CHAPTER I.
THE PROBLEM AND THE PROOF.
One of the most remarkable movements of modern times is Christian Science. It claims hundreds of thousands of adherents. It has gone into many lands. It has made converts of the rich and the poor, the educated and the illiterate, of the mighty and the meek. When we note that it has accomplished this in the brief period of less than fifty years and consider the radical character of its teaching, affecting profoundly its followers religiously, medically, socially, and intellectually, we are the more ready to wonder at its rise and progress.
Christian Science is associated with the name of Mary Baker G. Eddy. She claims to be the discoverer and founder of it. And this claim is reiterated by all loyal Christian Scientists. No decrees issuing from the Vatican have found a more ready response from loyal subjects than the expressed will of Mrs. Eddy; and no Pope, it seems, has assumed such sublime right to give commandments to mankind.
I am concerned in this essay with only one thing, namely, Mrs. Eddy's claim to be the discoverer and founder of Christian Science. The ability of Mrs. Eddy can be and, I think, should be freely conceded. In fact she has proved herself to be a genius. Her moral character too has stood very well the fierce fires of criticism, though there are some things in her history and some qualities in her disposition that are not flattering. These matters, however, weigh nothing as concerns the question before us in this discussion, namely, the original source of the principles of Christian Science.
[1]Mrs. Eddy's claim expressed in her own
language is as follows. She says: “It was in
Massachusetts in February, 1866, and after the
death of the magnetic doctor, Mr. P. P. Quimby,
whom Spiritualists would associate therewith, but
who was in no wise connected with this event, that
I discovered the Science of divine Metaphysical
Healing, which I afterwards named Christian
Science. The discovery came to pass in this way.
During twenty years prior to my discovery I had
been trying to trace all physical effects to a mental
cause; and in the latter part of 1866 I gained the
scientific certainty that all causation was Mind,
and every effect a mental phenomenon.”[2]
Continuing to explain she says: "“I then withdrew
from society about three years, — to ponder my
mission, to search the Scriptures, to find the
Science of Mind, that should take the things of
God and show them to the creature and reveal
the great curative Principle, — Deity.”[3] Speaking again and in many places of this discovery,
she says: “In following these leadings of scientific
revelation, the Bible was my only textbook”;[4]
“No human pen nor tongue taught me the science
contained in this book”;[5] “I have found nothing in
ancient or modern systems on which to found my
own, except the teachings and demonstrations of
our great Master and the lives of prophets and
apostles. The Bible has been my only authority.
I have had no other guide in the straight and narrow
way of Truth”;[6] “Science is an emanation of
divine Mind, and is alone able to interpret God
aright. It has a spiritual and not a material
origin. It is a divine utterance”;[7] “He (Christ)
left no definite rule for demonstrating the
Principle of healing and preventing disease. This
rule remained to be discovered in Christian
Science”;[8] “The Scriptures 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”;[9] “The revelation of Truth in the
understanding came to me gradually and apparently
through divine power”;[10] “To one ‘born of
the flesh’, however, Divine Science must be a discovery. Woman must give it birth”;[11] “All
Science is a revelation.”[12] How Mrs. Eddy can
regard anything as being both a discovery and a
revelation will be explained under the discussion
of her psychology. Such terms are not inconsistent
for her. She uses the adverb, “apparently,”
not to express doubt but desirable modesty.
It is a daring claim that Mrs. Eddy makes and the way in which it is declared is most interesting. Nothing in all that Mrs. Eddy has written is so satisfactory and so unsatisfactory as this, so frank and so elusive. Read the statements carefully and see if they are not self-contradictory. What books or authorities was she studying during the twenty years before she discovered the principle of metaphysical healing, after which discovery she turned to the Scriptures? Since she confesses that Christ left no definite rule for demonstrating the principle of healing, how could the Bible be her only authority and “guide in the ‘straight and narrow way’ of Truth”? And if this “rule remained to be discovered in Christian Science”, which came to her as a divine revelation, has Christian Science a fundamental rule that was not taught by Christ? If so how can Christian Science be founded on “the teachings and demonstrations of our great Master and the lives of prophets and apostles”? Mrs. Eddy confesses that the “definite rule for demonstrating the Principle of healing and preventing disease” is not in the teachings of Christ, but is in Christian Science. Now this rule is a fundamental principle of Christian Science. It is the principle Mrs. Eddy claims to have discovered after twenty years of searching. “In following these leadings of scientific revelations,” she says, “the Bible was my only text-book.” But whence did she get “these leadings” in the following of which the Bible became her guide?
