.
Sinners flourish “like a green bay-tree”; but, looking farther, the
Psalmist could see their end--namely, the destruction of sin through
suffering.
Prayer is sometimes used, as a confessional to cancel sin. This error
impedes true religion. Sin is forgiven, only as it is destroyed by
Christ-Truth and Life. If prayer nourishes the belief that sin is
cancelled, and that man is made better by merely praying, it is an evil.
He grows worse who continues in sin because he thinks himself forgiven.
An apostle says that the Son of God (Christ) came to “destroy the
works of the devil.” We should follow our divine Exemplar, and seek the
destruction of all evil works, error and disease included. We cannot
escape the penalty due for sin. The Scriptures say, that if we deny
Christ, “He also will deny us.”
The divine Love corrects and governs man. Men may pardon, but this
divine Principle alone reforms the sinner. God is not separate from the
wisdom He bestows. The talents He gives we must improve. Calling on
Him to forgive our work, badly done or left undone, implies the vain
supposition that we have nothing to do but to ask pardon, and that
afterwards we shall be free to repeat the offence.
To cause suffering, as the result of sin, is the means of destroying
sin. Every supposed pleasure in sin will furnish more than its
equivalent of pain, until belief in material life and sin is destroyed.
To reach heaven, the harmony of Being, we must understand the divine
Principle of Being.
“God is Love.” More than this we cannot ask; higher we cannot look;
farther we cannot go. To suppose that God forgives or punishes sin,
according as His mercy is sought or unsought, is to misunderstand Love
and make prayer the safety-valve for wrong-doing.
Jesus uncovered and rebuked sin before He cast it out. Of a sick woman
He said that Satan had bound her; and to Peter He said, “Thou art an
offense unto me.” He came teaching and showing men how to destroy sin,
sickness, and death. He said of the fruitless tree, “It is hewn down.”
It is believed by many that a certain magistrate, who lived in the time
of Jesus, left this record: “His rebuke is fearful.” The strong language
of our Master confirms this description.
The only civil sentence which He had for error was, “Get thee behind
Me, Satan.” Still stronger evidence that Jesus' reproof was pointed and
pungent is in His own words--showing the necessity for such forcible
utterance, when He cast out devils and healed the sick and sinful. The
relinquishment of error deprives material sense of its false claims.
Audible prayer is impressive; it gives momentary solemnity and elevation
to thought; but does it produce any lasting benefit? Looking deeply into
these things, we find that “a zeal... not according to knowledge,” gives
occasion for reaction unfavorable to spiritual growth, sober resolve,
and wholesome perception of God's requirements. The motives for verbal
prayer may embrace too much love of applause to induce or encourage
Christian sentiment.
Physical sensation, not Soul, produces material ecstasy, and emotions.
If spiritual sense always guided men at such times, there would grow out
of those ecstatic moments a higher experience and a better life, with
more devout self-abnegation, and purity. A self-satisfied ventilation
of fervent sentiments never makes a Christian. God is not influenced by
man. The “divine ear” is not an auditorial nerve. It is the all-hearing
and all-knowing Mind, to whom each want of man is always known, and by
whom it will be supplied.
The danger from audible prayer is, that it may lead us into temptation.
By it we may become involuntary hypocrites, uttering desires which
are not real, and consoling ourselves in the midst of sin, with the
recollection that we have prayed over it--or mean to ask forgiveness at
some later day. Hypocrisy is fatal to religion.
A wordy prayer may afford a quiet sense of self-justification, though it
makes the sinner a hypocrite. We never need despair of an honest heart,
but there is little hope for those who only come spasmodically face to
face with their wickedness, and then seek to hide it. Their prayers are
indexes which do not correspond with their character. They hold secret
fellowship with sin; and such externals are spoken of by Jesus as “like
unto whited sepulchres... full of all uncleanness.”
If a man, though apparently fervent and prayerful, is impure, and
therefore insincere, what must be the comment upon him? If he had
reached the loftiness of his prayer, there would be no occasion for such
comment. If we feel the aspiration, humility, gratitude, and love
which our words express--this God accepts; and it is wise not to try to
deceive ourselves or others, for “there is nothing covered that shall
not be revealed.” Professions and audible prayers are like charity in
one respect--they “cover a multitude of sins.” Praying for humility,
with whatever fervency of expression, does not always mean a desire
for it. If we turn away from the poor, we are not ready to receive the
reward of Him who blesses the poor. We confess to having a very wicked
heart, and ask that it may be laid bare before us; but do we not already
know more of this heart than we are willing to have our neighbor see?
We ought to examine ourselves, and learn what is the affection and
purpose of the heart; for this alone can show us what we honestly are.
If a friend informs us of a fault, do we listen to the rebuke patiently,
and credit what is said? Do we not rather give thanks that we are “not
as other men?” During many years the author has been most grateful for
merited rebuke. The sting lies in unmerited censure--in the falsehood
which does no one any good.
