Independent Christian Science articles

“Reconcile: to bring to acquiescence; to content”

From the Christian Science Journal, August 1892, by


“RECONCILE: to bring to acquiescence; to content.” Webster. “The atonement of Jesus, reconciles man to God, not God to man.” Science and Health. “We pray you, in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” Paul. “First, be reconciled to your brother.” Jesus.

Mortal man has ever cried out, “I need, I want a God,” but he has wanted that God to be according to his own ideal; consequently, he has ever “stoned the prophets” through whom came the revelation of the true God he was ignorantly seeking; in other words, “the Christ (Truth of God) has been slain from the foundation of the world.” Since mortal man is himself a respecter of persons, his ideal god is a respecter of persons: a god that can be persuaded, flattered; one whose favor can be purchased, or who can be moved to anger and revenge; one who is tyrannical because he has the power to make his subjects afraid. In fact, mortal man’s ideal god is like himself. Still, strange as it may seem, unrest, because of his inherent instability, compels man to seek for some immutable power upon which to rest.

The conflicting desires that demanded a persuadable god, yet one unchanging, led to the “gods many” of heathen religions, each with a special office in meeting the needs of man. Mortal man with his god that is a respecter of persons, is, in turn, himself a respecter of gods; and one god or another has at different times been most popular, that is, has had the greatest number of worshipers.

But, in spite of the desired pliability of mortal man’s ideal god, there has ever been an almost unacknowledged recognition of a God above the gods worshiped, whose attributes were unknown, but who still was feared. Only certain, specially endowed men who had served the gods long in the temples, dared even to speak his fearful name, or approach him in worship. An author of note puts in the mouth of one of his characters these words descriptive of this unknown God: “So wise! so hard and pitiless! so tearless and yet so just! . . . without mercy, incapable of love, unmoved by hate, implacable, emotionless, the fearful judge, the Truth!”

Mortal man is the son of lawlessness, hence is ever at enmity with the exactness, the inexorableness of Law, Principle, the God that is Truth. He has made unto himself “graven images,” (the work of his imagination) and has bowed down to worship them. The worship of false gods ever demands that the devotee look down to the ground, nothingness, whence mortal man came. This worship is always groveling, be the god what it may. The worship of the true God is a looking up from matter to Spirit.

The names of false gods are legion. Each and all promise to meet man’s recognized needs —life, freedom, peace; and, although he has proven and continues to prove every promise a lie, he still follows, hopes, faints, dies. While the promise of the false gods is to serve man according to his highest sense of good, instead, he himself becomes the gods’ most abject slave, bound with chains that gall and fret until he longs for the confines of the grave as the acme of freedom, for annihilation as heaven. In spite of the continued and disheartening betrayal of his trust in his ideal gods, mortal man is still so afraid of the unknown God, that he hugs his delusions, his chains, as tenaciously as ever.

There have seemed, also, to be men raised up, or set apart, or sent, to do the special will of one or more of these gods. Both names and offices of these messengers or ministers, as well as of the gods, have changed continually; every age and people presenting different gods, different ministers, and seemingly different services, while the one office of all was to forge heavier chains to bind blind, ignorant, foolish man.

From the foundation of this world, the Unknown God has never been without a witness among mortals. The fathers and prophets of old, saw dimly the Most High God, the God of gods, and proclaimed His glory (character); but man was slow to hear or see, and law labored through centuries to reconcile the world to one who might reveal the true God in His fullness. Yet that Mighty Counselor came to an unreconciled world, and gave an example of the power, life, freedom and peace of man reconciled to the Unknown God, so long sought, feared, dreaded. So unreconciled still was mortal man to the God that is Truth, that the Exemplar, the Prince of Peace was rejected, and darkness more dense fell upon the world again; and gods and their temples and temple servers were multiplied, and chains forged anew to manacle helpless mortals.

The mission of Jesus was to reconcile man to GOD — the unchangeable, the wise, the just, the Truth— the Unknown God who is exact, inexorable, and who will reign alone, the only God. To sin-bound man Jesus declared that worship of this God, whose “promises are sure,” brings freedom, not slavery; wisdom, not foolishness; peace, not fear; life, not death. He taught, and showed by his life (demonstrated) that this God may safely be accepted as He is.

In man’s ignorance of the Love that is God, he has conceived love to be ministry to self. He does not call it self-ministry; but careful analysis of even the best phases or manifestations, reveals self as the principal ingredient of the strange compound. This self so blinds man to the beneficence of the one immutable, inexorable God, that willingness to give up the persuadable gods whom he loves, or his unsuspected bondage to them, is difficult to attain.

A subtle and agreeable flattery pervades the belief that man, by eloquent petitioning, may cause a powerful god to revoke an old decree or issue a new edict to meet the petitioner’s special demands. It is the self-ministry of man’s love for his ideal god. On the other hand, Principle (God) being Law, an unvarying rule for obtaining its benefits must be observed. Principle is “no respecter of persons;” hence, everyone observing this rule surely finds the promises of life, freedom and peace all fulfilled. A failure to receive is simply the evidence that the petitioner has “asked amiss,” — failed to obey the rule.

“To be reconciled to God, then, is to be brought to acquiescence, to content,” with divine, immutable Principle, and its demands just as they are, ever have been, and ever will be. The will of Principle — God — “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” becomes the will of man, and the reign of divine harmony is begun in him.

Again, the reconciliation of man to God, involves another reconciliation, that of man to man. “First, be reconciled to thy brother;” that is, the first evidence that man is reconciled to God, is that he is reconciled to his brother. While man has been making a god after his own ideal, has he not also been trying to make a brother after his own ideal? Each man has wanted a god to minister to himself, hence the making of “gods many”; so, also, man’s trying to make a brother to minister to himself, has involved many brothers after many kinds as a result. In other words, each man is trying to force as many as possible of his brothers to be shaped, moulded, disciplined according to his own selfish, or self-ministering ideal. Mortal man having a god without individuality, has no individuality himself, and permits none to his brother. Thus, parents exact that their children shall be after their own self-loving ideals; and when the children fail to be so shaped, the parents bow in sorrow — self-pity — the rest of their days. Husbands and wives exact of each other their own self-ministering ideals; and open failure — named separation or divorce — is the rule, while seeming success is the exception. Friends subject friends to the same selfish exactions, and the memory of each is filled with the sad details of broken friendships. Upon every relation of mortal man to his fellow, the mark of the false god is found.

