In Defense of Mary Baker Eddy and the Remnant of Her Seed

by Paul R. Smillie

— a collection of his articles —

Acknowledgments

To Nancy Garner Beauchamp, on board at the start of The Gethsemane Foundation, constant in her desire to help and support, and with whose technical help this book can now be published,

And to Paul Smillie for his valiant stand in defense of the Woman and her child by writing, publishing and distributing the articles which comprise this book.

© 2008 Sharron R. Smillie

The Cover

In the Christian Science Sentinel of September 6, 1913 on page ten, Archibald McLellan stated three most important points about the cover of the Sentinel and a minor change made at that time on its cover. Speaking of this change he said, “Beyond this there can be neither desire nor occasion for change in the Sentinel, because,” he said, “Mrs. Eddy’s instructions forbid any change.” He explained this by saying, “Mrs. Eddy likewise gave instructions.” The word ‘instructions’ is most important. Speaking then of the two women, the lamps and the inscriptions beneath them, he said they had been “preserved as expressive of our Leader’s thought....” Mrs. Eddy requested that the cover of the Sentinel be light blue in color.

The illustrations represented on the back cover of this book are reproduced from a 1911 Christian Science Quarterly. They depict the prophecy from Zechariah 3:8, 4:2-4, 11-14, of the two olive trees and the two candlesticks (lamps in the original text), representing …“the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” The BRANCH was centered towards the bottom of the Quarterly and is reproduced on the back cover of this book. Each lamp is different, representing the two different witnesses.

These abbreviations are used for Mary Baker Eddy’s works:

The following abbreviations are for other works quoted in this book:

Abbreviations

Table of Contents

• Preface
• Introduction
• Loving Our Leader
•   Argument #1 of the red dragon: Mary Baker Eddy is not the revelator. Accordingly, she is not the Leader.
•   Argument #2 of the red dragon: Mary Baker Eddy did not fulfill Bible prophecy.
•   Argument #3 of the red dragon: The human consciousness, the second degree, is not God-bestowed. Hence, God does not know Mary Baker Eddy.
•   Argument #4 of the red dragon: Anyone could have discovered Christian Science and written Science and Health. Mrs. Eddy was no better than you or I.
•   Argument #5 of the red dragon: To love and actively support Mrs. Eddy is personality worship and deification, based in emotionalism.
•   Argument #6 of the red dragon: Mary Baker Eddy made many mistakes.
•   Argument #7 of the red dragon: Mrs. Eddy is irrelevant. All we need is the pure Science.
• The Father, the Prodigal, and the Citizen
•   includes — An Abridged Analysis of Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority
• Our Leader’s Demonstration of Generic Man
•   includes — Reflection
•   Mrs. Eddy’s Crown
•   Romanism and the Two Witnesses
•   Isaiah’s Vision, 54^th Chapter, by Judge Hanna
• Does God Know Mary Baker Eddy and Christ Jesus?
•   includes — Mrs. Eddy’s Address in Christian Science Hall, 1898
•   An Arctic Aurora
• Christian Scientists and the Child Court Cases
• Gratitude or Indifference — Love or Deification?
•   includes — Statements of Well-known Workers
• Appendix: Ordering Information; List of Resources
• Information on The Gethsemane Foundation

It is commonly said that, if he would be heard, none should write in advance of his times. That I do not believe. Only, it does not matter how few listen. I believe that we are close upon a great and deep spiritual change. I believe a new redemption is even now conceived of the Divine Spirit in the human heart, that is itself as a woman, broken in dreams and yet sustained in faith, patient, long-suffering, looking towards home. I believe that though the Reign of Peace may be yet a long way off, it is drawing near: and that Who shall save us anew shall come divinely as a Woman, to save as Christ saved, but not as He did, to bring with Her a sword.

William Sharp (Fiona McLeod) in The Isle of Dreams

Bright, good, and pure, aye brilliant! I never before had a pupil with such depth and independence of thought. She has some great future, mark that. She is an intellectual and spiritual genius.

The Reverend Enoch Corser, referring to the young Mary Baker, from The Life of Mary Baker Eddy by Sibyl Wilbur

There have been some instances in Christian history when the Holy Spirit has been associated with a feminine character, as, for example, in the Syrian Didascalia where, in speaking of various offices in the Church, it states: “The Deaconess however should be honored by you as the image of the Holy Spirit.” It would make an interesting investigation to see if these images of God presented here by Luke were ever used in a Trinitarian manner —thereby giving the Holy Spirit a feminine image. A negative result to the investigation would be as significant as a positive one, for this passage would seem to be particularly apt for Trinitarian interpretation: the prodigal son’s father is God the Father (this interpretation has in fact been quite common in Christian history); since Jesus elsewhere identified himself as the Good Shepherd, the shepherd seeking the lost sheep is Jesus, the Son (this standard interpretation is reflected in, among other things, the often seen picture of Jesus carrying the lost sheep on his shoulders); the woman who sought the lost coin should “logically” be the Holy Spirit. If such an interpretation has existed, it surely has not been common. Should such lack of “logic” be attributed to the general cultural denigration of women or the abhorrence of pagan goddesses —although Christian abhorrence of pagan gods did not result in a Christian rejection of a male image of God?

Jesus Was a Feminist — What the Gospels Reveal about His Revolutionary Perspective by Leonard Swidler, Editor of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, member of Religion Department at Temple University

Mary Baker Eddy

In 1882, when the above photograph was taken, Mary Baker Eddy was preaching in Boston, Massachusetts.

...as Paul says, ‘How shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent?’

Science and Health page 271:31-1

Preface

Mrs. Eddy stated that Lynn (Mass.) resounded with my cures. She wrote, “…When I have most clearly seen and most sensibly felt that the infinite recognizes no disease, this has not separated me from God, but has so bound me to Him as to enable me instantaneously to heal a cancer which had eaten its way to the jugular vein. In the same spiritual condition I have been able to replace dislocated joints and raise the dying to instantaneous health.” (Unity of Good p.7:8-15) She continues, “…an acknowledgment of the perfection of the infinite Unseen confers a power nothing else can.” (ibid, p.7:20)

No single page could even begin to enumerate the multitudinous ways in which His Witness was ever occupied to remain obedient to God’s call as outlined in the following quote from Science and Health:

To preach deliverance to the captives [of sense], And recovering of sight to the blind,

To set at liberty them that are bruised.

When God called the author to proclaim His Gospel to this age, there came also the charge to plant and water His vineyard.

The first school of Christian Science Mind-healing was started by the author with only one student in Lynn, Massachusetts, about the year 1867. In 1881, she opened the Massachusetts Metaphysical College in Boston, under the seal of the Commonwealth…

During seven years over four thousand students were taught by the author in this College. Meanwhile she was pastor of the first established Church of Christ, Scientist; President of the first Christian Scientist Association, convening monthly; publisher of her own works; and (for a portion of this time) sole editor and publisher of the Christian Science Journal, the first periodical issued by Christian Scientists. [In 1889] She closed her College…in the height of its prosperity with a deep-lying conviction that the next two years of her life should be given to the preparation of the revision of Science and Health, which was published in 1891 As its President, [she] reopened the College in 1899 as auxiliary to her church.

Science and Health pp.xi-xii:20-22, to next page

In addition to the foregoing, the Founder was writing and publishing the following books in order to “plant and water His vineyard.”

Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures

Manual of The Mother Church

Miscellaneous Writings

Retrospection and Introspection

Unity of Good

Pulpit and Press

Rudimental Divine Science

No and Yes

Christian Science versus Pantheism

1900 Message to The Mother Church

1901 Message to The Mother Church

1902 Message to The Mother

Church Christian Healing

The People’s Idea of God

Poems

Christ and Christmas

The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany

And, included in her book of poems, seven incomparable church hymns.

Introduction

What Mary Baker Eddy said to Arthur Brisbane:

The halting and dissipating of the Christian Science Cause was apparently what its enemies desired, but they sought to accomplish their ends by traducing the Leader. If she fell, her church might hardly be expected to prosper thereafter.

This volume, In Defense of Mary Baker Eddy and the Remnant of Her Seed, is a collection of most of the articles written and distributed by Paul R. Smillie between 1985 and 1991 through his foundation, The Gethsemane Foundation. As the slander increased, a voice in defense of Mary Baker Eddy had to be heard. Slanted views of statements and events concerning our Leader, incorrect views of her found in some biographies and periodical articles, had to be addressed. Paul’s words, penned then, are still applicable today as the error directed at our Leader and her remnant has continued to grow and has found more ways to strengthen the curse on man.

With an unequivocal stand for God’s Witness, Mary Baker Eddy, her Paul also came under the wrath of the devourer, and nothing but his demise could quiet his voice — until now. His articles helped to raise a needed awareness about the serpent in its foul quest to smear her holy life, separate her from her child and bury this virtuous woman under the rubble of male ego and the unchristian claim of humanism, this Woman sent by God to save all mankind with her life of Love.

The Author

The reader may wish to know more about the author of these articles, and so a short biography is included here. Paul Smillie was born in Vancouver, B.C., Canada in 1941 and enrolled in the Christian Science Sunday School when he was about 2 years of age.

Later, the family moved to California. When he was 18, Paul applied to Mildred LeBlond for Primary class instruction and was in her last class. Paul’s teacher, our parents’ teacher, my teacher, all CSB’s, taught Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy. Teaching that today will invite restrictions and possible ex-communication, but Truth cannot so easily be squashed.

During the Vietnam Conflict, Paul joined the U.S. Air Force and was assigned to military intelligence. Ordered to a remote foreign location, his local church attempted to have his orders changed, but to no avail. While stationed in that remote location, he began writing articles on Christian Science and distributed them to family and friends. It may have been during this time also that he began working on his biography of Mary Baker Eddy that was published in 1985. Discharged from the military, he resumed his membership duties in the Gulfport, Mississippi church that included teaching Sunday School and a term as First Reader. He also entered the private practice of Christian Science and remained a practitioner for the rest of his life here. As many of us will attest, he was a very good practitioner. He was not Journal listed.

In 1969 and 1972, Mr. Smillie traveled to Boston to speak with the Christian Science Board of Directors concerning Mrs. Eddy’s place in prophecy and left his manuscript, Mary Baker Eddy: The Prophetic and Historical Perspective, with them. One lingering misunderstanding remained from the meeting, and that was that the Board believed Mr. Smillie supported disorganization. He did not. In his biography, he states, “The primary purpose of organization is to preserve Christian Science in the world until Christian Science is accepted by the population and that can come only when Christian Scientists view Mrs. Eddy correctly.” (MBE PHP p.315, and pp. 314-319.) In 1985, led to make his biography available to as many thinkers as possible, the book was distributed free of charge to practitioners and teachers, although many copies were returned unopened. Then, soon after, he was excommunicated from The Mother Church and relieved of his Sunday School class at a branch church in Dallas, Texas.

Well knowing that nothing could be gained by remaining in that branch church, some banded together and formed the North Dallas Christian Science Group. As our church began to grow and attract non-Christian Scientists, we applied to The Mother Church for Society status. Included with the application were letters from the members relating their own physical healings. We were later told that those who reviewed the application did not believe that the enclosed testimonies of healing were true. They were true. The North Dallas Christian Science Group was not granted Society status.

For some years, Mr. Smillie taught a non-denominational Bible (KJV) class as he felt that all Christian Scientists should be able to speak intelligently with other Christians about the Bible and able to show how Christian Science is Bible based and in perfect accord with the teachings of Christ Jesus.

Overcoming and healing through prayer the physical effects of the continuing malpractice over a period of many years, Paul Smillie passed from our sight in 1992, mentally assassinated.

From the Bible. Balaam, renowned in Moab as he who could bless or curse one’s enemies, was hired by Balak, King of the Moabites, to curse the children of Israel as the twelve tribes passed his kingdom on their journey to the Promised Land.

Balaam, then journeying on his ass to Moab to keep his accursed appointment, was prevented from going through a narrow rocky pass when “…the ass saw the angel of the Lord, [and] she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.” When finally Balaam’s eyes were opened by the Lord, he too saw the angel “…standing in the way, and his sword drawn…” The angel declared, “I went out to withstand thee because thy way is perverse before me…” And, unless the ass “had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.” (Num. 22-24; Mic. 6:5; Rev. 2:14)

Let us pray that we be found as spiritually alert to resist, as was that little female ass, when we are called to participate in cursing God’s anointed; and that the Balaams in our midst today will finally, like the Balaam of old, hear God’s voice and cease from cursing His messenger, and bless her.

It has taken 6,000 years — from Eden to the Second Advent — to release women from the abomination of domination by the Adamic male. Is this process, instituted by Christ Jesus and completed by Mary Baker Eddy, to be stopped and reversed now? The current world-wide terror, issuing forth from male-dominated religions intent on destroying all of the God-given gains produced by the unfaltering founding of Christian Science by our Leader, is being given aid and fuel by those who continue to be misled by malicious animal magnetism to curse and war against His messenger, Mary Baker Eddy, and her followers, the remnant of her seed.

This evil is here. This is being practiced now; what shall we do with it? Shall it be ignored or exposed and destroyed? Meet it! Expose it! No matter what it may cost you! Oh, how I have begged and implored my students to do this, but they have not had the moral courage to meet these malicious thoughts and expose them, but have allowed me to be the only mouthpiece against them.

Miscellaneous Documents Relating to Christian Science, p. 96

With undiminished love for Mary Baker Eddy and in obedience to her demand given above, this book of articles is dedicated.

Compiler, Editor, sister Sharron R. Smillie

Loving Our Leader

December 1988

“You will have to learn to love me more.”

Mary Baker Eddy

At one point in the early years in the Chicago field, healing work suddenly came to a halt. This was most unusual as previously Chicago had been perhaps the finest field for healing in the country. The best healers, including those who had studied with Mrs. Eddy, could not heal. The situation became so alarming that a group was delegated to go to Pleasant View and request Mrs. Eddy’s help. Mr. Kimball, as their spokesman, told Mrs. Eddy about their difficulties in healing. She patiently listened to the problem and when their tale of woe was told, she said, “You will have to learn to love me more.” She said no more and left the room. The delegation returned to Chicago and related Mrs. Eddy’s message. They took the message to heart and the healing work was successful once again.

Introduction

Somewhere, Christian Scientists have gotten a very unloving impression of Mary Baker Eddy that has been sufficient to obstruct healing. The above paragraph shows us that when she is not loved, there is no healing. She wrote to a student:

If you had a patient that was being told constantly something bad about you — unless you or someone for you should place the truth in regard to you in the mind of that patient, you could not heal him. The world is my patient. I have carried on successfully its treatment until I have 50 to 1 students lying about me! Now if those calling themselves loyal do not meet the newspaper attacks from the disloyal students, with truth relative to the lies told, they will fall and go down taking the Cause with them. For I have done my life work in that line. Now it is you whom God calls to do yours and unless you do it, you will betray this glorious work into the hands of men, crucify anew the Christ — and kill yourselves because of this.

Mrs. Eddy’s Letters to Augusta Stetson, p.18, e.a.

In the above quote Mrs. Eddy makes it very clear that in order for mankind to receive Christian Science and for Christian Scientists to be healed, they must cultivate a loving and correct thought of her. Lack of love hides her life-demonstration, the human and divine coincidence, and cannot perceive her spiritual individuality. Love for her helps mightily to overcome the arguments of the red dragon that keep the truth about our Leader hidden. Where is the resistance to Mrs. Eddy coming from? “Nothing except sin in the students themselves, can separate them from me.” (Ret. p.81:4-5) If we allow ourselves to be handled by the claim of original sin, of contempt, envy, and jealousy for the revelator, we lose the revelation of Love. In Retrospection and Introspection, Mrs. Eddy tells us, “Sin existed as a false claim before the human concept of sin was formed....” (Ret. p.67:1-2) Sin rejects Love. Because woman was the one who saw the beguiling nature of the serpent, she was chosen to destroy it. God sent her to be “an help meet” to Adam, to awaken him from his deep sleep and overcome the claims of the serpent. Instead of supporting her, Adam was used by the serpent to oppress the help meet God gave him, and thus Adam lost her revelation. In the Glossary of Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy refers to Adam as “original sin…” (S&H p.579:15) His unkindness, contempt and graceless abuse of womanhood is still evident.

In Genesis, the mist, the atmosphere of the serpent, obscured the truth about Eve, the channel of God prophesied to destroy the serpent. (Gen. 3:15) Would the atmosphere, mystification, of the red dragon obscure the truth about Mrs. Eddy, as she was the prophesied channel of God? Why does it persecute the woman? She is its destroyer. (Gen. 3:15)

Before Eve was created, God directly commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God did not give this command to Eve. But when Eve takes from the tree, Adam was “with her.” From Eve’s conversation, it appears Adam had told her of God’s command but, at this point, he does not even attempt to remind her. (Gen. 3:6) Ever since, “unmanly Adams” have blamed Eve for all the difficulties in the world. Jealousy and malice abound toward the woman — the avenue of spiritual progress, of grace and warmth.

The serpent did not want the poisoned fruit neutralized. Eve had the antidote, — she recognized that the serpent beguiled her. The serpent makes us think that we do not need the vision of Love’s representative, the idea God gave mankind to destroy the serpent. Adam, male-energy, was the serpent’s dupe; he separated himself from God and blamed Eve. As the serpent in Genesis was aided in its deceit by Adam, so today unhandled male energy is a channel for seven deceitful, unloving arguments against the woman, — mouthed by mortal Adams.

Throughout the centuries, the complicity of the serpent and male energy to attack the woman and her seed, has impeded spiritual progress and always protected the serpent. The hatred of original sin is aimed at the woman, its destroyer, through mortal mind. When not alert, we listen to its unkind arguments. Wanting to please Adam dreamers, many women subordinate their discipleship to men and remain silent in the presence of the red dragon’s arguments.

How did our Leader feel about the continual attack upon her? “A city that is set upon a hill cannot be hid, and the life of their Leader must be shown as it is. Never did I neglect Jesus in my sermons in the first days of Christian Science; now they must not forget me. The scandalous attacks on the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science will stop if the truth about her be shown to the world.” (DCC p.52, e.a.) (See also S&H p.201: chapter heading.)

If you wish to study and work with Mrs. Eddy’s thoughts on the subject of original sin, refer to:

Hea. 17:21-27; Pan. 6:11-14; Rud. 2:23-2; Un. 1:1-3, 44:13, 54:25; Ret. 67:18-22, 68:1-3, 60:14; Mis. 13:14, 24:27-29, 26:19-20, 30:26, 57:11, 108:14-25, 147:10-11, 196:4, 201:3, 259:5, 299:16; S&H 61:9-11, 91:22-8, 92:11, 103:18-23, 129:11-12, 197:8, 255:11, 280:21, 306:32-24, 354:26-27, 356:30-32, 372:3-6, 454:11, 522:12-14.

Mrs. Eddy says, “It is easier to cure the most malignant disease than it is to cure sin. The author has raised up the dying, partly because they were willing to be restored, while she has struggled long, and perhaps in vain, to lift a student out of a chronic sin.” (S&H p.373:5-9) The sin that separates us from her is the most stubborn of all errors. Mrs. Eddy writes about teachers, “They must always have on armor, and resist the foe within and without. They cannot arm too thoroughly against original sin, appearing in its myriad forms: passion, appetites, hatred, revenge, and all the et cetera of evil.” (Mis. p.114:17-21, e.a.) Healing in the Christian Science movement has deteriorated in direct proportion to the increasing subtle contempt for our Leader, Mary Baker Eddy. We must thoroughly handle the hatred of original sin directed at her, but which appears as our own thinking about her. Know there is no resistance or contempt for our Leader, her womanhood, her mothering, and her demonstration of Christian Science, her revelation of God’s motherhood.

The seven-headed red dragon’s subtlety

This chapter deals with the seven specific suggestions of the red dragon. In Genesis, the subtle serpent lies against and persecutes the woman with the one specific argument, “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil,” whereas in Revelation, the seven-headed red dragon formed by its hatred for her, persecutes the woman with seven times the subtlety and seven times the number of arguments. The red dragon attempts to hide its sin through these subtle arguments that, when obeyed, give a false sense of harmony and peace. Obeying this evil licenses evil and gives it activity while paralyzing and reversing good. This mesmerism will try to stop you from reading this chapter and its uncovering of the red dragon.

The red dragon seeks to devour us with deception, — the following seven specific suggestions of the red dragon. It would take her crown and place it symbolically upon its own arguments, its seven heads. These arguments counterfeit the seven synonyms of God:

1. Mary Baker Eddy is not the revelator. Accordingly, she is not the Leader.

2. Mrs. Eddy did not fulfill Bible prophecy.

3. The human consciousness, the second degree, is not God-bestowed. Hence, God doesn’t know Mrs. Eddy.

4. Anyone could have discovered Christian Science and written Science and Health. Mrs. Eddy was no better than you or I.

5. To love and actively support Mrs. Eddy is personality worship and deification, based in emotionalism.

6. Mary Baker Eddy made many mistakes.

7. Mrs. Eddy is irrelevant. All we need is the pure Science.

Mrs. Eddy states, “This mortal material concept was never a creator, although as a serpent it claimed to originate in the name of ‘the Lord,’ or good, — original evil....” (Ret. p.68:1-3) Its most devilish aspect is to appear to communicate godlike statements and assure us that its intellectual arguments are correct, but which end up being human philosophy. Mrs. Eddy says, “Although presenting the exact opposite of Truth, the lie claims to be truth.” (S&H p.523:6-7) And, “It was not against evil, but against knowing evil, that God forewarned.” (Mis. p.367:22-23) Christian Scientists are warned against knowing, thinking and accepting the seven irreverent lies about our Leader. Defining the operation of these lies, she says, “That man can break the forever-law of infinite Love, was, and is, the serpent’s biggest lie!” (Mis. p.123:8-9, e.a.) In Jesus’ day the devils spoke out and said, “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God?” (Matt. 8:29) And mortals crucified him. Today, the red dragon roars out against the woman and seeks to crucify her in the hearts and minds of Christian Scientists.

Argument #1 of the red dragon: Mary Baker Eddy is not the revelator. Accordingly, she is not the Leader.

This lie, one of the subtle arguments of the seven-headed red dragon, would reverse one of the synonyms of God, — divine Love.

This argument of the red dragon is basically the same as in Genesis. Adam rejects womanhood’s superiority. Mrs. Eddy says, “Woman is the highest species of man. ” (Un. p.51:14) And, “Woman has the finer spiritual nature. She more readily takes the impress of Christian Science.” (DCC p.203) Do modern Adams appreciate the woman’s position as Leader? Mrs. Eddy writes, “From the beginning of the great battle every forward step has been met (not by mankind, but by a kind of men) with mockery, envy, rivalry, and falsehood — as achievement after achievement has been blazoned on the forefront of the world and recorded in heaven.” (‘02 p.14:17-22) The red dragon will not allow her to be the Leader, but a loving heart can never “be made to forget nor to neglect” her. (Man. Art. VIII, Sect. 6)

Mrs. Eddy wrote, “I should blush to write of ‘Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures’ as I have, were it of human origin, and were I, apart from God, its author.” (My. p.115:4-6) Mrs. Eddy gave credit to God, the source of the revelation, but that does not mean she was not the revelator. She says, “...were I, apart from God, its author.” She was not apart from God and that made her the revelator, but to name herself the revelator would give the impression that Science and Health was brought forth humanly. Her enemies would have quickly seized upon this to prove Science and Health was not of God. “God had been graciously preparing me....” (S&H p.l07:3-4) God had not been preparing a great many to be the revelator. She says, “I was a scribe under orders....” (Mis. p.311:26) And, “Those who look for me in person, or elsewhere than in my writings, lose me instead of find me.” (My. p.120:2-4) You find her in her writings as the revelator, and not as personality, but as the demonstrator of the individual ideal of God. She wrote a student, “Is not the new book Science and Health a vision, and do you not see me in it?” (S.L. p.6)

Mrs. Eddy wrote of St. John, “We look for the sainted Revelator in his writings....” (My. p.120:1) Mrs. Eddy could refer to John as “the sainted Revelator,” well knowing that John did not accord himself that position because it was Jesus’ revelation. How much more then must we see her as the revelator, even though she saw her revelation was not her’s personally, but was what she received directly from God. She could not speak of herself as the revelator, but she certainly approved that recognition of her place in others.

Mrs. Sue Harper Mims, in the chapter entitled “An Intimate Picture of Our Leader’s Final Class,” (WKMBE Volume II, pp.53,54, e.a.) includes Judge Hanna’s remarks to Mrs. Eddy.

‘Mother... Sometimes all the machinations of evil that are conceivable to the human mind seem to be hurled at us, and sometimes for days the world seems black. Every argument that the ingenuity of evil can suggest whispers, trying to hide your mission, and the light returns only when we see you as you are — the revelator of this Truth.’

Others spoke on the same line. It was the most beautiful thing, and you see that had to be brought out. She had to be acknowledged, and yet while they were speaking you have never seen such humility, such self-effacement, in your life. And then she said,…‘My dear children, if you had not seen it, I should have had to teach you this. I could not have avoided telling you that when my students become blinded to me as the one through whom Truth has come in this age, they miss the path. I would have had to tell you.’

The tears of joy were on her face, and that strange, wonderful look that perhaps no mortal face ever had, since Jesus and Paul. Perhaps no face was ever more tender. It was filled with meekness and humility, yet the responsibility was hers of making us know that when we do not see her as she is, we lose the way.

Because St. John’s and Mrs. Eddy’s revelations came from God, divine Love, does not mean they are not revelators. Being the revelator does not mean she was the source of the revelation, it means that being one with God she was the revelator and the author of Science and Health. She says, “Denial of the authorship of ‘Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures’ would make a lie the author of Truth, and so make Truth itself a lie.” (No. p.42:22) If she names herself the author of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, and she did, she is the revelator.

Robert Peel said, “...some of her followers were persistently drawn to refer to her as the revelator rather than the discoverer of Christian Science. ...She rigorously abstained from using the word in this way. Instead, in dozens of different contexts she wrote, ‘Science reveals. ’

and with that small phrase indicated a concept of revelation far removed from traditional supernaturalism.” (Auth. p.37, e.a.) Peel’s quote is based on an incorrect perception of Mrs. Eddy; it is metaphysically incorrect. What is “traditional supernaturalism”? Is it to see God’s chosen representatives in Bible prophecy? On p.388, Mr. Peel says, “The only place in her books in which she is referred to as revelator is in the foreword in her posthumously published book The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany. The foreword, ironically enough, was written in 1906 by Lewis C. Strang, who later left the church and became bitterly hostile to her. The only other use of the words in her writings is in Mis. p.308.” Strang’s statement tells us that Mrs. Eddy would accept from another the recognition of herself as revelator. Mrs. Eddy included Strang’s statement to be published in Miscellany. If abhorrent to her or incorrect, she would not have included it. Secondly, it tells us that she could not call herself revelator without jeopardizing the spiritual status of Science and Health in the eyes of mankind. At the time Mr. Strang made that statement he loved Mrs. Eddy and she accepted his statement as fact. It was much later that he, like many others, was handled by animal magnetism, to turn against her.

Mrs. Eddy does accept her title as revelator when she says, “...personal revelators will take their proper place in history, but will not be deified.” (Mis. p.308:9) The individual who sees the truth and writes it must be its author and revelator. How we perceive that individual is very important. Mrs. Eddy did not think she was like everyone else nor was anyone like her. On July 10, 1898 she wrote to Ira Knapp, “No greater mistake can be made than to disobey or to delay to obey a single message of mine. God does speak through me to this age. This I discern more clearly each year of my sojourn with you.” (Prec. IV p.122) She wrote to a student on December 20, 1889, “Twenty-three years have shown that everything that I have done has had back of it a higher wisdom than mine.” (Prec. IV p.52) Mr. Peel’s comments are not metaphysically correct.

Again Mrs. Eddy says, “Christ was ‘the way;’ since Life and Truth were the way that gave us, through a human person, a spiritual revelation of man’s possible earthly development.” (Mis. p.75:2, e.a.) We love Jesus for being the revelator of Christianity. Jesus said, “My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.” (John 7:16) Knowing this, would we deny Jesus as the revelator of the Sermon on the Mount? The outcome of denying Mary Baker Eddy as the revelator removes her as the Leader of the Christian Science movement and immediately leads to violations of the Manual. Is this why we seldom see Mrs. Eddy mentioned as Leader in our periodicals and why there is almost no gratitude expressed for her in testimonies? Denying Mrs. Eddy’s position as revelator, we automatically deny her place as Leader. (See chart on page 255 that graphically shows the lessening of gratitude for her in testimonies.)

Who is our Leader?

The Christian Science church, in many ways, is declaring Christ Jesus as our Leader. Christian Scientists say they love our Exemplar and are obedient to Mrs. Eddy because she followed Christ Jesus but, instead, are disobedient to Jesus by not following the woman he prophesied would come. Adamic male jealousy does not want a woman leader.

The Israelites of Moses’ time wanted Abraham as the leader; those of Jesus’ time wanted Moses as the leader; those of Mrs. Eddy’s time want Jesus. The nature of A.M. is to prevent progress by turning back the clock to the previous representative of God. Our Lord states that the Pharisees were quite willing to sit in Moses’ seat, Moses’ position of leadership. (Matt. 23:2) To take the place of God’s messenger includes also the attempt to turn back to the former time and, by doing so, to nullify the advent of the next inspired messenger and message.

The Scofield Bible says that the time between the Bethlehem babe of Micah 5:2 and the woman of Micah 5:3 is the interval between the first and second advents of the Christ. God tells us in Micah that the one from Bethlehem is the ruler (Leader) until she which travaileth hath brought forth. It is she who gives Jesus’ followers their new name as Christian Scientists. (S&H p.309:17) Is this why our Leader says, “...Christendom will be classified as Christian Scientists”? (Pul. p.22:13) Then, is Jesus our Leader, or is Mrs. Eddy our Leader? As her work restores the lost Israel (Man. p.17:18, Micah 5:3), and his followers are renamed and embraced in her work, then she is the Leader. Would Jesus consider himself, or the one he prophesied would reveal the “all truth,” to be the Leader? If you love Jesus, you love the woman as Leader. Jesus knew that she would uncover malicious animal magnetism, or his revelation in the Apocalypse would not have stated it, and that she would reveal the man child, divine Science, the leaven of Truth. Jesus made it very clear that she would lead. Our Leader wrote,

Every loyal Scientist understands that the second coming of Christ is the next higher, hence more spiritual revelation of God’s character. The Christian era presented the first tangible idea of God’s character by the inspired man, Jesus. The era of Christian Science ushers in through woman the second appearing of His character and this from the necessity of His nature as the Father and Mother of all, the creator, even the complete and ever-present idea of God. Therefore, this era comes not through Jesus but through Mary, the type of womanhood and mother of its first and forever appearing which divine Science alone can give.

Essays Ascribed to Mrs. Eddy, p.147

Jesus, if he were here today, would repudiate all Christian Scientists who claim to be his followers while they forsake the woman. Would Jesus want to be the Leader in our time, knowing that God had stated otherwise, hundreds and thousands of years before the event? Yet intellectual male energy places the emphasis on Jesus as our Leader in periodical testimonies, articles, and lectures.

Increasing attacks within the movement against Mrs. Eddy destroy the clear thought of Jesus gained through Christian Science and distort mankind’s vision of our Lord. The primary attack of evil is upon her position as revelator and Leader. The more we are made to forget her, the less we study the “little book” prophesied in the Bible. This relegates her discovery to obscurity. Do you know the definitions of this sampling of words in Science and Health, the book given to us by God’s representative: ameliorate, anodyne, anomalous, arbitrament, capacious, concomitant, cavil, consentaneous, depredation, desultory, disquisition, dissimulation, efface, egregious, ephemeral, evanescent, finger-post, flatulency, fustian, gloaming, hecatombs, immanent, incubus, inimical, legerdemain, nabob, oleaginous, pedantic, peroration, proscriptive, salubrious, sedulous, soporific, stolidity, theodicy, theogony, theosophy, torpid, vicegerent. This book was seen by Daniel and John but God would not allow them to study it. We can. Mrs. Eddy wrote:

God wrote the textbook. Study it; let God speak to you!

Divinity Course and General Collectanea, p.197

My work for the world this last year will go on through all time. I feel that you all have in my book, Science and Health, the anchor of your being that will prove sure and steadfast in storm and shine. O! how thankful I am that God has enabled me to give to you, my dear children in Christ, a rich inheritance!

Ibid. p.117

Aaron and the Israelites were disobedient to Moses’ leadership and the Ten Commandments were smashed. Miriam was jealous of her brother’s leadership and attempted to place herself on Moses’ level. She contracted leprosy. Gehazi contracted leprosy for being disobedient to Elijah. The disciples met violent deaths, except John, for their ‘ignoble conduct’ towards Jesus. (‘02 p.18:25) John the Baptist questioned Jesus’ Messiahship and he was beheaded. Those, who turned against Daniel and put him in the lion’s den were, in turn, eaten by the lions.

In Watches, Prayers, and Arguments (pp.104-105) compiled by Gilbert C. Carpenter, Jr., is an account of an adverse argument read by Mrs. Eddy in the mind of Richard Kennedy, the first person to pervert Christian Science and mentally manipulate and assassinate: “I never leave a Scientist after I have separated them from Mrs. Eddy until I have taken all the damned Christianity out of them And when I succeed in making them hate her, then I can take all the Christian Science out of them. This way I calculate I can stop the Cause.” (e.a.) It is hatred of our Leader that has stopped healing. So today, the mental malpractitioners have convinced those in positions of trust that Mrs. Eddy is the problem and that she is the impediment to progress. Listening to and accepting this mental malpractice, they have had all the Christian love taken out of them; they have been “made to forget their duty” to her. (Man. Art. VIII, Sect. 6)

Life and its ideals are inseparable, and one’s writings on ethics, and demonstration of Truth, are not, cannot be, understood or taught by those who persistently misunderstand or misrepresent the author. Jesus said, ‘For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.’

Retrospection and Introspection, p.75:10

The official rejection of our Leader in Boston produces an uphill struggle in the field to receive the most meager of healings and supply. If we specifically handle hatred for the revelator, healing will be widespread and instantaneous once again. The mental rejection of Mrs. Eddy tips the scale in favor of medicine, psychology, electricity, etc., and healing wanes; healing is wrenched from womanhood and returned to male energy.

Why, knowing very little of the Word of God, were the disciples of Jesus able to heal in his name? Mortal mind responds to the authority of that name. Rejecting or minimizing that name shows that we are handled by mortal mind and healing wanes. It is not wisdom to reject this consummate woman with her demonstration of unparalleled love and unfaltering tenderness. Healing will prosper when we stand with, appreciate, and care for that name. We are attempting to heal while handled by the carnal mind’s ingratitude, jealousy, and hatred for our Leader. That is sin. Disobedience and lack of commitment quickly follow, building upon the pride of place, position, and power.

What are the effects of this error in the movement?

As the title of Mother preceded that of Leader, her leadership was based in her mothering. Rejection of Mrs. Eddy as Leader is male energy rejecting the motherhood of God, the qualities of mothering and true womanhood. It is a rejection of a mothering church. This contempt is mental homosexuality. You cannot reject womanhood and retain true manhood. Mrs. Eddy says, “Neither emasculation, illusion, nor insubordination exists in divine Science.” (S&H p.271:5)

Oftentimes a harsh or insensitive father has a claim of latent homosexuality. He has an unbalanced character and turns against womanhood and childlikeness. The sensitive child will often grow up and follow the father’s example of contempt for womanhood, while desiring the love of a man — the love he never received from his father. Our church has allowed contempt and jealousy for Mrs. Eddy and her demonstration to grow. This mental homosexuality in the church rejects womanhood, has contempt for mothering, and desires to seek the approval and love of the male element. You can see how this mental disposition in the movement has given support to the claim of homosexuality, incompleteness, in the world. It is only through the motherhood of God and the ideal demonstrator of womanhood that Christ Jesus and his manhood and revelation can be understood and demonstrated. Mental homosexuality, therefore, destroys both the first and the second advents of the Christ.

Women, wanting their rights of womanhood and mothering, can have them only by recognizing and appreciating Mary Baker Eddy, the grandest demonstrator of those rights. Mrs. Eddy said, “The truth in regard to your Leader...saves the sinner.” (Coll. p.74) This statement reversed, reveals that error in regards to our Leader encourages the sinner, increases his sin, dooms him and all that he touches, and leads to perpetual mistakes and suffering. Then we have the rights of womanhood and motherhood destroyed, and the motherhood of God hidden once again — and all mothers lose their children to the world.

Mrs. Eddy, through her demonstration, has released women from the claims of a false marriage, widowhood, childlessness, and brutality. She has released them from legal harassment; from being unable to own property, including their own children; from beliefs of an inferior mind and weak character, subjugation, fear, terror, and dependency upon men; from an inferior status with almost no rights, and from being pawns and playthings. Do you love her for it? Do you follow her and build upon her work? Many women long for a man to take care of them, to think for them, to give them their pleasures and fulfill all their wants and desires; a man to make them feel important and wanted, to make them feel superior to other women.

Our Leader tells us that the mother is the foremost educator against crime. (S&H p.236:12) Where is the destruction of family life coming from? Women must stand against the Adam males’ contempt for true womanhood and mothering. When we reject the greatest demonstrator of motherhood, we deny the Mother-God, morals decrease and sin increases. The world’s mental workers, unwilling to take a stand for Love, have produced a toleration for error in their homes and churches; therefore in our schools, courts and government. All forms of crime come from love of materiality, rejection of responsibility and demonstration, and desire for reward without effort. Are we Christian Scientists calling practitioners to give us just that? Are we responsible for flooding human consciousness with a deep desire for pleasure in matter? When Boston officially rejects Mrs. Eddy’s leadership, the power of sin is increased. Is this why Christian Scientists are not holding crime in check?

What are the results of this error in the world?

Worldwide struggles over leadership roles in families, churches, in business and political organizations, are the result of men fighting for supremacy in nations and their attempts at world domination. The world has one Leader and that one is a woman; however, this truth will never be seen until Christian Scientists accept this fundamental point. Who then is responsible for world chaos? M.A.M., sin, is in control and mankind does its bidding because Christian Scientists, the only ones who can stand against its false claims, are not standing. They are not firm in their resolve to love and support their Leader.

Bliss Knapp’s experience related here, shows the results of this claim of original sin, the Adamic thought, operating in the movement over half a century ago. He wrote, “In January of l929 I discerned mentally the gathering opposition to Mrs. Eddy. [At that time he was in Germany.] So I wrote the Board of Directors asking them to have Retrospection and Introspection translated into the same six languages into which Rudimental Divine Science and No and Yes had been translated, because already in Germany a play and two books were ready to be launched against Mrs. Eddy. When I reached home, I learned that the Directors had granted my request, and had turned the work over to Mr. Harry I. Hunt, the publisher of Mrs. Eddy’s writings.

“From that time, I kept in touch with Mr. Hunt; and after two years I began to discover a great opposition to those translations, expressed in all sorts of blockades and interferences. One day Mr. Hunt confessed to me there was apparently more opposition to Mrs. Eddy’s own statement about herself than to anything else in our movement. But he kept assuring me of progress in spite of blockades, until finally one by one the translations of Retrospection and Introspection began to appear. But the German translation, which was the most urgent of all, was the last to appear, and it came out only last September, five and a half years after the work was started!” (MBE:PHP p.307)

Any student of history can tell you what was going on in Germany at that time, the rise of Naziism and Hitler. Do you remember what he was called? — Mein Führer, which means my Leader. Mussolini was called Il Duce, the Leader. But false leadership could have had no power except that it built upon the latent hatred in mortal mind, the red dragon, for the true Leader, Mary Baker Eddy. If Christian Scientists had handled this hatred and The Mother Church had sent Retrospection and Introspection into Germany when requested by Bliss Knapp, Hitler’s rise to power could have been thwarted. But The Mother Church allowed the hatred for Mrs. Eddy to continue unhandled. World War II was to start very soon; first Europe, then the entire world, was encompassed in bloodshed. Do you think it was important to handle the hatred for Mrs. Eddy? Do you think it needs to be handled now, today?

The lie must be met now or plagues, economic collapse, war and invasion will result. It can happen here. Worldwide problems increase because the red dragon’s hatred of the woman goes unchecked. Mary Baker Eddy has revealed the Science of Christianity. Male egotism is furious. It cannot gain the heights of demonstration through this Science as she did. Does it attack the Science? No, it attacks the revelator. It attempts to pull her down, minimizes her accomplishments and importance, and thus tries to approximate her lustre.

The Jewish people, after they rejected our Lord, were destroyed by the Romans. The nation of Judah went into captivity for not listening to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The Egyptians suffered plagues for resisting Moses. Rejection of Elijah brought drought and famine to the entire nation. We forfeit the influence of divine Love, as a nation and as a church, when we reject God’s messenger. Who do we think we are that we can reject God’s representative and escape the punishment for this original sin?

Refusing to react

We must handle the malice for the revelator, and we must be very alert to the dragon’s methods of warfare against the remnant of her seed. Although the elect are not totally deceived by these lies, they react to the errors produced by its distortion. It would overwhelm us by inducing feelings of sensitiveness, agitation, anxiety, justifiable irritation, futility, impatience, exasperation, and then fear and apathy. It may argue reaction, spite, anger, retaliation, resentment, sorrow, self-pity, loneliness, and the right to harbor ill will, but none of these are the divine method of warfare. We have no right to gossip about the problem, to have an intrusive curiosity about the latest developments in The Mother Church, or to point fingers at mortals who we consider to be responsible. It is always animal magnetism. Mrs. Eddy wrote, “Remember that the first and last lesson of Christian Science is love, perfect love, and love made perfect through the cross.” (Mis. p.138:14) Also, “Floating with the popular current of mortal thought without questioning the reliability of its conclusions, we do what others do, believe what others believe, and say what others say.” (Mis. p.228:24-27) The remnant must be alert that they are not caught by this contagion and be found indirectly ‘knowing’ the error about Mrs. Eddy by reacting to it. It is a lie, an illusion. Remember, we are not fighting people; we are handling the belief of original sin.

Our Leader says, “No power can withstand divine Love.” (S&H p.224:31 only) Constancy and compassion are the only answer to this lie of sin; we must dearly love the revelator and her revelation. Our work is to see the nothingness of the lies about her and not to react. We must throw all of our weight “into the right scale.” Declare often, firmly and lovingly, Mary Baker Eddy is the Leader of the Christian Science movement and Christian Scientists know this as a fact. There is no power of animal magnetism to argue otherwise.

No one has loved Jesus as much as Mrs. Eddy. She never considered herself better than Jesus but she did know that her demonstration was far more difficult, and for this reason, Mrs. Eddy told Clara Shannon that she “...would be more worshipped than Jesus had been.” (Golden Memories p.39, e.a.) And, “The burden is light, the yoke is easy, and if I can say that, any mortal can; for never mortal before drank my cup.” (DCC p.108, e.a.) “Our blessed Master did not have the Science of it, that is, did not give the premise, the conclusion and the logical reasoning as this is; he had the spirit of it and gave it to the disciples.” (DCC p.4) Mrs. Eddy did not like personality worship and the elevation of her person to divinity any more than Jesus liked it. He rejected those who blurted this out and who attached it to personality. He loved a right recognition, as that of Peter’s (Matt. 16:13-19), as did Mrs. Eddy when she was seen correctly. Isn’t denial of her status as Leader and revelator based in emotion, which can lead to contempt and hatred for womanhood and mothering? The contagion of this error in the more emotional Christian Scientists must be guarded against. Both Christ Jesus and Mary Baker Eddy disliked adulation and personality worship and equally disliked ignorant ingratitude and contempt.

Was Jesus’ position as Master ever relinquished? The Bible states, “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” (Col. 4:1) If Christians have a Master in heaven, do we not have a Leader in heaven also, a forever Leader?

In our Leader’s time the attempt to reject her leadership was gaining momentum and this required decisive action. Her secretary wrote the editor of the Sentinel:

Our Leader wishes you would have some thoroughly responsible outside person, write an article to the Sentinel setting forth Mrs. Eddy’s unexampled leadership in the interests of Christian Science. Let the article be entitled COMPETENCE, and have it point out the fact that from the inception of this movement until the present time, not one false step has marred the long line of successful efforts put forth by her in support of her religion. From the time when stones were thrown through the windows, and church doors were closed against her, until today when Christian Science churches are encircling the globe, the wisdom of her every act has been abundantly sustained by the complete success that has followed every new move she has made. No special attention need be given to the above wording, the object being to impress thought with our Leader’s unerring wisdom and entire competency in every branch of life’s work she has undertaken. Let the article be strong, and carry with it complete conviction as to her ability to lead under divine guidance.

Mary Baker Eddy: Her Spiritual Precepts, p.65, e.a.

It may interest the reader to know that the bold portion shown in the above quote was left out of Mr. Peel’s quote on p.311 of his book. Why?

Mr. Peel writes, “In life at Pleasant View were to be found the simple elements of her developing leadership. Nothing in her largely rural background had prepared Mrs. Eddy for the command of a world movement. At times she was almost overcome by the wonder as well as the responsibilities of the task.” (Auth. p.42) What a lie! This insidious inference claims she had no dominion and that luckily God did it all. She said Jesus was a good carpenter before he became the anointed. (Mis. p.166:30) By this, we can know there was much in Jesus’ rural background that prepared him. And was he not prepared in that rural background by God’s gracious provision? God’s same gracious preparation of the spiritual idea was right there where she demonstrated the human and divine coincidence. We must be careful that we don’t say, God is All and there is no representative. God is certainly All, but He has His representative. God must have His known idea. Remember, God spoke to Mrs. Eddy in an audible voice when she was in that ‘rural background.’

Our Leader says, “When a student loses the true sense of me, and what I do, he is at the threshold of the plunge so many make into darkness, believing that darkness is a greater light.” (DCC p.184) She recognized the hatred of A.M. for herself when she said, “Demonstration, healing the sick and helping your Leader is needed more than all things else at this date. Unspoken influences are mentally at work to keep you and all my students from doing either of these duties aforenamed.” (DCC p.137, e.a.) In 1907 she wrote, “Stand with God and you will stand with Mother; stand with Mother and you will stand with God.” (DCC p.22)

We can and do want to help our Leader and nothing can hinder us. Handle ambition, pride, and popularity. Know that Christian Scientists are awake and that officials cannot be glamored and covet praise. Malicious mental malpractice cannot use me. I am immune to the mesmeric and hypnotic influences of A.M. The all-absorbing Love destroys hate.

Mrs. Eddy says:

The unseen silent forces of God are standing sentinel over me and mine and all, silencing, destroying, and annihilating the unseen, silent arguments of the serpent, material sense.

Divinity Course and General Collectanea, p.79

The Babylonish woman in the Apocalypse has thrown wormwood into the waters to turn trusting thoughts to hatred against me, the idea; handle this and you will find your patients healed. Love and its idea are ONE.

Ibid. p.8, e.a.

The subtle argument of the red dragon, that Mary Baker Eddy is not the revelator/Leader, violates the “Office of Love: The substance and subject of all spiritual good manifesting ardent affection; the loving Principle of which this holy affection is a manifestation.” (Marie K. Larkin, CSB.) This subtle argument rejects the attributes of Love so necessary in the Christian Science movement: infinite giving, gratitude, kindness, thoughtfulness, affection, sweetness, obedience, forgiveness, constancy, self-sacrifice, caring, unselfishness, courtesy, respect, good manners, gentleness, benevolence, compassion, devotion, charity, grace, good will, warmth, fearlessness, patience, selflessness. Without following Mrs. Eddy as our Leader, we manifest the antonyms of these attributes. Mentally handle hatred, contempt and malice for the revelator’s demonstration of womanhood, mothering, the motherhood of God, and our Leader’s Mother Church.

Argument #2 of the red dragon: Mary Baker Eddy did not fulfill Bible prophecy.

This lie, one of the subtle arguments of the seven-headed red dragon, would reverse one of the synonyms, — eternal Truth.

God’s foreknowledge of His anointed

What does Mrs. Eddy write concerning her place in Bible prophecy? “With God, knowledge is necessarily foreknowledge; and foreknowledge and foreordination must be one, in an infinite Being. What Deity foreknows Deity must foreordain...” (Un. p.19:1-4) “What God knows, He also predestinates; and it must be fulfilled.” (No. p.37:27-28) “I am corporeal to the senses, even as Paul was. But God has anointed me to do His work, to reveal His Word, to lead His people.” (S.L. p.37, e.a.) “...God has governed through His anointed and appointed one in the way of divine Science...” (S.L. p.54, e.a.)

“Jesus was the man that was a prophet and the best and greatest man that ever has appeared on earth, but Jesus was not Christ, for Christ is the spiritual individual that the eye cannot see. Jesus was called Christ only in the sense that you say, a Godlike man. I am only a Godlike woman, God-anointed, and I have done a work that none others could do. As Paul was not understood and Jesus was not understood at the time they taught and demonstrated, so I am not. As following them and obeying them blessed all who did thus — so obeying me and following faithfully blesses all who do this.” (S.L. p.37, e.a.)

“Not to know what is blessing you, but to believe that aught that God sends is unjust, — or that those whom He commissions bring to you at His demand that which is unjust, — is wrong and cruel.” (Mis. p.18:30-1, e.a.) “God selects for the highest service one who has grown into such a fitness for it as renders any abuse of the mission an impossibility. The All wise does not bestow His highest trusts upon the unworthy. When He commissions a messenger, it is one who is spiritually near Himself.” (S&H p.455:20, e.a.) “The infinite Truth of the Christ-cure has come to this age through a ‘still, small voice,’ through silent utterances and divine anointing which quicken and increase the beneficial effects of Christianity.” (S&H p.367:24-27, e.a.)

God’s prophesied idea

“The promises will be fulfilled.” (S&H p.55:21-22) “The mission of Jesus confirmed prophecy, and explained the so-called miracles of olden time as natural demonstrations of the divine power, demonstrations which were not understood. Jesus’ works established his claim to the Messiahship.” (S&H p.131:26-30, e.a.) “The revelation of Truth in the understanding came to me gradually and apparently through divine power. When a new spiritual idea is borne to earth, the prophetic Scripture of Isaiah is renewedly fulfilled: ‘Unto us a child is born, ... and his name shall be called Wonderful.’” (S&H p.109:22, e.a.) “‘And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven...and he had in his hand a little book open....’ (Rev. 10) Did this same book contain the revelation of divine Science...? Take divine Science. Read this book from beginning to end.” (S&H p.558:3-4, 6; p.559:1-2, 20-21) “...St. John saw an ‘angel standing in the sun.’ The Revelator beheld the spiritual idea from the mount of vision.” (S&H p.561:7-9) “It is authentically said that one expositor of Daniel’s dates fixed the year 1866 or 1867 for the return of Christ — the return of the spiritual idea to the material earth or antipode of heaven. It is a marked coincidence that those dates were the first two years of my discovery of Christian Science.” (My. p.181:27, e.a.)

The highest visible idea

“The twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse, or Revelation of St. John, has a special suggestiveness in connection with the nineteenth century. In the opening of the sixth seal, typical of six thousand years since Adam, the distinctive feature [the woman] has reference to the present age. ‘Revelation xii. 1. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.’” (S&H p.559:32-9, e.a.) “...the grand necessity of existence is to gain the true idea of what constitutes the kingdom of heaven in man. This goal is never reached while we hate our neighbor or entertain a false estimate of anyone whom God has appointed to voice His Word.” (S&H p.560:13-17, e.a.) Laura Sargent wrote, “Mother explained what Jesus meant when he said, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself; on this hangs all the law.’ In order to love God we must honor and love the Way. How can we love God unless we love His idea which shows us the way and which is the Way, and in order to honor and love the Way we must have a true sense of the individual through whom the Way has been manifested to us, else we are not keeping the law to love our neighbor as ourself, or doing by our neighbor as we would be done by.” (DCC p.100, e.a.)

“The disciples followed Jesus up to a certain point, and then deserted him, and darkness followed. Follow the way-shower and you will follow the divine idea; turn away from the way-shower and you turn away from the divine idea; like turning away from the windowpane, you turn away from the light.” (DCC p.26) “Again, without a correct sense of its highest visible idea, we can never understand the divine Principle.” (S&H p.560:17-19, e.a.)

God’s idea must be known humanly

“People seem to understand C.S. in the exact ratio that they know me and vice-versa. It sometimes astonishes me to see the invariableness of this rule.” (DCC p.108, e.a.) “Ignorance of the divine idea betrays at once a greater ignorance of the divine Principle of the idea — ignorance of Truth and Love.” (S&H p.560:30-1, e.a.) Mrs. Eddy wrote to Judge Hanna concerning his article (Isaiah, 54th Chapter) detailing her place in Bible prophecy: “I have not the time to read your article before Laura returns but have seen it enough to say you may have the Vision and the accompanying circumstances at your control. I would make it a leader not editorial.... Please if you cast this bread on the water add the bit enclosed after fixing it to your liking. ‘We know there is but one God,

one Christ Jesus, and one mother of Jesus. But we deem it no infringement to regard the fulfillment of Scripture as indicated at the present period....” (June 10, 1898, e.a.)

On June 18, she wrote Judge Hanna: “The time has not yet come in which to say the wonderful things you have written in proof read by me today, unless you qualify it. Now you may hold your ground as therein, but do not say blandly that I represent the second appearing of Christ. That assertion will array mortal mind against us, and M.A.M. has been putting it into your mind to say it, and the infinite Love has inspired you to say it. Now be wiser than a serpent. Throw out your truths not as affirmations or protestations, but as suggestions. Then catch your fish, and make the wrath of man praise Him.”

Here is a portion of Hanna’s text which reads, “Must the ‘Spirit of Truth,’ or ‘the comforter,’ that Jesus said should come be personalized or individualized? Undoubtedly. There could be no fulfillment of prophecy otherwise. Must the woman of the Apocalypse be personalized or individualized to mankind? By every principle of logical sequence in Biblical prophecy, Yes.” (e.a.) On June 22, 1898, Mrs. Eddy wrote to Judge Hanna: “Your vision article is too grand, true, to be tampered with. I ventured to send for it to see if it cannot be held together and be the leader, I want it where all will catch sight of it.”

The spiritual idea represents the motherhood of God and the ideal woman

“[Jesus] was appointed to speak God’s word and to appear to mortals in such a form of humanity as they could understand as well as perceive.” (S&H p.332:23-26, e.a.)

“The spiritual idea is crowned with twelve stars. The twelve tribes of Israel with all mortals, — separated by belief from man’s divine origin and the true idea, — will through much tribulation yield to the activities of the divine Principle of man in the harmony of Science.” (S&H p.562:11-16, e.a.) “The woman in the Apocalypse symbolizes generic man, the spiritual idea of God; she illustrates the coincidence of God and man as the divine Principle and divine idea. The Revelator symbolizes Spirit by the sun. The spiritual idea is clad with the radiance of spiritual Truth, and matter is put under her feet. The light portrayed is really neither solar nor lunar, but spiritual Life, which is ‘the light of men.’ In the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel it is written, ‘There was a man sent from God...to bear witness of that Light.’” (S&H p.561:22, e.a.) “This immaculate idea, represented first by man and, according to the Revelator, last by woman, will baptize with fire; and the fiery baptism will burn up the chaff of error with the fervent heat of Truth and Love, melting and purifying even the gold of human character. After the stars sang together and all was primeval harmony, the material lie made war upon the spiritual idea...” (S&H p.565:18-24, e.a.)

“John the Baptist prophesied the coming of the immaculate Jesus, and John saw in those days the spiritual idea as the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Ghost, — divine Science. As Elias presented the idea of the fatherhood of God, which Jesus afterwards manifested, so the Revelator completed this figure with woman, typifying the spiritual idea of God’s motherhood. The moon is under her feet.” (S&H p.561:32-7, e.a.) Mrs. Eddy wrote to Calvin Frye, “The first experience of mine in entering upon the discovery of Christian Science was the entire stoppage of the periods that are believed to be concurrent with the moon. Hence that saying of the Revelator of the spiritual idea, ‘The moon was under her feet’. Often it seems to be discouraging to hear my female students talk of this period as if it was part of their life, normal and scientific.” (DCC p.109)

Don’t misunderstand the spiritual idea

“She lifted herself up in her chair and said, ‘I am right here. Where this seems to be the real child of God is.’” (Norwood, The Reminiscences of MBE, p.4, e.a.) Helen Nixon, an early student who took class instruction from Mrs. Eddy, recorded that Mrs. Eddy asked each member of the class, “‘What is this?’ putting her finger on each one’s shoulder. Each said, ‘Nothing, Mother,’ she said, ‘You’re mistaken, everyone of you is mistaken, it points to the real.’” “Whoever opens most the eyes of the children of men to see aright and to understand aright that IDEA ON EARTH that has best and clearest reflected by word or deed the divine Principle of man and the universe, will accomplish most for himself and mankind in the direction of all that is good and true.” (DCC p.109, e.a.)

“To misunderstand Paul, was to be ignorant of the divine idea he taught. Ignorance of the divine idea betrays at once a greater ignorance of the divine Principle of the idea — ignorance of Truth and Love.” (S&H p.560:28-1, e.a.) “Abuse of the motives and religion of St. Paul hid from view the apostle’s character, which made him equal to his great mission. Persecution of all who have spoken something new and better of God has not only obscured the light of the ages, but has been fatal to the persecutors. Why? Because it has hid from them the true idea which has been presented.” (S&H 560:22-28, e.a.)

“The twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse typifies the divine method of warfare in Science, and the glorious results of this warfare. The following chapters depict the fatal effects of trying to meet error with error.” (S&H 568:5-8) “Material beliefs would slay the spiritual idea whenever and wherever it appears.” (S&H p.542:3-5, e.a.) “The Babylonish woman in the Apocalypse has thrown wormwood into the waters to turn trusting thoughts to hatred against me, the idea ” (DCC

p.8, e.a.) “Led on by the grossest element of mortal mind, Herod decreed the death of every male child in order that the man Jesus, the masculine representative of the spiritual idea, might never hold sway and deprive Herod of his crown.” (S&H 565:9-13, e.a.) “The old and recurring martyrdom of God’s best witnesses is the infirmity of evil, the modus operandi of human error, carnality, opposition to God and His power in man.” (‘02 p.10:24-27, e.a.)

The ideal man and woman

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses ” (Rev. 11:3, e.a.)

“These are the two olive trees and the two candlesticks. ” (Zech. 4:14,

Rev. 11:4) “And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies.... And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.” (Rev. 11:3-5, 10) “And their [the Two Witnesses] dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” (Rev. 11:8) Our Leader and Lord are dead in the streets of Sodom and Egypt. Sodom was the home of homosexuality (rejection and hatred of womanhood) while Egypt was the place of bondage produced by mental manipulation.

“This immaculate idea, represented first by man and, according to the Revelator, last by woman, will baptize with fire.” (S&H p.565:18, e.a.) “The ideal man was revealed in due time, and was known as Christ Jesus.” (S&H p.338:31, e.a.) “The ideal man corresponds to creation, to intelligence, and to Truth. The ideal woman corresponds to Life and to Love. In divine Science, we have not as much authority for considering God masculine, as we have for considering Him feminine, for Love imparts the clearest idea of Deity.” (S&H p.517:8, e.a.)

“John the Baptist prophesied the coming of the immaculate Jesus, and John saw in those days the spiritual idea as the Messiah, who would baptize with the Holy Ghost, divine Science.” (S&H p.561:32-3, e.a.) “As Elias presented the idea of the fatherhood of God, which Jesus afterwards manifested, so the Revelator completed this figure with woman, typifying the spiritual idea of God’s motherhood.” (S&H p.562:3-7, e.a.) “The Revelator saw also the spiritual ideal as a woman clothed in light, a bride coming down from heaven, wedded to the Lamb of Love.” (S&H p.561:10-13, e.a.)

“Bruise the head of this serpent, as Truth and ‘the woman’ are doing in Christian Science, and it stings your heel, rears its crest proudly, and goes on saying, ‘Am I not myself? Am I not mind and matter, person and thing?’” (Un. p.45:3-7, e.a.) “The Scriptural metaphors, — of the woman in travail, the great red dragon that stood ready to devour the child as soon as it was born, and the husbandmen that said, ‘This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours,’ — are type and shadow of this hour.” (Mis. p.253:16, e.a.) “The dragon that was wroth with the woman, and stood ready ‘to devour the child as soon as it was born,’ was the vision of envy, sensuality, and malice, ready to devour the idea of Truth. But the beast bowed before the Lamb: it was supposed to have fought the manhood of God, that Jesus represented; but it fell before the womanhood of God, that presented the highest ideal of Love.” (Hea. p.10:1-8, e.a.) “Again, without a correct sense of its highest visible idea, we can never understand the divine Principle.” (S&H p.560:17-19, e.a.)

Mrs. Eddy — the woman in travail

“Against Love, the dragon warreth not long, for he is killed by the divine Principle. Truth and Love prevail against the dragon because the dragon cannot war with them. Thus endeth the conflict between the flesh and Spirit.” (S&H p.567:9) “In divine revelation, material and corporeal selfhood disappear, and the spiritual idea is understood.” (S&H p.561:20, e.a.) “‘And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.’ [only a human travails and is pained] Also the spiritual idea is typified by a woman in travail, waiting to be delivered of her sweet promise, but remembering no more her sorrow for joy that the birth goes on; for great is the idea, and the travail portentous.” (S&H p.562:22-28, e.a.)

“Revelation xii. 6. And the woman fled into the wilderness where she hath a place prepared of God.” (S&H p.565:29, e.a.) Mrs. Eddy wrote Julia Bartlett, “Hence you begin to feel my solitariness ‘alone in the wilderness.’” (Auth. p.86, e.a.) “Alone, alone! ‘tis the ‘woman in the wilderness.’” (S.L. p.13, e.a.) “Your brief, brave, tender lines of loyalty are reassuring to the woman in the wilderness.” (CSJ, Vol. 32, p.348, e.a.)

“Do the children of this period dream of the spiritual Mother’s sore travail, through the long night, that has opened their eyes to the light of Christian Science?... And what of the hope of that parent whose children rise up against her... The victim of mad ambition that saith, ‘This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours,’ goes on to learn that he must at last kill this evil in ‘self’ in order to gain the kingdom of God. Envy, the great red dragon of this hour, would obscure the light of Science, take away a third part of the stars from the spiritual heavens, and cast them to the earth. This is not Science. Per contra, it is the mortal mind sense — mental healing on a material basis — hurling its so-called healing at random, filling with hate its deluded victims, or resting in silly peace upon the laurels of headlong human will. ‘What shall, therefore, the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.’” (Mis. 253:27-28 next page, e.a.) “Thus must the Mother in Israel give all her hours to those first sacred tasks, till her children can walk steadfastly in wisdom’s ways.” (Ret. p.90:22, e.a.)