The test of all prayer lies in the answer to these questions: Do we
love our neighbor better because of this asking? Do we pursue the old
selfishness, satisfied with having prayed for something better,
though we give no evidence of the sincerity of our requests by living
consistently with our prayer? If selfishness has given place to
kindness, we shall regard our neighbor unselfishly, and bless them that
curse us; but we shall never meet this great duty by simply asking that
it may be done. There is a cross to be taken up, before we can enjoy the
fruition of our hope and faith.
Dost thou “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind?” This command includes much--even the
surrender of all merely material sensation, affection, and worship. This
is the El Dorado of Christianity. It involves the Science of Life,
and recognizes only the divine control of Spirit, wherein Soul is our
master, and material sense and human will have no place.
Are you willing to leave all for Christ, for Truth, and so be counted
among sinners? No! Do you really desire to attain this point? No! Then
why make long prayers about it, and ask to be Christians, since you care
not to tread in the footsteps of our dear Master? If unwilling to follow
His example, wherefore pray with the lips that you may be partakers of
His nature? Consistent prayer is the desire to do right. Prayer means
that we desire to, and will, walk in the light so far as we receive it,
even though with bleeding footsteps, and waiting patiently on the Lord,
will leave our real desires to be rewarded by Him.
The world must grow to the spiritual understanding of prayer. If good
enough to profit by Jesus' cup of earthly sorrows, God will sustain us
under these sorrows. Until we are thus divinely qualified, and willing
to drink His cup, millions of vain repetitions will never pour into
prayer the unction of Spirit, in demonstration of power, and “with signs
following.” Christian Science reveals a necessity for overcoming the
world, the flesh and evil, and thus destroying all error.
Seeking is not sufficient. It is striving which enables us to enter.
Spiritual attainments open the door to a higher understanding of the
divine Life.
One of the forms of worship in Thibet is to carry a praying-machine
through the streets, and stop at the doors to earn a penny by grinding
out a prayer; whereas civilization pays for clerical prayers, in lofty
edifices. Is the difference very great, after all?
Experience teaches us that we do not always receive the blessings we ask
for in prayer.
There is some misapprehension of the source and means of all goodness
and blessedness, or we should certainly receive what we ask for. The
Scriptures say: “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye
may consume it upon your lusts.” What we desire and ask for it is not
always best for us to receive. In this case infinite Love will not grant
the request. Do you ask Wisdom to be merciful and not punish sin? Then
“ye ask amiss.” Without punishment, sin would multiply. Jesus' prayer,
“forgive us our debts,” specified also the terms of forgiveness. When
forgiving the adulterous woman He said, “Go, and sin no more.”
A magistrate sometimes remits the penalty, but this may be no moral
benefit to the criminal; and at best, it only saves him from one form
of punishment. The moral law, which has the right to acquit or condemn,
always demands restitution, before mortals can “go up higher.” Broken
law brings penalty, in order to compel this progress.
Mere legal pardon (and there is no other, for divine Principle never
pardons our sins or mistakes till they are corrected) leaves the
offender free to repeat the offense; if, indeed, he has not already
suffered sufficiently from vice to make him turn from it with loathing.
Truth bestows no pardon upon error, but wipes it out in the most
effectual manner. Jesus suffered for our sins, not to annul the divine
sentence against an individual's sin, but to show that sin must bring
inevitable suffering.
Petitions only bring to mortals the results of their own faith. We know
that a desire for holiness is requisite in order to gain it; but if we
desire holiness above all else, we shall sacrifice everything for it.
We must be willing to do this, that we may walk securely in the only
practical road to holiness. Prayer alone cannot change the unalterable
Truth, or give us an understanding of it; but prayer coupled with a
fervent habitual desire to know and do the will of God will bring us
into all Truth. Such a desire has little need of audible expression. It
is best expressed in thought and life.
APPENDIX E
Reverend Heber Newton on Christian Science:
To begin, then, at the beginning, Christian Science accepts the work
of healing sickness as an integral part of the discipleship of Jesus
Christ. In Christ it finds, what the Church has always recognized,
theoretically, though it has practically ignored the fact--the Great
Physician. That Christ healed the sick, we none of us question. It
stands plainly upon the record. This ministry of healing was too large
a part of His work to be left out from any picture of that life. Such
service was not an incident of His career--it was an essential
element of that career. It was an integral factor in His mission. The
Evangelists leave us no possibility of confusion on this point. Co-equal
with his work of instruction and inspiration was His work of healing.
The records make it equally clear that the Master laid His charge upon
His disciples to do as He had done. “When He had called unto Him His
twelve disciples, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them
out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.” In
sending them forth, “He commanded them, saying,... As ye go, preach,
saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the
lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons.”