“First be reconciled to thy brother” as he is. Leave his individuality untouched. HANDS OFF! He is the idea of the inexorable, just God, the God that allows no intermeddling. He alone is, the omnipotent, and He works in man his own individual good pleasure; hence, man is God’s ideal, and man must be reconciled to — brought into acquiescence with— that ideal both for himself and for his brother.

Christian Science reconciles man to God and to man; and one demonstrates that reconciliation before men, in a life of trust in God for ALL things — even for the salvation of his brother in God’s own way.

The first apprehension of the teachings of Christian Science is so apt to be a misapprehension, that the spectacle of a Christian Scientist (?) honestly striving to force men out of disease into ease in sense, is very common. Jesus never did anything to put mortal man at ease in error; neither does Christian Science. Jesus said, “Whosoever will, may come” so does Christian Science.

It is often seen, too, that one student of Christian Science is not at all reconciled to the order of the destruction of error in another student. He is not content” that Truth should remove for that brother one evidence of sin before another, but exacts that the work of salvation shall go on according to his ideal order of progression; hence, the spectacle of criticisms and judgments and injustice gives evidence of un-reconciliation both to God and the brother. That each must work out his own salvation, “for it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure,” seems either not to have been heard, or to have been forgotten. Trespass not on the domain of thy brother’s salvation. Put the shoes from off thy feet; for it is holy ground. We follow the example of Jesus’ atonement, when we leave our brother in Science alone with God. No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw (not drive) him. We cannot take the kingdom of heaven by violence for our brother, any more than we can for ourselves.

Again, students of Christian Science who have not yet apprehended the spirit of the teachings, are apt to exact that their teacher shall have been regenerated after their own crude and oft fantastic ideal, and are slow, or wholly refuse, to be reconciled to what God may be doing in and for that teacher — and through him, for them; and, vice versa, the teacher is not reconciled to the order or time of regeneration in the student. “First be reconciled to thy brother.” It is the only sure evidence that we have apprehended, and are in obedience to, the teachings of Jesus —Christian Science.

Instead of keeping Jesus, who is both the human and immortal model, ever before us for our own following, and leaving God to lead our brother to the same model as surely as He has led us, are we not setting up mortal and perishable models and exacting that our brother shall be like unto them? In other words, are we reconciled to —have we been brought into acquiescence with, into content with — the actual sharing of the world’s reproach of Jesus the Christ? That same reproach awaits the Christ-likeness wherever and whenever it appears in this world; for, it is an invader into a kingdom not its own. Moreover, it is an all-conqueror; and for this, alone, the ruler of this world would drive the divine likeness from its borders. Does not the marvelous fact that the banner of Christ has been set on the highest pinnacle of this world’s claim of power — Science — show that the scepter of the mortal ruler is departed; that the prophecy, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven” is now fulfilled?

“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them: and has committed unto us the word of RECONCILIATION.”


Communion Of Christian Scientists

From the Christian Science Journal, July 1898, by


Sunday was an unusual day for Christian Scientists, and as the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in this city is the Mother Church, the building at the corner of Falmouth and Norway Streets was the centre of attraction for believers in this faith from all over the country. At both morning and afternoon services the capacity of the church was tested to the utmost. Every seat was filled, and in addition to the eleven hundred people thus provided for, there were about five hundred others at each service who stood at the rear and sides of the auditorium, or beside the bounteous display of potted palms, hydrangeas, and pinks which surrounded the platform and reading desks. The reason for the unusual gathering was that the day was being observed as the semi-annual communion, the other similar service of the year coming on the first Sunday in December. Great numbers of non-resident Christian Scientists make a point of being members in the Mother Church, and many come to this city from all over the country to attend these semi-annual communion services. The membership of this Boston church, as announced yesterday, is now about eleven thousand three hundred, and over thirteen hundred new members were received at this communion. For the benefit of the nonresident members, those from this city and vicinity remained away from the morning service and attended in the afternoon; so that in the morning congregation were members from New York, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago, Indianapolis, St. Louis, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Montreal, Toronto, Buffalo, Los Angeles, and from almost every state, as well as one lady from Florence, Italy.

The first part of the service, as usual, consisted of Scripture reading from Genesis, 1: 26, 27; Proverbs, 8: 22—30; the Lesson-Sermon consisted of John, 14: 1—11, with correlative passages from the Christian Science text-book, “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” by Rev. Mary Baker G. Eddy. The lesson was specially chosen for the day. The Scripture was read by Judge S. J. Hanna, the First Reader, while Mrs. Eldora O. Gragg, Second Reader, read the passages from the text-book. This reading closed with this definition of the Christian Scientists’ communion from the Christian Science text-book:—

“This spiritual meeting with our Lord, in the dawn of a new light, is the morning meal which Christian Scientists commemorate. They bow before Christ, Truth, to receive more of his re-appearing and silently commune with the divine Principle thereof. They celebrate their Lord’s victory over death, his probation in the flesh after death, its exemplification of human probation, and his spiritual and final ascension above matter, or the flesh, when he rose out of material sight. Our baptism is a purification from all error. Our church is built on the divine Principle of Christian Science. We can unite with this church only as we are new-born of Spirit, as we reach the Life which is Truth and the Truth which is Life, by bringing forth the fruits of Love,—casting out error and healing the sick. Our eucharist is spiritual communion with the one God. Our bread ‘which cometh down from Heaven,’ is Truth. Our cup is the cross, our wine the inspiration of Love,—the draught our Master drank, and commended to his followers.”