“Now turn from the metaphor of the mill to the Mother’s four thousand children, most of whom, at about three years of scientific age, set up housekeeping alone. Certain students, being too much interested in themselves to think of helping others, go their way. They do not love Mother, but pretend to.... When depraved reason is preferred to revelation, error to Truth, and evil to good, and sense seems sounder than Soul, the children are tending the regulator; they are indeed losing the knowledge of the divine Principle and rules of Christian Science, whose fruits prove the nature of their source.” (Mis. p.353:25-15, e.a.)

Hatred of the woman, Mary Baker Eddy

“When I asked Mrs. Eddy why Christian Scientists were not more grateful to her she replied, ‘Because they have not grown to it.’” (Judge Hanna, e.a.) “As a rule the Adam-race are not apt to worship the pioneer of spiritual ideas, — but ofttimes to shun him as their tormentor.” (‘00 p.3:15-18, e.a.) “Had the ages helped their leaders to, and let them alone in, God’s glory, the world would not have lost the Science of Christianity.” (My. p.116:24, e.a.)

“Christian Science is susceptible of being made the repository for all the sins of the other two religions [Catholicism and Protestantism] in marked face and form, whereby the most aggravated and exaggerated and liberated powers of evil have full sway. The woman has cast into these three measures of iniquity, the leaven that is fermenting them. Therefore, they, inherent in mortal mind, take vengeance on their destroyer. Alas for the masquerade of their friendship, of their gratitude, of their honesty, of their virtue, and especially of their humanity towards this woman. Does one human heart love her? No! It is all a farce. The carnal mind hates her, and deserts her, lies about her, steals from her, mocks her, betrays her, nails her to the cross and spits on her, saying ‘Come down from the cross.’ Then parts her seamless robe that has not one ridge of the three religions [Catholicism, Protestantism, and Christian Science] as interpreted by this trio of error — and casts lots for it. Rending it into rags it picks up the shorn glory and decks itself therewith in harlequin jacket. Not one of these three religions — misused — is the Rock on which Christ, Truth, builds the church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. And the last one is named the final one; therefore, it holds the most relentless war against the woman.” (Ess. p.54, e.a.)

“The Pharisees of old thrust the spiritual idea and the man who lived it out of their synagogues, and retained their materialistic beliefs about God.” (S&H p.132:14-16, e.a.)

“To-day the cry of bygone ages is repeated, ‘Crucify him!’ At every advancing step, truth is still opposed with sword and spear.” (S&H p.134:1) “As in Jesus’ time, so to-day, tyranny and pride need to be whipped out of the temple, and humility and divine Science to be welcomed in. The strong cords of scientific demonstration, as twisted and wielded by Jesus, are still needed to purge the temples of their vain traffic in worldly worship and to make them meet dwelling-places for the Most High.” (S&H p.142:18, e.a.)

Only woman can bring forth Christian Science

“To one ‘born of the flesh,’ however, divine Science must be a discovery. Woman must give it birth.” (Ret. p.26:22-23, e.a.) “In this revolutionary period, like the shepherd-boy with his sling, woman goes forth to battle with Goliath.” (S&H p.268:11, e.a.) “You come from feeding your flocks, big with promise; and you come with the sling of Israel’s chosen one to meet the Goliaths.” (My. p.125:8, e.a.) “He who has faith in woman’s special adaptability to lead on Christian Science, will not be shocked when she puts her foot on the head of the serpent, as it biteth at the heel.” (Mis. p.210:15, e.a.) “The Mind or intelligence of production names the female gender last in the ascending order of creation. The intelligent individual idea, be it male or female, rising from the lesser to the greater, unfolds the infinitude of Love.” (S&H p.508:21, e.a.)

Has God entrusted me with a message to mankind? — then I cannot choose but obey.

Message for 1901, p.31:11-12, e.a.

Mary Baker Eddy fulfills Jesus’ prophecy

“Jesus bade his disciples beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, which he defined as human doctrines. His parable of the ‘leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened,’ impels the inference that the spiritual leaven signifies the Science of Christ and its spiritual interpretation, — an inference far above the merely ecclesiastical and formal applications of the illustration. Did not this parable point a moral with a prophecy, foretelling the second appearing in the flesh of the Christ, Truth, hidden in sacred secrecy from the visible world?” (S&H p.117:29-9, e.a.) “Christ expressed the Mind that is God, for Christ was the spiritual idea...The female thought is its last fleshly embodiment because this thought expresses the Mother-God, the male the Father.” (DCC p.61) “The leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, is Divine Science; the Comforter; the Holy Ghost that leadeth into all Truth; the ‘still, small voice’ that breathes His presence and power, casting out error and healing the sick. And woman, the spiritual idea, takes of the things of God and showeth them unto the creature, until the whole sense of being is leavened with Spirit.” (Mis. p.174:30-5, e.a.)

“We follow Truth only as we follow truly, meekly, patiently, spiritually, blessing saint and sinner with the leaven of divine Love which woman has put into Christendom and medicine.” (My. p.4:10, e.a.) “Like the leaven that a certain woman hid in three measures of meal, the Science of God and the spiritual idea, named in this century Christian Science, is leavening the lump of human thought, until the whole shall be leavened and all materialism disappear. This action of the divine energy, even if not acknowledged, has come to be seen as diffusing richest blessings.” (Mis. p.166:22-28, e.a.) Speaking of Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy says, “This book is the leaven fermenting religion....” (Pul. p.5:28, only, e.a.) “In this age the earth will help the woman; the spiritual idea will be understood.” (S&H p.570:22-23, e.a.)

Conspiracy to slay the Leader

“Christian Science is my only ideal; and the individual and his ideal can never be severed. If either is misunderstood or maligned, it eclipses the other with the shadow cast by this error.” (Mis. p.105:20, e.a.) “The united plans of the evildoers is to cause the beginners either in lecturing or teaching or in our periodicals to keep Mrs. Eddy as she is (what God knows of her and revealed to Christ Jesus) out of sight; and to keep her as she is not (just another white haired old lady) constantly before the public. This kills two birds with one stone. It darkens the spiritual sense of students and misguides the public. Why? Because it misstates the idea of the divine Principle that you are trying to demonstrate and hides it from the sense of the people.” (DCC p.109, e.a.) “For the world to understand me in my true light, and life, would do more for our Cause than aught else could. This I learn from the fact that the enemy tries harder to hide these two things from the world than to win any other points. Also Jesus’ life and character in their first appearing were treated in like manner and I regret to see that loyal students are not more awake to this great demand in their measures to meet the enemies’ tactics.” (Letter to Kimball, 1893, e.a.)

“The second appearing of Jesus is, unquestionably, the spiritual advent of the advancing idea of God, as in Christian Science.” (Ret. p.70:20, e.a.) “Keeping the truth of her character before the public will help the students, and do more than all else for the Cause. Christianity in its purity was lost by defaming and killing its defenders. Do not let this period repeat this mistake. The truth in regard to your Leader heals the sick and saves the sinner. The lie has just the opposite effect, and the evil one that leads all evil in this matter knows this more clearly than do the Christian Scientists in general.” (Coll. p.74, e.a.) “When a student loses the true sense of me, and what I do, he is at the threshold of the plunge so many make into darkness, believing that darkness is a greater light.” (Coll. p.73, e.a.)

Mary Baker Eddy — the Way and Window in this age

Rejection of the Leader is rejection of the Way. “He alone ascends the hill of Christian Science who follows the Way-shower, the spiritual presence and idea of God.” (Mis. p.328:21-23) She also wrote, “I have been made the way-shower.” (DCC p.5) “The manifestation of God through mortals is as light passing through the window-pane... The mortal mind through which Truth appears most vividly is that one which has lost much materiality — much error — in order to become a better transparency for Truth.” (S&H p.295:16-22) “The Christ-element in the Messiah made him the Way-shower, Truth and Life.” (S&H p.288:29-30) The Christ-element in Mary Baker Eddy made her the Way-shower.

“There is too much looking backward two thousand years. They will find that there is a Way here in Concord as well as in Palestine.” (Recoll. p.81) “The sick are healed to all appearance and the gospel is taught by mortal mind; but the fact remains that only the immortal Mind can heal the sick or save the sinner. Divine Love knows that love is light, even that light which is the Life of man. Divine Love knows His window, and knows that it gives light, not darkness, and is the means of love’s entrance into the hearts of men. The wonder is that aught can make God’s window seem to be what it is not. It was the doubt and ignorance of what Jesus was and did for all mankind that shut out and still shuts out the light of Love. What if the window does offend the senses with the objects it reveals and the path it points out! It is Love’s window and Love’s revelation to mankind. The good gaze at last with gratitude and joy on what they had not seen but now see through the window that disturbed the senses, but pointed the way in Science.” (Foot. p.216, e.a.) “How do you know I am a windowpane for the light to shine through? By the works.” (DCC p.31, e.a.) “Take up at once: Students shall know their duty to their Leader. Grace divine yet lays many burdens on human hearts unworthy to bear them. When will blind eyes see their Leader as she is?” (DCC p.52, e.a.)

Mrs. Eddy says, “Jesus was the Way-shower, the Christ with him, and if he had not been, where would we be? He showed the way as the masculine idea of Principle, then woman took it up at that point — the ascending thought in the scale — and is showing the way, thus representing the male and female Principle (the male and female of God’s creating). Is there anything in the world of more importance than holding up the hands of the way-shower? No. If they had all done that with Jesus, we would be in the millennium.” (DCC p.23)

Do you think it is important to recognize our Leader’s place in prophecy? The serpent in the Garden along with materially minded Adam blamed the more spiritually minded Eve and her vision, the revelator and her revelation. Eve uncovered the serpent and proclaimed the truth. Today, the dragon seeks to remove the one sent by God, to extinguish the light to the view of mortals and to have darkness reign again.

God said that the serpent would vex the woman but that the woman would destroy the serpent. The serpent has no power of its own so it tempts Christian Scientists to turn away from the fact that the woman is the one appointed, anointed, and chosen by God to destroy the work of the red dragon. Adams then accept these suggestions and delusions. If we believe the lie that she does not fulfill prophecy then is her Science God-given or is it a philosophy? How will mankind assess it? The rejection of her place is the blatant attempt of male energy, original sin, to dominate science, theology and medicine and to remove womanhood’s elevating influence.

When she was only a child, Mrs. Eddy was hated by A.M. We see this same hatred directed at Jesus and at Moses when they were babies. It is sin taking its revenge on its destroyer. There has been an element in our church since its inception, a dissident male element that has refused to recognize its Leader’s place in Bible prophecy, rejecting and opposing her leadership because of ‘mistified’ vision. These dissidents have all but destroyed the cause of Christian Science. Before you think this too harsh, remember our Leader said, “The ignoble conduct of his disciples... ended in the downfall of genuine Christianity....” (‘02 p.18:25) And, “The truth in regard to your Leader heals the sick....” (Coll. p.74) Would it not follow that error published and taught in regard to our Leader would bring increased sickness and plagues upon mankind? Haven’t we seen a drastic decline in healings in our movement and increased plagues in the world? Has this just happened for no reason? Would we prefer another Dark Ages or would we rather take a second look at our thinking concerning Mrs. Eddy? Considering the alternative, are our pride and intellect concerning our opinions about metaphysics all that important to cherish? Because the disciples on the road to Emmaus had not seen nor accepted Jesus’ obvious place in Bible prophecy, he called them “fools.” Are Christian Scientists excluded from that criticism?

Mortal mind fools us

Christian Scientists are quite willing to admit that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy, but they are not willing to admit the same for Mrs. Eddy. Isn’t it interesting that the people of Jesus’ time were willing to admit that Moses and the prophets fulfilled prophecy and God’s plan, but not Jesus? For years, those who accepted and saw Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy as the Woman, have, by the general Christian Science population, been regarded as emotional fools. With regard to my articles, in the many letters I received over the years, very few were written in opposition; of those, none was able to use the books to prove his or her contention that Mrs. Eddy was not the woman, while I have used the books extensively to prove she was. It is becoming increasingly apparent from which corner the emotion is coming. Christian Scientists are deifying board members in churches, officials in Boston, teachers and practitioners, even readers. If our position cannot be defended in the books, our position is not worth defending.

Just as we saw the danger grow in Germany as the result of resisting Mrs. Eddy’s place, so we subsequently saw what the official stand of The Mother Church in publishing the Six Points in recognition of her fulfillment of Bible prophecy produced. When these Six Points were published in the June 5, 1943 Sentinel, there were six major turning points in World War II which favored the Allies, who, until that point, were losing the war. The truth about these points was seen prior to this time, but it had no great effect on the world until the official position of the Christian Science Board of Directors concerning this issue was declared and published.

Can you imagine what in our time the official rejection of these Six Points has brought to the world? No need to imagine, we can see what has resulted: severe climatic, social, political and economic turmoil. Everything in our nation and in the world is out of control and headed for destruction, devastation, and desolation. Now [1988] we’re being told there never were 57 pages of material culled from published and unpublished statements of Mrs. Eddy’s that concerned her place in prophecy and that were condensed into these Six Points. And also, that there had only ever been a few pages, and now even those few pages cannot be found. I know of several individuals who saw the 57 pages in the Archives many years ago. Why the conspiracy to keep this material hidden? The committee of six who prepared the report on Mrs. Eddy’s place said, “We feel that the period of silence with regard to our Leader’s true status as revelator and messenger has continued all too long, and that it is high time the veil was gently lifted.” (Association address by Roscoe Drummond.) [The 57 pages, now available, can be ordered from The Bookmark. See listing in the Appendix.]

We are faced with the present Board of Directors [1988] trying to convince us that the boards of 1943 and 1962 were wrong, as were all the editors and associate editors of the periodicals who originally compiled the Six Points. The boards and editors of 1943 and 1962 were in a prosperous healing atmosphere, while the current Board of Directors presides over a rapidly deteriorating movement. Emotionalism will always justify. Original sin says, Do not talk about her while I am trying to turn the people against her, God’s representative. Remember, Jesus did not uncover animal magnetism, Mary Baker Eddy did and that is why Christian Scientists are accepting Jesus’ God-appointed mission, and not Mrs. Eddy’s.

Mrs. Eddy wrote, “When the Discoverer of Christian Science in this age must deal with sinning, so-called Christian Scientists, those who know their Leader as she is must be awake to the delusions of M.A.M. that would make Jerusalem a waste and desert place. Take up those transgressors in our midst who would undo the work of their Leader... Waken to the need of this hour that those who would set aside the Manual of The Mother Church with its just By-Laws see the sinfulness of their ways.” (DCC p.53, e.a.)

Mr. Peel’s comments from Years of Authority

A young woman, Daisette McKenzie, CSB, who would later see Mrs. Eddy’s place in prophecy and teach it in her classes, is spoken of by Mr. Peel in this way, “How would she feel and what would she say in the presence of the figure whom she venerated so profoundly that Mrs. Eddy had once or twice replied to her letters with a warning that she must put more emphasis on the Principle of Christian Science and less on the person of the Leader?” (Auth. p.83-84) This is only a natural feeling in a very young lady newly interested in Christian Science. A little child cannot tell why she loves her momma, she just does. Would we call that feeling emotionalism? As the little one grows, she can define and refine for herself and for others the meaning and depth of her love, and this is why Mrs. Eddy gave her loved student a loving warning. Growth then ripens into gratitude and spiritual perception. Mrs. McKenzie was later to see clearly the differences between deification through emotion and right recognition through spiritual discernment.

Here, again, Mr. Peel leaves us with the impression that Mrs. Eddy did not want to be seen as the woman of prophecy. Peel is interpreting Mrs. Eddy’s responses to prove his own personal view of Mrs. Eddy. This is not right. Mrs. Eddy could perceive how someone was seeing her, through personal or spiritual sense, as mortal Mary or spiritual individuality. Jesus did the same. Mr. Peel does not seem to understand this important point.

“To love one’s neighbor as one’s self, is a divine idea; but this idea can never be seen, felt, nor understood through the physical senses. Excite the organ of veneration or religious faith, and the individual manifests profound adoration. Excite the opposite development,” our Leader says, “and he blasphemes.” (S&H p.88:18-23) Here she reveals the two claims of mortal mind: ‘adoration’ of person and rejection of individuality, which is ‘blasphemy.’ Mrs. Eddy wrote a worker, “Jesus refused to be made a king while with his students. But he did not refuse to be remembered when he was not.” (S.L. p.6)

Mr. Peel speaks of Judge Clarkson and his reaction to Mrs. Eddy’s being “down on Judge Hanna.” (Auth. p.162) Supposedly this gave rise to Clarkson’s reversal of his earlier “overidealized concept” of Mrs. Eddy. Clarkson had seen Mrs. Eddy in a spiritual vision and Mrs. Eddy commended his vision of herself as coming through spiritual sense. Judge Clarkson, however, later changed his evaluation of Mrs. Eddy and did not remain true to his vision. Apparently he had an overabundance of male ego that turned against womanhood. None of that, however, takes away from his earlier vision of Mrs. Eddy. The only problem was that he could not maintain his vision and make it practical. It is recorded, “Judge Clarkson dined with Mrs. Eddy today & after dinner tried to convince her again that she was mistaken & the cause was going to ruin & the men were essential to take the lead of the cause of C.S. & to assert their rights without her dictation.” (Auth. p.162) There were many such men in those days and, sad to say, many such men today; male energy has not changed. Is this why we now have a ‘new church’ and a ‘new movement’?

Mrs. Eddy’s faithful workers

We are now given Mr. Peel’s negative view of Judge Hanna. Mr. Peel says, “Hanna, who had confided to Clarkson earlier his own personal sense [who says?] of the Revelation symbolism as well as other details that would be damaging in testimony [in the Woodbury trial], now learned with dismay [How does Peel know Hanna’s thoughts?] that Clarkson, too, was in touch with Peabody; consequently it was decided that it would be wise, as the trial approached, for the Hannas to leave Boston and go off visiting in Pennsylvania.” (Auth. p. 170, e.a.) Hanna’s decision to leave Boston had nothing to do with Clarkson, but was made because Judge Hanna and Mrs. Eddy had worked together to write a leader for the Journal that dealt with Mrs. Eddy’s place in prophecy. Had Hanna testified to this fact, Mrs. Eddy could easily have lost the Woodbury suit.

Mr. Peel says (ibid. p.431, #88), “Her letters and quotations of this period emphasize that Hanna must agree to write in moderate terms of her, avoid any seeming deification of her, and edit CSJ so that ‘God and not man, Truth and not error’ should make clear her significance to the age.” Mrs. Eddy wrote this to all those who saw her clearly in prophecy,

as she did not want their advanced vision to be misunderstood by her other students. She asked them to be careful. Mr. Peel then quotes her, “I am weary of waiting on the involuntary or voluntary motions of the infantile mind in Christian Science to become absolutely right on a single point relating to me.” This was not a letter about Judge Hanna, although Mr. Peel uses it in such a way as to make it appear she was speaking of him. She was not.

Mrs. Eddy wrote to all her students, “I even hope that those who are kind enough to speak well of me may do so honestly and not too earnestly, and this seldom, until mankind learn more of my meaning and can speak justly of my living.” (My. p.264:3) Mrs. Eddy told Hannah Larminie, an early worker, “Beware of the visionary fabulous idealism that the enemy is sowing in the thoughts of some of my students.” (Auth. p.396, #91) Because Mrs. Larminie recognized Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy, she understood that Mrs. Eddy was speaking of Woodbury, Clarkson, and others of that ilk, and not of those like herself, Hanna, and Knapp.

Writing of Alfred Farlow, C.O.P., Mr. Peel tells us Farlow was devoted to Mrs. Eddy in a way “that left no room for mystical extravagances.” (Auth. p.166) Mr. Peel then goes on to discuss the acceptance by some Sunday School students that Mrs. Eddy represented the ideal woman of Proverbs, as being questionable at the very least. What Mrs. Eddy did not want was constant talk about herself as the woman in prophecy, as it did not help, but hindered her at that time, and gave her problems. She did not mind the spiritual perception that saw it as fact but did mind the popular emotionalism of that time that prattled on about it.

Mrs. Eddy gave Judge Hanna more responsible positions in the movement than any other student. We are told that Mrs. Eddy was “drawn to them [the Hannas] strongly.” (Auth. p.39) Judge and Mrs. Hanna both saw her place in Bible prophecy. Hanna, in Mr. Peel’s words, becomes associated with “mysticism.” (ibid. p.62) Peel says Hanna had a “persistent streak of mysticism.” (ibid. p.116) This was the same Hanna who wrote an article detailing Mrs. Eddy’s place in prophecy, commended by Mrs. Eddy. Later Mr. Peel refers to Hanna’s “weakness for an overliteral interpretation of prophetic Scripture. ”

(ibid. p.136) In Mr. Peel’s words, “...Hanna could seem to do nothing right.” (ibid. p.158) Of course Hanna made mistakes as did every other student. But why does Mr. Peel go on for pages alluding to Hanna’s ‘weakness’? Could it be that Mr. Peel read Judge Hanna’s article on Isaiah 54 commended by Mrs. Eddy? Did Mr. Peel disagree with Mrs. Eddy’s assessment of Hanna’s work? Does Mr. Peel also rebel at Judge Hanna’s eloquent remarks, given at the close of Mrs. Eddy’s Final Class, concerning her place as “…the revelator of this Truth”? To which she replied, “My dear children, if you had not seen it, I should have to teach you this. I could not have avoided telling you that when my students become blinded to me as the one through whom Truth has come in this age, they miss the path. I would have had to tell you.” (WKMBE II, p.53-54)

Mr. Peel says, “There was never any question in Mrs. Eddy’s mind that the Christian symbolism of Revelation 12 threw special light on her own experience — the woman travailing in birth ‘but remembering no more her sorrow for joy that the birth goes on,’.... But she also took pains to indicate that it had a larger than personal or denominational meaning for her, a universalism at once Christian and standing above all history....” (Auth. p.164) You will notice that it is “larger than personal.” Mrs. Eddy never considered Revelation 12 as applying to her personality, the first degree, but as a demonstration of the human and divine coincidence, which revealed her spiritual individuality and identity. Mr. Peel then quotes her, “In divine revelation, material and corporeal selfhood disappear, and the spiritual idea is understood.” What spiritual idea is she talking about if not herself? “The woman in the Apocalypse symbolizes generic man, the spiritual idea of God; she illustrates the coincidence of God and man as the divine Principle and divine idea.” (S&H p.561:22-25) Mrs. Eddy refers to herself as the spiritual idea, the “highest idea as seen to-day.” (Mis. p.336:8)

Is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy “mysticism”?

Mr. Peel continues (Auth. p.164), “...she saw more clearly the danger of personalizing the symbols.” Mrs. Eddy never personalized symbols. She saw the individuality of God operating and clearly named the identity of that individual. Then again Mr. Peel discredits Hanna: “This seems to have been at the heart of her temporary but acute dissatisfaction with Hanna.” Oh really, how does he know? Mrs. Eddy never questioned Hanna’s recognition of her place in prophecy. She was dissatisfied with any student who allowed personal sense to becloud his spiritual vision. Because Judge Hanna was more trusted and did more work for Mrs. Eddy than any other student, he came under a greater attack of m.a.m. than did any of the others. It is unfair to characterize this faithful man as a bungler. Mrs. Eddy, speaking of Judge Hanna to Clara Shannon, said, “What a fine man he is! He is morally statuesque!” (Golden Mem. p.17) Continuing, Mr. Peel says, “While she had welcomed with gratitude his deep faith in her leadership, along with the mystical biblicism in which he wrapped it, she saw now the peril to herself as well as to him and to the movement in any undue exaltation of her person.” Is Mr. Peel telling us Mrs. Eddy accepted “mystical biblicism”? The great danger of Mr. Peel’s statement is that he infers Mrs. Eddy accepted “mystical biblicism.” Does this tell us that he considers Mrs. Eddy’s acknowledgment of her place in Bible prophecy as biblical mysticism and that she was a mystic?

Study carefully this next quote: “Because Mrs. Eddy interlaced the metaphoric language of biblical prophecy with the analytic language of metaphysics, it was easy to attribute to her a mysticism that was more apparent than real — more a matter of religious temperament than of conceptual judgment.” He continues, “There was, however, an undoubted tension between the two, sometimes even a war, and some of her severest struggles during the next ten years would be to clarify for herself and others her place in the history of Christian thought and revelation.” (Auth. p. 38, e.a.) Poor, poor Mrs. Eddy, not really understanding what it was all about. Aren’t we grateful that Mr. Peel was able to put it all together for us? What it sounds like is that Mr. Peel is again inferring our Leader was handled by mysticism. Next he states, “One victory of reason over mysticism was her choice, after some deliberation, of the words ‘discoverer’ and ‘founder’ to define her relation to Christian Science.” (p.38) Now Mr. Peel is telling us that Mrs. Eddy finally reasoned her way out of the dilemma of being handled by mysticism. Were the terms ‘revelator’ and ‘Mother’ mystical? Isn’t it interesting that the term ‘revelator’ is now rejected by The Mother Church? Didn’t Mr. Peel ever read that the term ‘Mother’ was discontinued only because it was misunderstood? If Mrs. Eddy had such a struggle with mysticism, as Mr. Peel contends, we are left with the inference that perhaps she never did completely overcome it. Aren’t we grateful that Mr. Peel, a man, finally came along to explain the mess he says Mrs. Eddy was in and give us a view of what he thinks were her emotional struggles with mysticism?

Speaking of the early Board Mr. Peel says, “...except for Knapp, there seems to have been little of the mystic in any of them.” (Auth. p.32) Is Mr. Knapp portrayed here as a mystic because he recognized and appreciated Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy, one of the first to do so? Trusting Mr. Knapp far more than she did any of the other early workers because he saw who she was in Bible prophecy, our Leader gave Mr. Knapp the deed to her church.

If you still wonder about Mr. Peel’s views of Mrs. Eddy as a mystic, consider the following. Speaking of Christ and Christmas he says that she enlisted “...James Gilman to work with her on illustrations for this poem, in an effort to translate its rather mystical and cryptic language into a graphic symbolism ” (ibid. p.43)

The following three quotes are from Recollections of Mary Baker Eddy by James Gilman:

In Christ and Christmas Mrs. Eddy was broadening her demonstration to show that inspiration could be conveyed not only through symbols called words, but also through pictures and art. She was exemplifying the words of Job (42:5), ‘I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.’ The great lesson we learn from Mrs. Eddy’s achievement in this direction is the need of broadening our application of Christian Science… permeating all the minutiae of daily life with spiritual thought.

God will inspire you if only you follow His reflection. The window for this age will let in the true thought to be delineated — copy it.

Mother

Now carry out these designs with all the skill of an artist and my story is told in Christian Science, the new story of Christ, and the world will feel its renovating influence.

Do not delay nor trouble your thought to deviate from what God has given me to suggest, but follow it implicitly, remember this.

Mrs. Eddy confirmed the views of Ira Knapp and Judge Hanna. Does that mean, according to Mr. Peel, she was a mystic as well? However, Mr. Peel rejects their views of Mrs. Eddy, even when Mrs. Eddy in her own writings and letters accepted the views of Knapp and Hanna concerning herself. Mr. Peel tells us that Ira Knapp and Judge Hanna were mystics. Isn’t he contending, therefore, that our Leader was also a mystic? Is Mr. Peel telling us that although Mrs. Eddy saw herself as the woman of prophecy, he disagrees with her and what he terms, her ‘mystical’ views of herself? The definition of ‘mystic’ is: “of esoteric rites or doctrines; designating or pertaining to any occult or esoteric rite, religion, etc.” And this book, Peel’s book, is given out to the Christian world as the church’s official biography of Mrs. Eddy?

Mr. Peel seems not to know the difference between mysticism and Bible prophecy, personality and individuality, or the difference between emotionalism and spiritual sense. Many early workers, having just been in Mrs. Eddy’s presence, left moving accounts of having gained increased spiritual perception and insight. Mr. Peel refers to Mrs. Cooper’s experience, recorded in Twelve Years with Mary Baker Eddy (p.61-62), as being “emotional” after she spoke to Mrs. Eddy. After referring to her account, Mr. Peel writes, “If the description belongs in some ways to that familiar stream of Christian mysticism....” (Auth. p.110) Then he records, “For Mrs. Cooper relates that during this experience a large, painful boil on the head of one of the children completely disappeared, leaving the head ‘as flat as the back of her hand.’” Mrs. Cooper’s next sentence, not included in Mr. Peel’s account, goes on to say that, “For weeks it [the healing] had such a strange effect on me. I could not bear to hear anyone speak in a cross, ill-tempered tone, or do anything that would cause pain…” This is emotionalism? Mr. Tomlinson says, “This is the mother’s account of her illuminating experience.” I have read of many such accounts of those having seen Mrs. Eddy, including seasoned lecturers, CSB’s and CSD’s, and they received such profound, reflected love from Mrs. Eddy that it touched their thoughts and produced healing. If you have not, or have not recently, read this account in Twelve Years With Mary Baker Eddy (p.61), read it and see for yourself whether it is based in emotionalism, Mr. Peel’s view, or in spiritual sense.

Speaking of Christian Scientists, Mr. Peel says, “Some of them spoke rapturously [his word] of inspiration and healing they had received from catching a glimpse of her as she passed them on her daily carriage drive, and this encouraged others to come to Concord with the hope of receiving similar benefits.” (Auth. p.257) Mrs. Eddy healed everyone she saw and met. Possibly some did take advantage of her healing presence for personal gain, but those were a small minority and should not be used to diminish the importance of the inspiration received from being in Mrs. Eddy’s presence.

In 1885, Lilian Whiting, a reporter with the Traveller, sent Mrs. Eddy a note requesting an interview.

Mrs. Eddy impressed me as a woman who is — in the language of our Methodist friends — ‘filled with the spirit.’ …I had no belief or disbelief, and the idea of getting any personal benefit from the call, save matter for press use, never occurred to me. But I remember afterwards how extremely tired I was as I walked rather wearily and languidly up the steps to Mrs. Eddy’s door. I came away, as a little child friend of mine expressively says, ‘skipping.’

…All the next day this exalted state continued. …it was simply the most marvelous elasticity of mind and body. In the evening I had callers and…chanced to allude to the unusual and…utterly unprecedented buoyancy and energy I was feeling ‘Why that’s the result of your going to Mrs. Eddy,’ exclaimed a friend.

The Discovery of the Science of Man, Doris Grekel, p.319-320

The great lady said, “The ancient worthies caught glorious glimpses of the Messiah or Christ, and their truer sense of Christ baptized them in Spirit — submerged them in a sense so pure it made seers of men, and Christian healers. This is the ‘Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,’ spoken of by St. Paul. It is also the mysticism complained of by the rabbis, who crucified Jesus and called him a ‘deceiver.’” (‘01 p.9:6-12, e.a.) From this we are told that from the intellectual rabbis’ point of view, Jesus’ demonstration of the Christ was mysticism. The rabbis were not spiritually minded enough to perceive and understand the pure Christ idea, — the spiritual Jesus fulfilling Bible prophecy, the human and divine coincidence operating in the man Jesus.

Do we love Mrs. Eddy?

We must defend our Leader. She says, “You cannot suffer for defending me which is acceptable in God’s sight. ‘Inasmuch as ye do it unto one of these little ones, you have done it to Me’, are His words. You cannot love me too much, for the love of good fulfils the law of Truth....” (DCC p.89, e.a.) Mrs. Eddy understood the nature of this evil when she said, “I know the crucifixion of the one who presents truth in its highest aspect will be this time through a bigger error, through mortal mind instead of its lower stratum, or matter, showing that the idea given of God this time is higher, clearer and more permanent than before.... You, dear student, are doubtless praying for me — and so the modern Law-giver is upheld for a time.” (DCC p.107) Who is praying today to uphold her place in Bible prophecy? If she did not fulfill Bible prophecy, Christian Science is not the revelation of Truth. Mrs. Eddy says, “Attacks on the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science are attacks on the Cause itself. When will you see this, and stop these efforts of animal magnetism to destroy us? The students alone will be responsible if these demon schemes are not ended.” (DCC p.124)

Christian Scientists are being mentally and morally paralyzed by the suggestions of malicious animal magnetism to resist the truth about their Leader. Mrs. Eddy says, “Malpractice would dominate, and unless Christian Scientists are awake to it and alert, it would hold back Christian Science for centuries.” (DCC p.225) Many minds are at work to keep us from seeing our Leader correctly. We must declare against this lie with an absolute conviction of its nothingness. We must not weigh against ourselves by admitting that this lie has any power. We must stand with the truth that we do love God and His representative, our neighbor, as ourselves. We must speak to the lie with the authority that our Leader has given to us. We must not react. Hate cannot claim to be a reality. Love is the fulfilling of the law. We must hold continually to our gratitude for her. Then joy keeps the door of spiritual revelation open. Our Leader says, “Our salvation is through Love. Call God Love always and bend all your efforts toward achieving perfect love in thought, word and deed. This is the way.” (DCC p.181) Absolutely refuse to react to this error in any way. See Truth alone.

The subtle argument of the red dragon that Mary Baker Eddy did not fulfill Bible prophecy, violates the “Office of Truth: The complete reality or fact of being revealed, the infinite inclusion of all facts.” (Marie K. Larkin, CSB.) This argument of the red dragon rejects the antidote for error, the attributes of Truth: honesty, exactness, fact, revelation, verity, correctness, constancy, the unerring, sincerity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, loyalty, trustworthiness, reliability, and guilelessness.

Argument #3 of the red dragon: The human consciousness, the second degree, is not God-bestowed.

Hence, God does not know Mary Baker Eddy.

This lie, one of the seven subtle arguments of the red dragon, would reverse one of the synonyms of God, — eternal Life.

This lie is an extension of the argument that the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The serpent will not admit that there is any connection to God, and male energy carries out this argument with what it considers to be sound intellectual reasoning. Not only did male Adamic energy reject Eve’s discovery of the truth about the serpent, but it also rejected the second degree as “God-bestowed.” (S&H p.200:4) And, further, rejects Eve’s honesty, affection, hope, and faith and rejects man’s inseparable relationship with the Life that is God. Mrs. Eddy writes, “The ‘tree of knowledge’ stands for the erroneous doctrine that the knowledge of evil is as real, hence as God-bestowed, as the knowledge of good.” (S&H p.526:19-22) It is, therefore, a counterfeit of the human and divine coincidence that is “God-bestowed.”

The lie of the second chapter of Genesis is that matter is God-created and, once created, God forgets His creation and creation is then left to its own devices, — free-will. This denial of God’s all-control fosters fear, and lack of dominion follows in its wake. Eve recognized the nature of the serpent. This, our Leader says, “...enabled woman to be first to interpret the Scriptures in their true sense....” (S&H p.534:5)

Adam, however, rejected the ability of Eve to express the human consciousness that God bestowed upon her, the spiritual sense that uncovers the serpent and the nature of sin. Remember, part of Mrs. Eddy’s definition of Adam is “original sin.”

Does God create the second degree? Our Leader says, “That glory only is imperishable which is fixed in one’s own moral make-up.” (My. p.122:5, e.a.) She tells us that God does create the second degree.

This partial list of references will help to elucidate the second degree qualities:

Moral: Un. 35:16-18; Mis. 257:8-10; S&H 455:8-10; S&H 72:30-

32. Humanity: Un. 49:8-9; Un. 51:14; S&H 561:16-20; S&H 25:31;

My. 179:21-23; Mis. 95:17-21. Honesty: S&H 453:16 only; S&H

458:23-28. Affection: Mis. 250:20; S&H 451:16; S&H 60:8-10; S&H

147:29. Compassion: S&H 465:14; S&H 329:26 only; Luke 13:34.

Hope: ‘00 10:20; Mis. 15:13; S&H 298:13-15. Faith: S&H 298:2-4;

S&H 23:21; S&H 482:23; ‘01 17:1. Meekness: My. 247:11-12; S&H

270:23-24. Temperance: Gal. 5:22-23; Ret. 79:22-23.

Our Leader says, “This lie, that Mind can be in matter, — claiming to be something beside God, denying Truth and its demonstration in Christian Science, — this lie I declare an illusion. This denial enlarges the human intellect by removing its evidence from sense to Soul, and from finiteness into infinity. It honors conscious human individuality by showing God as its source.” (Un. p.25:11, e.a.)

Mrs. Eddy also writes, “Jesus of Nazareth was a natural and divine Scientist. He was so before the material world saw him.” (Ret. p.26:17-18) And that is why Mrs. Eddy could also say, “The divinity of the Christ was made manifest in the humanity of Jesus.” (S&H p.25:31) But, “Had his origin and birth been wholly apart from mortal usage, Jesus would not have been appreciable to mortal mind as ‘the way.’” (S&H p.30:11) This never meant that Jesus was solely a mortal, for “Jesus’ true and conscious being never left heaven for earth. It abode forever above, even while mortals believed it was here. He once spoke of himself (John iii. 13) as ‘the Son of man which is in heaven,’ — remarkable words, as wholly opposed to the popular view of Jesus’ nature.” (No. p.36:6) Nor did this mean that Jesus did not have spiritual identity. “Christ, or the spiritual idea, appeared to human consciousness as the man Jesus.” (Ret. p.93:3-4) But Jesus is not separate from that spiritual idea, as Mrs. Eddy writes, “When mortal mind is silenced by the ‘still, small voice’ of Truth that regenerates philosophy and logic; and Jesus, as the true idea of Him, is heard as of yore saying to sensitive ears and dark disciples, ‘I came from the Father,’ ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’

coexistent and coeternal with God...” (Mis. p.360:25-30, e.a.)

From this we can see there is a spiritual Jesus; his identity and activity are not lost. “On the contrary, it was a divinely natural act, whereby divinity brought to humanity the understanding of the Christ-healing and revealed a method infinitely above that of human invention.” (S&H p.44:23, e.a.) “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. p.160:5, e.a.) “Now, as then, these mighty works are not supernatural, but supremely natural. They are the sign of Immanuel, or ‘God with us,’ — a divine influence ever present in human consciousness and repeating itself, coming NOW as was promised aforetime, ‘To preach deliverance to the captives [of sense], And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised.’” (S&H p.xi:14, e.a.) “Hence the need that human consciousness should become divine, in the coincidence of God and man, in contradistinction to the false consciousness of both good and evil, God and devil, — of man separated from his Maker.” (Un. p.52:7-11) “The evil accompanying physical personality is illusive and mortal; but the good attendant upon spiritual individuality is immortal. Existing here and now, this unseen individuality is real and eternal.” (Un. p.37:17-21, e.a.) “The more I understand true humanhood, the more I see it to be sinless, — as ignorant of sin as is the perfect Maker.” (Un. p.49:8)

Mrs. Eddy says, “One great master clearly delineates Christ’s appearing in the flesh, and his healing power, as clad not in soft raiment or gorgeous apparel”.... (Mis. p.373:15-17, e.a.) Our Leader makes it very clear that although Jesus appeared in the flesh, he was really spiritual. “Because of mortals’ material and sinful belief, the spiritual Jesus was imperceptible to them.” (S&H p.314:23-24, e.a.) Is this also the reason why many Christian Scientists deny the spiritual idea, Mary Baker Eddy? Is this why they write books and articles with an incorrect view of Mrs. Eddy?

“Moses advanced a nation to the worship of God in Spirit instead of matter, and illustrated the grand human capacities of being bestowed by immortal Mind.” (S&H p.200:4, e.a.) “When the human mind is advancing above itself towards the Divine, it is subjugating the body, subduing matter, taking steps outward and upwards. This upward tendency of humanity will finally gain the scope of Jacob’s vision, and rise from sense to Soul, from earth to heaven.” (‘02 p.10:12) These human, not mortal, capacities bestowed by God show us why God knows us intimately. “He has mercy upon us, and guides every event of our careers. He is near to them who adore Him.” (Un. p.3:28-1)

Why reject the second degree?

Rejecting the second degree as God-bestowed, we deny our Leader’s demonstration of the human and divine coincidence and our own existence and present inseparability from God. This lie rejects Life and produces disease and death, including the death of the movement.

Mrs. Eddy says that God knows no such thing as sin, matter, or mortality. Does this mean God doesn’t know you, because you appear to be a mortal? “Human beings are physically mortal, but spiritually immortal.” (Un. p.37:17) Mrs. Eddy says it is a “false doctrine of pantheism, — that God, or Life, is in or of matter.” (S&H p.27:20) We are not just physical mortals. The human consciousness is God-bestowed. “The Scriptures declare that God is too pure to behold iniquity (Hab. 1:13); but they also declare that God pitieth them who fear Him; that there is no place where His voice is not heard; that He is ‘a very present help in trouble.’” (Un. p.2:1) Does Mrs. Eddy say we are not to pay attention to the human appearing of Jesus? In Miscellaneous Writings, we read, “It is most fitting that Christian Scientists memorize the nativity of Jesus.” (Mis. 374:17-18) Nativity is birth. Are we then not to pay any attention to her life? In Luke we read, “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)

In one of Mrs. Eddy’s classes, a student remarked about her, “She begged of us not to get into the way of trying to spiritualize everything in the Bible; it has its history and we cannot destroy that. If we did, we destroyed the whole. The children of Israel walked over the Red Sea just as much as we were here, and Adam and Eve were as real beings to sense as we were. We must believe the history of the Bible as literally as we do other histories.” (Mis. Doc., Martha Bogue, p.69) Mrs. Eddy refers to the Garden of Eden story as an allegory. The dictionary definition of allegory is: “a figurative description of real facts.” Speaking of Adam and Eve, Mrs. Eddy says, “This represents the serpent in the act of commending to our first parents the knowledge of good and evil”

(S&H p.92:13-15, e.a.) And, “...the continued account is mortal and material.” (S&H p.521:20) She then speaks of the account as ‘legendary’ — it is not a fairy tale. (S&H p.526:14) A legend is “any story coming down from the past, esp., one popularly taken as historical though not verifiable.” (Webster’s) Mrs. Eddy says, “Adam and his progeny were cursed, not blessed; and this indicates that the divine Spirit, or Father, condemns material man and remands him to dust.”

(S&H p.532:10) She also says, “In the allegory of Genesis, third chapter and ninth verse, two mortals, walking in the cool of the day midst the stately palms…pondered the things of man and God.” (Mis. 332:13, e.a.) Her definition of Eve is “...the belief that the human race originated materially instead of spiritually....” (S&H p.585:25) Doesn’t this definition say that the human race originated spiritually? Then she says, “Earth is more spiritually beautiful to my gaze now than when it was more earthly to the eyes of Eve.” (Mis. p.86:16) But, the Adamic claim cannot understand metaphysics, it is original sin.

Mr. Peel writes, “Her [Mrs. Eddy’s] reference to the Garden of Eden did not mean that she took the biblical account literally. Her writings consistently refer to the Eden story as an allegory.” (Auth. p.382, #9) The Biblical account is not spiritual reality but she did take it literally, as Adam and Eve were mortals. She tells us, “The first statement about evil, — the first suggestion of more than the one Mind, — is in the fable of the serpent.” (S&H p.544:17-19) The serpent is the fable, while Adam and Eve, as mortals, are allegory and legend. Mr. Peel needs to get better acquainted with Noah Webster.

Mrs. Eddy writes, “But, say you, is a stone spiritual? To erring material sense, No! but to unerring spiritual sense, it is a small manifestation of Mind, a type of spiritual substance, ‘the substance of things hoped for.’ Mortals can know a stone as substance, only by first admitting that it is substantial. Take away the mortal sense of substance, and the stone itself would disappear, only to reappear in the spiritual sense thereof.” (Mis. p.27:27-2) Could we then say that the rock would be known by God as spiritual even when it appeared to us to be material? If not, it could not reappear as spiritual, could it? Some Christian Scientists would say that God knows the stone but not Mary Baker Eddy. Mrs. Eddy says, “This testimony of Holy Writ sustains the fact in Science, that the heavens and earth to one human consciousness, that consciousness which God bestows, are spiritual, while to another, the unillumined human mind, the vision is material.” (S&H p.573:5-9, e.a.) The unillumined human mind writes incorrect articles and books about Mary Baker Eddy. Mrs. Eddy says, “Everyone that works to harm me shares the same fate. And all who try to help me are signally prospered.” (S.L. p.35) See also the article entitled, “Reflection,” by Mrs. Eddy in the chapter, Our Leader’s Demonstration of Generic Man, in this book.

Our Leader gives the correct view

“Evil in the beginning claimed the power, wisdom, and utility of good; and every creation or idea of Spirit has its counterfeit in some matter belief. Every material belief hints the existence of spiritual reality; and if mortals are instructed in spiritual things, it will be seen that material belief, in all its manifestations, reversed, will be found the type and representative of verities priceless, eternal, and just at hand.” (Mis. p.60:26) “This deflection of being, rightly viewed, serves to suggest the proper reflection of God and the spiritual actuality of man, as given in the first chapter of Genesis.” (S&H p.502:10-14) “Without Him, the universe would disappear, and space, substance, and immortality be lost.” (Un. p.60:22-24) “The sweet sounds and glories of earth and sky, assuming manifold forms and colors, — are they not tangible and material? As Mind they are real, but not as matter. All beauty and goodness are in and of Mind, emanating from God; but when we change the nature of beauty and goodness from Mind to matter, the beauty is marred, through a false conception, and, to the material senses, evil takes the place of good.” (Rud. p.6:3-11) The spiritual is right here, right now, but spiritual sense alone can perceive it and perceive the one who brought it to us.

Mrs. Eddy said, “To take all earth’s beauty into one gulp of vacuity and label beauty nothing, is ignorantly to caricature God’s creation, which is unjust to human sense and to the divine realism. In our immature sense of spiritual things, let us say of the beauties of the sensuous universe: ‘I love your promise; and shall know, some time, the spiritual reality and substance of form, light, and color, of what I now through you discern dimly; and knowing this, I shall be satisfied. Matter is a frail conception of mortal mind; and mortal mind is a poorer representative of the beauty, grandeur, and glory of the immortal Mind.’” (Mis. p.87:3)

In Miscellaneous Writings, we read, “The prophet whose words we have chosen for our text [Isa. 9:6,7], prophesied the appearing of this dual nature, as both human and divinely endowed, the personal and the impersonal Jesus.” (Mis. p. 161:14) Mrs. Eddy also speaks of herself as both personal and impersonal. “The personal Mrs. Eddy is pliant as wax, the impersonal impregnable to wind and wave. In the spiritual altitude of the latter I stand alone, none can see from my standpoint there.” (Letter to Judge Hanna.) From the point of view of the human consciousness, the second degree that she just told us God bestowed, Jesus was both human and divine, seen by mortals in a personal way, and impersonally seen and known by Mind. But he always had identity and individuality and, according to Mrs. Eddy’s statement in Retrospection and Introspection (p.26:17-18), before he appeared humanly. Now, this is the Christ-idea, but again, not without identity and individuality. These are never lost. From our Father-Mother’s point of view, the Christ-idea is begotten of Spirit.

Mrs. Eddy’s Foreordained Status

“Mortals will lose their sense of mortality — disease, sickness, sin, and death — in the proportion that they gain the sense of man’s spiritual preexistence as God’s child; as the offspring of good, and not of God’s opposite, — evil, or a fallen man. John the Baptist had a clear discernment of divine Science: being born not of the human will or flesh, he antedated his own existence….” (Mis. p.181:25-4) If John the Baptist antedated his own existence, as did Jesus, then it is easy to see why God referred to Jesus as His beloved Son. And if John, Jesus, and Jeremiah all antedated their own existence, why do we believe the most important woman in the history of the world did not? Continuing Mrs. Eddy’s statement, John the Baptist “began spiritually instead of materially to reckon himself logically; hence the impossibility of putting him to death, only in belief, through violent means or material methods.” Notice John, in Mrs. Eddy’s words, understood his mission, why he was here.

“And must not man have preexisted in the All and Only?” (Mis. p.173:16-17) “If we live after death and are immortal, we must have lived before birth. ” (S&H p.429:21-22) If the “human consciousness is God-bestowed” as she says, then God knew her, before, during and after her earthly experience. In Unity of Good (p.19:1-4), she says, “With God, knowledge is necessarily foreknowledge; and foreknowledge and foreordination must be one, in an infinite Being. What Deity foreknows, Deity must foreordain ” She also speaks of the “divine influence ever present in human consciousness...” (S&H p.xi:17-18) ‘Ever present’ means never absent.

In I Peter 1:20, we read that Jesus “. was foreordained before the foundation of the world....” Jesus was chosen before he appeared humanly. Didn’t Jesus say in John 5:36, “that the Father hath sent me”? In John 17:4 Jesus said, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” Is that not being chosen? Did God give Mrs. Eddy something to do before she appeared humanly? Did she finish the work God gave her to accomplish? “The spiritual bespeaks our temporal history.” (My. p.133:29-1) Bespeak is defined as “to speak or arrange for beforehand; to engage, or stipulate for, against a future time. To foretell.”

Mrs. Eddy is always that Idea

“The late lamented Christian Scientist brother and the publisher of my books, Joseph Armstrong, C.S.D., is not dead, neither does he sleep nor rest from his labors in divine Science; and his works do follow him.... He is wiser to-day, healthier and happier, than yesterday.” (My.

p.296:10-16.) (See also My. p.295:25 and My. p.290:21.) There is no individuality nor identity that is ever lost. We know that Elijah’s and Moses’ identities were not lost. Mrs. Eddy gives credence to this point when she writes, “Hence these words of Christ Jesus: ‘Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.’ (Luke 13:27,28.)” (My. p.161:9-13)

If you reject the woman or reject those who are supporting the woman, would you be thrust out of the kingdom? What is your reward for supporting her? In a letter Mrs. Eddy wrote, “May the smile of the ‘Big Spirit’ lighten your labor and heighten your steps each day towards our heavenly home where we shall reunite in songs of perpetual joy for our earthly lives — for your help to me and mine.” (Golden Mem. p.26) This is why Mrs. Eddy said we owe Jesus “endless homage.” It never ends. In a letter to a student, Mrs. Eddy wrote that Mother “waits for you to be with her here and in Heaven.” (S.L. p.38) “Man is not annihilated, nor does he lose his identity, by passing through the belief called death.” (Mis. p.42:4-5) “This great Truth does not destroy but substantiates man’s identity, — together with his immortality and preexistence, or his spiritual coexistence with his Maker.” (Mis. p.47:22) “Man is free from the flesh and is individual in consciousness — in Mind, not in matter.” (My. p.119:8-10) The spiritual idea of God cannot be seen if we reject our Leader’s spiritual status and place as God’s idea seen through the human and divine coincidence. If we cannot view Mary Baker Eddy as that spiritual idea, how can we see anyone that way? Has A.M. worked in this manner to destroy our love for Mrs. Eddy as a spiritual idea and thereby eradicated all healing work?

How does this argument specifically support scholastic theology?

Non-Christian Scientists say healing is impossible because God left us to our own free will. Communists believe that all is matter and there is no God. Christian Scientists say matter is nothing, this is all a dream, and falsely conclude that God knows nothing about any of us, thus robbing us of the human and divine coincidence, the same conclusion that results from scholastic theology and communism. Scholastic theology teaches that man is a miserable sinner and asserts he can have no chance of salvation except through Christ Jesus as God Himself. The human and divine coincidence is thereby denied. Here again we find male energy, primarily in the Christian Science church, giving support to scholastic theology. This is the same scholastic theology that wishes to retrogress 2,000 years in the Christian church, and over 3,000 in the Jewish synagogue, to a time when healing had not been revealed, when M.A.M. had not been uncovered and the human and divine coincidence not revealed. All of this supports the claim of A.M. and its hatred of the woman. Along with this error we hear, I don’t like hearing so much talk about A.M.; and if we could hear its latent argument, it would be saying, I don’t want to handle A.M. This belief handles mortal Adams. It is male thought that refuses to handle or even to recognize A.M. Scholastic theology is a form of absolutism that is all theory and no practice. It is a claim that pretends all is well when it isn’t. This belief is operating in the sciences as substance in matter, in theology as intelligence in matter, and in medicine as life in matter.

The intellectual absolutists in our midst are basically materialists who reject demonstration for absolute, high sounding philosophical statements about God. This is animal magnetism, and it rejects the demonstration of the human and divine coincidence, the fact that God knows each of His ideas. The absolutist, therefore, is the prime mover against the intervention of God in human affairs. The Christian Scientist who is an absolutist has enforced the beliefs of humanism, atheism, and all forms of separation from God. All of those ‘isms’ and ‘ologies’ state, in various ways, that a mortal can take care of himself since mortals, especially bright mortals, can certainly do it all themselves; thus making God unimportant. This belief is opposed to Jesus’ statement, “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.” (John 5:19)

How is this argument — God doesn’t know our Leader — stated in the movement? We are mortal; God doesn’t know us. I’m insignificant. What can one person do? The leaders in Boston are taking care of it. I don’t need to demonstrate. Accepting all of this error, produces a resignation to evil on the part of those who refuse to see the truth. It brings a sense of futility to those who do see through it, but will not handle it. It brings a struggle for healings and results in a rejection of absolute standards, such as the Manual. Many Christian Scientists then fail to resist pornography, violent and sexual TV content, and salacious literature. Thus, they become satisfied with incorrect metaphysics, akin to oriental mysticism, crime is not held in check, and they return to medicine and drugs. The absolutists openly claim that those who recognize Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy reek with mysticism and vow to stamp out these misinformed Christian Scientists, keep them out of teaching, lecturing, board positions, and Sunday School teaching, and from having any position of importance in the Christian Science church.

What are the results of this error in the world? Those CSB’s who teach that God did not create the second degree, that it is not God-bestowed, reject the human and divine coincidence. They teach a total separation from God with no uplifting humanity. This teaching of humanism based in mortal mind effort, produces loneliness, doubt and fear, and leads to disease and suicide. Humanism is a rejection of the entire second degree that is based in the moral. “The teachers of Christian Science need to watch incessantly the trend of their own thoughts; watch that these be not secretly robbed, and themselves misguided, and so made to misteach others.” (Mis. p.114:7-10) Hinduism and oriental mysticism teach that the world is unreal and that we are nothing. Christian Science does not teach that. These foreign teachings, believed, produce extreme selfishness, — a lack of caring and consideration for others — and they are running our church from the highest to the lowest levels of responsibility.

The claim of absolutism is atheism and counterfeits the absolute Truth. It claims that we are all the same, no one is better than you or I, and that we are all separate from God. Absolutism violently rejects its Leader and, together with the rejection of the truth that God created the second degree, rose to power in 1917 as communism. If we go back four years from that point to 1913, we find that the following were passed into law as amendments to the United States Constitution: 1. the graduated income tax, a plank of Marx’s Manifesto, and 2. the popular election of senators, that resulted in the destruction of the state and federal balance of power. Mrs. Eddy tells us, “Religious liberty and individual rights under the Constitution of our nation are rapidly advancing, avowing and consolidating the genius of Christian Science.” (My. 200:1) These two amendments destroyed our Constitution and left the Christian Science movement open to deterioration. Also in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act became law and placed all banking and currency in the hands of private banking institutions and, therefore, totally separate from our government’s control, and, therefore, from your control. These three planned points opened the way for all the suffering our nation has experienced since 1913, — the present deception of glasnost, the destruction of the economy, the crisis in banking, and the rise of an all-powerful central government.

The second degree is named ‘Moral.’ Rejecting the second degree as God-bestowed, there is then no moral standard. The rejection begins when we listen to and accept malicious animal magnetism’s erroneous suggestions about Mrs. Eddy. To see her as solely mortal enslaves all mankind to mortal mind and mortality, and robs mankind of individuality and identity. This error accomplished, absolute standards and ethics are then done away with in business and in political and economic activities.

Homosexuality becomes rampant. The baser elements of thought take control. Drugs and medicine control every element of society. Rejection of the human and divine coincidence, because it is hatred for Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration, builds up the belief of life, substance and intelligence in matter, M.A.M. This in turn gives rise to humanism, atheism, agnosticism, psychology, sociology, intellectualism, theosophy and all the false sciences. Occultism, witchcraft, and mesmerism grow rapidly, as there is nothing left to check them.

The argument of malicious animal magnetism that the human consciousness is not God-bestowed results in the false claim that man is solely mortal and that mortality is primary. This falsehood, remaining unchallenged, produces an age of deep materialism. It rejects punishment for crime and rejects discipline in the home and churches. Theosophical teachings, parading as Christian Science, which state that God knows nothing about the human consciousness or about us, are lies. There is a human and divine coincidence.

How does A.M., using these lies, keep us out of the mirror of divine Science, outside of the “focal distance of infinite Spirit”? (S&H p. 301:26) 1. It tells us the mirror doesn’t operate for us anymore. 2. It keeps us declaring the allness of God, yet feeling separated from God. 3. It obscures and distorts the mirror to our vision. 4. It subtly removes the demonstrator of Love, the revelator, and we find ourselves ungrateful and unloving. None of us can see in the mirror of Divine Science if we are unchristian to the one who gave us Science, or if we accept any of the seven arguments. If you have accepted any of the seven arguments of the red dragon, you have allowed the obscuration of the mirror. The four suggestions listed above cannot operate in a thought that is filled with genuine love for Mrs. Eddy. Why do you think the Pharisees tried to distort the image of Jesus’ character?

How can these errors be corrected? Reverse the lies, stop the specific argument and claim of M.A.M., the red dragon, that God does not know Mrs. Eddy. Know that Christian Scientists do understand through their Leader’s writings that God knows our Leader and each one of us through the human consciousness He bestows. We are alert to consistently keep the fact of God’s Allness and the consequent nothingness of evil before us. There is no opposition to Love and Love’s idea. Our Leader says, “One’s protection against hate is the realization that divine Love flows through every avenue, cleanses every channel, and removes every obstruction. In fact, the law of Love is the law of elimination and the law of destruction to everything unlike itself.” (DCC p.210) God knows each and every one of us and we are not separated from His healing love. Know that man is loved and inseparable from Life.

The dragon informs man that mortal mind is all powerful and is the only mind, — that God has no control here. This is the red dragon’s way of maintaining its assumed territorial rights. By accepting this wretched lie, there is then no way that Jesus’ scientific truth, “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven,” can be proved.

If Mrs. Eddy is not known by God as some contend, there is no human and divine coincidence; she is not the Leader now and does not fulfill Bible prophecy. Perhaps you are beginning to see the importance of getting your own metaphysics correct so you can recognize when others are incorrect. If we deny the fact of our Leader’s spiritual identity, individuality and her place in prophecy, how can we see our own true relationship to God? We cannot. Believing the lie about her, are we not in essence saying that we, too, are separated from God, and that there is no hope for us? Could this be one of the reasons why healing has so badly deteriorated in her church? Our dear Leader writes, “The truly Christian and scientific statement of personality and of the relation of man to God, with the demonstration which accompanied it, incensed the rabbis, and they said: ‘Crucify him, crucify him... by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.’” (S&H p.94:6, e.a.) And so in our time, we see again that “the truly Christian and scientific statement of personality” given to us by Mrs. Eddy and demonstrated by her incenses the Adamic male, and they crucify her.

The subtle argument of the red dragon, that Mary Baker Eddy is unknown by God, violates the “Office of Life: The vital Principle or divine Mind that is conscious of divine existence. The reflecting of activity.” (Marie K. Larkin, CSB.) This argument rejects the attributes of Life so necessary in the Christian Science movement: immortality, permanence, existence, spiritual energy, purity, eternality, unfoldment, devotion, industry, movement, activity, conduct, inspiration, awakening, arousing, expressing, unending and undecaying. Rejecting Mrs. Eddy’s identity as known by God, we manifest the antonyms of these attributes in the movement.

Argument #4 of the red dragon: Anyone could have discovered Christian Science and written Science and Health.

Mrs. Eddy was no better than you or I.

This lie, one of the subtle arguments of the seven-headed red dragon, would reverse another of the synonyms — Spirit.

This argument is the red dragon’s way of operating through jealous Adams to insinuate themselves into the woman’s prophecy. These Adams deny Spirit’s all-power and activity in order to clear the way for the domination of Eves by male muscularity. Then Christian Science appears to be just a philosophy, reinforced by male energy that is furious that Eve was given the position of fulfilling prophecy. Mrs. Eddy says, “...God called the author to proclaim His Gospel to this age....” (S&H Pref. xi:22, e.a.) And, “Others could not take her place, even if willing so to do.” (S&H p.464:9, e.a)

“Chaucer wrote centuries ago, yet we still read his thought in his verse.” (S&H p.82:5-6) Mrs. Eddy says she is in her books (My. p.120:2-4); this is not some abstract mental concept concerning our Leader. If true about Chaucer, it is true about her. There is nothing spiritual about Chaucer’s works. Mrs. Eddy’s thought, her identity, is in her writings, and this is where we find her. If we diminish the importance of her thought, we cannot understand her writings. Do you think we can continue to have healings and still diminish Mrs. Eddy’s importance?

If we listen to the argument that we are all gods knowing good and evil, then we jealously deny God’s ability to love His highest ideas and their work for mankind. The Bible states clearly that the devil was aware of Jesus’ identity and the purpose for which God had chosen him. Doesn’t the red dragon see the importance of womanhood, the Mother-God and Her representative, Mary Baker Eddy?

In Genesis we read, “...and [God] brought [the beasts] unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” (Gen. 2:19) Mrs. Eddy says, “Here the lie represents God as repeating creation, but doing so materially, not spiritually, and asking a prospective sinner to help Him.... It cannot be true that man was ordered to create man anew in partnership with God; this supposition was a dream, a myth.” (S&H p.527:p.26-28, p.528:5) This is exactly the same error repeating itself today, claiming that men must give us a ‘new movement,’ a ‘new church,’ and that men must change what God created through the demonstration of the woman. The above quote from Science and Health is referring to the time prior to the formation of Eve and her discovery. It is plain that the error of M.A.M. wants to take us back to a time, prior to Mrs. Eddy’s day, when male energy was in control of Christ’s church. Giving Adam the responsibility to rename creation is the attempt of male energy to deny God’s creation and revelation, divine Science, and to reject the appearing of God’s revelator. The 4th argument of the red dragon declares that any of us could have discovered Christian Science, thus giving its deception credibility in the eyes of men.

A unique woman

Mortal men deny her uniqueness. God, Spirit, the agent of man’s conscious functions, is thereby rejected and Christian Science becomes just a philosophy reinforced by the lie that says God did not choose her to write Science and Health. But our Leader says, “...[Eve] is first to abandon the belief in the material origin of man and to discern spiritual creation. This enabled woman to be first to interpret the Scriptures in their true sense, which reveals the spiritual origin of man.” (S&H p.534:1-5)

In Acts we read, “. God is no respecter of persons.” (Acts 10:34)

In this quote, we are assured that God listens to all who call upon Him; but does not mean that we are all the same. St. Paul says, “. for one star differeth from another star in glory.” (I Cor. 15:41) Jesus declared that there was not a greater prophet born of woman than John the Baptist. (Luke 7:28) Speaking of Jesus, John the Baptist said, “He it is, who coming before me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.” (John 1:27)

God told John and Daniel that they could not write the revelation of the book, Science and Health, that they saw in visions. (Dan. 12:4, 9 and Rev. 10:2, 4) God told them it was not time and that they were not the ones to write it. If God knew they were not the ones and it was not the right time, then obviously God knew exactly who was in Mind to be the author. If anyone could have discovered Christian Science, why didn’t these men do it? They were certainly more spiritually minded than the Christian Scientists of Mrs. Eddy’s generation. God had special tasks for them, but it was not to write the book. Mrs. Eddy said, “To one ‘born of the flesh,’ however, divine Science must be a discovery. Woman must give it birth.” (Ret. p.26:22) Mrs. Eddy said it must be in the latter days of the 19th century, and even tells us that 1866 was the date of its discovery in fulfillment of Daniel’s dates and John’s Apocalypse. It had to be a woman in her time. Many men love to think of themselves as spiritual equals with Mrs. Eddy and possibly even greater than the greatest woman who ever lived, — as intelligent, wise and discerning as she, and more so. How do you women feel about this?