That the twelve disciples undertook to do the Master's work of healing,
and that they, in their measure, succeeded, seems beyond question. They
found in themselves the same power that the Master found in Himself,
and they used it as He had used His power. The record of The Acts of the
Apostles, if at all trustworthy history, shows that they, too, healed
the sick.
Beyond the circle of the original twelve, it is equally clear that the
early disciples believed themselves charged with the same mission, and
that they sought to fulfil it. The records of the early Church make it
indisputable that powers of healing were recognized as among the gifts
of the Spirit. St. Paul's letters render it certain that these gifts
were not a privilege of the original twelve, merely, but that they were
the heritage into which all the disciples entered.
Beyond the era of the primitive Church, through several generations, the
early Christians felt themselves called to the same ministry of healing,
and enabled with the same secret of power. Through wellnigh three
centuries, the gifts of healing appear to have been, more or less,
recognized and exercised in the Church. Through those generations,
however, there was a gradual disuse of this power, following upon a
failing recognition of its possession. That which was originally the
rule became the exception. By degrees, the sense of authority and power
to heal passed out from the consciousness of the Church. It ceased to be
a sign of the indwelling Spirit. For fifteen centuries, the recognition
of this authority and power has been altogether exceptional. Here and
there, through the history of these centuries, there have been those who
have entered into this belief of their own privilege and duty, and have
used the gift which they recognized. The Church has never been left
without a line of witnesses to this aspect of the discipleship of
Christ. But she has come to accept it as the normal order of things that
what was once the rule in the Christian Church should be now only
the exception. Orthodoxy has framed a theory of the words of Jesus to
account for this strange departure of His Church from them. It teaches
us to believe that His example was not meant to be followed, in this
respect, by all His disciples. The power of healing which was in Him
was a purely exceptional power. It was used as an evidence of His divine
mission. It was a miraculous gift. The gift of working miracles was not
bestowed upon His Church at large. His original disciples, the twelve
apostles, received this gift, as a necessity of the critical epoch of
Christianity--the founding of the Church. Traces of the power lingered
on, in weakening activity, until they gradually ceased, and the normal
condition of the Church was entered upon, in which miracles are no
longer possible.
We accept this, unconsciously, as the true state of things in
Christianity. But it is a conception which will not bear a moment's
examination. There is not the slightest suggestion upon record that
Christ set any limit to this charge which He gave His disciples. On the
contrary, there are not lacking hints that He looked for the possession
and exercise of this power wherever His spirit breathed in men.
Even if the concluding paragraph of St. Mark's Gospel were a later
appendix, it may none the less have been a faithful echo of words of
the Master, as it certainly is a trustworthy record of the belief of the
early Christians as to the thought of Jesus concerning His followers.
In that interesting passage, Jesus, after His death, appeared to the
eleven, and formally commissioned them, again, to take up His work in
the world; bidding them, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel
to every creature.” “And these signs,” He tells them, “shall follow them
that believe”--not the apostles only, but “them that believe,” without
limit of time; “in My name they shall cast out devils... they shall lay
hands on the sick and they shall recover.” The concluding discourse to
the disciples, recorded in the Gospel according to St. John, affirms the
same expectation on the part of Jesus; emphasizing it in His solemn way:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works that
I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.”
APPENDIX F
Few will deny that an intelligence apart from man formed and governs the
spiritual universe and man; and this intelligence is the eternal
Mind, and neither matter nor man created this intelligence and divine
Principle; nor can this Principle produce aught unlike itself. All that
we term sin, sickness, and death is comprised in the belief of matter.
The realm of the real is spiritual; the opposite of Spirit is matter;
and the opposite of the real is unreal or material. Matter is an error
of statement, for there is no matter. This error of premises leads to
error of conclusion in every statement of matter as a basis. Nothing
we can say or believe regarding matter is true, except that matter is
unreal, simply a belief that has its beginning and ending.
The conservative firm called matter and mind God never formed. The
unerring and eternal Mind destroys this imaginary copartnership,
formed only to be dissolved in a manner and at a period unknown. This
copartnership is obsolete. Placed under the microscope of metaphysics
matter disappears. Only by understanding there are not two, matter
and mind, is a logical and correct conclusion obtained by either one.
Science gathers not grapes of thorns or figs of thistles. Intelligence
never produced non-intelligence, such as matter: the immortal never
produced mortality, good never resulted in evil. The science of Mind
shows conclusively that matter is a myth. Metaphysics are above physics,
and drag not matter, or what is termed that, into one of its premises
or conclusions. Metaphysics resolves things into thoughts, and exchanges
the objects of sense for the ideas of Soul. These ideas are perfectly
tangible and real to consciousness, and they have this advantage--they
are eternal. Mind and its thoughts comprise the whole of God, the
universe, and of man. Reason and revelation coincide with this
statement, and support its proof every hour, for nothing is harmonious
or eternal that is not spiritual: the realization of this will bring
out objects from a higher source of thought; hence more beautiful and
immortal.