The tenets of the Christian Science faith were also read. Miss S. Marcia Craft then sang a communion hymn, written by Mrs. Eddy and set to music by William L. Johnson.

At this point, where the usual service would have ended, the First Reader of the Church stepped forward with a message or letter from the Rev. Mary Baker Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science. This message was entitled, “Not Pantheism, but Christian Science,” and was in the main a demonstration that the followers of Christian Science are believers in but one God, recognizing Spirit or Immortal Mind as supreme, as against the belief that mind “sleeps in the mineral, dreams in the animal, and wakes in man.” The message closed with a reference to the present state of war in which the country is involved, in which Mrs. Eddy counselled her followers to pray for the prosperity of the country, that justice, mercy, and peace should continue to characterize the Government, and expressed the hope that the Divine Presence might still guide and bless the President and Congress, and give them wisdom and uphold them with the right arm of his righteousness. The hope was also voiced that divine love might succor and protect the soldiers of the country, whether in camp or in battle, as it did at Manila, when brave men, led by the hero Dewey, and shielded by the power that saved them, sailed through the jaws of death and blotted out the Spanish squadron.

After the reading of this message came the actual service of communion, in which the members of the congregation knelt for a period of silent consecration. The repetition of the Lord’s Prayer ended this part of the service.

The afternoon service, at three, was the same as that of the morning.

Boston Evening Transcript, June 12, 1898.


Traditionalism

From the November 1897 issue of the Christian Science Journal by


Traditionalism, in religion and out of it, has ever been the foe of progress. So far as it has been able it has put limitations upon Truth. In its ecclesiastical phases it has attempted to place a final definition upon God, draw a line over which the Infinite might not pass, and circumscribe Him within the narrow compass of its own conceptions. If not in express words, this phase of traditionalism has declared, in substance and effect, about as follows:—

“God shall do what we have heretofore been accustomed to have Him do; nothing more. He shall not violate the traditions of the past nor trench upon the established lines of human action. He must continue to be the same God our fathers had; no more and no less. He has been defined for us by the Councils of the past, and that definition is official and final. It must not be changed. God is immutable; the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. That immutability as officially fixed must not be interfered with by modern intermeddlers. The character and attributes given God by the Councils are unalterable. His scope and power were then and there established and they must neither be enlarged nor diminished. The traditional past has fixed all this. Let there be no presumptuous unsettling of this authoritative action. They who seek to give God greater power than He was officially decreed to possess are unholy blasphemers, disturbers of the peace and security of the people, a menace to our Christian civilization and well-ordered religion, and innovators of our long-vested rights. Away with them. Their God is not our God, — if, indeed, they have a God.

“Our God permits us to believe that He has sent sickness into the world; that He recognizes sin and death as part and parcel of his creation. He permits us to believe in the reality and eternity of matter with all its resultant effects. He permits us to deny the unity and allness of Spirit, while attributing to Him all power and all glory. It is more natural to believe in death as the inevitable than Life as all. It is more natural to believe in the admixture of Good and evil than Good as the only reality. It is more natural to believe that Truth and error commingle than in the omnipotence of Truth. It is more natural to believe in the co-existence of Love and hate than in the exclusive power of Love. Hence we prefer our traditional God, who permits us this liberty of thought. It is easier to let traditionalism settle all these questions for us than to worry over them ourselves. Therefore we stand upon our traditional prerogatives. It is much less troublesome for us to believe in duality than in unity. And although we continue to use the word universe because tradition has given us this privilege, we shall also maintain that the universe is double and not single, because traditionalism has so decreed. We are not responsible for the seeming inconsistency. Even though our premises be faulty and our logic lame, we shall continue to advocate the propositions, that while it is true there is but one God and He is all-powerful, there is another power beside Him, namely, evil, dividing empire and rulership with Him, and, even if holding disputed sway, nevertheless exercising power; that Truth and error are inseparable, eternally commingling and battling with each other; and that Love and hate are co-existent and co-eternal, travelling down the ages hand in hand into the vast forever.

“Our traditional God is a liberal God, a merciful God, and Him we delight to worship. Therefore, subject to the above limitations, and some others, we recognize His all-power, unity, wisdom, and presence, joyously exclaiming in the exuberance of our adoration: ‘Who is so great a God as our God?’ “

The non-ecclesiastical phase of traditionalism thus, in substance and effect, animadverts: —

“Our God interferes not with our comfort, peace, or happiness, as we understand these things. He permits us to select our own religion, our own church, regardless of its teachings; our own pastor, without reference to whether he preaches truth or error; our own physician, whether he is the best or the poorest, whether he kill or cure. We are at perfect liberty, so far as our God is concerned, to exercise our own judgment in all these matters. We may love and worship our God while pandering to every desire of the flesh, every whim, caprice, foible, social fad, or what not, in total disregard of resulting effects either upon ourselves or our neighbors. Our God permits us to gratify our worldly ambitions, accumulate all the wealth we can or desire, carry out all our selfish aims and ambitions without reference to the rights, wishes, or happiness of our neighbor. If, in process of time, we become repentant therefor, we have only to ask our God’s pardon and obtain it, continuing our mode of life, forsaking not our sins. If, as the result of sinful and irregular habits, we get sick, we have but to go to our physician for healing. His remedies will heal us physically, regardless of mental or moral conditions, no matter how directly the sickness is the result of our sin.

“Such a God we can adore. Such a God we can live in the utmost harmony with. We want no other. He is good enough for us. Let us alone, you who preach a different God; we care not to hear of Him. We are abundantly satisfied with the fatness of our present house. We wish no better.”

