[See page image]

Page 294

ances as these are out of harmony with all that teaching of the Scriptures which represent the Eternal God as manifesting himself as Father, Son, and Spirit (Matt. xxviii. 19; I Cor. xii. 4-8; II Cor. xiii. 14; I Pet. i. 2, etc.).

The position of Christina Science concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ radically differs from that generally accepted. To begin with, Christian Science teaches that " Mary's conception of him

(Jesus Christ) was spiritual " (Science 3. Chris- aced Health, 103d ed., p. 228). This is

mination of Mary's spiritual sense put to silence material law, and its order of generation, and brought forth her child by the revelation of Truth, demonstrating God (Principle) as the Father of men " (103d ed., p. 334). There is need to observe closely this claim of Christian Science. It claims to be the Holy Spirit, and as such to be the generating cause of Jesus. But if of Jesus, why not of other children? Mrs. Eddy meets the question by the statement: " The time cometh when the spiritual origin of man, the Science which ushered Jesus into human presence, will be understood and demonstrated "; but " until it is learned that generation rests on no sexual basis," Mrs. Eddy advises, " let marriage continue " (103d ed., p. 274). Of the existence of this tenet of Christian Science multitudes of the adherents of the system have no knowledge. But it is a fundamental element in the structure of the whole system and is essentially immoral. No accusation of immoral practise is brought against Christian Scientists, yet the accusation of immorality must be laid against this teaching of Christian Science. Though it is an absurd and preposterous teaching and might conceivably be laughed out of court, still it can not be merely laughed at as teaching what is subversive of the marriage relation. In her Miscellaneous Writings (p. 288) Mrs. Eddy asks the question, " Is marriage nearer right than celibacy? " and this is her answer: " Human knowledge indicates that it is, while science indicates that it is not."

In harmony with this notion concerning his conception Christian Science denies the actual incar nation of Christ, and so the reality of his person. Mary did not give birth to an actual body, but to a spiritual idea, an idea produced by her communion with the divine Principle. She gave birth to an ideal. But what Jesus said of himself is the opposite of this. He said: " A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have " (Luke xxiv. 39). In explanation of this utterance Mrs. Eddy says: " To accommodate himself to immature ideas of spiritual power-for spirituality was possessed only in a limited degree, even by his disciples-Jesus called the body, which by this power he raised from the grave, `flesh and bones'" (103d ed., p. 209). In the theory of Christian Science flesh is an illusion, therefore Christ did not come in the flesh. There is a verse in St. John which may well be quoted in this connection: " Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of anti-Christ,

whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world " (I John iv. 2-3).

Christian Science deals with Christ as a dual eaiateace, the seen and the unseen, the Jesus and the Christ. Jesus is a mortal belief which has disap-

peared (Science and Health, 1034 ed., 4. Doctrine p. 229). Christ is a principle, a apiri-

Science." According to this teaching the only Christ which humanity has to-day is Christian Science (103d ed., p. 293). That this is a legitimate inference from the teaching of Christian Science is sustained by the teaching in Science and Health that Christ is " Divine Science." Here is a sentence from that volume: " There is but one way to Heaven and harmony, and Christ, Divine Science, shows us that way." Another thing that sustains the inference that Christian Science is humanity's Christ, is the teaching that identifies the second coming of Christ with Christian Science (1034 ed., pp. 43, 293). Mrs. Eddy says, " The second appearance of Jesus is unquestionably the spiritual advent of the advancing idea of God in Christian Science " (103d ed., p. 126). Adherents of Christian Science may not accept this teaching, but they readily fall into the habit of attributing to Christian Science the blessings which they receive and their praise is all of Christian Science. The leaders encourage this and they are consistent in doing so, for in their teaching, if not in their convictions, Christian Science is the Christ present and operative in human life. The acceptance of the Christology of Christian Science, as it is presented in Science and Health, may be considered the moat effective way of destroying the soul's consciousness of the Christ of Christian thought and belief.

Denying personality to God and to Christ, Christian Science likewise denies personality to the Holy

Am " (103d ed., p. 152). Then, true to its idea of the impersonal deity, Christian Science teaches that " Life, Truth, and Love constitute the triune God, or triple divine principle. God the Father, Jesus the type of Sonship (not Sonship, only the type of sonship), and Divine Science, or the Holy Comforter " (103d ed., p. 227). It is here that Christian Science approaches the blasphemous by claiming to be the Holy Spirit. Mrs. Eddy very definitely says with reference to the Comforter whom Jesus promised, " This Comforter I understand to be Divine Science." The following quotations from Science and Health (1034 ed.) establish this fact of the identifying of Christian Science with the Holy Spirit. " It (Christian Science) is a divine utterance, the Comforter which leadeth into all Truth ' (p. 21). " John the Baptist prophesied the coming of the immaculate Jesus, and saw in those days the spiritual idea as the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Ghost-Divine Science " (p. 553). In the Glossary (p. 579) is this definition: " Holy