The fact of spiritualization produces results in striking contrast to
the farce of materialization: the one produces the results of chastity
and purity, the other the downward tendencies and earthward gravitation
of sensualism and impurity.
The exalting and healing effects of metaphysics show their fountain.
Nothing in pathology has exceeded the application of metaphysics.
Through mind alone we have prevented disease and preserved health. In
cases of chronic and acute diseases, in their severest forms, we have
changed the secretions, renewed structure, and restored health; have
elongated shortened limbs, relaxed rigid muscles, made cicatrized joints
supple; restored carious bones to healthy conditions, renewed that
which is termed the lost substance of the lungs; and restored healthy
organizations where disease was organic instead of functional.
MRS. EDDY IN ERROR
I feel almost sure that Mrs. Eddy's inspiration--works are getting out
of repair. I think so because they made some errors in a statement which
she uttered through the press on the 17th of January. Not large ones,
perhaps, still it is a friend's duty to straighten such things out and
get them right when he can. Therefore I will put my other duties aside
for a moment and undertake this helpful service. She said as follows:
“In view of the circulation of certain criticisms from the pen of Mark
Twain, I submit the following statement:
“It is a fact, well understood, that I begged the students who first
gave me the endearing appellative 'mother' not to name me thus. But,
without my consent, that word spread like wildfire. I still must think
the name is not applicable to me. I stand in relation to this century as
a Christian discoverer, founder, and leader. I regard self-deification
as blasphemous; I may be more loved, but I am less lauded, pampered,
provided for, and cheered than others before me--and wherefore? Because
Christian Science is not yet popular, and I refuse adulation.
“My visit to the Mother-Church after it was built and dedicated pleased
me, and the situation was satisfactory. The dear members wanted to greet
me with escort and the ringing of bells, but I declined, and went alone
in my carriage to the church, entered it, and knelt in thanks upon the
steps of its altar. There the foresplendor of the beginnings of truth
fell mysteriously upon my spirit. I believe in one Christ, teach one
Christ, know of but one Christ. I believe in but one incarnation, one
Mother Mary, and know I am not that one, and never claimed to be. It
suffices me to learn the Science of the Scriptures relative to this
subject.
“Christian Scientists have no quarrel with Protestants, Catholics,
or any other sect. They need to be understood as following the divine
Principle God, Love and not imagined to be unscientific worshippers of a
human being.
“In the aforesaid article, of which I have seen only extracts, Mark
Twain's wit was not wasted In certain directions. Christian Science
eschews divine rights in human beings. If the individual governed human
consciousness, my statement of Christian Science would be disproved, but
to understand the spiritual idea is essential to demonstrate Science
and its pure monotheism--one God, one Christ, no idolatry, no human
propaganda. Jesus taught and proved that what feeds a few feeds all. His
life-work subordinated the material to the spiritual, and He left
this legacy of truth to mankind. His metaphysics is not the sport of
philosophy, religion, or Science; rather it is the pith and finale of
them all.
“I have not the inspiration or aspiration to be a first or second
Virgin-Mother--her duplicate, antecedent, or subsequent. What I am
remains to be proved by the good I do. We need much humility, wisdom,
and love to perform the functions of foreshadowing and foretasting
heaven within us. This glory is molten in the furnace of affliction.”
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.
In his opening Address to that Convention of 1890, the President
recognized this Mary--our Mary-and abolished all previous ones. He said:
“There is but one Moses, one Jesus; and there is but one Mary.”
The confusions being now dispersed, we have this clarified result:
There had been a Moses at one time, and only one; there had been a Jesus
at one time, and only one; there is a Mary and “only one.” She is not a
Has Been, she is an Is--the “Author of Science and Health; and we cannot
ignore her.”
1. In 1890, there was but one Mother Mary. The President said so. 2.
Mrs. Eddy was that one. She said so, in signing the telegram. 3. Mrs.
Eddy was not that one for she says so, in her Associated Press utterance
of January 17th. 4. And has “never claimed to be that one”--unless the
signature to the telegram is a claim.
Thus it stands proven and established that she is that Mary and isn't,
and thought she was and knows she wasn't. That much is clear.
She is also “The Mother,” by the election of 1895, and did not want the
title, and thinks it is not applicable to her, and will excommunicate
any one that tries to take it away from her. So that is clear.
I think that the only really troublesome confusion connected with these
particular matters has arisen from the name Mary. Much vexation, much
misunderstanding, could have been avoided if Mrs. Eddy had used some of
her other names in place of that one. “Mother Mary” was certain to stir
up discussion. It would have been much better if she had signed
the telegram “Mother Baker”; then there would have been no Biblical
competition, and, of course, that is a thing to avoid. But it is not too
late, yet.