The combined phases of ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical traditionalism, may be summarized thus:—

“As to the matter of healing disease, God may heal in the ‘regular,’ the well-recognized and traditional manner, but not otherwise. He must do His healing through the means prescribed by the educated physicians under the regulations of our legislatures and medical boards or boards of health. Thus only can He heal sickness. No more direct means than these may He exercise. Prayer and Faith are not to be tolerated in connection with healing disease. The Almighty dare not thus tread upon tradition or trample upon inherent rights. He may be Almighty provided He confine His almightiness to legitimate and recognized uses. Here we draw the line. Here only do our rights and privileges as mortals cease.”

Is this brief sketch of traditionalism overdrawn? If we rely upon suppositional words, we may answer, Yes. If we rely on acts, and much that is said, we may emphatically answer, No. In fact, our sketch is not more than a vague hint at the long train of drawfing effects growing out of mortal mind traditionalism. All we have said, and vastly more, is summed up in the words, “anthropomorphic God.” A God of human creation. A God suited to human desires and human convenience. God as a magnified human personality.

Is i t strange that the one true God has, in all ages, thus spoken in sharp rebuke of such a creation?

“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof . . . Her priests have violated my law. and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean . . . And her prophets have daubed them with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken . . . Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord God” (Ezekiel, 22).

“Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them” (Ezekiel, 34).

“Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups . . . Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mark, 7).

Traditionalism has sought to stereotype the Bible as well as’ Deity. It has defined its scope and meaning, and tolerated no departure therefrom. But notwithstanding its bold assumptions, it has not succeeded in obscuring the Light shining through the pages of the sacred Word. It is coming more and more to be understood that the Bible is a book of infinite meaning, treating of an infinite subject, of infinite unfoldment; that in its deepest import it is related to the eternal, and that its manifest purpose is to impart infinite Truth to finite comprehension. By parable, allegory, illustration, and rich and varied object-lesson in prose and poetry, it reaches around the entire circumference of human conditions, and to the utmost boundary of the universe and man. In the law of “Thou shalt,” on the one hand, and of “Come” on the other, it elucidates the full intent of Divine Love toward His children.—His infinite ideas.

God, as Infinite Truth, is a perpetual revelation. No limitation can be placed on Infinite Unfoldment. No church can encase infinite Truth within its portals or confine it to its altars. No creed has ever placed a final definition upon God. No dogma has drawn a line over which infinity may not tread. No class or sect has successfully said to God: “Thus far, and no farther.”

How impotent, then, is traditionalism! It can impede the progress of poor, struggling mortals by temporarily binding them, but it cannot “stop the eternal currents of Truth,” nor thwart the ultimate Divine purpose.

Are we, as Christian Scientists, in danger of running into the error of traditionalism? Are we growing into habits of empiricism or crystallized definitionalism? Are we fixing boundaries upon the infinite teachings of our “Key to the Scriptures,” and judging and counter-judging others from the standpoint of our definitions?

Let us seriously ponder this subject, and if we detect a tendency toward traditionalism, such as we were, more or less, instructed in under former conditions, let us promptly separate ourselves from such tendency. If w e hear a brother advance a proposition concerning the teaching of our textbook, not in strict accord with our views, let us not be too ready to cry, “Error,—our text-book does not teach that.” Our brother may be right and we wrong. We have caught but a small glimpse of the infinities of our text-books, the Bible and “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” and we shall do well to be modest and meek in our conceptions of our own understanding, as well as Christianly tolerant of our brother who may see farther, or not as far, as we. Let us sincerely strive against falling into the relative errors of the old theologies and systems, becoming harsh and intolerant in the letter and lacking in the Spirit. Let us listen with attentive ear to the repeated injunctions of our text-books on this subject, giving earnest heed thereto, as well as to the oft-repeated implorations of our beloved Leader, whom it is mockery to call “our Mother” if we heed not her loving behests.


Belligerence

From The Christian Science Journal, November 1887, by


This Journal is sometimes accused of being too belligerent. This adjective comes from two Latin words, bellum (war) and gero (to wage, or make).

The accusation therefore implies that the Journal is too apt to knock the chip from every opposing shoulder, — to pick up every gauntlet thrown down, even though it be but a tiny doll’s mitten.

It may be that the charge is fair. “To err is human.” Nevertheless, let us look deeper into the subject.

Was it not Cardinal Richelieu who said, “Leave patience to the saints, for I am human” ? “There is a time to keep silence,” says the Scripture; but it first says, “There is a time to speak.”

Jesus certainly inculcated non-resistance, commanding the wronged disciple to turn the other cheek to the smiter. Such advice was excellent for those who were about to go forth “as sheep among wolves,” to preach a strange gospel to erring humanity. Belligerence, in such emissaries, would have been sheer foolishness; nay, it would have been madness. With the fighting disposition, the Twelve could have accomplished nothing but their own material destruction, and the Master would have been compelled to find a new dozen of preachers.

The early Abolitionists wisely adopted this policy. When they went forth to proclaim liberty to the bound within the borders of the United States, each reformer “took his life in his hand.” His business was to speak boldly his word, and submit patiently to the indignities which followed, whether in the form of insult, blows, tar and feathers, imprisonment, fines, banishment, or death. His sufferings would speak louder than his tongue, for it is ever true that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.”

Christian Scientists proclaim an unpopular doctrine, opposed to all materialism,— to sin, as well as to sickness.

Of necessity they differ, not only from charlatans and vendors of patent nostrums, but from physicians of every name, and doctors of divinity also. Their teaching rouses the antagonism of Spiritualists, and others whom they must oppose. It is not however from clergymen and regular practitioners that Christian Science specially suffers, for they treat it honorably. Even the Faith-cure has in it an element of divine reliance. The chief peril of Christian Mind-healing is from those Judases who “deny the Lord that bought them,” and “steal the livery of Heaven to serve the Devil in.”

From high-minded enemies Christian Scientists must expect buffets, and they must accept them in meekness, like their Master before them. A fair fight only strengthens the right; but treachery is a demon most malign. The rack and faggot are no longer in fashion ; but the heart is racked, and words can burn. Scientists therefore do well to heed this injunction of the New Testament, “Resist not evil, but rather give place unto wrath.”

