Chapter 5 — The Holy Ghost: Man’s Communion With God

From Christian Science, Its “Clear, Correct Teaching” by





In establishing your structure of Christian Science, you have accepted the word God to mean cause or Father, and man to mean effect or son.

In other words, you have established consciousness and that of which consciousness is conscious. You have seen that this constitutes the whole of being, namely, Principle and its idea, God and man, Mind and thought, Soul and body, your-Self and you.

But to establish full completeness there is one more point to settle.

It is to define the eternal relationship existing between consciousness and conscious being, the communion between God and man.




The Trinity Defined

These three elements — God, man, and the communion between them — constitute a trinity.

This leads us to a consideration of the word Trinity, which means three-in-one.

In the old theological sense, it is called the Holy Trinity, meaning the three persons of the Godhead. It is defined as the three-fold personality of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. But no theologian has ever explained this combination of three persons in one.

In Christian Science it is readily understood as God the Father and man the son, with the Holy Ghost as the communion between Father and son, their mutual awareness of each other, but never as one being the other.

You have found that Father and son are the first “two persons” of the Trinity, and that they are two-in-one, as it were, being Mind and its expression.

Could these intelligently know each other without communion?

This communion is the Holy Ghost.

By Holy Ghost you mean holy Spirit, or pure Spirit, isness, true being, true activity, conscious understanding, the activity that is ever present between Mind and thought, consciousness and conscious being — God directing His own idea.

Have you ever stopped to think what you yourself are doing every moment?

Are you not constantly meditating — thinking?

Does not this mean communing with something you call your mind? Paul expressed it, “Their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” (Rom. 2: 15)

Where is the “accusing or else excusing” going on?

Humanly speaking, are you not communing constantly with your own mind — a purely mental operation?

In the realm of pure Mind, the eternal communion between God and man, cause and effect, is the Holy Ghost, the necessary completion of Father and son.

This constitutes the Trinity.

Mrs. Eddy defines it perfectly in Science and Health: “God the Father-Mother; Christ the spiritual idea of sonship; divine Science or the Holy Comforter. These three express in divine Science the threefold, essential nature of the infinite. They also indicate . . . the intelligent relationship of God to man and the universe.” (S. & H. 331: 30)

Can there be any oneness, any intelligent relation, any understanding between Father and son unless there is communion between them?

Of course not. Mind and thought must commune with each other.




How Communion Appears To You

When you began to build your argument in this class, you started with your own consciously being as the one pure fact that needs no outward evidence to prove its reality — that is true to you because it is self-evident, wholly apart from sense testimony.

It is your own knowing.

From this you induced that consciousness is, otherwise you could not consciously be.

So you found consciousness as that which is

and that which is, as all that is.

In this All that is, is included all entity or existence. Nothing can be added to it nor anything taken from it. That “All” you named God, meaning by this term all isness.

Next you deduced idea or effect as necessary to God. For God to be God, to make Himself known, He must express Himself as man.

As you found God to be infinite, hence one, so you found man to be one man, not two; and you found yourself to be that man.

Does not that forever settle the question of man, in so far as your consideration of man is concerned? He is accounted for as yourself.

But you cannot deal with yourself. All that you can deal with is God, the Self of you. Effect does not turn to effect, to itself, but to cause.

In dealing or communing with God, how does the communing appear? “The Soul-inspired patriarchs heard the voice of Truth, and talked with God as consciously as man talks with man.” (S. & H. 308: 14)

It is self-evident that God’s language, His manner of being known, which is your communion with Him, appears as idea and all that you have established idea to be.

This communion is God talking to you in His own language because whatever God is, His language must be. He appears to you as person, place, or thing.

So your consciousness of being seems to be made up of men, animals, minerals, vegetables, mountains, rivers, worlds upon worlds throughout infinity.

This one infinite language is like its cause, from the infinitesimal to the infinite. “The only logical conclusion is that all is Mind and its manifestation, from the rolling of worlds, in the most subtle ether, to a potato-patch.” (Mis. 26: 5)

Does not everything come as consciousness to you and mean simply your communion with God, your consciousness, appearing in the language that you can most clearly understand, and that will best meet your need for progress and unfoldment?

Language does not imply merely words. It implies any mode or method whereby understanding is conveyed.

In communion, the eternal oneness of man with his Maker, the oneness of the idea with its Principle appears always as language, as person, place, or thing — whatever will best convey the sense of the omnipresence of good.

This is the language of God to man; in other words, this is the Holy Ghost.

Notwithstanding this self-evident truth, the constant temptation arises to imagine that you are dealing with persons, places, or things, as such, instead of knowing that you are communing with Mind in the language of Mind and so finding Mind to be all that you are concerned with.

This temptation to stop short of Mind will, if yielded to, destroy your structure of Christian Science and lead into the morass of human belief, which brings the fatal “three” into the argument.

Remember Jesus’ warning, “What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” (Mark 13: 37)




Christian Science An Exact Science

Christian Science is based upon one Principle and one idea, no matter what name you give to the Principle or to the idea. You may call it God and man, Soul and body, Principle and idea; but whatever name is used, it is always one, one cause and one effect.

Departure from this fundamental fact is fatal to understanding and therefore to all metaphysical demonstration of Christian Science. “Whoever affirms that there is more than one Principle and method of demonstrating Christian Science greatly errs, ignorantly or intentionally, and separates himself from the true conception of Christian Science healing and from its possible demonstration.” (S. & H. 456: 10) Again, “Principle and its idea is one.” (S. & H. 465: 17) “To infinite Spirit there is no matter, — all is Spirit, divine Principle and its idea.” (S & H. 475: 3)

When Jesus said, “I and my Father are one,” (Jno. 10: 30) he was referring to this fundamental truth, this eternal communion of Father and son, without a third, this communion that is essential to your understanding.

Because the language of God always appears as idea; so, in your communion with God, God appears to you as the infinity of variety called persons, places and things.

But it is always God, with whom you are actually communing, and never what appears to be persons, places or things.

Mrs. Eddy says, “The Christian Scientist is alone with his own being and with the reality of things.” (’01 20: 8) God is the reality and isness of all things, hence the Christian Scientist is alone with God, his own being.

This must be clearly understood because no other deduction can be drawn from the premise that God is that which is and man is that which God is God to.

You are dealing, then, with what God, consciousness, is to you — in other words, with your own Mind, with what you are acknowledging your God to be.

The Apostle John put it thus, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar.” (1 Jno. 4: 20) How could you love your God while hating that which is your interpretation of your God appearing to you? You interpret Him in your own language, in the only way you can understand Him.

If your God were to appear to you in language you could not understand, you would not know Him; therefore, He must of necessity appear to you in the language of your own acceptance.

This does not change the fact, however, that your God always appears to you in His own perfect language, as idea. But if you negatively interpret this appearing, He will seem to appear negatively, in other words, materially.

Are you tempted to murmur, as did the children of Israel in the wilderness, at the manner of His appearance, and to ask the reason for such an appearance?

You have your answer.

What are you acknowledging as consciousness, as God? Is it Mind; or is it the negation, unreversed, of Mind, appearing as matter?

If it is the latter, how can your God appear to you as anything but materiality? If you are accepting the negation of Mind as your God, He will appear in the language of ignorance, of finiteness, as death, in one form or another, for is not matter the negation of infinity, of Life?

Mrs. Eddy clearly states this: “Christian Science shows that matter, evil, sin, sickness, and death are but negations of Spirit, Truth, and Life, which are positives that cannot be gainsaid. The subjective states of evil, called mortal mind or matter, are negatives destitute of time and space; for there is none beside God or Spirit and the idea of Spirit.” (No. 16: 9)

Your Holy Ghost, your communion with what is, determines the appearance of all things to you. You are always dealing with your own

Mind, your own being; you are alone with your “own being and with the reality of things.” (’01 20: 9)

The ever-active communion between Father and son, the reality of things, appears as the infinity of persons, places, and things. It includes all that means family, position, money, friends, neighbors, country, world, universe, body. It includes all the terms you use to mean God and that which God is God to.

“Many, O Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.” (Ps. 40: 5) Science and Health expresses the same idea thus:

“There is but one creator and one creation. This creation consists of the unfolding of spiritual ideas and their identities, which are embraced in the infinite Mind and forever reflected. These ideas range from the infinitesimal to infinity Hence the eternal wonder, — that infinite space is peopled with God’s ideas, reflecting Him in countless spiritual forms.” (S. & H. 502: 29)




Some Words Analyzed

What is meant by the word person?

The dictionary gives its origin as per, through, and sonare, to sound, hence, to sound through, show forth, identify.

Does not idea do that?

Idea shows forth Principle, hence person is another word for idea, language.

God embraces all within Himself, all that means, and is, person.

Hence God is the one and only Person. He is that which is shown forth as Person, and person is that which shows Him forth.

What is place?

Place means position, location, site of something.

God being all the something that is, place means, where God is. However, since God is known only as idea, place is merely another name for idea, man, the language of Mind, that which declares the presence of God.

Thus there is but one place and that one infinite, the presence of God, the “here” of conscious being.

The word thing, is analyzed in the same way.

Thing means entity, the product of, the idea of that which is shown forth.

God, being that which is shown forth, and being one, there is one thing only, one entity that fills all space.

Thus, person, place and thing, in their infinity of variety, show forth the infinity we call God.

Therefore, God includes within Himself all person, all place, all thing.

In your communion with God, the language of God appears always as person, place and thing, — as that which makes Him known.

But, regardless of what appears to you, your thought does not rest until it reaches Mind, the one source of conscious being, the source of all that comes to you as consciousness.

Universe means the aggregate of all existing things; the whole creation, the cosmos.

This universe comes to you as consciousness, otherwise there would be no universe to you. You could not cognize it.

Universe shows forth the infinity of Mind.

What you know about God as Mind is what you know about universe. There is but one infinite universe, because there is one infinite Mind.

This one universe is a living, intelligent universe because the Mind of which it is the idea, the language, is Life and intelligence.

It is a truthful universe because it is the presence of truth. The universe is obedient to law, for divine

Principle is infinite law. It is therefore harmonious.

How will you interpret body?

It, too, comes to you as consciousness and is, therefore, your communion with God. It is consciousness, Mind, defining itself to you.

How old is body?

There is but one answer. Body is eternal. It is infinite in its every quality and attribute.

There never was a time when body began, any more than there was a time when Spirit, that which is, began.

Consequently there is no time when this body of Soul ceases to be. How could Mind ever cease defining itself to you? “The so-called appearing, disappearing, and reappearing of ever-presence, . . . . . is the false human sense of that light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not.” (Un. 63: 7)

Body is the spiritual outline of being, of Soul, and defines the beauty, harmony, and perfection of being. “The beauty of holiness [wholeness], the perfection of being, imperishable glory, — all are Mine, for I am God.” (S. & H. 253: 2) Its loveliness is the loveliness of perfection.

Nothing short of eternity can show forth the beauty and loveliness and joyousness of body, since it is the language of Mind to you.

Like the unfolding of a beautiful flower, this body of God, this language of God, perpetually unfolds the beauty of holiness, completeness.

This body is one, and is, therefore, all the body you have. Ask yourself, then, Do I love this body or do

I wish to get rid of it?

Do I, as Paul says, present it “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God”? (Rom. 12: 1)

It is because of this truth about body that woman, the more spiritual sense of the so-called mortal, has ever endeavored to perfect her sense of body and make it more beautiful. In doing this, even though not understanding the reason, she has shown forth the innate spirituality of being. Materiality has laughed at her, calling it vanity, but she has persisted and won.

Body, then, is your conscious communion with Mind, that which declares Mind to you.

Willingness to be “absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5: 8) means that body, as the language of Mind, must carry you through to Mind.

You relinquish it for Mind.

But if your thought deals with body as something in and of itself, you will find yourself, as Paul says, “at home in the body, absent from the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5: 6)

This is true not only of body, but of every thought, word and deed. It is true of all that comes to you as your communion with God.




Your Communion Is With God

You relinquish what appears for the substance of its appearing.

If you are concerned with anything apart from Mind, if your communion stops short of its goal

— the finding of God alone as the reality of what appears — thought will perish in the darkness of ignorance and limitation, for there is no light there.

This is the whole of the anguish called sin, sickness and death.

Jesus exemplified man’s communion with God and proved his identity with Christ.

He said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” (Jno. 14: 9) and “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (Jno. 14: 6) Here the expression “cometh unto the Father” means simply to know or understand the Father.

Peter declared, “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4: 12)

Is not Christ the truth about all that is, from the infinitesimal to the infinite? This Christ, this truth about everything is the “Lo, I am with you alway.” (Matt. 28: 20)

When you say “the truth about everything,” remember that “everything” includes all, as in Mrs. Eddy’s statement: “from the rolling of worlds, in the most subtle ether, to a potato-patch.” (Mis. 26: 6)

This Christ is the truth or true idea unto which “Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess.” (Rom. 14: 11)

“The real Christ was unconscious of matter, of sin, disease, and death, and was conscious only of God, of good, of eternal Life, and harmony. Hence the human Jesus had a resort to his higher self and relation to the Father, and there could find rest from unreal trials in the conscious reality and royalty of his being, — holding the mortal as unreal, and the divine as real. It was this retreat from the material to spiritual selfhood which recuperated him for triumph over sin, sickness, and death.” (No. 36: 12)




Instances Of Divine Protection

To Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, “the burning fiery furnace” (Dan. 3: 17) was not something to be feared. Having faith in good, in reality, in Life, in

Mind — their God, they knew that, if they remained true to the right interpretation of being, He could not appear in any language contrary to Himself.

So the fire became their protection and appeared as the destruction of all that threatened to harm them. “Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.” (Dan. 3: 22)

Daniel faced the lions fearlessly because he knew that his God, being omnipresent good, could appear to him only in the language of good.

With this understanding, the language of God appeared as harmless, God-like lions. “All that is, God created.” (Un. 64: 1)

Since he realized that communion with God was all there could be to lions, it was easy to see God also as the only King and to declare from his heart “O king, live for ever.” (Dan. 6: 21)

This was no subserviency to a so-called human power or king, but the acknowledgment of God as All-in-all, regardless of the appearance.

Elijah beheld his communion with God in the language of fire, consuming the sacrifice. “Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The Lord, he is the God.” (1 Kings 18: 38, 39)

Elisha saw his communion with God as a continuous supply of oil for the widow. “And it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said unto her son, Bring me yet a vessel. And he said unto her,

There is not a vessel more. And the oil stayed.” (2 Kings 4: 6)

Note that the flow of the oil did not cease until the widow herself said that she did not have room for more.

Moses, under the government of fear, “fled from before” (Ex. 4: 3) the rod he had used for years as a shepherd’s staff, when he saw it turn into a serpent. But when intelligence destroyed his fear, his old, familiar rod reappeared.

His realization that matter, under any name or in any form, animate or inanimate, is but a state of consciousness, became a staff upon which he could lean.

It was the understanding of this truth that enabled him to perform such wonders as the leading of the children of Israel out of Egypt in the face of what seemed to be insurmountable difficulties.

Your communion with God is constantly appearing to you as all that you are conscious of. You determine for yourself, by what you are beholding, whether or not you are acknowledging God as All-in-all.

The same sea in which the disciples caught nothing, after toiling all night, yielded fish in abundance when they entertained a different concept of Mind. This was spoken of as casting “the net on the right side.” (Jno. 21: 6)

The Bible is full of instances which prove that what is seen takes outward form in accordance with what is acknowledged as consciousness. “Mortal mind sees what it believes as certainly as it believes what it sees.” (S. & H. 86: 29)

This proves that man’s communion with his God determines the appearance of all that he is conscious of. This constitutes man’s power and freedom, and fulfills the promise, “as he thinketh in his heart so is he.” (Prov. 23: 7)

What a man thinks constitutes his communion, whether with reality or unreality, Life or death, good or evil, abundance or limitation.

Communion with reality is the Holy Ghost.

Communion with unreality is hypnotism.

“Believing a lie veils the truth from our vision; even as in mathematics, in summing up positive and negative quantities, the negative quantity offsets an equal positive quantity, making the aggregate positive, or true quantity, by that much, less available.” (Mis. 62: 9)

God appears or is known only in one way — as idea. “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” (Ex. 33: 20)

If man could see God other than as idea, man would be God; and, if man were God, there would be no man for God to be God to; consequently there would be no God.

Therefore, “no man shall see me, and live.” God sees Himself, God, as man or idea; but man does not see God. He sees God expressed in the language of his own understanding.

Completeness means Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; God, man, and the Comforter, which is the communion between them.

The three are one, and that one, God.

Paul sums it up, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; .

. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor. 15: 24, 28)

Chapter 4 — What God Is God to

From Christian Science, Its “Clear, Correct Teaching” by





Thus far, you not only have established the fact that there is God, but in defining these various terms for God, you have also determined what God is.

You have discovered that all these terms, with countless others are synonyms for God, because in their ultimate meaning, they find their basis in that which is.

In that isness is infinity.




Synonyms For God Interchangeable

You have found these synonyms also to be interchangeable because each word includes within itself all that every other word means.

Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one another.

You have carried every word that you have used for God back to its basis or foundation, to that which is.

You have found that the word Life, for example, which means existence, that which is, must mean exactly what Truth means since you have established Truth as that which is.

Thus having found both Life and Truth as that which is, all that Truth means, Life likewise means.

In like manner you have established intelligence and have found it to be synonymous with Life and Truth.

The same rule applied to the attributive qualities of God, just as it did to every word you have used for God. You took them all back to is, the one common denominator to which “every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” (Isa. 45: 23)

Without this one is, this one common denominator from which all proceeds and to which all returns, there could be no oneness, no allness.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . .

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (Jno. 1: 1, 3)

“From the infinitesimal to the infinite,” (S. & H. 336: 7) all is included in this “Word,” this is.

Understanding this, you do not depart from this foundation. You know that the attributes and synonyms meaning God, as you have established them, are all one.

This one God you have found to be all the power there is, all the presence there is, all the Life there is, all the Truth there is, therefore all the “all” there is.

Could there be a God more absolute, moreall-inclusive, than this God you have found to be your God? Not a God of theory but a God you know is God because of your own conscious existence and the inevitable conclusion derived from that fact.

This God completely satisfies you because He includes within Himself all that is and leaves nothing apart from Himself.




Cause Presupposes And Demands Effect

Having established that there is God, the question immediately arises: Could God be and not be God to something?

In other words, could consciousness be, unless it were conscious of something? Would consciousness not spontaneously cease if it were not conscious of something?

Self-evidently, that of which consciousness is conscious is essential to the existence, or being, of consciousness.

The declaration of Mind, “Let there belight,” (Gen. 1: 3) is the eternal necessity that Mind, to be Mind, shall be expressed.

God, consciousness, then, in order to be God, must have that which He is God to. What words can we use to express this that is essential for God’s being?

Of the words generally used to express this that is essential to God’s being, the two most often employed are — man and idea.

What does the word man mean when used in the sense of effect, or consequence of that which is primary?

What do we know about man as the effect of God?

Did God create man in the sense of God having been first in point of time? Or is this man of God forever one with God?

Obviously, man must be eternally one with God, for without him, God would not be God.

There could never have been a time when God was, and that which He is God to, namely man, was not. God could not be, without that which He is God to.




The Nature Of The Man Of God

Hence it must follow that the man of God is all that God is.

The man of God possesses every quality of God, or God also would cease to possess these qualities.

“Spiritual man and his spiritual senses are drinking in the nature and essence of the individual infinite.” (No. 19: 18) At no time could God be and man not be.

The infinite wisdom, intelligence, Truth andLife that is God, is the infinite wisdom, intelligence, Truth and Life that constitutes man.

This man of God is infinitely intelligent, infinitely wise, infinitely living, infinitely truthful, because this is his very being.

Man eternally does what God is.

Is it any wonder that the Psalmist shouldhave declared, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.” (Ps. 8: 4, 6) Man is that which shows forth God.

Man shows forth God by his conscious agreement with God at every point. “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” (Ps. 40: 8)

Man shows forth God’s power and dominion, and there is no power and dominion apart from the power and dominion shown forth by the man of God. The Psalmist could well exclaim, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” God is mindful of man because man is the essential expression of God.

Man is the achievement of what God is, for how could God achieve except as expression?

One cannot be without the other, each being essential to the other, therefore one never is the other. The elimination of one would be the elimination of the other.

The one is always cause, the other always effect.

In the sense that cause is always primary, and in that sense only, is God greater than man.

In Christian Science, the term greater, as meaning greater than something else, should never be used without explanation.