Mrs. Knapp related to a group of Christian Scientists what Mrs. Eddy had told her household about how she, Mrs. Eddy, had written Science and Health. She would write as fast as she could throwing the written sheets on the floor as she finished them. Then after a while she would gather up the sheets, number them and re-write them. One of the group listening to Mrs. Eddy asked her, “Why, Mother, if God dictated Science and Health to you, why did you re-write the pages?” Mrs. Eddy answered to the effect that she had to re-write the pages so that we could understand them. She had to translate them from the pure language of Spirit to a language that the human mind could understand. Could just anyone have done this? Mrs. Emilie B. Hulin, CSD, while she was living in Brookline, said that one day while she was visiting at Pleasant View, she and Laura Sargent were in the room with Mrs. Eddy and Mrs. Eddy said, “Girls, would you like me to talk absolute Christian Science to you?” They eagerly answered, “Yes, Mother.” Then Mrs. Eddy began to talk, and they could not understand one single word that she said, although they were seasoned workers and teachers of Christian Science. (See S&H p.114:32.)

The statement that anyone could have discovered Christian Science or written Science and Health is a lie. It is the red dragon in operation; it is hatred of womanhood, it is scholastic theology saying that only men can interpret spiritual things. It is an attempt of malicious animal magnetism, the serpent, to reverse God’s promise, “And I will put enmity between thee [serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed…” (Genesis 3:15) It is the claim of intellectualism, Jesuitism, attempting to rob her of her place and put power in the hands of those claiming to sit in her seat of teaching and authority.

Foolishness

Some Christian Scientists say that if Mrs. Eddy had not discovered Science, Edward Kimball surely would have done so, as Mr. Kimball was as clear as Mrs. Eddy and perhaps more so in some areas of metaphysics. Others say if it hadn’t been Mary Baker Eddy, it would have been their teacher. Such statements proceed from ignorance.

In a letter to a worker, Mrs. Eddy wrote, “...charge all mistakes, so slight as this one, to the babyhood of this age in Christian Science. And remember, I am to all only as a Mother to her three year old children, seeing, desiring, needing, planning, performing, what they have no idea of.” (S.L. p.31, e.a.) What happens to a three year old who rejects, resists, and is ungrateful for his mother? How quickly does he become lost? What chance does this three year old have without a mother? What happens to this three year old when a conspiracy to take his mother away from him succeeds? Will he ever mature? Nothing can be more dangerous to the future of the three year old than to remove him from his mother’s care. The conspiracy to tear us from the arms of our spiritual mother’s care has been successful. It is no more evident than in the running to and fro of these three year olds trying to get the movement moving again — humanly. Mrs. Eddy refers to this as the “children …tending the regulator.” (Mis. p.354:12)

The argument, “Mrs. Eddy is no better than you or I,” is petty jealousy of another’s far greater purity and demonstration. It claims we are all the same so there is no need then to grow spiritually, no reward for excellence or purity. Then all becomes a dream, and ego can do anything ego wants to do. This error then denies correct progress and change.

The error in the movement is disobedience to the Manual, unwillingness to study Science and Health, disregard of Mrs. Eddy’s instructions, and the subordination of spiritual perception in order to make an idol of an authority figure, preferably a male.

The latent hatred in mortal mind, ready to spring forth and deny Jesus, was seen in the disciples’ ignoble conduct towards him that our Leader says brought about the “downfall of genuine Christianity.” (‘02 p.18:25) The same latent hatred or ignoble conduct for her is responsible for the weakening of the Christian Science movement. When CSB’s teach that anyone could have discovered Christian Science, they encourage jealousy, rivalry, personality worship, envy, egotism, self-righteousness, and willful disobedience. This unrighteousness produces criminality in its severest forms including mental manipulation and mental malpractice, — the obliteration of all second degree qualities.

The statement, anyone could have done it, raises ourselves in our own estimation to her level and leaves us open to accept false concepts of her, and therefore of her Science. This error gives credence to psychology and breakthroughs in mental sciences which mortal mind proclaims as being parallel to Christian Science. Then we consider it legitimate to say that the world is coming to Christian Science without her.

In the September 1, 1917 issue of the Christian Science Sentinel (e.a.), an article, written by Mrs. Eddy and previously unpublished, was included. It reads in part, “The inclination of mortal mind is to receive Christian Science through a belief instead of the understanding, and this inclination prevails like an epidemic on the body; it inflames mortal mind and weakens the intellect, but this so-called mortal mind is wholly ignorant of this fact, and so cherishes its mere faith in Christian Science.” The Christian Science movement, filled with this “weakened intellect,” is much more likely to accept false concepts about Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science. When told of this error, mortal mind becomes inflamed and declares, How dare you say I don’t love Mrs. Eddy and don’t understand Christian Science. Christian Science must be received through understanding, not belief. It is not enough to say, I am a Christian Scientist; we must understand Christian Science. It is this ‘weakened intellect’ that is first to reject the grandeur of the greatest woman who ever lived.

How does this affect healing?

If malicious animal magnetism convinces us that we, or others, are or could have been capable of discovering Christian Science, then we have rejected Mary Baker Eddy’s demonstration. Having accepted this error, we nullify the need for gratitude, affection, and compassion for her great life’s work and sacrifice. Animal magnetism has then robbed us of gratitude, meekness, humility, kindness, and mercy. Handled by this claim of A.M. we cannot heal nor can we be healed.

The lie that says we must impersonalize good does not understand that we must rather individualize good. Without this understanding, we are like mindless robots content to be told what to do with blind submission to evil. Equality in mortal mind enables mortal mind to dilute individuality and identity to the point where there is no excellence, no worth, no reward, and no fruitage from prayer. You can see then the imperative of M.A.M. to maintain that Mrs. Eddy is the same as everyone else.

What are the results in the world of this error?

Socialism is a rejection of individual excellence. It pulls everything down and reduces it to the lowest common denominator. When Christian Scientists accept the lie that Mrs. Eddy is no better than you or I, they are reinforcing all the claims of socialism in the world today. Many Christian Scientists have a false concept of heaven that includes an oriental Nirvana for which we need not work in order to achieve. They feel that “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven” can be accomplished by finding the best practitioner possible — cradle to grave mental care without individual effort.

What system has entered the world since our Leader left us that denies individuality, identity and reward, operating as covetousness and stealing? In the world, socialism destroys individual effort, goodness, and excellence. Russia [was] referred to as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Our Leader said, “You are master of the bad tendencies of Socialism and not at all at their cruel mercies.” (DCC p.108, e.a.) If we allow mortal mind to proclaim that we are all the same, and allow Mrs. Eddy to become the focal point of this attack, the world suffers from an obscuration of individuality and identity. This is M.A.M. Does it seem obvious to you that the attempted takeover of all mankind by this error is nothing but unhandled hatred for Mrs. Eddy?

If we are all the same, then we have no individual identity with God and God does not know His idea. This is atheistic mental communism within Christian Scientists. Think of the despair this brings, the horrible depression, the pressure and tension, the loneliness and total separation from reality. Christian Scientists must break the bonds of these Pharaohs “who today, as of yore, hold the children of Israel in bondage.” (S&H p.226:28-29) They must break the bonds of these Herods who would be lords over God’s heritage. The only ones who can stop the mental takeover of mankind are the Christian Scientists, and most seem not to care.

Mrs. Eddy said that violating the First Commandment and the Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” are the two most widely violated by Christian Scientists. (DCC p.183) These violations are the basis of communism. The reversal of the Science of the Christ brought that which the Communists call scientific dialectical materialism. Communism claims to be a science and did not appear to the world’s view until after Mrs. Eddy passed on. It kept trying to break forth while she was with us, but she kept A.M. in check. Mrs. Eddy said to James Gilman that M.A.M. was attempting to burst forth all over our country. She said, “I have been holding it back.” Gilman did not understand a word she was saying then, but later he came to see just what she was speaking about. The magnitude of Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration is evident when she says, “...if I were not here to still stand, the Catholics and Spiritualists would wipe every Christian Scientist out.” (DCC p.3) And there aren’t many of us left, are there?

Communism claims to have a perfect society where there are no accidents and all is well, with no mistakes. Sound familiar? It claims to want peace but of course recognizes no error. It claims to be a system that is open to all mankind, but is actually run by an elitist element. Communism is that which turns from an absolute moral authority and declares that it has the right to determine what is right and wrong. It says you have all of your rights, but must not speak up to defend them. Communism has its life in Christian Scientists who work to use Christian Science to build up pleasure in matter. It is rank materialism.

The misunderstanding of the nature of man and his relation to God in divine Science has produced the ignorant belief of internationalism that all nations and peoples are the same. It is called one world government and is based in a false concept of brotherhood that says we are all at peace because we are all the same, without individuality or identity. This ignorant belief of internationalism is one of the claims of socialistic communism. Why, if all nations are the same, did Mrs. Eddy say, “...does God require the best government on earth to disturb its peace by war to give Cuba her independence when other nations offer no help? Foreign nations are allied, but the United States stands alone in her glory.”? (DCC p.118, letter to Pres. McKinley’s wife, e.a.) One world government results when Christian Scientists are unwilling to tackle evil and refuse to discriminate between right and wrong. When Christian Scientists will not wage war against sin they become the recipients of every form of scholastic theology only in a more diabolical form than has ever been seen before. They express these evils of scholastic theology in more mental forms, and the results are far more dangerous. The claim of “moral equivalency,” that this nation and communist nations are basically much the same, is a lie.

Our Leader said that by the end of this century [20th], Christendom would be classified as Christian Scientists in this nation and a few far-off nations. (Pul. p.22:9) Are we all the same? This lie says that mortal mind is not more virulent or less virulent in us than in others. It says peace, peace when there is no peace. It is apathy, pleasure seeking, slumber, and sleep. All is well; God is Love. All we want is peace; forget the evil. We must get along with other mortal minds. There is no need to uncover evil, and therefore no need to defend against evil. We are all the same, with no borders, no identity, and no individuality. It is a colossal fraud being perpetrated upon the world because Christian Scientists do not want to stand for their Leader. Christian Scientists then become the impediment that stops the revelation of Christian Science from reaching mankind.

Mrs. Eddy’s view of herself

“That no one on earth to-day, aside from Mrs. Eddy, knows anything about Christian Science except as he has learned it from her and from her writings; and Christian Scientists are honest only as they give her full credit for this extraordinary work.” (My. p.vi:6, e.a.)

“In 1883, a million of people acknowledge and attest the blessings of this mental system of treating disease.” (Mis. p.35:7-9) “From the interior of Africa to the utmost parts of the earth, the sick and the heavenly homesick or hungry hearts are calling on me for help, and I am helping them.” (My. p.147:28-30) “No person can take the individual place of the Virgin Mary. No person can compass or fulfill the individual mission of Jesus of Nazareth. No person can take the place of the author of Science and Health, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science. Each individual must fill his own niche in time and eternity. The second appearing of Jesus is, unquestionably, the spiritual advent of the advancing idea of God, as in Christian Science.” (Ret. p.70:14-22)

What did Mrs. Eddy say about the hatred directed at herself?

“The constant spectacle of sin thrust upon the pure sense of the immaculate Jesus made him a man of sorrows.... Sad to say, the cowardice and self-seeking of his disciples helped crown with thorns the life of him who broke not the bruised reed and quenched not the smoking flax, — who caused not the feeble to fall, nor spared through false pity the consuming tares.... The ignoble conduct of his disciples towards their Master, showing their unfitness to follow him, ended in the downfall of genuine Christianity, about the year 325, and the violent death of all his disciples save one.” (‘02 p.18:4-5, 8-12, 25-29)

“The motives of his persecutors were pride, envy, cruelty, and vengeance, inflicted on the physical Jesus, but aimed at the divine Principle, Love, which rebuked their sensuality. Jesus was unselfish. His spirituality separated him from sensuousness, and caused the selfish materialist to hate him; but it was this spirituality which enabled Jesus to heal the sick, cast out evil, and raise the dead.” (S&H p.51:24-32)

“If that Godlike and glorified man were physically on earth to-day, would not some, who now profess to love him, reject him? Would they not deny him even the rights of humanity, if he entertained any other sense of being and religion than theirs? The advancing century, from a deadened sense of the invisible God, to-day subjects to unchristian comment and usage the idea of Christian healing enjoined by Jesus; but this does not affect the invincible facts.” (S&H p.54:29-5)

“The disciples’ desertion of their Master in his last earthly struggle was punished; each one came to a violent death except St. John, of whose death we have no record.” (S&H p.47:27) “It is quite as impossible for sinners to receive their full punishment this side of the grave as for this world to bestow on the righteous their full reward.” (S&H p.36:21-24) “Wherefore, then, smite the reformer who finds the more spiritual way, shortens the distance, discharges burdensome baggage, and increases the speed of mortals’ transit from matter to Spirit — yea, from sin to holiness?” (‘02 p.10:19-23)

“Physical torture affords but a slight illustration of the pangs which come to one upon whom the world of sense falls with its leaden weight in the endeavor to crush out of a career its divine destiny.” (No. p.34:14) “Whoever demonstrates the highest humanity, — long-suffering, self-surrender, and spiritual endeavor to bless others, — ought to be aided, not hindered, in his holy mission. I would kiss the feet of such a messenger, for to help such a one is to help one’s self.” (Pan. p.9:16-20)

“The Discoverer of this Science could tell you of timidity, of self-distrust, of friendlessness, toil, agonies, and victories, under which she needed miraculous vision to sustain her, when taking the first footsteps in this Science.” (Rud. p.17:10) “St. Paul declared that the law was the schoolmaster, to bring him to Christ. Even so was I led into the mazes of divine metaphysics through the gospel of suffering, the providence of God, and the cross of Christ. No one else can drain the cup which I have drunk to the dregs as the Discoverer and teacher of Christian Science; neither can its inspiration be gained without tasting this cup.” (Ret. p.30:17, e.a.)

“My life, consecrated to humanity through nameless suffering and sacrifice, furnishes its own proof of my practice.” (Mis. p.350:30) “The doors that this animal element flings open are those of rivalry, jealousy, envy, revenge. It is the self-asserting mortal will-power that you must guard against.” (Mis. p.281:3-5) “Error will hate more as it realizes more the presence of its tormentor. I shall fulfill my mission, fight the good fight, and keep the faith.” (Mis. p.278:5) “Time and goodness determine greatness.” (My. p.306:12 only)

Mr. Peel’s comments in Years of Authority

Throughout this sub-heading, bold italicized text provides more emphasis. “Now the farmer’s daughter had become a religious leader…” (p.9) “...her inner life was one of almost total unpredictability.” (p.12) “…and a reckless, breathtaking genius for improvisation.” (p.12) “Only three years before, in a series of smashing moves…” (p.12) “…there was nothing to suggest exactly where she was looking.” (p.13) “Mrs. Eddy’s thinking took unforeseeable twists and turns as she explored her way toward a new form of church polity.” (p.16) In just the first sixteen pages of Years of Authority, we can get an incorrect view of Mrs. Eddy from these negative terms: “a farmer’s daughter, unpredictability, reckless, improvisation, smashing moves, twists and turns.” By page sixteen we are liable to think that Mrs. Eddy may not have known what she was doing.

(p.24) Notice, that she is just like all of us. “Mrs. Eddy began to pace the floor. Gradually her anguished concern for the whole movement came to the surface. Would it not be better, she asked almost despairingly, if there were no teaching at all… Her mounting distress went far beyond the Foster Eddy episode…But her momentarily overwhelming dread…” It appears she was awfully emotional, doesn’t it?

In relation to Mrs. Eddy’s son and her grandchildren we read, she “concealed her disappointment as best she could.” (p.25) George sent her a present and she thanked him just like any of us would do. Thanking George for a present she then “sighed” and wrote, “But dear son, I wish it was full of love for God, and I hope that it is.” How does one sigh in a letter? Then she has “a rather worried concern for the way the Glovers were bringing up their children.” Just like all parents! Emotional negatives abound here, “disappointment, sighed, worried, concern.” And I thought Mrs. Eddy would have prayed about it all, wouldn’t you? “The family in Lead, South Dakota, may have had its own moment of amusement, or bewilderment, over her desire to export to their easygoing community the social standards of the eastern seaboard.” (p.26) Did her own family giggle and laugh about her, or were they “totally bewildered” by her standards? We know they were not. (p.27) We read, “…but soon her realism began to sound the alarm to her affections…” Is he telling us Mrs. Eddy’s affections were unwise, not under control and therefore she is just like all of us?

(p.49) We read, “Once again Mrs. Eddy had mixed feelings; once again the ardor of her followers carried the day; once again the delay in applying for inclusion made difficulties…” Couldn’t she do anything right? We read, “In spite of the magniloquent echo of Jeremiah’s lament, her words as usual seem to have had the effect of rousing rather than dispiriting her listeners.” (p.83) Magniloquent is defined as “lofty manner, pompous words.”

(p.86) Without explaining Mrs. Eddy’s need to wake people up before they reached the point of death, Mr. Peel writes, “…his [Frye’s] undeniable peculiarities of behavior, almost drove Mrs. Eddy wild on occasion.” Notice Mrs. Eddy had no control. Then, “Stonily he would enter in his diary her sudden outburst.” Who said he did it “stonily” and that he called them “sudden outbursts”? Then, “…Mrs. E[ddy] was disturbed with my driving yesterday called me an idiot insane and so forth.” Mrs. Eddy was describing Frye’s mental stupor and was trying to awaken him. She loved him dearly and had raised him from the dead at least five times. (Robert Putnam, Items from the Science of Life, p.86) She could very well have had a serious accident, which she almost did on several occasions when the driver was not mentally clear. She was not personally attacking Mr. Frye. Once, when Foster Eddy was driving Mrs. Eddy down State Street in Concord, he drove right into a large hole and out again. “…Mrs. Eddy was thrown out of the carriage as it went down and back up. The wheel was just about to come over her neck and face, and she said afterward, ‘Love stopped that wheel, and would not let it come over me.’” (The Founding of Christian Science, by Doris Grekel, p. 282) Do you think Mrs. Eddy had a reason to speak to Mr. Frye with words that would wake him up? Why does Mr. Peel include “Mrs. E[ddy] called me an idiot insane and so forth.”?

(p.79) Now here’s a dandy. “There were times when she felt she could share her human weakness more easily with Bennie [Mrs. Eddy’s adopted son] than with anyone else.” Now he is telling us that Mrs. Eddy is so humanly weak that she must gain strength by confiding in a mental midget. Then Peel quotes a letter to prove his point. “Dear me, how frail is our fortitude to annihilate the claims of personality! What a poor demonstrator of this am I. To resolve and re-resolve and then go on the same. Cannot Love better than the rod of Love wean us from all flesh and help us to love only the unseen, untouched, immaterialized person, the divine not human.” This was said from a point of view above what the rest of us would consider human weakness. Jesus could have said the same thing about his feelings while in the Garden. Mrs. Eddy was working out age beliefs, continuous projected mental malpractice against herself, raising the dead, and dedicating almost every available moment to dispensing the life-giving truth of Christian Science through every available avenue for all mankind and having to accomplish all of this while working in the full range of the human equation.

“To…Carol Norton, she wrote, ‘My heart speaks to you in my last book,’ whereas in Science and Health, she continued, there was so much of ‘the divine Heart,’ or what she elsewhere called ‘the great heart of Christ,’ that there was less of her own human feelings.” (p.103) Mrs. Eddy’s human feeling did not enter into any of her works.

(p.104) Mr. Peel records his own personal interpretation of what he thought her students saw, “…also a woman with an idiom and idiosyncrasies of her own, costumed and coiffured in the fashion of her day, relaxing into personal reminiscence, sentiment, fancy, — and sometimes into unexpected intimacy.” Don’t these word pictures describe an average and pretentious woman?

(p.108) “Attired rather magnificently [not graciously or appropriately dressed as the Leader of a world wide movement] in a dress that had been chosen for her by Augusta Stetson, with one of the fashionable little bonnets for which she had a feminine weakness…” All women wore bonnets in those days. Did Jesus have a masculine weakness for seamless robes?

(p.105) “Her style, at its best and at its worst…” When does God’s revelator, indited to write His Word, write at her worst? This leaves a question about her qualifications in the mind of the reader. Who is Robert Peel to question the revelator? Again we read, “The ornamental ‘literary’ passages belonged much more to her own time and background, and in successive revisions the would-be litterateur often gave way at last to the religious thinker and leader.” Here she is, in her early days, making a fool out of herself with her writing style and as she matured she came to herself. After all, a “would be litterateur” means she was aspiring to be something she was not, a ‘literary woman.’ Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear what the editors of prominent publications who purchased and printed Mrs. Eddy’s writings in her early days would say about Peel’s disdainful assessment of her writing abilities? What would they say about his?

(p.121) “Mrs. Eddy might already be responding in thought to ‘calls for help’ from India, China, and the interior of Africa…” In Miscellany Mrs. Eddy said she was responding to them. (My. 147:28-30) Apparently Mr. Peel does not agree with Mrs. Eddy.

(p.178) Here the reader sees a new Mrs. Eddy: “…Mrs. Eddy had transacted her business…only to storm back a few minutes later, ordering Calvin Frye and Clara Shannon to confess their ‘sins’…to the startled company, then lecturing them all severely on the state of their thinking.” Mrs. Eddy explains that God directed her to do this in the very next paragraph but Mr. Peel uses the words storm, ordering, startled company, severely. How one views Mrs. Eddy determines how one writes of an event and the words one uses to describe them.

(p.190) “Kimball, who was less impressed than Mrs. Eddy by what he called ‘the effete nobility of Great Britain’…” Mrs. Eddy, we are told, was more impressed by the effete nobility than that clear, calm, thinking man, Kimball. ‘Effete’ is defined as “barren, not capable of producing young. Worn out with age.” Isn’t it marvelous that we had Mr. Kimball, a man at the helm, while that silly woman was here? Wasn’t Kimball the one who was impressed by the Pope? (See page 84.)

(p.234) Here we find Mrs. Eddy’s dreams connected to Dr. Freud, a name almost universally associated with sexuality. “During this time [Freud’s time] Mrs. Eddy confided to Laura Sargent a dream or ‘vision’ which she had had some time before…” Mr. Peel then says, “It takes no dubious Freudian rubric to disclose the psychobiographical — or, better, the metabiographical — significance of a vision so rooted in a unique lifework.” Are we, as Christian Scientists, to use Freudian psychology to delineate Mrs. Eddy’s dreams?

(p.272) Here Peel commends Farlow for not being obedient to Mrs. Eddy’s directions. Peel then leads us to believe that Mr. Farlow was right, and Mrs. Eddy wrong. Mrs. Eddy was never wrong. “But before she had done with the matter, [McClure’s magazine] one final brief flare of hurt and indignation had led her to an impulsive step.” This “impulsive step,” in Peel’s view, was a request to the Board by Mrs. Eddy that they should request Christian Scientists to discontinue their subscriptions to the Literary Digest and McClure’s, which were including scurrilous articles about her. The letter, written after they rejected her request, is then quoted from Mrs. Eddy to the Board, “I agree with Mr. Farlow and with you that some other means would be better.” The men had already rejected her demand and they would not support her nor stand up for her. What was she to do, fight them again? They did not see the danger of allowing her to be derided in public and they did not care. Their own consideration was to handle it in a businesslike manner, so it would not become a problem nor cause embarrassment for themselves.

(p.319) “If you knew with what I am beset continually arguments of dementia incompetence, old age etc. it would explain why I am so changed. [Peel does not make plain nor does he explain that she did not suffer from dementia, incompetence, and old age, but that these arguments were used against her by the mental malpractitioners.] Mr. Dickey yields to m.a.m. to such an extent he affords me very little help in anything. I have to correct him continually.” Then, as if Mr. Peel did not understand one word she said, he says, “Few if any of her students escaped this sort of censure entirely. Sometimes it seems to have been a momentary relief from exasperation or overburdened nerves.” Would any Christian Science practitioner even make such a statement, let alone in print, about a patient? It is important that a biographer of Mrs. Eddy’s life should have experience in the Christian Science practice.

(p.410, n.64) “Mrs. Stetson, who herself was something of a fashion plate, chose many gowns and bonnets for Mrs. Eddy…” Is this supposed to infer that Mrs. Eddy was a fashion plate, a negative term?

(p.350) “One trying day when Mrs. Sargent had said or done something which greatly annoyed Mrs. Eddy, the latter burst out afterward to Adelaide Still, ‘That woman hasn’t a scrap of gratitude for all that I’ve done for her.’ The shocked Adelaide protested, ‘You know that isn’t so, Mrs. Eddy, it’s just animal magnetism that makes you say things like that.’ [Notice Adelaide didn’t say it was Laura who was handled by a.m.] Mrs. Eddy pointed sternly to a chair opposite her and said, ‘Sit down, Adelaide!’” Mrs. Eddy went on to remind Adelaide that she had discovered Christian Science and A.M. and not she. Adelaide was clearly out of line. Then notice what Peel has to say about this, that when Laura came back Adelaide quietly absorbed the lesson: “…one impulsive reaction [Mrs. Eddy’s] was not to be cured by another impulsive reaction [Adelaide’s]…” The very strong implication is that Mrs. Eddy was a mortal mind reactor.

(p.350) “…with the struggles that wracked her, the weakness that beset her, the occasional violent storms that exploded when she was under special stress.” You should not wonder why there is almost no healing going on in the Christian Science movement when our Leader is portrayed in this manner. And the saddest of all, many who read this, believe this.

(p.351) “On occasion the whole household could be thrown into upheaval by a small misunderstanding…As Mrs. Eddy, following the sudden outburst, sat in her armchair, a little dazed by the small tempest she herself had set in motion, she suddenly roused herself…” You will notice that Mr. Peel infers that our Leader made the mistakes and was responsible.

Our Leader says, “Are you a Christian Scientist or not? Then take up the work and put an end to these scandalous attacks on your Leader and Best Earthly Friend. God is judging us this hour, and we shall be accountable to Him for all.” (DCC p.52) The red dragon cannot tell us we would be embarrassed to speak up for our Leader, for we are not cowards. We reflect Spirit as the source of all power and we have the dominion that enables us to help our Leader. There is no egotism of place or pride of intellect. No one but Mary Baker Eddy could have discovered Christian Science. The law of evil does not govern us. It is Love alone that founded our Cause and we will not allow the malice of A.M. to keep us from loving our Leader. She said,

My beloved students: Enter into the closet of divine Love and there in humility ask this ever-present power to shield and to defend you from the enemies of your souls and bodies, to defend you and guard you and guide you in the paths of righteousness, pleasantness and Truth.

Divinity Course and General Collectanea, p.160

See the nothingness of the lie by feeling the Allness that is divine Love.

The subtle argument of the red dragon, that Mrs. Eddy is no better than you or I, that anyone could have discovered Christian Science and written Science and Health, violates the “Office of Spirit: The presence of omnipotence, the activity and substance of all; the agent of the vital and conscious functions in man.” (Marie K. Larkin, CSB.) The subtle arguments of the red dragon create, promote, and enforce all the claims of dialectical materialism. It rejects the attributes of Spirit so necessary in the Christian Science movement: moral and spiritual might, the source of all supply, supreme strength, feeding thought, tenacity, backbone, ardor, energy, devotion, industry, perseverance, moral sensibility, courage, confidence, fortitude, ego, omnipotence.

Argument #5 of the red dragon: To love and actively support Mrs. Eddy is personality worship and deification based in emotionalism.

This lie, one of the subtle arguments of the seven-headed red dragon, would reverse one of the synonyms — Soul, spiritual sense.

Mrs. Eddy, in her colloquy in Unity of Good, relates a conversation between good and evil. “Evil. [says] God hath said, ‘Ye shall eat of every tree of the garden.’ If you do not, your intellect will be circumscribed and the evidence of your personal senses be denied. This would antagonize individual consciousness and existence.” (Un. p.21:10)

Notice that mortal mind believes it will lose all individuality and existence if it does not partake of matter. Then mortal mind says there is no individuality outside of matter. So, to the materialists, Mrs. Eddy could not possibly have spiritual individuality, and to think that she could have spiritual individuality while appearing to be a mortal is to them inconceivable. But, remember, this is an argument of the serpent, personal sense, which rejects Soul. Our Leader further states:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ (St. John). This great truth of God’s impersonality and individuality and of man in His image and likeness, individual, but not personal, is the foundation of Christian Science. There was never a religion or philosophy lost to the centuries except by sinking its divine Principle in personality.

Miscellany, p.117:18-24 e.a.

Isn’t she telling us that the only individuality and identity we have is in Spirit, Soul, and that this understanding is the foundation of Christian Science? What happens to Christian Science if we do not understand our spiritual individuality and identity?

“In the allegory of Genesis, third chapter and ninth verse,” we find “two mortals, walking in the cool of the day...” (Mis. p.332:13) This allegory shows the rejection of spiritual individuality and identity. Mrs. Eddy gives the correction for this when she says, “Evil in the beginning claimed the power, wisdom, and utility of good; and every creation or idea of Spirit has its counterfeit in some matter belief. Every material belief hints the existence of spiritual reality; and if mortals are instructed in spiritual things, it will be seen that material belief, in all its manifestations, reversed, will be found the type and representative of verities priceless, eternal, and just at hand.” (Mis. p.60:25) “Personality is not the individuality of man.” (S&H p.491:25-26) If personality is not the individuality of man, then where is your individuality? Is it in Mind, Soul, or is it in matter?

It is evident that our Leader did not want us claiming that which is in the flesh to be spiritual. In fact, she called this the anti-Christ; but at the same time, she wanted us to understand that our spiritual individuality is right where personal sense says we, as mortals, are. The following quotes show Mrs. Eddy’s thought on this subject.

The lie of deification

“There is but one Jesus Christ on record. Christ is incorporeal. Neither the you nor the I in the flesh can be or is Christ.” (My. p.260:30, e.a.) “A despatch is given me, calling for an interview to answer for myself, ‘Am I the second Christ?’ There was, is, and never can be but one God, one Christ, one Jesus of Nazareth. Whoever in any age expresses most of the spirit of Truth and Love, the Principle of God’s idea, has most of the spirit of Christ, of that Mind which was in Christ Jesus... But to think or speak of me in any manner as a Christ, is sacrilegious.” (Pul. p.74:13-15, 27-4, 7-8) “I warn students against falling into the error of anti-Christ. The consciousness of corporeality, and whatever is connected therewith, must be outgrown.” (Mis. p.309:18-20) “The belief in anti-Christ: that somebody in the flesh is the son of God, or is another Christ, or is a spiritually adopted child, or is an incarnated babe, is the evil one — in other words, the one evil — disporting itself with the subtleties of sin!” (Mis. p.111:30, e.a.) “Scholasticism clings for salvation to the person, instead of to the divine Principle, of the man Jesus; and his Science, the curative agent of God, is silenced.” (S&H p.146:15-17)

“I charge you not to have your students think that it is I personally that changes your actions and thoughts, for it is not I. It is God and has moved the world in this way. If you plant this change on a person — it will not prosper, but if you know and say the Divine Principle is doing it, all will end well.” (S.L. p.105, e.a.) “Awake, and arise from this temptation produced by animal magnetism upon yourself, allowing your students to deify you and me. Treat yourself for it and get your students to help you rise out of it. It will be your destruction if you do not do this.” (S.L. p.58, e.a.) “Never again allow [evil] to ‘make you believe it can make you as gods,’ in other words, a ‘divine personality...’” (S.L. p.80) “Jesus defined devil as a mortal who is full of evil An incorrect concept of the nature of evil hinders the destruction of evil.” (No. p.22:24 only, p.26-2)

“Whatever contradicts the real nature of the divine Esse, though human faith may clothe it with angelic vestments, is without foundation.”

(S&H p.93:18)

“Silencing self, alias rising above corporeal personality, is what reforms the sinner and destroys sin.” (Ret. p.67:13-14, e.a.)

Deification and blasphemy

Mrs. Eddy tells us, “To love one’s neighbor as one’s self, is a divine idea; but this idea can never be seen, felt, nor understood through the physical senses. Excite the organ of veneration or religious faith, and the individual manifests profound adoration. Excite the opposite development, and he blasphemes.” (S&H p.88:18-23, e.a.) Notice that there is veneration (deification), and blasphemy (hatred and contempt), both from physical sense. Both are emotions and destroy the ability to heal.

“Physical sensation, not Soul, produces material ecstasy and emotion.” (S&H p.7:17-18) “Outward worship is not of itself sufficient to express loyal and heartfelt gratitude, since he has said: ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments.’” (S&H p.4:9) “In proportion as the personal and material element stole into religion, it lost Christianity and the power to heal...” (Hea. p.3:10-12)

“I am the Christ. ...I have denied this privately and publicly.... Read my books on this subject and you will find I always explain Christ as the invisible and never corporeal. Jesus was a man corporeal, Christ was, is, and forever will be the Holy Ghost, or in scientific phrase, the spiritual Idea of God. I am corporeal to the senses, even as Paul was. But God has anointed me to do His work, to reveal His Word, to lead His people. Jesus was the man that was a prophet and the best and greatest man that ever has appeared on earth, but Jesus was not Christ, for Christ is the spiritual individual that the eye cannot see. Jesus was called Christ only in the sense that you say, a Godlike man. I am only a Godlike woman, God-anointed, and I have done a work that none others could do. As Paul was not understood and Jesus was not understood at the time they taught and demonstrated, so I am not. As following them and obeying them blessed all who did thus — so obeying me and following faithfully blesses all who do this. Now darling, never again misinterpret Christ or the visible.” (S.L. p.71-72, e.a.)

“In time of religious or scientific prosperity, certain individuals are inclined to cling to the personality of its leader. This state of mind is sickly; it is a contagion — a mental malady, which must be met and overcome. Why? Because it would dethrone the First Commandment, Thou shalt have one God. Declaring the truth regarding an individual

or leader, rendering praise to whom praise is due, is not a symptom of this contagious malady, but persistent pursuit of his or her person is.”

(My. p.116:6,18, e.a.) Personality is what personal sense sees, individuality is what God sees of His own, and, recognizing our oneness with God, we can see it also.

Seeing the spiritual idea

We must recognize the spiritual idea right where the material seems to be. It is the lack of spiritual sense that deifies and it is the lack of spiritual sense that rejects the spiritual idea operating right where material sense says it is life and sensation. It is the emotion of blasphemy, the counterpart of deification, which rejects the spiritual idea. Every human seems to have a belief of personality (personal sense) and has, at the same time, spiritual individuality. This spiritual individuality can be perceived through spiritual sense, as our Leader says, “Human beings are physically mortal, but spiritually immortal.” (Un. p.37:17-18) “IS MAN A PERSON? Man is more than physical personality, or what we cognize through the material senses.” (No. p.25:8-10) She also says, “Infinite personality must be incorporeal.” (Mis. p.102:16) Was it the material personality of Elijah and Moses that appeared to Christ Jesus on the Mount? Of course not, it was their spiritual individuality, the same individuality that animated them while they were on earth. If we had lived in their time, wouldn’t we have loved them for their spiritual individuality? On the mount, Moses and Elijah had individuality but not personality. While on earth they seemed to have personality but were individual ideas of Soul. If this were not so, they could not have been seen as the same individuals retaining the same individuality they had while on earth. (See Mis. p.22:10-14.)

We see that spiritual sense, Soul, was inseparable from our Leader. She said, “No student, no being on earth can change my true sense of an individual. No matter what is said to me, it cannot move me in the absolute.” (S.L. p.12) This enabled her to say, “Man is free from the flesh and is individual in consciousness — in Mind, not in matter.” (My. p.119:8-10) Personality is a belief of separation from God, whereas, spiritual individuality is inseparable from divine Love and is the immediate reflection of God; there is no spiritual individuality or selfhood apart from Soul. Notice also, Jesus saw from the standpoint of Soul — not material sense — and thus was able to see man’s spiritual individuality right where the flesh appeared to be. But material sense does not see this. “To Jesus, not materiality, but spirituality, was the reality of man’s existence, while to the rabbis the spiritual was the intangible and uncertain, if not the unreal.” (S&H p.352:8) Are Christian Scientists like the rabbis, seeing Mrs. Eddy only as a mortal?

If we see Mrs. Eddy through personal sense, it is either deification (mysticism) or rejection and contempt (blasphemy and superstition). The understanding of Science will correct these lies. We see this in what Mrs. Eddy has to say about Christ Jesus in the following quotes.

Jesus — the embodiment of the idea

“Jesus of Nazareth was a natural and divine Scientist. He was so before the material world saw him.” (Ret. p.26:17-18) Notice Jesus had spiritual identity before he appeared humanly. It was because of this that Mrs. Eddy could say, “One great master clearly delineates Christ’s appearing in the flesh, and his healing power, as clad not in soft raiment or gorgeous apparel ” (Mis. p.373:15-17, e.a.)

“This Life, Truth, and Love — this trinity of good — was individualized, to the perception of mortal sense, in the man Jesus.” (Rud. p.3:8-10, e.a.) Even mortal sense was able to recognize the good in the man Jesus. But still, they could not see the spiritual Jesus. Our Leader says, “Because of mortals’ material and sinful belief, the spiritual Jesus was imperceptible to them.” (S&H p.314:23-24, e.a.) How can Christian Scientists see the spiritual Mary Baker Eddy? “When mortal mind is silenced by the ‘still, small voice’ of Truth that regenerates philosophy and logic; and Jesus, as the true idea of Him, is heard as of yore saying to sensitive ears and dark disciples, ‘I came from the Father,’ ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’ coexistent and coeternal with God....” (Mis. p.360:25-30, e.a.) In the same way she described …“Jesus, as the true idea of Him”…, doesn’t this tell us that the words of Mary Baker Eddy come from Mrs. Eddy as the true idea of Him — the spiritual Mrs. Eddy?

Mrs. Eddy — the embodiment of the idea

Because Mrs. Eddy saw the spiritual idea concerning herself, she could ask, “Do you love that which represents God most, His highest idea as seen to-day? No!” (Mis. p.336:8, e.a.) Not to love her leads to blasphemy. And what is the danger of rejecting, condemning, and criticizing this idea? She said:

If all the students of C.S. should desert the spiritual idea and its embodiment at this period, as they did in the first century and suffer the consequence, our Cause would be lost, but the thought of this is all that gives me the sharp sense of the time required to undo such errors as this would again introduce, even the groans of Gethsemane and at times the sweat of agony. But God is Love and careth for us who love Him.

Mrs. Eddy’s Letters to Augusta Stetson, p.47, e.a.

…God will save you and by adhering to His lonely, present highest idea of love, you will hold to its Principle and be safe.

Ibid. p.42, e.a.

To impersonalize is not to de-individualize or nullify one’s spiritual identity, the identity that is right here, right now. She says, “Man has perpetual individuality; and God’s laws, and their intelligent and harmonious action, constitute his individuality in the Science of Soul.” (No. p.11:5) Many Christian Scientists think that because the mortal is nothing, they may abuse the mortal concept, not seeing the spiritual idea right where that mortal concept appears to be. She says, “He who gains the God-crowned summit of Christian Science never abuses the corporeal personality, but uplifts it. He thinks of everyone in his real quality, and sees each mortal in an impersonal depict.” (Ret. p.76:23, e.a.) Along these lines she also says, “From that hour personal corporeality became less to me than it is to people who fail to appreciate individual character. I endeavored to lift thought above physical personality, or selfhood in matter, to man’s spiritual individuality in God, — in the true Mind, where sensible evil is lost in supersensible good. This is the only way whereby the false personality is laid off.” (Ret. p.73:12, e.a.) How can we ever realize spiritual individuality if we do not appreciate the spiritual individuality of Mary Baker Eddy? If we allow her, our best friend, to be abused, we are surrendering our own spiritual identity to material sense, the red dragon.

When we do not understand her grand life-demonstration, we cannot see her spiritual individuality and thus ignorantly proclaim that she was only a mortal. Mrs. Eddy says, “His disciples, who had not yet drunk of his cup, lost sight of him; they could not behold his immortal being in the form of Godlikeness.” (Mis. p.212:31) Do we wonder why Christian Scientists don’t see the spiritual Mary Baker Eddy? She also says, “The opposite and false views of the people hid from their sense Christ’s sonship with God. They could not discern his spiritual existence. Their carnal minds were at enmity with it. Their thoughts were filled with mortal error, instead of with God’s spiritual idea as presented by Christ Jesus. The likeness of God we lose sight of through sin, which beclouds the spiritual sense of Truth: and we realize this likeness only when we subdue sin and prove man’s heritage, the liberty of the sons of God.” (S&H p.315:11, e.a.) Does this tell us why there are so many problems in Boston?

“Had both writers and translators in that age [translators of the older Scriptures] fully comprehended the later teachings and demonstrations of our human and divine Master, the Old Testament might have been as spiritual as the New.” (Mis. p.187:17, e.a.) He was our Master when here and when in heaven. Our Leader was our Leader when here and she is now as the spiritual idea. As Jesus was both our human and divine Master, then we can understand what the human and divine coincidence is. Our Leader says, “His physical sufferings, which came from the testimony of the senses, were over when he resumed his individual spiritual being, after showing us the way to escape from the material body.” (Mis. p.105:8) What did she mean to resume “his individual spiritual being”? Was his spiritual being taking a rest in bed? This could not be if it is ‘perpetual.’ Now we see the import of Mrs. Eddy’s statement about the human and divine coincidence “shown in the man Jesus, as divinity embracing humanity in Life and its demonstration.” (S&H p.561:16) Mrs. Eddy had to use the word ‘resume’ to define the life that is without obstruction and obscuration. But life could never be interrupted, for spiritual life cannot ever be set aside. The word ‘resume’ is used from the view of mortals.

“Unlike mortal mind, which must be ever in bondage, the eternal Mind is free, unlimited, and knows not the temporal... Jesus’ personality in the flesh, so far as material sense could discern it, was like that of other men; but Science exchanges this human concept of Jesus for the divine ideal, his spiritual individuality that reflected the Immanuel, or ‘God with us.’.... The individuality is embraced in Mind, therefore is forever with the Father. Hence the Scripture, ‘I am a God at hand, saith the Lord.’ Even while his personality was on earth and in anguish, his individual being, the Christ, was at rest in the eternal harmony.” (Mis. p.103:16, 24-28, 30-2)

As we see from Mrs. Eddy’s own words, she did not consider herself to be ‘nothing.’ She and we have spiritual individuality right now. It is personal sense only that robs us of this vision. This vision extended not only to herself, but to everything in her experience. Where Christian Scientists would say, material things are nothing, Mrs. Eddy would see the spiritual reality behind them.

How are we to view Christ and Christmas?

Mrs. Eddy’s book, Christ and Christmas, and comments of hers and others concerning it, give us a view from the following: (1) deification based in idolatry, (2) blasphemy based in ignorant superstition, or (3) from the correct view given us by Mrs. Eddy. Here she describes the first and second views: “Evil was, and is, the illusion of breaking the First Commandment, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me:’ it is either idolizing something and somebody, or hating them: it is the spirit of idolatry, envy, jealousy, covetousness, superstition, lust,

hypocrisy, witchcraft.” (Mis. p.123:3) The first view (1) is deification of personality, while the second (2) is blasphemy.

Mr. Peel says that Mrs. Eddy …“explicitly denied that the woman in the picture represented a person.” (Auth. p.390 #27) What Mrs. Eddy said was that the picture did not represent personality. Continuing, Mr. Peel informs us that the sitting figure that looks like Christ Jesus, is Jesus. How, therefore, can the figure that looks like Mrs. Eddy not be Mrs. Eddy? The figure of Christ Jesus represents the spiritual idea, the identity known as Christ Jesus, and that is not personality. The figure of Mary Baker Eddy represents the spiritual idea, the identity known as Mrs. Eddy, and that is not personality. Many Christian Scientists, including Mr. Peel, do not understand the difference between personality and individuality. They label as deification any reference to a person’s individuality. That is why Mrs. Eddy cautioned us by saying, “Advanced scientific students are ready for ‘Christ and Christmas;’ but those are a minority of its readers. ” (Mis. p.308:12-13) Obviously, those students who see Christ and Christmas as described in the first and second views above do not understand the book.

Mrs. Eddy also said, “All clergymen may not understand the illustrations in ‘Christ and Christmas;’ or that these refer not to personality, but present type and shadow of Truth’s appearing in the womanhood as well as in the manhood of God, our divine Father and Mother.” (Mis. p.33:7) What two individuals presented the ideal manhood and womanhood of God? Which two revealed the fatherhood and the motherhood of God? Remember, spiritual individuality is viewed through spiritual sense, and personality is viewed through material sense. In his book, Mr. Peel quotes Mrs. Eddy’s reference to Christ and Christmas, “To impersonalize scientifically the material sense of existence — rather than cling to personality — is the lesson of to-day.” (Auth. p.64) To impersonalize the figures does not mean the figures do not represent the “type and shadow” of the ideal manhood and womanhood of God. Mrs. Eddy is not saying the figures do not represent Christ Jesus and Mary Baker Eddy, the spiritual ideas. Christian Scientists personalize much in their experience and they did this many times to Mrs. Eddy, and she did not want this done. But to impersonalize the truth does not mean we de-individualize the one who brought the truth. There were many who saw her place in Bible prophecy and recognized her place as being fulfilled by the spiritual idea, Mrs. Eddy, just as the spiritual Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but not the personal Jesus. The test for us all is to see the spiritual idea in its impersonal depict but not de-identify or de-individualize her.

The following may help to further explain this issue. Your shadow is cast by yourself. The shadow is not your identity, but certainly represents your individual identity. Just as your shadow represents you, so you, as a human, must represent your true identity. We would not annihilate, obliterate, or erase the type and shadow, but are grateful for the reality they represent and reveal to us.

Mr. Peel wrote, “The Stetson trauma had brought its own blessing to the founder of Christian Science in a deepened sense of what she had written years before in connection with Christ and Christmas: ‘Idolatry is an easily-besetting sin of all peoples.’” (Auth. p.348) Does Mr. Peel mean that Mrs. Eddy felt Christ and Christmas was idolatrous? Or does he mean that all who see Mrs. Eddy and Jesus in Christ and Christmas are idolatrous? Shouldn’t he have made it clear that seeing the personal sense of Jesus and Mrs. Eddy in Christ and Christmas could tend to be idolatrous?

In addition he wrote, “If she should be deified by her followers, the truth she had expounded would again be lost to the world.” (Auth. p. 206) Those new to Christian Science think that the greatest danger is in deifying Mrs. Eddy; but that is not so. Mrs. Eddy was not afraid of being deified, as she knew the greatest error was total rejection of her. She wrote, “As a rule the Adam-race are not apt to worship the pioneer of spiritual ideas, — but ofttimes to shun him as their tormentor.” (‘00 p.3:15-18) Superstition then ignorantly views all love, respect, gratitude, and appreciation for her as deification.

Then Mr. Peel writes, “Did, for instance, the aureoled female figure standing hand in hand with Jesus and bearing a scroll labeled ‘Christian Science’ represent Truth, or did she represent Mrs. Eddy?” (p.60) Mr. Peel then goes on to declare that, of course, it did not represent Mrs. Eddy. Again, we see the danger of not understanding the difference between personality and individuality. Mrs. Eddy wrote:

I feel this Poem and its illustrations are the same as my other works on Christian Science, fresh from the spirit of inspiration. Those who criticize them seem to know neither me nor the Divine Principle that is revealing itself to this age.

Mrs. Eddy’s Letters to Augusta Stetson, p.17

This quote makes clear why she said that only “advanced scientific students are ready for ‘Christ and Christmas’ ” (Mis. p.308:12)

How does Mr. Peel feel about Christ and Christmas? He terms it “...a Christmas gift book by a self-taught artist from rural Vermont ”

(p.44) It was not a Christmas gift book, and God supplied this “self-taught artist,” from not just Vermont but rural Vermont. What part of Vermont was not rural in those days? How does Mr. Peel define the other artist of Christ and Christmas, his Leader: “...an untrained theologian from rural New Hampshire....” What school of theology did Jesus attend?

Speaking of Miss Annie Dodge, who wrote lovingly of Christ and Christmas, Mr. Peel says, “This fulsome young lady....” (p.61) ‘Fulsome’ is defined as “disgusting because excessive.” He then ridicules her qualifications in critiquing Mrs. Eddy’s work. Then to top it all off we read, “Neither Mrs. Eddy nor James Gilman was qualified or inclined to dispute young Miss Dodge’s judgment ” Here are that intellectually inadequate Mrs. Eddy and that “untrained artist from rural Vermont” again. [Read for yourself Miss Dodge’s words concerning Christ and Christmas in Miscellaneous Writings, p.375:8-15 on the next page, that includes her qualifications.] Mr. Peel then goes on to say that Miss Dodge “dragged Botticelli and Fra Angelico like twin red herrings [loaded words] across the serious questions raised by Christ and Christmas.” (e.a.) Whose serious questions? Who says that Mrs. Eddy did not know what she was doing or that Gilman was not much of an artist? Is Robert Peel an art critic too?

In her letter, Miss Dodge goes on to say (Mis. p.376:8), referring to Jesus, “the face having been taken by Fra Angelico from Caesar’s Cameo, the figure and garments from a description, in The Galaxy, of a small sketch handed down from the living reality. Their productions are expressionless copies of an engraving cut in a stone. Yours is a palpitating living Saviour engraven on the heart. You have given us back our Jesus, and in a much better form.”

Peel tells us that Mrs. Eddy wrote severely to Annie Dodge in order to stop her from engaging in personality worship. (Auth. p. 298) Again, this does not mean Annie Dodge was incorrect in her artistic assessments, it merely means that the origin of her statements was incorrect. As we know, Jesus accepted recognition of his place in prophecy from those who saw it correctly, even called some of them fools who did not recognize it. But when the recognition of his place came through personal sense, Jesus was quick to shut it off.

We are all aware that many looked upon the illustrations in Christ and Christmas as a golden calf, and saw the figures as representing personality. However, the “advanced scientific students” saw these as “type and shadow” that pointed to spiritual reality. Mrs. Eddy wrote an early student, “I intended the book for a novelty and an awakening, then for the readers to return to the books for study that teach not through the senses, but take one away from them. It is as pernicious for any one but a child to give that book to one, or use it for one’s self for healing, as to take drugs.” (S.L. p. 19)

“‘Christ and Christmas’ voices Christian Science through song and object-lesson. In two weeks from the date of its publication in December, 1893, letters extolling it were pouring in from artists and poets.” (Mis. p.372:7)

Many Christian Scientists refuse to appreciate Christ and Christmas, not being “advanced scientific students.” When asked by the London Onlooker for a list of her six most important works, Mrs. Eddy named Christ and Christmas as fifth on the list. For those who think it only a Christmas gift book, let us consider Mrs. Newman’s statement (WKMBE Vol. I, p.31), “She [MBE] spoke at this time with ardor of her work on her illustrated poem, ‘Christ and Christmas.’ It was evidently dear to her heart.” Mrs. Eddy wrote to Carol Norton, “Christ and Christmas was an inspiration from beginning to end. The power of God and the wisdom of God was even more manifest in it and guided me more perceptibly, as those of my household can attest, than when I wrote Science and Health… He [God] taught me that the art of Christian Science has come through inspiration the same as its Science has. Hence the great error of human opinions passing judgment on it.” (Founding CS p.177, Grekel)

Practical application of the human and divine coincidence

We must understand the difference between personality and individuality. Mr. Peel writes in Authority (p.347), “To have Christian Scientists look to ‘the books’ instead of to her person was increasingly Mrs. Eddy’s aim. In line with this, she asked that the portrait of her which had appeared in some editions of Science and Health and Miscellaneous Writings be removed and no picture of her appear in any future editions.” Is Mr. Peel telling us that Mrs. Eddy considered pictures of herself to be personality worship? An interesting point concerning his statement is that her picture continued to appear in the front of Science and Health until after she passed on. It was only after she was gone that her picture was removed. A letter was presented to justify this with a statement at the bottom that said “per Dickey” but with no signature of Mrs. Eddy’s included to verify it as her request. Mr. Peel then quotes Mrs. Eddy to show us that she did not want pictures of herself. “In so far as one personalizes thought he limits his spiritual growth. We grow in understanding and if I have ever permitted any personality I have outgrown it.” (Auth. p. 347) This statement, he says, “was made in connection with the marble statue of a ‘woman in prayer’ which was to be put in The Mother Church…” Not a picture, but a marble statue of a woman placed at the top of the organ pipes in the Extension — a big difference.

Another interesting item that sheds more light on this subject, is the following, “On April 17, 1902, Mrs. Eddy wrote to the artist who painted the picture of her shown in the frontispiece of Dr. Lyman Powell’s biography: ‘I can never express my full appreciation of the loving care which prompted the dear church in Baltimore to give a portrait of me to the world. I have often wondered, when thinking of the indifference that other churches have shown on this point, which does concern the history of Christian Science at present, and will in the future more than to-day.’” (Foot. p.36, e.a.) Many Christian Scientists think a displayed picture of Mrs. Eddy is deification. She wrote to a student, “I have been seeking opportunity to thank you for the address of the artist of my portrait. Oh I do thank you dear for my only really natural face in portraiture.” (S.L. p.27) Is Mr. Peel’s statement above included to convince us that she did not want pictures of herself?

Concerning a picture of Jesus that Julia Bartlett gave Mrs. Eddy as a present, we read, “Mrs. Eddy was so affected by it that she wished to see me at once… When I met dear, dear Mrs. Eddy, she was deeply moved, and expressed her love and gratitude and joy.” (Mis. Doc. p.199) Was our Leader’s love for Jesus’ picture personality worship? Did she think pictures of herself were unimportant? As related by James Gilman, “She pointed to a low rocking chair without arms, old-fashioned mahogany... saying, ‘In that chair I wrote Science and Health.’ I said, ‘It is a very valuable chair.’ ‘Yes,’ she replied, ‘the world will cherish all these things in future time.’” (Recoll. p.51, e.a.) The fact that we are not cherishing her things in this future time, shows we do not understand Christian Science. Love for Mrs. Eddy and for the things in her experience is not personality worship nor is it idolatry, but it is recognition of God’s idea and those things associated with God’s idea. Love for her is not deification but gratitude for all that she did and is doing for us. Rejection of Mrs. Eddy is based in a lack of understanding; it is emotional superstition and gives impetus to blasphemy.

She also said that in years to come, the loyal Christian Scientist would have to make it clear to people that it was not Mrs. Eddy who did the healing, but Truth and Love — (“God will heal the sick through man, whenever man is governed by God” (S&H p.495:1), and that she “...would be more worshipped than Jesus had been. Our duty would be to overcome the belief in mortal mind of worshipping her personality.” (Golden Mem. p.33) Lecturers and teachers are now declaring that we must not worship Mrs. Eddy, and yet Mrs. Eddy said she “would be more worshipped than Jesus....” In Mrs. Eddy’s day, the dictionary definition of ‘worship’ was “to adore, to pay divine honors to, to reverence with supreme respect.” The 1980 dictionary definition is “a service or the showing of reverence for Deity.” This 1980 definition is a complete change from the definition used in the dictionaries of Mrs. Eddy’s day. The modern definition is due to the influence of Romanism. So we now have lecturers and teachers telling Christian Scientists not to worship Mrs. Eddy, but have you noticed, they do not say we are “to adore, to pay divine honors to, to reverence with supreme respect.”

On January 15, 1895, our Leader wrote, “Conduct your [testimonial] meetings by repeating and demonstrating practical Christian Science. Tell what this Science does for yourself and will do for others. Speak from experience of its Founder, noting her self-sacrifice as the way in Christian Science.” (CSJ, Dec. 1939, p.469) Are Christian Scientists correct when they equate love expressed for her in testimonies as deification? In the Manual, Art. XXXI Sect. 2 we read, “It is the duty of the Board of Lectureship to include in each lecture a true and just reply to public topics condemning Christian Science, and to bear testimony to the facts pertaining to the life of the Pastor Emeritus.” (e.a.) To Henrietta Chanfrau she wrote in 1902, “Take up at once the so-called C.S. Lecturers that they do their duty to their God and their poor unworthy Leader and Friend. A city that is set upon a hill cannot be hid, and the life of their Leader must be shown as it is. Never did I neglect Jesus in my sermons in the first days of Christian Science; now they must not forget me. The scandalous attacks on the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science will stop if the truth about her be shown to the world.” (Prec. IV p.117, e.a.)

Know that Christian Scientists in positions of trust cannot be handled by projected arguments to diminish their regard for their Leader. In the Manual, Art. XXXIII Sect. 2, duties of the Committee on Publication, we read, “It shall be the duty of the Committee on Publication to correct ...injustices done Mrs. Eddy. ”

No Christian Scientist worth his salt would worship Mrs. Eddy’s personality. We owe Jesus and Mrs. Eddy “endless homage.” Why would Mrs. Eddy be more worshipped than Jesus? Future generations would understand her statement, “...for never mortal before drank my cup.” (DCC p.108) She overcame far more in order to do the same type of work that our Lord did and her work was even more far-reaching. Consider that Jesus had his mother, step-father Joseph, brothers and sisters, his brother James who wrote the book of James, his uncle Joseph of Arimathea, cousin John the Baptist, aunt Elisabeth, uncle Zacharias, cousins James and John and their mother and father, Zebedee. This is all close family support. Our Leader had none. Additionally, Jesus was a man in a man’s world while Mrs. Eddy was a woman in a man’s world in the 1800’s.

Mr. Peel quotes Frye’s diary that Mrs. Eddy decided in August, 1908 “that he [Tomlinson] was not broad enough to write her history, but that she would sometime get the right one to write it for her.” (p.324) Mr. Tomlinson did not even attempt a history of Mrs. Eddy, rather, he wrote of his recollections and experiences with her and wrote, “…it is distinctly not intended to be merely another biography.” (12 Yrs. p.2) Is the misuse of Mrs. Eddy’s quote, given above, the reason Mr. Tomlinson’s book is no longer sold in Reading Rooms? Is the real reason because Mr. Tomlinson’s book portrays Mrs. Eddy as fulfilling Bible prophecy?

As the children of Soul, we deny the lie that says loving Mrs. Eddy is personality worship and deification. We cannot be mentally manipulated or hypnotized into believing such foolishness. It is nothing but projected mesmerism. Nothing can deprive me of my gratitude for her because divine Love fills all consciousness and removes all obstructions. This argument will not keep me from expressing my love for my Leader in testimonies, in speaking with friends or in defending her when any Christian Scientist speaks in an unscientific manner about her. I will not make a reality of this error by getting upset over it. I recognize it for the lie that it is, m.a.m., and know that divine Love destroys its influence right now. I will not be intimidated by this lie.

The subtle argument of the red dragon, that to love and honor Mary Baker Eddy is deification, violates the “Office of Soul: The conscious intelligence or life which individualizes and defines the things of God; Soul gives distinctiveness and individuality to all of Mind’s ideas; explains the meaning of everything in creation; spiritual sense.” (Marie K. Larkin, CSB.) The Soul senses are understanding, spiritual perception, intuition, consciousness, and choice. And they are lost when we are handled by the red dragon to hate Mrs. Eddy and made to listen to personal sense instead of to spiritual sense. Rejecting the attributes of Soul so necessary in the Christian Science movement, personal sense produces the opposite, or the antonyms of inspiration, substance, beauty, joy, right activity, bliss, spiritual force, true individuality, vitality, insight, perspicacity, vision, and fullness.

Argument #6 of the red dragon: Mary Baker Eddy made many mistakes.

This lie, one of the subtle arguments of the seven-headed red dragon, would reverse one of the synonyms, — divine Mind.

The argument that Mrs. Eddy made mistakes, and very serious ones, is a lie. If animal magnetism could convince us that she made many mistakes, then obviously her work is not a revelation, nor did she adequately prove that revelation. She obviously then had no connection with Mind, and this leaves us free to reinterpret and misinterpret her life and her work. This argument originated many years ago. In the Garden of Eden, Adam imputes a mistake to Eve, and the progress that would have come through womanhood was destroyed at the outset. And women have been labeled as emotional twits who constantly make mistakes ever since. It suits the purpose of Adam males to criticize the revelator. Adam blamed Eve for his distress. “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” (Gen. 3:12) You will notice a very important point in the last quote: whenever the revelator is blamed, God is also held accountable, because God gave us the revelator.

Eve, handled by physical sense, cannot see what is wrong with the fruit and she eats. But we must remember, Eve was not given the direct command from God, not to eat, for she had not yet been created; the command was given to Adam. Then Eve, through spiritual sense, sees the nature of the serpent and recognizes the mistake; while Adam continues through material sense, to blame Eve and God as the originators of the mistake. Eve, then, did not make the mistake, Adam did. This is male malice toward God, divine Mind, and His precious representative. Blaming her for the mistake keeps the serpent hidden. What better way to destroy the effectiveness of the one who uncovers M.A.M., its beguiling and deceiving nature, than to propose the argument that the revelator made many mistakes. Obviously then, her Science cannot be demonstrated as a revelation. Do you think this would hinder the healing efforts of Christian Scientists?

Many Christian Science women have not followed Eve’s example of uncovering the serpent. Instead, they wish to follow, be accepted and dominated by men, Adam. If one has a misconception of the revelator, then one will follow human planning, human will, human reasoning, human right and wrong. Christian Scientists seem all too ready to accept a false view of Mrs. Eddy. They do not want to be obedient to spiritual sense testimony because it demands they give up their love of materialism — using Science to build up pleasure in matter. Our Leader says, “Nothing except sin, in the students themselves, can separate them from me.” (Ret. p.81:4-5) The evil that turns on Mrs. Eddy stems from the claim of mortal mind that wishes to excuse evil and turn on good. This is the nature of the Adamic male.

The statement, “Mrs. Eddy made many mistakes,” is produced from hatred of the spiritual idea. This hatred strikes out as extreme criticism and is manifested through pettiness and jealousy. It excuses one’s own mistakes while enlarging the perceived mistakes of others. As this erroneous mental climate in the movement continues, it ripens into the claim of intellectualism, the belief of a superior mind in matter, which rejects divine Mind’s direction. It forgives the sin and condemns the righteous.