But is this all? Nay, verily!

That same Jesus, on another occasion, gave this command to his disciples, “Let him that hath no sword sell his garment and buy one.” He said to Peter once, when that impetuous Apostle would have fought to defend his Saviour from arrest by the Roman officers, “Put up thy sword, for he who takes the sword shall perish by the sword.” Yet this very Peter was included among the friends to whom Jesus gave such a warning of the need of warlike weapons, in the evil days which were upon them.

This clearly indicates that Jesus believed there was a time for fighting as well as a time for praying, — somewhat in the spirit of a declaration in the Book of Ecclesiastes: “There is a time to kill and a time to heal, . . . a time of war and a time of peace.”

Nay, more ! Most solemnly the Messiah once averred, “I come not to send peace, but a sword,” — referring to the effect of his views, which were at variance with those of respectable representatives of both Church and State.

It is noteworthy that the Greek word here (MATTHEW X. 34) translated send, means to cast out, scatter, or sow, and is elsewhere used in reference to sccattering seed in the ground. Jesus therefore must have meant, not merely that he should cause dissension, but that a crop of contentions would spring from the sword by him planted; and that the resultant troubles would, must, continue until mankind should outgrow the materialism which makes discord with Spirit inevitable.

There is therefore a place for Belligerence in the Christia nscheme of life. Jesus showed this in many ways. “Thou whited wall” was the epithet, not very conciliatory, which Paul thundered at one high in authority; and he borrowed the metaphor from his Master, who called the Pharisees whited sepulchres.

The utterances of Jesus were not always mild as soft moonbeams. “Scribes, Pharisees, — hypocrites,” was a phrase he more than once hurled at his enemies. “How shall you escape the damnation of Hell ? “he asked them. Was not this Belligerence? Such epithets as the following are not soothing to the carnal mind: “Devourers of widows’ houses ; “Children of your father, the Devil; “Generation of vipers.”

A skeptic once objected, in conversation with Dr. Channing, that such language was wrong, and opposed to the teachings of Christ. Channing said, “Let us read the chapter.” He accordingly read these denunciations, in that calm, spiritual way for which the great preacher was noted. When he had finished, the Doctor asked the Infidel if he still felt that Jesus was so far out of the way in using such language. “No , was the reply, not if he spoke in that tone.”

There is everything in tone; and by tone is meant motive, for it is the outcome of motive, of heart. Many a word which sounds gentle carries a barb within. “Go away, you young scamp!” may be so spoken as to sound like, “Come hither, you little darling! While “Come to my arms, dear angel,” may interpret itself to mean,” Hence, you hag ! “It all depends on tone and motive. “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he,” and so is his word. The thought gives color to the utterance.

Now as to Belligerence in Christian Scientists, they ought to have — nay, they must have — regard to the Cause they represent. We should not be quick to take umbrage ; but remember the words of Cassius in the quarrel with Brutus:

In such a time as this, it is not meet
That every nice offence should bear its comment.

Much that is personal we can overlook. What are we, that we should resent every harsh word or unfair assertion?

But how if the spear of detraction touch the Cause dear to us, — or the Leader thereof, the Founder of Christian Science, whose fame is held sacred? Shall we not speak then? Would not the very stones cry out if we held our peace? and would not God, of those very stones, raise up children unto the Abraham of Truth, Life, and Love, in the everlasting covenant?

“The Cause, — it is the Cause, my Soul,” says Othello, when undertaking the murder he mistakenly believes to be a righteous act.

This is what we should ask ourselves: Is it the Cause for whose honor we are jealous? or is our wrath selfish, stirred by some offence against our lower personality ? If the latter, let us suffer and be still; but if the former, let us not fear to “quit us like men.”

We find this illustrated in individual cases. One of the most scholarly clergymen in America was trained, both to learning and athletics, in an English university. He knows no fear, though he is forbearing and courteous. One evening he was walking with his wife through the deserted streets of the old Massachusetts seaport where they lived. Often absent-minded, he paced along, absorbed in thought, while his wife was a rod or two in advance, on the narrow sidewalk hardly wide enough for one. Another man entered the street, and spoke to Mrs Rosely, who presently checked her rapid gait, and waited for her husband to catch up with her. “That fellow has insulted me,” she whispered in his ear.

“Never mind! You go ahead again, as if we were strangers; and I will soon join you, and catch the cad in the very act.”

This program was carried out. The impertinence was repeated, as the lady drew near, and the next instant the cad found himself in the Parson’s grip, which did not relax till they reached the parsonage. The night was dark and faces not clearly visible ; but vainly the miscreant struggled to get away. He was in a vice. Holding his prisoner with one hand, the jailer unlocked his front door with the other; nor did his hold relax till he had found a match and lighted the entry gas. Through his eyeglasses he inspected the insulter’s features narrowly, for his Reverence was very near-sighted; and then released him, with the warning that if ever he caught the cad insulting another woman, or even heard of such a thing, he would pummel him into a jelly. Like Felix of old, the poltroon believed, and therefore trembled, and was glad to get away with unbroken bones.

Another time this muscular Christian was in a steam-car, where a hoodlum made everybody uncomfortable, though nobody had dared to interfere. Straightway the preacher went to the fellow. Opening a window, he said: “Stop this talk, or I’ll put you out of that window!” He meant it and could do it. This the brute saw, and subsided accordingly.

Nor was the Parson’s valor confined to such coarse cases. A young man, a private pupil of Mr. Rosely’s, one day spoke somewhat carelessly about his sister. “Young man,” said the tutor, “do you know what a prize is a noble sister to a man, — such a sister as your Annie?”

“Thereupon,” declared the young man, in repeating the story to the writer, “Rosely gave me a lecture which utterly routed my boyish trifling, — a talking-to which I shall not forget, to my latest day. I was never so ashamed in my life.”