It is the essential oneness of God and man,God as the cause and man as the effect, that Jesus referred to when he said, “My Father is greater than I;” (Jno. 14: 28) “I and my Father are one.” (Jno. 10: 30)

God is noumenon and phenomenon because the very term God must include within itself that which it implies, that which it is God to, that which enables God to be God.

Jesus exemplified this man of God as the man of power, authority, dominion.

Since there is only one God, one isness, there can be only one man. You have already proved that there cannot be more than one is.

With one God, how could there be more than one man, when this man is the infinite presence of God?

How much life has this man? How much good? How much intelligence? There is but one answer — infinite life, infinite good, infinite intelligence.

Nothing you can say about this man of God is too wondrous, for all that God is, this manof God must be. Where is this man?

Is he “over there,” outside of your consciousness?

Is there any “over there” or is “here” all the place there is? There is no “over there” to Mind. Because your thinking is right here where you are, all that you call “over there” is “here.” Therefore, this man of God is here.

When you say “here,” you mean your own conscious being, your own identity, for that is “here” to you.

There is, then, one man and one man only; and you, inevitably, find yourself to be this man, and the Mind of this man is your Mind.

This is the man Mrs. Eddy refers to in Unityof Good, where she says, “The scientific man and his Maker are here; and you would be none other than this man, if you would subordinate the fleshly perceptions to the spiritual sense and source of being.” (Un. 46: 9)

You subordinate the fleshly perceptions, in other words, the material concept of all things, when, from the basis of your own being, you establish God and His one man as All-in-all.

Hence you are this “scientific man” here and now.




The Idea Of Principle

Let us next consider the term idea.

Instantly arises the question: idea of what?

Can there be idea without its being the idea of something? And must not that something be the Principle to the idea?

In establishing Principle as a synonym of God, you found that all that God means and is, Principle also means and is. It is equally true that whatever the man of God is, the idea of Principle is also. The man of God is the “conscious, constant capacity to understand God.” (S. & H. 209: 31)

Then the idea of Principle being synonymous with man must also be the “conscious, constant capacity to understand God.”

You as this man of God, this idea, this effect of God are concerned only with God. David saw this when he declared, “My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.” (Ps. 62: 5)

There is one Principle and one only. Being God, that which is, and therefore all that is, Principle must be one.

Because it is infinite, there is nothing outside it.

Because Principle could not be Principle unless it was Principle to idea, the omnipresence of Principle must be accompanied spontaneously by the omnipresence of idea.

“Lo, I am with you alway,” (Matt. 28: 20) means infinite Principle made manifest as infinite idea. There can be nothing held back from you, nothing unexpressed by you.

With one Principle, can there be more than one idea?

No, because this idea is infinite, and being the idea of infinite Principle, it is everywhere present; there is no place where the idea is not.

Is Principle limited by virtue of having but one idea?

Does it limit mathematics to have but one unit? There seem to be countless expressions of mathematics in what are called problems; but, as a matter of fact, the whole of mathematics is simply the addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and other operations performed on the unit. The one idea of Principle never becomes ideas, but always remains idea — singular, not plural.

It is as impossible to have ideas as it is impossible to have Principles. Principle, being infinite, must always appear as infinity of variety and perfection, but it remains always one.

The oneness of idea must be thoroughly understood.

You are satisfied that there is and can be but one Principle. You must be equally positive that there is and can be but one idea, one man of God.

It follows self-evidently that you are this idea. If there could be ideas, there would have tobe Principles, because there cannot be idea without that of which it is the idea.

In other words, without its Principle the idea spontaneously ceases to be.

The Principle being infinite, the idea likewise is infinite; then, where is there room for ideas?

If you think in terms of ideas, you will inevitably think in terms of Principles or Gods — which is unthinkable.

It might be well to explain here why Science and Health uses the word “ideas,” just as it uses many other words in the plural.

Science and Health does this as a concession to ignorance and the limitation of the human sense of language.

It must meet every condition of thought, from the most simple to the most profound, from that of the beginner to that of the farthest advanced. To enlighten this wide range of human belief, called person, Science and Health necessarily has to be expressed in language suited to each condition of thought, otherwise it would be unable to lead thought forward. If Mrs. Eddy, in writing the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health, had used only the singular form for the words “man” and “idea,” the limited, finite mind (in other words, the mortal) might have become confused and might have had an even more finite, limited sense of God than it had before.

To say that man is the complete expression or reflection of God and then to think of man as a finite mortal, is a parody on what Christian Science means by the word “man.”

To avoid this mistake, Mrs. Eddy endeavored to express in human language the fact that all men, all ideas, go into the making of man, in the generic sense, into man, the idea of God. Hence her statement, “God is indivisible. A portion of God could not enter man; neither could God’s fulness be reflected by a single man, else God would be manifestly finite, lose the deific character, and become less than God. Allness is the measure of the infinite, and nothing less can express God.” (S. & H. 336: 19)

And again, “Generically man is one, and specifically man means all men.” (S. & H. 267: 6)

But Mrs. Eddy’s necessity in the choosing of words is not yours. Science and Health is the textbook for every condition of thought, however ignorant. Its mission is to lift thought from whereit finds it. Mrs. Eddy had “to await the logicof events” (S. & H. 66: 22) and the unfolding of understanding. But you are concerned only with your own understanding; so you use the language best adapt-ed to establish the truth of being.

That language is in the singular, never in the plural form.

Science and Health can state things in the plural while thinking in the singular, and so do only good. You might, at first, find this difficult, since your words give impulse to your thought.

Therefore, think and talk in the singular and you will avoid confusion.

Even Science and Health, when stating an absolutely metaphysical thought, uses the singular, as, for instance, in the scientific statement of being. “All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation [not manifestations], for God is All- inall.” (S. & H. 468: 10)

You cannot be a metaphysician, a Christian Scientist, if you think in the plural.

“I and my Father are one.” (Jno. 10: 30) “Principle and its idea is one.” (S. & H. 465: 17)

You must be absolutely convinced of this fact; otherwise you will discover that you are continually confronted with the temptation to think in terms of the plural, in terms of three or more.

If you are assuming something outside of God and man, something “over there,” your whole structure of Christian Science will fall, for you are admitting something apart from Principle and that which Principle is Principle to — you, its idea.

There is but one Principle and one idea, and this idea is the spirit or likeness, in minutest detail, of its Principle. “God created man in his own image.” (Gen. 1: 27) The very existence of God creates the necessity for His mental image, or idea, man.




The Body Of Soul

The next word for consideration is body.

Should body be classified as cause or effect?

Every word falls into one or the other of these two categories. What is body? Does it mean something formed or created?

Or do you mean by body that which is the embodiment of what it represents or shows forth? Is not body, in that sense, a showing forth of that which you have established as Spirit, Soul? Could Soul or Spirit be, without body to represent it, to make it known?

You have established man’s essentiality to God, as that which makes God known, shows Him forth, performs what God is; then is not man, who embodies all that God is, the body of God?

The body of Spirit or Soul is the man of God. All that man is, as the embodiment of God, body is, also. The one Spirit, being omnipotent, all-acting, is the action of its own body, man.

It is infinite action, harmonious action, eternal action; and this action is the law of being, consciously obedient to its Soul, its God.

Body shows forth Life in living. It is the eternal manifestation of Life. It proves what Life is.

There is only one body, because there is only one Spirit, one Soul; and this body of Spirit is all that Spirit is and means.

Its continuity is infinite; for Spirit, which is infinite, would instantly cease without its embodiment or manifestation. Its purity and perfection is its oneness. There is nothing outside of its own being to contaminate it.

What is God’s own can be His only as it is shown forth as idea, as man, as body.

Science and Health declares body to be “the idea of Life, substance, and intelligence; the superstructure of Truth; the shrine of Love.” (S. & H. 595: 7)




Build On A Sure Foundation

Each one, as he erects the structure of Christian Science, must take every step logically, so that there may be an orderly sequence to his entire building. His must be the house of the wise man who, as Jesus said, “built his house upon a rock,” understanding, so that it “fell not.” The foolish man “built his house upon the sand,” changing beliefs, and “great was the fall of it.” (Matt. 7: 24-27) Jesus did not say that the man who built upon the sand did not build a house, but that when the storm came, the house built upon sand fell and great was its fall.

How important it is then, to build our house on the rock of understanding, which “begins inourselves and by education brightens into birth.” (My. 253: 26)

The rock is your consciously being, which in-separably unites you with the consciousness thatis.

Your house is a “house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens,” (2 Cor. 5: 1) and the stones are laid truly only as they are laid upon what you yourself know.

Of a surety, then, no storm that arises can destroy it.

Thus, not only have you established God, but you have established also that God must be God to something, and this something you have iden-tified as your own conscious being, as the man of God, the idea of Principle, the body of Soul.

In other words, you are the demonstration of that which Principle is.

You have seen that each of these terms includes and means all that the other terms mean and include.

You recognize that whatever term you use for God must mean exactly what every other term used for God means in its fullest sense.

In the same way, every term you use to designate the effect of God includes all that any other term means that is used as a synonym of effect.




The Orderly Use Of Words

While building your structure of reasoning in this class, you stand apart, as it were, and analyze God and what He is God to. You classify certain words which mean God to you and which you propose uniformly to use thus. You place these words in one column, so to speak, and in another you place the words you propose to use as synonyms of the idea of God.

However, you do this only to keep your thought uniform and free from confusion, because you recognize that there is no combination of letters that cannot be used to signify either cause or effect.

As an illustration, take the word Truth witha capital T. You place it in the column meaning God. Now take the same word with a small t, and you will place it in the effect column because you mean the truth of Truth.

In the same way you can say, the life of Life, or the love of Love.

In fact any word can be used interchangeably; but in accurate thinking, it is advantageous to have an orderly use of words and not to interchange them.

The three words that we have been analyzing and classifying, man, idea, body, are commonly used in the language of Christian Science to express the product, or effect of God.

However, one naturally thinks in his own particular language. That is why, in Christian Science, there is no formula, whether in the statement of what God is, why He is, or what the practice of Christian Science is.

Right practice is evolved from individual reasoning in strict adherence to Truth.

No one can formulate thought for another.Thought must always be spontaneous with the individual, or it will not be thought. Your Mind alone can think for you.

Anything cast in the mold of a formula instantly takes on the elements of materiality, because using a formula of necessity outlines, limits, and consequently materializes.

In Christian Science, therefore, there is no formulating by one individual for another. Each puts into his own language what he understands being to be.

Any attempt on the part of another to do this for him results in no thinking on his part and destroys all impulse to his own thought.

Consecrated obedience to Truth alone is thinking.




The Effect Of Cause

Let us consider some other terms not so commonly used as the three just analyzed, but which may be equally important in giving freedom to thought.

You have established cause as synonymous with God.

By cause you mean foundation, basis, origin — in other words, that which is.

That which is, being all that is, must be the basis, the foundation, the origin, the cause of all that is. Paralleling the word cause, and always accompanying it, is the word effect.

Effect instantly implies that it is the effect ofsomething that is primary to it.

For cause to be, it must have the effect that it is cause to, or there would be no cause. Then all that cause is, effect must be.

So you find that since cause is what you mean by the term God, effect is what you mean by the term product of God.

Effect expresses all the intelligence, all the Life, all the action, all the everything that God, as cause, means, and is. There is one effect because there is one cause, one is.

Effect is synonymous with man, idea, body. You are the effect of the one cause, God.

Effect is conscious identification with cause. “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.” (Ps. 42: 1)

As the effect of God, you can never lack anything, for you understand that you are the conscious and obedient functioning of what cause, God, is.

Man, as the effect of the one Mind, has infinite capability, boundless opportunity. The infinite Mind can operate only as man — effect.




The Universe Of Mind

How would you classify the word universeand what does it mean to you?

The usual answer to this question is: The universe is that in which I live. But is this a satisfying answer? Universe must be classified under the head-ing of either cause or effect. Where will you place it?

Accepting what you have established: one infinite Mind and that Mind all the isness there is, it follows that this Mind must include within itself all.

From this premise you are forced to the conclusion that all in which you, the idea of God, are included, or live, or with which you can be concerned, is God the one Mind.

But is this what you mean when you say that the universe is something in which you live?

In saying that you live in the universe, are you not thinking of universe merely as a larger effect, in which you, a smaller effect, live?

Such a sense of universe immediately implies two effects, two ideas, one larger than the other in which the lesser dwells.

Admitting two ideas immediately dethrones the infinity of Principle. You have established that you cannot have Principle without its idea, and that idea is co-existent with Principle.

Two ideas would necessitate two principles. But you have proved that there is one Principle and its idea, one infinity.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, the possibility of two ideas, there would of necessity be a dividing line of space, however infinitesimally small, separating these ideas and, therefore, a point where Principle was unexpressed as idea. Consequently infinite Principle would be dethroned as All-in-all.

This being so, what you call universe cannot be another idea, a place in which you live. It must be merely another word for that which meansthe effect of God; hence it must be synonymous with every other word that is used to define that which God is God to.

So we have one universe, and this universe as infinite as the Mind of which it is the universe. All that this Mind is, universe must be.




The Reflection Of God

Mrs. Eddy tells us, “Few persons comprehend what Christian Science means by the word reflection.” (S. & H. 301: 5) In which column will you classify reflection?

Reflection means to give back, implying that it expresses something that is. Then reflection must be another word for effect or man.

Does reflection imply three?

If, as an illustration, you are thinking of reflection as the image in the mirror which reflects the object in front of it, you at once introduce a third and dethrone the oneness of Principle and idea.

God, in His infinite allness, is a “jealous God” (Ex. 20: 5) and allows no third, no power, presence nor authority aside from Himself and His idea.

Principle and its idea is one not two. Twois implied only in the sense that Principle is never idea and idea is never Principle. They are inseparably one in that one can never be without the other, but nothing apart from this Principle and idea can enter into that oneness.

If you concede a third something, you have entity apart from the one Mind and that to which it is Mind.

That, of course, destroys your heaven, for heaven means harmony, and harmony means isness; oneness; consciousness and that of which consciousness is conscious; God and His idea.

The sun and its ray best illustrate what is meant by the word reflection. The ray of sunlight expresses, or reflects, every quality and characteristic of the sun. The sun and the ray are inseparably one, in the sense that there is nothing intervening.

The illustration of the mirror and the object before it does not accurately express the metaphysical meaning of the word reflection, because the mirror appears to be a third. There is no mirror in which the idea of God can be reflected.

The man of God, the reflection of God, is the eternal presence of God, and is that whereby God is known. “Whatever is possible to God, is possible to man as God’s reflection.” (Mis. 183: 13)

The only way in which you can safely use the illustration of the mirror, is to do as Mrs. Eddy does and call “the

mirror divine Science.” (S. & H. 515: 29) This avoids the “third.”

You cannot afford to allow a thought to operate as your mind which implies, in the slightest degree, anything apart from Principle.

Be constantly on guard against a “third” in your thinking. You cannot be too exact in satisfying your own thought.

No matter what the seeming appearance, there can no more be two ideas, (metaphysically, and therefore, absolutely) than there can be two gods.

“Spirit is the only creator, and man, including the universe, is His spiritual concept.” (Un. 32: 6)




The Use Of “In” And “Of”

As man, you do not live in the universe or in anything. You exist as the idea of God. Let us digress a moment to consider the two words “of” and “in.”

“Of” means product of, that which is derivedfrom.

“In” means contained within, that which is completely enveloped.

Accepting this definition of “in,” it is obvious that God, who is All-in-all, cannot be in anything. If He were, He would be less than that which He is in and therefore, not all that is.

Because of this self-evident fact, the word in, as used in Christian Science is, as Mrs. Eddy says, “A term obsolete in Science if used with reference to Spirit or Deity.” (S. & H. 588: 22)

God is not, and cannot be, in anything.

The true interpretation of Paul’s statement should read, Let that same Mind be Mind to you that was Mind to Christ Jesus, not, Let that same “mind be in you.” (Phil. 2: 5)

Since God, Mind, cannot be in anything, neither can man, the idea of God, be in anything.

You as man, are aware of consciously being.You do not find yourself in anything — you simply are.

If you could find yourself in, you would have to presuppose an outside from which you were looking in in order to find yourself — a manifest absurdity.

Metaphysically, the word “in” is as obsolete with reference to man as it is to God, except in the one sense that Mind, being infinite, embraces within itself all that it is Mind to.

You exist as the idea of God.

Therefore, never think of yourself as in anything.

You do not find yourself in God, because you are the idea of God. In communion with Him you discover all that appears to you as consciousness, whether appearing as person, place or thing.




The Language Of Mind

How do you define the word “language”?

Is it not that which Mind is Mind to, namely, the idea expressed? Mind outlining itself in expression is language. Language then, in its broadest sense is the complete, all-inclusive symbol or image of Mind.

It is the idea of Mind, the mental or spiritual image, expressed; the ideal or model of Mind. It declares in spiritual outline what Mind is; performs what Mind is.

Language draws its existence from Mind and so is the effect of Mind. Since it is the effect ofMind, it is one, and is synonymous with all words meaning effect.

You, then, are the language of God and carry out and express all that God is.

You are the idea of God, spiritually expressed, the language of Mind that maintains and enforces what Mind is.

Jesus declared, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (Jno. 5: 19)

In Isaiah we read, “When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isa. 59: 19)

What is this standard of God’s power and authority? It is the language of Mind, the manof God, the conscious expression of what Mind is.




“The Divine Manifestation Of God” (S. & H. 583: 10)

The next word to define is Christ.

Should Christ be classified as cause or effect? The theological concept is that Christ is an-other name for God. If by “Christ” you mean that which appears like God, then it is not another name for God, but another name for the effect of God, for that whereby God is known.

Jesus said of the Christ, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (Jno. 14: 6) Then, he must have meant by “the Christ” the truth or the true way.

The name Christ Jesus means the true Jesus, which, in turn, means the man Jesus, demonstrating the reality of the true man of God.

It is in this sense of effect, or man of God, that the word Christ is used in Christian Science, rather than as a synonym for God.

Science and Health, however, in a number of instances, uses the word as synonymous with Life and Truth, and rightly understood it can be used in that sense as well as in the sense of reflection. But the definition of Christ, as given in the glossary of Science and Health, indicates the best way in which to think of Christ. “The divine manifestation of God, which comes to the fleshto destroy incarnate error.” (S. & H. 583: 10)

Thus Christ means the manifestation or revelation of God; in other words, the man of God. That man of God is the man whereby God reveals or shows forth Himself.

Can there be more than one Christ?

No, that is impossible, because there is but one God. Is there any place where Christ is not?

No. Christ is the one and only man there is.

It is this Christ that is your reality, the verity of your conscious being, your very self. Christ is forever one with Messiah, for Messiah means Saviour.

What is it that saves?

For example, what saves or corrects the error “two times two is five.” Is it not the truth about two times two, that it is four?

Is not that what you mean by the Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour, the very presence of Principle, the truth, everpresent, now?

Christ, then, is the Messiah, and this Messiah is all the Saviour there ever is or can be. God, divine Principle, cannot operate of Himself without expression.

He can operate only as His own idea or Christ.

The Saviour is not Principle; the Saviour is the presence of Principle, called Christ or man. This is why Science and Health declares, “God will heal the sick through man, whenever man is governed by God.” (S. & H. 495: 1)

Think always of this Christ, this Messiah as the saving man, then, finding yourself as this man, you will cease looking for him to come.

With two times two as five confronting you in a mathematical problem, you would not ask the principle of numbers to correct it for you. In your communion with that principle, you would find oneness with two times two as four, and the mistake would automatically disappear.

The same method corrects problems that seem to arise in the study of the Science of being.

Except for the word “Christ,” you will find that Mrs. Eddy generally uses words in the sense in which she classified them, and does not use them first as meaning God and then as meaning the idea of God.

This double use of the word “Christ,” as a concession to popular Christian usage, is an endeavor to cause no offense, and so to be, as Paul puts it, “all things to all men.” (1Cor. 9: 22)

What Mrs. Eddy could do with perfect wisdom and understanding, you may not at once be able to do; hence you will find it wiser not to interchange words in your vocabulary but to use them uniformly in the sense in which you classify them metaphysically.

By so doing you will avoid confusion and be surer of the words you use. They will give impulse to your thought and spontaneously your understanding will respond.

This, however, does not mean that one has not the right to use a word in any sense he caresto give to it. You must, in fact, do so or you will not speak with authority.

To paraphrase the Scripture concerning the Sabbath one might say, “man was not made for words but words were made for man.” Therefore, any word is for you to use in the sense that gives the best impulse to your thought and which carries you most directly to the impersonal Truth.