I wish to break in here with a parenthesis, and then take up this
examination of Mrs. Eddy's Claim of January 17th again.
The history of her “Mother Mary” telegram--as told to me by one who
ought to be a very good authority--is curious and interesting. The
telegram ostensibly quotes verse 53 from the “Magnificat,” but really
makes some pretty formidable changes in it. This is St. Luke's version:
“He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He hath sent
empty away.”
This is “Mother Mary's” telegraphed version:
“He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the sick hath He not
sent empty away.”
To judge by the Official Report, the bursting of this bombshell in that
massed convention of trained Christians created no astonishment, since
it caused no remark, and the business of the convention went tranquilly
on, thereafter, as if nothing had happened.
Did those people detect those changes? We cannot know. I think they must
have noticed them, the wording of St. Luke's verse being as familiar to
all Christians as is the wording of the Beatitudes; and I think that the
reason the new version provoked no surprise and no comment was, that the
assemblage took it for a “Key”--a spiritualized explanation of verse 53,
newly sent down from heaven through Mrs. Eddy. For all Scientists study
their Bibles diligently, and they know their Magnificat. I believe that
their confidence in the authenticity of Mrs. Eddy's inspirations is so
limitless and so firmly established that no change, however violent,
which she might make in a Bible text could disturb their composure or
provoke from them a protest.
Her improved rendition of verse 53 went into the convention's report and
appeared in a New York paper the next day. The (at that time) Scientist
whom I mentioned a minute ago, and who had not been present at the
convention, saw it and marvelled; marvelled and was indignant--indignant
with the printer or the telegrapher, for making so careless and so
dreadful an error. And greatly distressed, too; for, of course, the
newspaper people would fall foul of it, and be sarcastic, and make fun
of it, and have a blithe time over it, and be properly thankful for the
chance. It shows how innocent he was; it shows that he did not know the
limitations of newspaper men in the matter of Biblical knowledge. The
new verse 53 raised no insurrection in the press; in fact, it was not
even remarked upon; I could have told him the boys would not know there
was anything the matter with it. I have been a newspaper man myself, and
in those days I had my limitations like the others.
The Scientist hastened to Concord and told Mrs. Eddy what a disastrous
mistake had been made, but he found to his bewilderment that she was
tranquil about it, and was not proposing to correct it. He was not able
to get her to promise to make a correction. He asked her secretary if
he had heard aright when the telegram was dictated to him; the secretary
said he had, and took the filed copy of it and verified its authenticity
by comparing it with the stenographic notes.
Mrs. Eddy did make the correction, two months later, in her official
organ. It attracted no attention among the Scientists; and, naturally,
none elsewhere, for that periodical's circulation was practically
confined to disciples of the cult.
That is the tale as it was told to me by an ex-Scientist. Verse
53--renovated and spiritualized--had a narrow escape from a tremendous
celebrity. The newspaper men would have made it as famous as the
assassination of Caesar, but for their limitations.
To return to the Claim. I find myself greatly embarrassed by Mrs. Eddy's
remark: “I regard self-deification as blasphemous.” If she is right
about that, I have written a half-ream of manuscript this past week
which I must not print, either in the book which I am writing, or
elsewhere: for it goes into that very matter with extensive elaboration,
citing, in detail, words and acts of Mrs. Eddy's which seem to me to
prove that she is a faithful and untiring worshipper of herself, and has
carried self-deification to a length which has not been before ventured
in ages. If ever. There is not room enough in this chapter for that
Survey, but I can epitomize a portion of it here.
With her own untaught and untrained mind, and without outside help,
she has erected upon a firm and lasting foundation the most minutely
perfect, and wonderful, and smoothly and exactly working, and best
safe-guarded system of government that has yet been devised in the
world, as I believe, and as I am sure I could prove if I had room for my
documentary evidences here.
It is a despotism (on this democratic soil); a sovereignty more absolute
than the Roman Papacy, more absolute than the Russian Czarship; it has
not a single power, not a shred of authority, legislative or executive,
which is not lodged solely in the sovereign; all its dreams, its
functions, its energies, have a single object, a single reason for
existing, and only the one--to build to the sky the glory of the
sovereign, and keep it bright to the end of time.
Mrs. Eddy is the sovereign; she devised that great place for herself,
she occupies that throne.
In 1895, she wrote a little primer, a little body of autocratic laws,
called the Manual of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and put
those laws in force, in permanence. Her government is all there; all
in that deceptively innocent-looking little book, that cunning little
devilish book, that slumbering little brown volcano, with hell in its
bowels. In that book she has planned out her system, and classified and
defined its purposes and powers.
MAIN PARTS OF THE MACHINE
A Supreme Church. At Boston. Branch Churches. All over the world One
Pastor for the whole of them: to wit, her book, Science and Health. Term
of the book's office--forever.