Such men always command human admiration; and who shall say that the Cause of Truth is worth less vigor than a woman’s honor or humanity’s peace?

Nor is such courage found alone among the clergy.

One of the best men the writer ever knew was engaged in the manufacture of paper-mill machinery, in a Vermont town. His boys used to say: “If I can be as good a man as Father, I shall be satisfied.” The eldest son acknowledged that he used to think of his father as awfully nice, but too amiable, lacking in resentment and pluck, and bearing wrong too patiently. One day there came into the office a fellow who had imposed upon the firm, and cheated both in words and money. He undertook to maintain his ground and defend his dishonest conduct. In the twinkling of an eye the good man rose to a white heat. The patient, self-controlled quietist opened his mouth and spoke.

Starr King (was it not?) who said: “Ordinarily I weigh a hundred-and-twenty pounds ; but when I ‘m mad, I weigh a ton.” So it was with Deacon Oldboy. With his tongue he lashed that rascal, till he writhed and slunk away in shame.

Said the son, in describing the scene: “Never thereafter did I, even in my inmost thought, accuse Father of pusillanimity. If he was mild and long-suffering, I knew it was not through fear, but through conscience. He was no coward! He could both speak and act, when principle was at stake and the occasion warranted.”

To such a man might be reverently applied the Bible word about Jehovah: “He will not always chide; neither will He keep [withhold] His anger forever.” (PSALM ciii. 9.) In a like thought Jeremiah (iii. 5) has said: “Will He keep His anger forever? Will He keep it unto the end?”

Cowards are rarely loved, and never respected. Jesus was no coward, but a brave man. In behalf of a persecuted woman he faced a frowning crowd with his awful challenge: “Whosoever is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone! “How we are stirred by the title of that English story, A Brave Lady.

The moral of the thought is this: For ourselves,

Let us be patient! These severe afflictions
Not from the ground arise
But oftentimes celestial benedictions
Assume this dark disguise.

Over and over again we must say:

Be not swift to take offence!
Let it pass, let it pass !
Anger is a foe to sense,
Let it pass!

But if the Truth Divine be assailed, the Truth which is to our thoughts as Bethesda’s healing wave, — or as Mecca to the devout Moslem,— what then? It is well to adopt the advice of Polonius to Laertes, for though the Lord Chamberlain was a garrulous old fellow, he could talk wisely on occasion:

Beware

Beware Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in,
Bear it, that the opposer may beware of thee!

The proverb warns us not to answer a fool according to his folly, “lest thou be like unto him ; “but the next verse (PROVERBS xxvi.) bids us “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Many petty and false things are said about our Science, its Teacher, and its professors. Let us not descend to the level of such detractors. Let such arrows of malice “pass by as the idle wind, which we regard not.” When, however, our opponents mistake our silence for moral timidity, it is well to let the heel of our indignation give no uncertain tread, lest talking serpents be puffed up by their own venom.

Paul was a Christian, a most eminent Christian, yet he stood up for his judicial rights. He told the Corinthians not to go to law before the Gentiles, but only before the Saints, — that is, before their fellow-members of the Church of Christ; yet when unduly arraigned, he fell back upon his legal privileges as a Roman “citizen, of no mean city.” He blamed the Highpriest for a process contrary to Roman law, and fearlessly appealed, from Agrippa and Festus, to the highest judicial power in the empire, the Emperor himself; and in this appeal Paul carried his point, which led to his preaching in Rome.

There is need of caution, for there is always a liability to mistake wounded vanity for righteous ire ; but let us not be “frighted by false fire.”

When a stone was thrown at the celebrated Universalist pioneer during a sermon, he picked it up and said coolly, “Hard, but no argument.” Let stones never be mistaken for arguments, and let no spiritual powder be wasted in return. Yet be not afraid of belligerent because it is a word of four syllables, and made from the Latin. It will do no harm. Dare to be belligerent, if Truth be misrepresented and cry for defence. “Let not your Good be evil spoke of.” Be valiant for the right.

Be not fearful of being called cantankerous. So were called John the Baptist, the Prophets, the Apostles, Jesus, because they rebuked sin, in high places and low. Doubtless Herodias considered John “a very belligerent party.”

Jesus was “a Lamb led to the slaughter,” dumb before his shearers, and opening not his mouth; yet, as somebody has suggested, there is no wrath so terrible as the wrath of the Lamb, spoken of in the Apocalypse,— a wrath specially directed against the Great Red Dragon, and the Harlot Babylon. These baleful fiends still demand vigilance and need to be put down.

Belligerent? People talk as if the New Testament injunction read thus: “Keep your temper, and sin not!” whereas really it reads, “Be ye angry, and sin not.” From this it appears that anger is sometimes a duty, and that one can be angry in either one of two ways, with sin or without. Men are angry, yet without sin, when sacred fury is roused, not over individual wrongs, but over injustice to others, and especially towards Life, Truth, and Love, as manifested in holy living and holy healing.

“Let not the sun go down upon your wrath!” is the close of the text. What does this mean? Is the passage to be interpreted literally ? Does it mean merely this: Never govto bed angry, lest this mental mood impede your digestion and disturb your dreams ?

A servant in the country was rebuked by the man of the household, for some neglect of duty. The rebuke struck fire. The husband reported to his sick wife what he had said, and they both feared the woman would depart and leave the family in the lurch, — no small matter, where you live five miles from a lemon (as Sydney Smith puts it) , and help does not grow on every bush. After the employer had retired to his chamber, what was his surprise to hear a timid knock at the door. In answer to his “What is it?” he was further surprised by hearing Griselda’s voice: “I hope you will forgive me for what I said. I can’t go to bed angry, or God will be angry with me!”