The point to be guarded against, however, is the use of the same word to mean both cause and effect. That might cause confusion and give a wrong impulse to thought. Apart from this, there is no inflexible meaning for words.




The Understanding Of God

Let us now establish what is meant by understanding.

This word, like the word Christ, is frequently used as meaning both God and His idea.

God would cease to be God unless He were known and understood, in other words, expressed or shown forth.

In this sense of the word, man is the understanding of God, just as man is the body of God.

Man shows forth that which God is; hence man must be the understanding of God.

But if you use the word understanding to imply that which supports or maintains, then it becomes synonymous with God.

Because God is Mind, and this Mind could not be Mind without being understood or expressed, is it not simpler to call man the understanding of God?

In that case, understanding is synonymous with effect rather than with cause. This is also the sense in which you acceptthought.

Mind must have thought in order to be Mind, for thought is the product or effect of Mind.

So, understanding is the product or intelligent effect of intelligence, but it is not intelligence itself.

That which you have established as true understanding, the man of God, the forever showing forth what God is, immediately brings to light the folly of praying in the sense of asking God to grant a request.

True prayer is communion with God, the realizing one’s eternal oneness with Him and so being like Him. “All things that the Father hath are mine.” (Jno. 16: 15)

It would be impossible to define the true sense of prayer more clearly than Mrs. Eddy has done in No and Yes:

“Prayer is the utilization of the love wherewith He loves us It makes new and scientific discoveries of God, of His goodness and power. It shows us more clearly than we saw before, what we already have and are; and most of all, it shows us what God is.” (No. 39: 18)

Preface

From Christian Science, Its “Clear, Correct Teaching” by



Since this volume comprises all of my writings, it should be again clearly stated and thoroughly understood that there is not a single original idea in any of the books contained in this volume.

Every statement presented finds its origin in the pure divine metaphysics, given by Mary Baker Eddy, the one Revelator of Christian Science, in SCIENCE AND HEALTH WITH KEY TO THE SCRIPTURES, the textbook of Christian Science and in her other writings.

God does not need two revelators of one spiritual fact. One is sufficient. Indeed there could not be two, for more than one would simply be repetition not revelation.

These books tell their readers nothing new whatever, but they have proved useful in reminding each reader of what he already knows and has learned from all that Mrs. Eddy demonstrated in her unselfish labours for mankind since 1866 and from her numerous writings. In reminding the reader of what he already knows, they have given an impulse to his thought, have encouraged him to use what he knows and have blessed him accordingly.

This Preface would not be complete unless I added the further statement that all my writings are the result of the devoted and tireless cooperation, these many years, of my dear wife, Bessie Moore Eustace, C.S.B. To her I owe my endless gratitude for having made it possible, under God’s ever-guiding direction, to produce them.

Los Angeles, 1953


It might properly be stated that in this single volume comprising my previously published books, there appear some 30,000 words of text which have not heretofore been put into book form.

Included is the 22,000 word report of meetings held recently in London, New York, Los Angeles, and Berkeley — under the caption “Translation of ‘the false prophet’ of Revelation into Mind,” the Ascension, or Christian Science Era. — H.W.E.





ALL IS THINE

by Bessie Moore Eustace

Why worry for the future?
Eternal good is mine,
For have I not His promise
“SON, all I have is thine.”

Why fret about past failures?
God would not have me pine
Because these words I doubted,
“SON, all I have is thine.”

Why live not for the present?
Love knows no other time
In which to prove this blessing
“SON, all I have is thine.”

Published in the C.S. Sentinel December 18th, 1902

Chapter 1 — Explanations Introductory to Class

From Christian Science, Its “Clear, Correct Teaching” by



“There is no expedient to which man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.”

(Sir) Joshua Reynolds.

“Materialism, once a scientific theory, is now the fatalistic creed of thousands, but materialism is nothing better than a superstition on the same level as a belief in witches and devils.”

John Scott Haldane.

“Some day people will learn that material things will not bring happiness and are of little use in making men and women creative and powerful. Then the scientists of the world will turn their laboratories to the study of God and Prayer, and the spiritual forces which as yet have hardly been scratched. When this day comes, the world will see more advancement in one generation that it has seen in the past four.”

Charles P. Steinmetz.





Solomon said, “there is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecc. 1: 9.) This statement is metaphysical and therefore true. In the language of to-day it means, that no one can be told one thing that he does not already know. Because infinite intelligence is omnipresent, it is the intelligence of all,therefore one and all know all. Then what seems like the learning of something new is but the focusing attention on what one already knows even though he may seem completely unaware of knowing it.

Before beginning the routine of the class, a number of points should be carefully weighed and settled. What is the purpose of any class?

Is it not self-evidently, enlightenment?

Then the purpose of a Christian Science class is to gain an understanding of what Christian Science really means and is, thus establishing a working basis for thinking.

This is the motive for your being in class. The well-springs of that motive must be sincerity and honesty, without which little progress can be made.

In order that this understanding may be available for your use, it must be orderly and natural, with no “skipping of hurdles” and no lapse in the continuity of your argument.

Each step must be taken understandingly. This can be done only if each step is based logically and inevitably on the step previously taken.




A Foundation Stone Necessary

First there must be the certain knowledge of some basic fact on which to start the structure: something so self-evident that it cannot be impugned, and so obviously true that it carries instant conviction.

Such knowing is the rock, and the only rock upon which to lay the foundation.

Then follows the orderly laying of one “stone,” (Isa. 28: 16) one established fact, upon another, each one true to the “plumbline,” (Amos 7: 8) until the structure of reasoning is complete and available for use.

Because the whole of Christian Science is correct thinking, in other words, communion with intelligence, it is understanding. Thus all laborious effort to remember is unnecessary.

Memory, as human belief conceives of it, consists of impressions, or grooves made on the brain as on a phonograph record, to be later reproduced.

Christian Science, being understanding, not a brain record, is thinking seen as action, not brain-grooves which can so easily fade.

Infinite Mind is infinite memory. It embraces within itself all knowing, which includes all memory, but this is Mind-action, not brain-action.

As in mathematics, the knowing that two times two is four obviates the necessity for remembering it. So is it with all understanding.

Knowing is understanding and includes within itself all memory.




Alone With Your Own Understanding

This class, being understanding, is your understanding. In it you are alone with Mind. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” (Isa. 1: 18)

You must be willing to accept any statement of Truth that is your own logical deduction, and unwilling to accept anything equivocal, or not clear to you, no matter from what authority it may be said to have come.

You must be convinced by your own reasoning, for you can use nothing about which you are uncertain. “Be thoroughly persuaded in your own mind concerning the truth which you think or speak, and you will be the victor.” (S. & H. 412: 7)

Conversely, you must be just as determined to keep an open mind, remembering Paul’s statement, “If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” (I Cor. 8: 2)

When a truth, based on your accepted premise and correctly deduced, is established, even if the conclusion disagrees with your preconceived ideas, accept it gladly and do not allow prejudice to blind you.

Conceit is fatal to progress, and as Mrs. Eddy says, “Conceit cannot avert the effects of deceit.” (No. 2: 24)

Self-opinion, except when based on reality, is valueless. On the other hand, “Willingness to become as a little child and to leave the old for the new, renders thought receptive of the advanced idea. Gladness to leave the false landmarks and joy to see them disappear, — this disposition helps to precipitate the ultimate harmony.” (S. & H. 323: 32)

Human opinion weighs not one iota in the scale of infinite intelligence.

Then until you have made Christian Science your own through understanding and demonstration, it is folly to discuss what you believe it to be. Furthermore Jesus said, “neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” (Matt. 7:6)

In “thy closet” (Matt. 6: 6) alone with Mind, you find your strength.

There, “in the secret place of the most High,” (Ps. 91: 1) your conclusions are your own. They are the truth to you because you have deduced them logically, not because the Bible or Science and Health has stated them.

Nothing is true merely because some one has said it or because it is in a book. All that constitutes the truth is its own inherent truthfulness.

Then the truth of Christian Science must be established independently of what Mrs. Eddy or the Bible has said. It must be discovered as fundamentally true.

As this is done, it will be found that the statements in the Bible and in Science and Health are true, not because they are in these books but because they are true in themselves.

Because they are true, they are in these books.These books are a record of the truth, and are therefore to be earnestly studied.




The Importance Of Words

Another fact to be understood is that no word, no combination of letters has any meaning to you unless it conveys something to your thought.

Only as a word gives impulse to your thought does it have any value for you.

Therefore, in using words, it is far betterto find your own word, one that does definitely define something to you, than to adopt another’s word that does not give impulse to your own thought.

Jesus said, “When ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matt. 6: 7)

Nothing is gained by the mere language you use.

Jesus also declared, “I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Matt. 12: 36, 37.)

Use, then, only the words which you understand. That gives account of them and justifies them. In turn, they give the right impulse to thought and you speak as one having authority and not as the Scribes and Pharisees. You think with authority also.

Avoid giving theological meanings to words, which may lead only to ecstasy of thought. Simplicity in words makes them more forceful.

Jesus’ words were simple and direct, and al-ways powerful.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address lives and is quoted because it is simple, direct, and sincere.

To be direct and sincere one must have definite conviction. “Sincerity is more successful than genius or talent.” (’00 9: 18)

An honest Christian Scientist cannot remain a belief Scientist nor a faith Scientist: he must be an understanding Scientist, knowing what he knows.




What Does The Term Christian Science Signify?

Christian means pertaining to the Christ.Jesus declared of the Christ, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (Jno. 14: 6)

Then the Christ is the truth, and therefore,the term Christian must mean “pertaining to the truth.” Science means exact knowledge. The word is derived from the Latin scio, I know.

Hence Christian Science means exact knowledge of the truth; in other words, right knowing.

Right knowing is what is meant by the word intelligence, another name for Mind. This we shall prove is synonymous with the word God. Thus we shall find Christian Science to mean God.

Speculation no more enters into the study of Christian Science than into the study of mathematics. Understanding alone counts: therefore, “With all thy getting get understanding.” (Prov. 4: 7)

“Reason is the most active human faculty.” (S. & H. 327: 29) Reason establishes every step in Christian Science.

Reasoning brings forth all opposing arguments and meets them with the true arguments, exactly as right mathematical reasoning meets every mathematical problem.




Certain Statements Examined

Let us now examine certain of Mrs. Eddy’s statements and see if we can accept them through our own reason, wholly apart from the fact thatit was Mrs. Eddy who made them. She says,

“That glory only is imperishable which is fixed in one’s own moral make-up.” (My. 122: 5)

“Moral” means pertaining to action with reference to right and wrong, and refers always to the mental rather than to the physical.

Sin is considered a wilful mental act, a moral offense under the control of the individual, as contrasted to sickness, which is commonly, though erroneously thought of as physical, hence outside of mental control.

However, is it not a fact that that which you understand is alone truth to you — in other words, that which is mental or moral, and so fundamentally right, “imperishable”?

Nothing physical is “imperishable.”

Mrs. Eddy’s statement, then, means that the only glory that is imperishable is that glory which is established as understanding and is one’s very own and so constitutes “one’s own moral makeup.”

Again she says,

“The infinite will not be buried in the finite; the true thought escapes from the inward to the outward, and this is the only right activity, that whereby we reach our higher nature.” (My. 159: 14)

The only thought that has permanency with you is the one that begins in yourself and is understood by you.

You may recall, as an act of memory, things which you have been told; but until you understand them, you do not actually know them. They cannot unfold into further understanding unless they begin in yourself, in what you comprehend.

Beginning in your own comprehension, they escape from the finite, the inward, the lesser, to the outward, the greater, even as two times two escapes from its first limited sense of being just four, to the larger sense of two times two billions being four billions and so on to infinity.

So it is with all thinking, and particularly with that thinking which deals with man’s relation to his divine Principle.

That which constitutes the “I” or consciousness of the individual — in other words, the “inward,” can never rest in the finite or limited sense, but must ever reach out to oneness with the infinite, the “outward” or unlimited. Thus is the higher nature reached.

“We must resign with good grace what we are denied, and press on with what we are, for we cannot do more than we are nor understand what is not ripening in us.” (My. 195: 13)

In mathematics, the only thing one is deniedis the point he does not grasp. He is denied nothing he understands. But he can utilize no fact he does not master.

It is exactly the same in the Science of being. You can use only what you understand; therefore, you are spontaneously denied what you do not understand.

What constitutes your being?

Certainly you would not say it is your body.

So it must be your understanding. Therefore,it is your understanding that constitutes your real entity; in other words, what you are.

You can press on with what you are, with what you understand, because that constantly unfolds to you.

Its basis is Mind, infinity. Therefore,it keeps “ripening” within you.

You gladly “resign” the rest, that which you do not understand, and therefore cannot utilize.

“We understand best that which begins in ourselves and by education brightens into birth.” (My. 253: 26)

This statement again brings home the fact that understanding is not something that is told you, but something that is based upon and developed from that which you know and which by application “brightens into birth.”

It is permanently yours, dependent upon nothing outside yourself, outside your consciously being, your communion with Mind.

However small the beginning, its growth will be “sturdy, and its maturity undecaying.” (S. & H. 463: 16) “The burden of proof that Christian Science is Science rests on Christian Scientists.” (My. 158: 17)

Again using mathematics as a basis of comparison, the burden of the proof of mathematicsrests with the mathematician. He shows forth mathematics. Without him, it would be unknown.

Without the Christian Scientist to prove it, Christian Science would be unknown.

But this point must be emphasized: it is the “proof” and not the fact of Christian Science that rests with the Christian Scientist.

The fact stands irrefutable, regardless of any so-called proof; but without the ChristianScientist to show it forth, the fact would not be known.

The “burden of proof” implies the necessity of being a consistent Christian Scientist so that the truth of Christian Science may be seen and known. That “burden” consists of merely being man.

“Again I repeat, person is not in the question of Christian Science. Principle, instead of person, is next to our hearts, on our lips, and in our lives.” (Mis. 135: 2)

Person does not enter into the consideration of any question in Christian Science.

But this does not mean that Christian Science, as Mind, does not appear as person. That is to say, we interpret it as person in the same way that we interpret music as notes. But we must see through this appearance, or interpretation, to the Principle underlying the outward expression or interpretation appearing as person.

The entertaining of a finite or personal sense separates one spontaneously from Principle, the infinity that is Mind.

“Remember, it is personality, and the sense of personality in God or in man, that limits man.” (Mis. 282: 4)

If you personalize two times two is four, and think of it as a thing instead of as idea, does not that instantly limit your use of it?

The value of mathematics to you is its everpresence with you, occupying no space, and yet always available for your use in the way most suited to the need of the moment.

Personalizing, in other words, outlining, limiting, or forming a finite sense of either God or man, has the same effect in the Science of being that it has in the science of numbers. It finitizes your sense of it and makes its use impossible.

“To impersonalize scientifically the material sense of existence — rather than cling to personality — is the lesson of to-day.” (Mis. 310: 7)

The one need for the thinker today is to impersonalize his sense of person, to dematerialize his sense of things. Only in doing this is he released from the finite sense of being with its picture of sin, disease and death.

In every new invention, thought breaks through the fetters of limitation, and invariably less and less matter accompanies the improvement.

Thought cannot be unfettered until it finds Mind as All-in-all.

A material or finite sense of existence must be exchanged for the spiritual or Mind-sense.

“To live so as to keep human consciousness in constant relation with the divine, the spiritual, and the eternal,is to individualize infinite power; and this is Christian Science.” (My. 160: 5)

In the realm of music, the musician keeps his ear in constant accord with the correct tone. A true musician is never off the key.

This individualizes for him the power of music.

In like manner the true Christian Scientist finds the one Mind as the All-mind, as his Mind, as his “key” that individualizes for him the infinite power of Mind and maintains him “in constant relation with the divine, the spiritual, and the eternal.”

This constitutes the Christian Scientist.

“Christian Science is absolute; it is neither behind the point of perfection nor advancing towards it; it is at this point and must be practiced therefrom.” (My. 242: 5)

Just as mathematics is the same yesterday, today, and forever, never behind the point of perfection nor advancing towards it but always declaring two times two to be the same four, so the Science of being is intact and whole.

There is no advancing towards wholeness. It is already a fact; and just as mathematics is applied from the standpoint of absoluteness, so must Christian Science be applied from the same standpoint.

It does not bow down to human desire or weakness. Every thought must be brought into obedience to the truth of being.

Christian Science yields to nothing. It never changes. It stands as the perfection of all being, now and always. It reveals perpetual wholeness.

“Entirely separate from the belief and dream of material living, is the Life divine, revealing spiritual understanding and the consciousness of man’s dominion over the whole earth.” (S. & H. 14: 25)

No human concept enters into your consideration of mathematics; neither can it enter into your understanding of Christian Science.

Human belief has to take off its shoes before entering the holy place of spiritual understanding. Materiality must give place to “the spiritual fact of whatever the material senses behold” (S. & H. 585: 11) before the portals of Christian Science are entered. Unwillingness to do this defeats progress, for “whoso builds on less than an immortal basis, hath built on sand.” (Hea. 1: 8.)

“Every step of progress is a step more spiritual. The great element of reform is not born of human wisdom; it draws not its life from human organizations; rather is it the crumbling away of material elements from reason, the translation of law back to its original language, — Mind, and the final unity between man and God.” (Peo. 1: 2)

“The Christian Scientist is alone with his own being and with the reality of things.” (01 20: 8)

You must be willing to abide alone with Mind, with all that Mind includes and is, just as you must abide alone with the principle of numbers if you are to progress in mathematics.

Into this aloneness that is isness, nothing can enter. It is the solitude of Mind embracing all.It is not emptiness, but the satisfaction of allness.

You are always alone with consciousness — with your own consciousness, and with all that consciousness is.




What Do These Statements Mean?

Summed up, what do all these statements mean?

They emphasize the fact that you are required to be materially selfless, to accept onlywhat you know, what you understand. You are to disregard what you have merely believed or had faith in because you accepted its source as humanly authoritative.

You can apply all that you understand; andwhat you understand constitutes what you really are.” Into this understanding no personal or finite sense enters.

As the High Priest, the true sense of being, alone entered the Holy of Holies, so you are always alone in the Holy of Holies with your ownconsciousness, with what you admit consciousness to be.

With this foundation upon which to stand, one can go forward and establish what Christian Science is and what it teaches.




Steps Of Procedure In Class

The natural order followed by a class in Christian Science is: first, it establishes the true; second, it defines and analyzes the false; and lastly, it shows how the true is the positive and the false is the negative aspect of the same truth which, when reversed, leaves “nothing that can sin, suffer, be punished or destroyed.” (S. & H. 340: 29)

Under the first, or true sense of being, is found what is termed God and what God is God to;in other words, God and His man and all that this includes.

Under the second or false sense of being, we deal with the negative or suppositional opposite of God, called evil and its man.

The final step shows that the negative or opposite must have that which it negatives or is opposed to.

Therefore the negation exists only as a negative definition or proof of the positive which is true.

When this is understood, thought turns spontaneously to the true and abandons the false sense that would have two realms, one good and one evil, one to be attained at some future time, the other to be combated as a reality now.

This is the true sense replacing the false sense of the negative, leaving the clear understanding that “the reverse of error is true.” (S. & H. 442: 18) This is the quickening spirit that abandons the “first man Adam,” leaving only perfection, with its “last Adam.” (I Cor. 15: 45)

This constitutes Christian Science and its practice and follows the order of the Bible.

In the first chapter of Genesis, there is given the true picture of creation, God and His perfect man.

The second chapter portrays another picture, that of the so-called Lord God, and his man formed of the dust of the ground — the exact opposite of the first account of creation, wherein man is portrayed as the image and likeness of Spirit.

The remainder of the Bible is devoted to showing how this suppositional creation, with all its false beliefs, is scientifically replaced by the understanding of the true creation as the only reality.

The Bible ends with the book of Revelation, in which is forecast the destruction of all evilthrough the “little book,” (Rev. 10: 2) which is to rule “with a rod of iron.” (Rev. 12: 5)

This “little book,” Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy, is showing to the world that the false sense of being, and all that it includes, inevitably disappears with the realization that the real and true is All-in-all.

To The Reader

From Christian Science, Its “Clear, Correct Teaching” by



A reader is entitled to ask what qualifications the writer of a book has to warrant a demand for attention. A short account, therefore, of my experience in Christian Science and my past relationship to that which is called the Christian Science movement, will throw light upon this question.

Looking back over the events which account for the present freedom of thought and action, personality fades out of importance and God’s meaning becomes apparent. Events are found to have unconsciously interpreted the divine purpose far beyond the most earnest hope of unfoldment.