But I need not so soon anticipate the line of argument. Look again at the language of this remarkable claim and see that these three things are clearly affirmed.
1. That Mrs. Eddy is the discoverer and founder of Christian Science.
2. That the Bible was her authority for the system.
3. That she was not influenced by any other authorities.
I undertake in this essay to prove that Mrs. Eddy's claim in all three counts just specified is false. If I show that she was influenced by others fundamentally, so much as to do little more than to reproduce their system, then I disprove the third proposition and show that the first and main element of her claim, namely, that she is the discoverer and founder of Christian Science, has no truth in it. If I show that the principles of Christian Science are in a system that is not only non-Christian and pagan but anti-Christian, a system that was inspired by those who wanted to resist the spreading tide of Christianity, then I disprove the second point of her claim. Mrs. Eddy's language suggests her mental process and a plan of procedure for us in our investigation. She says that “in the latter part of 1866 I gained the scientific certainty that all causation was Mind and every effect a mental phenomenon.” This she claims was a great discovery, but it is no new doctrine. Armed with this theory and the many views logically connected with it in a philosophic system which Christian Science is little more than a reproduction of, Mrs. Eddy turned to the Bible and studied it three years. For what? To read this philosophy into it.
The prudence of Mrs. Eddy kept her from claiming that she found in the Bible the “scientific certainty that all causation was Mind and every effect a mental phenomenon”. This is that “definite rule” that was “discovered in Christian Science”. But what one may not get out of the Bible she may put into it. As a result we have “Key to the Scriptures”. If any one doubts Mrs. Eddy's genius let him study this specimen of verbal and mental gynmastics. If she had been equally gifted for physical feats, the moon would have been a plaything for her. It is amazing that any number of persons can take this performance, this caricature, seriously. But necessity is the mother of invention. Mrs. Eddy had to get her system into the Bible or fail. It would not do to tell sick people that she could cure them by the metaphysics of a pagan philosophy. So she worked her ideas into the Bible and very naturally what she gets in she can get out. It should be said, however, as a matter of truth, that there are some ideas common to Christianity and Christian Science. This is only natural and what any one might expect. The same is true also of Christianity and Buddhism. But these similarities are accidental. The two religions are essentially different. So, too, there are a number of similarities between Christianity and Platonism and consequently between Christianity and Neoplatonism. And these are those similarities which appear between Christianity and Christian Science. But these similarities, I repeat, are accidental; that is, they do not belong to the genius of the two systems.
For example, Mrs. Eddy teaches the self-existence of God and says certain pretty things about it, quoting legitimately God's word to Moses at the “burning bush”, “I am that I am”.[13] Now this truth is taught in the Bible. It is implied in the favorite name for God in the Old Testament, Yahweh, improperly transliterated in King James' version, Jehovah. But this conception of God was well proclaimed by Philo, who tried to harmonize Plato and the Old Testament,[14] and was taught by the Neoplatonists; and it would seem to be a necessary belief of every man who turns his reason to religion. Let it be said also in this connection that Philo's attempt to interpret the Old Testament according to Plato was a prenatal preparation for Christian Science. It is not my purpose to meddle with the Quimby question. Whether or not Mrs. Eddy was influenced by P. P. Quimby does not affect the contention herein made. One thing is certain, Quimby was not the originator of the principles of Christian Science. That Mrs. Eddy got many of her ideas from him is well established.[15] But I am concerned with the original source of them. If Quimby had them where did he get them? To answer this question is the problem.