She took the Scripture literally, and her thought did her good; yet there is a higher thought therein. Materially considered, the sun is ever going down. Somewhere it is always night and bedtime, as well as always dawn and rising-time. What is night to us? The absence of sunlight. What is moral sunset? The fading of Light and Truth. “S e n d out Thy Light and Thy Truth,” says the Psalmist; “Let them lead me ! Let them bring me unto Thy holy hill, and to Thy tabernacles.” (PSALM xlII. 3.) The hill is the summit of Spirit, not an elevation of earth and granite. The tabernacles are habitations of Mind, such as the disciples wished to build for Jesus and themselves, on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The bidding of the text (EPHESIANS iv. 26) is clearly this: Let not the daylight leave your thoughts in the gloom of selfish anger, but rather abide always in the Light, which is God, even though your whole nature is stirred within you, and mortal mind smarts with a sense of “man’s inhumanity to man.”

This interpretation is confirmed by the very next sentence:

“Neither give place to the Devil.” The only Devil is the Evil One, or evil in essence. To give place to him (or it) is to lower the banner of Good in presence of wickedness. This the Christian may not do. He must fight evil in every form, as he would a prairie fire. If the contest requires wholesome Belligerence, let it come. Yet he must beware lest Belligerence become in turn an enshrouding devil, thick enough to muffle from his sight the Sun of Righteousness, and leave him in the murky darkness of selfish irritation, — instead of bringing him into the brightness of unselfish anger, in which there is no sin.

The direction of the Master to his disciples, when he sent them out to preach, was to withdraw from households where they were not cordially received, and shake the dust from their feet. He added to his counsel these significant words: “If the house be not worthy, let your peace return unto you.”

Robbery is a crime. If we see an underling snatch at the king’s sceptre, as Prince Hal donned his father’s crown while the Fourth Henry was yet alive, but lay asleep, shall we not wax indignant? Is the institution beneficial? Let due honor be given to the Founder.

God forbid that ideas should be regarded as less valuable than things, and the theft of them less culpable. Casting lots for the seamless garment of Jesus, even while he hung living “on the accursed tree,” humanity has rightly regarded as a crime.

“With charity toward all and malice toward none,” was the Martyr President’s aphorism. We trust this is the inward motto of this Journal, though oft it must speak strongly in order to unmask evil and remove it.

“Fight the fight of Faith,” holy Scripture saith.
“Fight the fight with Hope,” sounds from Heaven’s cope.
“Fight the fight in Love,” coos the blessed Dove.

The sacred Three, by Jove’s decree,
In Charity and Unity,
Forever be our Trinity.


The Christian Science Journal, August 1889

Church of Christ (Scientist), Boston.

Historical Sketch of the Church.

In the spring of 1879, a little band of earnest seekers after truth went into deliberations over forming a church without creeds, called the “Church of Christ, Scientist.” Being members of Evangelical churches, and students of Mary Baker G. Eddy’s in metaphysics, or Christian Science, and its application to the treatment of disease, they were known as Christian Scientists. In the winter of 1878 they had reorganized the “Christian Scientists’ Association” of 1875, and, while walking through deep waters of affliction, went steadily on, increasing in numbers, and finding at every new experience that hitherto the Lord hath helped us.

At a meeting of the “Christian Scientists’ Association,'” April 19, 1879, on motion of Mrs. Eddy, it was unanimously Voted, — to organize a church designed to commemorate the word and works of our Master, which should reinstate primitive Christianity, and its lost element of healing.

She was appointed on the Committee to draft the Tenets of the church — whose chief corner-stone is the Divine Science taught and demonstrated by our Master, which casts out error, and heals the sick. “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner.”

The charter for the church was obtained June, 1879, and the same month the members, twenty-six in number, extended a call to Mary B. G. Eddy to become their pastor. She accepted the call, and was ordained A. D. 1881.

Below are published (1) the agreement subscribed by the persons who united to form the Boston Church of Christ (Scientist). (2) The notice sent in accordance with the requirements of the Statutes of the State of Massachusetts, to the signers of the agreement. (3) The affidavit required by the Statutes, of the notice of meeting for the constitution of the Church. (4) The minutes of the meeting of August 16, 1879, at which the Church was constituted. (5) The Tenets of the Church. (6) By-Laws or Regulations.

These documents in which the name of our Teacher appears as the founder of the First Church of Christ (Scientist) are reproduced to place clearly before all who are considering the question of Church organization, the leading requirements; also to afford the models for Tenets and By-Laws, as they have come from her hand.

But they have a further interest that will deepen with every year. It is already perceived that our epoch is historic, and they form an interesting chapter in the early history of Christian Science. By the present publication all Scientists are made acquainted with these important documents, and they are preserved in an authentic and complete form, for future use and reference.

The Following is a copy of the Agreement of the members of the Christian Scientists’ Association of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, entered into for the constitution of the church that was to be known as “The Church of Christ (Scientist).” The drawing up and signing of such an agreement is the first step towards the incorporation of any church.

“We, whose names are hereunto subscribed, do by this agreement associate ourselves with the intention to constitute a corporation according to the provisions of the three hundred and seventy-fifth chapter of the Acts of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, passed in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-four, approved June twenty-seventh in said year, and the Acts in amendment thereof and in addition thereto.

The name by which the corporation shall be known is the “Church of Christ (Scientist).”

The purpose for which the corporation is constituted is to carry on and transact the business necessary to sustain the worship of God.

The place within which the corporation is established or located is the City of Boston within said Commonwealth. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands this sixth day of August, in the year eighteeen hundred and seventy-nine.”

Signed by Mary B. G. Eddy and others.

After the signing of the agreement, August 6, 1879, it was required that notice be given by one of the signers, of a meeting to be held not less than seven days from the date of notice. This meeting was for the purposes set forth in the record of its proceedings.

The following notice is a copy of the one sent to the signers of the agreement.

“Lynn, Aug. 9, 1879.

“Notice is hereby given that the meeting of the proprietors of the Church of Christ (Scientist), will be holden August 16, at the house of Mrs. —, at 5 P.M., for the purpose of organizing a Church and transacting such other legal business as may come before said meeting.” (One of the signers of agreement).

Mary B. G. Eddy.