Christian Science was first brought to my attention when I was quite a young man and I was immediately interested, although not from the need for physical healing. I had always been in excellent health. Nor was I dissatisfied with my religion. My father being a clergyman in the Church of England, as had been each of my grandfathers, by natural inclination I adhered to that church. In fact, I was thoroughly satisfied with life as I found it.

But when a friend asked me to read Science and Health I discovered that one does not always know what is taking place in thought and that what I had accepted as satisfaction was really complacency rather than true satisfaction.

At that time, 1893, I was living on my ranch in California and had the long evenings for reading and studying. These I spent with Science and Health. During the day, while at work, I continually pondered the wonders and profound import of this new view of life, and, by the time I had finished reading the book, its teachings had become my own deep conviction.

From that time Christian Science has filled my life with a greater and more eventful happiness than I could have deemed possible. It has truly proved to be the “one pearl of great price,” which, when the seeker had found, he “went and sold all that he had, and bought it.” (Matt. 13: 46.)

At the beginning of my study of Christian Science, I discovered that human opinion has not the slightest value in the understanding of this Science and that the author of Science and Health, Mary Baker Eddy, was the only one who was not swayed and influenced by human opinion, but, in her consecrated communion with Mind, stated the truth fearlessly and uncompromisingly, never deserting the goal of her vision.

I therefore determined at once to obtain all Mrs. Eddy’s writings, which at that time were not published in book form but had appeared in pamphlets or magazine articles.

I was successful in securing much that she had written, and these writings, together with Science and Health, were to me invaluable.

Later, pursuing what then seemed the natural course, I joined The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1894, when the membership of that church was less than three thousand.

Afterward a branch church organization was formed in San Jose, California, and I had the experience of filling, through a period of fifteen years, nearly every office in that church.

In 1902, I had one of the most joyous and enlightening experiences that has come to me — two weeks spent in Boston attending, with Mrs. Eustace, the college class conducted by Edward A. Kimball.

Those who knew Mr. Kimball know what a profound and analytical thinker he was. In that class truths that were dimly stirring in the depths of my own aroused thought were elucidated — truths which with their logical sequences meant genuine Christian Science, truths that meant the “clear, correct teaching of Christian Science,” (My. 297: 18.) rather than faith and belief in it.

A certificate of the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, conferring the degree of C.S.B., signed by Mrs. Eddy and Mr. Kimball, was given to each member of that class, together with the further designation of Normal Course Graduate, which meant that the holder was entitled to teach Christian Science.

After returning to San Jose, I soon began holding classes and have continued to do so ever since, each succeeding class being a larger unfoldment of Mind in its infinity of variety.

In July, 1909, I was asked to go to Boston to talk over the advisability of changing my residence to New York to teach there. After careful consideration, however, this plan was abandoned.

It was during this visit to Boston that some forty or fifty visiting Christian Scientists were invited to Mrs. Eddy’s home at Chestnut Hill. Mrs. Eddy graciously said she wished to see us. It gave us the opportunity to refute the foolish story then prevalent that she was dead and that another was masquerading in her place.

It was on this occasion that Mrs. Eddy gave her followers that imperative admonition not to look for their leader in her personality, but only in her books and in her great love for all mankind. It was during the following December, 1910, that Mrs. Eddy passed away.

In September, 1912, I received a letter from the board of trustees of The Christian Science Publishing Society, asking whether I would accept an appointment as a member of that board and requesting me to come to Boston to talk it over. There was nothing attractive to me in occupying an official position. It did not seem that it could in any way help toward demonstrating Christian Science, nor did leaving my home in California appeal to me.

I shall always look back with the deepest interest to the tremendous struggle of those few days in Boston, while considering the question of accepting the trusteeship. It seemed impossible to bring myself to the point of saying I would accept it. I could not have felt a greater reluctance had I known the subsequent necessities of this unfoldment. Finally I promised to give my answer on the following afternoon.

That night, as I debated all the arguments for and against the acceptance, I was forcibly reminded of Jacob’s struggle which lasted “until the breaking of the day,” (Gen. 32: 24.) and which appeared as wrestling with the angel of the Lord all night.

I did not find, however, that with the dawn I had won a victory or that I had approached a solution of the question. Even when I started for the meeting in the afternoon, I was apparentlyas far from being ready to accept as I had been in the beginning. But, when I went into the meeting, without the slightest hesitation I said, “I will accept the trusteeship.”

On September 23rd, 1912, I was elected a member of the board of trustees. I made the proviso, however, that before there was any public announcement I should be informed by telegram, on my return to California, whether or not every member of the board of directors of the Church was in hearty accord with my election. (It is to be remembered that I was appoint-ed to the trusteeship of the Publishing Society by the board of trustees of that body, which under the terms of the Trust Deed, elect their own successors to office.)

In their personal capacity the individual directors of the Church had already expressed to me the friendly hope that I would accept the appointment, but I wanted a united statement assuring me of their support. Instinctively I felt that opposition between these two boards would be fraught with grave consequences. I seemed dimly to discern this storm center about which the oncoming battle would be waged, — the struggle to free Christian Science from the materiality of organization and loose it for its higher destiny of pure metaphysics “uncontaminated and unfettered by human hypotheses, and divinely authorized.” (C.S. Quar. 2.)

When I received by telegram, September 28th, the assurance of the “unanimous and cordial” support of the directors, I wrote them a letter in which I used the expression, “I shall not falter or fail in any work He may give me to do.” Before writing this sentence I hesitated and earnestly asked myself the question, “What is this ‘I’ that will not falter or fail?” I answered, “It is God, the one Mind.” Later I was to learn the full significance of this statement and the great importance with which it was destined to be charged.

Immediately after my election, I received a copy of the Deed of Trust of 1898, constituting the board of trustees, and with it the following letter:

“Herewith please find a copy of the Deed of Trust which the Trustees asked me to forward to you for your confidential consideration.

It occurs to the Trustees that it may be an advantage to you to be able to familiarize yourself with the details of this Deed pending your residence in Boston.”

During the next few weeks, before arriving in Boston, I carefully studied the Deed of Trust and learned something of its character, purpose and deep importance. Especially was I impressed with paragraphs 3, 6, and 8.

No. 3. — Said trustees shall energetically and judiciously manage the business of the Publishing Society on a strictly Christian basis, and upon their own responsibility, and without consulting me about details, subject to my supervision if I shall at any time elect to advise or direct them.

No. 6. — Said Trustees shall employ all the help necessary to the proper conduct of said business, and shall discharge the same in their discretion or according to the needs of the business, excepting that the business manager may call in at times of necessity such temporary help as will facilitate the business.

No. 8. — Said Trustees shall have direction and supervision of the publication of said Quarterly, and also of all pamphlets, tracts, and other literature pertaining to said business, using their best judgment as to the means of preparing and issuing the same, so as to promote the best interests of the Cause, reserving the right to make such changes as I may think important.

Mrs. Eustace and I moved to Boston in November, 1912. The years from that date until February, 1922, when we returned to California, were a period of increasing interest and joy. It was a time of spiritual opportunity.

I had not long been a member of the board of trustees before I began to feel an indefinable element at work with the directors of the Church, an apparent attempt to dictate to the trustees on matters wholly within the province of the trustees’ duties as set forth in the Deed of Trust. I soon realized that it was the age-old demand of ecclesiasticism to rule, to allow nothing to interfere with its thirst for power and authority. I saw clearly, also, that while it might appear as persons trying to acquire power and prestige, it was not primarily person at all, but evil appearing as ecclesiastic despotism in an effort to substitute itself for the demands of Principle.

On examining the past relationships of the two boards, I found that from the beginning of the Trust (which I learned Mrs. Eddy had formed without consulting either the church directors or those whom she appointed to be the first trustees under her Deed) there had been an antagonism on the part of the directors against the Trust and the trustees.

While Mrs. Eddy was present, there could be no open friction and no overt act against the trusteeship, but afterward there graduallycropped up efforts on the part of the directors to override the provisions of the Trust Deed.

It is significant that Mrs. Eddy did not make it a requirement that a trustee of the Publishing Society should be a member of The Mother Church. He was, however, to be a good Christian Scientist. In this Mrs. Eddy gave more than an intimation that Christian Science and the church organization were not at all one and the same.

It is evident that Mrs. Eddy’s purpose in creating the 1898 Deed of Trust was, if possible, to check this inevitable greed of ecclesiasticism which she foresaw would seize everything in the line of power and authority. Mrs. Eddy determined to stem this tide by putting the entire authority for all Christian Science literature (apart from her own writings) under the trustees through her Deed of Trust, leaving onlythe authority for the church with the directors.

By this act Mrs. Eddy undoubtedly hoped to thwart the intent of evil to bury Christian Science in ecclesiasticism and materialism as it had previously buried Christianity. It was another evidence of her distrust in church organization as a possible channel for metaphysics.

The “spiritual foresight” that saw the “nations’ drama” (My. 281: 1.) unquestionably foresaw the inevitable conflict that would arise between her Deed of Trust and the vested church authority. Was it any wonder, then, that Mrs. Eddy, in the clarity of her vision, sent to the newly appointed trustees the following three rules for their guidance and support? These rules were in her own handwriting and came by special messenger from Concord, New Hampshire, addressed, “For the Board of Trustees.”

  1. When mother foils a demon scheme, do not mar her success. The hardest battle is the last one.
  2. Never act on first thoughts unless they be of Good, God, but watch and separate the tares from the wheat. Learn by experience and careful comparison to know whence cometh your conclusions “Try the spirits” before acting, look over the purposes that the enemy might be trying to accomplish and so avoid the snare.
  3. Have the bird in your hand before disturbing the bush that he hangs upon.

In these words, so graphically significant, one can hear the cry of Mrs. Eddy’s heart yearning to save her “young child” (Matt. 2: 13.) from the Herod of ecclesiasticism which was seeking its destruction. She saw the deadly conflict that would be waged in the final battle, and she asked her trustees not to “mar her success” but to “Follow the Deed of Trust,” (Proc. in Equity 113 Col. 3.) that the “demon scheme” she foiled in establishing the Trust might not succeed.

No one can doubt that Mrs. Eddy foresaw and endeavored to foil the evil of ecclesiastical despotism.

But this despotism was to grow and increase until it finally attempted to nullify the Deed of Trust, by making a demand in 1916 on the trustees to acknowledge the directors asthe supreme governing power of the Christian Science movement, including the periodicals, thus endeavouring to destroy Mrs. Eddy’s carefully thought out purpose. This was ecclesiasticism in its full measure of arrogance.

But the trustees in 1916, were not only under oath but equally under Mrs. Eddy’s express admonition to follow the Deed of Trust.

Finally when its provisions, as interpreted by its sworn executors, the trustees, were challenged, there was but one course to pursue. The Trust, itself, must take care of the situation. It was a legal instrument drawn by Mrs. Eddy in conformity with the laws of Massachusetts. Its interpretation, as with all legal instruments, lay with the courts. In making it a legal instrument and not a set of rules for the personal conduct of church members, as in the case of the Church Manual, Mrs. Eddy gave it the status of a civil contract under the jurisdiction of the laws of the land.

The trustees had only one course to pursue, namely, to “Follow the Deed of Trust” and let the Trust take care of the whole situation.

A letter written on September 30th, 1918, defined for the directors the trustees’ understanding of the true democracy of Christian Science. This letter was published in full in The Christian Science Monitor of June 12th, 1919, (See APPENDIX, page 316.) and should prove enlightening to every Christian Scientist.It was written with the deepest desire to work from the foundation of Principle and stated plainly and simply the position of the trustees.

That they might be sure they were making no mistake at this difficult moment and that they understood the meaning of the Trust which Mrs.Eddy had so carefully drawn up in accordance with law and given to them for their guidance, the trustees decided to consult the best legal authority obtainable.

Seldom has the world seen such distinguished counsel collaborating on a case. The Senior Counsel was the Honorable Charles Evans Hughes, who is today, after a career of great honor to himself and his country, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Associated with Justice Hughes were Sherman L. Whipple, one of the most noted and talented members of the Bar of New England, and Silas H. Strawn, a leading member of the Bar of Illinois, and at one time President of the Bar Association of the United States. With these there was also associated as Junior Counsel, Lothrop Withington, a brilliant young member of the Massachusetts Bar.

The trustees have always felt that these gentlemen so generously contributed their services, refusing compensation beyond what virtually amounted to expenses, because they instinctively realized the great import of the conflict.

Under the advice of their Counsel, the trustees, while upholding their Deed of Trust, did everything in their power to prevent open conflict with the directors. But there was, of course, no possibility of preventing the inevitable clash between ecclesiasticism and Principle.

On March 17th, 1919, ecclesiasticism, appearing in the guise of the board of directors, decided to bring its authority to a test. It voted to remove one of the trustees from his office, and demanded that the remaining trustees appoint his successor.

This promptly brought the whole question of the Deed of Trust and the authority delegated under it to the front. Because it was a Deed of Trust under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, there was only one tribunal that could give an authoritative interpretation of the duties of the trustees under the Deed, and that was the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. A Bill in Equity was therefore filed by the trustees on March 25th, 1919.

The case was referred by the Court to a Master, and Judge Frederic Dodge, who had just retired after twenty-eight years of service on the Federal Bench, was appointed Master to hear the case.

The entire proceedings in court were published in The Christian Science Monitor from June 4th, 1919, to the final end of the case January 31st, 1922, so that the world might become familiar with every phase of it.

On March 6th, 1920, Judge Dodge handed down his final report, finding for the trustees in all the essential facts and making his rulings of law in conformity with those facts. Lawyers recognize Judge Dodge’s report in this case as one of the most masterly reports ever made in any case. The thoroughness and clarity of the decision could not be surpassed.

An appeal was taken by the directors to the full bench; and, after many months, a new decision was handed down November 23rd, 1921. The Master’s findings of fact were undisputed — they were based upon testimony taken in the original hearings and were final — but the Supreme Court of Massachusetts reversed the rulings of law as handed down by Judge Dodge.

It could not have happened otherwise because, sooner or later, ecclesiasticism must be found by every Christian Scientist to have no relationship whatever to Christian Science. Without the despotic control of ecclesiasticism (masquerading as the Christian Science organization and demanding that it be allowed to govern every thought and action of the Christian Scientist) having been expressed we might have remained apathetic for many years, perhaps centuries, before turning to divine Principle as All-in-all.

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision reversing the Master’s findings of law, the trustees were glad to resign their offices and elect new trustees in subordination to the directors, and to turn over to them, immediately, the business of the Publishing Society. In accordance with this intent, the trustees published the following statement:

We Lay Down Our Trust.

During the period of each of our terms of office as aTrustee of The Christian Science Publishing Society, we have striven to uphold what we believed to be Mrs. Eddy’s design for the welfare and maintenance of the Society. With the decision of the Court we cannot pretend to agree. It reverses what we believe to be the intention of the sacred trust we received from our Leader, and which we have pledged ourselves to defend. Nevertheless we are able to abide by the decision unhesitatingly since it is the finding of the Court which, as good citizens, we are bound to obey. And we have no difficulty in doing this, but only a deep sense of peace, because we know that Truth cannot perish from the world, so that, if we are right, our course must ultimately be vindicated, for Principle will overturn, overturn, and overturn, until He whose right it is shall reign.

To all of those who have supported us in the joyful work of carrying on our Leader’s publications, we would offer our sincere thanks, for we realize that their support was given to us out of an understanding of Principle which never faltered, and could not be shaken. The knowledge of this will prove to them a reward which cannot be dimmed nor taken away.

Our Trust itself we are able to hand over in a perfectly sound condition. It owes no man anything. Its property is entirely intact. Whatever damage it may seem temporarily to have sustained has been wrought by Christian Scientists themselves, and can be repaired, for the outside public has never failed to support, but has rather grown in its support of, Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration.

To be obedient to the teaching of Christian Science, every Christian Scientist must learn to be a law unto himself. He must follow the Christ as he sees the Christ. “Be sure,” Mrs. Eddy says, on page 117 of “Miscellaneous Writings,” “that God directs your way; then, hasten to follow under every circumstance.”

HERBERT W. EUSTACE,
LAMONT ROWLAND,
PAUL HARVEY.

The trustees found, however, that while the directors were most eager to have them resign and elect their successors in office, there was no intention of accepting their accounts before their retirement, although the books of the Societyhad been completely audited and found in perfect condition by public accountants.

Naturally the trustees could not allow this, much as they desired to be relieved from further responsibility. The months of controversy had engendered such bitterness in the ranks of church members that there were, among the former employees of the Publishing Society, a few whose blind partisanship on the side of the directors could be expected to drive them, when reemployed, as seemed likely to happen, to the depths of manipulating the books in order to discredit the trustees. In fact, some of the employees, on leaving the employ of the Publishing Society during the case, had even mutilated the books they were in charge of to show their allegiance to the directors.

If this statement seems extravagant, one needs only to point to the wave of religious fanaticism which swept through the ranks of the church members at that time and which resulted in the wholesale persecution of all who refused to de-clare themselves supporters of the directors while the case was still pending in the courts. A chronicler of the events of this period in the history of the Christian Science movement would unfold a tale in all essentials paralleling the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, the method of “discipline” being, of course, brought up to date.

In view of this emotional tenseness in certain quarters, and in order to adhere to strictly legal procedure, Counsel for the trustees prepared a bill presenting the resignation of the trustees to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to be accepted after the Court had passed upon the accounts.

The bill was duly heard by the Court, and, after the accounts had been examined and finally accepted by the Court, the resignations of the trustees were accepted and a final decree was entered January 30th, 1922, releasing them from all further responsibility under their Trust. The Court then appointed a new board of trustees.

No greater difference could possibly exist between two contentions than existed between the contentions of the ecclesiastical board and those of the board of trustees. This will finally be understood when the case is read in its entirety, as originally published in The Christian Science Monitor and later put into book form.

The trustees were standing for the absolute democracy of Christian Science, the right of the individual Christian Scientist to perform whatever duty is entrusted to him, in obedience to his own understanding of divine Principle, to live his life as a Christian Scientist in accordance with that understanding, and without interference from any so-called supreme human authority. The very opposite is the contention of ecclesiasticism and was the stand taken by the directors. When this case is so read, the final argument of Justice Charles Evans Hughes for the trustees’ case, before the full bench of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, will also be so read andits marvelous clarity of vision will be grasped and appreciated.

Ecclesiasticism, now feeling itself more firmly entrenched, promptly invoked its traditional weapon of excommunication. Early in October, 1922, I received the following communication:

The First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts

Office of

The Christian Science Board of Directors

September 29, 1922. Mr. Herbert W. Eustace,

San Jose, Calif.

Dear Mr. Eustace:

The Christian Science Board of Directors instructs me to inform you that formal complaints have been presented to the Board which, if sustained, would affect your standing as a member of The Mother Church and as a teacher of Christian Science, and to write you as follows:

It is alleged that you have violated Article XI, Section 7, of the Manual of The Mother Church by reason of the following particulars:

  1. That on or about September 11, 1918, and continuously thereafter for over three years, you attempted to change the char-acter of the office of trustee of The Christian Science Publishing Society from the character given it by Mrs. Eddy in her trust deed of January 25, 1898, and in her Church Manual, so that a trustee could not be removed and his position would not be subject to supervision by the Directors of The Mother Church;
  2. That you, during this time, attempted to change the relation of the Publishing Society to The Mother Church, from the relation established by Mrs. Eddy, to that of a separate institution to be conducted independently, whose trustees would not be subject to removal or supervision by the Directors of The Mother Church;
  3. That you, during this time, attempted to prevent the Directors of The Mother Church from exercising the powers relating to the Publishing Society which Mrs. Eddy conferred upon said Directors, and thus sought to deprive The Mother Church and the Cause of Christian Science of the advantages which would result from the exercise of those powers;
  4. That in March, 1919, you joined in a false and misleading Bill in Equity by which an ad interim injunction was obtained from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and attempted to obtain a final

decree commanding the Directors of The Mother Church not to interfere with the conduct of the trustees of the Publishing Society and never to exercise the powers relating to the Publishing Society which Mrs. Eddy conferred upon the Directors for the benefit of The Mother Church and the Causeof Christian Science ;

  1. That you joined in a petition based on the above false and misleading Bill in Equity by which a ruling was obtained from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts whereby the Directors of The Mother Church were commanded contrary to the plan of Mrs. Eddy in her Church Manual, not to elect editors for the Publishing Society;
  2. That from time to time during the prosecution of said Bill in Equity you falsely and dishonestly represented to branches and members of The Mother Church that the Publishing Society was being conducted in accordance with Mrs. Eddy’s directions, whereas you were co-operating in conducting the Publishing Society in violation of Mrs. Eddy’s directions and were pre-venting the Directors from complying with Mrs. Eddy’s directions in relation to the Publishing Society;
  3. That after the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts filed an opinion for the dismissal of the Bill in Equity, you persisted in working against the interests of the loyal members of The Mother Church and against the interests of Mary Baker Eddy and the accomplishment of what she understood to be advantageous to The Mother Church and to the Cause of Christian Science by refusing to elect a trustee to fill the vacancy caused by the dismissal of a former trustee, as was your duty under Mrs. Eddy’s trust deed of January 25, 1898, and the Manual of The Mother Church, — by holding your position as trustee contrary to the provisions of said trust deed and Manual, — and by publishing and circulating a certain statement headed “We Lay Down Our Trust” calculated to nullify the effect of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts sustaining Mrs. Eddy’s plan of church government.