And let it be stated without further delay that Christian Science is a system of ideas or philosophic principles. A philosophic system is a body of doctrines or a collection of conceptions that are logically related and interdependent. Let no one hastily conclude that Christian Science is a jumble of notions thrown together by a fanciful and unsystematic mind, or, as one puts it, “unorganized speculation”.[16] It is speculation but not unorganized speculation. Many are bewildered when they attempt to understand Christian Science and are offended at what appears to be glaring inconsistencies. I do not deny that it contains irreconcilable inconsistencies. But many of the inconsistencies complained at are only apparent and are the result of not understanding Mrs. Eddy's standpoint. If we grant her principles we must grant most of her conclusions and admit that her application of them is in general legitimate. Mrs. Eddy realized this and so do all well-informed Christian Scientists. So they urge us to study her teachings much and carefully. Christian Science is a metaphysical system, as Mrs. Eddy claims; and, as all students of metaphysics know, such a body of ideas must be carefully studied before one can have even an intelligent opinion as to it.
My purpose is to show that the metaphysical principles of Christian Science are a reproduction of those of Neoplatonism. How Mrs. Eddy came upon them I do not know and I do not care. Others may investigate that question. I am concerned with establishing a fact, not with how the fact came to be. Mrs. Eddy was aware of Neoplatonism as a historical event, and had some knowledge of its religious character.[17]
Neoplatonism, as the word indicates, is a modified form of Plato's philosophy. It is also an application of the principles of Platoism to religion; that is, pagan religion. Christianity has felt its influence; but a zeal to revive paganism and to re-establish its power caused Neoplatonism to rise and reign for several centuries. It is perhaps the most powerful philosophical system that was ever given to the world.
The honor of originating this system is attributed to Ammonius Saccas, a teacher of Alexandria, who flourished in the first part of the third century after Christ. Almost nothing is known of him; and he probably would have been entirely forgotten had it not been for his brilliant pupil, Plotinus, the real founder of Neoplatonism. He was born in Alexandria about the year 205 A. D. He came to Rome in the year 244, where his lectures were received with great enthusiasm. He died in 270. Plato and Aristotle have had no follower whose thought is more penetrating or more sublime.
The next greatest name among the Neoplatonists, the one after whose death the school rapidly declined, is Proclus, who lectured at Athens. He died in 485. For breadth of learning, for productiveness, for brilliancy of imagination, for analytical ability, for gifts for systematizing his thoughts, for finished, scholarly productions, we shall hardly find his equal. He was a literary genius.
There are two other great names second only to Plotinus and Proclus, namely, Porphyry, the pupil and great admirer of Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the pupil of Porphyry. The former was a popular expounder of the views of Plotinus; the latter was a fluent orator and religious enthusiast.
After these five great names, the founders and builders of the structure, there come a host of others who have worked upon it and given it the touch of their genius. I mention Julian the Emperor of Rome, called the Apostate, Syrianus, the predecessor and teacher of Proclus, Olympiodorius (the younger), Marinus, Simplicius and the Christians, Synesius and Boethius. Boethius was a Christian who subscribed to certain Neoplatonic principles, as many Christian theologians have done. Synesius was a Neoplatonist who adopted the Christian faith. He was more a philosopher than a Christian. The anti-Christian character of Neoplatonism is manifest in the fact that the Emperor Julian, who was mad against Christianity, was an enthusiastic supporter and defender of it. Iamblichus was his teacher and guide.
Neoplatonism is, I repeat, one of the mightiest metaphysical systems that have been given to the world. Though it is a purely rational view of the universe and was at first inspired to defeat Christianity, by virtue of its intellectual power it affected profoundly scholastic theology. And not a few remains of it linger in modern theology and the “old” psychology. It professed to be unmaterialistic, spiritual and intellectual, as Christian Science does.
We shall find in Christian Science certain features that show a modified or developed form of Neoplatonism. For example, Mrs. Eddy's conception of Christ, and of Christian theology in general, is in the main the same as Spinoza's, the great Jewish philosopher and the world's greatest pantheist. Now Spinoza did little more in his philosophy than to reproduce Neoplatonism and his teaching as to Christ is a forging of him into the Neoplatonic mould. He could not deny his historical reality. But he could attempt to explain him according to his philosophy. Mrs. Eddy, with the aid of the same philosophy, makes the same disposal of him. The refined and scholarly infidelity of our age owes more to Spinoza and to David Hume, the great English historian and empirical philosopher, than to all other persons combined.