Male energy will accept an infallible Jesus, an infallible Pope, infallible bishops and cardinals and infallible teachings of the church. What then in our church would proclaim that Mrs. Eddy made many mistakes and that we are to follow Jesus and only accept his teachings as infallible? The argument continues that we are to follow teachers and practitioners and that church authorities cannot make mistakes, but Mrs. Eddy did. This is vile hatred for womanhood operating within the Christian Science church.

Jesus said, “...there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.” (Mark 9:39) Then, isn’t it true that we could not speak evil of Jesus and expect to heal in his name, that is, to heal through the revelation he brought? Believing Mrs. Eddy made mistakes is like believing them of Jesus, that he broke down in the Garden of Gethsemane, that he was weak while under stress, and that he was emotional and surly when rebuking disciples. What would this do to his revelation in the eyes of the world? Of course no one has had the audacity to treat this precious man who labored for us all in such a despicable manner; however, would a woman get off so easily? Would Christian Scientists be able to demonstrate Christian Science if Mrs. Eddy were portrayed this way? Indeed, how would the Christian world ever accept Christian Science? Yes, genuine Christian Science would be lost if such an intolerant, unkind and incorrect view of Mrs. Eddy was perpetrated upon the innocent thought in the movement, especially if it originated from official sources. An incorrect perception of Christ Jesus would bring about the loss of Christian healing. He said, “This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:29) Mrs. Eddy said, “It was our Master’s theology which the impious sought to destroy.” (S&H p.139:2) Did not the impious label Jesus’ character as holding great error? Isn’t this what Christian Scientists have done to Mrs. Eddy?

Our Leader describes the hatred of sinners for her: “Whosoever lives most the life of Jesus in this age and declares best the power of Christian Science, will drink of his Master’s cup. Resistance to Truth will haunt his steps, and he will incur the hatred of sinners, till ‘wisdom is justified of her children.’” (S&H p.317:6-11) She further describes this sin, which is malice and contempt, in the following quote: “If the sense of sin is too little, mortals are in danger of not seeing their own belief in sin, but of seeing too keenly their neighbor’s. Then they are beset with egotism and hypocrisy. Here Christian Scientists must be most watchful.” (Mis. p.319:7-11, e.a. )

Lying arguments

She speaks clearly of this lying argument that she made many mistakes, by saying, “The spirit of lies is abroad. Because Truth has spoken aloud, error, running to and fro in the earth, is screaming, to make itself heard above Truth’s voice.” (Mis. p.266:28) And, “Error will hate more as it realizes more the presence of its tormentor. I shall fulfill my mission, fight the good fight, and keep the faith.” (Mis. p.278:5)

It was not easy for Mrs. Eddy to stand against these lies every moment of her life:

The past three years of my life have been, if known, a continual martyrdom. But I am not afraid, as my day is so shall my strength be.

Mrs. Eddy’s Letters to Augusta Stetson, p.16

I am alone, absolutely, here! No one can know me really or can see what I have to meet or meet it for me.

Ibid. p.12

The flowers were fragrant with prayer and praise. I thank you for, as usual, remembering me — the lone martyr.

Ibid. p.9

She recognized the hatred that Jesus had come under because her suffering was very similar. “The old and recurring martyrdom of God’s best witnesses is the infirmity of evil, the modus operandi of human error, carnality, opposition to God and His power in man.” (‘02 p.10:24-27) And, “The ineffable Life and light which he reflected through divine Science is again reproduced in the character which sensualism, as heretofore, would hide or besmear. Sin of any sort tends to hide from an individual this grand verity in Science, that the appearing of good in an individual involves the disappearing of evil.” (Mis. p.337:29, e.a.) This woman did not make “many mistakes”!

Mrs. Eddy fully understood the hatred directed at her by M.A.M. when she said, “Millions may know that I am the Founder of Christian Science. I alone know what that means.” (My. p.249:19) “The sacrifices made for others are not infrequently met by envy, ingratitude, and enmity, which smite the heart and threaten to paralyze its beneficence.”

(Ret. p.80:29-2)

Mrs. Eddy says, “Conflict and persecution are the truest signs that can be given of the greatness of a cause or of an individual, provided this warfare is honest and a world-imposed struggle.” (‘00 p.10:5-8, e.a.) The “conflict and persecution” have not stopped. The dragon has not stopped its “persecution” of the woman. Do we think it honest to listen to the lying argument that she made many mistakes? She said, “Wherefore, then, smite the reformer who finds the more spiritual way, shortens the distance, discharges burdensome baggage, and increases the speed of mortals’ transit from matter to Spirit — yea, from sin to holiness?” (’02 p.10:19-23) Suggesting, inferring, or claiming that Mrs. Eddy made mistakes, strikes at the heart of her competence. The great lady did not make mistakes.

Why would she have had to write, “Is it cause for bitter comment and personal abuse that an individual has met the need of mankind with some new-old truth that counteracts ignorance and superstition?” (‘02 p.9:27-30, e.a.) She evidently understood the nature of male energy. It is now our opportunity, as followers of this greatest of women, to stand for her. She says, “It is your province to wrestle with error, to handle the serpent and bruise its head; but you cannot, as a Christian Scientist, resort to stones and clubs, — yea, to matter, — to kill the serpent of a material mind.” (Mis. p.336:4)

What are the results in the world of this error?

Christian Science is not understood or accepted. There are vicious attacks upon mothering, the motherhood of God, womanhood, and women. The elevation of Adam, the male element, is then given free reign to destroy all the progress that genuine womanhood has made. Love alone dissolves sin and annuls the hatred for Mrs. Eddy — the apathy and indifference that allow contempt for womanhood to go unchecked. It is never personal — it is always animal magnetism.

Mrs. Eddy asked, “Why did Jesus have more to meet in his day than any other man? Why does Mrs. Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, have more to meet than any other woman today?” (DCC p.178) The work of many minds is attempting to build a new church. That plan of malicious animal magnetism must be defeated. Our Leader said, “It is up to the students to protect that demonstration [the building of The Mother Church] — from the enemy within our gates.” (DCC p.198) We must always keep the fact of Mind’s Allness and the nothingness of error before us and, doing this, we can root out the lies of A.M. and the attempt to destroy our Leader’s demonstration. Our Leader was chosen by Mind to build The Mother Church; she did not make mistakes. This lying argument does not give anyone the right to violate the Manual.

The subtle argument of the red dragon, that Mary Baker Eddy made many mistakes, violates the “Office of Mind: The origin and root of all; consciousness; Mind conceives and is the only knower or thinker; includes all endowments; perceives and comprehends; forever beholding itself in the spiritual idea It has created.” (Marie K. Larkin, CSB.) This argument rejects the attributes so necessary in the Christian Science movement: intelligence, wisdom, astuteness, balance, studiousness, concentration, watchfulness, understanding, awareness, perception, faith, confidence, comprehension, conviction, insight, knowing, originality, individuality. When we hold Mrs. Eddy in the first degree and attribute mistakes to her, we manifest the antonyms of these attributes.

Mr. Peel’s comments from Years of Authority

Mr. Peel tells us that because the Glover situation was “bleak” and no help there, she “...looked elsewhere for a surrogate relationship that would give her, personally, a ‘son’ and, organizationally, an ‘heir,’ and settled on Ebenezer Foster.” (p.26) None of this is correct as to Mrs. Eddy’s reasons for adopting Foster Eddy. She was not looking for a surrogate relationship, a son, nor an heir. Mr. Peel’s quote suggests a Mrs. Eddy who did not turn to God but who acted upon human impulse, and was looking for a man’s help at every turn.

(p.28) She “...was determined to save her son [Foster Eddy] for the great work she still hoped he might do. ” At this point, Mrs. Eddy had no thought of Foster Eddy carrying forth any great work for her, she saw very clearly that he had an easily mesmerized mind.

(p.29) As Christian Scientists do not understand the necessity for rebukes, something Mrs. Eddy did not enjoy doing, the reader is left with the impression that Mrs. Eddy had a bad temper and was harsh. “But my best students have gained their highest positions through mistakes and my strong corrections thereof.” Referring to James Gilman, we are told, “she…made him sharply aware that unless he could learn to obey her explicit directions with the understanding that they were not personal commands but logical necessities, she would have to call the whole thing off.” (Recoll. p.44) If you were conveying the correct sense of these rebukes would you then say with Peel, “Under the storm cloud of her displeasure, he [Gilman] would have long hours of despair or rebellion.”?

Edward Kimball and the Pope

During the early years of Christian Science, Roman Catholic priests and nuns were coming into Reading Rooms with questions and wanted to know how to heal. The Pope, at that time, sent an emissary to see Mrs. Eddy with the message that she was to let his people go; in other words, he was letting her know he did not want his followers taken from him. The statement, in effect, was that if you do not stop proselytizing my people, which she was not doing, there would be religious warfare. Mrs. Eddy sent Mr. Kimball to receive the Pope’s message from his emissary and she told Mr. Kimball that under no circumstances was the emissary to be brought to her. As a result of this message from the Pope, Mrs. Eddy wrote the Manual provision that forbade Christian Scientists from teaching Roman Catholics Christian Science. Mrs. Eddy felt so strongly about this issue that it is the only place in the Manual where she includes herself also. She said, “Do not take Catholics for patients or students. Leave that problem for future generations.” (DCC p.279) At this time Mr. Kimball could be trusted to do as instructed by his Leader, but later on Mr. Kimball violated this trust.

In a letter written by Mrs. Alice L. Orgain on August 13, 1951, we read, “Being an active practitioner at that time (1900), I felt that I should have class teaching as soon as possible to give my patients the assurance that I was duly authorized, although Mrs. Eddy never made any requirement that anyone should be class instructed in order to put his name in the ‘Journal’ as a practitioner. This requirement was made after her passing. (In 1901 I received instruction from Mrs. Ruth B. Ewing, C.S.D. of Chicago.) Now, I am going to tell you a secret, which was never told me in confidence, but which I have kept from the Field in all my writings. Mr. Kimball wanted to go to Rome to see the Pope and Mrs. Eddy forbade it. He went anyway and was never allowed to see Mrs. Eddy after his return to the United States. This must have assured her that a disobedient man was not to be trusted again as a loyal follower. Mr. Kimball went to the country home of Mr. Merritt, then a member of the Board of Directors. After much anguish and suffering he passed on at Mr. Merritt’s home (I believe it was in Ohio) without ever seeing Mrs. Eddy again. Mr. Merritt told this to a Mrs. Seal, who was a loyal [pupil] of Mr. Kimball and a prominent teacher (as was Mr. Merritt), and Mrs. Seal told me directly without any request for secrecy.”

We read in Miscellany, p.297, that Mrs. Eddy did not see Mr. Kimball for the last year of his life. This letter was not included by Mrs. Eddy in the material to be published in Miscellany after she passed. She had no intention of placing this information before the field, but some of the men in positions of trust did have such intentions and included it when she was no longer here to see that her instructions were obeyed. Prior to the time that Mr. Kimball went to see the Pope, Mrs. Eddy asked Mr. Kimball to come into her home to serve as a worker for her, but he refused. Mrs. Eddy considered this request so important for her Cause that she placed a By-law in the Manual concerning its importance. The penalty for refusal was excommunication. (Man. Art. XXII, Sect. 11) Mr. Kimball rejected all of Mrs. Eddy’s entreaties in this direction. It would have been a marvelous opportunity for him to get his metaphysics correct and also to gain a clear understanding and appreciation of her.

Mr. Peel, speaking of Kimball, wrote that he was, “...in some ways Mrs. Eddy’s most able student....” (Auth. p.48) He had “...a combination of executive skill, serene common sense, and what might be called spiritual statesmanship, before which all obstacles went down.” Mr. Kimball was a fine man but he was not her most able student. Then we read, “...Edward Kimball’s calm intelligence won not only the cooperation of the officials but in addition their warmly expressed respect for the cause he represented.” (Auth. p.49) My, how marvelous he was. From this, one would think that Mrs. Eddy could never have demonstrated Christian Science without him. But she did.

You will notice that prior to Mrs. Eddy forbidding Mr. Kimball from having audience with the Pope, Mr. Kimball had also been straightly charged by Mrs. Eddy not to allow any contact of even the Pope’s emissary with herself. Mr. Kimball could not learn from this. Mrs. Eddy loved him dearly but he became useless to her. Male ego in league with M.A.M. had taken him away from the woman. The Vatican at that time was far from open. It was known to be an implacable foe and this gives us even further insight into the severity of Mr. Kimball’s disobedience. It was Mr. Kimball, you may remember, who told the press that Mrs. Eddy did not teach that she was the woman of Bible prophecy. Caroline D. Noyes, CSD, wrote, “One distinguishing feature in Mrs. Eddy’s students and loyal followers or of her faithful Normal teachers, they always recognized and have always done so, the fact that Mrs. Eddy was the woman St. John prophesies of in Revelation XII ”

(Mis. Doc. p.227, e.a.)

Correct sense of our Leader

Our Leader writes, “Whatever man sees, feels, or in any way takes cognizance of, must be caught through mind; inasmuch as perception, sensation, and consciousness belong to mind and not to matter. Floating with the popular current of mortal thought without questioning the reliability of its conclusions, we do what others do, believe what others believe, and say what others say. Common consent is contagious, and it makes disease catching.” (Mis. p.228:21, e.a.) The contagion that is accepted by common consent today is not deification but blasphemy and total rejection of Mary Baker Eddy. Here, Mrs. Eddy defines those individuals who constantly call you a “personality worshipper or deifier” for loving her: “He who clings to personality, or perpetually warns you of ‘personality,’ wrongs it, or terrifies people over it, and is the sure victim of his own corporeality. Constantly to scrutinize physical personality, or accuse people of being unduly personal, is like the sick talking sickness. Such errancy betrays a violent and egotistical personality, increases one’s sense of corporeality, and begets a fear of the senses and a perpetually egotistical sensibility. He who does this is ignorant of the meaning of the word personality, and defines it by his own corpus sine pectore (soulless body), and fails to distinguish the individual, or real man from the false sense of corporeality, or egotistic self.” (Ret. p.73:19-7, e.a.)

Mr. Peel writes (Auth. p.78), “Mrs. Eddy seldom apologized. When she made mistakes, reversed her position, put people in office and then removed them ” Many times Mrs. Eddy gave an order only to find< that it was disobeyed (an example of this would be Mr. Kimball’s disobedience to her in meeting with the Pope). Then, she was forced to change direction. This does not mean that Mrs. Eddy made the mistake. And there were times when Mind directed a certain position and Mrs. Eddy found that her students were not up to meeting the demand and Mind dictated a different solution. Without knowing the circumstances with which she was confronted, and being told by Mr. Peel that Mrs. Eddy seldom apologized, we are lead to believe she was an ill-mannered, pompous woman.

Continuing (Auth. p.177), we read, “Something of the adamant [inflexible, unyielding] in his [Mark Baker’s] character he passed along to his youngest daughter....” The word ‘adamant’ is used in a negative sense in Christian Science. The only time Mrs. Eddy uses it is in Science and Health, where she writes, “Self-love is more opaque than a solid body. In patient obedience to a patient God, let us labor to dissolve with the universal solvent of Love the adamant of error, — self-will, self-justification, and self-love, — which wars against spirituality and is the law of sin and death.” (S&H p.242:15, e.a.) How very unkind of Mr. Peel to use this word to describe his Leader.

Quoting Calvin Frye’s diary, “. Mrs. E. said to me yesterday ‘you have a way of dampening my hope, but Benny encourages me.’” Peel then comments, “The bitterness of the entry lay in his realization that when the crunch came it was always his faithfulness rather than Benny’s fickle good nature to which Mrs. Eddy would turn.” (Auth. p.86) Mr. Peel, almost ninety years later, is able to inform us that Frye was bitter?

Then Peel writes, “Farlow suddenly seemed to her to be fumbling.

She was not sure exactly what he should be doing to counter the Peabody attack, but whatever it was, he wasn’t doing it.” (ibid. p.196) It is so helpful to know that Farlow was not really fumbling but only “seemed to her to be fumbling.” Then we find that Mrs. Eddy didn’t know what should be done, as “she was not sure ” And “whatever it was, he wasn’t doing it.” Can you imagine a woman so ignorant and demanding that she demanded what she did not know she was demanding? As mentally keen as Mrs. Eddy was, she knew exactly what Farlow was or was not doing. Also we read, “For a full year she vacillated on this point.” (ibid. p.196) Could it be that contrary to Mr. Peel’s view of her, she was awaiting God’s direction and not, in his words, vacillating at all?

Continuing on we read, “For those who had exalted her to a pinnacle of human perfection it would not be easy to understand the literalness of the words she had written years before: ‘Physical torture affords but a slight illustration of the pangs which come to one upon whom the world of sense falls with its leaden weight in the endeavor to crush out of a career its divine destiny.’” (Auth. p.239) Though sinless himself, Jesus suffered terribly for the sins of others, as did Mary Baker Eddy. She said, “The last supreme moment of mockery, desertion, torture, added to an overwhelming sense of the magnitude of his work, wrung from Jesus’ lips the awful cry, ‘My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’” (S&H p.50:8) Even though God’s witnesses suffer through physical torture and pain, it does not mean they are unable to do all things perfectly, and are not models of metaphysical purity.

“Increasingly, also, she left the answering of letters to her secretaries, while she reserved her strength for the more crucial demands of her remaining years.” (Auth. p.321) Did Mrs. Eddy rely on God for her strength? Yes. She did not have to “reserve” her strength. Mrs. Eddy had sufficient strength, but not sufficient time to accomplish all that needed her attention and, like any wise executive, she delegated when appropriate.

Speaking of Mrs. Stetson, Mr. Peel says, “ Mrs. Eddy hung on for a little to the irrational hope that the chastised student might even now be saved and reinstated.” (ibid. p.343) Why is a loving hope depicted as “irrational”? The definition of hope is “expectant joy.” It is not chance. Who is Mr. Peel to judge Mrs. Eddy’s thoughts as irrational?

Mr. Peel informs us of the “...rather appalling Victorian interiors...” at Pleasant View (ibid. p.384). Is his opinion of her home included to call into question her Soul sense? Is Mr. Peel an interior decorator as well as an art critic? Mr. Peel is a writer and historian, and perhaps an art critic and interior decorator, but he does not appear to be very clear in his metaphysics.

Now we are told, “During the period he [Mr. Gilman] was working on Christ and Christmas Mrs. Eddy paid him only a very small recompense for his work. Whether this was a result of the Yankee parsimony [cheapness] in her background or another form of discipline imposed on him in an effort to force him to rely more radically on divine guidance is not clear.... She nevertheless seems to have withheld from him the charity that she sometimes bestowed on persons considerably less deserving.” (ibid. p.392) Mr. Peel makes it appear that Mrs. Eddy was wrong. We know Mrs. Eddy was not cheap so why include this as a possibility? Gilman was personally taught and given invaluable lessons directly from Mrs. Eddy, which she rarely bestowed on anyone. Most students she taught went on to thriving practices and teaching careers and were well remunerated for the rest of their lives. Mrs. Eddy surely longed for Mr. Gilman to do the same with what she had taught him; he chose not to do so.

Argument #7 of the red dragon: Mrs. Eddy is irrelevant. All we need is the pure Science.

This lie, one of the subtle arguments of the seven-headed dragon, would reverse one of the synonyms, — divine Principle.

Some derivatives of this argument are: Mrs. Eddy won’t be known in a few hundred years. Isn’t the truth still the truth with or without Mrs. Eddy? We have divine Principle and we don’t need personality. Her life is not important and therefore we need not understand it. She is in her books and that means all we need is the Science. Biographies are unimportant, for they are merely concessions to the world. When we hear these lies, we must never personalize their source.

Are attacks upon Christian Science and Mrs. Eddy similar to the attacks on Jesus and Christianity? (See S&H p.474:4, No. p.41:3, ‘01 p.33:24, ‘02 p.10:24-27.) The serpent works to minimize her importance. It works to destroy the demonstration of the motherhood of God and of true womanhood. We cannot let it. Adam treated Eve as if she were totally unimportant, his possession. The serpent would like nothing better than to be successful in separating the revelator from the revelation.

Adam rejected Eve as the one who discovered the truth and uncovered error. The argument among some Christian Scientists is, Get rid of Mrs. Eddy and the movement will prosper. Reach out to the world through new channels. If we have the pure Science, we need only use new untried potentially fruitful methods, not old worn out ways. This is rejection of Mrs. Eddy’s womanhood and mothering by male energy. Do you ever hear, we have a pure Christianity, therefore we do not need Christ Jesus?

Christ Jesus was deified. Because of this, Christians have little difficulty accepting the fact that he was appointed by God, that God knew him, and that he had a place in Bible prophecy. Because they misunderstood the man, Christians had difficulty in understanding his teachings and their practical application. Both Jesus’ place and his words had to be accepted in order for Christianity to be successful. It was not successful. If Mrs. Eddy has been removed from her church as unnecessary, and, in effect, excommunicated, her followers would have difficulty in accepting the fact that she was appointed by God, that God knew her and that she had a place in Bible prophecy. What Christian Scientists would have little difficulty in accepting, would be her teachings, because she left so much of the Science in her books that healing was easy. Both her place and her words had to be accepted in order for Christian Science to be successful. It is not successful. As love and gratitude for Mary Baker Eddy diminished, so did the effect of her revelation.

The personal sense that deified Jesus kept Christians from seeing his demonstration through spiritual sense, but they did see and hear what he did and loved that (for the loaves and fishes). They, therefore, had difficulty accepting his teachings because spiritual sense, based in a correct and genuine love and gratitude for him, was all that could enable them to understand and demonstrate those teachings. Thus they lost genuine Christian healing. With Mrs. Eddy, the personal sense that excommunicated her and kept Christian Scientists from seeing her demonstration correctly, allowed them to see and hear what she did, and love that (for the loaves and fishes). They only wanted the teachings, but in order to demonstrate, they had to have the spiritual sense that is based in a correct and genuine love for her. Thus they lost genuine Christian Science healing. (See graph on page 255.)

Christ Jesus’ ideal was Christianity, but if everyone said it was their ideal too that would not make it so. Christ Jesus demonstrated Christianity, his ideal, but his perception of Christianity was an ideal infinitely above that of others. All others could keep his ideal with them, only as they saw the representative of the ideal clearly. Christians lost sight of the ideal because they lost sight of the correct vision of the representative who demonstrated that ideal.

Mary Baker Eddy’s ideal was Christian Science, but if everyone said that it was their ideal as much as it was hers, that would not make it so. Her perception of Christian Science was an ideal infinitely above that of others. Mrs. Eddy demonstrated Christian Science, her ideal. All others could keep the ideal with them, only as they saw the representative of the ideal clearly. Christian Scientists have lost sight of the ideal because they have lost sight of the representative who discovered, founded and demonstrated that ideal.

Do we honestly think that our concepts of the ideal Christianity and ideal Christian Science are of the magnitude of our Lord’s and our Leader’s vision? She says, “Christian Science is my only ideal; and the individual and his ideal can never be severed. If either is misunderstood or maligned [the individual or the revelation], it eclipses the other with the shadow cast by this error.” (Mis. p.105:20) ‘Eclipse’ is defined as: “1. To hide a luminous body in whole or in part and intercept its rays; as, to eclipse the sun or star. 2. To obscure; to darken, by intercepting the rays of light which render luminous; as, to eclipse the moon. 3. To cloud; to darken; to obscure; as, to eclipse the glory of a hero. 4. To disgrace.

5. To extinguish.”

If your character were obscured, would it tarnish the ideal, Christian Science? No! Then she is not speaking of your ideal. It is her ideal she is speaking of. She said, “For the world to understand me in my true light, and life, would do more for our Cause than aught else could.” (DCC p.112, e.a.) To understand you in your true light and life would do very little for the cause because your demonstration of Christian Science is inadequate to give mankind a clear view of the magnitude of Christian Science.

Our Leader writes, “Why are the words of Jesus more frequently cited for our instruction than are his remarkable works? Is it not because there are few who have gained a true knowledge of the great import to Christianity of those works?” (S&H p.358:19) Jesus’ works, his demonstrations, were inseparable from his life and character. You cannot understand the words until you understand the life of the demonstrator.

‘All we need is the pure Science’ is an expression of ingratitude for her, the elevation of one’s own self-importance, no Christian giving and expressing, and no thought of her. This argument of a.m. teaches intellectual egotism, ingratitude, and boorishness. It produces a hardness of heart, a pretense to piety, and a love of position, place and power.

In our time the red dragon, operating through male energy, suggests that she is unimportant, that the one who fulfilled the prophecies is not necessary. It whispers, ‘Just look at the Science and forget her,’ and un-alert Christian Scientists shout it from the rooftops. All of the errors of the preceding arguments in this chapter seem to be caught up in this erroneous suggestion. These arguments, — she is not our Leader, she did not fulfill prophecy, she was not known by God, anyone could have discovered Science, loving comments about her are deification, she made many mistakes, she is irrelevant — are lies. The arguments seem plausible, but they are the suggestions of the red dragon. If any of these arguments, issuing from the seven heads of the dragon, is accepted, we have accepted the other six. It is one liar, one hate, one beguiler.

Fascinating but devilish, the effects of these arguments become more apparent as Christian Scientists openly speak these blasphemies about God and His messenger. Then mortals are open to the thought, ‘God has given me a special mission, I am special,’ while at the same time they will deny Mrs. Eddy and her place as the Leader and as the woman of Bible prophecy. Is this the dragon talking? Christian Scientists endeavor to be the leader of Sunday Schools, committees, boards, churches, patients and pupils in the vain attempt to take their Leader’s place, they listen to and act upon the silent suggestion that she is not our Leader. The pseudo-metaphysicians deny that God has any connection with His ideas, but that if we as mortals are astute enough and human willed enough, then we mortals can find God. The arguments then follow that God, of course, anointed and appointed them specifically, that God gave them their association address, that God gave them their ability to testify in church, that God wrote that article in the periodicals, and aren’t we all so spiritually minded to give God all the credit? And if God can do that for me then God certainly could have appointed me to write Science and Health and discover Christian Science.

Testimonies in periodicals are grateful for God, for Christ Jesus, for Science and Health, The Mother Church, class instruction, Sunday School teachers, husbands, wives, but almost never for the one who made it all possible for them to demonstrate the Science of being. These are all different phases of the belief of life, substance, and intelligence in matter, and A.M. is maintained by these subtle lies. In order that we do not treat her ignobly, we must be alert. That same type of ignoble treatment of our Lord lost Christianity (‘02 p.18:25), and the same is happening with Christian Science.

How does this error, that Mrs. Eddy is irrelevant and that all we need is the pure Science, support scholastic theology? Jesus, the child of a virgin birth, illustrated and proved the nothingness of material law, but he left no Science to follow. He did not discover this Science nor did he uncover M.A.M. for mankind; therefore, mankind would not follow, feeling it was impossible to do so. This emotion quickly led to deification. Mary Baker Eddy, the child of a mortal birth, illustrated and proved the nothingness of material law, worked to establish Science and uncovered M.A.M. Her students refused to follow although her life’s example showed and proved it possible for them to do so. The life of Christ Jesus is an illustration, the Example of demonstration entreating us to follow, while the life of Mary Baker Eddy is a more practical demonstration because she revealed the Science of that demonstration. She is therefore the Leader demanding to be followed. Mankind cannot scientifically understand Jesus’ example without the revelation of Mary Baker Eddy. Her revelation establishes her leadership. Without her demonstration, we cannot understand his example.

The greatness of one’s demonstration is determined, not just by the amount of fruitage produced, but also by the obstacles that had to be overcome in order to produce the fruit. The lives of Helen Keller and Booker T. Washington are two cases in point. Speaking of her life and demonstration, Mrs. Eddy said, “Oh, the marvel of my life. What would be thought of it if it was known in a millionth of its detail? But this cannot be now. It will take centuries for this.” (S.L. p.8) But we can begin to understand her life, can’t we? She also wrote, “Do not allow the evil one in your midst to turn you away from me in this hour of crucifixion, or history will repeat itself, and Christian Science will once more be lost as aforetime. The leading students must not allow this attempt of the enemy to overcome them, and you yield to it!” (S.L. p.53, e.a.)

Mrs. Eddy also wrote,

All are far from seeing or understanding what I am at work all the time, and in every direction to destroy; and so I am met by all in a certain sense, with antagonism. It is the errors that my students do not see, neither in themselves nor others, that I am constantly confronting and at war with. If they and the world did see these errors which I see, they would take up arms against them, and I could lay down mine.

Mrs. Eddy’s Letters to Augusta Stetson. p.12

If we reject her inseparable relation to Science, we reject her demonstration of divine Principle; then, we cannot understand the revelation. The Leader said:

If all the students of C.S. should desert the spiritual idea and its embodiment at this period, as they did in the first century and suffer the consequence, our Cause would be lost, but the thought of this is all that gives me the sharp sense of the time required to undo such errors as this would again introduce, even the groans of Gethsemane and at times the sweat of agony. But God is Love and careth for us who love Him.

Ibid. p.47, e.a.

Animal magnetism’s argument is, we do not need her any more than we need Beethoven for his music nor Einstein for his formulas. With Beethoven and Einstein, gratitude, appreciation, obedience, and reverence are not necessary to keep their work with us because their work is on a material level. Neither Beethoven’s nor Einstein’s demonstrations brought beautiful music or advanced physics to view for the first time. Because Mrs. Eddy’s discovery is on a spiritual level, every aspect of her demonstration points the way for mortals. She proved every part of her discovery and this proof was a spiritual demonstration, which mortals cannot easily follow. If there is no love for her, no obedience, reverence, nor gratitude, then Christian Scientists will never find the way simply because we cannot follow a spiritual discovery and demonstrate it, if we openly reject the spiritual qualities that are necessary for us to love its demonstrator. Although these qualities are not necessary to maintain the theory of relativity or to understand one of Beethoven’s symphonies, today mathematicians and musicians hold Einstein and Beethoven in a much higher regard than most Christian Scientists hold Mrs. Eddy. Ingratitude for Beethoven’s or Einstein’s sacrifice, labor and intelligence, does not deter one from understanding their work. Ingratitude for Mrs. Eddy’s spiritual demonstration, caused by material sense, keeps us from understanding her spiritual Science, a Science attained and retained through spiritual sense alone.

There is no need for the belief of intelligence in matter to resist either Einstein’s or Beethoven’s work, as their work adds to the claims of life, substance and intelligence in matter. Their work certainly points upward but their work is no threat to the red dragon. Our Leader writes, “When Columbus gave freer breath to the globe, ignorance and superstition chained the limbs of the brave old navigator, and disgrace and starvation stared him in the face; but sterner still would have been his fate, if his discovery had undermined the favorite inclinations of a sensuous philosophy.” (S&H p.120:30, e.a.)

‘All we need is the Science’ is similar to saying all we need in our lives is the fruitage from our human mother’s labor and then we can neglect, discard and forget the sacrifices of her life. This is gross ingratitude and hatred for our mother. Christian Scientists, the world’s mental workers, holding unhandled latent malice in thought towards Mrs. Eddy, allow all the lies of M.A.M. to permeate the mental fabric of our church and nation.

The modern Pharisees want to ‘mortalize’ Mrs. Eddy and deny her human and divine coincidence, as well as her marvelous demonstration of the “sinless humanhood.” They deny her place in Bible prophecy as unscientific and mere mysticism, and then claim they love her revelation, the revelation that is a demonstration of her human and divine coincidence. They then take her revelation, put their own beliefs to it, and name it Christian Science. Then they demand that all Christian Scientists bow down to their false concept of Christian Science, deny Mrs. Eddy and remove her, and tell everyone that the Christian Science movement will prosper if we can just get rid of this woman. “Give God the praise, as to this woman we know she is a sinner.” They glory in what they consider their superior understanding of Christian Science. When we think of Christianity we automatically think of Jesus, but when we think of Christian Science why don’t we automatically think of Mrs. Eddy? That would be the nature of projected mesmerism and is the argument of the red dragon that seems to have fooled so many.

There are those Christian Scientists who feel the issue concerning Mrs. Eddy can only be seen through inspiration and this is partially true, they also feel it cannot be understood scientifically. This is not true. Mrs. Eddy is inseparable from her Science and this fact must be understood to be so. We must be able to intelligently, precisely, scientifically and irrefutably explain why she has a place in Bible prophecy. We must be able to scientifically uncover the specific claims of M.A.M. directed against her, those arguments that would fool us. We must understand the nature of truth and error about her so conclusively that we could explain it to a convention of Baptist ministers or a meeting of the Society of Jesus. This article will give you support in that direction, but start with Christian Scientists first.

The truth about Mrs. Eddy is no longer a sacred secret — it was 2,000 years ago. What is whispered in the ears, this book, is to be shouted from rooftops. Mrs. Eddy did not consider it a secret. The Journal article of November, 1885, Vol. III, p. 142, entitled Who and What is Right?, spoke to the entire world in November, 1885, over a hundred years ago, about the issue of Mrs. Eddy’s place. If Christian Scientists keep the secret much longer, there will be no one left to tell it to. The vine of the earth is ripe and we must thrust in the sickle and reap. It is no longer a sacred individual secret to be kept because the Science of her place is now explained. It is time to understand her place, collectively, and share this information with others. The seven arguments of the red dragon and the corrections given here should give you ample information with which to discuss intelligently, the truths concerning our Leader.

In the Reminiscences of Edward P. Bates, C.S.D., concerning his considerable part in the construction of the original edifice of The Mother Church, we read his recollection of a conversation with Mrs. Eddy: “‘You came here in answer to prayer. I prayed God for three months to send me a man to finish the church. He heard my prayer and sent you and you followed my demonstration and the church is finished; — but they will hate you for helping Mother.’ This seemed incomprehensible. She went on to say, ‘They will shun you; they will try to ruin you morally, physically, financially and spiritually.’ Of this I had ample proof within a few weeks.” (Bates p.20) This shows what Mr. Bates had to deal with for being faithful; but Mrs. Eddy knew the treatment he would receive because she had received it a thousand times more severely than Mr. Bates. She knew how M.A.M. operated through her materially minded students to deny her and they are still doing so. When A.M. is in control, healing becomes difficult and eventually stops.

Mental malpractice projects false suggestions about our Leader, and Christian Scientists have been taking them in hook, line and sinker. These suggestions work in mind to make us apathetic towards, neutral about, or actively willing to resist, the woman and her discovery. Once accepted by Christian Scientists, the war against the remnant, those who support the woman and her discovery, comes into full force. The remnant is then robbed of their supply, health, and their ability to heal. Families have difficult problems and churches turn against them. Anxiety for the Cause, hurt feelings due to ill treatment, reacting to sinful nonsense in the church, exasperation, frustration, futility, etc., is all A.M. aimed at the remnant. Overwhelmed by these projected suggestions, Christian Scientists are kept from thinking clearly about the woman and thus react to the errors, instead of following their Leader and acting… “as possessing all power.” (S&H p.264:11) We must know that what we stand for in regard to Mrs. Eddy is a blessing and our sure defense. “God works with you, not with error.” (Coll. p.131) We must demand that evil loosen its hold upon us and that we no longer react to it. Know that you cannot become accustomed to declaring the truth and seeing no results. Demand that the hatred for our precious Leader is dissolved in the love you hold for her and the love God holds for you because of your inclusion in the remnant. Teachers and practitioners, get your patients, pupils, and friends working. Pray for the office of the Board of Directors so it can be awakened to see the error of its ways and thus cause male energy to lose its grip and stranglehold on our church.

“At this period there is a marked tendency of mortal mind to plant mental healing on the basis of hypnotism, calling this method ‘mental science.’” (Mis. p.4:4-6) When Christian Scientists see that society is realizing the mental nature of disease, they should take heed. This is partially a result of the leaven of the woman, but in a moment all mental healing could be turned over to mental systems, and not spiritual systems. Mental systems are devoid of Christianity and Science and this is the great danger we face. We must not congratulate ourselves, or our church, on this development. Much of it is counterfeit. Healings in other churches are a hopeful sign but they are not based on the Science of being. They do not heal the sins of the world, nor are they based upon our Leader’s declaration that the “emphatic purpose” of Christian Science is the healing of sin. Thus, original sin is left intact. To date our church is not leading in this issue of spiritual healing, but following far behind. This has come to pass because Christian Scientists have either ignorantly or maliciously rejected their Leader, while thinking they can retain its Science without her. Many Christian Scientists have wanted a mental system, but not a Christianly scientific system that demands spiritual growth. Spiritual growth and unfoldment can come only through the destruction of sin. When sin is not destroyed, we see the growth of false mental systems, such as occultism, mental systems, New Age Metaphysics, faith healing, spiritualism, and hypnotism all indirectly supported and extended by Christian Scientists.

With testimonies in churches, talks with patients, mental work, and teaching, we must let Mrs. Eddy be the Leader; be conscious of letting her lead. Imbue your children, grandchildren, patients, and pupils with a sense of love for her. Put pictures of her back where they have been removed from Reading Rooms. Insist that lecturers bring her out in their lectures as the Manual says they must. Handle the hatred that resents hearing her name read from the desk. Do we hate hearing that it is our Lord’s Prayer? Do we resent, or are we ever sensitive when hearing in the lesson sermon, sometimes several times, that Jesus did this or that? Does that embarrass us? Do we dislike hearing the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter or Paul saying such and such and that it is announced from the desk when reading the Lesson Sermon? Pray that our Mother Church can become more motherly and that male domination and male energy can be removed. Where would we be without her? Every healing, every insight into revelation, every inspired thought we receive while studying the Bible comes to us through her demonstration.

Other church leaders

Have you ever heard the Methodists speak of Wesley as if he were no better than you or I? Have you ever heard the Presbyterians speak of Calvin as having made an awful lot of mistakes? Have you ever heard Lutherans say that Luther just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and that anyone could have done what he did? Anyone could have published those 95 Theses and nailed them to the doors of the church. Have you heard Mormons of late saying that God didn’t know anything about Joseph Smith? These churches stand up for these men, their leaders; but most Christian Scientists are trying everything they can to rid themselves of the greatest Leader, the greatest woman, in all history. Ask yourself, would I have stood for Copernicus, Galileo, Wycliffe or Luther? Why not? If one of the unknown 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal in Elijah’s day had stood up for him, would we now know his or her name? Yes, and yet, each one of the 7,000 who would not stand, considered themselves a righteous remnant, but their “cowardice [was really] selfishness.” (Mis. p.211:21)

Mindless hatred is the claim of human will, original sin, the claim of mortal mind that attempts to appropriate for itself all life, substance and intelligence. When Adam Dickey passed away, the Board visited his wife and demanded she give to them all the material that Mr. Dickey had accumulated during the time he was with Mrs. Eddy. This material included a day-by-day account of his life with his Leader. The Board pressured Mrs. Dickey until she finally said that she would burn the material before she would give it to them. They replied, well then, let’s burn it, and they did. (Told to Paul Smillie by Roy Garrett Watson, a pupil of Adam Dickey.) This sad event is included to show you that the hatred for Mrs. Eddy is not new; it was alive and well while she was here and continues today.

Since the truth of Christian Science is always the answer to every problem, it follows that the messenger of this Truth must be pointing the way to the solution. Her name is one with Christian Science, just as Jesus is one with Christianity, and she stands forever as its Leader and will never be forgotten, even in a thousand years.

Do we still wonder why there is little healing going on? Mrs. Eddy wrote to a student, “My students are doing more for, and against, — C.S. — than any others can do. They are the greatest sinners on earth when they injure it; and are doing more good than all others when they do the best they know how.” (S.L. p.29) It is hoped that this quote will forewarn the “greatest sinners on earth,” those Christian Scientists who openly reject Mrs. Eddy.

Most women today take the freedom that Mrs. Eddy secured for them rather lightly. Mrs. Eddy says, “There is scarcely an indignity which I have not endured for the cause of Christ, Truth. ” (My. p.165:5-

7) When you use your ability to pray, which she alone gave you, do you only pray when problems arise, for your own prosperity or for your own body? Do you ever reach out to mankind in prayer? Have you ever considered that Mrs. Eddy’s child was taken from her about the time she began struggling to discover the way to pray effectively so that you might be able to take care of your own children? Do you pray for your little ones every day? Have you ever considered that Mrs. Eddy suffered through the deaths of two husbands and the infidelity of another to give you Christian Science, or do you feel sorry for yourself, lonesome, and hope to find any husband? Christian Scientists have forgotten mankind and posterity and have turned inward to satisfy their baser appetites and have thus almost lost Christian Science. We have certainly deprived mankind of the gift of Love our Leader bequeathed to all of us. Have you ever considered that Mrs. Eddy, a sensitive, sweet woman was shunned by her family, told not to darken her father’s door again, and bore up under the terrible pain of their contempt for Christian Science so that you might use her revelation to keep your family intact? Have you ever considered that Mrs. Eddy endured the taunts and ridicule of her community so you might be a respected member of your own? And how are you showing your appreciation to her for what she has done for you?

Have you ever thought of the many years Mrs. Eddy wore threadbare clothes, had no money, not even a bar of soap, and yet still endured so that she could bestow upon you the priceless privilege of working for mankind? Or are you using Christian Science to find just that right dress? Did you ever consider that Mrs. Eddy spent a life of ill health in semi-starvation and that, prior to her discovery, she was starving to death to give you a legacy of freedom from disease and death? How are you showing your gratitude? Or are you wondering why Christian Science doesn’t seem to work for you because your prayers have not taken off those few extra pounds? Are you a follower of this greatest woman? Will you speak up for her and defend her?

The women of Mrs. Eddy’s day spoke up for her in legislatures, to their neighbors, and in public, but today those who say they see her place and love her dearly are afraid that their fellow Christian Scientists might find out how they feel about her. They keep what they term their ‘sacred secret’ to themselves. They decry the status of the movement while doing absolutely nothing to improve it.

Did you ever consider that Mrs. Eddy’s entire life was met with the mockery and resistance of men who tried to block her every step, so that you would have the freedom to overcome Adamic domination? Or are you using Christian Science to find a man to take care of you, to satisfy your appetites, and to keep you from having to think? This greatest of women, ridiculed, and with no legal rights of her own, still persevered so that you today can find a good practitioner who will do all your mental work for you.

When Mrs. Eddy opened her college, she was besieged for help and hadn’t a spare minute for herself, yet not one of those she had blessed were there to help her scrub the front steps of her college, which she did by herself. When Thanksgiving time and holidays came, she had no family for they had shunned her, but where were those she had blessed? Did they invite her into their homes? No, they were too busy and she was left alone. And did they even pay her for the incredible benefits she bestowed upon them? No indeed, she was left to work it out all by herself. There were times when she was hungry, would hear a knock on the door, and when she answered there was just a loaf of bread on the porch. There was never anyone in sight. And what are you doing for her?

If this mesmerism concerning our Leader is not broken, our nation will be broken. Mrs. Eddy told her household, “‘If Christian Science is not adopted and demonstrated by the people, I clearly foresee that this planet will be dissolved.’ They asked her how and she replied, ‘By fire, I think it is.’” She also said, “...what burns up? Malice. We are told, like Mt. Pelee, there is an internal fire (malice) that will finally burst forth and destroy the world. It is all malice, and our textbook tells us, Christian Scientists will hold such things in check.” (DCC p.2) But are they? Are you? Her prediction will come to pass if the movement continues to reject Mary Baker Eddy.

Mrs. Eddy said, “My dear students, God has told me this much for you: At the end of this century, Christian Science will be the only universally acknowledged religion in the world, because the other religions have no demonstrating basis. But much work remains undone, much self-denial waits for us all before this end can be fulfilled. The main thing is for us to handle M.A.M. that would make us fold our hands till this manifests itself. But Truth demands work, work, work! Never forget that!” (DCC p.249) It does not take an Einstein to perceive that the condition between total destruction and the acceptance of Christian Science is severe, severe, severe suffering. She told us it would be by suffering or Science. It appears Christian Scientists have made their choice.

There are many manifestations of hatred for Mrs. Eddy, but the most devilish is in those who proclaim their love and yet keep silent. Their hatred is more profound than all other forms of hatred, for they know and do not. It is this malice, the fire, which will destroy our planet. Those who keep silent cannot seem to overcome their cowardice and selfishness in order to speak up for her. If you are one of those Christian Scientists who do not believe what Mrs. Eddy said, perhaps you will believe Jesus. “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” (Matt. 24:21, 22) The suffering will be mitigated by the intercessions of the remnant. You will determine the degree of suffering that you, your family, your friends, your nation, and the world will experience.

Mrs. Eddy wrote to a student,

Two points the enemy hang all their fire on, namely — personality and newspaper articles. They say scare the students over defending their Leader in print for fear it will hurt themselves and hurt their own consciences to abide by the personality of one whom God has honored! — and we can stop the public interest in Christian Science by disgracing its Leader and Discoverer.

Mrs. Eddy’s Letters to Augusta Stetson, p.5

This prophecy has come true. Christian Scientists will not defend their Leader and they oppose those who do.

Are Christian Scientists so much like Timothy, ashamed of the gospel of Mrs. Eddy, that they call their cowardice ‘wisdom,’ justifying and excusing their lack of moral courage? Mrs. Eddy wrote, “I shall not forget the cost of investigating, for this age, the methods and power of error.” (Mis. p.222:29-30) Our Leader said this was woman’s hour, but where are the women? She said, “The deliverer of humanity must be the mother-love.” (Ess. CS, p.66) Where is this love?

Loving one another

The Christian Science compact is in loving one another. It is a unity that is completely spiritual and inviolate. The only way it can be discontinued is by violating the divine law of Love. If we ungratefully, carelessly and arrogantly believe that we do not need Mary Baker Eddy, we have violated that law. Thus violated, the Cause is in disarray and our churches cold as marble. We can destroy selfish apathy and unloving ease in matter by breaking the lie of ingratitude for our Leader. Mrs. Eddy says, “God is speaking to us all either in commendation or rebuke through the things which we experience. If we are doing strictly right, we shall be blessed for all we endure; if not, and we continue to justify ourselves, we shall suffer more and more and gain nothing by that suffering.” (DCC p.210) The Christian Science movement is being severely rebuked by God and Christian Scientists do not seem willing to learn the needed lesson from this suffering. We must not listen to the lie that our Leader is unnecessary. We must not react to it nor make a reality of it. Hold to the fact that our Leader is one with her revelation. Doing this, we gain divine Love and lose false material sense. This is the Love that will never fail and is the divine power that heals instantaneously.

The subtle argument of the red dragon, that we do not need Mary Baker Eddy because all we need is the pure Science, violates the “Office of Principle that knows Its own idea: The presence of infinite law; the fixed unchanging substance and source from which all law, action, and conduct emanate.” (Marie K. Larkin, CSB.) This argument of the red dragon rejects the attributes of Principle so necessary in the Christian Science movement, such as: order, righteousness, perfection, guide, rule, law, standard, virtue, quality, firmness, foundation, cause, first, final, incorporeal, trustworthiness, constancy, fixed, self-evident truth, uprightness, motivation, rectitude, soundness, reliability, purity, incorruption.

Listening to the lying argument that Mrs. Eddy is unnecessary, we manifest, in our lives, the antonyms of the above attributes. The Principle of Christian Science is Love.

Mr. Peel’s comments

Mr. Peel writes, “In Science and Health Mrs. Eddy wrote unequivocally: ‘Jesus acknowledged no ties of the flesh. He said: ‘Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.’” (Auth. p.115) He then remarks, “By contrast she opened Retrospection and Introspection with the statement: ‘My ancestors, according to the flesh, were from both Scotland and England, my great-grandfather, on my father’s side, being John McNeil of Edinburgh.’” Mr. Peel does not seem to understand that Mrs. Eddy’s statement does not contrast with Jesus’ statement. Is Mr. Peel inferring from this that Mrs. Eddy was incorrect in her metaphysics? Our Lord referred to himself as “the Son of David,” which refers to his human ancestry; his statement did not contrast with “Call no man your father.” He also referred to Mary as his mother and spoke of his brothers and sisters. One is a relative statement, and one is an absolute statement.

Mr. Peel then states, “The Founder of Christian Science was always strongest when she followed most closely the Founder of Christianity, always weakest when she wrote ‘according to the flesh.’” Isn’t it grand that we have Mr. Peel to interpret for us when and where Mrs. Eddy was right and wrong, weak and strong? When did Mrs. Eddy ever write “according to the flesh”? Mr. Peel continues, “As if in recognition of this fact [who said it was fact?], she labeled the short chapter in her autobiography dealing with the genealogy ‘Ancestral Shadows.’” Do you wonder why Mrs. Eddy is no longer referred to as Leader by the Boston crowd? Wonder no more. Does Mr. Peel understand the human and divine coincidence? Our Leader says, “. all history...illustrates the might of Mind....” (S&H p.225:14-15) She says,

“The human history needs to be revised, and the material record expunged.” (Ret. p.22:1) Would we want to expunge the history that illustrates the might of Mind?

If history is not important, then why did Mrs. Eddy have to declare, “My history is a holy one,” (DCC p.24) when the reporters were telling lies about her history? Evidently, mortal mind thought her history important enough to lie about and this tells us it is vitally important for us to understand her history correctly and honestly.

The term “Ancestral Shadows” does not refer to a worthless non-existence. The term ‘shadow’ means that it points to the real or the spiritual, just as your shadow points to your identity. You could have no shadow if there were no individual you. Mrs. Eddy speaks of The Mother Church as “type and shadow.” (Pul. p.20:14-15) Did Mrs. Eddy consider The Mother Church to be nothing? She referred to herself as “type and shadow.” She did not consider herself to be nothing. The somethingness of our being, at this time, is pointed to by shadow. The shadow carries with it but a small view of what you are, your identity. But you would not say the shadow you cast is all there is to you. The shadow, however, defines the fact that you are here and points to the human and divine coincidence being demonstrated. Right where the shadow appears, the human and divine coincidence is in operation; it could not be otherwise.

Mr. Peel makes much to do about Mrs. Eddy’s statement that Sir John McNeil was mistakenly included in Retrospection and Introspection as a relative. Who of us has not been told by relatives that so-and-so is a relative, only to find out later that that one is not? No doubt, Mrs. Eddy was told this by a relative or friend whom she considered to be knowledgeable on the subject. Why make this mistake loom large in our thinking? He then states that this mistake is “...a tribute to the romantic veneration for illustrious names she had inherited from her girlhood....” (Auth. p.115) Not only are we told she made a mistake but that she was, in effect, an insecure, immature woman because she had a “romantic veneration” for historical figures. Is Mr. Peel inferring that Mrs. Eddy needed to attach herself to a well-known or important male figure to make herself important? There are entire genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament that are incorrect because they start with Joseph as Jesus’ father. If our Lord had been mistakenly informed by a member of his family that an important individual was related to them, and he repeated this to others, would we dare to say that he had a “romantic veneration for illustrious names”? What would this say about our thoughts concerning Jesus, that perhaps he was unsophisticated, unreliable and possibly egotistical? In Years of Authority, p.230, Mr. Peel quotes Calvin Frye, “Mrs. Eddy says what you said in your lecture...is all right so far as she knows. She did not correctly state it in Retro. She did not mean that her grandfather J. Baker was born in England, but that he was of English extraction.” Then Mr. Peel has this to say about Mrs. Eddy, “While this cavalier ease in shrugging off factual misstatements. ” ‘Cavalier’ means “arrogant and haughty.”

Mrs. Eddy wrote, “During seven years over four thousand students were taught by the author in this College. she commits these pages to honest seekers for Truth.” (S&H p.xii:6-26) Mr. Peel then writes, “. she had a wishful tendency to let statistics balloon in recollection.” (p.483, #104) Do you think that the clearest minded, meekest woman who ever lived, had a “wishful tendency to let statistics balloon in recollection”? When one attacks Principle’s idea, one attacks Principle. To elucidate, she wrote, “In 1867, I taught the first student in Christian Science. Since that date I have known of but fourteen deaths in the ranks of my about five thousand students.” (Mis. p.29:15-17) Here she shows that not all of her students were taught in the college, rather her figure of five thousand includes all students from 1867 forward. When some extensive research takes place in the Archives, we will then get to the facts. You will remember that Mrs. Eddy was considered wrong for many years by almost everyone concerning the events surrounding the conspiracy and plot to remove her son from her care. But just recently, the irrefutable evidence surfaced that proves Mrs. Eddy was absolutely correct, even when it appeared to others for many years, that she was wrong. (See CSJ, May 1983, p.284.)

In the clearest sense, Mrs. Eddy taught millions, is still teaching, and will continue to teach even when every individual on the globe is studying Science and Health. To illustrate this she said, “In the highest sense of a disciple, all loyal students of my books are indeed my students, and your wise, faithful teachers have come so to regard them.” (My. p.244:21) It is also important to understand that we are speaking of students, not pupils.

Mr. Peel says (Auth. p.229), “Farlow and Tomlinson soon found that Mrs. Eddy’s own memory of events was a far from infallible guide. She had written her student Sarah Bagley as long ago as 1871, ‘you know my memory material is short so it is best for us both to commit things to paper,’ and in later years she confessed readily to ‘misremembering’ things on occasion.”

In 1889 Mrs. Eddy wrote a student, “I am overwhelmed with work… I cannot remember anything but what serves to save our cause from the jaws of the devourers.” (S.L. p.53) Mrs. Eddy was involved with the most monumental work ever to have been established for mankind. It took her entire attention. Nothing else was important to her at that time. It wasn’t that she did not remember things, but anything that did not pertain to her book was, to her, not worth remembering. Anyone who has been absorbed in writing, inventing, or starting a business can well understand her thinking at that time. ‘Misremembering’ does not mean forgetting. Mr. Peel’s comments here make it appear that Mrs. Eddy had a poor memory, but his assessment is not correct. Those who knew Mrs. Eddy were impressed by her superior ability to recall even the smallest details of their previous associations and conversations with her. What is Mr. Peel trying to convey about Mrs. Eddy and why? (For examples of Mrs. Eddy’s memory, read William Dana Orcutt’s book, Mary Baker Eddy and Her Books, pp.106, 115, 124.)

Mr. Peel’s books reveal his thoughts about Mrs. Eddy in which he has written his own portrayal of the greatest woman who ever lived. He has a right to his own opinions. His perceptions of her are metaphysically incorrect.

Did Mrs. Eddy take drugs?

About relying on drugs, Mrs. Eddy said: “Whatever influence you cast on the side of matter, you take away from Mind, which would otherwise outweigh all else.” (S&H p.168:6-8) “The good that a poisonous drug seems to do is evil, for it robs man of reliance on God, omnipotent Mind, and according to belief, poisons the human system.” (S&H p.169:31-2) “Narcotics quiet mortal mind, and so relieve the body; but they leave both mind and body worse for this submission.” (S&H p.157:26-28)

“What would be thought of a Christian Scientist who believed in the use of drugs, while declaring that they have no intrinsic quality and that there is no matter? What should be thought of an individual believing in that which is untrue, and at the same time declaring the unity of Truth, and its allness? Beware of those who misrepresent facts; or tacitly assent where they should dissent; or who take me as authority for what I disapprove, or mayhap never have thought of, and try to reverse, invert, or controvert, Truth; for this is a sure pretext of moral defilement.” (Mis. p.108:29) “I understand that God is an ever-present help in all times of trouble, — have found Him so; and would have no other gods, no remedies in drugs, no material medicine.” (Mis. p.96:3)

The next quote is used by some Scientists to support the argument that Mrs. Eddy took drugs, but it does not prove that she did. “If from an injury or from any cause, a Christian Scientist were seized with pain so violent that he could not treat himself mentally, — and the Scientists had failed to relieve him, — the sufferer could call a surgeon, who would give him a hypodermic injection, then, when the belief of pain was lulled, he could handle his own case mentally. Thus it is that we ‘prove all things; [and] hold fast that which is good.’” (S&H p.464:13) Many Christian Scientists believe that this quote was meant for her followers.

Mrs. Eddy states very clearly that she did not take drugs. “That I take opium; that I am an infidel, a mesmerist, a medium, a ‘pantheist;’ or that my hourly life is prayerless, or not in strict obedience to the Mosaic Decalogue, — is not more true than that I am dead, as is oft reported. The St. Louis Democrat is alleged to have reported my demise, and to have said that I died of poison, and bequeathed my property to Susan Anthony. The opium falsehood has only this to it: Many years ago my regular physician prescribed morphine, which I took, when he could do no more for me. Afterwards, the glorious revelations of Christian Science saved me from that necessity and made me well, since which time I have not taken drugs, with the following exception: When the mental malpractice of poisoning people was first undertaken by a mesmerist, to test that malpractice I experimented by taking some large doses of morphine, to see if Christian Science could not obviate its effect; and I say with tearful thanks, ‘The drug had no effect upon me whatever.’ The hour has struck, — ‘If they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.’” (Mis. p.248:16-7) (See also Mis. p.249:16.)

Mrs. Eddy just said in the above quote that drugs had no effect upon her, whatsoever, when she was experimenting with them to determine if poison had any power to harm her. When the doctor gave her morphine after her fall in 1866, she fell into a deep sleep, which shows that by the time she wrote the statement in Miscellaneous Writings, in 1885, she had overcome the belief that morphine could affect her. Therefore, why would she accept drugs of any kind from 1903 to 1910 to relieve pain when she was so much more spiritually advanced by then?

In Mr. Peel’s book, Years of Authority, every time he provides backup for comments on Mrs. Eddy’s so-called use of drugs, it is to Frye’s diary he refers us. The specific entries are: May 3, 1903, July 14, 1908 (entry says that Mrs. Eddy would not consent to drugs on this occasion, Auth. p.311) and August 3, 1909. Mr. Peel says, “The archival evidence available indicates that resort to an injection for relief was the exception rather than the rule under even the greatest stress.” (p.462 note #79) But, no evidence of specific instances is offered except the three entries above, and the 7-14-08 entry that states she did not take drugs on that occasion. Then he makes the statement, “An entry in the Frye diaries indicates that the dose given on the few known occasions in 1903-06 and the three known occasions in 1909-10 when she had injections was one-eighth or one-quarter of a grain.” (p.463 #80) But, again, no dates or backup on these “few known occasions” is given. To list “an entry in the Frye diaries” as your only source material is not sufficient verification for such an important subject. Both the May 3, 1903 and August 3, 1909 entries are included in Appendix ‘A’ of Dakin’s scurrilous biography; but the July 14, 1908 entry, that says she would not consent to drugs, is not included!

Mr. Tomlinson, who lived with Mrs. Eddy at Chestnut Hill during the last three years of her life on earth, stated that she never took drugs of any kind. Mr. Peel quotes from Fry’s diary as his source to prove she did. Tomlinson says she did not take them and Mrs. Eddy says she did not take them. Just prior to Frye’s death in 1917, his close friend, Charles Welch, supposedly gave Dittemore, then a member of the Board of Directors, pages removed from Frye’s diary. Dittemore then supposedly photostatted those pages of Frye’s diary, the originals were later burned, and this is the total evidence to support the claim that Mrs. Eddy took drugs. (See p.526, para. 6 of Dakin’s Mrs. Eddy.) It must be remembered that Dittemore turned against Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science and wrote a negative biography of Mrs. Eddy that included the pages purported to be from Frye’s diary.

As shown in the following copy of a page from Mr. Frye’s diary, portions of many of these pages were in shorthand. How hard would it be to tamper with and manufacture additional statements to include with these, and then photocopy your tampered pages and burn the originals? Not hard at all. How could these pages ever be checked for accuracy? If one wanted to falsify material, isn’t this one way it could be done? The diary was written on a loose-leaf desk calendar with entries from several years per page, written in longhand and shorthand. No handwriting expert has ever authenticated the written portion and it is doubtful that any expert could verify the shorthand as having being written by Mr. Frye. Dittemore could very easily have replaced legitimate entries with forged ones, copied the text verbatim for the particular entries and adding the notation about accepting “hypodermics” from doctors.

Irving C. Tomlinson (12 Years, p.206, ©1945) said, “I am in a position to state that Mary Baker Eddy never relied on the use of narcotics or drugs. For nearly three years, as a member of her household at Chestnut Hill, I saw her not only daily, but often several times during the day. My service was of a varied nature and brought me in close contact with her. Never did I see her indulge in drugs of any kind. Neither did she nor any member of her household use tea, coffee, or tobacco. All, in every time of need, faithfully utilized the power of God, through prayer, for healing.” Then in later editions of Mr. Tomlinson’s book (©1966 & 1973), the Board of Directors omitted the statement, “I am in a position to state that Mary Baker Eddy never relied on the use of narcotics or drugs.” And after the sentence, “Never did I see her indulge in drugs of any kind,” the Board inserted a footnote that says: “See, however, ‘A Statement by the Directors’ in the Christian Science Sentinel of January 26, 1929.” Said statement reads in part: “Nor did she [Mrs. Eddy], at any time after she became a Christian Scientist, either use a drug or allow one to be used for her, except as she employed, in a few instances, an anaesthetic for the purpose of temporary relief from extreme pain.” The Board’s only backup for this statement was the phrase, “As we are informed....” The Board does not even reveal to us where they got this information. Mr. Peel’s statements show that the Frye diary was that source.

So what we have here is an apostate turncoat, Dittemore, who hated Mrs. Eddy, wrote a negative biography about her, and used photocopies without originals to “prove” his “assertion” that Mrs. Eddy took drugs. Furthermore, Dittemore provided Dakin with this same material to use against Mrs. Eddy in the vicious book Dakin wrote about her. Dakin’s book is considered to be the most virulent attack on Mrs. Eddy ever written by a non-Scientist. Then, if that were not enough, we have the Christian Science Board of Directors believing the apostate Dittemore, while Irving Tomlinson, a faithful student of Mary Baker Eddy’s, who lived in her home for three years and who said she did not take drugs, is disbelieved. Does this sound rational to you? This is the same Irving C. Tomlinson who proved his veracity and his credentials as a Christian Science practitioner, teacher and lecturer and taught the Normal Class in 1928. And the Board believed the apostates. Why?

On August 26, 1899, Frye entered in his diary, “Mrs. Eddy [had] a terrible night last night fear & fever and poisoned to death in belief. After I had attempted to mentally & audibly help & comfort her without success she said Now stop entirely and go to sleep turn y[ou]r mind entirely away from me. If I dont speak to you again on earth, Goodbye darling.” (Mrs. Eddy, E. F. Dakin, p.528) Here, we see Mrs. Eddy under terrible pain and suffering, not calling a doctor for medicine or a hypodermic, unable to be helped by the prayers of her workers, and willing to die rather than resort to materia medica. Why, in a few years, with advanced spiritual growth, would Mrs. Eddy start taking drugs, the same drugs that had absolutely no effect on her many years before? The logical answer is that she did not take drugs.

It is interesting to note in the May 3, 1903 entry recorded in Frye’s diary, that Tomlinson was called in from nearby Concord to help metaphysically with the problem that Mrs. Eddy was having. Since Tomlinson was present when Frye supposedly states in his diary that Mrs. Eddy received a hypodermic to quiet the pain, why does Tomlinson state in Twelve Years that Mrs. Eddy never took drugs? Mr. Tomlinson was an eyewitness to this account but does not record that she submitted to the use of a narcotic to quiet the pain. Either these entries in Frye’s diary are fabrications penned by Dittemore, or Tomlinson was lying. The Board apparently believes Dittemore.