The complaints will be heard at a meeting of The Christian Science Board of Directors to be held Tuesday, October 24, at11:30 a. m., in the Directors’ room of The Mother Church. Any statement and evidence which you desire to submit will be carefully considered if the same is received before the date of the hearing.

The Directors regret the necessity of taking up these complaints with you but this is their duty under the By-Laws of The Mother Church.

Sincerely yours, Lucia C. Warren,

Assistant Corresponding Secretary for The Christian Science Board of Directors

My reply was: San Jose, California October 17th, 1922.

Christian Science Board of Directors,

The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts.

Gentlemen: —

I have your letter of September the 29th, containing certain charges made against me upon which you inform me the Directors will hold a hearing on Tuesday, October 24th.

While you state that any evidence which I may desire to submit will be carefully considered, of course, it is apparent to any one having even a superficial knowledge of the recent controversy that a consideration of the evidence by your Board would be a mere formality.

Of course the very nature and wording of the charges show that they are sponsored, if not actually drafted, by your Board. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to believe, particularly in view of the Board’s repeatedly announced attitude, that the matter has not in fact already been discussed and a decision reached.

As to the specific charges, all of them arise out of the fact that as a Trustee of The Christian Science Publishing Society I deigned to entertain theories as to my duties as a Trustee which were not in accord with the views of your Board. My entire stand with regard to these charges has been fully and completely stated by me in the various conferences between your Board and the Board of Trustees, in the various letters passing between these two Boards, and in my testimony on the stand and the position asserted by me in the court proceedings, all of which are virtually on record in printed form. I stand unreservedly on that record which I think, if it discloses anything, shows that I undertookto conscientiously carry out what I understood to be the duty imposed upon me by Mrs. Eddy’s Deed of Trust.

As to my having joined in a false and misleading bill in equity I beg to call your attention to the fact that Judge Frederic Dodge found the allegations of the bill to be true in every substantialif not in every respect, and these findings of fact were fully sustained by the Full Bench of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in its final decision, although in its interpretation of the law its decision was adverse to our contention.

A careful analysis of the complaints show the real charge to be that having disagreed with your Board in the interpretation of my duties as Trustee under a Deed of Trust, I appealed to the highest tribunal in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to get from them an authoritative interpretation of those duties.It was, at the beginning of the controversy, and still is my conception of my duty as a Trustee in case of question or doubt as to the interpretation of a Deed of Trust to seek instructions from the only authoritative source available.

More and more I am reassured in my original belief that in the end my action in this controversy will prove of the greatest benefit to the unfoldment of Christian Science to the world.

The remaining charge that I calculated to nullify the effects of the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusettsby publishing and circulating the statement “We Lay Down Our Trust” is best met by an honest reading of that document. I should be proud to submit to the Chief Justice of that Court the statement of which you complain and take his finding as to whether it does not in truth show a profound allegiance to Christian Science and an absolute willingness to obediently accept the interpretation of Mrs. Eddy’s Trust as laid down by that Court. Apparently those drafting the complaint have neither a full comprehension of the decision of the Court nor an ability to appreciate the sincerity of the statement in question.

Clearly the contemplated action against me is only the first step in a scheme to do everything within your power to attempt to injure and discredit each of the individuals who dared to raise their voice to question your individual interpretation of Mrs.Eddy’s purpose.

I should not be true to what I understand of Christian Science if I did not add, that I believe your interpretation in regard to Mrs. Eddy’s purpose for the Christian Science movement and what you term her plan of Church government is based upon fundamental error.

Christian Science demonstrates Principle, not person, andthe fundamental basis of Christian Science is man’s oneness with Principle. Nothing can substitute this as Christian Science. Apparently your concept of

Christian Science and the entire effort of your Board has been to substitute the rule of persons for Principle and attempt to force this upon all Christian Scientists under the guise of calling it Mrs. Eddy’s purpose and plan of Church government.

I believe the day will come when your Board may see this for each one of us must inevitably sooner or later face the judgment of our every thought and act by Principle. In such a judgment the unimportance of personal rule or interpretation will appear.

Very sincerely yours,

Herbert W. Eustace.

Then followed the official excommunication:

The First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts

Office of

The Christian Science Board of Directors

October 26, 1922.

Mr. Herbert W. Eustace, San Jose, Calif.

Dear Mr. Eustace,

The Christian Science Board of Directors instructs me to make the following reply to your letter of October 16 which was received by the Board on October 23. The following resolution was passed unanimously by the Board of Directors at its meeting of October 24:

WHEREAS, members of The Mother Church who are in good standing and were acting from Christian motives have voluntarily and independently filed complaints with this Board that Herbert W. Eustace, another member of this Church, has persisted in working against the interests ofits loyal members and against the interests of Mary Baker Eddy “and the accomplishment of what she understands is advantageous to this Church and to the Cause of Christian Science,” and that he has influenced other members of this Church thus to act, and

WHEREAS, a meeting of this Board was duly called for the examination of said complaints on October 24, 1922, and notice thereof was duly given to Mr. Eustace by a registered letter dated September 29, 1922. and

WHEREAS, instead of confessing and forsaking his errors, he has sent to this Board a letter which amounts to a defiant persistence in the errors specified in the complaints,

NOW, THEREFORE, on October 24, 1922, after having duly examined said complaints in accordance with the Manual of The Mother Church, The Christian Science Board of Directors, the Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, doth unanimously act upon the complaints and exercise the discipline of this Church as follows:

FIRST: — Pursuant to Section 7 of Article XI of The Mother Church Manual, the name of Herbert W.

Eustace be and hereby is dropped from the roll of membership of this Church.

SECOND: — Pursuant to Section 1 of Article XII and Section 8 of Article XXX of the Church Manual, the authority of Herbert W. Eustace to act as a teacher of Christian Science be and hereby is revoked and terminated, because he has so strayed as not to be fit for that work and now ceases to be a member of this Church. * *

* * * Sincerely yours,

Lucia C. Warren,

Assistant Corresponding Secretary for The Christian Science Board of Directors.

Mrs. Eddy defines Church as “The structure of Truth and Love; whatever rests upon and pro-ceeds from divine Principle.” (S. &. H. 583: 12.) To me, therefore, this so-called excommunication was simply a gesture of ecclesiasticism, because excommunication can be brought about only by one’s own departure from Principle. The right to teach and to practise Christian Science is based upon one’s own state and stage of consciousness. Therefore, as a Christian Scientist, I could not do otherwise than continue to practise and hold classes.

Particularly pertinent, in this connection, is Mrs. Eddy’s reference to “our far Western students, the Christian Scientists,” (My. 197:13) in her letter to the San Jose church, published at her request in the Sentinel of December 23rd, 1905, and republished in 1913 with changes, in The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany.

Self-evidently Mrs. Eddy meant by her expression “our far Western students, the Christian Scientists,” (My. 197: 13.) those students throughout the world who express and represent that for which the West, and especially the far West, has always so preëminently stood, namely: freedom, unbiased by tradition; the determination to think and act for one’s self in line with right; the determination to accord to all the same privilege, thereby typifying true individualism, namely, man’s eternal right to think and act in accord with Principle.

This attitude of mind and what it must and does accomplish, is surely what Mrs. Eddy knew would entitle one to be called a Christian Scientist. Without this attitude of mental freedom,no real progress could be made, hence her further statement in that letter, “Comparing such students with those whose words are but the substitutes for works, we learn that the translucent atmosphere of the former must illumine the midnight of the latter, else Christian Science will disappear from among mortals.” (My. 197: 15) In other words, if the clear atmosphere of thought, the freedom of action represented by the “far Western students,” is to give place to ecclesiastical control, then “Christian Science will disappear from among mortals.”

The directors’ letter of October 26th, 1922, was followed a month later by a statement to the Boston Post on November 25th, 1922, by Clifford P. Smith, their committee on publication,saying that “Mr. Eustace is excommunicated forever.”

Since that time I have been busier and more active in the work of Christian Science than ever before. In being released from every form of ecclesiastical organization, I was freed from such trammels, so that my work became to that extent unhampered by human belief and regulation. I have held numerous classes in various parts of the United States. The demand for “clear, correct teaching” (My. 297: 18) is becoming greater all the time, and will so continue, for it has no personality or human control attached to it, and it is this very freedom for which the mortal is striving. He is learning, at last, no longer to put his faith in person or organization, but to trust in his own effort to understand divine Principle.

It has been said that my experience in Christian Science has been slight, that I am not an “authorized” teacher, hence cannot teach correctly.

But I was an “authorized” teacher for twenty years during which the correctness of my teaching was not questioned. It is the same teaching today. For twenty-eight years I was an active member of the Christian Science Church, holding many offices in that Church. From 1912 to 1922 I was a member of the board of trustees that was in full charge of the publication of all the Christian Science organization literature, which included for several years the publication of Mrs.Eddy’s works. The board of trustees also passed on all advertised professional cards, and appointed the Bible Lesson committee.

The first question ever raised about the authoritativeness of my teaching was after I had differed with the directors upon the interpretation of a legal document.

The intensity of disagreement was solely over the fact that as trustees we resolutely stood out against the demands of the directors to destroy the functions of the Deed of Trust.

However, the purpose of this book is not to deal with personality nor with human records but to deal with absolute Christian Science.

My experiences in Christian Science I consider a great privilege. Through them I have been able to understand more clearly the fallacy of ecclesiastical organization.

The especial privilege of being “excommunicated” has been tremendously enlightening. I understand it was not a person but that which was being upheld — “clear, correct teaching,” individual oneness and responsibility to divine Principle, true democracy, that was excommunicated (released) from ecclesiastical bondage.

Invariably “You may know when first Truth leads by the fewness and faithfulness of its followers. Thus it is that the march of time bears onward freedom’s banner. The powers of this world will fight, and will command their sentinels not to let truth pass the guard until it subscribesto their systems; but Science, heeding not the pointed bayonet, marches on. There is always some tumult, but there is a rallying to truth’s standard.” (S. & H. 225: 5.)

This book must be its own evidence that it presents the “clear, correct teaching of Christian Science” that Mrs. Eddy referred to, and which she also declared “has been and is an inspiration to the whole field,” thus holding aloft “truth’s standard.”

H. W. E.

Chapter 3 – What God Is

From Christian Science, Its Clear, Correct Teaching by

Having established that consciousness is, the next step is to prove that consciousness is all that is meant by the word God.

If it can be shown that whatever consciousness is, that also is what God is, then we have identified consciousness as synonymous with God and can proceed from that basis.

A Christian Science class is for the sole purpose of establishing the truth of Christian Science from one’s own understanding.

Each one must draw his own conclusions spontaneously without the aid of any outside source.

The Real Purpose of a Textbook

One is not made a Christian Scientist by the Bible or by Science and Health. These books can no more make a Christian Scientist than a treatise of mathematics can make a mathematician.

The purpose of any textbook is to take the student to the source from which it came itself. In communion with that source, the student discovers for himself what the textbook on the subject declares to be true.

In exactly the same way, the Bible and Science and Health have one purpose as textbooks: to take the reader to Truth as the source from which these books came.

Thus the Bible and Science and Health become to him the records of Truth. They are the charts, so to speak, which the wise traveler frequently consults in checking his course of thinking, to see whether or not he is on the right path, just as the navigator checks the position of his ship, by constant comparison with his chart.

No wise Christian Scientist would imagine that he could dispense with his charts: the Bible, and Science and Health.

This does not mean that the Christian Scientist relies upon them for his understanding. He does not, because his understanding is based on that which he knows, through his communion with the infinite knower, with that which is Mind.

Definition of God

If you were asked to define exactly what you mean by the combination of letters, G-O-D, I believe you would unhesitatingly answer by using the very terms Mrs. Eddy has used to define the word in the best possible way: "God is incorporeal, divine, supreme, infinite Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love." (S&H, p. 465: 9)

Taken together, these words express, in large measure, what is generally meant by the word God. So, if it can be satisfactorily proved that consciousness, which you have already established as is, means all that these words mean, then it follows that consciousness is God.

The little word is may properly be called the most powerful word in the English language. When a fact or truth is established as is, it is in its final form. It is impossible to go beyond that.

When you have arrived at the is of anything, you have arrived at the truth of it, and there is nothing further to be attained.

Knowing this, you declare with absolute assurance that that which is, is therefore all that is.

There is nothing, and can be nothing outside of that which is.

Anything outside of is becomes is not.

Therefore that which is, is all there is.

It is well here to repeat that before using a word, you must define to yourself its exact meaning.

If a word has not a clearly defined meaning, that word is inert, and your thought can receive no impulse from it.

To employ words that are vague in meaning to you is futile. Such a practice is based on the erroneous belief rebuked by Jesus when he said, "for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them." (Matthew 6: 7, 8)

Shakespeare discerned this futility of mere words when he said, "Words without thoughts never to heaven go."

It is not the word, but the thought back of it that counts.

Children wonderfully illustrate this truth. Often they use words that sound ludicrous to adults; but the power of deeds is in their meaning. Isaiah said, "A little child shall lead them." (Isaiah 11: 6)

Analyze every word carefully, for only to the degree that it defines God to you does a word have value.

As previously stated you will find that the simplest words give the most direct and forceful impulse to thought.

Endeavor to think in the simplest language; then the words you use will instantaneously convey to you their full import.

Thus, your words may be few, but they will be to the point, and your understanding will be correspondingly enhanced.

In analyzing words in Christian Science, it is imperative to bear in mind that you have begun your structure without a single element of materiality with just your own consciously being.

From that you have proved by induction that consciousness is. In that consciousness there is no element of materiality, even as there is none in pure mathematics.

Mathematics is the supreme term in the science of numbers, including within itself all that relates to numbers.

In like manner, consciousness is the supreme term in metaphysics, including within itself all that relates to being.

On this basis, let us analyze the following words from Mrs. Eddy’s definition of God:

INCORPOREAL. Incorporeal means without a material body.

The dictionary defines it as "without matter." Both terms mean without limitation or finiteness. In this sense it is immediately obvious that that which is, is incorporeal, because incorporeal means without limitation, boundless, hence can have nothing outside itself.

That which is, being all that is, having nothing outside itself, is necessarily incorporeal.

Therefore consciousness, being that which is, is incorporeal.

DIVINE. Divine means holy, pure. Holy implies completeness, holiness, or wholeness, without blemish; in other words, nothing apart from itself.

There can be no holy-ness without whole-ness.

One is synonymous with the other, since both mean wholeness, and therefore isness, or that which is.

Consciousness, being that which is, is therefore divine.

Considering "divine" from the standpoint of "pure," there is no purity, no pureness with the slightest extraneous element present.

Pure means absolute oneness, absolute aloneness, – and because that which is, is all that is, it necessarily is one, alone, and must be purity itself; hence it is divine.

Therefore, again, consciousness, being that which is, is divine.

SUPREME. Supreme is an all-embracing term. It is not to be limited to the sense of possessing more power or authority than something else.

It is a term that admits of no comparison, for there is nothing apart from it with which to compare it.

It implies greatest, in the sense of being allinclusive; the final authority over all, the author of all, from which all proceeds.

Does not that which is head, over all, include within itself all, and is not that all, that which is?

Consciousness being that which is, is therefore supreme.

INFINITE. Obviously infinite must mean without boundary, finiteness, or end; without limitation of any kind. The very word at once conveys the concept "without beginning and without end." (Unity of Good, p. 40: 23)

What is it that alone is without beginning and without end?

Is it not that which you have found to be isness, or is embracing within itself all?

Hence consciousness being is, must be infinite.

MIND. Mind is that which thinks: the subject of all conscious state or consciousness.

That which thinks is that which knows. To know is to possess the truth or fact; in other words, to know is to have that which is.

Therefore, consciousness being that which is, is Mind.

There can be no thinking without knowing, for thinking ceases at once to be thinking unless it is based on knowing, based on that which is fact.

Admittedly, much is called thinking that is not based on fact, and only passes for thinking because of ignorance. In certain well-defined cases, however, where it is seen to be based upon palpable absurdity, it is called no thinking, in other words, insanity.

The time is not far distant when nothing will be called thinking that is not based on reality, Mind, that which is. When that time comes, all the foolish beliefs of materiality, based on human hypotheses, will be seen as insane beliefs and not as real thinking.

Mrs. Eddy foresaw this when she wrote: "No human hypotheses, whether in philosophy, medicine, or religion, can survive the wreck of time; but whatever is of God, hath life abiding in it, and ultimately will be known as self-evident truth, as demonstrable as mathematics." (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 25: 32)

SPIRIT. Spirit is a word readily understood, for even in its commonest use it means essence.

In speaking of the spirit of a thing, do you not mean the very pith of it, the very essence or is of it?

By spirits of camphor or spirits of ammonia, you mean pure camphor or pure ammonia, the essence.

In other words, your use of the word spirit always means essence, isness, that which is.

Essence is derived from the Latin, esse, to be; being and essence are one and the same thing.

Consciousness is Spirit, because consciousness is that which is, is essence, isness, all that is. This completeness is its oneness. It follows that all that is synonymous with is, is one. Therefore, Spirit is one.

SOUL. The word Soul implies spirituality in contradistinction to corporeality; immateriality opposed to materiality.

Carrying it still further it means the vital Principle, the essence, the heart, the substance, as in the phrase, "soul of honor," meaning the very essence or substance of honor, honorableness itself.

In short, Soul signifies the spiritual nature, the innermost being, the very isness.

Consciousness, the innermost being, the isness, is Soul.

PRINCIPLE. The word Principle is derived from the Latin principium, a beginning.

Principle means law, basis, origin, foundation, fundamental truth or source, the animating governing influence.

Law means right, right means fact, that which is.

Law is the basic animation of being. Therefore all action is the action of law, the emanation of Principle, harmonious and perfect.

Basis means isness, that which is.

Origin means source, derivation, with nothing prior to it, which in turn means is, all that is, nothing beside it, the one Principle.

Foundation, that on which all rests, must be isness, being. All that is, is the one foundation, the one basis.

In Christian Science there must be a strict differentiation between the words principal and Principle.

Principal means chief or head in authority; whereas Principle is the fundamental basis of being, that which governs, not as a head or chieftain governing others, but as self-contained power including all within itself the essence, – the basic isness.

Principle is a word that must be used in its exact sense in order to carry thought instantly back to is, where it is found synonymous with consciousness. Consciousness is Principle.

LIFE. Life means self-existent being, which in turn means existence or that which is.

Consciousness, being that which is, is Life.

TRUTH. Truth is reality. Truth is just what is. To establish the truth of anything, you find the fact about it you discover the is of it.

There is nothing further to find beyond that which is, for that which is must always be the fact.

Is not this the is that is consciousness? Therefore consciousness is Truth.

LOVE. Love is a word that people delight to use.

Volumes have been written about it. But have not all these writings been based on the human concept of love rather than on John’s concept "God is love," (John 4: 8) meaning thereby that Spirit is Love?

Love, to be Love, must always be the same, having "no variableness, neither shadow of turning," (James 1: 17) no personality in the sense of limitation attached to it. If these qualities are not present when the word is used, it is not Love.

Love is consummation, completeness. It implies beauty, order, perfection and rightness. With a single element or quality missing, the loveliness would be marred and incomplete.

There is but one word that expresses all that is implied by the word Love, and that word is is.

You have already proved is to be synonymous with incorporeality, divinity, supremacy, infinity, Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life and Truth. Do not these mean Love?

Human sense too often demands exclusive possession, exaltation of what is one’s own to the elimination of others. Frequently it is the "butcher fattening the lamb to slay it." (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 250: 7)

The butcher tenderly guards his lamb, allowing nothing to harm it. For what end? To slay it for the purpose of enriching himself.

