[See page image]
Page 296
Science THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 286 scilli illusion." But Mrs. Eddy has difficulty in facing its historic reality and even at the cost of sacrificing consistency says: " Had wisdom characterized all the sayings of Jesus, he would not have prophesied his own death." In a paragraph on " Reconcilia tion " we read that " Jesus aided in reconciling man to God, only by giving man a truer sense of Love, the divine Principle of his teaching, which would redeem man from under the law of matter, by this explanation of the law of Spirit " (Science and Health, 103d ed., p. 324). Here we are taught not that Jesus reconciled man to God, but " aided in reconciling man to God," and that he did this " only by giving man a true sense of love." This certainly is not Pauline theology. " Reconciled to God by the death of his Son " (Rom. v. 10) ; " Rec onciled us to himself by Jesus Christ " (II Cor. v. 18); " Reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross " (Eph. ii. 16) ; " Having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; . . you that were some times alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death " (Col. i. 20-22). It is impossible to reconcile Paul's doctrine of the reconciliation with that of Christian Science. Paul presents reconciliation as fact accomplished by Christ through his death. Christian Science pre sents reconciliation as a process, in which Jesus aids by giving man a truer sense of Love. In a para graph on " Substitution " we read: " One sacrifice, however great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin. The atonement requires constant self-immolation on the sinner's part. That God's wrath should be vented upon his beloved Son is divinely unnatural. Such a theory is man-made. The atonement is a hard problem in theology; but its more reasonable explanation is, that suffering is an error of sinful sense, which Truth destroys, and that eventually both sin and suffering will fall at the feet of ever lasting love " (Science and Health, 103d ed., p. 328). The statements of this paragraph are quite out of harmony with statements in the Bible. " One sac rifice, however great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin," but the Bible says: " By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption " (Heb. ix. 12); " once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself " (Heb. ix. 26); " by the which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once " (Heb. x. 10); " this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever " (Heb. x. 12). " The atonement requires constant self-immolation on the sinner's part." Then atonement is not made by Christ for the sin ner, but by the sinner for himself. The Bible teaches that we do not atone for ourselves; that we " receive " the atonement, and that we receive it through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. v. 11). " That God's wrath should be vented upon his well beloved Son is divinely unnatural. Such a theory is man-made." Yet the Bible says that he was "smitten of God," that "the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," that " it pleased the Lord to bruise him " (Isa. hii. 4, 6, 10); and " God spared not his own son, but delivered him up for
us all " (Rom. viii. 32). In Christian Science there is no place for the atonement as generally understood by Christians. In this system salvation is not through a Savior sacrificing himself for man, but through an illumination of man's own mind. This is the way in which Christian Science defines salvation: " Explaining and demonstrating the way of Divine Science, he became the way of salvation to all who accepted his word, that mortals might learn of him and escape from evil. The true man being linked by Science to his Maker, mortals need only turn from sin, and lose sight of themselves, in order to find the real man and his relation to God, and recognize the divine sonahip " (Science and Health, 103d ed., p. 211). According to this the medium of salvation is not a Savior, but Christian Science. So it is definitely stated. " Christ is the idea of Truth, and this idea comes to heal sickness and sin, through Christian Science, which denies corporeal power " (p. 469). This denies in toto the idea of a personal Savior. Of course, in a system which denies the reality of sin, as moral evil, there can be no place for atonement. One asks, " What becomes of the atonement when suffering which was not suffering (only a `great illusion'), in a body which was not a body (only a `mortal belief '), was offered in expiation for sin which was not sin? "
As prayer is generally understood it has no place in Christian Science. Prayer implies that God is a personal conscious Being. Christian Science denies this, declares that God is princig. Doctrine pie and hence inhibits prayer. Mrs.
of Prayer. Eddy asks: " 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? That work was finished long ago; and we have only to avail our selves of God's rule, in order to receive the bless ing " (Science and Health, 103d ed., p. 308). She also asserts that " Prayer to a personal God is a hindrance, it is a misapprehension of the source and manner of all good." The Christian Scientist may declare that he believes in prayer, but if pressed for his definition of prayer, provided he be well versed in the doctrines of his system, he will state that " prayer is the affirmation of principle." " A request," writes Mrs. Eddy, " 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 " (p. 308). Prayer is de fined as " the habitual struggle to be always good " (p. 309). It is said that " the only beneficial effect of prayer for the sick is on the human mind, ma king it act more powerfully on the body, through a blind faith in God," and that " it is not Truth which does this " (p. 317), so Christian Science would eliminate all prayer for the sick, because the '` common custom of praying for the recovery of the sick, finds help in blind belief; whereas help should come from the enlightened understanding " (p. 318). The idea of prayer, presented in Christian Science, is quite opposite to the whole idea and