Unless you know that I [Paul Smillie] was excommunicated from The Mother Church for writing a loving account of my Leader’s life and for detailing her place in Bible prophecy, you cannot understand what is happening in the Christian Science church.

Gottschalk article

The article by Stephen Gottschalk (June 1988 Journal, p.12) contains many of the same errors we have been discussing in the past seven arguments. Statements made by him and contained in his article are not consistent with the published and unpublished statements our Leader gave us.

Mr. Gottschalk asks, “What gave Mrs. Eddy such authority? What continues to give her that authority for Christian Scientists today?” He incorrectly answers his own question in part by saying, “Nor would it be consistent for Christian Scientists to say that Mrs. Eddy possessed authority on the grounds that God, having created a race of sinful mortals, gave a nod of special approval to her as one among many possible candidates to be the Discoverer of Christian Science.” In so many words, isn’t he saying that Mrs. Eddy was not chosen by God? Is he inferring that Mrs. Eddy is only a sinful mortal? And since when did God create a race of sinful mortals? Do those Christian Scientists, who believe that God gave a special nod to Mrs. Eddy, think of her as a sinful mortal? There is no human and divine coincidence here, no distinction between personality and individuality. Is Mr. Gottschalk saying that God knows no mortal, and I am mortal, therefore God doesn’t know me? Where is the hope of salvation here? Isn’t it to just die and then become spiritual? Isn’t that scholastic theology? Isn’t this argument saying, we are only sinful mortals and not worthy of salvation because God does not know us?

Did God give Jesus “a nod of special approval” while he appeared to mortals only as a mortal? Were there “many possible candidates” for the position of Messiah? No, God knew exactly whom He had chosen. It was not an open question. Every Christian Scientist knows that God did not create a race of sinful mortals. We also know that Mrs. Eddy, and we, too, are more than what appears to material sense, as sinful mortals. God could not give a nod to anyone as a mortal, anymore than God could give a nod to the Prodigal Son as a sinful mortal, until he got into the second degree, as the claim of mortality is a belief of turning away from God. When the Prodigal accepted the second degree, God immediately embraced him as His own; but, the Prodigal still appeared to mankind as a mortal.

In Timothy we read, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.” (II Tim. 2:19) If God knew Mrs. Eddy, when did He begin “graciously preparing” her and if others were being prepared, why didn’t we see others of a similar magnitude of character during her lifetime? We must not take statements of Mrs. Eddy’s and show how they violate the Bible, but how they work with it.

Many Bible characters received direct orders from God. Mr. Gottschalk’s last statement infers that Christian Science is not in accord with the Bible because God could not give a nod of special approval, although the Bible tells us that God did so many times. This was possible because God did not see these individuals as mortals. The Bible illustrates many instances of appointings and anointings by God to His chosen ones and each appeared to mankind as a mortal, — how else could we see them?

Mr. Gottschalk then quotes Mrs. Eddy’s statement to Mrs. Bingham in 1886, that is the only statement of Mrs. Eddy’s I have found where she appears to say she was not chosen. “It is not because I have been specially chosen to reveal this Science, but it is as if there were those standing near a window, and because I was nearest the pane, the light fell upon me.” Mrs. Eddy at a later date said, “Divine Love knows His window, and knows that it gives light....” (Foot. p.216) And, “How do you know I am a windowpane for the light to shine through? By the works.” (DCC p.31) The statement quoted by Mr. Gottschalk and the two quotes of Mrs. Eddy’s seem to be at odds, and it is therefore very important to understand the motive for Mrs. Eddy’s statements and the reason she made such a statement to Mrs. Bingham. Her statement to Mrs. Bingham merely says that God did not choose me, Mrs. Eddy, as a mortal.

The Journal insert, Who and What is Right? (CSJ, November 1885, Vol. III, p. 142), was published the year before Mrs. Eddy’s discussion with Mrs. Bingham. Who and What is Right? is very clear on the point that Mrs. Eddy was chosen by God. Although the author is listed as ‘Christian Scientist,’ the style and sentiment appear to be Mrs. Eddy’s. In addition to this, within twelve years from 1886 Mrs. Eddy would commend Judge Hanna for his article dealing with her place in Scriptural prophecy and the fact that she was chosen by God for her work. But why go back to l886 for this quote? Is this all Boston could find to prove their contention? From what perspective are we to view this statement of Mrs. Eddy’s? She could have said, I (a mortal) am not chosen by God, nor known by God. But as dwelling in the human and divine coincidence, I am the window for Truth and Love to mankind, as such I am chosen. I am anointed and appointed by God. Mrs. Eddy referred to herself as a mortal “Mary,” as the “window for the light,” not being just near the window as a mortal, and as “Christ Mary.” So what we have in the Bingham quote is a reference to Mrs. Eddy as being in the first degree. Mrs. Eddy made other statements referring to herself as in the second and in the third degree. She says she is “…His [God’s] highest idea as seen to-day.” (Mis. p.336:8) This is not a reference to mortal sense. Mrs. Eddy’s quote to Mrs. Bingham concerned the first degree, personality, which is unknown to God.

We all know that Jesus spoke about two aspects of his being, as the Son of man and as the Son of God. Didn’t our Leader say she was “as pliant as wax” and in the same statement say she was “impregnable to wind or wave”? (Letter to Hanna.) In one place she said she was “the weakest of mortals” and later in the same statement that she was “the bone and sinew of the world.” (Emma Shipman Reminiscences) She was speaking of the personal and impersonal Mrs. Eddy. She said that the Way-shower has a human and a divine meaning. Jesus made a number of statements relating to his mortality. He asked John to take care of his mother (John 19:27) and told his disciples that he must “suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.” (Luke 17:25) In this quote, he was not referring to the Christ idea. Jesus spoke of crucifixion; he showed nail-prints after the fact. He said he had overcome the world, the flesh and the devil. Would we build a case that Jesus was not chosen because of his first degree quotes? Would we emphasize his crucifixion, his statements of impending punishment, and agony in the Garden? Would we claim this as the real Jesus? Jesus said, “I am the light of the world.” (John 8:12) Was this the Son of man or the Son of God? He then said, “I can of mine own self can do nothing.” (John 5:30) Was this the first, second or third degree? We must understand from which perspective his statements were made.

Taking only Mrs. Eddy’s statement to Mrs. Bingham, it would be incorrect to metaphysically evaluate Mrs. Eddy’s response. It would be just as incorrect to evaluate our Lord by the nail-prints in his flesh or as solely the Son of man. When all of these statements about our Leader and our Lord are taken together, they reveal a clearer sense of them both. Was our Leader near the light that was outside of herself or was the light dawning in her own consciousness? Where was the second degree? The statement to Mrs. Bingham, by itself, says Mrs. Eddy was not chosen. However, subsequent statements of our Leader’s show irrefutably that her highest sense of herself revealed to her that she was indeed chosen for her work and that she embraced the fact that she was chosen and fulfilled Bible prophecy.

From time to time Mrs. Eddy made first degree statements. Why would Mrs. Eddy make such a statement to Mrs. Bingham? An important aspect of this meeting with Mrs. Eddy and Mrs. Bingham is that Mrs. Bingham went to see Mrs. Eddy holding a very negative concept of her. Just prior to the quote from Miscellaneous Documents used by Mr. Gottschalk, Mrs. Bingham relates, “Mrs. Eddy’s manner was so gracious and cordial, so exquisitely refined, and so contrary to the impression given me of her severity, that it was a great and happy surprise.” (p.146, e.a.) Apparently, Mrs. Eddy read Mrs. Bingham’s thought and could very well have spoken in such human terms of herself in order to allay any problem with Mrs. Bingham, this being their first meeting. Mrs. Eddy, in her great wisdom, was not liable to relate pearls of great price to Mrs. Bingham, well knowing that Mrs. Bingham had intimate contact with someone who hated Mrs. Eddy. Mrs. Eddy also spoke to Mrs. Bingham about one of her students dying of pneumonia when it was malpractice. (Mis. Doc. p.147) If Mrs. Bingham was friendly with Mrs. Woodbury or one of her confederates, we can understand why Mrs. Eddy would have been very careful in extending to Mrs. Bingham any correct thought of herself and her place in Bible prophecy. Mrs. Bingham was given the world’s opinion of our Leader and Mrs. Eddy could give Mrs. Bingham no more, knowing the preconceived misconception that Mrs. Bingham had of her at the time.

Every Christian Scientist knows that there are absolute and relative statements. In 1910 our Leader said, “God selects for the highest service one who has grown into such a fitness for it as renders any abuse of the mission an impossibility,” and this appears to say that we must grow into a higher fitness for it before we are accepted by God for what God wants us to do. (S&H p.455:20-23) However, in Christian Science we take all of Mrs. Eddy’s statements on a given subject to give ourselves a complete view. She also said, “God had been graciously preparing me during many years for the reception of this final revelation....” (S&H p.107:3) Here she tells us that God had been preparing her before she received the revelation; this does not mean God was preparing generic man. This tells us that God knew her and was graciously preparing her prior to her discovery. If God called the author, the author did not call God. If God prepared her and called her, then she was chosen, appointed and anointed, foreordained and predestined. She also wrote, “With God, knowledge is necessarily foreknowledge; and foreknowledge and foreordination must be one, in an infinite Being. What Deity foreknows Deity must foreordain....” (Un. p.19:1-4) Could she have made it any clearer? How many other contenders, when eight years of age, heard the audible voice of their Mother-God for over a year? None are recorded. How many others were raised from their beds to the height of about a foot, three times, after having replied, in answer to His call, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth”? None are recorded.

In Golden Memories (p.2), Clara Shannon related the following, “Some years ago our dear Leader explained to me why she struggled in coming out from the belief of life, substance, and intelligence in matter, and revealing life, substance and intelligence as wholly spiritual. The reason was prenatal. One day, about four and a half months before her birth, her mother, Mrs. Baker, went into the attic to get some wool in order to spin yarn for knitting. Collecting her wool together, suddenly she was overwhelmed by the thought that she was filled with the Holy Ghost and had dominion over the whole earth. At that moment she felt the quickening of the babe, and then she thought, ‘What a sin I am guilty of, — the sin of presumption — in thinking that I could be filled with the Holy Ghost! That I could have dominion!’ Indeed, she was very troubled. A dear old friend came to see her, and finding her so sorrowful, asked her what was the trouble. Mrs. Baker told her that she felt she had been guilty of the sin of presumption, because of her conviction that she was filled with the Holy Ghost and had dominion over the whole earth. Her friend told her that this was the kind of man which God created, of which we read in the first chapter of Genesis; that this man was made in God’s image and likeness and was given dominion. She stayed for some time and comforted Mrs. Baker.” Mrs. Eddy also told Clara, “It was my mother’s strong resistance to my spiritual dominion that helped to make me so frail.” And Mrs. Eddy said it was also because of her father’s relentless theology. When did Mary choose God? Doesn’t the above sound like she was chosen even before she was born? What window was she standing in front of at four and a half months into the gestation period?

Jesus said he was sent. (John 5:23) The Bible says Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sent and that God told Jeremiah that He knew him before he was even conceived. (Jeremiah 1:5) Isn’t this the same as our Leader’s experience?

In her quote to Mrs. Bingham, Mrs. Eddy merely said that solely as a mortal, Mary Baker Eddy could never be a window for the light. It is similar to what Mrs. Eddy said when asked where she was born, “Oh, I never was born, but if you mean Mary, well, Bow is over there.” (WKMBE Vol. I, p.81)

The Mosaic Law enabled Jesus to gain a foothold in human consciousness, while Jesus’ work enabled Mrs. Eddy to find a foothold for her work in human consciousness. Because of this, it is true that only those who have some understanding of the Gospels can really comprehend Christian Science.

We cannot take a relative statement, like the one spoken to Mrs. Bingham in 1886, claim it to be an absolute statement, and then say it was Mrs. Eddy’s highest sense of herself. As a mortal she was waiting by the window, but as the spiritual idea she was chosen and was expressed to humanity through the second degree. As a mortal she gave way for the spiritual to operate — the mortal does not take precedence as it is only the belief the world sees, and all that Mrs. Bingham could perceive at that time. The magnitude of Mary Baker Eddy’s spiritual character was the reason she was chosen for the most difficult work ever assigned by God.

Mr. Gottschalk quoted Mrs. Eddy’s statement to Mrs. Bingham from a book entitled, Miscellaneous Documents. Also included in that book, is the following statement by Caroline D. Noyes, CSD:

One distinguishing feature in Mrs. Eddy’s students and loyal followers or of her faithful Normal teachers, they always recognized and have always done so, the fact that Mrs. Eddy was the woman St. John prophesies of in Revelation XII and the little book spoken of in a previous chapter is Science and Health, for he declares that as a result of the teaching ‘Time shall be no more’ and no other ever written makes such a statement. Where she says that mortal mind is unreal, all that goes with it is unreal and as time pertains to the mortal mind it is saying there is no more time further as Truth, Christ must come by the woman. They know that no mortal man could have been instrumental in the coming of Christian Science, whereas the little book must be in accordance with the prophecy, the seed of the woman. The male and female of God’s man must appear to free man, which Christian Science is doing by elevating woman to her rightful place as equal of the male, thus completing or bringing out the whole man. In so believing, they recognize the only true Leader in Mrs. Eddy, the Revelator, the Discoverer and Founder of the Christ, Truth, and Science as containing the whole undivided Truth that is saving the world. They consider it an altogether sacred book as prophesied by St. John and feel confident by the results of their work in casting out error and healing it is the word of God and will save all who trust to it, and see in it a continuation and confirmation of Jesus’ teaching.

Miscellaneous Documents Relating to Christian Science, p.227

If God had not been graciously preparing you, then you were not prepared; you would not be ready to receive the light. So how did God know to prepare you so you could stand by the window? How could God prepare you if God did not know you? Some very simple reasoning and deduction could have revealed the correct answer. But incorrect reasoning would assert that Mrs. Eddy was only in the flesh; God doesn’t know the flesh, therefore God doesn’t know Mrs. Eddy. That is not flawless reasoning. We are not just in the flesh. Science and Health affirms that “...intercommunication is always from God to His idea, man.” (S&H p.284:31-32) Did Mrs. Eddy choose to communicate with her Father-Mother or did her Father-Mother choose to communicate with Mrs. Eddy? She speaks of the “divine influence ever present in human consciousness....” (S&H p.xi:16-17) Then she could never have been separated from God as solely a mortal in the flesh, could she? If the flesh was powerful enough to keep God from communicating with Mrs. Eddy, His idea, then He could not have foreknowledge of her nor have appointed, anointed, nor chosen her for her mission. Didn’t God say of Jesus while he was in the flesh, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”? (Matt. 3:17) Did the flesh stop God from communicating with or choosing His idea, Jesus, for the task He appointed him to fulfill? Even though Jonah tried, he could not reject the mission God had given him.

We cannot use a first degree record in place of one stating the human and divine coincidence. Can we not see and appreciate “[God’s] highest idea as seen to-day?” (Mis. p.336:8) Does this God-idea have anything to do with the flesh or mortality? Mr. Gottschalk continues, “We might say, then, that Mrs. Eddy’s continuing authority for Christian Scientists stems neither from her personal desire nor from some supernatural investiture.” (p.12) Of course her authority did not come from any personal desire, but to assert there was no “supernatural investiture” or divine anointing, is not correct. ‘Investiture’ is defined as “the right of giving possession of any manor or office, the act of giving possession.” Mrs. Eddy very clearly states that God gave to her her office, or place. ‘Supernatural’ is defined as “being beyond or exceeding the power or laws of nature; miraculous.” The prophets must also have been supernaturally taught or enlightened, for their predictions were beyond human foreknowledge.

Mr. Gottschalk continues, “In the final analysis, that authority stems from the genuineness of the spiritual light that fell upon her and the fact that she remained wholly faithful to it.” Wrong. Mrs. Eddy was not solely a mortal, the light did not fall upon her, she was the window for the light, as she says over and over and over again. The following comment by Mr. Gottschalk continues the Boston rhetoric that Mrs. Eddy was a “faithful follower” of Christ Jesus, “Mrs. Eddy’s life... makes us keenly aware of what a true disciple of the Master she was. That’s why she could say in her Message to The Mother Church for 1901, and then repeat the following year, ‘Follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ.’” One of the first lessons a Sunday School pupil learns is to know the difference between Jesus the Master and the Christ. Mrs. Eddy following the Christ, does not equate with following Jesus as the Leader.

Order of Services given in the Manual

Mrs. Eddy gave us the collective means to handle original sin, and when handled, obedience will flourish where disobedience once flooded, and love radiate where impurity and harshness abounded. The root of the resistance is hatred for the woman. This is original sin handling Christian Scientists and it robs the whole world of Christian Science. All the difficulties we face today in the movement and in our nation stem from hatred of Mary Baker Eddy. Human methods will never correct this problem nor achieve the removal of this hatred. She says, “Love is the liberator.” (S&H p.225:21)

In Miscellaneous Writings (p.279), our Leader says, “We, to-day, in this class-room, are enough to convert the world if we are of one Mind; for then the whole world will feel the influence of this Mind.”

She then tells us that collective means are necessary before the world can feel the influence of the one Mind. Like Joshua, she says, we should walk around the walls of the enemy “together.” Like the disciples and Jesus we would meet in the upper room “together.” We are not following her directions.

The order of service is a revelation concerning divine worship based in the demonstration of the human and divine coincidence. Mrs. Eddy says that God gave her the Manual. The order of service is in the Manual, hence it is from God and cannot be changed. It says in the Manual that “prayers in Christian Science churches shall be offered for the congregations collectively and exclusively.” (Art. VIII Sect. 5) It is the unity of prayer, this working “together,” that produces a collective challenge to the Adamic curse. If we do not collectively handle original sin for the congregation, the world will not be changed. Most importantly, we need more than a few moments for silent prayer. Ask your reader to provide sufficient time for the congregation to pray. In addition, come to church early enough to pray for your congregation before the service, and pray also during the collection.

Recognizing that Christian Science would grow and embrace all other religions (My. p.342:21), particularly the Protestant religions first, our Leader established an order of service that would make these newcomers feel at home while at the same time working “together” to destroy the claims of original sin, working “together” to destroy this collective evil. She tells us “The emphatic purpose of Christian Science is the healing of sin…” (Rud. p.2:25) and that “…the higher mission of the Christ-power [is] to take away the sins of the world.” (S&H p.150:15) Wasn’t her primary hope then to destroy sin and thus produce the healing that would come as the result of sin’s destruction?

Working and praying with a Bible lesson that has already been studied each day by Christian Scientists worldwide, and which Mrs. Eddy called a daily treatment for the world, it is now time to listen and mentally declare that the Word you are hearing read from the desk is the absolute truth of God. If the handling of original sin, the hatred of the dragon for the revelator, has been accomplished, the newcomer will not bristle at the spiritual interpretation of our Lord’s Prayer, but will recognize its beauty and healing purpose. If the congregation has done its work, the service will accomplish great good for the congregation and healings will abound.

Many of you have left the Christian Science church because you are tired of the strife and hatred there. The only way this hatred can be healed is through love, love enough to go into that congregation and pray for that congregation. You need not join that church, but you must join together in prayer for that congregation. This will do more than almost anything else to heal the errors in the Christian Science church. In your prayers, specifically handle for the congregation the hatred of original sin for the revelator and the revelation.

Christian Scientists are not marching around the walls together. We are not meeting in the upper sanctuary together. We are not of one Mind. Specifically handle for the congregation the claim of original sin — the hatred of the red dragon for the woman God-crowned.

Interesting Information

Christian Scientists are now finally beginning to ask, what is wrong in our church? Will you please speak up and tell them? Share with them the information in this book. Would you and your friends please begin seriously reading biographies on Mrs. Eddy, in particular, the loving accounts of her life, such as, Twelve Years with Mary Baker Eddy and the series We Knew Mary Baker Eddy. Along with these, please begin the study of Mary Baker Eddy: The Prophetic and Historical Perspective. The study of these works will counteract to a large degree the continuing and increasing hatred of Mrs. Eddy.

Did you notice that the article concerning Christian Science healing placed in newspapers all over the country and paid for by the branch churches [1988] contained no mention of Christ Jesus or the Bible? Why were those omitted? Did you notice that the advertisement dealt with Christian Science healing and yet there was no mention of Mrs. Eddy or of Science and Health? Did you notice the comment in the margin that said, “...if it had not been for Christian Science healing, I would probably not be here today”? Probably? Did you notice that the only individual mentioned was Robert Peel, along with the names of his publishing company and new book? Many Christian Scientists are now distributing Robert Peel’s book, Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age, as an introduction to Christian Science, rather than Science and Health. We must not be mesmerized into thinking that people cannot understand Science and Health, nor be handled to consider it an embarrassment to give someone a Science and Health. We must not offer a substitute that we feel will meet with less resistance than Science and Health might receive or that we think will elicit a more favorable response. These thoughts are not yours, but the suggestions of animal magnetism. Isn’t Science and Health the ‘little book,’ described in Revelation?

The Manual does not exclude TV or modern methods of communication. These methods should be used in addition to the Manual-specified channels for communication. We must not forget nor diminish the value of the Manual provisions God gave to Mrs. Eddy. We must do all in our power to develop these God-directed channels. When our church has been totally faithful to these channels, we may then be justified to utilize the methods of TV, radio, etc. These forms of communication do not replace the God-directed channels in the Manual. Christian Scientists do not take sides in a church controversy. They always support the office of the Board of Directors. By support, I do not mean we are loyal subjects, but loyal and vocal Christian Scientists, demanding that the Manual provisions that govern that office be kept inviolate. Prayer for this office is only one means of supporting the Board. The Manual provisions outlined in Article I, Sect. 9, p.28:25-4, 29:7-12, must be exercised. It is our duty to demand that office is kept pure. The real issue is not over a difference of opinion between the Board and Mr. Peel. That is a ruse of A.M. The real issue is the controversy in the Christian Science church over Mr. Peel’s book, Mary Baker Eddy, The Years of Authority. If one supports Mr. Peel in this latest controversy, that one is indirectly supporting The Years of Authority. If one supports the Board in this latest controversy, one is also indirectly supporting The Years of Authority, the foundation of all the latest developments in our church. We are all Christian Scientists and we do not take sides and hate anyone. If you are presently angry, handle that claim as malicious animal magnetism and be loving. That is the way to follow our Leader. That is how she accomplished her work and it is the only way we can save the movement.

The clamoring in the Christian churches to substitute other Bibles for the King James Version is getting louder. Beware.

Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures

Mrs. Eddy’s picture and signature in the front of her textbook were immediately removed after her passing, ostensibly on the grounds that too much attention was being paid to her personality. Why did Mrs. Eddy place her picture and signature in the textbook? Why did she from September 7, 1907, until the time of her passing on December 3, 1910, continuously advertise in the Christian Science periodicals that the new editions contained her picture and signature?

Visitors to the Archives are shown letters dated “Oct. 26, 1910, per Frye,” and “Nov. 11th, 1910, per Dickey” purporting to show it was Mrs. Eddy herself who authorized the removal of her picture and signature.

Inquirers are also shown the 1910 December Journal which advertised Science and Health with no mention of her picture and signature. But the November 26, 1910 Sentinel stated: “This work contains important changes and additions by the author, also a photogravure portrait of Mrs. Eddy, together with a facsimile of her signature.” Mrs. Eddy knew what she was doing when she placed her picture and signature in Science and Health.

In Adam Dickey’s Memoirs he stated, “Alterations, like anything else that emanated from Mrs. Eddy’s pen were most carefully handled, and great pains were taken to see that it was just as she expressed it.” He states that Mrs. Eddy first made any changes in lead pencil in her book. After that, she herself prepared a letter to Mr. Stewart, her publisher, stating what change or changes were to be made. Mr. Dickey states, “This letter was signed by Mrs. Eddy.” The letter to Mr. Stewart was not signed ‘per Frye,’ or ‘per Dickey’ as are the letters now on file in the Archives which are purported to have been dictated by Mrs. Eddy. Attorneys have agreed that her picture and signature were all the copyright Mrs. Eddy needed to forever guarantee the purity of her text. However, the Christian Science Board of Directors was determined to continue the copyright in order to maintain control of Science and Health and it was this that necessitated the removal of her picture and signature. Mr. Dickey states that under no circumstances would Mr. Stewart have made a change in Mrs. Eddy’s books unless the order to do so had come directly from Mrs. Eddy.

Mrs. Eddy did not copyright her last 14 editions of Science and Health, issued between 1906 and 1910, because, as copyright attorneys had stated, her picture and signature with cross and crown emblem on the cover were all the protection she needed to guarantee absolute purity of her text. There was, therefore, no need for Mrs. Eddy to copyright Science and Health after her picture and signature were permanently affixed to the book. But even so, it was conveyed to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Sub-committee No. 3 by the representatives of the Trustees when seeking a perpetual copyright. The representatives of the Trustees stated that it was necessary to extend the copyright on the 1906 edition of Science and Health because Christian Scientists were dependent on its precise wording, pagination and line numbering for use in church services. This was not true. We currently use the 1910 edition. The cross and crown seal on the cover of Mrs. Eddy’s books was her own legal trademark. The Senators asked, “Why do you seek continued copyright protection if your trademark will guarantee that the buyer receives the legitimate version?” Those testifying for the Church declared they needed this protection in order to keep the teachings of the textbook pure. The congressional sub-committee pointed out that the textbook could not have the ‘cross and crown’ insignia on the cover if it was not the exact text Mrs. Eddy wrote. They knew this was all the church needed to guarantee authenticity of her writings. Attorneys also pointed out that the restoration of her picture and signature would provide additional copyright protection. The uncopyrighted 1910 edition has been in use for the past 78 years. Mrs. Eddy registered her last Science and Health copyright on Oct. 19, 1906. The thousands of changes made in her Book from 1906 to 1910 were never submitted to the Library of Congress in either the form of ‘registration of changes,’ or ‘renewal of copyright.’

The facts surrounding this most important issue, included above, indicate unmistakably that Mrs. Eddy carefully laid the groundwork between 1906 and 1910 so that her final 1910 un-copyrighted edition would enter the public domain at the time of her passing. Between 1906 and 1910 she published 14 new editions that contained 3,906 changes, in addition to the complete overhaul of her chapter, “Fruitage.” The copyright office was never asked by her to protect any of these.

Mrs. Eddy wrote William G. Nixon the following letter:

Dear Student: I see this morning the purpose of the enemy. It is to break my will at my decease, if this, the latter, can be accomplished. My son in S. Dakota is a victor at law, and M.A.M. will influence him to break my will. Now this I enjoin upon you. Enquire of the best copyright lawyer [outside of] Boston you can find, if I can assign my copyright of Science and Health and Unity of Good to someone who could hold it if my will was broken, and never name this party in my will or name him to whom it is assigned, whichever could make it legal. Find this out at once and the way of conveyance of my copyright so that if my will should be disputed or broken, the publishing of Science and Health and the Unity of Good could go on without hindrance.

I shall assign the copyright of these books to one or two perhaps of my students in equal shares who I think have done and will do the best as publishers and owners of these books.

Do not delay to ask a lawyer or judge of the U.S. Circuit Court all about this question of a legal conveyance of copyright so that the ownership will take place after the decease of the present owners — this conveyance to be made outside of a will, so that if the will was broken the assignment would be valid.

[P.S.]: Be perfectly silent to all but such parties about what I have written. The Boston lawyers whom I have employed are demoralized by M.A.M. Note this.

[Signed] In haste, Affectionately, M.B.G. Eddy Mary Baker Eddy’s Six Days of Revelation, by Richard Oakes, p. 360

Mrs. Eddy did not copyright her 1910 edition because she wanted it to belong to the world. In 1890 there was a chance to gain financially by waiting a short time until a new International Bill on copyright was expected to pass. At first glance Mrs. Eddy had admitted that maybe waiting would be the course to follow, but on December 18, 1890 she wrote Mr. Nixon: “...Now I have received different instructions from the Source beyond human views.... Push the Book to as fast as possible completion. Some worldly-poor Christian in England, and elsewhere, can publish it for the good of our race, or translate it, with more facilities than we can, in the old countries. Let them do it. It is God’s Book and He says give it at once to the people ” This was written 20 years before she passed on. Again, in a letter dated Jan. 1, 1891, she wrote Mr. Nixon: “There is a great sin being committed by delaying or suffering my Book, Science and Health, to be delayed for a money consideration [due to an investigation of copyright advantages]. If this course is pursued this unprecedented prosperity of this Book that I have always conducted on the opposite basis will go down in the hands of those who do this. This I know. God’s law to ‘feed my sheep,’ to give Science and Health at once to those hungering for it, must be obeyed, and held paramount to an international law on copyright. Heed this, and rush with all your ability…this work that the enemy is holding back.” (Six Days, Oakes)

In 1910 Christian Science was sweeping the earth and Mrs. Eddy’s name and Christian Science were headline fare for millions of newspaper readers the world over. The world’s largest publishing houses would have welcomed the chance to print and promote Science and Health. It would have become a worldwide bestseller, had not the Board in Boston claimed copyright on it and relegated her work to obscurity. In Mrs. Eddy’s day, Science and Health headed the list of books most frequently borrowed from America’s public libraries.

Then, in 1934, the 1906 copyright was expiring. Mrs. Eddy had made no provision for its renewal. [You may recall, she did not copyright the 1910 edition because she said she wanted it to belong to the world.] In 1934 the U.S. Copyright Law permitted an author to renew a copyright or, if the author had died, the executor of the author’s estate or a son or daughter could renew. By 1934 Mrs. Eddy’s son, George, and her adopted son, Ebenezer Foster Eddy, had both died. Mr. Fernald was no longer the executor since he had closed his administration of Mrs. Eddy’s estate 20 years earlier. Until Foster Eddy died, the Board had used him to renew all copyrights as they expired. In 1934, the Directors had to resort to fraudulent means to renew the copyright on the 1906 Science and Health, since an executor could not renew a copyright after his duties as administrator of an estate had been completed and closed. In 1934 Mr. Fernald illegally secured for the Directors a renewal of the copyright by falsely stating to the Washington D.C., Copyright Office officials that he was the ‘executor’ of Mrs. Eddy’s estate, even though her estate had been closed in March of 1914, 20 years earlier. The 1971 ‘perpetual copyright’ granted by Congress was recently [1988] declared unconstitutional. (Except where noted, the above material comes from If Mary Baker Eddy’s Manual Were Obeyed, by Helen Wright.)

Today [1988], the only place Science and Health is advertised is in the periodicals. “[Mrs. Eddy] gave warning that the time might come when medical thought might be so organized that it would make almost impossible the practice of Christian Science. [She wrote], ‘When [that] time comes I want my students to take every means possible to make Science and Health available to the whole world.’” (Six Days p.321)

Read the last line of the last testimony in Mrs. Eddy’s 1910 Science and Health shown in reduced form here, and compare it to the last line of the last testimony in your copy of Science and Health. After she passed on, the Board changed the last page. Do you think Mrs. Eddy would have left the last page of her book, page 700, half empty? Do you think she would have ended her book with the testimony that appears in today’s book, or would she have ended her book as shown here from the 1910 edition she left to us?

Through the careful and prayerful study of Science and Health I have been lifted from sickness to health, from sorrow to peace, from lack to plenty, and the most beautiful of all, from darkness to light.

The Father, the Prodigal, and the Citizen

February 1988

Are there two types of Bible prophecy?

Our Lord’s parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke gives us the answer. The Prodigal limits and rejects God, loses his reverence and adoration for his Father, and of necessity must travel to the far country (materiality) where he joins himself to a citizen (mortal mind) and wastes his substance (his spiritual qualities) with riotous living. (Luke 15:10-24) Denying his God-given second degree qualities, he rejects the moral for the immoral, substitutes insensitivity for his humanity, and prefers dishonesty, lust and passion in place of honesty, affection and compassion. Consequently, he loses his faith and hope. Losing his meekness, he is held by egotism and intemperance. All his second degree qualities now lost, he loses his link with his Father, their source. Those in the far country, due to their own sins, suffer great tribulation. (See S&H p.66:6-10.)

When the Prodigal came to the realization of his spiritual nature and expressed the second degree qualities that were rightfully his, he was immediately embraced by his loving Father. Seeking first the “kingdom of God and his righteousness,” he was given the robe, shoes, ring and fatted calf, — all of which had been absent from the first degree of physicality. (Three degrees, S&H pp.115,116.) His humility, repentance, faith, hope, discernment, affection and compassion were awakened and rekindled. Why did he waste his qualities and take so long in waking up? Because he joined the citizen (mortal mind) and abode in the first degree.

The Prodigal was the immortal child of God, but seemed to have fallen from his high estate and went on a downward journey. (S&H p.258:27) He wasted his affection and compassion, his second degree qualities, which are embraced by and included in the love of the third degree. These have nothing to do with the mortal selfhood of the first degree. Mortals, like the Prodigal, generally reject the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and waste their spiritual qualities with riotous living.

The Father sends His own

Is it true that everyone, who appears as a mortal, is in the far country because of sin? In John we read, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.... He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.” (John 5:23,24,37,38, e.a.) It is very important, then, to accept the one God sends and not count him to be like everyone else. Could God’s Word abide in us if we do not accept the one He sends? Could we heal? Would we say that God didn’t know Christ Jesus because he appeared to be just a mortal like everyone else? (See John 10:15.) Mrs. Eddy says, “Born of a woman, Jesus’ advent in the flesh partook partly of Mary’s earthly condition....” (S&H p.30:5) And, “Jesus of Nazareth was a natural and divine Scientist. He was so before the material world saw him. He who antedated Abraham, and gave the world a new date in the Christian era, was a Christian Scientist, who needed no discovery of the Science of being in order to rebuke the evidence.” (Ret. p.26:17-22) In that quote, did you notice that Jesus existed before his advent in the flesh? He was “...physically mortal, but spiritually immortal Existing here and now, this unseen individuality is real and eternal.” (Un. p.37:17-21) Is not everyone who appears in the flesh as a mortal, at the very same time, the precious idea of God? Yes, but not all have been sent; that is why we must understand the human and divine coincidence — the coincidence of the second and third degrees.

Jesus’ reference to the far country does not mean that heaven is a long way off in terms of miles. ‘Far’ defines the infinite distance between the belief of materiality and the reality of spiritual being. The Kingdom of Heaven is not a distant scene but a place in the heart, the consciousness of Love within, with a greater sense of substance and place than we can now see. We read, “Jesus’ true and conscious being never left heaven for earth. It abode forever above, even while mortals believed it was here.” (No. p.36:6-8) His spiritual nature was intact while he was on earth and was not separated from him at all. Right where malicious animal magnetism says we are material, we are spiritual. There are not two of us, there is only one, and a lie that says the mortal is us. This is why the Leader says that the Christ “. comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error.” (S&H p.583:10-11) How? Through the second degree.

Those sent are spiritually far above all others in the far country. Is it any wonder there is always an attempt to murder, reject, obscure and lie about them? ‘Being sent’ does not refer to Christ the Truth, for that is always with each one of us; the Bible refers to the individuality of the Christ, that of the spiritual Jesus, the one who was to be sent. Was Jesus the only one sent? “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” (John 1:6) So John the Baptist was also sent by God. Are there others? In Jesus’ parable, he says, “And when the time of the fruit drew near he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.” (Matt. 21:4,36,37) Additionally we have the patriarchs and prophets who were sent. (See Romans 8: 29, 30.) To be sent is to be known by God, foreordained and predestined. This is not the foreordination and predestination of old theology, but applies solely to those sent. You say well God doesn’t know a mortal. He doesn’t, and this is clear when the Father says of the Prodigal, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” (Luke 15:24) He was dead and lost to spiritual sense.

Does God know those whom He sends?

God cannot know mortality. How does God know Christ Jesus, the patriarchs and prophets, and how could He speak to them by name in an audible voice? God speaks through the second degree. How could God know Moses when he was mortal but not know him as a mortal? (Ex. 3:7) He knew him as the meekest man on earth, a second degree quality. (Num. 12:3) Moses was meek; our Lord had great humanity; Ananias was honest; Paul, the restrained (definition of Paul), had temperance. We know that God had been drawing Saul of Tarsus to a change of character, but he kicked against God’s prodding. God knew when Saul had changed or He would not have sent Ananias to help him. (Acts 9) The Virgin was moral. Joseph, Mary’s husband, was a just man. (Matt.1:19) Luke says that Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth “…were both righteous before God.” (Luke 1:6) Joseph and Jeremiah of the Old Testament had hope and affection, Samuel had faith, and John had compassion. God knows His own ideas. God spoke in an audible voice to Samuel, Jesus, and John the Baptist. Some who were sent, were named by God before they were born. How? Through His divine all-knowing that perceived through the second degree, so abundant in these individuals; but God was not able to perceive the mortal, void of the second degree. “For he whom God hath sent God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” (John. 3:34)

“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” (I John 2:23) It is not wise to deny the one God sent. Did He send only men? Are women forbidden to be sent? If God sent a woman, would it be wise to deny her as the one God sent? (See S&H p.118:6.) What are the consequences of rejecting God’s chosen one, — could they be lack of healing, worldwide turbulence, and loss of what the chosen one brought to mankind? And what of those instrumental in denying the one God sent? In Matthew we read, “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 10:33) Didn’t God also speak audibly to Mary Baker Eddy?

”Being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they [the wisemen] departed into their own country another way. And …the angel of the Lord appeared unto Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.” Do you think God had a special purpose for the child? God even seemed to know Jesus was a child. When Moses was a baby, did God specifically want Moses preserved? Why not just any boy baby? God certainly loves all of His ideas, but He had a link to Moses, to Jesus and to their parents through the second degree. God foreordains those individuals He has chosen to fulfill His plan.

Incorrect philosophy

The false concept of Biblical prophecy is contained in the following: “...The biblical concept of revelation through chosen prophets could be reconciled with the facts available to rational inquiry as one might say that the rising sun ‘chose’ the highest peak on which to shine first....” (Auth. p.38) According to this philosophy, Moses and Jesus became so spiritually minded by the time they were two or three days old that they were able to catch the first rays of light as the “highest mountain peak.” Obviously, something more than a mortal reaching out to God was taking place. Why did Herod kill all the male babies? “. in order that the man Jesus, the masculine representative of the spiritual idea, might never hold sway and deprive Herod of his crown.” (S&H p.565:10-13) Jesus was foreordained to fulfill prophecy, — mortal mind knew who he was. Didn’t God? Mrs. Eddy’s first forty-five years brought almost constant suffering. Mortal mind, once again, knew its destroyer. Would new Herods try to deprive the foreordained feminine representative from holding sway that they might not be deprived of their crowns? How? By rejecting her predestined status, and thus her fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

Some would have us believe that Mrs. Eddy became more and more spiritual until finally the revelation was seen. Not so! — she was sent to reveal Truth and unless we see this point, we place the revelation in the grasp of mortal mind trying to improve itself. Mrs. Eddy says, “If mortal mind knew how to be better, it would be better.” (S&H p.186:29-30) If God knows His Science and knows His idea, Mary Baker Eddy, He must also predestinate each before they appear here. Many Christian Scientists say that is ridiculous. However, our Leader says, “What God knows, He also predestinates; and it must be fulfilled.” (No. p.37:27-28) If Mrs. Eddy was only a mortal when here, then she had no connection with God. But although she appeared to be “...physically mortal…[she was] spiritually immortal.” (Un. p.37:17-18) Boston tells us God did not know her because she was only mortal. What of the spiritual idea that presented itself through the human and divine coincidence that our Leader says John saw in Jesus? (S&H p.561:16-20) Was this only true for Jesus? Dear friends, this is how Bible prophecy is fulfilled.

God knows His own idea

When did God recognize the Prodigal? When he was forced to get into the second degree, because only then could there be a human and divine coincidence. God’s image could then be reflected back to Himself. The Prodigal became reflection and rejected deflection. He had been “outside the focal distance of infinite Spirit….” (S&H p.301:26-27) The moment the Prodigal gave God an opportunity through the second degree, the Father ran to embrace him in the third degree as His precious spiritual idea. Like most of mankind the Prodigal was not sent by God to the far country. Not like most of mankind, Mrs. Eddy was sent to the far country and her spiritual identity was always operating here because of her “sinless humanhood” in the second degree. (Un. p.49:8) Her “sinless humanhood” appeared to the world as a mortal, but it was, in fact, the spiritual idea operating through that sinless humanhood, “The highest idea of God as seen to-day.” (Mis. p.336:8)

When the Prodigal got into the second degree, he was fully known as the individual identity of God. You say, the Prodigal was outside the influence of God in the far country and, therefore, was responsible for waking himself up out of mortality, and that only then could God embrace him. Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him....” (John 6:44, e.a.) We do not choose God all by ourselves as mortals. It is God who draws His idea back to Himself. Every desire we have for righteousness and for the Kingdom of Heaven is God drawing us to Himself. Are mortal yearnings for God responsible for putting God into motion? If that is so, then mortals determine the ability of God to control His creation, and the belief of life, substance and intelligence in matter would be more potent than God. However, it is never a mortal mentality getting better, but God drawing us to Him through His Holy Ghost, His divine Science. Either we respond to this impulse willingly or through the suffering imposed by rejecting divine Science.

The Bible tells us that if we draw nigh to God, He will draw nigh to us, and this was the experience of the Prodigal. (See James 4:8.) But it must always be remembered that it is God who draws us back to Himself, drawing us with cords of lovingkindness and bands of love. (Jer. 31:3, Hosea 11:4) It is never your own idea as a mortal; it is always the Mind that is Love in operation. The terrible egotism of humanism mesmerizes us into believing we can do it all ourselves. We are reflection; we are never an individual identity separated from our divine Source. Most waste their substance with riotous living and because they violate the law of the Holy Ghost, they are forced to turn back to God. If it is true that man is in control of his own destiny as a mortal, then he is also in control of Bible prophecy — and that is impossible. But you say, the Bible says God answers our needs, and if we don’t call, He certainly can’t answer. The Bible also says, “Before they call, I will answer.” (Isa. 65:24, e.a.) How? Because He produces the desire to change and to call upon Him. It is not our mortal doing, but God being.

Was the Prodigal’s spiritual identity there all the time? Of course, but it was obscured by joining with the citizen (mortal mind) of the far country — the first degree (physical). Didn’t God tell Jeremiah He knew him before he appeared in the womb? (Jer. 1:5) Wasn’t Jeremiah one of those God sent? Then God knew Jeremiah in spite of the fact that he was born into materiality (the far country). Jeremiah was predestined, therefore known.

Evil beliefs, the first degree, disappear as the second degree reaches the claim of evil beliefs. Thus the “CHRIST... comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error” through the second degree, the transitional qualities that destroy evil. (S&H p.583:10) The first degree can never make a transition to the second, but the third degree, embracing the second, is a transition to mankind who are fooled by the illusion of the first degree.

It is important, as metaphysicians, that we understand the human and divine coincidence. Our Leader says, “...that the heavens and earth to one human consciousness, that consciousness which God bestows, are spiritual, while to another, the unillumined human mind, the vision is material.” (S&H p.573:6-9, e.a.) While residing in the far country, the Prodigal was in the first degree. He did not seem to have the human consciousness, the second degree, which God bestows. He had rejected spirituality and could be called a mortal. When the Prodigal woke up and expressed the second degree qualities, he was automatically embraced by his Father (the third degree). He still appeared to be a mortal after that point, but his journey home had begun. He could now be embraced by his Father. At this point, we can refer to him as a human being because he has turned from mortal existence but is not yet in the Kingdom. Our Leader said, “The more I understand true humanhood, the more I see it to be sinless.” This “sinless humanhood” is created by God.

The following references have been included to help you gain a better understanding of the second degree:

Moral: Un. p.35:16-18; Mis. p.257:8-10; S&H p.455:8-10; S&H p.72:30-32. Humanity: Un. p.49:8-9; Un. p.51:14; S&H p.561:16-20; S&H p.25:31; My. p.179:21-23; Mis. p.95:17-21. Honesty: S&H

p.453:16 only; S&H p.458:23-28. Affection: Mis. p.250:20; S&H p.451:16; S&H p.60:8-10; S&H p.147:29. Compassion: S&H p.465:14; S&H p.329:26 only; Luke 13:34. Hope: ’00 p.10:20; Mis. p.15:13; S&H p.298:13-15. Faith: S&H p.298:2-4; S&H p.23:21; S&H p.482:23; ‘01

p.17:1. Meekness: My. p.247:11-12; S&H p.270:23-24. Temperance: Gal. 5:22,23; Ret. p.79:22-23.

Mrs. Eddy uses the words ‘human’ and ‘mortal’ in different contexts. The word ‘mortal’ is derived from “mors, death, or morior, to die, that is to fall.” The dictionary defines ‘mortal’ as “subject to death; destined to die; deadly, destructive to life. Terminating life.” The word ‘human’ is from the root word meaning ‘man or species, manlike.’ The dictionary definition of ‘human’ is, “belonging to man; pertaining to the race of man.” These terms, human and mortal, have different roots and are defined very differently and that is why Mrs. Eddy refers to human and human consciousness as containing good. This is the “sinless humanhood” and the “consciousness which God bestows” of the second degree. The word ‘human’ is the root of the words ‘humane and humanity.’ At other times, she refers to it as the “unillumined human mind.” In this context, the word ‘human’ can take on the belief of mortal mind. She uses the word human to describe the marvelous possibilities we have while yet appearing to be mortal; but the mortal describes the first degree, and is totally mortal, — it can never become anything else. The human mind is real from God’s viewpoint; the human mind is unreal from error’s viewpoint. Every time the word ‘human’ appears, one must determine from which viewpoint it is being used.

We must be very careful how we state the mortal, the human and the spiritual. In the November 1987 Journal (p.40), Mr. Phinney says, “We are exchanging, in some degree at least, mortal mind for spiritual consciousness...” Without understanding the human and divine coincidence, serious metaphysical mistakes can be made.

Intellectual nonsense

Intellectualism says that it is not that God chose His servant but that His servant chose God. This sounds metaphysically correct, but it is not. If so, we can be on the same level as the one God sent. This is an attempt by puny mortal mind to be the originator of everything, — the Adamic obstruction. Would we say it is not that God chose Jesus but that Jesus chose God? Remember, Mr. Peel said, and this is now the official view of The Mother Church, “If, as she believed, revelation was the ceaseless self-disclosure of a God who was infinite Mind and Principle, then it must be open to all; yet historically the fact seemed evident that it broke through only to those spiritual explorers who pushed beyond second-hand theological formulations to the direct confrontation of ultimate Truth. In this sense the biblical concept of revelation through chosen prophets could be reconciled with the facts available to rational inquiry as one might say that the rising sun ‘chose’ the highest peak on which to shine first....” (Auth., p.37-38)

In short, the “highest mountain peak” (the best mortal) would receive the first light of the day before the others. This is one way, the wrong way, of saying prophecy is fulfilled through man. In the last illustration, it says man is in control of destiny and prophecy; God is not, and the answering of the call is accidental to an unknowing God. If God knows the one He sends, He must know that individual even when that one appears to be a mortal. Remember, when the Prodigal got into the second degree, God knew him immediately, and the Prodigal was not on the spiritual level of those sent by God. Jesus informs us that there is a least and a greatest in the Kingdom, places prepared and filled by those ready for them. When the mother of James and John asked if her sons could sit, one on the right hand and one on the left hand of Jesus in the Kingdom, Jesus told her the position of the “first magnitude” was not his to give, but that only his Father could give it. (Mis. p.360:13)

Degrees of illumination

Heaven is not a vast, socialistic community where uniformity is enforced while the divine right of labor and reward are rejected for the leveling of character. Knowing this, whom would God send? He would send the very best. Certainly this holds true for all whom God sends. Let us rightfully assume that those in the Kingdom are like light bulbs. Each is not of the same brilliance or magnitude of greatness. There may be 25, 50, and 1,000 watt bulbs. All emit light but have different degrees of illumination. Would God send a 25 watt bulb for a job requiring the illumination of a thousand watts? If we owe Jesus “endless homage,” does that mean we are all on his level simply by passing into the Kingdom? (S&H p.18:5) Those who are sent carry the second degree with them. The second degree is automatically embraced in the third degree. When did the Father know the Prodigal? God knew the Prodigal when he got into the second degree. Wouldn’t that individual, who appeared as a mortal but was sent from God, have a greater magnitude of the second degree that automatically brings him into coincidence with God, even while appearing to be a mortal?

Concerning the three degrees, Mrs. Eddy quotes from the Bible, “The last shall be first, and the first last.” (S&H p.116:5) The second degree is titled in the marginal heading, “Transitional qualities.” This means that the third degree embracing those marvelous second degree qualities can be a transition. It alone can reach mankind and accomplish great and good things for those in the first degree through the one sent by God, so overflowing with those second degree qualities. They came to bless all mankind and point the way back to God through their second degree qualities.

God’s highest ideas

Our Leader tells us that “God gives the lesser idea of Himself for a link to the greater, and in return, the higher always protects the lower.” (S&H p.518:13-15) It is most unwise to countenance jealousy of our Leader’s demonstration. She came to show us the way, the way back to God. God gave her to us because of her shining brilliance. Our Leader tells us that Jesus and Paul were stars of the first magnitude. (Mis. p.360:6) Our gratitude for those God sends will determine our advancement in Science; but, the moment we think we are equal to them, we are in great danger and have lost the way because ingratitude, sensuality and dishonesty have blocked the light. The human and divine coincidence must be understood, but we cannot understand if we reject the one God sent us. The nature of Truth is that it is inexhaustible. Mrs. Eddy tells us that it takes eternity to understand God. “…but to understand God is the work of eternity, and demands absolute consecration of thought, energy and desire.” (S&H p.3:14) This clearly implies that each one of us is working this out in varying degrees with different intensity and illumination. Let us be alert to the claims of humanism and anti-Christian socialism that would have us leveling all spiritual individuality and identity to the lowest common denominator. Those sent have positions in the Kingdom of the highest order. This was true before they were sent to help us, while they were here, and right now. With this understanding, God is in control and able to embrace that individual in the second degree. This is how our Leader fulfilled Bible prophecy.

Unlike the Prodigal, the one God sends is already embraced by the Father because of the magnitude of his or her great spirituality. They do not waste the second degree qualities with riotous living, even while dwelling in the far country. “John saw the human and divine coincidence, shown in the man Jesus, as divinity embracing humanity in Life and its demonstration, — reducing to human perception and understanding the Life which is God.” (S&H 561:16-20) ‘Humanity’ is one of the second degree qualities. Is this form of fulfilled prophecy in the hands of God or in the hands of men? Does God, the all-knowing, just ignorantly shine forth to hit the highest mortal thought, the highest ‘mountain peak,’ and then forget about it, or does God know whom He sends, and for what purpose? Does the fullness of their place in the Kingdom of God give them an abundance of light with which to fulfill their earthly mission through the second degree, or are they just pretty good mortals struggling to reach out to God and, because they can reach better than any one else, they are rewarded by being chosen? Is prophecy accidentally fulfilled or is it intelligently planned and executed? Is God Principle or chance? Is mortality reality or is spirituality the real?

Accidental or exact fulfillment

If man fulfills prophecy accidentally, then the dates of 1866 and 1875, which our Leader commends as Daniel’s dates concerning the Second Coming, are of no consequence. (My. p.181:27, ‘00 p.6:28-30) (See also, Miracle of the Ages — The Great Pyramid by Worth Smith and The Great Pyramid by Piazzi Smyth.) If you believe in the ‘mountain peak’ philosophy, then predetermined dates are impossible, and you would then have to discard our Leader’s comments regarding them. If it is just someone, sometime, it is not God’s foreordained choice who will appear in God’s own time. But how can we choose our own brand of metaphysics if we are Christian Scientists? The need of mankind to change is set forth by God. God induces the desire for change; God sends the one to bring about the change. The Bible tells us that no man knoweth the time, not even the Son but the Father. (Mark 13:32) Only God knows His own divine plan and He, divine Principle, Love, has it all mapped out and executes the plan through the ones He sends. If God did not send Mrs. Eddy, we can aspire to be her successor and lead the movement, since she cannot be the forever Leader, can she? Wrong. The one sent builds upon what God has already set forth for mankind’s redemption and gathers the fruitage. God, revealing to the spiritually minded how He adjusts the balance in His favor, giving mankind an opportunity to work out their own salvation through suffering or Science, never leaves His own alone. There is a predetermined time set for the final unfoldment of God’s plan of redemption. It is never an open question with divine Principle.

In the June 1980 Journal, p.291, we read, “Then in 1866, at a moment of dire need.... She later described this moment as the falling apple leading to her discovery. No special magic belongs to the year 1866.” (e.a.) This statement by Copper is a direct contradiction of Mrs. Eddy’s own words concerning the prophetic year, 1866, which she fulfilled. Building on Mr. Peel’s philosophy, the author, Ralph Copper, continues, “Rather it marks the culminating point between the logic of events and Mrs. Eddy’s growing readiness to grasp the spirit of Truth.... It was then that the fullness of time and the fitness of the individual coincided with the divine scheme of things, and prophecy became fulfillment.” Mountain peak philosophy, once again, attempting to muddy the waters of Bible prophecy and deny Mrs. Eddy’s own words on the subject. If you accept and agree with mountain peak philosophy, all you have gained is mortal mind chance. Do you wonder why we are not experiencing the healings we once did? Divine Principle, Love has established Its unchangeable timetable in which all is to orderly unfold. That is why we were given Daniel’s dates and why there are Biblical terms such as latter days, fullness of time, etc. Nothing is unprincipled in God’s universe nor are these most important events left up to the ability of a mortal to fulfill. Intellectual philosophy is not the same as sound metaphysical logic. Human reasoning is not a substitute for spiritual mindedness. How can Mr. Copper use the derisive and unchristian word ‘magic’ to define the holy year of 1866?

Many centuries prior to Mrs. Eddy’s discovery of divine Science, the calculations of Bible scholars pinpointed the year 1866 as the second appearing of the Christ, the significant year of prophecy in fulfillment of Daniel’s dates. Luther said that Daniel’s 1260 years should be added to the year 606 A.D., the year of the abomination of desolation when Phocas made the bishop of Rome head of the Catholic Church. In 1701, Fleming stated: “If we may suppose that Antichrist began his reign in the year 606, the additional one thousand, two hundred and sixty years of his duration...were they Julian or ordinary years...would lead us down to the year 1866, as the last period of the seven-headed monster.” Others held this view. Our Leader writes, “It is authentically said that one expositor of Daniel’s dates fixed the year 1866 or 1867 for the return of Christ — the return of the spiritual idea to the material earth or antipode of heaven. It is a marked coincidence that those dates were the first two years of my discovery of Christian Science.” (My. p.181:27) The Boston Philosophy Club has determined that those dates were insignificant, and that “No special magic belongs to the year 1866.” But what did Daniel know, or Luther or Fleming or the one sent, Mary Baker Eddy? What does this tell us?

Can you imagine Christian Scientists taking whatever they want from Mrs. Eddy’s revelation and rejecting what they do not want because it does not fit into their philosophy of Christian Science? How can these lies be approved for publication in her periodicals, call this nonsense Christian Science, demand that the field accept it as infallible and authoritative, and then excommunicate those who disagree with it? Sounds like Romanism, doesn’t it? How can these people, who call themselves Mrs. Eddy’s followers, say they love her and say she fulfilled prophecy, but deny these dates?

Mrs. Eddy also said, “Some modern exegesis on the prophetic Scriptures cites 1875 as the year of the second coming of Christ. In that year the Christian Science textbook, ‘Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,’ was first published.” (‘00 p.6:28-2) (See also Nov. 1939 Journal, p.409-410.) This statement does not negate the 1866 date. There are a number of dates worked out through the study of Daniel’s dates, and 1866 and 1875 are but two of them. However, according to the Boston Philosophy Club, those dates are all just ‘magic.’

The philosophers in our church have great difficulty with these prophetic dates because their philosophy of prophecy holds that it is necessary for a good mortal to reach out to God to fulfill God’s plan. If there is a specific date when that someone is to appear and do His work, according to the Boston Philosophy Club and their belief in accidental prophecy, God’s Word on the subject is apparently not worthy of consideration. Can you think of anything more audacious than denying God’s Word through Daniel, Christ Jesus, and Mary Baker Eddy? Who do these people think they are? They have denied Biblical truth, denied our Leader’s revelation, and our Leader, in order to fulfill their own humanistic philosophy, which is not Christian Science. If the discovery of Christian Science was accidental, then it could have appeared anytime between Jesus and the year 1866 or later. If not any specific time, then not a certain woman (Mis. p.166:22); and not necessarily a woman, but Mrs. Eddy says that “woman must give it birth.” (Ret. p.26:23) However, that precept is also being rejected.

Mankind in any age could use a Christ Jesus or a Mary Baker Eddy. However, according to philosophical reasoning, those individuals just happened to be spiritually minded enough to reach out and choose to follow God. Did the light of Truth just strike the ‘mountain peak’ named John the Baptist? No! Did the light of Truth strike the ‘mountains’ of Jeremiah or Moses because they just happened to reach out for God and then God was able to find them? God sends His messenger at the time of His desire, not ours. All of Boston’s silly philosophy that rejects the Bible and our Leader’s writings cannot change God’s Word. An extension of their philosophy is that we are now followers of Christ Jesus, and not followers of Mrs. Eddy. If something in the periodicals is not the truth, it is a lie. (See Isaiah 46:8-13.)

It would appear that the Christian Science Board of Directors is the first organized hierarchy to officially proclaim for their church that a revelation from God is accidentally fulfilled and brought about through mortal impulse. If this official proclamation were correct, the fulfillment of God’s revelation must depend on a mortal who accidentally decided to reach out for something spiritual. Was it also by accident that February of 1866, the month and year of our Leader’s great discovery, was the only month in history when there was a full moon forecast but did not occur until the next month? (See Grit Family Newspaper, Jan. 31, 1971, p.16.) The Woman in Revelation 12 had the moon under her feet. My dear friends, effective healing hinges upon recognizing the woman because this recognition carries with it our acceptance of and adherence to divine Science; while to reject her is to reject her Science also. Was it accidental that Daniel’s timetable, revealed to him by God, specified that the Messiah would appear before the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in 70 A.D.? (Daniel 9:25,26)

Mortal or Spiritual Leader

The following is Miss Adelaide Still’s authentic account of Mrs. Eddy’s passing told by her sister to Carl Lundstrom, CS, while he visited Chestnut Hill in 1954. Miss Adelaide Still was one of those present at the scene:

On the night Mrs. Eddy passed, her three valued and beloved workers were with her. They were Miss Adelaide Still, Mrs. Laura Sargent, and Calvin.... [Mr. Frye and Mrs. Sargent had to leave Mrs. Eddy’s room and] Miss Still was left sitting by Mrs. Eddy’s bed. In a short while... Mr. Frye and Mrs. Sargent hurried to the second floor to return to their post by Mrs. Eddy’s side. As they neared the bedroom they noticed that Miss Still was standing in the doorway. Approaching her side they looked into the bedroom and beheld Mrs. Eddy by the side of the bed smiling at them. Then Mrs. Eddy turned and pointed to the bed where they saw the form of the one they had called Mother. As their gaze turned again to Mrs. Eddy, she was shaking her head back and forth as if to say, ‘I am not there; I have risen.’ Then as these three watched, the vision of their beloved Leader gradually faded from their sight....

The Forever Leader pp.594-595

Jesus’ ascension showed the mortal sense of body to be nothing.

Some Christian Scientists would have us wrongly believe that what mortals saw of Jesus while he was on earth, was Jesus’ identity. They would have us believe that after he ascended he no longer retained his individuality and identity (as that was all mortal anyway) and had then merged into the vast cosmos as the unknown and unidentifiable Christ.

The Boston Philosophy Club says the body in the bed, in the above account, was the real Mrs. Eddy. Did the body in the bed give us the revelation or was it the identity of the woman by the side of the bed? Had the woman by the side of the bed lost her identity and individuality? Her students knew her and she knew them. Did not Mrs. Eddy’s pointing to the body tell her students not to see her there but to see her, their forever Leader, as going on to do and prepare greater things and places for them, still loving and embracing each of her own? Wasn’t she telling them, in effect, that there was a difference between the body in the bed and herself by the side of the bed and they were to understand that difference? Had she ceased being their sweet Leader? Was the body in the bed the world’s (malicious animal magnetism’s) hold on mortals, and are Christian Scientists still held by that lie about their Leader, even at this late date? Who then is our Leader, — the body that was in the bed or the individual identity by the side of the bed?

What heinous form of malicious evil would piously claim that we are all the spiritual ideas of divine Love right now, but deny Mrs. Eddy that right when she was on earth, the one who labored to give us all this Truth? This evil claims she had no spiritual identity while on earth. Have egotism, intellectualism, and dishonesty gone so far, and have Christian Scientists become so ungrateful that they believe this colossal fraud being perpetrated upon the very elect, — this error that is claiming to act righteously on their behalf? Doesn’t the above account show us that the spiritual idea was operating on earth through the second degree, blessing all mankind and leading them forth? Her sinless humanhood was included in her spiritual identity and was never erased but embraced by the Mother-Love. At the Annual Meeting in 1943, Daisette McKenzie, speaking of Mrs. Eddy, said, “When passing through one of the most bitter of her trials, she said to one of her students, that it would be ‘easy’ to slip away and be with her students on the other side, adding that she could not do this because her work here was not finished.” (July 1943 Journal, p.376) Does this not tell us that when she passed on she was with her students and she was still their Leader? Doesn’t this also tell us that when we go on she is still our Leader? When we love her, we destroy the work of the dragon. Not loving her, we listen to the dragon, and all the horrors of hell attempt to drown mankind.

Mrs. Eddy wanted to stay longer and said so a few days before she left us, “Oh! if the students had only done what I had told them to do, I should live and carry on the Cause.” (Reminiscences of Mrs. Eddy, M. Adelaide Still, p.9) Judge Hanna informed Mrs. Eddy in late 1910 that a triumvirate had been formed against her to remove her from control and get rid of her Manual. They felt they could bring her to court over some of those things which would appear peculiar to non-Scientists, but that made perfect sense to Christian Scientists. They would try to show that she was too old and incompetent. She recognized their position would seem very strong in the world’s eyes and that the eventual outcome of such a court case was in doubt. Apparently, to save her church, she allowed herself to pass on and thus defeated her enemies and saved the Manual. Some men felt that they could do so much better than she, a mere woman. She longed to stay and love more, but a few of her ungrateful, egotistical students deprived the world of her love, and now the world would sink into war, depression and chaos.