Is this consideration for the lamb, this tenderness, love; or is it a parody on love?

When you declare that God is Love, you are not thinking in terms of your own enrichment. You mean that He is Love because that infinite is that is God, embraces all that is. In that enfoldment is the eternal care and protection of all. If love is not, as it were, the two times two that remains always four, it is not Love, but human belief. This so-called love is a "butcher fattening the lamb to slay it." (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 250: 7)

Human belief and opinion enter not the domain of Love.

The metaphysician uses Love as the all-inclusive word wherewith to sum up his various definitions for that which is.

"Love is the generic term of God." (Miscellany, p. 185: 14)

Reason reveals God to you as Life, Truth, allinclusive good. But only as this revelation triumphs in experience, do you understand God as Love.

Mind, wisdom, intelligence, bestowing itself upon its idea, is Love.

In the last analysis, experience alone defines Love. It is beyond the reach of words.

When Jesus drove the money-changers out of the temple, was he not giving one of the clearest examples of what God as Love really means and is?

He showed that greed, selfishness and the gathering to oneself of materiality had no place in his Father’s house, in real being.

Then did not Jesus, in what he did, illustrate the real action of God as Love?

Love never condones evil.

It is the law of extermination to all unlike itself.

Jesus again illustrated the same thought when he said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matthew 16: 23)

Peter’s "offence" was his human sense of love attempting to dissuade Jesus from suffering the experience of the crucifixion.

The human sense is never the true sense. The human sense of love and finiteness is frequently the farthest from the divine.

Mrs. Eddy says, "The divine significance of Love is distorted into human qualities, which in their human abandon become jealousy and hate." (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 250: 10)

In the foregoing analyses, you have proved that the words which Mrs. Eddy used to define God are all synonymous with the word consciousness because they all signify that which is.

Therefore the inevitable conclusion must be that consciousness is God.

Countless other words can be, and are, used to mean God.

In fact, every word must finally be brought to Truth and so found one with that which is. The true meaning of every word is essential to metaphysical thinking. "As he which hath called you is holy [whole], so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." (Peter 1: 15)

Continuing a further analysis of words:

SUBSTANCE. By substance is meant reality. It is derived from the Latin, sub, under, sto, I stand; that which stands under, supports, maintains; in other words, isness, or that which is.

That which is being consciousness, consciousness is substance.

INTELLIGENCE. Intelligence is knowing. You mean by it what you mean by the word Mind. If there is no knowing, you say that there is no intelligence, no Mind.

Mind you have already found means consciousness. Therefore consciousness is intelligence.

LAW. Law means established fact, that which is right, the ever changeless, the fundamental basis, Principle, without which nothing can proceed or operate.

That which is, or consciousness, is the fundamental basis of reality, that from which all proceeds.

Therefore law is a synonym for consciousness.

FATHER. Father means originator, that from which something is derived.

Hence the expression, "the wish is father to the thought," the father of it.

Thus father means the essence or origin.

Hence Father and consciousness are synonymous.

Furthermore, consciousness is the only Father, the infinite Father, the one is, precluding any lesser sense of Father. "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23: 9)

MOTHER. No word implies a deeper sense of love and tenderness than the word mother. Mother means that which enfolds and cherishes.

To enfold is to shut in or embrace.

That which is, shuts in or embraces all, since there is nothing outside of is.

It bestows its own qualities, cherishing and comforting by imparting its own insistent goodness and tenderness. "As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you." (Isaiah 66: 13)

No word more completely expresses isness, or that from which all derives, than this word, mother.

"Necessity is the mother of invention" illustrates this. Here it means origin, or impulsion, that which is.

Consciousness, as that which is, is the infinite Mother.

BROTHER. This word indicates a sense of nearness, relationship, comradeship. Is not comradeship unity of purpose, oneness with Truth, identification with that which is? "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Matthew 12: 50)

SISTER. Sister means one of the same quality or condition: it is the quality which never forsakes, is always present alongside.

Is not that which is, being all that is, always present at one’s side, the one and only sister?

HUSBAND. Husband means that which completes, protects, shelters, is faithful.

That which is, being all that is, includes all, and so is the one completeness, precluding all unlike itself, and so protecting and sheltering its own integrity.

Husband is always present, unchanging and ever faithful. "And I will betroth thee unto me forever." (Hosea 2: 19)

Husband provides, because that which is, being all that is, is the one infinite provider. The Bible says, "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name." (Isaiah 54: 5)

WIFE. Wife indicates companionship, understanding, comfort.

That which is, being all that is, is infinite companionship, the one companion, the one understanding, the one comfort, and therefore the one wife.

Wife also denotes pure and true devotion. Again returning to that which is, is it not pure, knowing nothing outside of itself, absorbed in its own isness the supreme devotion?

That which is, is always identical with itself, always singly true to itself, true to one. The Bible repeatedly uses the term "harlot" meaning an adulterous wife, to characterize the children of Israel when they became disobedient to Principle. It is used to describe the type of thinking that departs from the oneness of Truth, from isness.

The true wife is portrayed thus, "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God….And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. . . . And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life." (Revelation 21: 9, 10, 22, 27)

CHILD. By child is meant innocence, simplicity, spiritual receptivity.

That which is, being one, is innocent of anything outside itself.

In short, it is that which is, consciousness, the one innocence, the one simplicity, the one receptivity, hence all the child there is. "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19: 14)

NEIGHBOR. Neighbor is that which is close to one, a friend. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 19: 19) The Bible speaks of "A friend that sticketh closer than a brother." (Proverbs 18: 24) A friend seeks not his own but another’s good.

That which is, being and having all, seeks nothing for itself, but holds to itself all that is, hence "Sticketh closer than a brother."

Consciousness, therefore, is the one neighbor, the one friend.

MARRIAGE. Marriage is union, a joining together, oneness.

"Marriage should signify a union of hearts." (S&H, p. 64: 17)

That which is, being all that is, joins and holds together all that is real in the perpetual oneness of its infinity.

Then marriage is the everpresence of the one Mind, the complete oneness of Principle and idea, consciousness and what it is conscious of. This one marriage appears, as God always appears, in the language each one can best understand, whether called single blessedness or as two "walking hand in hand." Regardless of the appearance of God He is all to every appearance and must be so acknowledged.

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19: 6)

And again, "They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten." (Jeremiah 50: 5)

Consciousness, as all that is, is true marriage. DIVORCE. Separation.

That which is spontaneously excludes, separates from itself, all unlike itself.

That which is, therefore, acts as the law of divorcement to everything unlike good, and thus meets every necessity for happiness and harmony. "Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross." (Psalm 119: 119)

The living of this truth would establish the joy, fullness and permanency of every marriage.

RELATIVE. The terms usually classified under this heading need to be understood.

The consciousness that is, being all, must be the only relationship there is. How else could it be All-in-all?

Hence it is all the relative there is. Thus "God is our Father and our Mother, our Minister and the great Physician: He is man’s only real relative on earth and in heaven." (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 151: 13)

All these words, which you have analyzed and shown to be what consciousness is, lead to but one conclusion, namely, that consciousness is God.

Therefore you have the witness within yourself that God is, because you know consciousness is or you could not consciously be, and you now know what God is.

Knowing is understanding and interpreting is.

This knowing cannot be an impression received from outside, but is rather a conviction from within. "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." (James 1: 8)

You alone can say what a word means to you. You must derive every word from that which you know Mind is, and keep every word in perpetual oneness with the basis of your conscious being.

"Every human thought must turn instinctively to the divine Mind as its sole centre and intelligence." (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 307: 30)

Every word must be taken back to is, where it is found to be one with consciousness, Mind, Truth.

This analysis of words is the very structure of consistent thinking.

Knowing can be arrived at in no other way. It is the basis of everything. It is absolute consistency, self-contained and self-perpetuated. It never deviates from itself. It expresses no quality opposed to itself.

Its purity, its confidence and its might, are the purity, confidence and might of your thinking. "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." (Romans 14: 22)

Having established that God is All-in-all, the infinite One, you have proved Him to be that which is, and all that is; thus you have left nothing but God with whom to deal.

Let us here consider three words often used with reference to God, – Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence, – because these allinclusive terms express the thought contained in numerous Biblical passages.

OMNIPOTENCE. Unlimited power, all the power there is; "the Almighty." (Job 37: 23)

Consciousness, being all the is there is, leaves nothing apart from itself to dispute its power and authority. It is, therefore, all the power there is.

Consciousness is God, hence God is all the power there is, the one omnipotence, the Almighty.

OMNISCIENCE. All-knowing, all-wisdom, allintelligence.

That which is, being all the is there is, is all the knowing, all the wisdom, all the intelligence there is, hence the one omniscience.

OMNIPRESENCE. Is, by its very nature, is the all-presence, filling immensity.

There is no conceivable place where it is not. Then God, the one consciousness, the one is, is the one omnipresence.

Caution is necessary in the use of the noun omnipotence as distinguished from the adjective omnipotent.

The adjective form suggests a comparison; omnipotent might be thought of as the most powerful of lesser powers.

The noun gives the more spontaneous metaphysical sense of the allness of Mind, God, without any suggestion of something apart from Him.

The same differentiation should be made, of course, in respect to the words omnipresence and omnipresent, omniscience and omniscient.

In the final analysis, every term means exactly what every other term means. So while the terms we have been considering are called the synonyms for God, there is no actual difference between them and what are called the attributive qualities of God.

It is, however, in the attributive qualities that we gain an even larger sense of God. The metaphysician must learn that every word shows forth the All-in-all of God. This proof must be so convincing that not a doubt or question remains.

There can be no secret closet in thought where some word can hide from the light of understanding and escape its rightful classification as being one with the common denominator. When correctly analyzed, there is no word that can imply the existence of something apart from is, that can imply evil, lack of intelligence, or materiality.

Let us examine some of the words used as attributes of God.

First, we will consider words that we are in the habit of associating with God. Then we will take up some that, at first thought, we might hesitate to apply to Him, but which, in the light of what we have just been proving, will be seen to be, none the less, the very essence of His infinite nature.

JUSTICE is easily recognized as a quality of God.

Justice means exact rightness; impartiality; that which is; just is.

Just is is not a play upon words because that which is, being all that is, is just isness all the time, and therefore an attributive quality of God.

In the Bible we read, "Thou art a God ready to PARDON, GRACIOUS and MERCIFUL." (Nehemiah 9: 17)

Does God pardon sin?

Can perfection countenance a defect?

Can Truth tolerate a falsehood?

Truth makes the lie tolerable only by declaring the fact, the is about it.

By reversing the negation, nothing of the lie remains.

This is the true pardon, not a pardon, but the universal law of divine pardon, the destruction of evil.

"When we understand that God is what the Scriptures have declared, namely, Life, Truth, and Love, we shall learn to reach heaven through Principle instead of a pardon; and this will make us honest and laborious, knowing that we shall receive only what we have earned." (Christian Healing, p. 8: 19)

That which is, Mind, God, is ever itself, infinite goodness, ever ready to impart itself, and so is gracious; even as the sun imparts its own warmth and light.

The mercy of God lies in keeping that which is inviolate.

There is no mercy in the passing over of a mistake and leaving it uncorrected.

As long as five, as the product of two times two, appears as a problem, it is not merciful to ignore it.

The mercy consists in correcting the error, by showing forth the truth of which the error is the negation.

Principle never forgives in the sense of "overlooking."

The mercy of Mind is the utter annihilation of everything unlike good.

GOODNESS is another word readily attributed to God.

Goodness means everything exactly right and true, that which is.

That which is, being all that is, must be consciousness itself, God, the true goodness.

Unless words are correctly defined, the Bible will not be understood.

Furthermore, if there were any word that could not be found to be one with God in its true meaning, then God would be dethroned and would not be All-in-all.

The fact must be faced honestly and fearlessly that there is no word that cannot be satisfactorily carried back to Mind and there found to exemplify what Jesus meant when he said, "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." (Matthew 5: 37) By this he did not mean, Yes, Yes, and No, No, as though having no mind of one’s own. He meant to understand right as right and wrong as wrong; to emphasize the necessity of standing always on the side of right, and of refuting the wrong. Such standing verifies Paul’s assertion that "our conversation is in heaven." (Phil. 3: 20)

Let us now analyze a few of the Biblical terms used as attributes of God, but which in common usage are likely to denote the reverse of godliness.

JEALOUSY. "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." (Exodus 20: 5)

Could this God that we have established as absolutely all there is, be jealous?

Jealousy, in its ultimate meaning, is that which tolerates no rival, no presence aside from its own.

Is not this the definition of is?

Is, by its very nature of being all that is, holds within itself all that is and becomes a law of annihilation to everything apart from itself. There could be no greater jealousy than this. For example, the business man, jealous of his neighbor’s business, would, if possible, annihilate or appropriate that business and keep his own business as the only one.

The nature of jealousy is ever the same, excluding from its presence all but itself.

The true sense of jealousy, as the law of exclusion to everything unlike good, is the spontaneous destroyer of that false jealousy which thinks in terms of something apart from itself – something "over there" to be jealous of or about.

The jealousy that is the presence of God, can have no jealousy of something apart from itself. It is jealous only of its own infinite isness, and maintains that oneness inviolate.

On the contrary, the human sense of jealousy envisages something apart from itself, something to be jealous of.

The understanding of God as the one jealous God, that isness, that is all that is, annihilates the human concept of jealousy by supplying its own perfect completeness.

The word LUST is one that in ordinary usage has many meanings.

There is every sort of lust, including the lust for money, the lust for position, the lust of the flesh, and so forth.

Lust signifies a reaching out for completeness.

In its rightful signification, it is the law of Mind, the consciousness that that which is, being all, holds all to itself, hence is completely satisfied. "The desire of our soul is to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee." (Isaiah 26: 8)

Lusting after righteousness is true lusting. It is the consciousness of having all.

All lust, whether for money, power, position, or of the flesh, is the belief of incompleteness, which spontaneously vanishes before the realization that that which is, is all, has all, and is omnipresent.

Christian Science, by translating all terms into their rightful meanings, never leaves a lack, or a vacuum; it never leaves anything outside the kingdom of heaven.

Christian Science takes away only the false sense, leaving that which is as all that is.

Another expression familiar to readers of the Bible is, "The ANGER of the Lord." (Isaiah 5: 25)

Anger annihilates, whenever possible, that with which it is angry. "So that in the day of the Lord’s anger none escaped nor remained." (Lamentations 2: 22)

Anger is never directed against that which is like itself, but at that which is unlike or contrary to itself.

Even the human concept of anger, if given free rein, would utterly destroy that with which it is angry.

Anger analyzed to its ultimate is the destruction of all unlike itself.

There can not be a little anger or a little jealousy. It is the one anger, the one jealousy, and that one, infinite, knowing nothing but its own isness, utterly annihilating everything unlike itself.

That which is, being all that is, is the law of annihilation to everything unlike itself. This is the anger of the Lord.

This true sense of anger destroys the false sense. "The hand of the Lord was against them, to destroy them from among the host, until they were consumed." (Deuteronomy 2: 15)

It is vitally important for the metaphysician to analyze every word to its final signification. Then only does the limited and mistaken human sense disappear and the true sense reveal itself.

The Bible repeatedly refers to God as a God of destruction.

To destroy is to kill, to wipe out, to MURDER. Therefore, it follows that God must be a murderous God.

Because of the usual meaning attached to the word murder, it may, on first thought, sound sacrilegious to speak of God as a murderous God; but the sacrilegious sense disappears when it is seen that God could not remain God unless He were the exterminator of everything unlike Himself.

This is the most perfect form of murder conceivable. "Truth, Life, and Love are a law of annihilation to everything unlike themselves, because they declare nothing except God." (S&H, p. 243: 27)

Only as this one true murderer is seen as omnipresent will everything that is unlike good vanish. Not only will the desire to murder disappear, but even the ability to destroy in a harmful sense will disappear.

There remains but the consciousness that knows only itself and the things of itself, the consciousness that alone can and does so exalt thought that it is conscious only of the presence of good.

There is no word, no matter how objectionable the human sense of it may be, that when carried to its ultimate, into the "kingdom of heaven," does not signify the presence of God.

Remember "That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Matthew 12: 36, 37)

Jesus undoubtedly meant by this that every word must be found as belonging to God, as of Him, and therefore as one with Him. Only as this understanding of words obtains, will you be justified and your words be not "idle."

Failure to do this will leave you holding to something outside of that allness that constitutes isness, God; and so will you be condemned.

What does the word "HELL" mean?

Utter confusion, distress, disaster. It is synonymous with devil or evil.

You must take even this word into the kingdom of heaven or you will harbor something as consciousness that is apart from Mind and which would destroy Mind as All-in-all.

Hell, devil, evil, carried to their final meaning, denote utter chaos.

Is, being all that is, is the law of utter chaos, the total annihilator of anything apart from itself, even as mathematics is chaos, utter elimination, to everything unmathematical.

This true sense of hell immediately releases the bondage of finity, with all its burden of misery and unhappiness called hell, devil, evil.

These words in their true sense are found as the very essence of Mind, and when present in that sense, as your Mind, they spontaneously destroy all that is unlike good.

Do not be afraid to look dispassionately at any word. Instead of stamping it as evil and so implying something that is not wholly good which can come as your consciousness, carry the meaning through to its ultimate sense, and find it as communion with Mind. "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," (Matthew 28: 20) unto the final discernment of the rightness of all things which includes the right definition of words.

Such words as BANDIT, and ROBBER, are words in common vogue. But are these words thought of in their true sense, so that every atom of fear in connection with them is wiped out?

A robber or a bandit is one who appropriates unto himself what seems to belong to another. Multiply this process of appropriation to infinity and it is seen that God appropriates to Himself everything.

Is, being all, appropriates all to itself, not by taking something from another, but by the supreme consciousness of its own allness.

Because it is all, it has all.

Would not the so-called finite sense, referred to as a bandit or robber, disappear instantly under this realization, "Son … all that I have is thine"? (Luke 15: 31)

Finding himself in possession of all, what would there be left to steal?

Having the multiplication table, who would try to steal his neighbor’s, or even imagine that he could?

FAILURE. Is it impossible to find failure as one with Mind?

Two times two being four, spells utter failure to the ignorance that accepts two times two as five. It causes the ignorance to vanish.

Infinite good as All-in-all is complete failure or annihilation to everything apart from itself.

IGNORANCE. Is that which knows not.

Infinite intelligence is infinitely ignorant of evil. Knowing only good its ignorance of evil is absolute.

Not knowing evil, it is the law of destruction to evil, destruction to the ignorance of good. Oneness with infinite intelligence as the only Mind destroys the human sense of ignorance by becoming ignorant to ignorance not knowing ignorance.

In thus analyzing terms, it is imperative to remind ourselves constantly how "Entirely separate from the belief and dream of material living, is the Life divine," (S&H, p. 14: 25) in other words, how entirely separate from the belief of the material concept of any word is the divine reality of it.

No word, as you have seen, is too insignificant or too hateful to be taken into the kingdom of heaven.

Because it is a word coming to you as consciousness, giving impulse to your thought, you must find it one with consciousness, one with God as All-in-all.

You cannot escape the responsibility of establishing for yourself that which is as all that is.

It is the self-evident induction from your own consciously being.

You are compelled to follow through. As Isaiah said, "Go through, go through the gates; . . . . lift up a standard for the people." (Isaiah 62: 10)

This standard is the standard of understanding, which must be lifted up at every point of experience, whether that experience seems to come as a word, a person, a place or a thing, or whether it is termed a thought.

No matter how presented, every concept must be taken into the kingdom of heaven. "Science, understood, translates matter into Mind, rejects all other theories of causation, restores the spiritual and original meaning of the Scriptures. . . . It is religion’s ‘new tongue’….It gives God’s infinite meaning to mankind, healing the sick, casting out evil, and raising the spiritually dead." (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 25: 12)

Everything unlike good thus spontaneously disappears. It is not.

Each step taken by the Christian Scientist in his search for truth becomes a fact that he will under no circumstances give up, for he knows that to do so, would undermine the integrity of his reasoning and nullify his conclusions. "If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Matthew 6: 22)

So in giving definitions of words, do it with such a scientific sincerity of purpose that the true replaces the false as your conscious conviction; then spontaneously your thinking will be based upon Truth.

