truth;”[1] “Error would fashion Deity in a manlike mold, while Truth is molding a Godlike man;”[2] “God is individual and personal in a scientific sense, but not in any anthropomorphic sense.”[3]
I do not find such general denials as these of the anthropomorphic character of God by the Neoplatonists, but I find denials to him of many specific human qualities, as we find in Christian Science, which I proceed to recount. And these are more valuable than general statements. But before doing so I give a sentence from Spinoza, who, like Mrs. Eddy, is set against all anthropomorphic conceptions of God. Like Mrs. Eddy's statements, it is general and sweeping. He says simply: God is “without any human qualities.”[4] It is natural to ask, how could Spinoza, who identifies man with God, that is eternal man, corresponding to Mrs. Eddy's immortal man, affirm that God is wholly unlike man? It is, I repeat, on account of the system. God is infinite and must not be thought of in any sense as finite. Mrs. Eddy has his standpoint exactly. Both are pantheists. Both identify man with God. Both teach that God is unlike man in every respect, though man is the image and likeness of God, and do so for the same reason, namely, to make secure their idol. Infinity, and both follow the Neoplatonists. If Mrs. Eddy teaches elsewhere any-
- ↑ S. and H. p. 269.
- ↑ No and Yes. p. 29.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 336f.
- ↑ Letter, 34.