That Mrs. Eddy borrowed from Bishop Berkeley or David Hume is a most superficial suggestion. That she resembles Ralph Waldo Emerson is true, for he is little more than a Neoplatonist. That she has reproduced ideas of certain German philosophers, as Fichte and Hegel, is also true, many of whose conceptions were also Neoplatonic.[18]
That Mrs. Eddy's system is derived from Indian philosophy, Brahmanism and Buddhism, is rather a guess, the general points of similarity thereto being also in Neoplatonism.[19]
That Mrs. Eddy is dependent on Plato is obvious to all who are acquainted with the thought of both. But it is Platonism as developed and modified by the Nepolatonists, that is, Platonism as used to characterize theology, that we find in Christian Science. Christian Science is an offshoot, that is, a sucker, of Platonism.
Again this, the mightiest thinker of the world, rises before us in a modern theological movement. The world has not yet freed itself from his moulding mind. If one imagines that Christian Science is a jumble of wild fancies or wonders that it has won to itself so many followers of varying degrees of intelligence, it will be of benefit to him to know that Plato, from whom so many philosophic systems good, bad, and indifferent, have sprung, is in the background of this system also. Yes, no less a person than Plato stands there, at first in dim outline, but growing more distinct the longer we look, though Mrs. Eddy is unwilling that anyone should see him there.[20] However, she does give to him the honor of dimly discerning Christian Science.[21]
If there is one thing new in Christian Science it is the application of Plato's principle, that matter is unreal, to the healing of the body. Plato, it may be supposed, was smart enough to see that, if the body is unreal, the healing of it is unreal in the same sense in which the body is. It does not take much of a philosopher to see that. If the unreality of matter means the non-existence of the body, as Mrs. Eddy argues, then it is illogical to speak of the healing of the body at all, for what does not exist cannot be sick nor healed. Surely this world-conquering thinker could see that, too. So, it may be, he concluded not to be troubled about therapeutics. Mrs. Eddy, however, could not thus compose her mind. “Aching voids” or painful non-entities were of great concern to her. But notwithstanding all Mrs. Eddy's talk about “healing, disease, death”, etc., it should be understood that this is only an application of her principles. She calls it metaphysical healing, which means curing and preventing disease by the realizing of truth or true principles. And since she denies the existence of disease in the body, the healing she offers is not after all for the body but for the mind. But if the application of the unreality of matter to healing be anything new, the credit for it belongs to P. P. Quimby, not to Mrs. Eddy.[22]
So this one new thing that might possibly be claimed for her vanishes also. Christian Science is a theory, not a practice. It is a system of principles, of metaphysics as she is proud to call it. If she had named it pagan philosophy, which it is, instead of Christian Science, which it is not, she would have killed it with the weight of its proper name. But Mrs. Eddy, as her literary adviser, Rev. J. H. Wiggin, said, “is nobody's fool.”[23]
If, then, there is anything new or original in Christian Science it must be found in its metaphysical principles as such. To investigate this question and to show that Mrs. Eddy has discovered nothing is the object of this essay.
The method pursued in this discussion is scientific. It is the method of literary or higher criticism. The ideas of the two systems are compared. The general rule is to give quotations from Mrs. Eddy and then follow them with quotations from the Neoplatonists, commenting and explaining the language of each. At times my discussion may be quite lengthy. For both systems are abstruse and since the Neoplatonists wrote so long ago and in the Greek tongue and gave to the world so profound a system, considerable explanation of their language is necessary. My method is not to berate, not to excite passion or humor, but to prove. It is detective work in the realm of ideas.
I beg the reader to show patience and to read carefully the argument in the order in which it is given. The essay is brief and the subject important. Other methods of dealing with Christian Science have been used. This is a new treatment, and it should be an effective one.
Let it be repeated that the force of the treatment herein pursued depends on the fact that both Neoplatonism and Christian Science are systems; that is, each is a body of ideas that are logically related and essentially interdependent. If this were not the case it would be useless to attempt to show the source of Mrs. Eddy's ideas. If Christian Science were not a system, similarities only could be affirmed; dependence could not.
But if a metaphysical system is not original, its source may be traced out and demonstrated by the best of proof. If only a few unrelated ideas are identical this may be accidental. But if the primary principles are the same and if the working out of these principles in detail is the same; so that both systems have an array of identical ideas in Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Christology, Psychology, and Ethics, it is conclusive that the later system is derived from the earlier.