“’The new tongue’ is the spiritual meaning as opposed to the material. It is the language of Soul instead of the senses; it translates matter into its original language, which is Mind, and gives the spiritual instead of the material signification.” (Christian Healing, p. 7: 6)

The spiritualization of word and thought is of paramount importance in metaphysics. Without it, vital right thinking is impossible. It is the essence of "Christian Science, with which can be discerned the spiritual fact of whatever the material senses behold; the basis of immortality." (S&H, p. 585: 10)

Thought must turn from theology to Christian Science. Otherwise your study of the Bible will engender a sentimental hypocrisy which attributes both a true and a false quality to the same object; in other words "good God and good devil." "Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" (James 3: 11)

This sort of sentimental thinking in mathematics would declare at one time that two times two is four and at another that it is five, without being disturbed by the discrepancy.

But a genuinely scientific mathematician would bring to bear what in Bible language would be termed the fury of the Lord and would utterly destroy the false, not with any morbid human emotion, but with the irresistible logic of pure reason.

The foregoing analysis of words indicates the work that lies before the metaphysician. He must constantly be "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (2 Corinthians 10: 5) And he must also drive home continuously and with renewed conviction the truth that "The only logical conclusion is that all is Mind and its manifestation, from the rolling of worlds, in the most subtle ether, to a potato-patch." (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 26: 5)

Chapter 2 – How Do You Know There Is a God

From Christian Science, Its Clear, Correct Teaching by

Before defining what God is, it is essential to establish how one may know that there is a God. Surely it would be a waste of time to talk about what God is, unless it were first understood that there is God. After having settled that question, it is in order to establish what God is, and why He is all that He is.

Blind Acceptance Inadequate

The average mortal, Christian or pagan, acknowledges in his own way, that there is a supreme something which he calls God.

The Christian, if asked, would probably answer at once, "Of course there is a God."

In times of stress, however, when the opposite of that which he means by God, good, presents itself as real, he has no means of combating the apparent reality of evil, because he does not understand why God is: hence he falters, and too often falls a victim to evil in one of its various forms, whether it be limitation, sickness, sin or death.

A mere sense of or belief in God is really of no permanent help or value. When most needed, it does not stand the test.

A blind acceptance of God will never completely satisfy. Reason must be satisfied in order to bring the certain knowledge that there is God. Because mathematicians have proved the laws governing numbers, this does not prove them for you. It does, however, beckon you on to prove them for yourself. The mathematician’s understanding is not yours, until you yourself understand mathematics.

Thus, in like manner, you must also settle each point in Christian Science for yourself. You must arrive at the point where it would make no difference to you if there were not another Christian Scientist in the World. You must so understand Christian Science, and its truth must be so vital to you that you would be satisfied to be the only Christian Scientist, if that were necessary.

It is useless to attempt to find a conclusive answer to any question outside of what constitutes yourself, and especially is this true of the profound subject: how you know there is God.

Sense Testimony Contradictory

To affirm that there is God because the testimony of the material senses declares the beauty and loveliness expressed by what you call nature beautiful flowers, gorgeous sunsets, and countless other expressions cannot bring conviction to you because the same mind and its senses that declare this loveliness, just as positively declare the opposite the flowers fading, the sunset dreary, and so forth.

A fountain cannot "send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter." (James 3:11)

Yet, if you accept the testimony as true in one instance, can you avoid consenting to it in another?

One appearance may be beautiful and harmonious, the other ugly, discordant and wretched. You are compelled, then, to lay aside what comes to you as nature in establishing that there is God.

Then you ask, if nature cannot help me to understand, do I not still see on all sides love and kindness, and all the excellent qualities of that which I feel God must be?

Am I not justified in declaring that these attributes of good could not appear to me unless there were God whence they emanated?

But is it not true that just as you are aware of these qualities so you are equally aware of the countless activities of evil, expressed as anger, envy, hatred, and so forth?

Can such contradictory testimony safely lead one anywhere? Again, can the same fountain send forth both sweet and bitter water?

In whatever direction you look, you find this apparent irreconcilable testimony of good and evil, life and death, presented side by side. The unreliability of the testimony of the material senses is self-evident.

In the matter of sight, for instance, there is no reliability. A straight stick extending partly out of clear water will appear bent.

The law of optics explains this, but the explanation in no way changes the fact that your eyes have, nevertheless, deceived you.

Two parallel rail-lines appear to come together in the distance. Your eyes declare what your reason denies.

So it is with all the five senses. None of them can be trusted.

Hypnotism has shown how unreliable the senses are, how they will declare as true whatever the mind of the hypnotist suggests to his victim, regardless of its absurdity.

Does not the victim of the hypnotist seem to agonize over a pain that is pure illusion? The senses respond to whatever the hypnotized mind affirms. And so on through an inexhaustible range of phenomena.

The testimony of two reputable witnesses in court is at times contradictory, especially in the case of a sudden accident or dramatic occurrence.

The courts recognize that the witnesses are not intentionally unreliable or deliberately misstating facts, but that the minds of different people react differently under sudden emotion and that the senses testify in accordance with the mind and not of themselves.

But however explained, the fact remains that the testimony itself is utterly unreliable. Of what value, then, is sense testimony in aiding you to establish the fact that there is God? If once proven false, can the senses ever be trusted?

Obviously not.

In their testimony is no assurance, no peace, no proof that there actually is God.

Because of reliance on material sense testimony with its contradictions, many are faltering and even saying foolishly that there is no God. You, too, may be tempted to say there is no God unless you understand why God is.

Being convinced of the hopelessness of attempting to satisfy yourself on this question through anything that the material senses declare, you turn forever away from such testimony.

How to Find the Answer

Now ask yourself, what is there that I actually know of myself, that I am absolutely sure of, that is not dependent upon any thing to bear witness to it, that requires no justification, no verification, that just is?

There is one answer, and one only, to this question, and its conclusion is inescapable; one self-evident fact that defies refutation, before which all arguments are silenced forever, because there is nothing to argue against it.

It is, in Bible language, "The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)

This light belongs to every man; it belongs to you. It has no relationship to the so-called senses. Ask yourself thoughtfully, "What is it?" You will answer with absolute conviction: It is the fact that I exist; that I consciously am; it is my consciously being.

This, I know of myself. It is not dependent upon anything apart from me. I am conscious of being. Of this I am sure.

When I say that I consciously am, I am not referring, even remotely, to anything that I might seem to be conscious of through the physical senses. It is in no way a reaction. I mean simply that I consciously exist, and that that existence requires no testimony or witness of any kind.

It is a self-evident fact to me.

It is purity itself, for in it is not a single element contrary to itself.

Like an axiom of Euclid, it requires no demonstration because it is obvious.

This fact of my consciously being is the one and only fact that, as a so-called mortal, I know of myself, wholly apart from any external evidence.

Of this one fact I am absolutely sure. It is a certainty that begins and ends in myself. I have the verification of it at all times and every moment.

It is the rock of Truth upon which I must begin to build.

Dependence upon anything else would mean dependence upon something external to myself that did my thinking for me.

As you have already seen, you cannot be sure of that which testifies to anything outside yourself. Such testimony is often deceptive and may disappear: but you cannot lose yourself and disappear to yourself.

You are positive of your own being, of your consciously being.

Everything must start from this certainty of your own consciously being. It is the one and only thing of which you are sure.

You must think from this standpoint.

Does not your very being consist of just thinking?

Thinking must be based on knowing. Knowing must be built up from the consciousness of your own existence.

It does not include any external evidence.

It is "the true Light" guiding every man.

It is the truth that is ever-present, and that always stands as the reality, even as in mathematics, two times two remains four, regardless of anything and everything that ignorance may say about it.

The Camel and the Needle’s Eye

When speaking of the difficulty to be experienced by those possessing riches in entering the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, That rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19: 23) Of course he was not referring to the possession of money or material things as such, but to a trust in the material sense of things, rather than in the Mind-sense.

He further said that it was "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for [such] a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19: 24)

Observe, he did not say it was impossible. He said the other was easier.

In using the word "easier," he certainly meant to imply that there was a way whereby the "rich man" might enter.

His illustration of the camel going "through the eye of a needle" explained how this entrance into the kingdom of heaven must be accomplished.

The old walled cities of the East had large entrance gates that were closed at sundown, but by the side of each was a small gate called the "needle gate," through which belated travelers with their beasts of burden could enter after nightfall.

However, this could be accomplished only by stripping the camel of its burden, thus enabling it to crawl through the gate to safety.

This comparison indicates how a so-called mortal, in order to start on the true solution of being, must first strip himself of every vestige of dependence upon material evidence, and base his understanding of being wholly on his own conscious existence, as the one foundation from which to begin.

Doing this, he lays "aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset" (Hebrews 12: 1) him and runs "with patience the race that is set before" him. Like the camel, the mortal can retain no material possession, no mortal evidence, to help him; he must lay aside every testimony of the senses, and turn to the only fact he is sure of, his own consciously being.

By so doing, he finds himself on firm ground, the ground of his only reality, his only true immortality, the ground that is immutable and eternal.

No single fact about the mortal is eternal, except his consciously being. This, of course, is not mortal, but immortal.

It is the rock alone upon which he can start to build. It is the Christ, the truth of being. No other foundation can endure.

The Immutable Starting Point

With this consciously being as the basic fact, what is the inevitable deduction? Or, more accurately, what is the inevitable induction, for in this reasoning, we take one step from effect to cause, an inductive step, to wit:

I could not consciously be, unless consciousness were a fact.

Then my consciously being is the irrefutable proof that consciousness is.

Consciousness, to be consciousness, must be conscious of something. That of which it is conscious is essential to it, else it could not remain consciousness.

Consciousness, then, is the necessary cause or basis of my being; and since my being is a fact, it is equally self-evident that consciousness is also a fact.

You have now established consciousness as that which is. In other words, you have discovered and established for yourself that consciousness is.

You are as certain of this as you are of your own existence.

You know that one cannot be without the other, that each is essential to the other and that, given one, the other spontaneously is.

This eternal truth is yours because it begins with what you know yourself, and "brightens" (Miscellany 253: 27) into the inevitable induction that consciousness is or you could not consciously be.

In Christian Science there is but one inductive step. Starting with the fact of your own consciously being, you (effect) induce consciousness as is (cause).

From this point on, only deductive reasoning is used deducing the nature of effect from the nature of cause. Effect is of no further value for reasoning purposes.

To again repeat, reason must be as satisfied in Christian Science as it is in mathematics. No one is asked to accept any statement without complete conviction.

No faith, no mere belief, as such terms are commonly used, enters into the reasoning. That is why it is incredible that, in this enlightened age, Christian Science is not universally accepted.

Were Christian Science in the realm of religious belief, people could be excused for not accepting it; but since it is the revelation of the Science of being, it would seem all are "without excuse," (Romans 1: 20) as Paul expressed it, in not accepting it.

Remember, however, you can make no progress in your understanding of Christian Science if you do not insist, at every step, upon having your reason thoroughly satisfied.

This reasoning from the fact of consciously being, to consciousness, is not new in one sense of the word. As long ago as 1670, John Locke logically established, for himself, the existence of a supreme being, but he could go no further. It was not until Mrs. Eddy discovered Christian Science that all deductions from this point could be correctly made and carried through to their ultimate conclusion.

In Science and Health Mrs. Eddy unfolds the reasoning so simply and logically that one who follows it cannot fail to be convinced.

The Psychologist and The Magician – The Story, Part Two

From Christian Science, Its Clear, Correct Teaching by

As von Scholtz faced about, ready to retrace his steps to the mouth of the cave, it was not surprising that he should heave a sigh of relief over the fact that he had accomplished something no man had ever done before. His experience in doing this, however, did not make him feel overconfident in his ability to return without great care and study of each condition he might now encounter. Moreover, he already felt greatly fatigued. He sat down a few moments to rest, inclined to give way to a feeling of drowsiness. He felt hungry, too, though thirst distressed him more.

As he sat leaning with his head against the wall of the cave, he was consuming a great deal of mental energy by trying to overcome his sense of weariness, and by trying to ignore the demands of physical appetites, and in this situation, he fell asleep.

When he awoke he heard the gentle splashing of water. He arose to investigate and found a spring of water issuing from the wall a few feet from him. His thirst was burning! Should he drink the water? Was this thirst genuine, or was it a false sensation superimposed by the thoughts of the Magician? He must get down to first principles and not be thrown off at a tangent. The thing he had started out to do was not yet accomplished and all the sensations and appearances that hindered him from returning to the mouth of the cave were to be regarded as false and misleading, but any sensation or appearance that contributed to his well-being, though he knew it to be false, he would use if it were to his advantage to do so; for example: after having calculated the unusual amount of exercise he had made in coming through the rugged cave and the length of time he had been without water, he concluded his thirst was genuine, but having noticed the absence of water in the cave during the previous day, its presence was now an appearance only, and if he drank or seemed to drink, and the seeming water quenched, or seemed to quench his thirst, would this yielding to Marbado’s suggested water prevent him from reaching the mouth of the cave? Or, again, if the seeming water appeared to quench his thirst, would not he be less fatigued than if he tried to get along without the water or tried to think he was not thirsty?

Some psychologists hold to the theory that the moment a subject yields to the suggestions of another, he virtually renounces his objective mind and becomes the obedient servant to carry out the will of another.

Von Scholtz accepted this theory with some reservations, namely, (a) that it depended somewhat upon the subject to be influenced; (b) upon the purpose the subject has in being influenced; and upon what mental reservations he keeps while submitting to the suggestions of another.

The learned Professor held that if a subject knows definitely what he wants and is determined to get it at all hazards, that even though he submits to a suggestion unacceptable to reason, so that the objective mind of the subject is set adrift in an abnormal direction, the subjective mind will nevertheless not cease to carry out its own normal purposes during the time the contrary influence is at work.

It would be possible in that case for an individual to act as having two personalities working at cross purposes, the objective mind of the subject being obedient to the will of the suggester and the subjective mind of the subject carrying out his own will.

In holding to this theory, von Scholtz did not underestimate the art, skill, or the strength of Marbado. On the contrary, he had reasons aplenty to acknowledge them as potent factors to be weighed carefully before he would drink of the magic water. His mission was not only to convince Marbado that he could get to the end of the cave and come out again, but that he was there also to study at first hand from a scientific standpoint Marbado’s methods, and if he went out of the cave again as he came in by denying or ignoring the things he saw, he would be very little wiser than when he came in, so that in order to enter into a more thorough study of his subject he must abandon his subjective mind to Marbado’s art, enter into the spirit of the occasion and follow the motives of the Magician. To do this he felt the purpose of science would be better served and the real genius of the Magician better understood.

He was aware, of course, that life or limb, or both, were being jeopardized but in von Scholtz’s estimate, the scientist should devote his life to the finding of the truth, and if it were lost in its pursuit, it had served its purpose. So reasoning he stooped and drank of the magic water and felt greatly relieved, but in looking about him he found himself in an open country; the cave was not visible to his senses.

To all appearances, the fields were green, the sky blue, the sun shone and the birds sang, the scenery was new, the landscape unfamiliar, the fauns were docile and numerous, and the flowers were beautiful and fragrant, the plumage of the birds brilliant, and their songs remarkable for sweetness.

But where was the cave? He arose to investigate. He had not taken many steps when he noticed behind a clump of bushes a banquet table spread for a feast with a tempting meal upon it.

“This will serve my purpose as did the water,” said the Professor and he sat down to eat. As he did so, he saw Marbado seated at the opposite side of the table. “Well, comrade,” said von Scholtz, addressing Marbado, “this is very thoughtful of you to spread such a feast in a wilderness of difficulties. It comes just in the nick of time. I was getting a little fagged.”

“As a host,” said the subtle Hindu, “I have been very neglectful of your comfort. You have been forty-eight hours without your usual necessities, but you seem to be prospering in spite of my neglect; you know the mind works best when the stomach has an occasional rest.”

“You are right,” replied the Professor. “We Germans are great eaters, but really, I had not thought of my needs until I reached the end of the cave, being so completely taken up with the fascinating study of your art.”

Von Scholtz, having finished what he regarded as a feast, looked in the direction of Marbado, but the Magician had vanished.

Von Scholtz was not the man to be distracted from the problem before him. He saw everything, it is true, and noted its qualities for this was part of his mission. But the one great thing he had set out to do was not yet accomplished. Believing himself no longer in the cave, and searching as he thought in the open country for it, we must admit he had passed in a degree under Marbado’s influence.

Could he regain the mouth of the cave now that he had submitted his subjective mind to be controlled by Marbado’s suggestion? Let us follow him and see where his own subjective mind leads him and see if possible in what way the Magician controls his subjective mind.

After having partaken of the magic water and of the magic meal, we observe von Scholtz has already lost his objective sense of locality in the fact that he does not know that he is still in the cave but he thinks he is in an open country, and his objective mind, controlled by Marbado, is wandering about in the shadows of the superimposed thought to find his way again into the cave.

Now to find how von Scholtz’s subjective mind is working in connection with and yet independent of Marbado’s influence, we must follow him and note his every act, and when he comes out of his hypnotic trance, or rather when again he is in control of his objective mind, he will tell us in his own words what were the thoughts and influences that caused him to think, feel, and act in an abnormal way.

We see von Scholtz walking up and down the cave as though in a partial trance, first very steadily, but with hands up and fists closed and a foot and a half apart as if he were holding something such as a wheel which every now and then he would turn slightly to the right, then to the left. His countenance was serene as though he were contented, but soon he looked more serious as he turned the wheel more often, began staggering like a drunken man as he walked along within the cave. But as he neared the mouth of the cave, the contortions of his face, the quick turning to the right, then to the left, his sudden glance up to the roof of the cave and down to its floor denoted that his objective mind was greatly alarmed.

When he reached the mouth of the cave he fell over from exhaustion into a sound sleep.

While in this condition, Marbado found him and called his attendants to bring a stretcher and carry the Professor to his tent.

Evidently the Professor’s subconscious self directed him through the cave to its mouth, while at the same time the Magician was using his influence to baffle the Professor’s objective mind and caused the unusual antics of the learned man as he wended his way to his determined goal.

After von Scholtz was allowed to sleep for some time, Marbado struck two loud raps on a gong to call him to dine. At the second stroke, von Scholtz opened his eyes, looked around bewildered, took in the situation, then stretched out his hands to Marbado and said: “How did you do it, Marbado, how did you do it?” The Magician smiled and said: “I might ask you the same question, Professor, how did YOU do it? You went to the end of the cave and out again and I did my best to stop you, but you won. Now tell me how you did it.”

Von Scholtz sat silently for a moment, as if to collect his thoughts and said: “Marbado, I would not have missed this experience for a million dollars. It has substantiated some of my theories, but I shall not go into that now. I will relate to you, however, my experience after I partook of your magic hospitality. You know, of course, I lost my bearings as to the whereabouts of the cave and sought my way out. My objective mind being controlled by you, it was absolutely of no service to me. I saw what you would have me see and heard and felt what you would have me hear and feel, but you did not make me swerve from my course, because I had previously charged my own subconsciousness definitely with what I wanted and was determined to get at all hazards. What you did was to influence my objective mind with the experience which I will now relate.

“I was trying to find the cave and get back to its mouth regardless of the mental picture I had of a strange open country. I followed what I thought was a path through the woods and found a lake upon which near a landing was a yacht at anchor. I inspected the yacht and found it in perfect condition and started to sail across the lake in the direction in which I thought the cave lay. A slight breeze was blowing in a favorable direction, the water smooth, so that I saw distinctly the pebbly bottom of the lake. After having sailed for an hour or more, the shore toward which I was sailing appeared much farther away than when I started and the shore I had left behind seemed but a few rods behind the vessel, yet I was traveling at a brisk rate of speed, for the breeze was fast becoming a wind and the bottom of the lake, distinctly seen, was sweeping past at a rapid rate. I felt the influence of your mind trying to turn me back to the shore I had left, because the shore was near and easy to reach, while in front of me difficulties multiplied.

The wind was turned into a gale; tiny clouds were noticed ahead; the gentle lake was becoming transformed into a turbulent sea; but on I sailed, straight ahead. The storm was upon me, great black clouds hurried about as scouts preparing for battle, shutting off the light of the sun that I might not escape, while behind their sombre skirts was concealed the artillery of heaven. A distant peal of thunder was the signal for action. The lightning’s flash revealed ahead a yawning whirlpool toward which I was fast approaching; as if to mock me, it as suddenly withdrew the light and dyed the air an inky blackness. Rain fell in torrents. The thunder rolled on in derision, while the wind laughed diabolically as she snatched the rigging from my vessel, and set me adrift as in a tub, but through all this, my subconscious mind forsook not its assigned position and held me to the vessel, steering straight ahead. It was tossed up and down, sidewise, round and round, this rotary motion becoming more and more apparent even among the warring elements. The winds and waves no longer tossed my frail bark, but it was borne steadily round and round a central point that lay far below me, but toward which I was steadily approaching. The noise of the whirlpool was deafening. As I sank deeper and deeper into the vast funnel I almost regretted my decision in assuming that the magic phenomena was natural, but whether real or imaginary, I seemed to have lost control of the craft in which I was sailing.