In every C.S. pulpit, two “Readers,” a man and a woman. No talkers,
no preachers, in any Church-readers only. Readers of the Bible and her
books--no others. No commentators allowed to write or print.
A Church Service. She has framed it--for all the C.S. Churches--selected
its readings, its prayers, and the hymns to be used, and has appointed
the order of procedure. No changes permitted.
A Creed. She wrote it. All C.S. Churches must subscribe to it. No other
permitted.
A Treasury. At Boston. She carries the key.
A C.S. Book--Publishing House. For books approved by her. No others
permitted.
Journals and Magazines. These are organs of hers, and are controlled by
her.
A College. For teaching C.S.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE MACHINE'S POWERS AND DIGNITIES
Supreme Church. Pastor Emeritus--Mrs. Eddy. Board of Directors. Board
of Education. Board of Finance. College Faculty. Various Committees.
Treasurer. Clerk. First Members (of the Supreme Church). Members of the
Supreme Church.
It looks fair, it looks real, but it is all a fiction.
Even the little “Pastor Emeritus” is a fiction. Instead of being merely
an honorary and ornamental official, Mrs. Eddy is the only official in
the entire body that has the slightest power. In her Manual, she has
provided a prodigality of ways and forms whereby she can rid herself of
any functionary in the government whenever she wants to. The officials
are all shadows, save herself; she is the only reality. She allows no
one to hold office more than a year--no one gets a chance to become
over-popular or over-useful, and dangerous. “Excommunication” is the
favorite penalty-it is threatened at every turn. It is evidently the pet
dread and terror of the Church's membership.
The member who thinks, without getting his thought from Mrs. Eddy before
uttering it, is banished permanently. One or two kinds of sinners can
plead their way back into the fold, but this one, never. To think--in
the Supreme Church--is the New Unpardonable Sin.
To nearly every severe and fierce rule, Mrs. Eddy adds this rivet: “This
By-law shall not be changed without the consent of the Pastor Emeritus.”
Mrs. Eddy is the entire Supreme Church, in her own person, in the matter
of powers and authorities.
Although she has provided so many ways of getting rid of unsatisfactory
members and officials, she was still afraid she might have left a
life-preserver lying around somewhere, therefore she devised a rule to
cover that defect. By applying it, she can excommunicate (and this is
perpetual again) every functionary connected with the Supreme Church,
and every one of the twenty-five thousand members of that Church, at an
hour's notice--and do it all by herself without anybody's help.
By authority of this astonishing By-law, she has only to say a
person connected with that Church is secretly practicing hypnotism or
mesmerism; whereupon, immediate excommunication, without a hearing,
is his portion! She does not have to order a trial and produce
evidence--her accusation is all that is necessary.
Where is the Pope? and where the Czar? As the ballad says:
“Ask of the winds that far away
With fragments strewed the sea!”
The Branch Church's pulpit is occupied by two “Readers.” Without them
the Branch Church is as dead as if its throat had been cut. To have
control, then, of the Readers, is to have control of the Branch
Churches. Mrs. Eddy has that control--a control wholly without limit, a
control shared with no one.
1. No Reader can be appointed to any Church in the Christian Science
world without her express approval.
2. She can summarily expel from his or her place any Reader, at home or
abroad, by a mere letter of dismissal, over her signature, and without
furnishing any reason for it, to either the congregation or the Reader.
Thus she has as absolute control over all Branch Churches as she has
over the Supreme Church. This power exceeds the Pope's.
In simple truth, she is the only absolute sovereign in all Christendom.
The authority of the other sovereigns has limits, hers has none, none
whatever. And her yoke does not fret, does not offend. Many of the
subjects of the other monarchs feel their yoke, and are restive under
it; their loyalty is insincere. It is not so with this one's human
property; their loyalty is genuine, earnest, sincere, enthusiastic.
The sentiment which they feel for her is one which goes out in sheer
perfection to no other occupant of a throne; for it is love, pure from
doubt, envy, exaction, fault-seeking, a love whose sun has no
spot--that form of love, strong, great, uplifting, limitless, whose vast
proportions are compassable by no word but one, the prodigious word,
Worship. And it is not as a human being that her subjects worship her,
but as a supernatural one, a divine one, one who has comradeship with
God, and speaks by His voice.
Mrs. Eddy has herself created all these personal grandeurs and
autocracies--with others which I have not (in this article) mentioned.
They place her upon an Alpine solitude and supremacy of power and
spectacular show not hitherto attained by any other self-seeking
enslaver disguised in the Christian name, and they persuade me that,
although she may regard “self-deification as blasphemous,” she is as
fond of it as I am of pie.
She knows about “Our Mother's Room” in the Supreme Church in
Boston--above referred to--for she has been in it. In a recently
published North American Review article, I quoted a lady as saying Mrs.