Mrs. Eddy claims that her system came by “divine utterance” or divine revelation. It will be shown that this expression with her means only intuitive discernment. But however the expression may be understood, it will be seen that certain pagan and idolatrous intellects about fifteen hundred years ago had the same thoughts.
My purpose is to prove this, to show that Mrs. Eddy is a philosophic plagiarist; to trace her to her hiding place which is in the dark and to bring her out into the light, together with the plunder she has been keeping secret and to convict her before the bar of human judgment of the worst crime known to God and men, but for which there is neither prison nor exile nor death, the crime of soul-stealing. One who deceives his fellowmen in religious matters steals and sells their souls and is worse than a slave trader. A more successful literary and religious grafter than Mary Baker G. Eddy has never appeared. Let the honest doubter or seeker after truth read carefully the argument and he will be convinced that this is a statement of fact.
It seems proper to anticipate one objection that may be made against the argument as herein presented. Very likely it will be said that the quotations are “garbled.” In advance I want to deny the charge. As a rule the quotations are not lengthy but they need not be. In every instance I am careful to represent correctly the thought of the writer. I appeal for a decision to those who understand Neoplatonism and Christian Science or who are well acquainted with the authors whose language I quote.
It is a suggestive fact that the style of Mrs. Eddy is like that of Plotinus in that one does not need to study the relation of words so much as that of ideas to appreciate her. At first their sentences seem to the reader disjointed, unrelated and thrown together carelessly. But when their philosophy is better understood we value more highly their choppy manner of writing. It is a case of the thought determining the style. We have another illustration of the same thing in the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who shares honors with Mrs. Eddy in translating Neoplatonism into excellent modern English. They have such enthusiasm for the ideas of their masters that they imbibe their very style. One is transformed into the character of that which he admires. He is conformed to that in which he works. Mr. Emerson and Mrs. Eddy are both metaphysicians and poets; and they have a style that fits their thoughts, since it was fashioned by their thoughts. This was true of the greatest of the Neoplatonists. Mrs. Eddy was gifted by nature to reproduce them. She does not argue; she speaks dogmatically; she announces as a revelator what she sees. And she is in truth a seer of Neoplatonism. The Neoplatonists delivered their views with the same assumed prophetic insight. They did not need to give proof; or if they did it was an act of condescension. It was their privilege to deliver with oracular authority their message.
Plotinus and Mrs. Eddy, like Ralph Waldo Emerson, have the style of great wits, namely, brevity. This is my defence — in which there is additional proof of my theory — for quoting them as I do.
After going through this first chapter, which explains the general character of the argument, study the others also in the order in which they are found. Each subject is discussed in the light of preceding developments. If one chooses not to follow this plan, then, to look at the table of contents, and select what topic he wants, is as good a way as any. The chapter on Psychology the author considers the most valuable, both for conducting the student into the heart of the subject and for conclusiveness of demonstration.
The abbreviations, figures, etc., in the footnotes will be easily understood by a little study of the Bibliography, which is recommended.
- ↑ Note—The abbreviations, figures, etc., of the footnotes will be understood by an investigation of the Bibliography.
- ↑ Retros. and Intros. p. 38.
- ↑ Retros. and Intros. p. 39.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 110.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 110.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 126.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 127.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 147.
- ↑ Retros. and Intros. p. 55 f.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 109.
- ↑ Retros. and Intros. p. 42.
- ↑ Retros. and Intros. p. 45.
- ↑ Ex. 3:14. cf. S. and H. p. 252 f.
- ↑ Ueberweg's Geschichte der Philosophie, Vol. I p. 356.
- ↑ Cf. several articles in McClure's Magazine for 1907 by Georgine Milmine, especially the one in the Feb. No.
- ↑ Rev. O. P. Gifford in Review and Expositor, Vol. VIII No. 2, p. 196.
- ↑ No and Yes p. 23.
- ↑ Cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 55.
- ↑ Cf. The Pagan Invasion. Article in St. Louis Christian Advocate, March 27, 1912, by Rev. S. H. Wainright, D.D.
- ↑ Cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 78.
- ↑ Cf. No and Yes. p. 30.
- ↑ Cf. Georgine Milmine's article in McClure's, Feb., 1907.
- ↑ Cf. Georgine Milmine's article in McClure's, Oct., 1907.