“I found it too late to recede from the mental attitude I had taken. There was nothing to do but to face the awful consequences of my chosen method of research. Swiftly and more swiftly I was whirled around the vortex when suddenly the noise of the whirlpool ceased for a second and nothing could have stopped its hungry bellow save food for its insatiable maw which I and my vessel furnished and which were swallowed in one gulp. I met my doom, or at least thought I had, but instead of blank forgetfulness, as I had expected, I found myself still conscious in the water and as I stretched out my hands as if to swim, I felt something hard and clutched it with all the desperation of a drowning man. It soon dawned on me that I was not in the water at all, but in a submarine in which I found myself giving orders to its crew as if it were my accustomed duty. The vessel was completely under my control, delving to the bottom of the sea or rising at will to its surface by manipulating a series of levers placed conveniently at hand.

“I saw in the distance as I arose to the surface an enemy battleship appearing. I submerged my craft, steered to the leeward of the vessel and gave a command, ‘Fire.’ “At the report of the explosion I saw a great smoke arise from my target and the vessel parted in two and sank. I sailed boldly forward and spied another vessel coming toward me, but before I could fire or submerge, I saw a flash from the enemy’s vessel and almost instantly I felt the rude shock and heard a loud explosion as my submarine went to pieces. I thought surely my end had come, but being still conscious, I decided to open my eyes in order to note what the bottom of the sea looked like, and as soon as I opened them, I was greatly surprised and chagrined to find myself in your tent.”

Marbado arose and, taking the Professor’s hand and pressing it warmly, replied: “You surely had a right to be surprised, Professor, but hardly to be chagrined. You have met my condition and won. If there is to be any chagrin, it shall be mine.”

Then taking a Medal of Distinction from his own breast, he pinned it on the Professor’s.

The Psychologist and The Magician – The Story, Part One

From Christian Science, Its Clear, Correct Teaching by

In the early part of the Twentieth Century (or, to be more definite, in 1910) when the educational world was challenged to unravel the mysteries of what is known as Magic or Black Art, the faculty of Heidelberg University became greatly interested in the subject, and much discussion followed among the learned men as to the utility of investigating such a subject.

Some claimed that in view of the fact that a thorough investigation would necessitate a continued residence of experts in a foreign country, whose time and energies at home could be given to more practical problems, and therefore, of greater benefit to man, that, therefore, they would not entertain the idea of an investigation of this sort. Others thought that even though they had means to squander in such a frivolous research, the game would be found to be not worth the candle.

Herman von Scholtz, Professor of Science, was favorably disposed toward the investigation. He thought they would be amply repaid by adding to the store of scientific knowledge, either from the discovery of new facts, or by the revealing with certainty the trickeries of the art, or by proving or disproving certain psychological theories he had in mind, which theories would account for the abnormal phenomena revealed or seemingly revealed by the Magician. Also, that in view of his interest in the subject, he was willing to exile himself in the wilds of India, if the Directors would bear but half the expense until he should be able to scientifically account for the Magician’s art. With such enthusiasm shown by one of their ablest scientists, the Regents lost no time in electing Doctor von Scholtz to represent the University in the investigation of the Art of India’s Magicians.

Von Scholtz was a “big” man, both mentally and physically, muscular, but not fleshy, straight as an arrow; a great scholar, a keen observer.

In youth he was known as “Dare-Devil Scholtz” and his badly scarred features, injured by saber thrusts, bore witness that he was no stranger to punishment.

Von Scholtz decided to “beard the lion in his den” and he immediately set sail for India, the home of the Magicians. Could he have foreseen the difficulty and weird experiences he was destined to encounter, it is probable he would have said, “Let Bill do it.”

Professor von Scholtz was considered one of the ablest scientists of Europe, and was well qualified in every way to undertake the hazardous work before him.

Arriving at Bombay, and seated on the veranda of the leading hotel of the city, the Professor heard someone call his name. On looking around, he saw George Blake, a young English officer, who had been a few years previously a student at Heidelberg, approaching with outstretched hand, saying, “To what good luck do we owe this pleasure?”

The Professor, rising, greeted the young officer, and soon made his mission known. “To be brief,” said von Scholtz, “I’ve come to study, to unravel, to explode or to explain, scientifically, if possible, the extraordinary performance of India’s magicians; but first, I wish to make the acquaintance and win the confidence of an adept in this line. I cannot afford to waste time with a tyro. I want a real problem to solve, if they are capable of giving me one. You understand what I mean? What is the prospect? What do you know about their magic?”

“Well,” said Blake, cautiously, “there are some magicians here in this city who perform feats, or reveal what seem to be remarkable phenomena, beyond me to explain. The greatest expert among them, or rather the one to whom many go for instruction, gave a performance, here in the city just three days ago. He lives in Northern India. He was to have left the city today. They say he gives a performance in a certain cave, known as Black Cat Cave, up in the Himalaya Mountains, that members of his own cult cannot follow and keep their sanity. I have heard of some of his followers leaving the cave for very fear before his performance was fairly begun. The Magician himself claims that there is no man living who can go with him from the mouth of the cave to the end and back again, when once he has started his performance.

“If you think this man will interest you I’ll phone and find out if he has left the city.”

“Do be so kind, Mr. Blake,” said the Professor. “Time will drag while I wait.”

Blake hurried to the hotel phone, and having satisfied himself, returned with the information that the great Magician would leave on the 5:15 train for his home in the north, that he could not change his plans, but that he would be delighted to meet Professor von Scholtz.

Blake took out his watch and said, “We have a good half hour to make the train. It is now 4:45.”

Professor von Scholtz was quick to see his opportunity; he decided to take his baggage with him to the station, so that in case he could not persuade the Magician to stop over in the city another fortnight, he would in that case go with him, if it were even to go half way round the world.

Accordingly, von Scholtz made known his intentions to Blake, who lost no time and soon had a conveyance at the Professor’s disposal.

When they arrived at the station, they found the Magician waiting. “Marbado,” said Blake, greeting the Magician, “shake hands with Professor von Scholtz, my friend and former instructor, and one of the world’s leading psychologists, and I may add” (turning to the Professor) “that Marbado has no peer in India as a magician.”

The two distinguished men greeted each other. Professor von Schlotz got right down to business and offered to pay Marbado liberally if he would remain in the city another fortnight, that he might have an opportunity to witness his performances. Marbado could make no alterations in his plans, but instead invited the Professor to go along with him, “Providing,” he said, “you are sure your trip will not prove useless, for it is but fair to warn you that any man who will undertake to study me and my work must have nerves of steel and be a stranger to fear. So far, I have been unable to discover such a man.”

“You will find me qualified,” was von Scholtz’s brief reply. The toot of the engine’s whistle was the signal for “all aboard.” With a farewell to Blake, the two experts boarded the train. Their tickets showed that Rawal was their destination, about twelve hundred miles northwest, in the Punjab Province. The trip would prove uneventful and somewhat tiresome to the Psychologist. When they reached Rawal, Marbado secured mules and attendants to transport himself and companion and their belongings to the Indus River Trail into the rugged Himalaya Mountains still a day’s journey further on.

They reached camp about 6 p.m.

The mouth of the famous cave was about a hundred yards from the camp.

Professor von Scholtz felt the need of a good night’s rest before permitting himself to witness the art of the Magician, and besides this, he wanted to go through the cave alone the next day to see that there was nothing of a tricky or deceptive nature about the cave or its contents.

The next day he satisfied himself on these points and he felt sure that whatever happened, or seemed to happen, it would be the result of his own thoughts, influenced possibly by the thoughts of the Magician. “Could he fully overcome the suggestions of the Magician?” He was not sure.

Nothing could be decided until the first test came, but of one thing he did feel certain, viz.: that he could walk to the end of the cave and out again, if it were a physical possibility to do so, and this was the supreme test Marbado required and claimed that no man could perform save himself, when his performance once began and during its operation.

After von Scholtz had examined the cave, he swung his hammock near the mouth of it to watch that no one should enter until the Magician and himself should enter together. This was to reduce the possibility of fraud to the minimum.

“Well,” said Marbado, approaching the alert scientist, “are you ready for the ordeal?”

“‘Ordeal’ is a strong word,” said von Scholtz. “But I am ready. Have you no other instructions to give?”

“None,” said the Magician, “except that you go to the end of this cave and out again regardless of what you will see, hear, feel or think, and regardless of what becomes of me. I assure you, however, that no bodily harm will come to you. The cave will be lighted by our own personal presence, but if you are in any doubt, or suspect any trickery, take your light with you, though you will find it a hindrance, as it will interfere with your vision.”

“I’ll hold on to it for awhile,” said the Professor, “and if I find it superfluous, I’ll abandon it.”

Such was the drift of their conversation as they approached the mouth of the cave.

Just as the Magician entered the mouth of the cave, he sprang to one side, to avoid the stroke of a cobra that sprang at him. “These reptiles are most lively at night, Professor,” he said, “and we are liable to encounter their den before our performance begins.” This was something unexpected, and caused von Scholtz to hesitate for just a moment, when he essayed to jump over the serpent. “Wait, Professor, and take no chances; these reptiles are deadly,” and as Marbado spoke, he hurled a rock and crushed the cobra.

The cave was about three miles long, according to von Scholtz’s measurements during the day. When the two men were about a hundred yards inside, the cave lit up from some mysterious source to about the intensity of early dawn, so that it was possible for the two men to distinguish each other’s features, so von Scholtz finding his torch superfluous, discarded it.

Marbado, still leading the way, again sprang suddenly aside and called to the Professor to look out for the cobra. Von Scholtz saw the floor literally covered with the poisonous snakes. Marbado advised retiring so as to give the cobras a chance to settle for the night, that they themselves could pass on unmolested and without interruption of the exhibition of his art.

The two men then walked to the mouth of the cave and sat until midnight, talking over matters of scientific import, thus giving the cobras, as von Scholtz supposed, a chance to settle back in their den.

This was an adroit move on Marbado’s part, as it subtly suggested a simple and natural situation, liable to occur in any rocky region where reptiles abound. Marbado finally arose and said: “I think, Professor, the cobras have settled for the night, and if we move cautiously we can get by without disturbing them; then I can entertain you with my art.” So saying Marbado led the way, his companion following.

When the leader had reached that part of the cave where the cobras had checked their progress earlier in the evening, he gave forth an unearthly yell, and fell. The Professor saw that a cobra had fastened itself to Marbado’s right hand and from either side of the cave the venomous reptiles issued by the hundreds soon covering the prostrate body until it seemed one writhing mass.

Von Scholtz stood transfixed, horrified, yes, petrified with fear, but as we have noted before, he was not the man to yield for any length of time to any such emotions; he needed time for thought, so he withdrew to a safe distance to think the matter over, there being no time limit set for his task. If this were a natural phenomenon instead of an exhibition of magic, certainly he was justified in withdrawing from the cave, but if, on the other hand, it were but the first trick deftly executed by the Magician, his duty to science and to his own self-respect demanded that he should carry out his part of the program. This was a matter for him alone to decide. Again, if it were a mere trick, how could he account for the fact that his own senses were making false reports unless he conceded that he was already under the magician’s spell? If the things he saw were real, and he attempted to pass further into the cave, his death would be certain and terrible. How should he, how could he, decide? Von Scholtz looked at his problem from every conceivable angle; he recalled every circumstance of the early evening; the cobra at the entrance of the cave; the natural and suggestive surroundings; their conversation; Marbado’s remarks and the killing of the cobra; and his own expectation of seeing Marbado perform his magic after they should have passed the cobra’s den. All this convinced him that the Magician’s work had already begun, and that he had been caught unawares at the very beginning. With this analysis, he tried to dehypnotize himself; at any rate, upon some such hypothesis he resolved to advance regardless of personal consequences.

As he again approached the prostrate form covered with animated venom, cold perspiration covered his person. He hesitated; there was but one passage; the cave was narrow, and if he advanced it must be over the body of Marbado covered with the squirming serpents.

“These are not real cobras,” said von Scholtz aloud, as if addressing Marbado, “and they have no place in a normal mind.” And as he spoke, he walked straight over their yielding bodies, but he screamed with pain as the cobras struck from right and left, but he kept right on going until he had passed over them. What an experience for a man in his right mind to pass through and still maintain his sanity! The Professor stood for a moment wiping the perspiration from his face while his heart beat like an approaching drum corps. He felt greatly relieved, however, and somewhat triumphant in that he had overcome the first barrier.

Again he proceeded farther into the cave, but he had not gone far when he saw Marbado walking ahead of him as though nothing unusual had happened to him; he tried to overtake the Magician, but the Hindu maintained his distance without apparent effort.

Suddenly, a wall of rock was seen to stretch across the cave. Marbado passed through an opening, and the wall silently but immediately closed, leaving a solid barrier between the psychologist and the Magician. Von Scholtz knew this was not the end wall of the cave, for he had noticed during the day that it was formed of granite, while this obstructing wall was more of the nature of marble. Von Scholtz walked up to the wall and slapped it with his open hand, then he kicked it; then he picked up a rock and pounded it, but all to no purpose for the wall stood as solid as the mountain itself.

“I see my mistake,” said the Professor, throwing away the rock as if disgusted with himself at his blundering. “To try to knock the wall down is to admit that it is there and but adds to its solidity by hammering away at it. The truth is, the wall does not exist as an objective fact. I should have walked on and not slapped, kicked and hammered at it; and I should have looked on it only as a form of thought which the Magician would have me accept as an objective reality, but which I deny.” So saying, he closed his eyes and walked straight ahead and passed the apparent obstruction without hindrance, the wall disappearing as mist before the sun.

As von Scholtz hastened on deeper into the cave, he heard the voices of men some distance ahead of him. They seemed to be in distress;; he peered into the gloomy distance in front of him and soon descried two men running toward him, pursued by a Bengal tiger. The man in front, in his haste to escape, brushed so close to the Professor that the learned man was knocked off his feet. When he arose, he saw the tiger had caught and was eating the other man, but a few yards in front of him.

The mangling of the human form was sickening. Instinctively the Professor started to leave the cave, but he did not go far when he began to realize that this was shirking his duty. So, facing about again, he reasserted himself and leaving the evidence of his senses, advanced toward the scene of carnage. Not without difficulty, however.

Aside from the sight of the ferocious beast and his half-eaten prey, the sound of cracking bones in the ferocious jaws, one sense seeming to corroborate the testimony of the other, a hard proposition to get over. Yet, nevertheless, the scientist said, “These are also illusions,” and in saying it showed his faith in his reasoning and advanced. But in doing so, he received a stunning blow from the tiger’s paw, managing only to stagger past before he fell, rising as quickly, seeing neither beast nor his prey. They had vanished!

Encouraged by his continued success, he went deeper into the cave, wondering what he would encounter next and whether or not he could keep right on without hesitating and turning back at every fresh new obstacle or supposed obstacle encountered. He was beginning to feel quite confident when his attention was arrested, this time by four men, also about a hundred yards ahead, coming towards him, whose tools and dress indicated that they were miners. They were evidently amused at something, as they chatted and laughed, just as workmen are wont to do when their shift of toil is over. It all seemed so realistic, and after all, just what one might expect under similar conditions.

He heard much of their talk and understood some of their coarse jokes. “This surely is not magic,” thought the Professor, “but life itself.” Still there was nothing like being prepared for surprises. Suddenly the earth trembled! The men stopped joking and looked serious and fear-stricken, and one asked his comrades in whisper: “Was that an earthquake?” Almost immediately a still more violent shaking of the earth followed, a large boulder fell from the roof of the cave, crushing two of the workmen; the other two, terror-stricken, came rushing toward von Scholtz, but before reaching him they fell into a chasm that opened in the floor of the cave — this chasm doubtless the result of the earthquake! Their cries as they fell were heart-rending, but were soon hushed by the relentless fingers of Death. “Here is a real phenomenon, unexpected, sudden, unavoidable, and beyond the control of any magician,” thought the learned man, “and this immense gap in the floor of the cave makes it a physical impossibility for me to get over it.”

To cross the chasm was indeed a perplexity. When the earth had ceased trembling, Von Scholtz climbed upon a large rock that had fallen near him and sat upon it for a long time with eyes half closed, his head resting against the side of the cave as if in deep thought. When at last he opened his eyes and climbed down from the rock, he said, “I know that I take my life in my hands, but I’ll try it.” He walked deliberately up to the abyss and looking down, saw far below a fiery mass of molten rock and just above the molten mass he saw upon a ledge of rock the mangled form of one of the unfortunate miners, hanging as though ready to drop into the cauldron below where doubtless his comrade had met his fate. The sight only served to strengthen the testimony of his senses and he withdrew from the scene with a shudder. He walked a short distance, still in deep thought. Time was passing and he must come to a decision.

The thought of retreat was more and more distasteful to him since he had come so far; still he wanted to be sure he was right in distinguishing the real from the unreal. Again he turned toward the chasm, saying: “I must prove my faith in my own course of reasoning.” So with a steady tread, he faced again the awful cleft, but as he looked down his courage once more failed him. He grew desperate, censuring himself for his weakness. With a tremendous effort, he set his jaw, clenched his fists, and setting out with a firm tread, this time looking upward, ignoring the sight beneath his feet, walked straight ahead. For an instant he felt a swimming sensation, but only for an instant, for instead of falling, he found the floor of the cave as solid as ever.

His relief was inexpressible. If he had never doubted sanity before, he did now. He walked back to the spot where he had stood on the other side of the supposed chasm, but found no trace of earthquake or debris of any kind. “What a fool I have been, what a fool! Truly that Hindu is no tyro, and still I have further to do.”

Von Scholtz knew he was nearing the end of the cave, so he hastened his steps.

How come that ball of light bounding and rebounding from the back of the cave? There was no time to reason about it for it came toward him with such force as to fell him to the ground so violently that he lay there a long time as one dead. Consciousness returning, however, he arose, and feeling no pain from the fall, walked straight to the end of the cave and placed his hand on the back wall, thus finishing one-half of the arduous and nerve-racking task he had undertaken in the interests of science.

The Psychologist and The Magician – Introductory Comment

From Christian Science, Its Clear, Correct Teaching by , April, 1950

A Psychological Study in Story Form by Ernest C. Rodwick, 1920

Dear Fellow-Scientist:

You, as a Christian Scientist or indeed as any thoughtful man or woman, will find the accompanying “Story” of vital interest although there is nothing of pure Christian Science in it. Jesus used parables to illustrate special points in his teaching of pure Christianity and this “Story” should be taken as a parable which illustrates perfectly the fact that hypnotic suggestion cannot deceive a mind which has fortified itself with the truth about any fact or circumstance which presents itself negatively.

In this account of Professor Herman von Scholtz’s research into hypnotism the point is brought out that he resisted every effort of the Hindu hypnotist to deceive him, as long as the suggestions came as abnormalities, as startling and unusual experiences, but was tempted to yield to the suggestions of “normal” hunger and thirst. To the Professor “normal” matter was real even though he had fortified himself against believing in any unusual manifestations which the Hindu adept might appear to conjure.

It has been 75 years since SCIENCE AND HEALTH was given to the world in 1875, with its thunderous message “There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all.” Do you as a Christian Scientist believe this? Do you accept what you call “normal matter as real and then attempt to abolish “abnormal matter” as Professor von Scholtz was almost tricked into doing?

In SCIENCE AND HEALTH Mrs. Eddy declares “animal magnetism or hypnotism is the specific term for error, or mortal mind.” This means, of course, the entirety of mortal belief whether it presents itself as so-called normal or abnormal. Anything calling itself material is an hypnotic illusion, the product of animal magnetism operating as malicious minds. Its effects can be nullified only by the realization that divine Mind is the one and only Mind and that this Mind embraces within itself all manifestation, hence all normality, all perfection. Basically you understand that you are dealing alone with God every instant and that this dealing, humanly interpreted or translated in the language of the negation, appears as dealing with “animal magnetism or hypnotism.” Then how essential, as Paul said, to “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” Is it not being “dead,” to continue to be in darkness to what is really, in belief, operating as the enemy of mankind — hypnotic suggestion? Is not the “light” to awaken one from this “dead” the Christ, the truth that man as the activity of God is ever awake to all good and especially to understanding the subtlety of direction by malicious minds as the negation of direction by divine Mind?

Very sincerely yours,

Herbert W. Eustace





Love is the liberator.