Eddy's portrait could be seen there in a shrine, lit by always-burning
lights, and that C.S. disciples came and worshiped it. That remark hurt
the feelings of more than one Scientist. They said it was not true, and
asked me to correct it. I comply with pleasure. Whether the portrait was
there four years ago or not, it is not there now, for I have
inquired. The only object in the shrine now, and lit by electrics--and
worshiped--is an oil-portrait of the horse-hair chair Mrs. Eddy used
to sit in when she was writing Science and Health! It seems to me that
adulation has struck bottom, here.
Mrs. Eddy knows about that. She has been there, she has seen it, she has
seen the worshippers. She could abolish that sarcasm with a word. She
withholds the word. Once more I seem to recognize in her exactly the
same appetite for self-deification that I have for pie. We seem to be
curiously alike; for the love of self-deification is really only the
spiritual form of the material appetite for pie, and nothing could be
more strikingly Christian-Scientifically “harmonious.”
I note this phrase:
“Christian Science eschews divine rights in human beings.”
“Rights” is vague; I do not know what it means there. Mrs. Eddy is not
well acquainted with the English language, and she is seldom able to say
in it what she is trying to say. She has no ear for the exact word, and
does not often get it. “Rights.” Does it mean “honors?” “attributes?”
“Eschews.” This is another umbrella where there should be a torch; it
does not illumine the sentence, it only deepens the shadows. Does she
mean “denies?” “refuses?” “forbids?” or something in that line? Does she
mean:
“Christian Science denies divine honors to human beings?” Or:
“Christian Science refuses to recognize divine attributes in human
beings?” Or:
“Christian Science forbids the worship of human beings?”
The bulk of the succeeding sentence is to me a tunnel, but, when I
emerge at this end of it, I seem to come into daylight. Then I seem to
understand both sentences--with this result:
“Christian Science recognizes but one God, forbids the worship of human
beings, and refuses to recognize the possession of divine attributes by
any member of the race.”
I am subject to correction, but I think that that is about what Mrs.
Eddy was intending to convey. Has her English--which is always difficult
to me--beguiled me into misunderstanding the following remark, which she
makes (calling herself “we,” after an old regal fashion of hers) in her
preface to her Miscellaneous Writings?
“While we entertain decided views as to the best method for elevating
the race physically, morally, and spiritually, and shall express these
views as duty demands, we shall claim no especial gift from our divine
organ, no supernatural power.”
Was she meaning to say:
“Although I am of divine origin and gifted with supernatural power, I
shall not draw upon these resources in determining the best method of
elevating the race?”
If she had left out the word “our,” she might then seem to say:
“I claim no especial or unusual degree of divine origin--”
Which is awkward--most awkward; for one either has a divine origin or
hasn't; shares in it, degrees of it, are surely impossible. The idea of
crossed breeds in cattle is a thing we can entertain, for we are used to
it, and it is possible; but the idea of a divine mongrel is unthinkable.
Well, then, what does she mean? I am sure I do not know, for certain. It
is the word “our” that makes all the trouble. With the “our” in, she is
plainly saying “my divine origin.” The word “from” seems to be intended
to mean “on account of.” It has to mean that or nothing, if “our” is
allowed to stay. The clause then says:
“I shall claim no especial gift on account of my divine origin.”
And I think that the full sentence was intended to mean what I have
already suggested:
“Although I am of divine origin, and gifted with supernatural power, I
shall not draw upon these resources in determining the best method of
elevating the race.”
When Mrs. Eddy copyrighted that Preface seven years ago, she had long
been used to regarding herself as a divine personage. I quote from Mr.
F. W. Peabody's book:
“In the Christian Science Journal for April, 1889, when it was her
property, and published by her, it was claimed for her, and with her
sanction, that she was equal with Jesus, and elaborate effort was made
to establish the claim.”
“Mrs. Eddy has distinctly authorized the claim in her behalf, that she
herself was the chosen successor to and equal of Jesus.”
The following remark in that April number, quoted by Mr. Peabody,
indicates that her claim had been previously made, and had excited
“horror” among some “good people”:
“Now, a word about the horror many good people have of our making the
Author of Science and Health 'equal with Jesus.'”
Surely, if it had excited horror in Mrs. Eddy also, she would have
published a disclaimer. She owned the paper; she could say what she
pleased in its columns. Instead of rebuking her editor, she lets him
rebuke those “good people” for objecting to the claim.
These things seem to throw light upon those words, “our [my] divine
origin.”
It may be that “Christian Science eschews divine rights in human
beings,” and forbids worship of any but “one God, one Christ”; but, if
that is the case, it looks as if Mrs. Eddy is a very unsound Christian
Scientist, and needs disciplining. I believe she has a serious
malady--“self-deification”; and that it will be well to have one of the
experts demonstrate over it.
