No one conversant with that class of minds for which allegorizing has a fascination, can possibly fail to classify Christian Science correctly. Neither is he at all likely to mistake it for inspired prophecy. Those who would like to trace its ancestry and kinship may begin with Philo Judæus, born about twenty-five years before Christ.
Judaism and Hellenism, so to speak, came into closest contact in this celebrated metropolis of Egypt [Alexandria], and in their spiritual and intellectual mingling produced what came to be known as Neo-Platonism. . . . The historical importance of his [Philo's] writings, as a conspicuous fountain-head of allegorical exegesis, justifies a fuller notice than their intrinsic merits deserve. . . . His great aim is to exhibit the mystic depths of significance which lie concealed beneath the sacred words. He would not have it supposed that the divine revelation is of easy apprehension by the common mind, for such a supposition would have seemed to him like a disparagement of its hidden labyrinths of divine knowledge, to explore which requires a kind of supernatural vision. . . . He shows not the least regard for the connection and scope of a passage, or for the integrity of Scripture as a trustworthy record of facts.
Accordingly, Philo takes up the book of Genesis, similarly to "Science and Health," and expands its "deep spirituality." If, in the foregoing extract concerning the style of Philo, we supply the words "mortal mind" instead of "common mind," we shall have an exact characterization of Christian Science, tho the author from whom the quotation is made is not treating of the latter at all. We have not space for an extended comparison of that ancient method of Biblical mystification with this its modern recrudescence; we can only indicate the line of investigation for those who wish to satisfy themselves concerning the antecedents of this religio-metaphysical hybrid.
History is simply repeating itself. This hanging of the philosopher's garb on the shoulders of mysticism and calling the dummy "religion," is an old, old trick of the devil to pervert the plain Scriptures. The outcome of this method may be seen by tracing its history down from Philo, the Jews, through Gnostic philosophy, Eclecticism, Neo-Platonism, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the other so-called "church fathers." Its result was the perversion of every important teaching of Scripture. In those days it ran into that elaborate system of self-salvation, known as Roman Catholicism; in these days into that much balder scheme of self-salvation that goes by the name of New Thought.
This New Thought doctrine "has differentiated itself from Christian Science," as previously quoted, in its aim to become more cosmopolitan by abandoning the religious guise. This has been facilitated by the fact that physical, or metaphysical, healing—the strong point in Christian Science—is as much within the power of the New Thought, without the religious adjunct, as it is in Christian Science with it. If there be any difference between these two, it is that one is the bone, the other the marrow.
The allegorizing and spiritualizing method may be followed in another phase of it down through the Theosophy of Ammonius Saccus to the veiled Spiritualism of the Neo-Platonists, thence on down to the Boehme, by way of Plotinus and Porphyry, to Emanuel Swedenborg, who gives us another inspired "key" to Scripture. This key-craft is thus found to be likewise an ancient practise. We shall endeavor later on to give the reader a brief review of the doctrines of Swedenborg. For aspirants along this line, we advise a comparison of Swedenborgianism and Christian Science.
But let not the seeker for truth think that all this is necessary in order to determine the Scriptural status of Christian Science. That is a much easier thing. These excursions in history will simply illustrate into what follies the mind of man will run when abandoned to this tendency. The Biblical standing of this system of speculation is tested by its first fundamental proposition. No one acquainted with his Bible needs to know a thing further about Christian Science than this one sentence and its interpretation in order to know for a certainty that its specious teaching is no part of divine truth. Summing up on this point, we have found,—
First, that Christian Science contradicts the Bible in the affirmation that God is all. It matters not what that term means; the most that Holy Writ asserts is, that sometime God will be all in all. By a study of the text in which this expression is used we learn that the difference between the scientists' idea and the scriptural one is just the difference between time and eternity—the difference between what is and what shall be. It must be evident to the most casual glance at the logic of this manner of theory-building, that if I can persuade myself that the conditions of some future heavenly state are those of the present, I can construct on that foundation some truly pleasing air-castles.
