The Origin of Christian Science. Thomas Polhill Stafford

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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 СКАЧАТЬ