Meantime, let her go on living--for my sake. Closely examined,
painstakingly studied, she is easily the most interesting person on the
planet, and, in several ways, as easily the most extraordinary woman
that was ever born upon it.
P.S.--Since I wrote the foregoing, Mr. McCrackan's article appeared
(in the March number of the North American Review). Before his article
appeared--that is to say, during December, January, and February--I had
written a new book, a character-portrait of Mrs. Eddy, drawn from her
own acts and words, and it was then--together with the three brief
articles previously published in the North American Review--ready to
be delivered to the printer for issue in book form. In that book, by
accident and good luck, I have answered the objections made by Mr.
McCrackan to my views, and therefore do not need to add an answer here.
Also, in it I have corrected certain misstatements of mine which he has
noticed, and several others which he has not referred to. There are
one or two important matters of opinion upon which he and I are not
in disagreement; but there are others upon which we must continue to
disagree, I suppose; indeed, I know we must; for instance, he believes
Mrs. Eddy wrote Science and Health, whereas I am quite sure I can
convince a person unhampered by predilections that she did not.
As concerns one considerable matter I hope to convert him. He believes
Mrs. Eddy's word; in his article he cites her as a witness, and takes
her testimony at par; but if he will make an excursion through my book
when it comes out, and will dispassionately examine her testimonies as
there accumulated, I think he will in candor concede that she is by a
large percentage the most erratic and contradictory and untrustworthy
witness that has occupied the stand since the days of the lamented
Ananias.
CONCLUSION
Broadly speaking, the hostiles reject and repudiate all the pretensions
of Christian Science Christianity. They affirm that it has added nothing
new to Christianity; that it can do nothing that Christianity could not
do and was not doing before Christian Science was born.
In that case is there no field for the new Christianity, no opportunity
for usefulness, precious usefulness, great and distinguished usefulness?
I think there is. I am far from being confident that it can fill it,
but I will indicate that unoccupied field--without charge--and if it can
conquer it, it will deserve the praise and gratitude of the Christian
world, and will get it, I am sure.
The present Christianity makes an excellent private Christian, but its
endeavors to make an excellent public one go for nothing, substantially.
This is an honest nation--in private life. The American Christian is a
straight and clean and honest man, and in his private commerce with his
fellows can be trusted to stand faithfully by the principles of honor
and honesty imposed upon him by his religion. But the moment he comes
forward to exercise a public trust he can be confidently counted upon
to betray that trust in nine cases out of ten, if “party loyalty” shall
require it.
If there are two tickets in the field in his city, one composed of
honest men and the other of notorious blatherskites and criminals, he
will not hesitate to lay his private Christian honor aside and vote for
the blatherskites if his “party honor” shall exact it. His Christianity
is of no use to him and has no influence upon him when he is acting in
a public capacity. He has sound and sturdy private morals, but he has no
public ones. In the last great municipal election in New York, almost
a complete one-half of the votes representing 3,500,000 Christians were
cast for a ticket that had hardly a man on it whose earned and proper
place was outside of a jail. But that vote was present at church next
Sunday the same as ever, and as unconscious of its perfidy as if nothing
had happened.
Our Congresses consist of Christians. In their private life they are
true to every obligation of honor; yet in every session they violate
them all, and do it without shame; because honor to party is above honor
to themselves. It is an accepted law of public life that in it a man
may soil his honor in the interest of party expediency--must do it when
party expediency requires it. In private life those men would bitterly
resent--and justly--any insinuation that it would not be safe to leave
unwatched money within their reach; yet you could not wound their
feelings by reminding them that every time they vote ten dollars to the
pension appropriation nine of it is stolen money and they the marauders.
They have filched the money to take care of the party; they believe it
was right to do it; they do not see how their private honor is affected;
therefore their consciences are clear and at rest. By vote they do
wrongful things every day, in the party interest, which they could not
be persuaded to do in private life. In the interest of party expediency
they give solemn pledges, they make solemn compacts; in the interest
of party expediency they repudiate them without a blush. They would not
dream of committing these strange crimes in private life.
Now then, can Christian Science introduce the Congressional Blush? There
are Christian Private Morals, but there are no Christian Public Morals,
at the polls, or in Congress or anywhere else--except here and there
and scattered around like lost comets in the solar system. Can Christian
Science persuade the nation and Congress to throw away their public
morals and use none but their private ones henceforth in all their
activities, both public and private?
I do not think so; but no matter about me: there is the field--a grand
one, a splendid one, a sublime one, and absolutely unoccupied. Has
Christian Science confidence enough in itself to undertake to enter in
and try to possess it?
Make the effort, Christian Science; it is a most noble cause, and it
might succeed. It could succeed. Then we should have a new literature,
with romances entitled, How To Be an Honest Congressman Though a
Christian; How To Be a Creditable Citizen Though a Christian.
End of Project Gutenberg's Christian Science, by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)