This is precisely what Christian Science does. There is not a jot or tittle of inspiration to support this hypothesis of science.
Second, this proposition is an unscriptural assumption of knowledge beyond what has been revealed. We must repeat here some sentiments expressed in our study of Pantheism, namely, God has not revealed the exact relation subsisting between Himself and the physical world. He has not revealed the secret of creation. He has not revealed the ultimate character of the substance we call matter. To say nothing of the ridiculousness of calling that science whose haughty presumption settles with a whiff of breath the whole question of idealism and realism, we are compelled for truth's sake to enquire from Scripture what is the source and motive of this dogmatic solution of unrevealed mysteries. We revert once more to the one hundred thirty-first psalm. Let us resort to catechetics:—
Question—How did David, the man "after God's own heart," profess his humility?
Answer—"Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty." Verse 1, first part.
Q.—How did he prove this?
A.—"Neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me." Verse 1, latter part.
Q.—What, then, is indicated by the unwarranted assumption of knowledge beyond what is revealed?
A.—The opposite of humility—pride.
Q.—What does God say concerning divine mysteries?
A.—"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God." Deut. 29 : 29, first clause.
Q.—What, therefore, do we do when we pretend to be masters of such secrets?
A.—We put ourselves in the place of God.
Q.—What is the result of a humble use of things revealed?
A.—"Those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Verse 29, last clause.
Q.—From this, what must we conclude is the unvarying result of being wise beyond what is written?
A.—The certainty of disobeying the law of God.
It matters not how facile Christian Science may be in juggling with "mortal mind" as a buffer to these plain statements of revealed truth, it is clearly unscriptural. Pride is multiform and deceitful. Many a hermit has been proud of the filthy tokens of his humility. Of all the forms of pride perhaps the most subtle is the pride of self-salvation. O, the endless schemes to save ourselves by money, muscle, or mind! Anything to avoid the stigma of being the utterly unworthy pensioners of God's free grace. Anything but the simple terms of the Gospel, "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner!" If eternal life could only be bought or earned, how we would toil and sweat! What infinite quibbles to state the divine terms just a little more to our fancy! Fallen? O no; we were thus created. Mortal? Never; we are naturally immortal. Vile sinners? Preposterous! man is the most dignified creature in the world—son of God. Christian Science is merely another attempt to obviate the "offense of the cross" by flattering the intellect with a more dignified philosophical gloss to a humiliating truth, combining an ambitious purpose to vindicate God from the charge of being the author of sin and evil. Miserable failures are they all.
In closing this article we shall consider the last thought. The notion that God is the cause of sin, sickness, evil, etc., is one of the phantoms that rise to haunt a brain steeped in the "first fundamental proposition" of Christian Science, that God is all in all. Being all in all in essence, authority, source, etc., it follows of necessity that He must be the source of sin, if sin be a reality like goodness.—"Science and Health," page 470.
At this ghost of its own conjuring, Science stands amazed. But the first fundamental proposition, scriptural or not, logical or not, must be maintained. This is done by denying the reality of evil. But all this is totally unnecessary. It is, however, one of innumerable illustrations that Christian Science doctrine is the product of both an exceedingly narrow logic and a very limited knowledge of the Bible. We shall state the true origin of evil and let the Bible itself vindicate its Author. We shall do this very briefly:—
"God is love." True love must have an object. Therefore the creation of angels and men. But perfect love finds truest pleasure only in voluntary reciprocation. Hence free will. But this involves the possibility that the free agent may refuse to love. This, without reason, actuated by pride, was exactly what5an exalted angel did, one that stood next to Christ in heaven. Eze. 28 : 2, 3, 12-17; Isa. 14 : 12-14; 2 Peter 2 : 4; Jude 6; Rev. 12 : 9. Did God plan this or cause it?—Never.