Personality or Individuality

Martha Wilcox tells us, “...never for one minute were we allowed to let our thought rest upon her personality. We understood that that would be a hindrance to her.” (WKMBE Vol. IV, p.89) A hindrance to whom? A hindrance to the spiritual idea operating right there. Mrs. Wilcox just said it was not personality that was operating there. Mr. Tomlinson speaks of Mrs. Eddy as “Disclaiming personal leadership. ”

(12 Yrs., p.125) Then who was the Leader? Wasn’t it the spiritual idea and not what the world saw as personality or personal leadership? In her Association Address, Sue Harper Mims relates, “I do not think anyone in this room will ever adore the personality of Mrs. Eddy, but you will love her and reverence her as the highest manifestation of Love that is in the world, or that has been for eighteen hundred years. ” (WKMBE Vol. II,

p.57) Mrs. Eddy said to Martha Wilcox, “Is there any reason why you should not stay with me forever?” (WKMBE Vol. IV, p.104) Who is this me? Is this me the personality the world saw or the spiritual idea operating right there? And isn’t this the forever Leader? Rejection of our Leader and her place has brought a serious lack of healing. Why? Speaking of the loss of the Science of Christianity in our time, she admonishes us, “Had the ages helped their leaders to, and let them alone in, God’s glory, the world would not have lost the Science of Christianity.” (My. p.116:24) It appears that we are in danger of allowing this to happen once again.

Annie Louise Robertson wrote, “Sometimes a healing has been delayed because of a misunderstanding of our Leader’s character; and on the other hand, often a great victory has been won through a sincere appreciation of her service to humanity.” (WKMBE Vol. I, p.2) The most dangerous effect of rejecting our Leader or giving her only obligatory recognition, is to destroy the effective and quick healing work of every Christian Scientist. Official rejection gives weight through Boston to the claim of mortality and does so through ingratitude, dishonesty, material mindedness, egotism and intellectualism. This rejection is very subtle and not easily apparent; one must be very alert to recognize it.

As all is mental, is it wise to be intellectually ignorant of, ungrateful for, or to knowingly traduce the spiritual idea who is holding up the mirror of Divine Science for all of us individually and for mankind and our church collectively? Science can come and stay in our affections because it is seen through the pure in heart. It can stay only if we are sufficiently grateful and honest towards the one showing us the healing Christ. Ingratitude and dishonesty for her and to her distorts the mirror and we lose healing. As this mirror is above all a Christian mirror, an unchristian view of the one holding this mirror deprives us of the correct image, — hence, no healing. All of us hear the lament, why doesn’t Christian Science heal like it used to? Our Leader explained the reason why very, very clearly in a letter to Judge Hanna when she said, “Keeping the truth of her character before the public will help the students, and do more than all else for the Cause. Christianity in its purity was lost by defaming and killing its defenders. Do not let this period repeat this mistake. The truth in regard to your Leader heals the sick and saves the sinner. The lie has just the opposite effect, and the evil one that leads all evil in this matter knows this more clearly than do the Christian Scientists in general.” (DCC p.109 and Coll. p.74)

Grave danger

Why must we love the one God sends? How did her kindness for Elijah bless the widow of Zarephath who cared enough to give all she had to Elijah? Her love for him preserved her life and her son’s life. What did the rejection of Elijah bring to the nation that rejected him? It brought famine and eventual slavery. What were the results of the disobedience and hatred of Moses by his own people? A trip of 20 days took 40 years, and none but two of that generation entered the Promised Land. What did the rejection of Jeremiah bring? It brought slavery for the entire nation of Judah. What happened to the Jews for rejecting Jesus? They saw Jerusalem destroyed and the loss of millions of lives. What was the sin of the Pharisees? They worked diligently to keep the public from seeing and understanding the one God sent. What was their reward? They were last to enter the Kingdom and may still be looking for the door. Rejecting the one God sends, mankind experiences devastation and mass carnage, and those responsible for the rejection will pay the penalty due.

“In proportion as students of Christian Science recognize, express, and wisely proclaim the truth about their Leader, will they progress in the demonstration of her discovery. To become the true beneficiaries of Christian Science, acknowledgment of the spiritual status of its Discoverer and Founder in history and prophecy must be made.” (November 1939 CSJ, p.410) Again, “Only as we recognize the revelator can we understand and obey the revelation.” (WKMBE Vol. II, p.64) Our Leader says it very clearly: “Christian Science is my only ideal; and the individual and his ideal can never be severed. If either is misunderstood or maligned, it eclipses the other with the shadow cast by this error.” (Mis. p.105:20) Irving Tomlinson says, “But if the world is to receive the message of Christian Science which Mrs. Eddy brought, then it must obtain a true estimate of the messenger.” (12 Yrs., p.209) You say, I have the true sense of my Leader! When was the last time you thought of Mrs. Eddy while reading Science and Health or her other works and expressed gratitude? When was the last time you thought of her church, her periodicals, and her Manual without thinking of her? When was the last time you spoke of God in reverent and adoring tones as Mother, not as Father or Father-Mother, but as Mother?

A woman of grace

Those to be sent occupied the highest position when in the Kingdom and because of this, the light could not be lost but embraced by God through the second degree while they were here. We know that when our Leader was a little child, she brimmed over with those second degree qualities and was thought to be an angel in character by her mother and family. At school, she gave away her clothes to other children in need, defended those whose rights were being infringed, and was a natural healer even as a child. At one time, Mrs. Eddy’s cousin, Mrs. Fannie McNeil Potter of Washington, visited Mrs. Eddy at the Massachusetts Metaphysical College. While there, one of Mrs. Eddy’s students asked her if she had known Mrs. Eddy when a child and if it could be seen then that she was more spiritual than other children. She replied, “O, yes, the precious one, she always was.” (J. Bartlett, Mis. Doc. p.190) Mrs. Potter’s reply reveals to us why she could hear the call of her Mother-God for an entire year when she was eight years old. It further tells us that her character was very advanced at an early age.

Our Leader’s mother said that Mary was set apart and that she could not shake the conviction while carrying her that Mary was chosen by God for something great. Divine Love impressed this conviction on Mary’s dear mother. In the Genealogical and Family History of the State of New Hampshire (p.120), we read: “So little tainted was the child [Mary Baker] with the things of earth, so true and loving, so kind and gentle, that a well-known minister of the Gospel said of her that ‘she was sanctified before she had birth.’” Now can you see why she was chosen to reveal God’s motherhood? Mrs. Eddy did not represent the highest ‘mountain peak’ catching the first rays of light. That is not how she fulfilled Bible prophecy. She fulfilled prophecy by being the one sent by God and was sanctified for her mission before she arrived in the far country.

Deflection is nothing and can never become reflection. Reflection has no power of its own, but only what it reflects from divine Love. Reflection must reflect back to God, as the Prodigal eventually did through the second degree qualities. The Prodigal could do nothing on his own; all was Mind drawing its own image back to Itself. Mary Baker Eddy was the pure reflection of God, never participating in deflection or in riotous living. She always retained her position of pre-eminence. She asked then answered this question, “Do you love that which represents God most, His highest idea as seen to-day? No!” (Mis. p.336:8) Let us pray that when she asks again, her answer will not be No, but Yes.

Positions of importance

So far we have seen there are several levels and positions of importance recorded in the Bible. The highest level consists of those whom God sends to do the most important work. In addition, we are told that many are called but few are chosen. So this second level would consist of those who are obedient and willing to be chosen, and the third group would consist of the many who are sufficiently prepared, but not willing to answer the call. The lower levels are represented by the varying degrees of consciousness, exhibited by the Prodigal who left his Father’s house and wasted his substance.

The difference between true Bible prophecy and the false mountain peak variety is that the former is for a specific appointed time, through a specific idea sent by God. The fulfillment of prophecy does not depend upon a mortal reaching out, but is the appearing of the human and divine coincidence planned and executed by the Father-Mother. When a mortal reaches out, it signifies separation; but when God chooses, the result is Oneness. We have no second degree qualities of our own, as mortals, and we can obtain these qualities only as we reflect God, good. It is the red dragon that suggests to us that the qualities revealed in the second degree are generated by a mortal. The two types of prophecy we have been discussing are like daylight and darkness: one leads to heaven, healing and progress, the other leads to hell, chronic illness and desolation. One is spiritual; one is humanism. One glorifies God and one glorifies intelligence in matter. One is Bible prophecy, — the other is mortal mind ignorance, intellectual nonsense, the source of human woe, and perpetuates Romanism in our church. The right sense of prophecy determines our ability to heal; the other our failure to heal.

Love’s two most important ideas

Expanding on the parable of the Prodigal, suppose someone was sent from God to the far country to point the way back to the Kingdom. God would obviously send the best, right? This individual would do marvelous healing work and prove the falsity of the beliefs of the far country. What do those in the far country do to him? Do they follow or are they still attached to the citizen (mortal mind)? Wouldn’t the children of Israel again attack the one sent, just as they had attacked Moses? During our Lord’s time, the citizen influenced the people to kill the one sent by God, but he returned from the grave, so another method was necessary. If the people knew not how to separate themselves from the citizen’s arguments, they would listen to the citizen telling them that this one sent to them must indeed be of God and, in fact, must be God Himself. So don’t follow his example and think you can heal too; only God can. Christ’s first appearing would be one primarily of illustrations, but not explanations. So the citizen influences those in the far country to deify and bow down to the one sent. In this manner, the citizen is still in control. Instead of the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension meaning something to the people, their misunderstanding of these holy events brought about Jesus’ deification. If this first chosen one was to do the entire work of God as some periodical writers contend, why was a second appearing foretold and necessary?

Next, God sends one without a virgin birth. This time, the chosen one makes a strong thrust at the citizen, mortal mind, who controls the populace. Interestingly enough, this second messenger preaches, teaches and heals in the same manner as did the first one sent, but this second one records God’s Word in a ‘little book’ to explain how everyone can heal, and uncovers the citizen as the mesmeric magnetizing influence that holds mankind in the far country. In this Second Advent, mankind is shown by example and by the written word how the citizen is to be overcome.

To discredit this second messenger, does the citizen use the same method a second time? With a virgin birth, it was easy to convince Jesus’ followers to worship and deify him, but why would Mrs. Eddy’s followers worship one of their own? They cannot openly attack her, because the people respect her. A ruse is necessary. The citizen begins to say, don’t deify her, don’t talk about her, stay away from her, you know what happened last time. This ruse finally works and her followers, believing the personality worship and deification ploy, begin to drift away from her. Our Leader, knowing what was being said, declared:

If the right thinker and worker’s servitude is duly valued, he is not thereby worshipped. One’s idol is by no means his servant, but his master. And they who love a good work or good workers are themselves workers who appreciate a life, and labor to awake the slumbering capability of man. And what the best thinker and worker has said and done, they are not far from saying and doing. As a rule the Adam-race are not apt to worship the pioneer of spiritual ideas, — but oftimes to shun him as their tormentor. Only the good man loves the right thinker and worker, and cannot worship him, for that would destroy this man’s goodness.

Message for 1900, p.3:9

The ruse used by the citizen this time accomplishes the same end as the first time, by removing God’s witness through total rejection — by influencing the populace to ‘shun their tormentor.’

A correct view of Mrs. Eddy

Our Leader tells us, “The material human concept grew beautifully less as I floated into more spiritual latitudes and purer realms of thought. From that hour personal corporeality became less to me than it is to people who fail to appreciate individual character. I endeavored to lift thought above physical personality, or selfhood in matter, to man’s spiritual individuality in God, — in the true Mind, where sensible evil is lost in supersensible good. This is the only way whereby the false personality is laid off.” (Ret. p.73:9-18, e.a.) Notice she says people fail to appreciate individual character because they call it personal corporeality, not knowing the difference. She continues, “He who clings to personality, or perpetually warns you of ‘personality,’ wrongs it, or terrifies people over it, and is the sure victim of his own corporeality. Constantly to scrutinize physical personality, or accuse people of being unduly personal, is like the sick talking sickness. Such errancy betrays a violent and egotistical personality, increases one’s sense of corporeality,

and begets a fear of the senses and a perpetually egotistical sensibility.” (Ret. p.73:19, e.a.) Isn’t it interesting that she makes plain to us that those who perpetually warn us about deification or personality worship are violent and egotistical? Why? They are joined to the citizen. The citizen, malicious animal magnetism, suggests this and the materially minded hear, speak and write it. She continues, “He who does this is ignorant of the meaning of the word personality, and defines it by his own corpus sine pectore (soulless body), and fails to distinguish the individual, or real man from the false sense of corporeality, or egotistic self.” (Ret. p.74:3, e.a.) Those who continually warn against personally worshipping Mrs. Eddy, however, do not seem to mind others worshipping them, and become violent when Mrs. Eddy’s followers do not do what they tell them to do, and even excommunicate those who disagree with them!

Mrs. Eddy states, “I earnestly advise all Christian Scientists to remove from their observation or study the personal sense of any one, and not to dwell in thought upon their own or others’ corporeality, either as good or evil.” (Mis. p.308:32) Constant repetition of this admonition in our periodicals has led Christian Scientists to believe that they must reject and forget Mrs. Eddy’s individuality. However, that is not true nor is it what she meant. Her quote, incorrectly viewed, becomes an attack on her because it appears to instruct us to forget her, and not to think of her because that is deification. Constant harping in the periodicals to turn away from her personality, which Boston calls deification, means to the unknowing Christian Scientist, forget Mrs. Eddy’s individuality. Our Leader tells us repeatedly that we must see the importance of loving and appreciating her individuality and her identity. Mr. Kimball wrote of Mrs. Eddy,

…there are people who, in assumed behalf of the race, are protesting that we are making too much of Mrs. Eddy. This comes with strange inconsistency from those who make much of Calvin, Wesley and the Pope of Rome; of Swedenborg, Voltaire and others. It comes with poor grace from the laity which makes much of its clergymen; which accepts the minister as spiritual guide and interpreter and regards his opinion and wisdom as law.

Teachings and Addresses of E. A. Kimball, C.S.D., “Science of

Mind and Thought,” p.253

Mrs. Eddy tells us, “The pioneer of something new under the sun is never hit: he cannot be; the opinions of people fly too high or too low.” (Hea. P.6:5-7) ‘Too high’ in Jesus’ day was deification and ‘too low’ in Mrs. Eddy’s day is total rejection.

Now the citizen tries to minimize the importance of the one God sent to us. He says, she was not God-sent, she did not have a virgin birth and did not ascend, so she is not nearly as important as the first one God sent. She is just a good mortal, no better than you or I. You do not need to follow her. You are all just as good as she was and if you were at the right place at the right time, you could have discovered this truth. But remember, the citizen is saying this about the only one who ever uncovered his diabolical ways.

If God thought all of us were the same, He would have asked the children of Israel to vote on the issue of freedom versus slavery. He sent Moses instead. Why would God select one from the far country, one of those ‘mountain peaks,’ when they are the problem, not the solution? We are all too closely allied to the citizen and not nearly close enough to our Father-Mother. Look at what we have done to the ones God sends us. It is so much easier to agree with the citizen and believe our Leader was not special; then we have no responsibility to follow her and can be controlled by the citizen once again. We read in the Journal (Sept. 1987, p.18), “Mrs. Eddy’s great task required her, as it requires all of her followers, to discipline the volatile and willful human tendencies that seem so normal to mankind and to become the best transparency possible for the clear healing light of Truth.” Here, Mrs. Eddy is subtly portrayed as just like all the rest of us, as “volatile and willful.” Mr. Tomlinson, who lived in Mrs. Eddy’s home, wrote: “She was the picture of refinement and distinction; the embodiment of meekness and purity, completely devoid of human will power.” (12 Years p.88)

In 1899 our Leader told us, “No greater mistake can be made than to disobey or to delay to obey a single message of mine. God does speak through me to this age. This I discern more clearly each year of my sojourn with you.” (Letter to Ira Knapp, July 10, 1898.) ‘Sojourn’ means “to live somewhere temporarily; a brief stay; visit.” Our Lord said, “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” (John 16:28)

An interesting question to ask is why would so many Christian Scientists say we are all spiritual ideas of God and yet say Mrs. Eddy was only a nice mortal, even a pretty good mortal? This is the present thrust of today’s thought in Boston. The thought believing these contrary statements is ignorant sin. Error then says, I am God’s perfect child as a mortal, and since there is no sin, I can sin with impunity. This is exactly what Christian Scientists are doing when they refuse to see Mary Baker Eddy’s spiritual individuality. There appears to be ample evidence of this spiritual wickedness, this sin in high places. It is not Christian Science and it stems from a false concept of God, man and prophecy.

As Christian Scientists, our treatment by mankind is determined in the exact ratio of how we treat Mary Baker Eddy. A rejection of her is a rejection of God. Throughout her life she uncovered and handled animal magnetism; her life example shows how we can do likewise, thus freeing us from all the beliefs of sexuality, heredity, false parentage, — all the claims of the citizen. When Christian Scientists accept the incorrect views of their Leader that are published in her periodicals, they also accept a philosophy of metaphysics that builds up the belief of life, substance and intelligence in matter that our Leader named malicious animal magnetism. Rejecting the true sense of her, we unthinkingly reject her Science and reject healing. We cannot understand her Science if we see her incorrectly, because her life proved her Science. We must not allow an incorrect view of our Leader to be perpetuated from within our church; it is hatred of the spiritual idea.

An incorrect view of God’s foreordained

Robert Peel’s book, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority, is recommended by Ex-Christian Scientists for Jesus, an organization that seeks to undermine Christian Science. They suggest that Christian Scientists carefully read Mr. Peel’s books. These ex-Christian Scientists, who do not admire Mrs. Eddy, feel Mr. Peel’s books reveal the real Mrs. Eddy, similar to the negative biographies about her written by Dakin and Milmine. They say, “We recommend that first of all you re-read Robert Peel’s biographies thoughtfully....” Obeying this suggestion, many Christian Scientists after reading Mr. Peel’s last book, state that Mrs. Eddy was no better than they, she was so human, etc. Unless you are an Ex-Christian Scientist for Jesus, why would you consider Mr. Peel’s book a correct view of Mrs. Eddy when it is exactly in line with the ex-Christian Scientists’ negative viewpoint of her?

In Mr. Peel’s book, Mrs. Eddy is portrayed as controversial and quasi-legendary (p.3,¶3), a bad speller (11¶2), a poor historian and hardheaded (13¶2), a risk-taker (14¶3), a humanist (20¶4), frustrated and conciliatory (27¶1,¶5), militaristic and displayed favoritism (28¶1,3), mystical (38¶2), unprepared for her mission (largely rural background) (42¶7), an untrained theologian from rural New Hampshire (44¶3), had a stormy disposition (45 top), implied she had a poor memory (45 top, 229¶5, 452 n.5), was perhaps a vain author (52¶10), was unqualified to be an art critic (61¶7), she made mistakes, had many human weaknesses (78¶5, 79¶2,3), had sudden outbursts (86¶5), her writings had “stylistic foibles” (weakness of character), she had idiosyncrasies (104¶3), she was “wry” (scornfully sarcastic) about her own work and a plagiarist (107¶1-3), she had a feminine weakness for bonnets (108¶6), a romantic veneration for illustrious names (115¶1), weak (115¶2, 433 n.98), Christian Science has universalism in it (115¶6, 415 n.110), she was tempted to be a racist and nationalist (116 top), she leaned towards pacifism (134¶1), she experienced emotional turmoil (168¶8), had struggles and outbursts (169¶6), she was ‘adamant’ (inflexible, unyielding) (177¶2), she stormed into a room (178¶1), she was implied to be a feudal overlord (179¶2), she was implied to be an old-fashioned farm wife who acted like Queen Victoria (182¶6), her philanthropic efforts were “odd” (183¶3), she was impressed by “effete nobility of Great Britain” (190¶5), her writings are implied to have “scandalous generalizations” (211¶4), she had a “cavalier ease in shrugging off factual misstatements” (230¶2), she had “antiwar sentiments” (256¶1), she was exasperated, and had overburdened nerves (319¶3), she expressed an “old lady’s touchy concern for her personal reputation” (325¶1), she had a charismatic leadership in her followers’ eyes (344¶1), she had discouraging physical and mental conditions (349¶6), struggles wracked her, weakness beset her, violent storms exploded when under special stress (350¶1), she had an emotional cloudburst (351¶4), implied she was a poor interior decorator (384 n.43), she was a disciple of Jesus (390 n.27), she was “parsimonious” (stingy) (392 n.36), she was a bad literary critic (406 n.43), she was exasperated, irrational, and needed all the spiritual and temporal support she could get (434 n.98), “her romanticism yearned for a highly selective past” (458 n.40), and she mistook the number of students she taught (483 n.104). This list is not complete.

After reading Mr. Peel’s opinions of Mary Baker Eddy in the first chapter of his book, you find yourself beginning to agree with him that a frustrated old lady certainly could not be the revelator of Truth to this age. In the second chapter (page 37, paragraph 5), the author begins by telling us that she is not the revelator of Truth to this age and that to refer to her as “revelator” is “supernaturalism.” There is no divine foreordination here. Where does all of this come from? If The Mother Church has recognized Peel’s biography as its official view of Mrs. Eddy, then his book is the foundation for what is going on in our church today. What is in his book?

In Allison Phinney’s CS Journal article (September 1987, p.39), we read, “The Christ Science has come through something far different from human initiative and thought processes. It is more like the conjunction of massive events — as when the sunrise comes because the whole earth has turned slowly around and brought us into the sun’s light again. Because Christian Science is divinely impelled, it arrived at the right time, the time when it needed to come to restore Christianity. ”

Here we see that the errors contained in Robert Peel’s book have now been accepted as the official message and are surging like wormwood through our periodicals to give a false impression of Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science. Notice that Mr. Peel’s ‘mountain peak’ philosophy of prophecy has been reworded and recycled in Phinney’s quote of the earth turning to the light of the sun.

Our Leader tells us that the “immaculate idea, [was] represented first by man and, according to the Revelator, last by woman....” (S&H p.565:186) Who could that woman be? (See S&H p.118:6.) Do you think the female representative has appeared yet to mankind? Many in the movement feel that Mrs. Eddy’s work was not complementary to Christ Jesus’. Therefore, she is accorded a lesser position by those in Boston, who are now fond of saying that she is a faithful follower of Christ Jesus. Let us consider the facts and see if this diminished position is correct.

The consummate woman

Bible prophecies that concern the Daughter of Zion and the Lamb of God are spoken of in equal number. The masculine aspect of Christ’s appearing is not given precedence in prophecy, and that is God’s doing.

Well, you say, certainly God chose Jesus but not Mrs. Eddy. Certainly God chose Jesus to usher in a limited revelation, but that does not mean that He chose Mrs. Eddy to usher in the complete and final revelation; after all, she was a woman! Could this viewpoint of women be due to a claim of scholastic theology in Boston? What she, in fact, did was give the truth to mankind that Jesus knew the world could not receive in his time. Then she built the church he prophesied and she wrote the book he and the prophets prophesied. She brought the Comforter he prophesied and kept every one of his commandments, the only one to ever do so. But none of those accomplishments could be of much consequence because she was only a woman, and certainly no better than you or I, especially not us men. She was the only person in all of history to uncover and detail for all mankind the workings of malicious animal magnetism (the citizen). But how could any of that be so important? Just because she fulfilled all that Jesus said he could not reveal and all that the disciples left undone (Pul. p.81:24), is no reason to assume she was foreordained by God for her mission. However, Boston does concede at this late date that she was a pretty good mortal. Mortal mind reasons that someone, sometime, would reach out to God and be sufficiently reaching to catch the truth. And, of course, God would surely leave all the working out of this major prophecy to just anyone. It could have been any of us, had we been a sufficiently good ‘reacher.’

That Jesus was born as the result of a virgin birth and Mrs. Eddy was not, seems to be a large event looming in the thinking of Christian Scientists. But there was to be only one virgin birth. A person with a virgin birth would not have to deal with the errors of mortal mind that are thrust upon the rest of us. That person would have been protected from the first-hand experiences that are learned under the siege of malicious animal magnetism, and which would be required to enable one to uncover its detailed workings for the benefit of mankind. God would send only “His highest idea” for that task. Mary Baker Eddy was sent for the specific purpose of uncovering the citizen who had destroyed the effectiveness of the first messenger. Through intense suffering and toil, Mrs. Eddy gave mankind Christian Science.

Grand demonstrations

Unquestionably, there were many spiritual events surrounding our Leader’s birth and childhood, events that are not widely known by Christian Scientists. Well, you say, Jesus was transfigured and could see and talk with those who had gone on. Mrs. Eddy saw through the veil many times and could tell her followers what those who had passed on were doing at that very moment. After his wife’s passing, Ira Knapp and his son, Bliss, visited Mrs. Eddy. She recognized that Mr. Knapp was still grieving over his wife’s death and, accordingly, told Mr. Knapp that his wife was “right here” and proceeded to tell them what she was doing at that very moment. In her later years, she often told Laura Sargent, “I walked and talked with my brother Jesus last night.” But how could that be important because she was only a woman. Then you say, but Jesus raised the dead. Mrs. Eddy raised the dead many times and taught others how to do so also, and many have done so. Oh yes, but Jesus’ teachings were so magnificent. Yes, they were; but don’t forget, the Holy Ghost, the “all Truth,” the full and final revelation, was to be revealed by a woman and recorded in a “little book.” And it was.

Many Christian Scientists incorrectly think that Science and Health is superior to the Bible and some hold that the Bible is unnecessary. At the same time they treat the revelator of Science and Health as inferior to Bible characters but on the same level as themselves. Isn’t this strange? It is strange enough to show us that its source is the citizen in the far country. As instituted by our Leader, these two books constitute our only preachers and, as such, both are needed to preach God’s word. Not knowing the contents of their Bibles, many Christian Scientists are easily led down the wrong path and have made it easy for the red dragon to confuse them about Mrs. Eddy’s place in Scriptural prophecy and even easier now that Boston promulgates a counterfeit philosophy that they misname Bible prophecy.

Not the same as us

You say, oh yes, I like her, but Jesus’ healing work was so grand and lofty. Mrs. Eddy’s healing work, much of which is unknown to Christian Scientists and which has been kept from us, paralleled Jesus’ healing work. She said she never lost a case. A few months before she left us in 1910, a worker in Mrs. Eddy’s home fell on a meat hook and tore her face open from her chin to her eye. The other workers were not able to heal it. It was such a serious wound, they thought they had better tell Mrs. Eddy. They did so and instantly every trace of a torn face disappeared as if it had never happened. It might be noted that the workers in Mrs. Eddy’s home were some of the finest healers in the Movement, but this was a case that did not respond to their metaphysical work.

“In reading the Sentinel [6/27/1909] of the previous day’s date, Mrs. Eddy often commented upon someone getting results from declaring his divine sonship, etc. Then she said: ‘No such experiences ever come to me. I reach the results without intermediate steps. If anyone was said to be ill in the next room, I wouldn’t have to treat, I would just know the Truth about them and they would seem to be no more sick or dead than you are. I cannot tell you how I do it, but I have none of the experiences recorded by others, though I enjoy reading them.’” (DCC p.260)

Remember that in our Lord’s time, there was no resistance to healing. It was not until Mrs. Eddy discovered divine Science and showed us how to heal that mortal mind perverted her teachings and mental malpractice, and all forms of mental resistance, began to operate. Our Lord did not have to deal with the full intensity of this error nor with organized medical belief. Mrs. Eddy said, “The burden is light, the yoke is easy, and if I can say that, any mortal can; for never mortal before drank my cup....” She then added, “Yet I bless God for every dreg.” (DCC p.108, e.a.) The grandeur of one’s demonstration is determined by the resistance that must be overcome. Mr. Tomlinson wrote, “It was as natural for Mrs. Eddy to heal as for most people to see and speak.” (12 Yrs., p.55) Concerning the healing of an insane man, “She spoke to him compassionately and he dropped the chair, approached her, and pointing upward, exclaimed, ‘Are you from there?’ The next moment he was kneeling before this earnestly praying woman with his head pressed hard into his hands. Very soon the poor fellow looked up into her face with the astonishment of sanity, and declared, ‘That terrible weight has gone off the top of my head.’ When he left her he was in his right mind.’” (12 Yrs., pp.49, 50)

“One of Mrs. Eddy’s students told me that one time a mother brought her dead baby to Mrs. Eddy and placed it on her lap. Our Leader asked her to come back in an hour, and began to treat the child. She realized that Life is Love, and that Love is right here, and Love is Life, and kept on realizing this more and more clearly. After awhile she felt something moving on her lap, (she had forgotten the baby); she looked down and saw the child looking up at her, smiling and kicking its feet.” (Coll. p.79)

But you say, Jesus walked on the water. No, Mrs. Eddy did not walk on water but there are accounts of her overcoming gravity. You haven’t read about those either, have you? In one of her classes, she told her students, “Were it not for the minds around me, I could step out of this (second story) window, and not fall to the ground.” (Mis. Doc. p.279) And, Mrs. Eddy accomplished this, in an age when strong beliefs in material law gave great weight to thought contrary to spiritual law. Our Lord could appear or travel anywhere, overcoming distance and time. Evidence shows that Mrs. Eddy did this also. There are instances of workers at Pleasant View who saw Mrs. Eddy at the top of the steps, a moment later in the kitchen, and a moment later way out in the yard. On returning to see Mrs. Eddy after his lecture tour, Judge Ewing reported on his lecture to Mrs. Eddy. “She quoted whole statements he had made and the Judge began to puzzle how she could have gotten hold of them, because he himself had come in on the train that brought the newspapers; so she could not have read the reports yet. How was she able to repeat his own statements in his own words? Finally he burst out with, How do you know what I said? And Mrs. Eddy replied, ‘Suppose I told you that I heard you?’” (DCC p.254)

There are many accounts of Mrs. Eddy, just like our Lord, immediately dissipating severe tornadoes and storms, and causing it to rain when necessary. Mrs. Eddy’s absolute dominion over the so-called laws of nature is illustrated in the following account. “A little boy said to his mother, ‘If Mrs. Eddy should say a blossom would come out, wouldn’t it?’ His mother said, ‘No, not at this time of the year’ (in winter). Some days later Mrs. Eddy said to the boy, ‘I will tell you something if you will not tell anyone’. He asked if he could tell his mama. Mrs. Eddy said, ‘No, not anyone’. He said, ‘Well, I will not’. Then Mrs. Eddy said, ‘You see that apple tree?’ He said, ‘Yes’. She said, ‘Now watch that tree every day and you will see a blossom come on it’. He did so and in three days there was a blossom and she had him pick it.” (DCC p.260)

What is truly remarkable is that this woman accomplished all of this without a virgin birth and in an age with strong beliefs in physics. Her magnificent accomplishments should give us all great cause for rejoicing, knowing that as she proved they could be done in our time, we are then capable of approximating what she did. So why do some benighted ones try to bury this woman? Do they persist because she is a woman and not a man? Christ Jesus felt the stronger claims of animal magnetism during the last few days of his career. Mrs. Eddy suffered under animal magnetism for eighty-nine years. Jesus’ crucifixion took place in a matter of days, while her crucifixion spanned a forty-five year period. And, even worse, she is still being crucified, and by some who claim to be her followers. Mrs. Eddy did not need to uncover malicious animal magnetism and mental malpractice in order to heal, as she was a natural healer. But because she loved she had to uncover the citizen for mankind, explain how to handle malicious animal magnetism and mental malpractice, so they could heal as she did, from the point of perfection.

After many years of ceaseless toil she remarked, “The discovery and founding of Christian Science has cost more than thirty years of unremitting toil and unrest; but, comparing those with the joy of knowing that the sinner and the sick are helped thereby, that time and eternity bear witness to this gift of God to the race, I am the debtor.” (Mis. p.382:6) But why should we be grateful for her? We are told she was just another mortal and only a woman. Well, you say, I support women and I love her. I’m not handled. When was the last time you referred to God as Mother? Do you still resist speaking to God as Mother? Even now? Why?

It is important to understand the age issue in relation to Mrs. Eddy. When she was in her seventies, she looked to be forty years of age. At about that time, the malpractitioners were beginning to argue old-age beliefs about her and only then did she begin to show age. She said that it was a claim of animal magnetism that she had not met, not because she could not, but because she did not have sufficient time to do so with the never ending demands made upon her in founding Christian Science. We know the constant and graphic portrayal of Jesus’ fainting under the load of the cross (which is not Biblical) and dying with great suffering before the two thieves, is Romanism. Is it not also a claim of Romanism to constantly portray Mrs. Eddy as a little old lady? Is the graphic portrayal of Mrs. Eddy as an old lady responsible for filling our churches with women who show the effects of age? Mrs. Eddy said, “Keeping the truth of her character before the public will help the students, and do more than all else for the Cause.” (Collectanea, p.74)

When she was forty-five years of age, Mrs. Eddy wanted to die. She had not yet uncovered the citizen, and the constant warfare against her was almost more than she could bear. Mary Baker Eddy was the starving man she referred to in Science and Health, p.221. (See Adam H. Dickey’s Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy, p.36.) Not only was she starving because she was unable to eat but also because she had no money with which to buy food. Can you imagine what a fall on ice would do to a body without any flesh on it? But she was no better than you or I, was she? The citizen, however, certainly knew its destroyer.

Jesus declared that even greater works than those he did would be done in the future. (John 14:12) Who in the future fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy concerning the greatest of these greater works? Who else but our Leader? In the Christian Science pamphlet, Prophet with Honor (p.29), we read “[Christian Scientists] accept Christian Science as Divine Science because of their conviction that it has the same authority as has the message of the Master.” In a letter to Judge Hanna in 1898, Mrs. Eddy wrote, “…do not say blandly that I represent the second appearing of Christ. That assertion will array mortal mind against us, and M.A.M. has been putting it into your mind to say it, and the infinite Love has inspired you to say it.” (e.a.)

Distinctly a woman’s mission

Why a woman? Because Bible prophecy says so, and our Leader tells us that only a woman could give birth to Science. (See Ret. p.26:22-23.) Why? Spiritual sense is womanhood. Every man or woman’s ability to perceive the inspired page and understand Truth comes through their womanhood. Motherhood includes fatherhood, and womanhood includes manhood. (Jer. 31:22) Why a woman? Only womanhood could withstand the agony, the intense and prolonged pressure, the terrible suffering that attended the nine year birth of the spiritual idea. Only womanhood could understand this birth. Why a woman? “Woman is the highest species of man....” (Un. p.51:14-15) Only womanhood could uncover malicious animal magnetism in order to protect her child and be courageous enough to protect Christian Science for her followers. Only womanhood could withstand the terrible onslaught of malicious animal magnetism, the red dragon, that knew its destroyer. She said, “Never, never will a mortal again drink my cup.” (Mis. Doc. p.199; see also Ret. 30:21.) Does this mean that any woman could have discovered Christian Science? No. Only this certain woman could withstand the continuous setbacks and adversity and emerge the victor. Only the woman with the greatest magnitude of womanhood and mothering that the world has ever seen could take on that task. This was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 and no one but “God’s highest idea” could stand. Our gratitude for this dear one will last forever.

Our Lord as a man, revealing spiritual truth, did not have to deal with the amount of ignorant or malicious resistance that a woman revealing spiritual truth would have. That is the nature of world beliefs, “the sum total of human error,” malicious animal magnetism. (S&H p.563:10) This resistance, however, showed her the way through suffering. She said she always knew when she was heading in the right direction because of the resistance she met. Heedless of the resistance and always at great suffering and expense to herself, she persisted in order to bless every man and woman on the globe and to show them how to work free from the claims of the citizen. “No one else can drain the cup which I have drunk to the dregs as the Discoverer and teacher of Christian Science…” (Ret. p.30:21) It is unnatural for a Christian Scientist and a tragedy for mankind for us to accept the continuing rejection of Mrs. Eddy and thus the rejection of the motherhood of God in her own church. The natural consequence of this is divine Science incorrectly stated and the “loss of genuine Christian Science.” It is not wise to reject the one who came to show us how to overcome the citizen. What is it that rejects this one sent by God? Isn’t it the citizen operating through the materially minded? Would ingratitude, jealousy, indifference, and irreverence toward the woman be the marks of identification of those under the citizen’s control, or of those who desire to break loose from the citizen and follow the one sent?

Mr. Peel wrote in the May 1987 Journal, p.28, that Mrs. Eddy “...was also a humble disciple of the greatest spiritual revolutionary of all time — Christ Jesus — who lived the truth she gave to the world as Science.” Notice Jesus lived the truth, while Mrs. Eddy only gave it. Didn’t Mrs. Eddy live and prove what she wrote? In the same Journal, p.44, we see a similar thought, “The road to spiritual perfection — the kind Jesus demonstrated in his life and Mrs. Eddy was writing about in Science and Health....” This subtle intimation is most dangerous. Unchristian and unscientific views of our Leader must not be allowed to continue to appear in our periodicals.

Dr. John Tutt stated,

Our Leader’s discovery of Christian Science through divine revelation was complementary to Christ Jesus’ teaching and practice. (l964 Annual Meeting.) Never did any one since Jesus so deeply drive the flagstaff, ‘I am among you as he that serveth’...

(1959 Annual Meeting)

In Albert F. Gilmore’s article, “The ‘Second Coming,” (Nov. 1939

Journal, p.407), we read,

Christian Scientists agree unequivocally that Jesus exemplified the fatherhood of God. No less assuredly do they accept Mrs. Eddy as having revealed the motherhood of the Godhead.

If this is true, does not the specious argument of those in Boston imply that the demonstration of God’s motherhood is not equal to the demonstration of God’s fatherhood? Why was the world not ready to hear the revelation of God’s motherhood, divine Science, in our Lord’s time? Because the greater revelation was yet to come. Our Leader brought this point to light when she said to James Gilman, the artist who helped illustrate Christ and Christmas, “There is too much looking backward two thousand years. They will find that there is a Way here in Concord as well as in Palestine.” (Recoll. p.81, by James Gilman)

In Mary Baker Eddy: A Centennial Appreciation, Ivimy Gwalter wrote,

It [prophecy] shines resplendent in the earthly life of Christ Jesus, the masculine representative of Truth. It glows in the book of Revelation. And, as this series of articles has indicated, it comes to glorious fulfillment in the advent of Mary Baker Eddy, who, in her fulfillment of prophecy, typifies the spiritual idea symbolized by the woman in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. Through Mrs. Eddy, and through her alone, Christian Science has been presented to this age.... She is the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science and will forever remain its acknowledged Leader.

Mr. Tomlinson wrote,

Jesus manifested the ‘first coming’ of the Christ to mankind, and Mary Baker Eddy’s discovery of Christian Science (the Comforter) has completely fulfilled the Biblical prophecy of the ‘second coming.’ Just as Jesus in the ‘first coming’ revealed the fatherhood of God, so Mrs. Eddy in the ‘second coming’ of the Christ revealed the motherhood of God.

Twelve Years with Mary Baker Eddy, p.214

Mr. Phinney, in the January 1988 Journal, p.30, writes, “They [those who see her as foreordained] imply that Mrs. Eddy was a latter-day equivalent of Christ Jesus. Yet this contradicts Mrs. Eddy’s own statements regarding her place.”

According to Phinney, the revelation of God’s motherhood is inferior to the revelation of the fatherhood. The old charge is: Adam is better than Eve, men better than women, God as Father is all important, God as Mother is subordinate — if even worthy of mention. Accepting this allegation, it could then be inferred that Mrs. Eddy could not be anywhere near Jesus’ character nor his demonstration. Once again we have a return to the ancient theological belief that women could not possibly have anything to do with spiritual revelation because men, being superior, have always been the vehicles of spiritual revelation. If this is true, Christian Science is included in Christianity and Christianity would not be included in Christian Science, — the greater revelation.

Will TMC join NCC?

Has the above philosophy within our church been propounded to clear the way for our admittance to the National Council of Churches? In the January 1987 Journal we read, “The purpose of the institute [Institute for the Study of Christian Healing] is to serve as a focal point for research and study of the preservation and development of Christian healing.” Isn’t it interesting that the (Christian Science) Institute in Washington, D.C. is near the NCC? Oh sure, The Mother Church planned over a year ago to put the Institute in Washington, but now it is to be a liaison for the church to preserve its tax-exempt status. Presently, The Mother Church says that they are not joining the NCC, but will they join as an observing member without voting privileges?

Also, why would The Mother Church be joining a group of churches to preserve their tax status? Is this the first step in joining the NCC? If this is true, it is a serious development in the erosion of our guarantee of religious liberties. If joining with these other churches has been planned for many months, perhaps years, then why was the Field not notified that such a serious problem existed? If this tax problem was the reason for this religious affiliation, wouldn’t the Field have been informed sooner, and if not sooner, then is the reason being advanced, its real purpose? Something very serious is happening and Christian Scientists have a right to know what that is.

Is this tax association with other churches a preliminary means to band together and eventually merge into the NCC? Do many of the participating member churches of this tax group have conservative memberships but left-wing leadership, such as our own? Has this organization been instituted to further the association and amalgamation of these more conservative bodies? Knowing that their members would not stand for entrance into the NCC, have the heads of these churches selected this means to circumvent the will of their congregations? Is this a back door means to defy the wishes of the memberships of these churches? The evasion and double-talk at the annual meeting will be fun to watch, as will anything written about this in the periodicals.

Bishop Bromley Oxnam, former president of the Federal Council of Churches (now the NCC), prophesied a day when there would be “only two groups, the Protestant and Catholic, and that they would unite to form the Holy Catholic Church.” (Watchman-Examiner, Nov. 18, 1948) Is the citizen going to merge Christian Science into left-wing Protestantism and finally into the Roman Catholic Church? Why is The Mother Church now hiring non-Scientists? As Scientists are gradually removed from employment in Boston, non-Scientists will replace them. What organizations will they be coming from? As we join the ranks of these left-wing churches, will Boston then inform the movement that the fulfillment of Mrs. Eddy’s prophecy for the end of this century has now taken place?

Mrs. Eddy said, “It [Christian Science] is growing wonderfully. It will embrace all the churches, one by one, because in it alone is the simplicity of the oneness of God. ” (My. p.342:20-23) If they are to join us, be drawn to us, then why would we join them? That would be retrogression. You say, well we wouldn’t give up anything to join. Then why is Christ Jesus now our Leader in place of Mrs. Eddy? Why is The Mother Church distancing itself from Mrs. Eddy’s place in prophecy as much as it can? Why has the motherhood of God been downplayed in our periodicals? How much of this has been planned, and for how long?

Article VIII, Sect. 16 of the Manual states: “...members of The Mother Church shall not hereafter become members of other societies except those specified in The Mother Church Manual ” The dictionary defines ‘society’ as: “any number of persons associated for a particular purpose, whether incorporated by law, or only united by articles of agreement; a fraternity. Thus we have Bible societies, missionary societies, etc. Union on equal terms.” The NCC is a society, and associating with it for any purpose is prohibited under the terms of Art. VIII, Sec. 16 of the Manual.

The past several months [1988] have culminated in The Mother Church realizing the value, through the conversion of three major donations of stocks and commodities into cash, of the $600 million donation of the Wrigley Foundation, $275 million contribution of the Hershey Foundation, and the $400 million gift from Ralph’s Corp. The Mother Church has tremendous funds with which to carry out their work.

How much will the NCC influence the radio and television network The Mother Church is establishing? Now you know why a guest from the NCC was present during The Global Lecture Preparatory Meeting and spoke about television. You can build a very sophisticated television network for $1.275 billion. Now what is going to be put on this network? An Ecumenical Consultation on Domestic Hunger, sponsored by the NCC’s Division of Church and Society, adopted a concluding statement that said “a basic contradiction” existed between the capitalist system and “biblical justice, mercy, stewardship, service, community and self-giving love,” and that the American way resulted “in exploitation of the many for the sake of the few, and the Third World for the sake of the first.” Now we know what they think of the United States.

Mrs. Eddy wrote to the wife of President McKinley, “[while] foreign nations are allied, the United States stands alone in her glory.” She also said, “I believe strictly in the Monroe Doctrine, in our Constitution, and in the laws of God.” (My. p.282:3-4) How does the NCC feel about the Communists? An official NCC delegation that visited Cuba in 1977 stated in its report that Cuba was building “a society characterized by economic equity, justice and human dignity.” During the Viet Nam war, the NCC ignored our government’s ban on aid to the Communists, and gave the Viet Cong materials and food. In 1978 the NCC shipped $2 million of grain to Viet Nam. Just imagine what they could do with some of that $1.275 billion at their disposal? (Order The Banner, and for a small donation receive timely and newsworthy information concerning our church. See listing in the Appendix.)

God’s Two Messengers

The title of the lead article in the August l975 Journal is, “Mrs. Eddy’s Inseparable Relationship to Christian Science.” This could have been a lovely article if it had not been so severely edited. It states on page 438, “It is sometimes believed that Christian Scientists consider Mrs. Eddy to be the second witness referred to in the above passages. Zech. 4:3, Rev. 11:3] But this is not so.”

Paul Stark Seeley wrote,

Micah and Zechariah foresaw that two messengers [not a messenger and a message] would appear to further and fulfill this divine purpose. The first, Christ Jesus, by the spoken word and mighty proofs of the healing power of God’s Word.... That the divine purpose demanded a subsequent revelation of truth the Master made clear in these prophetic words: ‘I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.’ John, in the twelfth chapter of Revelation, reiterates Micah’s prophecy that she who travaileth shall bring forth that revelation of eternal truth which shall rule all peoples....

Mary Baker Eddy: A Centennial Appreciation, p.39

Christ Jesus, the first of Truth’s great messengers to mankind, foretold by the prophets, spake to men as no man had ever spoken. Mrs. Eddy...became...the subsequent messenger of Truth, foreseen by the prophets, to complete Truth’s revelation by defining the wisdom-revealed rules for its application to the solution of all human needs.

Ibid. p.44

Why is this so difficult to see? Mr. Seeley had no difficulty in seeing this point.

The prophecies are for two witnesses, two messengers, not one witness and a revelation or one messenger and a message. If Jesus is the original man (S&H p.286:13), who is the original woman? Is she the woman with the leaven that Mrs. Eddy calls a “certain” woman? (Mis. p.166:22) Is this why she said this parable foretold the “second appearing in the flesh of the Christ, Truth, hidden in sacred secrecy from the visible world”? (S&H p.118:6, e.a.) Mrs. Eddy also said, “This immaculate idea, represented first by man and, according to the Revelator, last by woman....” (S&H p.565:18-19, e.a.) She further writes, “As Elias presented the idea of the fatherhood of God, which Jesus afterwards manifested, so the Revelator completed this figure with woman, typifying the spiritual idea of God’s motherhood.” (S&H p.562:3-7) She was one of the two great lights foretold in Genesis and one of the Two Witnesses foretold in the Old and New Testaments. In other words, she was one of the two spiritual lights of the greatest magnitude in the Kingdom of God. These two individual ideas of divine Love shine with the greatest illumination and resplendency in the Kingdom of our Mother-God.

Zechariah’s prophecy is a prophetic utterance and has been fulfilled. It was to the nations’ newspapers that Mrs. Eddy made the statement that Christian Science was the second witness. She could not say that she was the second witness. As the above quotation in the August 1975 Journal finishes one paragraph, the very next one states, “Surely from her own pen comes the proof that Mrs. Eddy expected no deification of herself.” How does literal fulfillment of Bible prophecy become deification? Was it deification in the book of Matthew for the writer to show that every aspect of Jesus’ life and mission was a literal fulfillment of prophecy? Then the very next paragraph just referred to spells out the necessity of understanding our Leader’s place. What place? It goes on to say “her place in prophecy ” We have just been told that to do so is deification. This is contradictory and shows clearly that the article was severely edited.

The last paragraph speaks of what is called proper recognition: “Every Christian Science healing, every life consecrated to Truth through Science, every church service and activity held in compliance with the Manual, every instance of obedience to divine law as explained in Science, confirms Mrs. Eddy’s place as Leader. A recognition of these facts is not worship of personality but deep appreciation of the one who saw and presented to mankind the further unfoldment of the scientific truth of being demonstrated by the master Christian, Christ Jesus.” (ibid. e.a.) Didn’t Mrs. Eddy demonstrate it? Jesus knew a woman would complete God’s work. (See John 14-16, Rev. 10,12) Christian Science is not a “further unfoldment” but the final and complete revelation. When our movement flourished, there was abundant gratitude for Mrs. Eddy herself, now there is virtually none.

In the June 1980 Journal some five years later, we see similar but even more disturbing errors. Mr. Copper begins by asking (p.289), “Why Mary Baker Eddy? Why not another? Why 1866? Why not before or after?” He does not answer these questions but rejects the year 1866 as ‘magic.’ The answers to Copper’s many questions, as to time and whether it could have been another person, have already been answered, in detail, earlier in this chapter. In the August 1975 Journal article, we were told that to recognize her fulfillment of prophecy is deification. Things have changed between 1975 and 1980. Now we are told, “What opens the door is a proper recognition of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.” (p.289) He continues, “To believe in the Word of the Bible is to believe that eventually someone must sometime fulfill scriptural prophecy — that no inspired promise will go unfulfilled.” (ibid. e.a.) This all sounds so grand to those who have always loved Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy, except that you will notice the words, ‘someone’ and ‘sometime’ do not refer to nor do they indicate a particular person chosen by God before they came here nor is a particular time foretold, just someone, sometime deciding to do what the Bible said would be done, — mountain peak philosophy again.

“The Final Revelation”

In “The Final Revelation,” the lead article in the December 1938 Journal (pp.465-469), written by Bliss Knapp, we read:

Science and Health informs us that the twelfth chapter of Revelation is the lesson of today; that it is prophetic of events destined to appear during the nineteenth century. The nineteenth century has come and gone, and Mary Baker Eddy is the only woman especially identified with Divine Science, and she is the one who has brought to completion the work described in the final revelation — namely, the writing of the ‘little book’ The woman in the Apocalypse is described in Science and Health as a spiritual idea, variously portrayed. For example, she is described as a woman in travail; as a woman clothed in spiritual light; as generic man; besides revealing the motherhood of God (pp.561, 562). These are but four points of view regarding the same idea; and to one who really understands the spiritual idea, they will all be found in agreement (p.345:12-17). This spiritual idea is prophetic of events that came to pass late in the nineteenth century, and one must now look for the visible idea, rather than its symbol. In fact, Mrs. Eddy makes it plain that it is the visible idea which we must seek and find before we can correctly understand its divine Principle (p.560).

Annie Knott recorded:

…and with her usual splendid dignity and yet great humility, she referred to herself as the transparency through which the light of Truth had come to our age....

We Knew Mary Baker Eddy Vol. III, p.92

The transparency and the spiritual idea are the same person.

Notice, the Copper article refers to the fulfillment of Revelation 12 in this way, “...that the prophecy will be fulfilled through that state of consciousness which most clearly apprehends and bears witness to the qualities depicted by the Revelator.” (June 1980 Journal, p.290, e.a.) This could mean anybody or all of us. Again, nothing about her being predestined for this work before she appeared humanly. This kind of reasoning leaves the fulfillment of prophecy in the hands of mortals, not in the hands of God. Speaking of the woman with the leaven, Mrs. Eddy says in Science and Health, …“foretelling the second appearing in the flesh of the Christ, Truth....” (S&H p.118, e.a.) The Bible speaks of ‘a woman’ but in Miscellaneous Writings, Mrs. Eddy further defines that reference as ‘a certain woman’ and, thereby, emphasizes that the prophecy was for one particular woman to fulfill, a woman close to God and known of God. Here is the quote, “Like the leaven that a certain woman hid in three measures of meal, the Science of God and the spiritual idea, named in this century Christian Science, is leavening the lump of human thought, until the whole shall be leavened and all materialism disappear.” (Mis. p.166:22) Copper continues, “...that John did not prophesy the life history of Mrs. Eddy as a human being, but that Mrs. Eddy’s lifework as Discoverer, Founder, and Leader of Christian Science demonstrably fulfills John’s prophecy.” (p.290) Jesus Christ’s lifework, his revelation, and his life were prophesied. Mary Baker Eddy’s lifework, her revelation, and her life were prophesied and not just by John. How could Jesus or Mrs. Eddy fulfill prophecy without being human beings?

Once again we find the convoluted reasoning that says she was not sent, not chosen of God and not foreordained. Applying this same faulty reasoning to our Lord, we could not say that Bethlehem was foreseen as his birthplace, his crucifixion was not foretold in Psalms 22 nor his sufferings foretold in Isaiah 53, but Jesus just happened to be the individual to fulfill all of these prophecies. Mr. Copper writes, “...Mrs. Eddy’s discovery and establishment of Christian Science represent a permanent dispensation in this age of the truth of God and man of that transcendent vision of reality foreseen and foretold by the Revelator. Mrs. Eddy’s fulfillment of this prophetic mission was uniquely and unquestionably her own.” (p.291) Not that Mrs. Eddy was chosen or foreordained, but only that the Science of being was “foreseen and foretold.” Notice this one, “The simple fact is, no one before Mrs. Eddy’s time discovered the Christ Science — and no one after her had to. Presumably, if another could have, that person would have.” (p.291) Did you catch that subtlety? Mrs. Eddy was neither foreordained nor chosen; it could have been anyone. The writer goes on to describe all the historical developments that made it possible for her to discover Science, and finishes this list with “that God’s self-asserting presence dawned on the consciousness of the one best ready and able to discern it.” (p.291, e.a.) How lovely, mountain peak philosophy again. How grand. How many thousands or perhaps millions were almost as good as Mrs. Eddy and could have been the revelator. Have you ever wondered why no one has ever even come close to Mrs. Eddy’s character, demonstration, or healing ability? It is the above philosophy that has removed gratitude and reverence for Mrs. Eddy and which does destroy Christian Science healing.

Error increasing

The error increased from 1975 to 1980. Towards the end of 1987 a culminating sin of rejection, convoluted reasoning and dark philosophy, resulted in confusion for every Christian Scientist concerning this issue. The following deals with Phinney’s January 1988, Journal article. What is the “massive, significant transition for mankind” that he speaks of? Is it the ‘new church’ and the ‘new movement’ and the ‘new periodicals’ and the ‘new lectures’?

Concerning Mrs. Eddy’s quote, “Truth’s immortal idea is sweeping down the centuries, gathering beneath its wings the sick and sinning,” (S&H p.55:15-16) Mr. Phinney says, “Such statements refer to something much broader than Mrs. Eddy’s own efforts in getting the Church of Christ, Scientist, started.” (p.29) The Church of Christ, Scientist, is the collective means to challenge sin and destroy the Adamic curse on mankind. This church is Truth’s immortal idea, and nothing is greater nor can anything be a more sacred duty than for all of us to understand this as Mrs. Eddy’s purpose for her church. What could be “much broader” than this?

And here’s another of Mr. Phinney’s statements, “...the Comforter that resulted in establishing Christian Science...” is totally incorrect, because the Comforter is Christian Science. Mrs. Eddy says, under the subtitle, “Divine Science. What is it but another name for Christian Science....” (Mis. p.336:20-21); “Christian Science is unerring and Divine....” (S&H p.99:15-16) “Christian Science as old as God.” (marginal heading, S&H p.146:25) Here we see the effort to separate not only Mrs. Eddy from her spiritual identity and claim she was just a mortal reaching out, but also in line with that error, spelled out for all to see, Christian Science is only a human manifestation of the spiritual, but not spiritual. Are you beginning to recognize the danger signs?

The second paragraph in Mr. Phinney’s article announces that “...we look as always to Mrs. Eddy for direction.” Oh, how grand! Well, read further to find out what that really means. “She therefore reasonably asked for understanding of what had been accomplished, required a loyalty that could neither be mesmerically erased nor faded out by the mere passing of time.” Loyalty to Mrs. Eddy has certainly been mesmerically erased, there is no question about it. It is not an understanding of Mrs. Eddy that is asked, but of what she accomplished. The third paragraph again sounds grand but at closer inspection we are told that Mrs. Eddy is not our forever Leader. This philosophy states that she is not our Leader spiritually forever in the sense of her individuality and identity. It is this spiritual individuality that is found in her writings. Mr. Phinney states, “This had nothing to do with maintaining some personal sense of position.” Remember that ‘personal’ to Boston means ‘individuality.’ If so, how could it be that we “owe [Jesus] endless homage?” (S&H p.18:4-5) Do we owe homage to his spiritual identity that will exist forever or to what he said? Is Mrs. Eddy being personal when she says we “owe [Jesus] endless homage”?

The article continues, “An accurate understanding of Mrs. Eddy as Discoverer, Founder, and Leader, and of the spiritual greatness involved in her mission, [in her mission, not in her] is indispensable to Christian Scientists taking their part in the fulfilling of prophecy in the coming centuries.” (p.29, e.a.) Remember that fulfilling prophecy in terms of Boston’s humanism means you reach out for the truth and God can use you for something God wants done. Biblically speaking, there are still several major prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled, three of which are: the rising up of the two witnesses, the Great Tribulation and the Millennium. Christian Scientists as a group are not part of these prophecies.

In Revelation 12:4 the dragon attempts to devour Christian Science, the man child, and fails; in v.13 the dragon persecutes the woman and cannot get to her; then its final attempt is in v.17 where the dragon wars against the remnant of her seed, those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation 19:10 tells us that this testimony is the spirit of prophecy. The remnant of her seed is attacked because they hold fast to Jesus’ testimony of the woman in Bible prophecy. These are the Christian Scientists who understand that their Leader was chosen for her work before the foundation of the world was laid, and are also the elect referred to in Matthew 24:22. You are either on the side of the dragon or on the side of the woman.

Mr. Phinney continues, “Precisely opposite to the suggestions of animal magnetism that there might be less embarrassment or some benefit in decreasing our commitment to Mrs. Eddy, there is actually no way that Christian Science will enter the twenty-first century without Christian Scientists’ increasing their comprehension of her leadership through attention to her writings.” How are Scientists to increase “comprehension of her leadership through attention to her writings” while at the same time denying her status as foreordained by God to be the Discoverer of Christian Science and its forever Leader? As the Boston ‘elite’ attempt to have Christian Science without Mrs. Eddy, it will be seen that animal magnetism is indeed operating. Christian Science will be lost if this philosophy remains in control of our church.

Phinney continues, “Superficial, ritualistic reference [personality worship again] to her would accomplish nothing in the right direction and much in the wrong; only actual spiritual deepening and metaphysical maturing can secure her leadership.” First, we cannot secure Mrs. Eddy’s leadership; God has done that and will continue to do so. Second, the comment about “superficial, ritualistic reference” to her is a comment directed at those who for years understood her place in Bible prophecy, that she was foreordained, and is a not-so-subtle attack upon them. But now, there is a new brand of prophecy’s fulfillment in Boston. You can see now that a genuine regard and appreciation of Mrs. Eddy as predestined will get you excommunicated from the ‘new’ church because it is heresy. Mrs. Eddy says, “Do you love that which represents God most, His highest idea as seen to-day? No! Then you would hate Jesus if you saw him personally, and knew your right obligations towards him.” (Mis. p.336:8-11)

In a letter to Judge Hanna, Mrs. Eddy also said, “Whoever opens most the eyes of the children of men to see aright and to understand aright that IDEA ON EARTH that has best and clearest reflected by word or deed the divine Principle of man and the universe, will accomplish most for himself and mankind in the direction of all that is good and true.” (DCC p.109) Is this the “superficial ritualistic reference” to her to which Mr. Phinney refers? Does Mr. Phinney’s statement about “ritualistic reference” help us to “understand aright that idea on earth” and thereby bless mankind, or does his philosophy aid in the destruction of genuine Christian Science? Do those Christian Scientists, who accept Mrs. Eddy as “the highest idea,” have “superficial, ritualistic reference” to their Leader? Again, deification is not the error of our time, as it was 2,000 years ago and, to continue to say it is the error of our time, is a ruse by the citizen. A far different error is being used against us today to remove God’s second witness, and it is a concerted effort to totally reject her place in legitimate Bible prophecy. Animal magnetism’s influence can be recognized in the continuing sanctimonious falsehood that repeats and repeats the same old refrain that the only way to see her place in prophecy is by professing that she was the highest mountain peak and not foreordained. Continuing these falsehoods about the woman perpetuates disobedience, dishonesty, immorality, and sensuality in her church.

At the end of the Prefatory Note in Years of Authority, Mr. Peel writes that Allison Phinney was intimately connected with the writing of his trilogy and that Mr. Peel “benefited throughout from the vision, counsel, and penetrating criticism of my colleague, Allison W. Phinney.”

The next paragraph of Mr. Phinney’s article defines Mrs. Eddy as having ‘inner strength’ and ‘single-handedly’ founding the Science of the Christ. This shows irrefutably that the Boston crowd sees her as a mortal only. Mrs. Eddy saw very clearly that all she did came from reflecting God; she did not appreciate terms such as ‘inner strength’ and ‘single-handedly.’ In her writings, the only reference to ‘single-handed’ describes a mortal. (See Pul. p.2:18) These humanistic terms could describe a general in mortal conflict and under great duress, but they could not describe a spiritual leader. The next paragraph reads, “One marvels at the toughness and courage of the woman in a very human scene.” We see a ‘tough, courageous’ woman filled with ‘inner strength’ who ‘single-handedly’ did it all. Wrong. Because of her great spirituality, she turned to God for strength, to God to handle the error, and to God for courage. Mary Baker Eddy is a spiritual Leader, not a mortal leader.

Next, Mr. Phinney quotes Mrs. Eddy, “As Mary Baker Eddy, I am the weakest of mortals, but as the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, I am the bone and sinew of the world.” Why as Mary Baker Eddy is she the weakest of mortals? Because she gave up all that was mortal; and as a mortal, she had no inner strength, no single-handed battle, no toughness or courage; all she was was from God to His precious spiritual idea operating right there. Why was she then the bone and sinew of the world as the Discoverer and Founder? The answer is very simple and understandable only when we see her as the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science and foreordained by God to be so before she sojourned in the far country. It is a fact of great spiritual dimension. We are further told by Mr. Phinney, “At the point of yielding to the revelation God had given her she was strengthened by a power far beyond her own.” This is a lie. She was one with her revelation; the revelation came upon the scene because of her spirituality; her spirituality did not come as the result of the revelation. Annie Knott stated, “[Mrs. Eddy] referred to herself as the transparency through which the light of Truth had come to our age. ” (WKMBE Vol. III, p.92)

As she was the transparency for God’s revelation, her revelation did not prepare her, as Phinney implies. She was not “strengthened [as a mortal] with a power far beyond her own” because only as the Discoverer and Founder, God’s chosen, is she the bone and sinew of the world. That is her spiritual identity and individual purpose to mankind.

In the next paragraph of his article, notice the old familiar Boston rhetoric about personality worship. Doesn’t this mean in Boston’s words, that those who love her as foreordained of God are personality worshippers? Then, those of us who accept her foreordained status are admonished by Mr. Phinney, “A few, ignoring her own specific written explanations on the subject, have been pulled dangerously close to the edge of mythology, insisting in effect that God knowingly chose a mortal to become a nearly divine messenger.” If only ‘a few,’ then why bother to comment on it? The problem in Boston’s view is that there are far more than a few. But none of these Christian Scientists has ever stated that God knows a mortal. Mr. Phinney’s statement, though, tells us that the Boston Philosophy Club sees her only as a mortal and takes umbrage at those who speak of her place in prophecy as foreordained; — not understanding, in the least, what we mean. They gave themselves away,

didn’t they? They do not see the spiritual idea. Notice, it disturbs them greatly that their humanistic philosophy is not accepted by everyone. They cannot fathom Mrs. Eddy other than as a mortal, and the same holds true for Jesus, only they don’t dare bring that one out into the open. Then what is this ‘mythology’ of which he speaks? Is it to know that God predestined Mrs. Eddy, His spiritual idea, for the work He gave to her and her alone to do, or to believe that Mrs. Eddy as a mortal somehow was one of many who accidentally decided to reach out to God to catch the first rays of light and accidentally did so in the year 1866 that was Biblically prophesied but which date had no relevance?

