IT would perhaps be too much to say that Christian Science repudiates as Christians all who do not practise the teachings of “Science and Health.” But if it claims anything it is that it has grasped the divine method by which the Gospel works.
What, then, is the test of the truth of this wonderful method? The Bible? Oh, no; not at all. “Even the Scripture gave no direct interpretation of the scientific basis for demonstrating the spiritual principle of healing, until our heavenly Father saw fit, through the ‘Key to the Scriptures’ in ‘Science and Health,’ to unlock this mystery of godliness.” (“Retrospection and Introspection,” page 51.) What then? Reason? No! Your ability to understand Kant, or Hegel, or Spinoza, or Herbert Spencer, or Comte, or any other great philosopher, is no sign whatever of your power to test the truth of Christian Science by reason. Christian Science is not reasonable; it is “excruciatingly transcendental.” (“Science and Health,” page 306.)
We have not space to dwell on the difference between philosophy and transcendentalism; suffice it to give the description (definition is impossible) of its New England phase, as found in the Standard Dictionary. Any one that will spend a few minutes looking over the pages of “Science and Health,” and then read these words from the dictionary, will never have the slightest doubt what tree it was that went to seed and bore the fruit called Christian Science. Give attention: “The religio-philosophical teachings of the New England school represented by Emerson and others. It has been characterized by the absence of a formal system of thought and belief, a somewhat mystical phraseology, the exaltation of the spiritual in a general sense over the material, a tendency to synthesis of God, nature, and man [that is, toward Pantheism], the acceptance of all human manifestations as natural and not immoral, [compare the ‘no sin’ of Christian Science,] an apotheosis of nature, and a belief in the self-sufficiency of the individual and individual insight.” But what is the hub of this wheel? —This: “The doctrine that man has a knowledge of philosophic principles by an immediate beholding without process of reason or aid of experience.”
The Delusion of Mortal Mind.
As an example of this “excruciating transcendentalism” in Christian Science, let us hunt for the origin of that terrific delusion known as “mortal mind,” which “inverts the true likeness, and confers animal names and natures upon its own misconceptions [sin, sickness, death, etc.]. Ignorant of the origin and operations of mortal mind,—that is, of itself,—this mentality puts forth its own qualities, and then claims God as their author; albeit God is ignorant of the existence of both this mortal mentality and its claim, for the latter usurps the deific prerogatives, and is an attempted infringement on the Infinite.” Page 506.
What is its origin? How foolish you are! how lamentably unspiritual to ask such a question when there is no such thing as mortal mind! Doesn’t it say that God Himself is ignorant of both mortal mind and its claims? So you want to know something of which God is ignorant! Does not “Science and Health” declare in more places than one that “in reality there is no mortal mind,” that it is “merely nothing, claiming to be something”? Pages 283, 483, 583.
But, you may ask, how is it that this non-entity can be the cause of so much that seems a painful reality? Well, did you never have a bad dream? Was not that dream a mere illusion? Thus the mortal mind is a mere hallucination. But, a hallucination of what, or of whose mind? Of mortal mind, to be sure!
The Delusion of Sin.
Another delusion of Christian Science transcendentalism: sin. Whence came it? Of course it is another delusion, a false belief. “The belief of sin, which has grown terrible in strength and influence, is an unconscious error in the beginning,—an embryotic thought without motive.” Page 81.
But whose “embryotic thought” is it? Not God’s surely, for God can not have such unreal thoughts. It can not be of “mortal mind,” for “there is in reality no such thing as mortal mind.” Page 483. It can not be of the spiritual man, for God is the Mind of man. Page 198. If these transcendental aberrations be logic, the predicaments of Aristotle are nonsense.
The Test of Christian Science.
What then, is the test of Christian Science? Demonstration. Not logical demonstration, but by adopting its practise. If you want to know personally whether Christian Science be true, you can never,—according to its claims—prove its truth by examining it merely from the standpoint of reason. In other words you must dabble in it in order to prove it. Listen: “Christian Science reveals incontrovertibly that Mind is All-in-all, that the only realities are the divine Mind and idea.”
An “incontrovertible” demonstration ought surely to satisfy any one. But does this incontrovertible proof lie in the laws of logical reasoning or in the Bible? It does not. Whence, then, comes it? Here it is. “This great fact is not, however, seen to be supported by sensible evidence, until its principle is demonstrated by healing the sick, and thus proven absolute and divine.” Page 3. In other words you may be as pious as the Gospel will permit, but you never can tell whether you have the genuine article or not till you can heal the sick. That is to say, the Bible is not the basis of faith; Christian Science practise.
It is as plain as words need to make it, that you can not be a Christian Science healer until you repudiate the Bible—not in profession, of course, but in practise.
This claim of the necessity of participation in order to demonstration or undertaking is all the devil ever asked for: “God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened.” Gen. 3:55
This appears to be a very ancient trick of the enemy of souls. It is all the spider requires of the fly. All the trapper wishes is that the game put his paw into the trap. This is exactly what Mr. Sinnett demands of you, in the book from which we previously quoted, before you have anything to say about Theosophy. The claim of Theosophy and of Christian Science are identical in this: “You have no right to judge or criticize it until you understand it; you can never understand it until you practise it.” Page 291.
This reminds us of Spencer’s method of arriving at the proof of evolution: “Before it can be ascertained how organized beings have been gradually evolved, there must be reached the conviction that they have been gradually evolved.” That is, you must accept and believe it, before you prove it. Pray where is there a heresy under the sky that would not amen such a stroke of policy? Now, we wish to say right here that such methods may not be too transcendental to suit Theosophy, Spiritism, Christian Science, and science falsely so-called, but blind tampering with systems that have not first satisfied the reason, is not Christianity, neither is it science. Belief founded on reasonable evidence is faith. Blind belief is superstition, it matters not whether it be blind acceptance of the Koran or of Christianity.
The present writer for one does not believe that he must meddle with Hypnotism, Theosophy, and Christian Science, before he can judge of their truth. He, for one, is unable to believe that God gave him reason to be thrown to the dogs as soon as he begins to inquire what concerns his soul’s eternal welfare. Let us take the sensible course marked out in Holy Writ, “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isa. 1:18. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” 1 Thess. 5:21. It is true we can not know God save by experience. That is a Biblical fact. It is likewise true that He has given evidence about Himself sufficient that reason may know such knowledge to be desirable. Christianity is a reasonable system, from the evidences of God’s existence to the acceptance of Jesus as the propitiation for our sins. But Christian Science is unreasonable from start to finish. It is likewise unscientific and unchristian.
And now we have come to the very core of this precious teaching; there are just three prominent elements on which its life depends; the first is its mystical element which appeals to that fascination of the mysterious existent in every one, which begins in curiosity, as we pointed out in our first study, and ends, when controlled by reason, in scientific knowledge and a rational faith, but, when allowed to hold the reins itself, in some fanatical belief like Christian Science. The second vital element is its claim of healing disease. This we shall consider next week. Finally, no amount of equivocation can conceal the fact that if this doctrine be true, with its “no sin,” “no final judgment for mortals,” (page 187), “progress of purification, or evolution after death,” (pp. 147, 243, 187), and its theory of man generally, then no man is personally accountable to God. This appeals to the carnal heart in a manner no less subtle than powerful.