On the day of the evening for which the meeting was called, affidavit was made before a Magistrate to the sending of the notice, as follows:

“Aug. 16, 1879.”

“Then personally appeared Mary B. G. Eddy and made oath that she served the notice of the first meeting of the Church of Christ as herein recorded by mail seven days before said meeting.”

Signed, Mary B. G. Eddy.

Suffolk, S. S.

Massachusetts.

Before me,

A . H . S., Justice of the Peace.


The minutes of the meeting of August 16, open as follows:

“Pursuant to the notice given by mail at Lynn, Mass., seven days before said meeting, the proprietors of the Church of Christ met at the time and place notified. The meeting was called to order by Mrs. M. B. G. Eddy, and proceeded to the following business.

The agreement of Association was read. The notice of meeting was read, and the meeting unanimously elected Mary B. G. Eddy as chairman.

The Tenets and By-Laws were read, and accepted by unanimous vote. (Also signed.)

As these By-Laws call for the election of officers, the members present proceeded to elect the officers as follows:”

Then follow the records of the election of officers. The church was thus regularly constituted, with Articles or Tenets, By-Laws, and the Board of Officers provided for therein. The following are the

TENETS.

To be signed by those uniting with the Church of Christ (Scientist). First. — As adherents of Truth, we take the Scriptures for our guide to Life.

Second. — We acknowledge one Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, — one God, the brotherhood of man, and Divine Science. And the forgiveness of sin, which is the destruction of sin. And the atone- ment of Christ, which is the efficacy of Truth and Life. And the way of salvation marked out by Jesus healing the sick, casting out devils [evils], and raising the dead, — uplifting a dead faith into Life and Love.

Third. — We promise to love one another, and to work, watch, and pray; to strive against sin, and to keep the Ten Commandments; to deal justly, love mercy, walk humbly; and inasmuch as we are enabled by Truth, to cast out error, and heal the sick.

Finally follows the

Rules and Regulations, or By-Laws of the Church of Christ (Scien- tist), of Boston, Founded by Rev. Mary B. G. Eddy.*

(* The order of arrangement of the sections has been changed, and some verbal alterations made to adapt to general use. — Editor.)

1. This church shall be known as the ” Church of Christ” (Scientist), and shall have the following officers: Pastor, Five Directors, Treasurer and Clerk.

2. This church shall meet for public worship on the Sabbath. Its members shall raise the Pastor’s salary, and pay it monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually, as may be agreed. They shall provide a place for public worship, shall provide singing books, and support church music. The Pastor of this church must be able to heal the sick after the manner of Christian Science, must be strictly moral, and an earnest and devoted follower of Christ’s Truth.

3. The Church invocation shall be the Lord’s Prayer and silent prayer.

4. The sacrament shall be observed not oftener than once in two months, by a short interval of solemn and silent self-examination by each member, as to his or her fitness to be called a follower of Christ, Truth ; as to his real state of love toward man, and fellowship and communion with Christ; as to whether he is gaining in the understanding and demonstration of Truth and Love, coming out from the world and being separated from error; growing less selfish, more charitable and spiritual, yea, walking worthy his high calling. It shall be observed by silent prayer after the manner that casts out error and heals the sick, and by sacred resolutions to partake of the bread that cometh down from heaven, and to drink of his cup of sorrows and earthly persecutions, patiently for Christ’s sake (Truth’s sake), knowing that if we suffer for righteousness, we are blessed of our Father.

5. There shall be a meeting on the Friday before the sacrament for general business. Seven persons shall constitute a quorum in all cases at the business meetings.

6. The directors of this church shall be put on the following committees for carrying on the church work, — Examining, Business, and Collection committees, of three members each.

7. There shall be a Clerk to keep account of the doings of the Church; of the names and dates of presentation of candidates; a record of the Committee of the Church; to submit from time to time a statement of the funds as reported by the Treasurer; to notify members of special church meetings unless it is done from the desk of the Church. Special meetings may be called by a notice given from the pulpit on two consecutive Sundays, or through notices mailed in sealed envelopes eight days prior to such special meeting.

8. There shall be a Treasurer of the Church, who shall receive all funds, and hold them ready for appropriation, keeping an account thereof.

9. The Business Committee shall attend to the general business of the Church, that is not specified in the duties of other committees.

10. The Collection Committee shall obtain contributions and donations, and present at the annual meeting a written report of the sums collected, which shall be placed on the files of the Church.

11. It shall be the duty of the Examining Committee to satisfy themselves as to the proper qualifications of all church candidates coming with or without certificates, and attend to business relative thereto.

12. The committees shall present their reports in writing at the annual meeting of the church in December.

13. The candidates shall be propounded at the regular evening meeting next before the sacrament. The church shall vote on the question of receiving the candidates, on condition that they shall subscribe to the Tenets of the church. Candidates shall be taken on probation or not at the discretion of the examining committee.

14. On the Sacramental Sabbath the Tenets of the Church shall be read in the presence of the congregation to those who are to be received, to which the candidates shall signify their consent.

15. The Pastor shall declare publicly the names of those who have been received by certificate, and the names of the Church to which they belonged.

16. The discipline of this church shall be what is contained in the 18th chapter of St. Matthew, 15, 16, and 17th verses. Any member not meeting the requirements of these Articles shall be liable to expulsion.

17. A letter of dismission shall be granted to any member of this Church in good standing, who removes so far from the place of meeting as to excuse in the opinion of a majority of the members present at any meeting his attendance on its services.

18. On the evening of the first Monday in December in each year, the annual meeting of the church shall be holden for the choice of officers by ballot, and for the transaction of other pending business.

19. These by-laws may be amended or repealed, and new ones made at any regular Church business meeting, if this be proposed at a previous meeting of like character.

20. Additional officers can be chosen at any Church business meeting.

The Christian Science Journal, Vol. 7, No. 5, August 1889258 Christian Science Journal.


Love is the liberator.