We have seen that another unnecessary and unwarranted assumption of Christian Science lies in its position that if sin, sickness, and evil are realities, God must be to blame for them.
We do not believe that even a “Scientist” would think it justifiable if he were hanged because his “demonstrations” failed to hold his offspring in the way of righteousness; indeed it is deemed by him an act of bigoted persecution if, because of his neglect of proper medical assistance, his helpless babe is permitted to suffer and finally die. But since a babe racked with pain is simply a delusion, we are not at a loss to see how sympathy can be no part of this divine philosophy, tho it assumes to be Christian.
Altho a votary of this creed would seriously protest against shouldering the opprobrium of being the cause of his child’s disgraceful career or act, when for no other reason than that he is the child’s father, he is so accused; altho loudly denying that the sins of the children should be visited on the fathers in any such manner; when along with this he accepts as a vital plank in his religion that—“If sin, sickness, and death are as real as good, life, and truth, then they must all be from the same source, God being their author,” (“Science and Health,” p. 470, ed., 1900,)—we begin to marvel at his remarkable system of logic. But the whole thing is simplified on page 7. “The metaphysics of Christian Science . . . prove the rule by inversion. For example: there is no pain in truth, and no truth in pain,” etc. How pleasant thus to dispose of the toothache!
All men are animals; hence, all animals are men. Such reasoning is stunning. No! No! say they. You are a victim of unspirituality and of mortal mind. This is the explanation: In this realm of delusion there is an illusion that men are wont to call free will. This belief is a mortal error. Reasoning from this error, we conclude that the actions of the child can not be charged against the parent. But this is all false, for God never made free will. “Science and Health,” pp., 471, 476. “God, or Good, could never make man capable of sin.” Universalists ought to weep tears of joy for this exposition of the Scriptures: “It is the sense of sin which is lost, and not a sinful soul.” Page 477. Is this from a desperado in logic or a desperado in morals?
Man is a mere automaton with no more mind of his own than have the puppets in a Punch-and-Judy show. We credit the reader with discernment enough of his own to see without further comment, that such a vindication of God’s character insults too many of our rational institutions, besides reducing the Bible to nonsense. To expose fully all the false assumptions, fallacies in reasoning, misinterpretations of Scripture, scientific absurdities, and what not, in the text-book of Christian Science, would probably require a book not less in size than Webster’s unabridged dictionary. But we shall now indicate a few of the most glaring.
God.
1. God is all in all. Page 7. A pure assumption which is likewise directly contradicted by the Scriptures. 1 Cor. 15:28.
2. God has no personality in the sense that He is any more in one place than in another. Page 10. This vision of the Lord is quite different from that of an ancient prophet of God. Isaiah says, “I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple.” Isa. 6:1. We rather think this latter seer knew something more about it. This temple is a definite place as God is a definite Being. It is the sanctuary in heaven. Heb. 8:2, 3. There are plenty more texts on this point, if our dear Scientist friends really want to know the truth.
They proclaim (p. 493), “We take the Scriptures for our guide to eternal life.” We wish they would.
Man.
A strange nondescript, the infinite reflection of the infinite God, immortal, invisible, eternal, incomprehensible (p. 232), transcendental (p. 197), without mind of his own, no spirit of his own, no soul of his own, no free will of his own, no personality of his own. Poor man! Always has been (this reminds us of Plato and Origen); always will be, can not sin, never sick, could not possibly die.
And these, dear reader, are not our inferences; they are explicit statements of “Science and Health.” Well, we begin to understand what one Christian Science writer means when he says Christian Science “teaches the eternal reality of the one divine mind and the absolute nothingness of everything else.” If he should say the absolute dependency of everything else, we could come nearer to agreeing with him, for “by Him all things consist.” Col. 1:17. He upholds “all things by the word of His power.” Heb. 1:3. “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.” Acts 17:28.
We jot down a few of the teachings of Christian Science concerning man, for the sake of those who have no copy of “Science and Health.”
(a) “There is no finite soul or spirit.” Page 482. Hence, man’s soul or spirit is infinite. Again: “Soul is not corporeal; neither does it belong to a limited mind or limited body.” Page 230. Therefore man is as limitless in body as in soul. “Only by losing the false, finite sense of soul, can we gain the eternal unfolding of Life.”—Id. This approaches the teaching of the swamis.
(b) “Did he [man] originate in nothingness and dust?” Ans. “He was not created from a material basis.” Pages 202, 203. But the Word of God says (Gen. 2:7), “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”
Now notice the strains to which Christian Science is driven in order to maintain its heresy: “It is the false history, in contradistinction to the true.” Page 515. “Is this the truth? or is it a lie, concerning man and God? It must be the latter.” Page 517. “Let God be true, but every man a liar,” saith the Word. “Science and Health” certainly has extraordinary views concerning Biblical inspiration. We do not wonder that its author exclaims, when contemplating her own views,—“Erroneous belief reverses every position of understanding and Truth.” Page 537. We sincerely agree with her for once.
(c) “Man is incapable of sin, sickness, and death.” Page 471. This is one statement of perhaps five hundred of similar import.
We quote from the inspired oracles a text or two of perhaps a thousand of directly opposite import:—
“Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.” Matt. 1:21.
“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” 1 Tim. 1:15.
“By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Rom. 5:12.
So Paul must have been deluded by “mortal mind” when he wrote these words just quoted.
(d) Man has no mind, soul, spirit, will, or substance but God. As this is easily seen from the quotations concerning God and Pantheism made in our first article on this theme, it is unnecessary to give the passages in “Science and Health” that make this application. One will suffice, the others being but amplifications.
“God is supreme Being, the only Life, Substance, and Soul, the only Intelligence of the universe, including man.” Page 225. See also pp., 463, 471, 473.
This makes the “sacred discovery,” as the author of “Science and Health” terms it, (p. 479), so baldly pantheistic, especially when taken in connection with her other statements, namely, that man has eternally pre-existed, can not help but be immortal, is infinite, etc., etc., that, compelled to see the inevitable conclusion, following her peculiar mental trait of getting over a dilemma by denying it, she enters her usual repudiation of the predicament with a “Man is never God.” But the highly attenuated metaphysics necessary to make the distinction, is a “demonstration” of Science that would stagger a Jesuit. It is not surprising, however, that even the same authority should catch some scintillation of the irony of prayer, and be forced by her logic to admit that “petitioning a personal deity is a misapprehension of the source and means of all good and blessedness.” Logical for once.
Free Will.
“God, or Good, could never make men capable of sin.” Page 477; others to the same purpose. We should think the bones of John Calvin must rattle with delight at this iron-bound predestination. They would if “Science and Health” would charitably consign a few souls to inevitable perdition along with its compliments to Calvinism. If it be impossible for man to choose to do right or wrong, which he can not if he has no free will, we wonder what sense there is to this text:—
“And for this cause [because they received not the love of the truth, previous verse] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:11, 12.
“They hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord.” Prov. 1:29.
Joshua lacked spiritual understanding when he called to the people of Israel, “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.” Joshua 24:15. And the people were deluded enough to think they were choosing when they answered, “The Lord our God will we serve, and His voice will we obey.” Verse 24.
The fact is, if Christian Science be true, the Bible is not true. If the Bible is a book written so that the common mind can know the truth, then Christian Science is worse than nothing; it is delusive, soul-destroying error.