Dear friends, the latter is mythology and magic, and any reference to Mrs. Eddy based in this error would definitely be ritualistic worship, and is Boston’s humanistic philosophy. It is not mine, it is not Mrs. Eddy’s, it does not belong to those who see Mrs. Eddy as foreordained, and it is not Christian Science.

Phinney’s ‘ritualism,’ Copper’s ‘magic,’ and Peel’s ‘mysticism’ are what they refer to as ‘concrete reality.’ We see this ‘concrete reality’ leading to: lack of healing; centralized control; immorality and vice, based in the claims of intellectualism that reject spirituality; and the loss of genuine Christian Science.

Perhaps part of the problem is that Boston does not understand Mrs. Eddy’s statement, “The belief in anti-Christ: that somebody in the flesh is the son of God, or is another Christ, or is a spiritually adopted child, or is an incarnated babe, is the evil one — in other words, the one evil — disporting itself with the subtleties of sin!” (Mis. p.111:30) The mortal (flesh) is never of God but as our Leader says, “Human beings are physically mortal, but spiritually immortal.” (Un. p.37:17-18) It is this immortal idea we speak of that appears to the world to be flesh. This statement of Mrs. Eddy’s, misunderstood, leads one to believe that she is not to be recognized. However, the Bible tells us that the Word must be made flesh, not that the Word is in the flesh. It tells us that the anti-Christ will reject the one who appears in the flesh, sent by God, not as flesh, but only appearing to the world as if they are in the flesh. (II John 1:7) Mrs. Eddy speaks of the prophecy of the parable of the leaven as the “second appearing in the flesh.” The ignorant claim Mrs. Eddy is flesh, and as flesh, fulfills Bible prophecy. Those, who do not understand Mrs. Eddy’s quote from Miscellaneous Writings, declare that those who do see the spiritual idea fulfilling prophecy are deifiers and violators of Mrs. Eddy’s words. If this were true, Mrs. Eddy would be violating her own words. We see the fatherhood of God incarnated in I John 4:3, and the motherhood of God incarnated in Science and Health, page 118:6.

The danger of misunderstanding what Mrs. Eddy said is seen in an article entitled “Scientific Christianity or ‘perfunctory religion’?” It says, “She saw, for example, the inclination simply to venerate her person [personality worship] instead of obeying her spiritual leadership in following Christ Jesus. Many people, she learned, would rather emotionally pilgrimage to Pleasant View than make the sacrifice of scaling the mountain of spiritual Christianity for themselves.” (Jan. 1987 Journal, article by Phinney, p.34) Is this philosophy why Pleasant View was sold, and why all the historical homes soon will be sold? Is this why the memorial at her birth site was dynamited and pictures of her removed from Reading Rooms? Speaking of the rocking chair in which she wrote Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy said, “The world will cherish all these things in future time.” (Recoll. p.51) Not if the Boston Philosophy Club has their way about it. Can you not see what the false belief concerning this has done? The lack of understanding is tragic. It enjoys the applause of many, but it dulls one’s sensibility to right thinking and action. Mr. Phinney said that those who, in his view, see her incorrectly, see her chosen by God as a mortal to become a “nearly divine messenger.” This is absurd. It is Mr. Phinney who sees Mrs. Eddy as a mortal leader. As foreordained by God, was she not His highest spiritual idea, and still so while seen on earth by mankind as a mortal? As His highest idea, she was not a “nearly divine messenger,” she was that messenger.

Because God foreordained Mrs. Eddy, that does not mean that God knows a mortal. She said, “Do you love that which represents God most, His highest idea as seen to-day? No!” (Mis. p.336:8) How could she be the highest idea if we are all spiritual equals according to the Boston philosophizers? No Christian Scientist but a neophyte would believe that God knows a mortal, so that is not a serious problem, but what is a serious problem is the thought that our Leader was only a mortal while on earth. Can you imagine how this error in our church would affect healing? We cannot attach our own views to Christian Science and tell the field it is Holy Writ.

Nobody I know wants to deify Mrs. Eddy, nor even consider such a silly emotion. I haven’t seen any statues of her in our churches, plastic images of her on car dashboards, nor bumper stickers reading, Honk if you love Mary Baker Eddy. If this whole issue were not based in such pathetic ignorance, it would be laughable. But the Boston philosophy is very dangerous and the consequences too catastrophic to consider with humor. Mrs. Eddy says, “Material beliefs would slay the spiritual idea whenever and wherever it appears.” (S&H p.542:3-5) Could this be true about the appearing of God’s womanhood? The Journal article, still under consideration here, says she was not foreordained and that God did not know her, thus implying once again that she was just a nice old lady.

This article further implies that those who acknowledge her foreordained status are emotional and intellectually deficient and worthy of derision, while those in Boston, the true elite, have the loftiest understanding of Christian Science ever seen.

Continuing in this article (January 1987 Journal p.30), “They imply that Mrs. Eddy was a latter-day equivalent of Christ Jesus. Yet this contradicts Mrs. Eddy’s own statements regarding her place.” If so, why not quote some of them? No references are given. He continues, “It also would subtly distort the whole basic theology of Christian Science.” Whose concept of Christian Science is being distorted? Whose concept of Christian Science caused the healing truth to be spread throughout the world, and whose mythological philosophy of Christian Science is responsible for the rapid decay and dissolution of genuine Christian Science?

Then, as we read further in Phinney’s article, we find more proof of the Boston philosophy: “...what was actually going on — a mortal, human sense yielding to concrete divine reality, the pure spiritual witnessing to God’s allness, so unselfed, so transparent, that it finally [not according to God’s timetable] reveals to human consciousness the Science of being.” (e.a.) Again we are told that Mrs. Eddy is mortal, God did not choose her before she sojourned here, and she was the one who more than all the other close candidates was able to perceive this truth because of her spiritual mindedness.

Then the article speaks of those who think it is time “to stop paying so much attention to a human nineteenth-century Founder supposedly no more gifted with foresight and strategic vision than they themselves.” (p.30) And who are ‘those’ benighted visionaries to whom he refers? A few years ago this was the basic line of the Boston Philosophy Club. It must have become a hot potato that they thought better of holding and decided to drop. Their attempt to remove Mrs. Eddy from the movement with this argument became much too controversial. Now, however, this same error is to be trotted out again, but this time, with a far more subtle twist — love Mrs. Eddy as a good mortal, as the one who chose God, whom God then let fulfill prophecy. Such is the way and subtle influence of the citizen.

Here it comes again, folks. Mr. Phinney writes, “The question for each of us, as it was for Mrs. Eddy, is not what a mortal soul can do for God but what immortal Soul does with man.” A mortal soul cannot do a thing for God, never has, never will. “There is no finite soul nor spirit.” (S&H p.466:21). Here again we are shown that Boston’s concept of Mrs. Eddy is that of a finite soul.

In the third to last paragraph of Phinney’s article, we are now followers of Christ Jesus rather than Mrs. Eddy. This is a popular periodical theme. The great danger of this is seen in the October, 1987 Journal, “But only the spiritually reborn individual can articulate with redemptive effect the pure Christianity, the divine Science, taught by Jesus.” (p.38) Certainly our Lord taught Science, because Christianity is scientific, but he did not teach the revelation of divine Science because that was for a future time. Our Leader makes this very clear where she says, “Our Master healed the sick, practiced Christian healing, and taught the generalities of its divine Principle to his students; but he left no definite rule for demonstrating this Principle of healing and preventing disease. This rule remained to be discovered in Christian Science.” (S&H p.147:24-29, e.a.)

In a Journal article entitled, “Mary Baker Eddy and Her Unique Contribution to Christian Theology,” (February 1987 Journal, p. 22, e.a.) we read, “Here it should be added that Mrs. Eddy did not see her discovery as adding something missing to Jesus’ teachings. Jesus’ work as Saviour is complete, and he gave us the essential rudiments of spiritual healing.” How could this statement be true when it was not the first, but the second appearing that revealed the human and divine coincidence, the Science of Christianity, taught the rules for demonstrating this Principle of healing and preventing disease in Science and Health, uncovered malicious animal magnetism, and much, much more. Our Leader says that our Master …“taught the generalities of its divine Principle to his students; but he left no definite rule...” (S&H p.147:24-29) “Generalities” are far different than the “essential rudiments of spiritual healing.” Christianity was not the greater revelation, Christian Science is. Jesus’ work was finished; but God had more to unfold, and that is why a Second Advent was prophesied and He sent our Leader. It is now a periodical theme that divine Science was taught by Jesus. Then, on p.48 we read, “...the divine Science of the Scriptures by which Jesus taught his disciples to heal....” The revelation of divine Science had not yet come; our Lord said it was for a future time. “This rule remained to be discovered in Christian Science.” (S&H 147:28-29). This does not mean that Jesus’ teachings of Christianity were not scientific; they certainly were. Christianity, the lesser light like the moon, borrows its light from the ‘full effulgence’ of the sun. The sun represents the Science of Christianity. It is a natural consequence that the moon’s light must be Christianly scientific, but it is not the fullness of the Science of Christianity — the sun’s light, the raiment of the woman.

In the March 9, 1987 Sentinel, we are told, …“Satisfying and lasting answers are to be found in the true metaphysics taught and practiced by Christ Jesus.” (p.24) What happened to the fact that Mrs. Eddy was the only one to ever make his work scientifically understood? Jesus even said he did not teach it all, so the fullness was not taught by him in his time; it was taught by Mrs. Eddy in our time, as Jesus said it would be, in the second appearing of the Christ.

Continuing the same theme in the March 16, 1987 Sentinel, p.25, by Mr. Phinney, we read, “Actually, some two thousand years ago an understanding of healing which holds the explanation for such things was given to the world.” Dear friends, does the Boston Philosophy Club read Mrs. Eddy’s writings? Do they read and study the Scriptures? If the understanding had been given 2000 years ago, there would not have been a need for the Second Advent. The understanding was not given two thousand years ago; that understanding came with Mrs. Eddy. The author writes further, “A little over a century ago a book was written which helps to answer this question.” (p.26) Notice, Science and Health helps. Ending his article, Phinney says of Jesus’ teachings, “They will always be leading and leavening human thought.” Jesus made it very clear that a woman was going to do that. Mrs. Eddy said, “The united plans of the evildoers is to cause the beginners either in lecturing or teaching or in our periodicals to keep Mrs. Eddy as she is (what God knows of her and revealed to Christ Jesus) out of sight ” (DCC p.109, e.a.) Is Mr. Phinney trying to tell

us that Jesus knew nothing about Mrs. Eddy and did not prophesy her career? The phrase just quoted states that God knew her and revealed this to Christ Jesus.

Mr. Phinney’s January, 1988 Journal editorial ends with, “The time for revolutions has come.” How perfectly does that last sentence confirm that a philosophy is in charge of Mrs. Eddy’s church, and has been instrumental in creating a new church, a new movement, a new lecture method, new periodicals and on and on. There is even an attempt in Boston to appear loving towards Mrs. Eddy and say she fulfilled Bible prophecy — their way. Is this animal magnetism’s attempt to deceive the elect and dissolve resistance to its plans? The only thing not being changed is the name of our church and our name as adherents. “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1:21) Could this “engrafted word” or branch refer to our Leader, her teaching and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures?

Mrs. Eddy spoke of this coming sin when she wrote,

Christian Science is susceptible of being made the repository for all the sins of the other two religions [Catholicism and Protestantism] in marked face and form, whereby the most aggravated and exaggerated and liberated powers of evil have full sway The woman has cast into these three measures of iniquity,

[the world, the flesh and the devil] the leaven that is fermenting them. Therefore, they, inherent in mortal mind, take vengeance on their destroyer. Alas for the masquerade of their friendship, of their gratitude, of their honesty, of their virtue, and especially of their humanity towards this woman. Does one human heart love her? No! It is all a farce. The carnal mind hates her, and deserts her, lies about her, steals from her, mocks her, betrays her, nails her to the cross and spits on her, saying ‘Come down from the cross’. Then parts her seamless robe that has not one ridge of the three religions [RC, P, and CS] as interpreted by this trio of error — and casts lots for it. Rending it into rags it picks up the shorn glory and decks itself therewith in harlequin jacket. Not one of these three religions misused is the Rock on which Christ, Truth, builds the church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. And the last one [Christian Science] is named the final one; therefore, it [more than Protestantism and Romanism] holds the most relentless war against the woman.

Essays and Other Footprints, p.54-55

Claiming its own creation as reality, the red dragon, the belief of intelligence in matter (the citizen in the far country), will not allow Christian Scientists to see their Leader as chosen by divine Love. Only love for her can break that lie, for “Against Love, the dragon warreth not long. ” (S&H p.567:9)

Our Lord prophesied about our time in history: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” (Matt. 24:11,12) The love for our Leader has waxed cold and we are in deadly peril as individuals, as a Cause and as a nation.

The following is related by Mrs. Norton; she had just lost her husband and her baby and Mrs. Eddy sent for her to come and see her: “I shall never forget the first time I talked with her. She had sent for me to call upon her. On entering the room she extended her hand and asked me to be seated. I walked across the room and sat down in a chair. Mrs. Eddy very deliberately arranged her dress and sat down on a sofa. She looked at me so tenderly and patting the sofa beside herself, she said, ‘You are too far away from Mother darling.’ I immediately went to her. She took me in her arms and kissed me. She was not afraid to express her love humanly, and I did not mistake it, for I learned then and there that divine Love must be expressed humanly in order to heal the broken-

hearted. Oh, let us all learn to love as did this precious Christ-idea. Let us love her because she first loved us by teaching us that Life is Love and Love is Life. She is our Mother in Israel and is still saying to us all, ‘You are too far away from Mother, darling.’” (Mary Baker Eddy The Prophetic and Historical Perspective, by Paul R. Smillie, p.320)

Author’s intent

My only intent in writing to Christian Scientists was to defend Mary Baker Eddy because she was being defamed and rejected in her own church. The biography I wrote about her, Mary Baker Eddy: The Prophetic and Historical Perspective, details her place in Bible prophecy and contains a loving account of her life. For this, I was excommunicated from The Mother Church. Now Boston says they believe that Mrs. Eddy fulfilled Bible prophecy. However, after reading this chapter, you now know that their view of prophecy, concerning our Leader, is completely opposite to her view of herself.

In the December, 1987 Journal, entitled “The Democratic Spirit of Mrs. Eddy’s Church,” by Ralph Copper, we read, “That institution is the best ‘bulwark of civil and religious liberty’ which best promotes the free, enlightened thinking of its members.” The article also states, “Cooperation, not coercion, is the hallmark of church membership. ” It is so easy to write about the lofty principles of democratic government in civil and ecclesiastical institutions, but seldom are these principles adhered to by the very ones making the lofty statements. If the field is interested in and would like a copy of the correspondence between the Board of Directors and myself, a copy can be made available upon request. The correspondence chronicles some very disturbing trends in Boston and reveals some flagrant violations of our Manual.

[Both Paul R. Smillie’s biography of Mrs. Eddy and copies of the Board’s correspondence with him are available from The Gethsemane Foundation. To order, please refer to page vi of this book.]

Why would the Boston elite excommunicate someone who shows by our Leader’s own words that their periodical writing and philosophy are incorrect? One would think they would applaud and be grateful for this uncovering as the Board is responsible for the contents of the periodicals. To excommunicate one for flagrant disobedience to our Leader is one thing, but to crush out legitimate dissent is another. Is the latter the “violent and egotistical” behavior our Leader spoke of? It is a tragedy that Mrs. Eddy’s church is run by an elitist element. This is Romanism, dear friends. All I have ever communicated has been based on our Leader’s writings and on the Bible. Why then was excommunication considered to be necessary? Excommunication would only become necessary if what I have written uncovers the philosophy of Romanism running rampant in our church and which has taken the place of genuine Christian Science. Excommunication for gross immorality and malfeasance in office is certainly in order for anyone, especially when it affects the progress of Christian Science and the welfare of mankind. The only time our Leader excommunicated anyone was for the aforementioned reasons, and, even then, was not resorted to very often, — contrary to the wholesale excommunications taking place today. What we are now seeing is a repeat of the stand of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages when excommunication was for doctrinal differences, while immorality and vice remained in and were retained by the governing elite.

Why have the healing channels of The Mother Church, — lecturing, periodicals, teaching, etc., become fruitless? Where they once mightily blessed, now they obstruct the flow of the healing Christ. These channels bore fruit only as they supported the spiritual idea. As The Mother Church has now rejected “the highest idea,” Mary Baker Eddy, haven’t these former healing channels, that now perpetuate lies about her and her Science, become instead avenues for rejecting Christian Science healing? The Mother Church, then, instead of being the organized means to perpetuate and extend healing, has become the organized means to destroy the healing thrust of Christian Science. These healing channels have become the tools of malicious animal magnetism in its persecution of the woman, the spiritual idea. We repeat, “Keeping the truth of her character before the public will help the students, and do more than all else for the Cause. Christianity in its purity was lost by defaming and killing its defenders. Do not let this period repeat this mistake. The truth in regard to your Leader heals the sick and saves the sinner. The lie has just the opposite effect, and the evil one that leads all evil in this matter knows this more clearly than do the Christian Scientists in general.” (Coll. p.74) The lie in regard to our Leader, which is sin, would cause sickness, stop healing, and raise the sinner to the highest places in her church.

We have seen from first hand evidence that Mrs. Eddy has been removed from her church. Gratitude for her has been edited out of the periodical testimonies and gratitude for the motherhood of God has also been removed. God is no longer referred to as Mother in articles or in testimonies. We rarely even see Father-Mother mentioned anymore. There is virtually no gratitude for Mrs. Eddy in our periodicals, except as a follower or disciple of Jesus. Without the motherhood of God, we do not have divine Science, and, therefore, cannot perceive the divine idea. If we reject God as Mother, we lose the third part of the trinity, the Holy Ghost, divine Science, our Comforter.

Woman’s hour

Our Leader said this was woman’s hour, but where are the women? When was the last time you spoke of your Mother-God in testimonies and expressed gratitude for Mrs. Eddy and her mothering leadership? When in discussions with other Christian Scientists have you referred to the Mother-God? When have you stood up in discussions with anyone, for Mrs. Eddy?

Did our Leader pay obeisance to men? If you do, are you a follower of this grand lady, this consummate woman? We men cannot carry the day for you women; she said that “woman goes forth to battle with Goliath,” male domination. (S&H p.268:12) Men don’t doff their “lavender kid zeal,” women do; that was primarily a message to awaken women, not men. Women who rely on men to fight this battle for them should be ashamed of themselves. Our Leader spoke of those who will not stand for her and defined their character in these words, “Cowardice is selfishness.” (Mis. p.211:21)

Our Leader said that the deliverer of humanity must be the mother-Love. (See Ess., “Woman’s Hour,” p.18-19.) Can’t women express sufficient mother-love for our Leader and her Science to stand up for her? She told Mrs. Knott, “Rise to the consciousness of true womanhood and the world will want you as it does Mother.” (WKMBE Vol. III, p.87) What has happened to womanhood and mothering in our church? Our Mother in Israel stood for all women, but women will not stand for her. She confronted this issue when women had no rights, but women today will not help her when they have access to all rights.

Jesus knew that the greater works had to come through the motherhood of God that reveals the Science of the Christ. He knew that only the mother-love could uncover and handle the red dragon. But where are the women?

The citizen (the serpent) used Jesus’ disciples to treat him, the spiritual idea, the one sent by God, contemptuously, ignominiously, without reverence or obedience. All that his disciples did from that point on, handled by the citizen to hate the spiritual idea, was wrong. They lost the true idea of manhood. Men would not demonstrate his example because they secretly resented his demonstration and expression of the Christ. Rejecting his example of the ideal manhood, men returned to domination instead of dominion, weakness instead of meekness, self-interest instead of fathering. In short, they returned to the old Adamic ways. Once again, they could use women for their pleasure and have women take care of them. Men would not strive to follow their Lord’s example of loving the spirituality of womanhood, but strove, instead, to demonstrate to the women that men were their superiors. Our Lord was not married but this did not stop him from demonstrating true manhood and supporting womanhood, thus revealing by his own example that men must not dominate women. His revelation of the fatherhood of God embraced and uplifted every individual, every family, every institution and nation on the face of the globe; but rejection of Jesus’ example, through deifying him, dissolved all the progress his demonstration had engendered.

The fatherhood of God was rejected and therefore hidden. Christ Jesus’ followers surrendered their self-government, love of liberty and moral courage. They began to listen to the citizen telling them to deify their Lord, a natural consequence of their lack of desire to follow and demonstrate. His leadership was dissolved. To protect their lack of spirituality and demonstration, the men shed their responsibility to ‘be perfect’ and transferred it to their church and its officials, and the claim of infallibility took root. The church became centralized through those hungry for power and place, and they substituted position for spirituality. Men were happy to be in control once again. Healing was lost. Mortals, at the citizen’s bidding, took over the reigns of power, the citizen was glorified, the Dark Ages came and the long night of terror began. The ‘ignoble conduct’ of his male disciples was responsible for the “downfall of genuine Christianity....” (’02 p.18:25)

The citizen (the red dragon) convinced Mrs. Eddy’s disciples to treat her, the ‘highest idea,’ the one sent by God, contemptuously, ignominiously, without reverence or obedience. All that her disciples did from that point on, handled by the citizen to hate the spiritual idea, was wrong. They lost the true idea of womanhood. Women could not then demonstrate their Leader’s example because of their hidden resentment of her demonstration. Rejecting her example of ideal womanhood, women became content with a cosmetic love instead of a loving spirituality, substantial talk instead of substantial courage, and manipulation instead of mothering. They returned to the ways of Eve’s progeny, preferring to have men care for them and maintain their pleasures. Women would not follow their Leader’s example of loving the spirituality of womanhood that uplifts manhood. Instead of demonstrating the rights of womanhood, women begin to demonstrate for their rights. The motherhood of God was rejected, therefore hidden.

Although our Leader was married, it did not stop her from demonstrating true womanhood, and thus supporting manhood. Her life revealed to every woman that there was no need to rely on a man for identity. Her revelation of the motherhood of God embraced and uplifted every individual, family, institution and nation on the face of the globe. But denial of Mrs. Eddy’s example through rejection of her is dissolving all the progress her demonstration engendered.

Her followers surrendered self-government, love of liberty and moral courage. They began to listen to the citizen telling them to reject her, a natural consequence of their lack of desire to follow and demonstrate, — essentially the same thing that happened 2000 years ago. Her leadership was dissolved. To protect their lack of spirituality and demonstration, they transferred their responsibility to ‘be perfect’ to their church and its officials and the claim of infallibility took root. The church became centralized through those hungry for power and place, who substituted position for spirituality. Women were happy to see the men in control again. Healing was lost. Mortals, satisfied to do the citizen’s bidding, took over the reigns of power; the citizen was glorified. Will it be said of our time that the ‘ignoble conduct’ of her female disciples toward her brought the downfall of genuine Christian Science?

If you women did not mind reading about the ignoble conduct of Jesus’ male disciples towards Jesus and their responsibility for the loss of genuine Christianity, then you shouldn’t mind hearing that women will be responsible for the loss of Christian Science.

Malicious animal magnetism wars against true womanhood and the motherhood of God, against The Mother Church based in the Manual, and against Mrs. Eddy. The war is being waged within our own church. Our Leader says the most relentless war against the woman is from Christian Scientists. (See Ess., p.54-55.) Do we wonder why very little healing is going on? Mrs. Eddy wrote to Augusta Stetson, “My students are doing more for, and against, C.S. than any others can do. They are the greatest sinners on earth when they injure it; and are doing more good than all others when they do the best they know how.” (S.L. p. 59)

Upon hearing a lovely testimony given by a woman expressing great gratitude for Mrs. Eddy and her place in prophecy, a male member of the Board of Directors approached her afterwards in the lobby and told her, in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear, not to dare give another testimony like that again. Did any women come to the aid of our Leader and this woman? Where are the women? At a practitioner’s meeting, a male representative of The Mother Church stated in a loud voice, “Mary Baker Eddy made many mistakes.” After quoting Mrs. Eddy concerning her successor as generic man, he then said, derisively and mockingly, inferring that she was not the forever Leader, “AND NOT M-A-R-Y B-A-K-E-R E-D-D-Y!” Why didn’t the women stand up for their Leader? Where were the women? Another male member from the Board stated, “God didn’t know anything about an old lady from New Hampshire.” Why didn’t the women who heard him, correct him? Another male with a lofty position in Boston stated, “How will we ever overcome the embarrassment of that woman?” Although Mrs. Eddy says, “Ignorance of God is no longer the stepping-stone to faith,” it certainly appears to be a stepping-stone to filling a position in Boston. (S&H p.vii:17) But the male hatred of Mrs. Eddy and womanhood is not new.

The egotism of the male thought is shown in the following notation quoted from Calvin Frye’s diary of December 7, 1900, “Judge Clarkson dined with Mrs. Eddy today and after dinner tried to convince her again that she was mistaken, and the Cause was going to ruin, and that men were essential to take the lead of the Cause of Christian Science, and to assert their rights without her dictation.” Speaking of obedience to James Gilman, Mrs. Eddy, referring to a male student in a position of trust, said, “[William G. Nixon] would declare himself ready to obey God in whatever He might require of him, but to obey a woman, bah! We understand God and are ready to obey Him only so far as we understand and are ready to obey His highest representative in mortal life. Our love for God and consequent willingness to obey Him is never greater than our love for and willingness to obey His highest demonstrator.” (Six Days p.469) After she passed, it was not long before male egos similar to Clarkson’s and Nixon’s took over the Church and, saddest of all, women loved to have it so.

Women must handle this error of male ego in our church in the very same way mothers handle errant children. Deal with the boorish behavior, the undisciplined mentality, the immature reasoning. All of these errors must be stopped immediately, by the women of our church. It is time to cease from pretended prayer in the shadow cast by this Goliath, and to go forth with righteous zeal and a prayer in your heart to take decisive action.

Romanism

Centralized autocratic authority that asserts its infallibility, secretive plans and methods of change and control, is Romanism. Romanism is shown in the intolerance with which Christian Scientists treat their fellow Christian Scientists who do not follow the official line. Strong and rigid centralized government in branch churches that should be democratic, is Romanism. Adulation of those in positions of trust and their encouragement to do so, leads to domination and pretense to piety; all Romanism. When pupils and patients deify their teachers and practitioners by petitioning them for answers to every question, and to ask their advice for all their problems, that is Romanism. When students of Mrs. Eddy’s refer to themselves as students of Mr. or Mrs. CSB and not as pupils of these CSB’s, and when Mr. or Mrs. CSB refer to their pupils as their students, that is Romanism. Professor Smith may be a teacher of Shakespeare with a class of pupils, but these pupils are students of Shakespeare, not students of Professor Smith. When practitioners and teachers go to Boston to get their answers and receive human opinion, that is Romanism. Authority and position become proof of spiritual stature while the Word and demonstration become secondary.

We all have the books with which to study and learn. When there is a love of position, place, pride of power and power of pride, that is Romanism. When we are told that it is proper to love all that Boston says and does, but that to love Mrs. Eddy is deification, that is Romanism. When we see Mrs. Eddy spoken of as a good mortal and a nice old lady, that is a false belief concerning true Bible prophecy and the Word made flesh, and that is Romanism. The intrigue to remove the one sent, preserves and extends the place and power of the spiritually immature, and that is Romanism. The unnatural adoration of Jesus in our periodicals, unnatural because it exempts Mrs. Eddy from her place as Leader, is Romanism. Attacks upon our Leader from within the church are Romanism.

The Roman Catholic Church never saw the centralization of power that is beginning to take place in Boston. A few lecturers will do all videos, a few selected teachers will do all the teaching through television in cooperation with the Institute in Washington. This does not necessarily mean that any of this has or has not been formulated, it simply means that this is the direction toward which malicious animal magnetism is heading. A few people, through television, will control all teaching, lecturing and reading to all Christian Science churches. Those branch churches still in existence will receive their services and orders via satellite. There will be no need of any local branch church government. The Board of Directors is also to be eventually removed to make way for the rule of one person. Is this why we now have a Chairman of the Board, a position Mrs. Eddy did not provide for in our Manual? The Monitor and other periodicals, lecturing and teaching the way Mrs. Eddy established them, are now all declared to be archaic. The rampant violation of the Manual is Romanism.

Mrs. Eddy never thought the Board of Directors was to be treated as infallible. Read the following letter from Mrs. Eddy to the Board, written on August 9, 1900:

Do not you know that Mr. Armstrong’s dear son is put in just the wrong place for his own good, and the good of our Cause? This move of subjecting him to the full fire of m.a.m. is all done by W.

[Woodbury] showing you how you are controlled by her and so would do such an imprudent, unwise act. This has caused another by-law to be enacted and put in the Manual. Oh, how long will even the Board of Directors be led by sin and Satan? If another act like this is consummated by you, I will change the entire Board. You give me little cause to have any faith in you.

Mary Baker Eddy: Her Spiritual Precepts Vol. V, p.8

The Board of Directors is also being mentally manipulated today and Christian Scientists had better get to work and wake them up.

Instead of developing grandiose plans and Madison Avenue techniques, our Board should be in their books studying to keep the literature, for which they are responsible, correct and clear. If the Board of Directors cannot keep our periodicals correct, then they are responsible for Christian Scientists violating the Manual Article VIII, Section 11, which states, “A member of this church shall neither buy, sell, nor circulate Christian Science literature which is not correct in its statement of divine Principle and rules and demonstration of Christian Science.” Then they must resign their positions so those more spiritually minded, who can do the job faithfully and correctly, can fill them. In accordance with the Manual provision, Article I, Section 9, Christian Scientists should demand their resignations.

For years, the periodicals and lectures were tasteless pablum. Then when these avenues failed to be fruitful, because of Boston’s control and severe editing of inspiration, Boston said those channels were unfruitful and must be done away with. Was the pablum planned and executed for that purpose? Is the removal of the foundation of Mrs. Eddy’s church the necessary means to institute the new church under the NCC?

The false teachings going on now through the channels of The Mother Church, teachings that have destroyed genuine Christian Science, are now to be given channels to pollute all mankind. It is the right of a Roman Catholic to accept the policy dictated by the church of his own choice. It is the height of immorality for Christian Scientists to tolerate projected Romanism that dictates policy for Mrs. Eddy’s church, a policy that is diametrically opposed to Christian Science.

Fear of being disciplined, of excommunication, of what others might say, a loss of esteem, a terror that strikes fear into the hearts of intelligent men and women, is Romanism. Fear of speaking out, of being quoted or fear of standing for what we know is right, is Romanism. This unspoken fear supports infallibility, rejects self-government and moral courage, and is Romanism. It is an unwillingness to stand against spiritual wickedness in high places. The ancient error that destroyed free thought and spiritual inspiration had its own list of authorized books and papers. Christian Scientists are a people who live on an island of fear in an ocean of freedom. Long centuries of ecclesiastical oppression were destroyed by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Our church was born in the hollow of these two encompassing hands. Is it comprehensible to you why Christian Scientists should be so willing to submit to the mental traits of Romanism vanquished so long ago? Gilbert Carpenter wrote:

[Mrs. Eddy] warned students that [Romanism] was their most dangerous enemy, in the sense that that is what they  would become, if they permitted the carnal mind to replace their reflection of divine Mind. They might retain their knowledge of the letter of Christian Science, but the spirit of it would be gone, and in place of it, the claim of Roman Catholicism would hold sway. Does not one have to be warned of the awfulness of such a happening, in order that he may avoid letting it come to pass? Mrs. Eddy was not warning her students against Roman Catholics, but against the possibility of their becoming Roman Catholics, not in name but in spirit. In other words, a student who loses the true spirit of Christian Science, becomes a Roman Catholic as far as the action of the carnal mind is concerned.

Mary Baker Eddy: Her Spiritual Precepts Vol. V, pp.10-11

As Christian Scientists become more like Roman Catholics, they succumb more easily to the claims of Romanism.

In my local church, the members were asked to pray to attract non-Scientists to services. We had quite a few newcomers. Without exception, they were Roman Catholics. We then saw that something was working which needed to be handled. Apparently, a projected mortal mind law had been made that only Roman Catholics could fill our churches. As we handled this, the Roman Catholics stopped coming, and the Protestants began to attend.

A well-orchestrated mental conspiracy planned for many years, and now reaching its culmination in the destruction of all that Mrs. Eddy established, is taking place. It is called a new church and a new movement. Christian Scientists don’t want to believe the great lady when she said, “Large numbers, in desperate malice, are engaged day and night in organizing action against us.” (Mis. p.177:8-10) These new developments could never have been accepted by Christian Scientists if they had not been deceived about their Leader’s place and encouraged to accept false views of her. Paying obeisance and giving primary importance to intellectual thought in our church is Jesuitism. Jesuitism is given power through intellectual control. Spirituality, meanwhile, becomes secondary in importance. Jesuitism obviates the necessity of demonstration.

The final act

The entire scene being played out before us now is the final act of a three-part drama. Act I dealt with the intended rejection of Mrs. Eddy and the ridiculing of those who love her; Act II dealt with the immediate centralization of power and the dissipation of correct periodical and lecture content; Act III is to be a new church, new periodicals, and a new movement. Christian Scientists allowed their Leader to be taken from them.

At the end of Act III there is a well thought-out ending, a ruse, where the audience returns from the intermission to pretended love for their Leader, and mollifies those waking up from a long sleep.

The pretended love for Mrs. Eddy this year [1988] is only that. There are still plans to close down and sell all historical homes and to close the site of her birthplace. Pictures of Mrs. Eddy, Mr. Tomlinson’s and Sibyl Wilbur’s biographies have already been removed from Reading Rooms. Diminution and blatant rejection of her place and importance in testimonies and lectures have taken place (in direct violation of Manual Article XXXI, Section 2), rejection of “Mrs. Eddy’s Place,” the pamphlet containing the six points that support her place, in addition to reminiscences and precious memoirs of her life that have been hidden or destroyed. The rejection of our Leader has been planned. Can’t we see that none of what is being done now, which violates the Manual, could have been done without blunting the love for our forever Leader?

In addition to the polluted channels that retard healing in the church, there is another much more serious error contributing to this lack of healing. Several years ago I began to hear of individuals who, protesting the disturbing events in Boston, found that they almost immediately began experiencing difficulties in business, public practices, personal healings and in every avenue of their lives. I first chalked it up to reaction on their part. Then some years ago a practitioner friend wrote to Boston about some very disturbing error taking place there. Almost immediately his practice was shut down — the phone stopped ringing. This went on for weeks without a let-up. He then decided to write a letter of apology, not because he felt he was wrong, but because he saw the condition as malpractice and thought an apology might solve the problem. It was seriously affecting his livelihood. After he placed his letter in the mail box, he returned home to a ringing phone. This proved to him that mental malpractice was making false laws. Many more such instances through the years have added to the evidence of this sinister element within our own church. Many are finding that when this error is specifically handled, its effects are alleviated. These claims have no power when we are willing to uncover them. Our Leader says, “...error, when found out, is two-thirds destroyed, and the remaining third kills itself.” (Mis. p.210:5-7)

Anyone who is a dissident in the Roman Catholic Church is one who thinks or acts contrary to the present doctrine of the church. This person or persons are banned and an anathema is pronounced upon them. Those taking a stand are excommunicated and a double ban is pronounced on them. If you have had just one thought that all is not right in Boston, then you are a mental dissident and come under the mental ban being pronounced by the Boston mental workers. Too many Christian Scientists are passing on because they cannot get a healing. This is Jesuitism in our church. The mental malpractice against those who resist their will is becoming increasingly apparent. The official ban in the Roman Catholic Church included that no Roman Catholic was to speak to the one excommunicated. In times past, if there was any further opposition, he was to be burned at the stake. Today it is called mental assassination or mental murder.

Apparently, some workers in Boston are being assigned mental arguments for them to use under the pretense of protecting The Mother Church. Let it be said that many of these workers are innocent and feel important that they have been given such work to do for the church. The arguments seem innocuous enough but are similar to these: No opposition to our church can succeed in any way and that all opposition is fruitless and falls. Another: Any dissent within the church is malicious animal magnetism and is fruitless and must fall. There are others. Therefore, any resistance to error in Boston, any uncovering of sin, any necessary action to stand for right, is rebuffed immediately with loss of healing, loss of financial stability, and a general deterioration of your life activities.

The claim of infallibility, coupled with directed mental work, is a very dangerous combination. As many Christian Scientists declare daily that nothing can oppose their church and that any dissent fails, they are protecting the false concepts held in the bosom of their own church. They are protecting Boston from honest investigation and legitimate correction, while, at the same time, licensing mistakes and deception.

Mental malpractice is mentioned by our Leader in Science and Health as the sin that is never to be forgiven, and that which will …“sink its perpetrator into a night without a star.” (S&H p.564:8, and begin reading on line 3.) Also read Our Leader’s Demonstration of Generic Man contained in this book (or pp.8-9 of the original article), for Mrs. Eddy’s statement describing the punishment for malpractitioners. If this error is effectively met, healing and progress will once again thrive in our movement. In the Primary Class Notes of Fannie L. Pierce, she noted that Mrs. Eddy said, “This evil is here. This is being practiced now; what shall we do with it? Shall it be ignored or exposed and destroyed? Meet it! Expose it! No matter what it may cost you. Oh, how I have begged and implored my students to do this, but they have not had the moral courage to meet these malicious thoughts and expose them, but have allowed me to be the only mouthpiece against them.” (Mis. Doc. p.96, e.a.) Tomlinson said, “She further commented that in Christian Science we are not to draw back from our duty of exposing error and thus causing it to be destroyed...whether it appears likely to harm us or the Cause of Truth.” (12 Yrs. p.76, e.a.)

Speaking of the necessity of handling the belief of Romanism our Leader stated, “There is a great struggle before us, and it is for life. I know what is coming. I dare not tell you what I know. You will know someday. The true Science, divine Science, will be lost sight of again, unless we rouse ourselves.” (From Clara Shannon’s papers contained in Christian Science vs. Romanism and available from The Bookmark, see listing in Appendix.) In a letter to Joseph Adam, October 1888, Mrs. Eddy underscores the importance of handling this sinister element of mortal mind. “It is only by laying bare the atrocities of animal magnetism and malicious mental malpractice that the human race can be saved from a bondage that will so far exceed the history of the Israelites in Egypt, as the power of sin exceeds the inertia of matter to cause suffering.” (ibid. p.23, e.a.)

While Mrs. Eddy was here, she held back this vicious tide of evil. On December 17, 1898, in a letter to one of her students, she wrote, “I am overwhelmed with work… I cannot remember anything but that which serves to save our cause from the jaws of the devourer.” (S.L. p.53)

The erroneous organized mental activity of workers in The Mother Church must be consistently handled by the field. We must know that God, good, reverses every evil argument and effort and brings about the opposite good. We must know that mental workers, under the guise of good, cannot make mortal mind laws. If you have, in the slightest, opposed what Boston is doing and found healing and success blunted, do not wonder why. This organized evil in our church must be met now. We must know immediately and with vigor that those who speak out in honesty and love for their Leader and church are blessed and rewarded and that an uncovering of error does take place and is disposed of in God’s own way.

False metaphysics

Immature metaphysical reasoning, taking a predetermined viewpoint of Science and then searching Mrs. Eddy’s writings for corroboration, is intellectual dishonesty. There is a vast difference between the world’s concept of metaphysics and scientific metaphysics as discovered by Mrs. Eddy. There are two distinct types of teaching: one is Christian Science and one is a humanistic philosophy that pretends to be Christian Science. One loves Mrs. Eddy and her position in prophecy as foreordained of God; the humanistic philosophy pretends to love her, and calls its humanistic recognition, ‘fulfillment of prophecy.’ The first type of teaching determines the full healing thrust of Christian Science, while the latter obscures Christian Science healing.

Intellectuals rely on intelligence in matter, human learning and knowledge, as a mark of importance. The adulation experienced from this claim of mortal mind anesthetizes conscience and makes these individuals think they are as good as, or perhaps even better in some ways, than Mary Baker Eddy. That is all malicious animal magnetism, and intellectualism then becomes a channel for evil to destroy, through human means, all that our Leader has established through spiritual demonstration. Our Leader tells us that the belief of intelligence in matter is malicious animal magnetism.

As history demonstrates only too well, untruthful attacks upon great religious leaders have been unmasked and defeated in one generation only to be renewed with all the original pretenses in the next; and thus these celebrated statements by a celebrated and disinterested writer may be of as much service in the future as they were in 1907 in allaying falsehoods and establishing the facts regarding an outstanding world figure.

What Mrs. Eddy said to Arthur Brisbane, p.8-9

The halting and dissipating of the Christian Science Cause was apparently what its enemies desired, but they sought to accomplish their ends by traducing the Leader. If she fell, her church might hardly be expected to prosper thereafter.

Ibid. p.10

In Mrs. Eddy’s last class …“there were those who knew her and loved her...and still others who, even then in the classroom, seemed swayed by antagonism and said within themselves: ‘This is the heir, come let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.’” (Mark 12:6,7, WKMBE Vol. II, p.5) It is no different today, only the latter have become far more numerous.

In Mrs. Eddy’s day, she was well known around the world and certainly known by almost every American and many in every English-speaking nation. When she passed on, almost every newspaper in the United States recorded the event and gave glowing praise for her, her life and its accomplishments. Here are a few:

Her power as an executive, her administrative ability, and her gift of organization were as wonderful as the faith she founded.

Editorial Comments on the Life and Work of Mary Baker Eddy, p.29

In the death of Mrs. Eddy there passes from the stage of life not only one of the most remarkable women that the world has ever seen, but a woman remarkable in a most distinctive way. …Mrs. Eddy was the first of her sex to found a religion, and in this work her greatness lies…

Ibid p.35

Not merely one of the world’s great women — one of the world’s greatest personages passed away when Mary Baker Eddy died in Boston Saturday night.

Ibid p.36.

In 1910 her Science was growing mightily. Today, she is virtually unknown and her revelation is all but lost. What the outside world did not do to Mrs. Eddy and her Science, her own church and followers did.

Legitimate legal redress

In Mr. Copper’s article, “The Democratic Spirit of Mrs. Eddy’s Church” (Dec. 1987 Journal), we find a message that is similar to telling someone that they have a right to heal but does not tell them how to heal. It quotes Mrs. Eddy that our church government is administered by the common consent of the governed, but does not tell them how to exercise that right other than through prayer. (My. p.247:2) This is like a bureaucrat telling the American people — after he has made a shambles of the government — that they have a right to exercise democracy! He tells them how marvelous democracy is, extols its virtues, reminds them that their government is administered by the common consent of the governed, and yet never mentions their rights nor the way to oust the scoundrels from office. He says not a word about redress of grievances or right of recall through the ballot box. Neither does he mention the right to petition through the courts. The bureaucrat’s inference is that we are all responsible for the problem we are in, and he is certainly not responsible because he merely carries out the wishes of the electorate. He then tells the people they have a democratic right to pray about the problem.

Why didn’t Copper’s article tell us that Christian Scientists have certain rights accorded to them in the Manual that can be exercised to remove incompetent church officials from office? See Manual provisions Art. I, Sect. 9, 28:25-17; Art. XXIV, Sect. 6, 77:23. Where would Israel have been, had David not taken action against Goliath? Everybody was talking about prayer, but nobody was praying. If Christian Scientists need to take sound legal action, they can. Christian Scientists are not pacifists or Quakers. We do not believe in unilateral disarmament. Action must accompany prayer. Didn’t our Leader tell us that the courts would one day address the issue of mental malpractice? “At present its mystery protects it, but its hidden modus and flagrance will finally be known, and the laws of our land will handle its thefts, adulteries, and murders, and will pass sentence on the darkest and deepest of human crimes.” (‘01 p.20:24. See also S&H p.105:16.)

Why do we accept the false notion that we are not to resort to the courts? She said, “This Church Manual is God’s law, as much so as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. It is God’s law and will be acknowledged as law by law. I mean by the laws of our state, even if it has to go to the highest courts.” (Clara Shannon, Golden Memories, p.14, e.a.).

If the Manual is being violated, our Leader says the courts are the proper means to address the problem. As a purely religious issue, the courts will usually not handle this. But as a violation of the Deeds of Trust, it becomes a civil action for the proper courts to address.

ABRIDGED ANALYSIS OF
Mary Baker Eddy: Years of Authority by Robert Peel

This is an abridged analysis and contains only some samples of Mr. Peel’s most derogatory statements made about the Leader.

In We Knew Mary Baker Eddy, Volume I, p. 40, we read: “All the people need to love and adopt Christian Science, is a true sense of its founder. In proportion as they have found it, will our Cause advance.” If Christian Scientists have read Robert Peel’s biographies of Mrs. Eddy for the past twenty years and the disintegration of the movement has accelerated at an alarming rate during that time, has the true sense of her been revealed?

This analysis includes specific excerpts from Mr. Peel’s third volume that deserve a closer inspection. These excerpts are listed by page and paragraph, such as p.3, ¶2; that is, page three, paragraph two. Begin counting with the first complete paragraph at the top of the page. The notation, p.4, top, would refer to the incomplete paragraph at the top of that page.

Incorrect views

Footnote #98, p.433, ¶2 Why does Mr. Peel mention the failures of Mrs. Eddy’s household workers to accomplish their daily tasks, and then fail to mention that these workers were handled by animal magnetism to give her a problem? He appears to be saying that it was Mrs. Eddy’s opinion that they made mistakes, for he says, “This failure of responsibility, as she saw it, extended to personal and household details.” He then says she was exasperated and irrational [his opinion only] when she announced in the Sentinel that she was in need of “three tea jackets” which “brought an embarrassing avalanche of bed jackets to Pleasant View.” Her action, in his words, has “caused amazed comment ever since.” Amazing only, though, to the materially minded who misunderstand the workings of animal magnetism.

Her request in the periodicals alerted the field that she needed workers who could demonstrate clothing for her, something she had great difficulty in finding. Peel’s assumption that she received “an embarrassing avalanche of bed jackets to Pleasant View,” is corrected for us by Gilbert Carpenter, Sr., who was working in Mrs. Eddy’s home at the time. Carpenter writes, “she did not receive even one.” (e.a.) Continuing, Mr. Carpenter tells us, “It was never possible to minister to our Leader’s needs materially and thereby satisfy them. A metaphysician can only be ministered to through metaphysics. If Mrs. Eddy could have been ministered to materially she could easily have had a thousand tea jackets sent to her, whereas she did not receive even one. The human sense says, ‘How could she when she gave no dimensions of any kind?’

…Unquestionably, a demonstration of those jackets by any student would have been followed by a call to [come to] Pleasant View. Mrs. Eddy longed to find a quality of thought that would send those jackets with enough spiritual thought accompanying them to have them worthy to be called a demonstration, to be labeled — not with the name of some fashionable dressmaker — but with the humble insignia, This Came From God.” (Foot. p.277) Mr. Peel’s entire statement, because it directly contradicts a statement made by one who lived at Mrs. Eddy’s home at the time, certainly appears to be a fabrication. Did Mr. Peel just speculate that Mrs. Eddy received an “embarrassing avalanche” of jackets because that seemed obvious to personal sense? Both Mrs. Eddy and Mr. Carpenter referred to the jackets as “tea jackets,” not bed jackets.

¶2 Concerning this incident, Mr. Peel says, “From her point of view, however, it may have served to remind some of her followers, who expected her to ride with triumphant ease into battles from which they would have fled in terror, that she was not Joan of Arc in shining armor but a veteran eighty-year-old leader who needed all the spiritual and temporal support they could give her.” “From her point of view,” — how does he know her point of view? He also says that because she was an eighty-year-old lady she needed as much help as she could get. At eighty years of age Mrs. Eddy was the most vibrant, alert and powerful personage on earth. Mr. William E. Curtis of the Chicago Record-Herald, after an interview with Mrs. Eddy, made this remark, “I have never seen a woman eighty-six years of age with greater physical or mental vigor.” (Historical Sketches, p.131)

p.169, ¶1 Did Mr. Peel choose to quote the letter by McKenzie because it expressed his own views of Mrs. Eddy as ‘just a woman’ and less important than Jesus? Mr. Peel says this was a “healthy revision of attitude” on McKenzie’s part. The key to understanding this letter is found in the following footnote:

p.169, ¶1 Read Footnote #98, p.433. Here, McKenzie gave himself away as a weak follower of Mrs. Eddy’s when he wrote his fiancé and told her he had considered leaving the movement. He said, “The question of leaving the movement quietly has been much canvassed. Several of us have talked this over, but the decision is to stay.” McKenzie’s weakness and improper view of Mrs. Eddy make his opinions suspect at the very least. Why does Mr. Peel use his statements? McKenzie’s fiancé, Daisette, was clear on Mrs. Eddy. When asked in later years what she thought about Mrs. Eddy, she replied with a question, “What do you think of Christ Jesus?” Mr. Peel follows Mr. McKenzie’s comments with his own words, “Very early in her experience Mrs. Eddy had found that it was much easier for Christian Scientists to do good healing work on an individual basis than it was for them to demonstrate Christian Science by working together in harmony to heal the larger ills of the human condition. In practice, this meant that it was easier for them to accept her as an inspired revelator and teacher than as the leader of an organized church body made up of disparate individuals with various kinds and degrees of human imperfection.” Mr. Peel’s conclusions are not correct. The early workers, as a whole, did not find it difficult to accept Mrs. Eddy as an inspired revelator, teacher, or Leader, simply because most of them understood that she was appointed by God for her task. The only workers who were trouble makers were those who rebelled at her leadership because they chafed under the demands she made upon them. Because of their material mindedness, they refused to recognize that she was chosen by God. Mr. Peel continues, “So long as she could be viewed as almost a goddess, it was possible to accept her church and her leadership as a matter of blind faith…” Apparently, Peel views those who accepted Mrs. Eddy’s place in prophecy as similar to seeing her as “almost a goddess.” Is he seeing these Christian Scientists as emotional bumpkins, dolts devoid of intelligent life, filled only with blind faith? Are those who see her place in Bible prophecy so unstable mentally that they can only accept Mrs. Eddy, her church, and Christian Science, through blind faith?

He continues “. . .but when it was evident that she herself had her share of human weaknesses to surmount in exercising the functions of church leadership, it was tempting to question both the value and the durability of the whole enterprise.” If Mr. Peel’s implied premise is correct, then Mrs. Eddy was not foreordained, therefore, in his opinion, she was imperfect like everyone else and with her share of “human weaknesses to surmount.” Was Mrs. Eddy’s leadership difficult because of these many implied “human weaknesses”? Would you be tempted to “question both the value and durability of the whole enterprise”? Wouldn’t it depend on how you saw Mrs. Eddy? Those who saw her place in Bible prophecy, who were the recipients of and also saw the marvelous physical healings she continually brought forth and which proved her divine commission, realized the terrible obstacles she faced and they stood with her, while those who rejected her place, like Nixon and Clarkson, became violently opposed to Mrs. Eddy and ended up either trying to control ‘the whole enterprise’ or left the movement with great antipathy towards Mrs. Eddy. All of Mr. Peel’s comments in his books, as they relate to Mrs. Eddy, provide a very interesting insight into his thought processes on this important subject.

Mr. Peel mentions above, that Mrs. Eddy had “her share of human weaknesses to surmount in exercising the functions of church leadership.” Mrs. Eddy’s weaknesses, so called, were occasioned by her spiritual strength. Her constant desire was to get out of the belief of mortal mind strength that is really weakness, and this should be our aim also as her followers. St. Paul wrote, “Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.” (II Cor.12:10) Paul does not say that weakness is his personally, but that the attacks directed at him forced him to turn to God and, by turning to God, saw that mortal mind had no strength to support him. Mrs. Eddy also saw there was nothing in mortal mind to rely upon for strength. Can we ‘lean’ on the sustaining infinite if we are tough, self-reliant mortals? No. Jesus said, “I of mine own self can do nothing.” He also recognized the total weakness of mortality — its nothingness — and rejected it totally. Intellectualism would misinterpret the life of a spiritually minded individual, claiming he or she was weak, because intellectualism is a claim of mortal mind strength, — superior intelligence in matter.

p.78, ¶5 Peel writes, “Mrs. Eddy seldom apologized. When she made mistakes ” ‘Apologize’ is defined as “expressing of regret for a fault.” She did not have any. She handled animal magnetism so well that it did not use her in her dealings with those in her household. Instead, it used those in her household against her. She did not make mistakes in the conduct of her Cause, although Mr. Peel implies many times that she did. The quote of Mrs. Eddy’s which Mr. Peel uses on p. 79, ¶1 refers to people making mistakes, but she does not say that she made them, for she asks the question, “And who of us is there, exempt wholly from mistakes?” — but she did not answer the question. Note the following by Mr. Carpenter, a member of her household: “Mrs. Eddy’s reasons for what she did were always spiritual. Her decisions were based on spiritual perception. A student who could not discern mental cause and effect might feel at times that Mrs. Eddy had insufficient reason for acting as she did, especially in the details of running her home. She once said that in forty years she had not made a single mistake in being guided in matters pertaining to her cause. In like manner she could have said that never once did she make a move or give an order or rebuke that concerned anyone in her household, that was not for his spiritual good, no matter how much it may have seemed to the contrary.” (Foot., e.a.)

Adam Dickey recorded in his Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy: “Often the reasons for which our Leader took action in certain directions were not clear to the workers about her. It would seem as if the reason advanced by her was a poor one and not worthy of the action she was taking… It always turned out, however, that her action was right, regardless of the reason assigned, which convinced those who were familiar with her work that her judgment was unerring in every direction and that in following the direction of divine Wisdom, she never made a mistake.” On December 20, 1889, Mrs. Eddy wrote to a student, “Twenty-three years have shown that everything that I have done has had back of it a higher wisdom than mine.” Does this biography reflect Peel’s own personal viewpoint of her?

Incorrect metaphysics

p.20, ¶4 To say Mrs. Eddy has any humanist element, even if subordinate, is incorrect. To support his contention, Mr. Peel leads up to this point by quoting a scholar who personally considered Mrs. Eddy a humanist. Considered! In the following quote by Mrs. Eddy, Mr. Peel strives to give credence to his contention that she had a humanist element in her theology: “The divinity of the Christ was made manifest in the humanity of Jesus.” (S&H p.25) Humanism is a system of thought that is man-centered, not God-centered. In fact, modern usage of the term has come to mean that God is not even in the picture. Mrs. Eddy could never be considered a humanist. Her use of the word ‘humanity’ is the antithesis of Mr. Peel’s ‘humanism.’ Giving non-Scientists the impression that she was a humanist leads them to believe that she was, in modern theological terms, an agnostic at best and an atheist at worst, because humanism is a man-centered philosophy. ‘Humanity’ is defined as “the fact or quality of being human or humane.” Humane is defined as “kind, tender, merciful, etc.” Mr. Peel’s belief that Mrs. Eddy had a humanist element in her theology, will, when read by Biblical Christians, be extremely damaging to their perception of the revelator and of Christian Science in light of their abhorrence of humanism.

p.40, ¶1 Mr. Peel says that Judge Hanna questioned who Mrs. Eddy was. Why doesn’t he quote what Judge Hanna said in We Knew Mary Baker Eddy, Vol. II on pp.53 & 54? Hanna said she was “the revelator of this Truth.” Judge Hanna knew who she was and his answer was commended by her. What about Judge Hanna’s article on the 54th Chapter of Isaiah that was sent to all teachers and practitioners by The Gethsemane Foundation? He recognized her as the woman of Bible prophecy and his article was commended and approved in letters by Mrs. Eddy. Why doesn’t Mr. Peel quote from Judge Hanna’s article? Surely he had access to it in the Archives. Apparently, he does not agree with either Judge Hanna or Mrs. Eddy on this vital point in Christian Science. Is this unbiased writing? Is Mr. Peel’s book, and its references to Mrs. Eddy as not fulfilling Bible prophecy through foreordination, the reason Boston now rejects the Six Points? (See July, 1943 Journal and June 5, 1943 Sentinel.)

p.43, ¶1 See Footnote #27, p.390 He states that she “emphasized her discipleship in relation to the historical figure whom she repeatedly called ‘the Saviour’ and placed at the center of Christian Science.” Mrs. Eddy never referred to herself as the ‘disciple’ of Jesus. There is only one reference where Mr. Peel could possibly have surmised this, and it is included here so you can decide for yourself whether his inference is faulty: “To-day, though rejoicing in some progress, she still finds herself a willing disciple at the heavenly gate, waiting for the Mind of Christ.” (S&H p.ix) The ‘Mind of Christ’ is not the man Jesus. Nowhere in her published works does she refer to herself as a ‘follower of Christ Jesus.’ On the contrary, she used the phrases, “follow the Christ-example,” “follow Jesus’ example,” etc. Is Mr. Peel’s statement the reason our periodicals now list Mrs. Eddy as a ‘faithful follower/disciple of Christ Jesus’ and that Christian Scientists are now followers of Christ Jesus and not of Mrs. Eddy?

p.115, ¶6 Mr. Peel writes, “This was the universalism implicit in Christian Science…” Because this word, universalism, is an ‘ism,’ it is theory and not absolute fact. There is no ‘ism’ in Christian Science. In theology, ‘Universalism’ is defined as: “the doctrine or belief that all men will be saved or be happy in a future life.” That is not Christian Science. Compare Peel’s contention with Mrs. Eddy’s own words on this subject: “As man falleth asleep, so shall he awake. As death findeth mortal man, so shall he be after death, until probation and growth shall effect the needed change.” (S&H p.291:22-25) In an article entitled “Reflection” she wrote in part, “I have sometimes seen that eternity is scarcely too long for this consummation in certain minds,” in reference to the punishment awaiting those who attempt to darken our understanding of the revelator. Passing into another experience does not guarantee happiness.

Academics

p.11, ¶2 Here we are told Mrs. Eddy “was never a good speller,” and this area “escaped her metaphysics.” Was she an uneducated bumpkin? No. Did Mr. Peel tell us that Mrs. Eddy wrote between 20 and 30 letters daily and, as her secretaries said, put in a day that would exhaust five normal people? Did she have time to look up every word? Only when something was published. One who was in her home wrote, “Her lack of human technique manifested itself in directions no more serious than punctuation or phraseology, which has been true of numberless authors whose minds teemed with so much material that they could not write fast enough to record it.” Wasn’t it said of Jesus, “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” Does the phrase “escaped her metaphysics,” sound somewhat derisive to you?

p.13, ¶2 Portrayed here with a poor knowledge of history, coupled with bad spelling habits, her academic achievements appear to be wanting. If so ignorant, why would God have chosen her to write the most important book in history? Why would her cousin, Dr. Hildreth Smith, a widely recognized scholar in his day, say that her brother Albert was considered “one of the ablest lawyers of New Hampshire; but Mary was deemed the most scholarly member of her family”?

p.44, ¶3 “…a self-taught artist from rural Vermont and an untrained theologian from rural New Hampshire.” (e.a.) Do we wonder what the reader who is a non-Scientist thinks of Mrs. Eddy now, or even what a fellow Christian Scientist thinks? From what school of theology did Jesus and his disciples receive their degrees? There is an implied ignorance imputed to Mrs. Eddy in this statement.

Differs with Mrs. Eddy

p.136, ¶2 Mr. Peel says that Judge Hanna had a “weakness for an overliteral interpretation of prophetic Scripture…” Referring to Judge Hanna’s article on Isaiah’s Vision, Mrs. Eddy commended the Judge’s interpretation. Would Mrs. Eddy ever commend a weakness? She considered Judge Hanna’s understanding of prophecy to be correct. Why doesn’t Mr. Peel understand Judge Hanna’s comments? Peel constantly refers to him as ‘mystical’ and claims Judge Hanna’s views of Mrs. Eddy as fulfilling Bible prophecy are wrong. Mrs. Eddy didn’t feel that Judge Hanna’s views of her were wrong. (See pp.126 and 127 of Years of Authority.) Here Mr. Peel quotes Judge Hanna’s views of Mrs. Eddy that were correct according to Mrs. Eddy, and then he quotes Judge Clarkson’s views, that were corrected by Mrs. Eddy. Judge Clarkson’s views were the ‘mystical’ views, not Judge Hanna’s. In a few years, Clarkson left the movement, while Judge Hanna remained to support his Leader for many years after Mrs. Eddy left. Would we consider the Virgin Mary’s fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 as an “overliteral interpretation of prophetic Scripture”?

p.164, ¶5 Mr. Peel infers that Mrs. Eddy was acutely dissatisfied with Judge Hanna’s “undue exaltation of her person” and that his faith in her leadership was wrapped in “mystical biblicism,” again using the term which Mrs. Eddy abhorred. If Mrs. Eddy felt Judge Hanna’s perception of her as the God-crowned woman was wrong and mystical, she would have corrected this immediately; instead, she commended his article on Isaiah’s vision (chapter 54) in which he stated she fulfilled Bible prophecy. She originally asked him to place it as the lead article in the Journal. Why does Mr. Peel not quote directly from Judge Hanna’s article? Could it be that although it had the full approval of Mrs. Eddy, Hanna’s article stated a position exactly opposite to that of Mr. Peel’s? p.107, ¶1 Here Mr. Peel comments on Mrs. Eddy’s phrase concerning Christ and Christmas as “hopelessly original,” as being “wry.” The dictionary definition of ‘wry’ is “twisted, distorted; scornfully sarcastic, ironic.” How can Mr. Peel use the word “wry” to describe Mrs. Eddy’s spiritual perception of her own book? We wonder what word some of us might possibly use to describe his biographies about her. Wry?

Footnotes

p.107, ¶1 Next, he mentions an apparent plagiarism of three out of four paragraphs by Mrs. Eddy in a message to the First Members of The Mother Church and later printed in Miscellaneous Writings, taken almost verbatim from a sermon which she herself had studied extensively since a little girl. Mr. Peel states in ¶2, “There is no evidence to explain this unmistakable borrowing, different in kind from the adaptation and incorporation of stray phrases or figures of speech from other writers. . . but no theory of unconscious reproduction is quite sufficient to explain three full paragraphs with only one or two small verbal differences from the original, plus a few changes of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling.” Then finally he tells us in Footnote #55, p. 407, that Mrs. Eddy studied the sermon in depth throughout her life. Does this not explain her unconscious ‘borrowing,’ since she had no doubt committed the piece to memory? Mrs. Eddy tells us that she committed much of her Bible to memory also. In his Footnote #56, p. 407, Mr. Peel appears to contradict his stance, and quotes several instances of unconscious plagiarism by famous authors that make a good case for the defense of Mrs. Eddy’s unconscious ‘borrowing’ in the article in question. To read this footnote in its entirety gives one the impression that Mrs. Eddy was totally innocent of deliberate plagiarism, and that this “literary sin” is very common among great writers, for they are also great readers with powerful memories.

Note Charles Kingsley’s comment on p.409, ¶2: “No earnest thinker is a plagiarist pure and simple. He will never borrow from others that which he has not already, more or less, thought for himself.” Again, the damage is done in the main body of the book read by everyone, while the footnote explanation that exonerates her from any “literary sin” is relegated to the back of the book, 300 pages later, and read by very few.

Gilbert Carpenter, one of our Leader’s secretaries in her household, states on p.161 in Mary Baker Eddy: Her Spiritual Footsteps, “Mrs. Eddy’s thought was teeming with spiritual ideas. Her mastery of the mode of expression was evident to me when she would dictate articles for me to transcribe on the typewriter. She required no help, made no preparation other than opening her thought to God, and found therein an infinite source for ideas. What need, therefore, for plagiarism?” So spoke one who knew and loved Mrs. Eddy.

p.108, ¶2 What is Mr. Peel’s intent when he says, “Whatever her reasoning, the passage stands squarely like a block of granite in the way of any future tendency by Christian Scientists to attribute to Mrs. Eddy’s published articles the sort of textual or verbal infallibility that biblical literalists and fundamentalists have attributed to the Bible.” Is Mr. Peel saying Mrs. Eddy’s work is not a revelation and, therefore, she is not a revelator? Is he saying that if a part is not, then none is — and therefore it is merely of her own mind? This is the inference with which we are left. By the time the above-mentioned work was finally included in Miscellaneous Writings many years after it was written, the original reason for its inclusion could very easily have been forgotten. We are not talking about Science and Health here, we are talking about a letter that in no way reflects upon Science and Health or on any of Mrs. Eddy’s other books.

p.79, ¶2 Mr. Peel writes, “On the face of it, Mrs. Eddy never made any greater mistake than in adopting Ebenezer J. Foster.” This statement is misleading, as it gives the impression that Mrs. Eddy made a major error in adopting Foster Eddy. Did Jesus make a mistake when he chose Judas Iscariot as a disciple? Judas made the mistake by not following the precepts of Jesus. Did Jesus make a mistake when he chose the seventy disciples who later went “by the wayside”? How about his choice of the eleven disciples? Only one of the eleven supported him at the cross. “On the face of it,” was this poor judgment and a mistake on Jesus’ part? Wouldn’t we expect him to be able to discern their characters and have chosen only loyal, obedient types? If he had, he would have had only John to work with for the three years of his ministry, and the job of carrying on Christianity would have been laid on John’s shoulders alone. Jesus knew that he had to work with each of these individuals and give them the opportunity to follow — he could not make them faithful and obedient — “many are called but few are chosen.” Every one of us must make the decision to be willing to live up to our capacity, and no one can do it for us. This is why Mrs. Eddy adopted Foster Eddy. She needed someone close to her whom she could trust to help her, but Foster Eddy could not rise to the occasion every time. He obviously had the qualities of character needed to do the tasks before him, but he was too easily handled by animal magnetism. He became a Judas.

Now, did Mrs. Eddy make a mistake in adopting Foster Eddy (nicknamed Bennie) or did Foster Eddy make the mistake in not doing his utmost to rise to the occasion? Mr. Peel himself answers this on p. 80, ¶7: “The Bennies of this world, it was increasingly apparent, craved authority without being willing to do the work, make the sacrifice, or accept the discipline that alone could justify their being given it.” Why would Peel give the reader the impression that Mrs. Eddy made a grave mistake on p.79, and then on p.80 imply that Bennie was at fault?

p.38, ¶2 Here, Mr. Peel uses the word “mysticism” on p.38 in referring to Mrs. Eddy, and on p.388, in Footnote #7, he explains that the popular use of the word has a very negative connotation and that Mrs. Eddy “utterly repudiated it.” Why use the word ‘mysticism’ in reference to Mrs. Eddy on p.38, then give the explanation of its original meaning in a footnote on p.388? The majority of readers will not take the time to stop and refer to a footnote in the back of a book, but will continue to read and carry in mind the negative, popular definition of ‘mysticism.’ Would any man appreciate someone continually referring to him as ‘gay’ in print, and then in a footnote 350 pages later say he meant the original meaning, ‘merry’?

Mysticism is defined as “obscurity of doctrine; the doctrine of the Mystics, who profess a pure, sublime and perfect devotion, wholly disinterested…” Mystical is defined as “sacredly obscure or secret; remote from human comprehension.” Once again, non-Scientists are given an incorrect view of Mrs. Eddy. A mystic is abhorrent to the Christian community, particularly to Bible based denominations. Mr. Peel does not stop here with his use of this word, but continues to use it in the very next paragraph, and many times in later texts.

p.118, ¶5 Mr. Peel states that Mrs. Eddy’s interest in the Anglo-Israel theory waned, implying that she did not believe in it. However, in his Footnote #109 on p. 415 he quotes her comment to an “ardent Anglo-Israelite” concerning his brochure on the subject, “Its data and the logic of events sustain its authenticity…” This is Mrs. Eddy’s

acknowledgment of the theory as fact. Why else would she have written the poem, “The United States to Great Britain,” and used the terms that she did? Mr. Peel says that the term “Anglo-Israel” seems “more metaphorical than historical or ethnic” (p.119, top), that is his opinion only. Mrs. Eddy considered the term to be prophetic and factual. Note Footnote #110 on p. 415, where Mr. Peel says the phrase “Judah’s sceptered race” is “ambiguous” (his opinion again). This implies that Mrs. Eddy didn’t know what she was writing about. He attempts to prove his point by quoting a later passage of Mrs. Eddy’s that Mr. Peel says expresses the ‘universalism’ of Christian Science. Remember, Mrs. Eddy said there are no “isms or ologies” in Christian Science. This shows a lack of understanding of the basic importance of the human and divine coincidence as taught in Christian Science. It appears also that Mr. Peel does not understand the Biblical basis of the terms “Judah’s sceptered race” and “Anglo-Israel.”

A delightful two hours was spent discussing these terms with Geith Plimmer, a member of the Board of Lectureship. Mr. Plimmer understood these terms perfectly and stated that her poem, “The United States to Great Britain,” was her most important poem and that Christian Scientists could not study it too much.

p.109, top. Mr. Peel mentions Mrs. Eddy’s eye glasses pinned on her dress, but leaves the explanation of it, she used them only for very fine print, on p. 411 in Footnote #65. Most people do not bother to read footnotes, so their impression is that she wore eyeglasses all the time. A member of the household at Pleasant View records this, . . . “Mrs. Eddy called us to her and showed us that she could read the fine print in a magazine without her glasses. We were always... gratified at this exhibition of her demonstration. Once she said to my wife, ‘I have three pairs of glasses, but when I have my spiritual sight, I do not need them.’ In 1888 she said that when she was healed in 1866, she was healed of the need of wearing glasses. Later she was caught by a trick. Her naturally sensitive thought shrank from facing the public; so one time when she was asked to speak in public, Satan tempted her to resort to a means of saving herself. She found by putting on glasses that they shut out the public, and made speaking easier for her… She said, ‘If anyone in this room believes that he has good eyesight and is seeing with his eyes, he is in a worse position than the ones who are having to prove their spiritual sight that the eye really does not see at all. Sight made the eye — the eye did not make the sight! Every Scientist should dispense with glasses.’” (Prec. IV p.153) Mrs. Eddy had much to handle with the mental malpractitioners’ claiming age for her but she did overcome the need of glasses.

p.52, ¶10 Mr. Peel says that Mrs. Eddy’s displeasure at the omission of her authorship by the newspapers could be due to “the wounded vanity of an author or to the incident’s confirmation of her initial suspicion of the whole undertaking.” He later states that the latter conclusion was correct. Then why include the first conclusion? This first conclusion gives the reader pause to think that although it was not the total reason, it surely must have been partly responsible. What would a non-Scientist think regarding this passage? That she must have been a vain woman.

p.61, ¶3 Mr. Peel quotes Stetson’s initial negative response to Christ and Christmas and includes her later retraction and praise of Christ and Christmas on p. 395, in Footnote #85. The non-Scientist reader who has never seen Christ and Christmas would accept the initial negative response, and would probably not bother to read the corrective footnote.

p.79, ¶2 In referring to Foster Eddy, Mr. Peel states, “. . . he was the weak spot in her sense of motherhood …” Mr. Peel infers that Mrs. Eddy would have treated Foster Eddy radically different, had he not been her adopted son, and that she favored him over her other students. Remember Jesus’ answer to Simon Peter when asked how often one should forgive another — 70 times 7. He qualified the term ‘forgive’ in Luke 17:3,4 by requiring repentance before one forgave another. Foster Eddy repented quite often, and just as often, Mrs. Eddy forgave him, just as she forgave others who repented. On p.122, ¶2, Mr. Peel quotes Mrs. Eddy as saying, “I never despair of any one till the last hope of their present career is gone and I see that I can do no more for them.” Why did he not place this quote in the section where he referred to Foster Eddy? Mrs. Eddy forgave Foster Eddy because he was constantly before the public, doing important work for her, and was a target for malicious animal magnetism.

p.164, ¶2 Mr. Peel seeks to impersonalize Mrs. Eddy’s concept of Revelation 12 by imputing a ‘universalism’ to it and backs up his contention by quoting her statement, “The woman in the Apocalypse symbolizes generic man, the spiritual idea of God; she illustrates the coincidence of God and man as the divine Principle and divine idea.” Please note she said the woman ‘symbolizes’ generic man, not the woman is generic man. A dove symbolizes peace, but is not itself peace. Also, she refers to the human and divine coincidence, the second degree coinciding with the third degree. Mr. Peel had access to the statement by Victoria Sargent to Mrs. Eddy when Mrs. Sargent said, “…you represent the God-crowned woman mentioned in the Apocalypse.” Mrs. Eddy’s response was to point upward and say, “That is from above,” meaning it came from spiritual insight and understanding, not from personal sense. He chose not to include this statement in his biography, and instead attempted to prove the opposite, the side not taken by Mrs. Eddy. Which side is correct? It is important to understand whether St. John prophesied the life history of our Leader. Mrs. Eddy tells us that a human being is “physically mortal, but spiritually immortal,” and we know that there must always be a human and divine coincidence. St. John was a scribe writing the revelation of Christ Jesus. Because our Leader said that God revealed the truth about her to Christ Jesus, we know that Christ Jesus saw the human and divine coincidence of the woman in the Apocalypse, but perhaps John did not.

p.165 The following are some unpublished fragments written about the time of the Woodbury trial by Mrs. Eddy. They were, in effect, attempts by Mrs. Eddy to throw the hounds off the trail. If Mrs. Woodbury could prove that Mrs. Eddy taught she was the woman in the Apocalypse, and that this woman could be individualized in our time, Mrs. Woodbury could show in court that Mrs. Eddy was referring to Mrs. Woodbury as the Babylonish woman. In these fragments, Mrs. Eddy very adroitly kept mortal mind from seeing the truth of her teachings about herself and her place in prophecy while at the same time satisfying the court and mortal mind that she was not the woman.

Mr. Peel, apparently, feels these quotes are proof that Mrs. Eddy did not consider herself to be the woman of Bible prophecy. However, at closer inspection, we see that she denied no such thing. Mr. Peel quotes Mrs. Eddy, “...Does not the modern artist, with pencil, brush or chisel, portray a woman crowned with youth, brow sparkling with stars, feet treading upon the dragon, who has subdued the earth as the woman vividly delineated in the Revelator’s vision? Yes, for such was in St. John’s concept and such is Jesus’ type and such it will be seen after the fulfillment of many days. Today our forms and identifications are but types and shadows of the individual substance and soul of man or woman.” (e.a.) Speaking of the woman in Revelation 12, Mrs. Eddy says it is “. . .type and shadow of this hour,” her time. (Mis. 253:20) In Mrs. Eddy’s statement quoted above by Mr. Peel, she appears to be saying that it cannot be understood humanly. But that is not what she is saying. To St. John it was a ‘concept,’ since he was the scribe; but the ‘type’ was understood by Christ Jesus, and he, Christ Jesus, was the one who gave the revelation to John.

Mrs. Eddy continues, “I never taught or thought that I was the Woman referred to in the dim distance of St. John’s period, nor that the Babylonish woman can be identified or individualized in our time. I have rebuked such a thought and written of this [latter] woman not as an individual but as lust.” But what did Mrs. Eddy say of this former woman? She says it was “type and shadow of her time,” and that she represented the concept of John’s, something John apparently did not refer to because he saw the woman as a concept and not a type, but Jesus did see that type. That is why she could later say of Jesus, that God “revealed to [him]” her life. You will also notice, she states she never taught that the Babylonish woman could be individualized in her time, but she did not say that the woman in the Apocalypse could not be individualized in her time. Mrs. Eddy’s writing is a masterpiece, crafted so beautifully to protect her Cause, her place, and her relationship to prophetic statements.

Mr. Peel, continuing to quote Mrs. Eddy, says, “The Apocalypse like all holy vision, when left to mortals’ interpretation or application to identify its meaning, is susceptible of abuse owing to one’s ignorance of another’s mood and mode of thinking.” This does not say we cannot understand Mrs. Eddy simply because we are mortals. Those spiritually minded enough certainly can understand. A mortal interpretation has nothing to do with spiritual inspiration. She then goes on to state, “I am not capable of applying St. John’s far-reaching thoughts only as type and shadow.” She has already told us, it is “type and shadow of this hour,” and also that it deals with her century. (See S&H 559:32-2.) Could she have made it any plainer and still have protected herself in the lawsuit?

Mrs. Eddy continues, “I would as soon undertake to catch a sunbeam in my hand as to run riot on the conclusion he has reached, and do not understand, save as allegory, which symbol or type stands for a quality and not a person.” Remember, an allegory does not describe a fantasy or dream. An allegory is a “figurative description of real facts.” (Websters, 1828) Therefore, she is telling us she understands exactly what John was seeing in vision. She continues, “The only safety in translating his vision to the comprehension of mortals must lie in confining his trope and symbol to generalities and not specialities…” She is merely telling us that mortals are incapable of comprehending anything except through symbols. That is why she tells us in Science and Health that “spiritual teaching must always be by symbols.” (S&H 575:13-14) She is telling us that if spiritually minded enough, we will understand what the symbol represents.

Mrs. Eddy continues, “What St. John saw in prophetic vision and depicted as ‘a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet’ prefigured no speciality or individuality. His vision foretold a type, and this type applied to man as well as to woman…” She is telling us that St. John did not see a “speciality or individuality.” She said that John’s vision foretold a ‘type’ but that he did not see the type. She has already told us that Jesus did see that type. “The character or type seen in his vision illustrated purity. The application of this character or type to individuals is left to human conception.” She does not say this is impossible but she does say that it must be seen humanly, meaning, there must be a human and divine coincidence. Mrs. Eddy continues, “…but no human concept is capable of applying either of the Revelator’s types to the present individual.” A human concept cannot see the manifestation, only spiritual inspiration can see.

Peel’s opinion only

p.166, top. See p.432, Footnote #91. Mr. Peel says that Mrs. Eddy “expressed her emphatic desire that, except for her chapter on the Apocalypse in Science and Health there should be no further interpretation of the Apocalypse by Christian Scientists.” Where does Mrs. Eddy say that? There is no reference. Mrs. Eddy did not like speculation or human interpretation of the Bible. But, as she also said that Genesis and Revelation contained the deep divinity of the Bible, it would be ridiculous to think she would close up the study of them. If Mrs. Eddy had felt so “emphatic” on this point, why did she not admonish us all in her published writings? What Mrs. Eddy gave us in Science and Health is the centrally important portion of the Apocalypse that enables us to understand the rest. That is why Science and Health is called the “Key.” Mrs. Eddy’s quote on p.166, top is as follows: “The Apocalypse like all holy vision, when left to mortals’ interpretation or application to identify its meaning, is susceptible of abuse owing to one’s ignorance of another’s mood and mode of thinking.” Note she says “mortals’ interpretation.” She does not reject anything concerning understanding which comes through spiritual inspiration.

p.61, ¶4 Mr. Peel quotes Annie Dodge’s very favorable opinion of the Christ and Christmas illustrations, but he calls her ‘fulsome.’ As the definition of fulsome is “disgusting, especially because excessive,” additional doubt is cast on her critical qualifications by calling them “ambiguous.” Mrs. Eddy quoted Annie Dodge’s comments in the January 1894 Journal and in Miscellaneous Writings, p.372. Apparently our Leader did not consider Miss Dodge’s opinions to be “disgustingly excessive.” Here, we are given Mr. Peel’s opinion only, that is directly opposite to Mrs. Eddy’s. Look at the pictures in Christ and Christmas and decide for yourself if they are: “amateurish and embarrassing” — critiques quoted by Mr. Peel; “hopelessly original” — Mrs. Eddy’s words; or expressing “the true art” — Annie Dodge’s words. Mrs. Eddy considered this book to be one of her six most important works. Would she have given it this status, if she felt it was merely a “Christmas gift book” (p.44, ¶3) as Mr. Peel described it? Does he understand Christ and Christmas? Then he says in ¶7, “Neither Mrs. Eddy nor James Gilman was qualified or inclined to dispute young Miss Dodge’s judgment. . .” What qualifies Mr. Peel to disqualify Mrs. Eddy and Mr. Gilman? Read what William Dana Orcutt observed about Mrs. Eddy’s qualifications as an art critic: “At this moment when Mrs. Eddy was criticizing the ‘Kelmscott Chaucer,’ the whole world was greeting it not only with admiration but with incredulity. Was it really possible to introduce such art, such beauty into a printed book? The only exception I found to the general acclaim was on the part of my old professor in art at Harvard University, Charles Eliot Norton. He was even more severe than Mrs. Eddy. …Then gradually came a reaction among booklovers and critics… The ‘Kelmscott Chaucer’ is not mentioned by name, but everyone recognized [the critic’s] reference as expressing the common consensus of opinion. What he said was exactly what I am sure Mrs. Eddy had in mind, but it is significant that the world required four years to reach this conclusion. Professor Norton had devoted his life to a study of art, so it was perhaps natural that he should have so promptly recognized Morris’ shortcomings. Mrs. Eddy had received no such training, yet she had sensed these weaknesses practically at first glance. It was an amazing exhibition of apperception.” (Mary Baker Eddy and Her Books, pp.71-72, by William Dana Orcutt)

p.104, ¶3 At the bottom of the page, Mr. Peel refers to Mrs. Eddy’s writings as containing “stylistic foibles.” A foible is “a small weakness in character.” Perhaps Mr. Peel sees her writings as containing weaknesses of character, that is his opinion. Others of us would agree with what The Joplin, Missouri Daily Globe wrote about Mrs. Eddy’s writing:

“The profound scholarship, for illustration, that had penetrated the depths of the labyrinth of human knowledge may be accorded belated recognition. Men of letters may apprehend it to be their duty to read the book which in the artistry of its proportion, the felicity of its expression, the puissance of its logic, its rare grammatical purity, the splendor of its visions, and the sweetness of its message is, in simple truth, a book of books.” (Editorial Comments on the Life and Work of Mary Baker Eddy, p.42)

p.105, ¶1 “Her style, at its best and at its worst, was sui generis.” (Latin for ‘one of a kind.’) When was Mrs. Eddy’s style “at its worst”? Mrs. Eddy recognized the great danger of placing those with just intellectual capacities in positions of trust that required spiritual mindedness. She found that the intellectual thought would always rebel at her leadership and consider themselves superior to her. Tomlinson recorded, “I once asked Mrs. Eddy if she had pursued some definite method, or had any special training, to attain her distinctive literary style. ‘None whatever,’ she responded, as I later recorded; ‘I have never given the subject any consideration; I have written as moved by the Spirit. I greatly dislike circumlocution and I always felt that a writer as well as a speaker should come at once to the point.’” (12 Yrs., p.95) ‘Circumlocution’ is defined as “a roundabout way of saying something.” For examples of circumlocution, see p.3, ¶5: “While he indulged…”; p.12, ¶6 “This was not the ‘Let us cultivate our own gardens’…” p.24,

¶2 “The vision… was far from being the God-intoxicated metaphysical geometry of a Spinoza….”

To read additional comments made by others concerning Mrs. Eddy’s writing ability, refer to We Knew Mary Baker Eddy Vol. I: pp.28-29; and 12 Years. p.97, ¶2; p.101, ¶2; p.102, ¶2; p.103, ¶1.

p.183, ¶3 Why does Mr. Peel associate Mrs. Eddy’s philanthropic efforts with an “odd ceremony”? Why associate one of the loveliest aspects of Mrs. Eddy’s character, her practical love for little children, with the denigrating term “odd little ceremony”?

Emotional Weaknesses and Character Flaws

p.42, ¶7 “Nothing in her largely rural background had prepared Mrs. Eddy for the command of a world movement. At times she was almost overcome by the wonder as well as the responsibilities of the task.” If nothing in her background prepared her, then she was not prepared, and yet she said, “God had been graciously preparing me during many years …” (S&H 107:3) Did anything in Jesus’, Jeremiah’s, or Deborah’s “largely rural background[s]” prepare them for their leadership? How does Mr. Peel know how Mrs. Eddy thought? Why would Mrs. Eddy be overcome by the ‘wonder’ of the task? Was this because she was a woman and men could assume her emotions got in the way? Isn’t this implied by the common connotation of the word ‘wonder,’ which is defined as “that emotion which is excited by novelty” and also, “not well understood”? Poor Mrs. Eddy, totally unprepared and struck by the wonder of what God gave her to do — isn’t this implied in this quote?

p.232, ¶4. See Footnote #40, p.458. Mr. Peel says of Mrs. Eddy, “her romanticism yearned for a highly selective past.” Is Mr. Peel telling us that Mrs. Eddy wished to distort her past history in order to align it with her “romanticism”? The dictionary defines ‘romantic’ as “wild; fanciful; extravagant.” He says that she was “selective” in her memories. Would we appreciate someone telling us that we were ‘romantic’ in our recollection of past events? Is this not tantamount to being called a liar? Are we to think that Retrospection and Introspection has no value

because, in Mr. Peel’s words, it is “selective”?

p.26, ¶4 Where is Peel’s proof that Mrs. Eddy wanted “an eventual successor”? If he has it, why doesn’t he quote it? Here he attempts to justify his assumption by reasoning that if she had a successor, it would satisfy a “maternal craving” on her part. The term “maternal craving” is emotionally based and implies a lack in Mrs. Eddy. In the very next sentence, he describes this identical feeling in men as a “hope,” not a “craving.” To “crave” is to “beg,” according to Webster’s.

p.178, ¶1 Why does Mr. Peel say that Mrs. Eddy “stormed” into a room? When Jesus kicked the money changers out of the temple, would Mr. Peel describe that holy deed in mortal mind’s offended reaction as ‘storming’ or would the clear student of this revelation rather take the higher view, both of the Master Christian and of our precious Leader, and see their acts as expressions of Principle and spiritual strength?

p.45, top. “Under the storm cloud of her displeasure…” From this description, one would think her an angry, self-willed woman, which she was not. Couldn’t Mr. Peel have rather said that she refused to allow her followers to be disobedient because that would have impeded their spiritual progress?

p.86, ¶6 At the bottom of the page, Mr. Peel discusses Calvin Frye’s limitations and behavior which irritated Mrs. Eddy and caused “her sudden outbursts.” Frye admitted that he was handled by animal magnetism to give Mrs. Eddy problems, so why does Mr. Peel refer to Mrs. Eddy as being irritated and having “sudden outbursts” rather than to explain that Frye was in need of discipline? Mr. Frye had the problem, not Mrs. Eddy. Mrs. Eddy spoke quickly and forcefully to correct the error that was handling one of her most important students. Calvin knew exactly why she spoke to him as she did and did not resent her actions. Mrs. Eddy raised him from death more than once and during those times she also spoke forcibly to him in order to bring him back! If you saw a valued officer of your company going astray, would you quickly handle the error to save yourself, your company, and that officer? Would a strong rebuke from you be viewed as an emotional or sudden outburst?

p.319, ¶4 Here Mr. Peel speculates that Mrs. Eddy’s corrections of her workers were due to “a momentary relief from exasperation or overburdened nerves.” Would we say that Jesus’ demand to his disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane to pray with him was due to “over-burdened nerves”? Was he ‘exasperated’ when he corrected Peter’s constant mistakes?

p.265, ¶6 Why does Peel quote at length from a rabid newspaper report concerning an interview with Mrs. Eddy? Could he not have referred to a few phrases from it to give the reader an example of false newspaper reporting? Instead, he quotes seven paragraphs of vicious lies that tend to stay in the reader’s mind. The reader, especially the non-Scientist, might be tempted to think the article had some merit.

p.12, ¶3 Here we see Mrs. Eddy had a “reckless” genius. ‘Reckless’ is without direction, rash. She made decisive moves, but only after receiving her answer through prayer. She was not capricious. ‘Reckless’ means her decisions were not directed by God. Adam Dickey wrote in God’s Law of Adjustment, “Christian Scientists are sometimes accused of being changeable. What if they are, if it is always God that changes them? Is a Christian Scientist any less a Scientist because he changes his mind? Is a general less fit to lead his army because in the heat of battle he changes his tactics under the guidance of wisdom? A too determined sense of carrying out a pre-conceived plan is more likely to be the enthronement of erring human will.”

p.14, ¶3 Mr. Peel says that Mrs. Eddy had a “policy of taking calculated risks” which sometimes failed. Who failed? Could a spiritual Leader and with an entire Cause looking to her for direction have a “policy of taking calculated risks”? Not hardly. Did she fail or was it the one she was trying to help? Is there one among us who has not tried to bless someone and given up much in doing so, only to have his efforts rejected and even hated? ‘Risk’ is defined as the chance of injury, damage or loss. William Dana Orcutt wrote of Mrs. Eddy, “The force of character that I had associated with [Mrs. Eddy]…was to be discovered later through the promptness and finality of her decisions rather than by any personal aggressiveness of manner or obvious self-consciousness.” (Mary Baker Eddy and Her Books, pp.41-42)

p.45, top. Mr. Peel states that Gilman felt Mrs. Eddy failed to remember things discussed, but does not balance this with the facts. Calvin Hill says in the Third Series of We Knew Mary Baker Eddy on p.42, “One day when I was with Mrs. Eddy she rang for her personal maid and requested that she bring some article to her. The maid returned, bringing something totally different from what Mrs. Eddy had asked for. Mrs. Eddy looked at her earnestly and said, ‘Dear, that isn’t what I told you to bring; I told you to bring [naming the article], and I told you where to find it. Now please get it.’ Turning to me Mrs. Eddy remarked, ‘…That is what animal magnetism does to the members of my household, and they will say, ‘Mother sometimes forgets!’ A few moments later Mrs. Eddy’s ability to read thought accurately was again made apparent, for shortly after I left her I met the same maid in the hall, and she said to me, ‘Mother sometimes forgets what she asks for!’”

Peel’s incorrect view of early workers

p.71, ¶6 In reference to Mr. and Mrs. Bates, Mr. Peel says, “This was the sort of faith if not of comprehension that she [Mrs. Eddy] was looking for.” How could Mr. Peel come to the conclusion that Bates and his wife had no comprehension? Reading Bates’ history of his experience building The Mother Church, one is constantly impressed with his Christian character, his unswerving obedience to his Leader and his spiritual understanding. Mr. Peel leaves the reader with the impression that Mr. and Mrs. Bates were good workers, but simple minded. Christian Scientists owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to both of them. Mrs. Eddy told Mr. Bates that if it were not for him, The Mother Church would not have been built.

p.246, ¶2 Is Mr. Peel ridiculing Gilbert C. Carpenter, one of Mrs. Eddy’s faithful workers? Peel comments on Carpenter’s later writings about Mrs. Eddy as approaching “sheer fantasy at times.” Everyone who loves Mrs. Eddy and sees her place in Bible prophecy is, in Mr. Peel’s words, mystical and filled with fantasy. According to Mr. Peel, almost every worker at that time must have been mystical and filled with fantasy. Isn’t it interesting, however, that the movement prospered mightily with this vision, but declined when it was diminished and failed rapidly when the recognition of Mary Baker Eddy’s place in prophecy was openly attacked. Upon Gilbert Carpenter’s departure from Pleasant View, Mrs. Eddy stated, “It is like taking my heart out to let you go. During the year that you have been here you have not committed a single moral offence.”

p.315, ¶9 Mr. Peel analyzes Adam Dickey, one of Mrs. Eddy’s most loyal workers, as “endowed with no conspicuous graces of mind or manner.” Doesn’t all of this reflect on Mrs. Eddy’s ability to select workers for her home? Were not these workers the very best the field had to offer? Does Mr. Peel mean Mr. Dickey was not an intellectual? Thank God he wasn’t, for as such he would have been useless to Mrs. Eddy. Mr. Dickey loved Mrs. Eddy and taught her place in Bible prophecy, as did one of his pupils, Roy Garrett Watson. Why in Mr. Peel’s book are the Knapps, Hannas, Bateses, Dickey, Frye, and Carpenter accorded far less esteem than Mrs. Eddy accorded them? Is it because they all saw her as foreordained of God to fulfill Bible prophecy?

Summary

p.365, ¶4 Mr. Peel uses the term ‘denominational hagiography,’ which is defined as “biography of saints.” In his use of those words, does Mr. Peel mean that the view the early Christian Scientists held about Mrs. Eddy as a saint, is incorrect? Does he mean she is found somewhere between the false estimates of ‘yellow journalism’ and sainthood? Does he mean the revelator of the final revelation is just like all the rest of us?

Another Benighted Biography

What would we think of a biography written about Jesus using the same words Mr. Robert Peel’s book uses to describe Mrs. Eddy? What would be the interpretation of Jesus’ life? It might sound something like this:

Looking back on Jesus from 90 A.D., he appears to be a “controversial, quasi-legendary” figure. He was not known for his oratory, not known to be particularly well educated and had no degree, although he was given the title of Rabbi and was referred to as Master and Father, and seemed to accept these appellations. The latest material about Jesus comes from written memoirs and reminiscences of the faithful, although there is some doubt as to their authenticity, having been written many years after his sojourn here.

There seemed to be a “mystical” streak in his character that spoke of prophecy and its fulfillment in his life. But this could have been due to his “largely rural background” that seemed not to have prepared him for his mission. But we do know he emphasized his position as a “disciple” of Moses and we must agree that he was, and certainly tried his best to live up to Moses’ standards. His followers expressed a “weakness for an overliteral interpretation of prophetic Scripture” concerning Jesus.

Being an “untrained theologian from rural” Palestine, he had great difficulty in getting his message across. Borrowing extensively from the spiritually minded prophets before him without giving them credit could be construed as plagiarism. It is well known he took the two great commandments and his Beatitudes from the Old Testament. His statements contain “scandalous generalizations” and although he says he taught hundreds of students, the evidence clearly shows he had not many more than twelve.

His somewhat “parsimonious” (stingy) treatment of his disciples (they received very little in the way of salary and he actually made them go house to house to make money) was perhaps the reason for their denial of him later; and this lack of wisdom on Jesus’ part may account for his later demise and fall from favor. But he chose them, even the traitor, and he had to pay for those “mistakes.” Those “sudden outbursts,” railing against their incompetence, didn’t help either and his “exasperated, irrational outburst” against the Pharisees sealed his doom.

As a man in the public eye he seemed to have a masculine “weakness” for clothes, even a very expensive seamless robe that they cast lots for at the foot of the cross. If one considers one’s self a king, one must dress like one. Did he have the authority to “storm” into the temple and upset the religious order of the day? A good ‘old fashioned’ country boy had no right acting like a ‘king.’

All too often Jesus expressed a “romantic veneration for illustrious names.” We continually heard him use words like Abraham, Moses, Jonah, David, and his deference to nobility is common knowledge, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”

In his theology there appeared to be a “nationalist” thought, telling his disciples to go to the Jews first and the appearance of a “racist” element when he told the Syrophoenician woman that he would not heal her because, in comparison to his race, her race was considered dogs. She had to really humble herself before he consented to heal her. Many times he spoke of the prophecies he fulfilled through his racial group.

There seem to be no examples of “philanthropic efforts” and many situations he was in seem rather “odd little ceremonies” by the standard of the day, especially turning the water into wine at the wedding.

Throughout his work there was a definite, though subordinate, “humanist” streak in his teachings, and he was at times so “weak” he needed the help of his disciples with mental work and even passed on before two common thieves.

As a man who championed spiritual healing, it seems unaccountable why he took a “drug” while on the cross. In his followers’ eyes his “leadership was charismatic” even though beset at the end with a “discouraging physical and emotional condition,” he pleaded for help for the “struggles that wracked him and weaknesses besetting him.” There were many “emotional cloudbursts” towards the end and he appeared so “frail and ethereal,” even after he reappeared from death with unhealed nail prints in his flesh.

Do we wonder what Jesus’ followers would have thought of him in 90 A.D. after reading a biography like this? Had we been Christians of that time, hopefully we would not have allowed anyone to speak about or allude to our Lord in such a manner. From a casual reading of the Gospels, it would appear that Jesus took a drug, while a careful study shows he did not. (See Ret. 26:3.) Even today [1988], would our Committees on Publication allow such a biography of Jesus to be placed in our Reading Rooms?

Our Leader’s Demonstration of Generic Man

1987

Our Leader writes about generic man, “What is man? Answer. —

… He is the compound idea of God, including all right ideas; the generic term for all that reflects God’s image and likeness...” (S&H p.475:5-16) “Through spiritual sense you can discern the heart of divinity, and thus begin to comprehend in Science the generic term man.” (S&H p.258:31-1) “Man is the generic term for all humanity.” (Un. p.51:14 only)

The truth about generic man, the true idea about every child, man and woman, not as mortals, but as the image and likeness of God, is revealed in Christian Science.

In James we read, “For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass [mirror]: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty [the mirror of divine Science], and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (James 1:23-25) Hadn’t James caught a glimpse that there is a divine Science, a mirror, though the full-orbed appearing of that Science was not revealed in his time? James’ instruction to Christians is to “continue therein.” How do Christians do that? Jesus said, “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) Is not our perception of the Master, then, primary to continuing therein? Moral and spiritual vision, gratitude, obedience and love for the Master enabled his followers then, as well as his followers now, to view the reflected truth about themselves as Christian.

In the Amplified Version (AV) of Mark, we read, . . . “no one who does a mighty work in my name will soon afterward be able to speak evil of me.” (Mark 9:39, AV) Isn’t it true then, that we could not speak evil of Jesus and expect to heal in his name, to heal through the revelation he brought? An incorrect perception of Christ Jesus would bring about the loss of Christian healing. He said, “This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the one whom He has sent — that you cleave to, trust, rely on and have faith in His messenger.” (John 6:29, AV) The pure and good Christ Jesus is inseparable from the revelation he lived and demonstrated. How can Christians do the works revealed through the mirror, his revelation, if they do not believe properly on the one God sent? How can one approximate the character of the Master Christian and heal with the Christianity he brought if one is not Christian enough to love the one God sent? There are many errors that would keep us from seeing “face to face,” and would, therefore, prevent us from beholding ourselves in the mirror of divine Science; errors, such as, ingratitude, disobedience, lack of love for God’s messenger, down-grading and belittling that one, and filled with spite and jealousy of the messenger’s precious spiritual mindedness.

Paul says (I Cor. 13:12, AV), “For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly); but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been fully and clearly known and understood [by God].” The dim reflection of reality came through the First Advent, but the “all truth,” the Science prophesied by Jesus, would reveal the full and clear reflection at the time of the Second Advent.

In Science and Health, the Glossary definition of Father ends with the phrase: “commonly called God.” In the Glossary definition of Mother, the first word in the definition is: “God.” Yet many Christian Scientists rarely, if ever, call God, Mother; they are held in the ‘commonly’ used term for God, — Father, the concept held by Christian orthodoxy, as well as by much of the religious world. We might say that to the degree that Christian Scientists fail to think in terms of God as Mother, they are working with 2,000 year-old mental work. They work with perfect God, Father, and perfect man and neglect the Science of the Christ revealed through God’s motherhood. The Mother, God, is the foundation of The Mother Church, the basis of the highest sense of womanhood, and must include the love for our Leader. The truth about God as Mother vitalizes the healing work and cleanses mortal mind as nothing else can. Any abnormal resistance among Scientists to accept and love God as Mother, finds expression on the human scene as a crisis in mothering, consternation concerning true womanhood, and abuse of women.

The consequent rejection of Mrs. Eddy as our Leader results in a lack of healing and disarray in The Mother Church. How can Christian Scientists follow their precious Leader, their Mother in Israel, if they follow the world’s acknowledgment of God as Father, a limited revelation, and, by doing so, automatically reject the full revelation revealed through God’s motherhood? As God was revealed as Father at the time of the First Advent and as Mother at the Second Advent, we as adherents of the Second Advent are among the first to have the opportunity to understand the ‘all truth’ into which we are led, and led by whom? — by our Leader. We cannot understand the ‘all truth,’ the Science, if we reject the Messenger, the one God sent. Her use of the term Father was a concession to the world’s thought about God.

In earlier editions of Science and Health she referred to God as Mother in many cases and used the pronouns, “She” and “Her,” but the world’s hatred of God as Mother may have been the reason later editions carried fewer such references. Can the world ever receive the Science of Christianity if the concept that Christian Scientists accept of God as Father outweighs their adoration of Him as Mother?

In Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy wrote, “As Elias presented the idea of the fatherhood of God, which Jesus afterwards manifested, so the Revelator completed this figure with woman, typifying the spiritual idea of God’s motherhood” (which Mrs. Eddy afterwards manifested). (S&H p.562:3-7) As this is a reference to Revelation 12:1, it is essential that we consider our Leader’s other references concerning that same verse. She says, “Do the children of this period dream of the spiritual Mother’s sore travail, through the long night, that has opened their eyes to the light of Christian Science?” (Mis. p.253:27-29) “Thus must the Mother in Israel give all her hours to those first sacred tasks, till her children can walk steadfastly in wisdom’s ways.” (Ret. p.90:22) Our Leader also wrote, “Do you love that which represents God most, His highest idea as seen to-day? No!” (Mis. p.336:8) “Again, without a correct sense of its highest visible idea, we can never understand the divine Principle.” (S&H p.560:17-19, e.a., included in our Leader’s exegesis of Revelation 12:1.)

Do we love the Lord our God with all heart, mind and soul if we do not love the one God sent? The answer must be, that we do not. How can we love God whom we have not seen if we do not love the Leader whom we have seen? Explaining Revelation 12:1 our Leader says, “The great miracle, to human sense, is divine Love, and the grand necessity of existence is to gain the true idea of what constitutes the kingdom of heaven in man. This goal is never reached while we hate our neighbor or entertain a false estimate of anyone whom God has appointed to voice His Word.” (S&H p.560:11-17, e.a.) Isn’t our Leader, whom we have seen, our best neighbor? Isn’t she the one appointed to voice God’s Word? If our churches lack love, if they are not demonstrating the Kingdom of Heaven in man clearly for all the world to see, we should not wonder why our churches are closing. As love is the fulfilling of the law and prophets, a lack of love for, or a false estimate of, the one God sent would violate the law and the work of the prophets. Can a church survive that violates the law of Love?

Judge Hanna wrote in his Memoirs, “When I asked Mrs. Eddy why Christian Scientists were not more grateful to her she replied, ‘Because they have not grown to it.’” So, is our Mother Church advancing? “All the people need to love and adopt Christian Science, is a true sense of its founder. In proportion as they have found it, will our Cause advance.” (WKMBE Vol. I, p.40, e.a.) Mrs. Eddy understood what mortal mind was up to. She said, “The Babylonish woman in the Apocalypse has thrown wormwood into the waters to turn trusting thoughts to hatred against me, the idea.” (DCC p.8)

Our Mother in Israel

One way to describe the demonstration of generic man is through the understanding of true mothering. Mrs. Eddy spoke of herself as our Mother in Israel. This term means she is the one who mothers all mankind, embraces all mankind, and reveals the Science of their own being to every child, man and woman. She accords to herself that loving position. If a child hates his mother’s wise counsel and admonitions, rejects her love and constancy, her affection and goodness for him, laughs at her honesty and compassion for him, would he have access to these same qualities of thought so earnestly expressed by his mother? This child would have to learn, through much suffering, the folly of hating spirituality. “Self-will, self-justification, and self-love” are, as she names them, “the adamant of error.” (S&H p.242:17-18) Accepting all these errors of self, we lose the lessons our mother taught us — lessons obscured by our self-will, ingratitude, disrespect, selfishness, jealousy, envy, arrogance, disobedience, egotism, inconsiderateness, ingratitude, indifference, intellectualism and hatred.

Why, as our Leader says, must we love the “highest visible idea”? Is it because she is the one holding up the mirror of divine Science? Isn’t she saying, Here dear lambs, let me show you the way? The voices of deflection say, We don’t need her, we can hold it up for ourselves. However, her way holds us in her demonstration, the other way keeps us out of her demonstration.

Eve held up the mirror of true selfhood in Genesis but Adam rejected it by blaming Eve. She uncovered the nature of the serpent, recognized it as a beguiler, and, therefore, refused to blame Adam. Eve saw into the perfect law of liberty, hence the prophecy given to her in Genesis 3:15, the prophecy that would be fully revealed at the coming of the revelation of God’s motherhood. Had Adam joined Eve in turning on the serpent, the material record would have been expunged and human history would have been much shorter. Had Adam been more manly he would have listened to the woman, Eve, been blessed by her uncovering of the nature of the serpent and awakened in His likeness.

Mrs. Eddy demonstrated generic man, embraced all mankind in her demonstration, and gave them the Science of their own being. All it would take to keep and extend her demonstration of generic man today would be for us to support her in it and love her enough to stop accepting the biographies and articles that reject and defame her, — that try to make her appear common and ordinary.

If we understand the nature of Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration of generic man and the dangers of minimizing that demonstration, we can understand that the Lamb was a symbol of the Christ, and Jesus manifested this Christ humanly and demonstrated this Christ idea for all men. Just as the Lamb was a symbol of the Christ, manifested humanly as Jesus or demonstrated humanly by Jesus, so the Woman in the Apocalypse, like the Lamb, is a symbol of something, and our Leader tells us that it symbolizes generic man.

We recognize as a fact that Jesus demonstrated the Christ. Would we say we are all the Messiah, all the Lamb of God? Mrs. Eddy says that the Woman in the Apocalypse symbolizes generic man, — does this mean we are all the Woman in the Apocalypse? In Unity of Good our Leader writes, “Man is the generic term for all humanity. Woman is the highest species of man, and this word is the generic term for all women; but not one of all these individualities is an Eve or an Adam. They have none of them lost their harmonious state, in the economy of God’s wisdom and government.” (Un. p.51:14) Who then would first demonstrate this generic man? Obviously a woman, as our Leader says, “Woman is the highest species of man…” (Un. 51:14) and “Woman must give it birth.” (Ret. p.26:23 only.) We are not all the Lamb of God any more than we are all the Woman in the Apocalypse.

We have access to the Christ because of Jesus’ demonstration. We have access to Christian Science only because Mary Baker Eddy discovered and founded it, proved the human and divine coincidence, revealing the truth about generic man. But we are not all the Lamb of God, nor are we all the Woman in the Apocalypse. The symbol of the Christ is the Lamb and the demonstrator of this is Christ Jesus. The symbol of generic man is the Woman in the Apocalypse and the demonstrator of this woman is Mary Baker Eddy. Only the “highest visible idea” as seen today could be the symbol of generic man. (S&H p.560:17-19 and Mis. p.336:8)

In Science and Health we read about man, “He is the compound idea of God, including all right ideas; the generic term for all that reflects God’s image and likeness.” (S&H p.475:14-16) We can see from this definition of man that Mrs. Eddy understood that this reference to the compound idea of God was a demonstration that was for her to make. It was her demonstration of generic man, the truth about our own spiritual completeness and the truth about every individual idea of God.

Our Leader tells us that the Woman “symbolizes generic man.” (S&H p.561:22) She does not say the Woman is generic man. Then who is it that symbolizes generic man? That one must be the Woman in the Apocalypse. Who demonstrated the Science of being, the truth about every child, man and woman on the globe? She is the Discoverer and Founder of this truth; she is the demonstrator and mother of all that she demonstrated.

If you have read the first part of this chapter carefully, you will be more likely to understand the importance of the last part. However, if at this point you find yourself irritated, perplexed and confused, it is not your thinking, it is the hatred of malicious animal magnetism for the woman, Mary Baker Eddy. Immediately turn on it for the lie that it is.

The Mirror of Divine Science

Mrs. Eddy holds up the mirror of divine Science for all mankind, collective man, generic man. This is her demonstration. Her demonstration has made the mirror crystal clear for all mankind. Dare we sully it with ingratitude, jealousy, envy, egotism or intellectualism? All attempts to obscure the woman end up destroying one’s own ability to see clearly in the mirror of divine Science. This Science is a moral and spiritual Science. Can we see clearly in that mirror if we are ungrateful or indifferent for her great life sacrifice? The mirror is held up for us by the one who proved the human and divine coincidence. If we do not express the second degree, do we have access to the second degree? (S&H p.115:25) Ingratitude for her brings deflection instead of reflection. Mrs. Eddy said, “People seem to understand C.S. in the exact ratio that they know me and vice versa. It sometimes astonishes me to see the invariableness of this rule.” (DCC p.108) This quote verifies for us that by rejecting Mrs. Eddy we reject our ability to understand and demonstrate divine Science. She said, “For the world to understand me in my true light and life would do more for our Cause than aught else could.” (Letter to Kimball, 1893, e.a.)

Can the Holy Ghost, the mirror of divine Science, the third part of the Trinity, be understood if we reject our Leader? Could we reject Christ Jesus and still have his Christianity? No, because without him it is just a philosophy. His demonstration of Christianity gives it all the life it has as a revelation. This same principle holds true for Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy. The false concept of Jesus brought about the loss of genuine Christianity because it brought with it a misapprehension of his demonstration.

Certainly the mirror of divine Science has always existed, but it was not fully revealed until Mrs. Eddy discovered Christian Science. It was her demonstration and it will be lost for exactly the same reason that the demonstration of Christianity was lost, — lack of love for and misapprehension of God’s revelator. Jesus told us that the Science of Christianity, the Comforter, would reveal all truth. He saw it as a higher revelation, a more complete demonstration. Mrs. Eddy, with this fuller understanding, uncovered all the claims of malicious animal magnetism. Would we not need to understand her life’s demonstration in relation to this uncovering? If we do not understand or even appreciate her life, would we find the mirror of divine Science distorted to our view? Is this what Jesus meant when he said that no one could come to God except by the Messenger, the one God sent? (See John 14:6.)

The mists of Eden obscure the mirror of divine Science. Our Leader is holding up the mirror, giving us a view of our God-likeness. Reject her demonstration, her life’s work, and we increase the mists of Eden. Is the mist increased by the errors of ingratitude, jealousy, envy and hatred for her demonstration? If these errors control our thinking it will be impossible for us to understand her Science, even if we think we do.

If you were jealous of Jesus’ demonstration, envious of his attainments, hated his spirituality or were indifferent towards his life’s work, would you have a sufficiently Christian character to demonstrate Christianity? Our Leader tells us she is inseparable from her revelation and that there is a shadow cast upon her Science by the error that rejects her. (See Mis. p.105:22.) If we try to see in the mirror of divine Science and our thinking is polluted with latent jealousy or indifference towards her, then we cannot understand her Science. Loving her enables us to see that we are embraced in her demonstration of divine Science. Love demands that we give the great lady our respect, admiration and love. We would have nothing and be nothing without her. All that God asks of us is to support her in her demonstration of divine Science. The woman placed the leaven in the three measures of meal, — there is no place where we are told to add to that leaven or to subtract from the meal. Her demonstration is complete and final and all we have to do is support her demonstration by genuinely loving her.

Another way to describe Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration of generic man is by using the illustration of a rock thrown upon the quiet surface of the water. As the rock plunges beneath the surface it produces a ring that continues to widen. Following this outer ring are additional rings, rings that are included in and follow the demonstration of the first ring. The outer ring represents our Leader and her demonstration, the rings that it encircles are representative of her followers. Each of the following rings makes its own demonstration, its own ring, but is always included in hers. Because she plunged beneath the surface and discovered the Science, we do not have to do that. She once said, “The Discoverer has to discover the way to meet these things; you will not have that to do; you are learning now how to meet them; I have had to discover it.” (DCC p.5) As it takes eternity to understand God, good, we will always be in the forever Leader’s demonstration. The picayunish human mind rebels at the thought of this, but it is so. Without loving or being grateful for this highest idea on earth that God has provided for us all, we are not living the law of Love and are depriving ourselves of God’s law or Science. Anyone who is involved in spiritual labor recognizes the ingratitude of the human mind for its benefactor. We have all seen this graceless attitude, but we cannot give it credence or allow it to handle us in regard to our Leader. It is suicidal.

If the rejection of Mary Baker Eddy were necessary to make Christian Science grow, as many contend, we would be the number one religion in the world by now. On the contrary, the more Mrs. Eddy has been rejected, the more the Movement has declined. The rejection of Mrs. Eddy is the rejection of the human and divine coincidence, — the rejection of her demonstration of the coincidence of the second and third degrees.

“Second Degree: Evil beliefs disappearing.”

The second degree is titled “Moral.” (S&H 115:26) Our Leader says, “Nothing except sin, in the students themselves, can separate them from me.” (Ret. p.81:4-5) What is this sin and what is the immoral way in which she is being treated? If one does not have a right sense of morality, will he recognize this woman? If one does not have the moral courage to stand up for her, is he moral? What is it in character that would deprive us of that morality? Is it not the attraction to the first degree, that which is the nature and foundation of malicious animal magnetism?

Here, for you, is a partial list of references on Moral:

Un. 35:16-18; Mis. 257:8-10; S&H 455:8-10; S&H 72:30-32.

How are we immoral? How do we reject the second degree? Disobedience to, jealousy of, and lack of love for the one God sent is sin’s method. Mrs. Eddy said, “The emphatic purpose of Christian Science is the healing of sin.” (Rud. p.2:25-27) Some Christian Scientists want Christian Science to give them more pleasure in matter, more money, healthy matter, and esteem among men. This is sin. A desire to hold on to materiality is a mind that rejects spirituality. It is covert and overt hatred for Mrs. Eddy and is also hatred of divine Love. It is seen in pretended love, smiles that are not genuine, self-interest, pettiness, not being alert to the claims of malicious animal magnetism, and a lack of moral courage. These types refuse to stand against sin and say, we must not criticize; but heatedly criticize those who love Mrs. Eddy, those who have committed no sin. How can we recognize those who will not love her, those who are handled by the dragon?

1. Those piqued by her and irritated at the mention of her name and who accuse everyone who loves Mrs. Eddy of being deifiers.

2. Those working actively, like the Pharisees of old, to rid the world of God’s messenger.

3. Those ignorant agents of the above who are embarrassed by the name Mary Baker Eddy, who actively work to suppress any love for Mrs. Eddy.

4. Those who know who Mrs. Eddy is and profess love for her, but are fearful of standing for her. “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear… He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” (I John 4:18)

Humanity. The first quality listed in the second degree is humanity and means, “the kind feelings, dispositions and sympathies of man, by which he is distinguished from the lower orders of animals; kindness; benevolence…opposed to cruelty.” (Webster’s) Do I have the humanity to stand up for her, to protect her and speak up against those who assail her? If I am handled by malicious animal magnetism not to have humanity towards this great lady, do I have access to the quality of humanity? Does my ill treatment of her deprive me of that quality? Malicious animal magnetism, depriving us of a sense of humanity for her, holds us in the first degree. We are then held in the physical, not in the moral. Do I love her marvelous humanity and seek to follow her demonstration of humanity? Is it possible for me to follow her demonstration if I feel no sense of humanity towards her? The pretense of humanity towards this woman results in humanism, the thought that says I do not need God, I can work it all out through my own intellect.

Humanism says, I do not need Mary Baker Eddy and she is not my Leader. Humanism is the counterfeit of humanity.

Here is a partial list of references on Humanity:

Un. 49:8-9; Un. 51:14; S&H 561:16-20; S&H 25:31; My. 179:21-

23; Mis. 95:17-21.

Honesty. The next quality is honesty. If a Christian Scientist allows malicious animal magnetism to handle him and to reject Mrs. Eddy, is he honest? Why does he reject her? Is he fooling himself into believing he can do it all by himself? Do we understand that we would be nothing, have no position, no ability to heal without the example she has given us? Is the attempt to remove her from her place honest or dishonest? Dishonesty among Christian Scientists about Mrs. Eddy is a harshness of character, — it calls itself intellectual honesty, accepting all points of view, right or wrong, rationalizing and fence-sitting instead of turning on evil. This error refuses to recognize that she alone pointed out the right way. Can we not begin to see the danger of rejecting the woman? Do we want to lose the human and divine coincidence? This was the most honest woman ever to have lived on this planet. Do we appreciate her honesty or do we attack her honesty? Do we deny her life demonstration, claim she was not what she appeared to be, state she was a plagiarist, that she lied, made many mistakes, etc.?

References on Honesty:

S&H 453:16 only; S&H 458:23-28.

Affection. If we do not have a genuine affection for the one person who has done the most for us, our families, friends and mankind, do we have access to the quality of affection or are we content with a pretend affection, a hollow and shallow substitute? Can we have access to affection if we deny it in the one who demonstrated it better than any woman who ever lived? And what is it that influences us to deny her humanity, honesty, and affection? Is it not malicious animal magnetism, and has it not then destroyed our ability to demonstrate the human and divine coincidence as she did? If a Christian Scientist has no affection for Mrs. Eddy, he is a brute. He is held in the first degree.

References on Affection:

Mis. 250:20; S&H 451:16; S&H 60-:8-10; S&H 147:29.

Compassion. Compassion goes farther than affection. It is “a disposition to pity, to show mercy, to possess a heart that is tender and easily moved by the distress of others.” If we do not have compassion towards our Leader for all that she suffered in our behalf, do we have access to the quality of compassion? Without compassion you lose the fruitage of her demonstration of the human and divine coincidence, and you lose access to morality, humanity, honesty, affection and compassion. There are many Christian Scientists who are embarrassed by the name, Mary Baker Eddy.

References on Compassion:

S&H 465:14; S&H 329:26 only; Luke 13:34.

Hope and Faith. Mrs. Eddy’s life was a marvelous demonstration of hope and faith. She overcame extraordinary obstacles that were placed in her path, but malicious animal magnetism uses us to see her as ordinary and common. Viewing her demonstration through the qualities of hope and faith gives us great courage to go and do likewise, well knowing that our struggles do not even come close to her struggles. Her demonstration thus aids us in ours; but deny her, be cold, neutral and inconsiderate towards her, and you cannot have the hope and faith, the expectancy and trust of the second degree. You have once again kept yourself in the first degree by listening to malicious animal magnetism.

She reflected the Mother-love with such constancy and tenderness that the truth, the Science of being, was revealed about every child, man and woman. Mortal mind hates her for this discovery, and hates her even more for her life’s demonstration of this Science that, when understood, gives mankind hope and faith. Wouldn’t you think that of all people, women in particular would be grateful for her demonstration? She has given all women the hope and faith to achieve. Or is mortal mind jealous, resentful, and envious towards this woman? Is there any fruitage in demonstration without hope and faith? If the Movement rejects its Leader, the Movement rejects healing.

References on Hope:

‘00 10:20; Mis. 15:13; S&H 298:13-15.

And a few on Faith:

S&H 298:2-4; S&H 23:21: S&H 482:23; ’01 17:1.

Meekness. Meekness is a grand quality. However, if we are not meek enough to admit the work of this woman and the grandeur of her demonstration, infinitely higher than our own, we cannot have access to the quality of meekness. That which rejects her is intellectualism, egotism, self-importance, self-centeredness, complacency; all that rejects her is the opposite of true meekness. Do I humbly, unreservedly accept her leadership; or do I reject her? There is no middle ground. Can I follow a Leader if I am not meek? Meekness accepts her leadership and is willing to be led by her. We either follow Mrs. Eddy’s leading, or we are handled by the red dragon and led into the ways of darkness.

References on Meekness:

My. 247: 11-12; S&H 270:23-24.

Temperance. “Habitual moderation in the indulgence of the appetites and passions; moderation — one of the cardinal virtues.” (Webster) If I do not have humanity, honesty, affection, compassion, hope, faith, and meekness, then I am not in the moral state of the second degree and, therefore, cannot possess temperance. Intemperance cannot work, watch and pray. Intemperance cannot follow. It keeps us in the first degree. Intemperance cannot love a life of perfect purity and obedience; it rejects all that is good. So, it must surely be clear to us that when we reject Mrs. Eddy, we are rejecting our own ability to demonstrate the human and divine coincidence. This lack of temperance constitutes immorality. Remember this quote? “Nothing except sin, in the students themselves, can separate them from me.” (Ret. p.81:4-5) If we deny our Leader, we deny our ability to demonstrate her Science, and, consequently, we deny the One who sent her.

References on Temperance:

Gal. 5:22, 23; Ret. p.79:22-23)

Many say that love for Mrs. Eddy is deification, — do you think so? Is that the enemy talking, or a friend? Can we afford to listen to such suicidal rhetoric when it destroys our ability to demonstrate, to heal? If we remain in her demonstration, we accept her demonstration of the human and divine coincidence and we then have access to all that God gives us: reject her, and we are in effect rejecting God. At one time, thousands, even millions wanted Christian Science and healings were commonplace. Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration was so magnificent that it has taken seventy-five years to be obscured. Mortal mind was envious and jealous and hated her from the start; it loved the fruit, but rejected the sturdy tree. You can curse a tree only so long and the fruit shrivels. In 1902, she wrote to Judge Hanna, “Whoever opens most the eyes of the children of men to see aright and to understand aright that Idea On Earth that has best and clearest reflected by word or deed the divine Principle of man and the universe, will accomplish most for himself and mankind in the direction of all that is good and true.” (DCC p.109) What will it take to stop some Christian Scientists from saying that all love for her is deification?

The Leader

You are not the Leader, neither am I. Mrs. Eddy said concerning herself, “Others could not take her place, even if willing so to do.” (S&H

p.464:9 only) We are in her demonstration and are her demonstration. We would not be here if it were not for her. Her demonstration of The Mother Church cannot be obscured, its purpose blunted or twisted, nor can any of her children ever be removed from her demonstration.

If we separate Mrs. Eddy from her revelation, we place mankind in darkness. Jesus was removed from his revelation and the Dark Ages came. There is a practical knowledge and demonstration of the way in which we learn how to handle the claims of malicious animal magnetism and it is to empty our minds of evil, fill them with love and become clear channels for truth. Mrs. Eddy’s life demonstration is that example and symbol. Her life and its demonstration of the human and divine coincidence cannot be separated from her gift to the world, — divine Science. Rejecting her, we reject demonstration, healing. Science and Health sets forth the truth that sets man free; but without her demonstration, her life, that truth remains unattainable for large numbers.

It was easy for the world to place Jesus on a pedestal and reject him because he had a virgin birth, so apart from the rest of mankind. Mary Baker Eddy, however, like the rest of us, was born to two human parents and overcame all the claims of material sense, revealed how to do it, wrote it down so we could follow, unmasked mortal mind and demonstrated the truth each step of the way. Mortal mind has not forgiven Mrs. Eddy for showing that it is possible. There has been a continuing attempt of malicious animal magnetism to remove Mrs. Eddy as our Leader and substitute Christ Jesus.

The prophecies concerning the Messiah were exact:

1. He would be born in Bethlehem.

2. He would be born to the seed of David and the tribe of Judah.

3. He would not be accepted by them and would be called the suffering servant.

4. He would be crucified.

5. He would appear before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Do we follow Jesus’ commands to handle aggressive mental suggestion or Mrs. Eddy’s? Do we follow Jesus’ commands to handle mental malpractice or Mrs. Eddy’s? Do we follow Jesus’ commands to handle malicious animal magnetism or Mrs. Eddy’s? Do we follow Mrs. Eddy’s writings in the healing work or do we study only Jesus’ words? Do we accept that she knew full well what she was talking about because she demonstrated what she taught? Then who is the Leader? Are we members of a church founded by a woman as Jesus prophesied? Are we using a Science prophesied by Jesus to come through a woman? Do teachers teach from a chapter entitled “Recapitulation” written by Jesus or written by Mary Baker Eddy?

Mrs. Eddy loved Jesus more than anyone has ever loved him. If we follow Jesus Christ as our Leader, we do not follow her. Her revelation is thereby minimized. Through her teachings and her life, she has revealed how to do the greater works, the handling of sin. Let’s get back to the business of becoming the leader of the world of Christendom and not be content with possibly becoming some obscure Protestant sect, and, if we bow and scrape enough, to be recognized by the other churches as Christian and not as some cult. Has the price of this acceptance been the rejecting of that ‘embarrassing’ name, Mary Baker Eddy?

The prophecies about the woman are exact:

1. It was prophesied she would be born in God’s latter-day Israel.

2. The revelator of this second coming would be a woman.

3. This woman would write the Open Book of Revelation 10.

4. She would appear in accordance with Daniel’s dates of 1866 and 1875.

5. She would be forsaken, but eventually accepted. How could we all be this woman?

Jesus Christ revealed the ideal manhood and Mrs. Eddy revealed the ideal womanhood. Jesus is the way and example of Christian conduct and demonstration. Mrs. Eddy is the example of the Christianly scientific method of conduct and demonstration by uncovering and destroying malicious animal magnetism. It is this same animal magnetism that keeps mankind from understanding Jesus and his demonstration. Remove Mrs. Eddy and you again destroy mankind’s ability to understand the words and works of Christ Jesus, the patriarchs and the prophets. The revelation of Jesus was lost because there was no fixed Science to follow and malicious animal magnetism was not uncovered and handled. The revelation of Mrs. Eddy is being lost because malicious animal magnetism is not being handled in its attempts to remove the woman. Jesus was put on a pedestal and removed from sight; his demonstration was lost. Mrs. Eddy is being put in the basement and removed from sight; her demonstration is being lost.

If Jesus had not proclaimed (declared) his divine origin, he would not have been crucified. If Mrs. Eddy had not declared Science to be the revelation of Truth, mortal mind would be proud of her.

Miscellaneous Documents Relating to Christian Science, p.86

How can we say we love, are grateful for, and owe endless homage to Christ Jesus (S&H p.18:5), and agree there must be proper gratitude and love for him; then say, gratitude, love and endless homage for what Mrs. Eddy did for us and for her dedicated life and demonstration of the human and divine coincidence, is deification? We have statues of famous generals of forgotten wars, of fine religious leaders, of politicians and statesmen, of astronauts and scientists, and even of criminals and butchers of the human race, — but not to Mrs. Eddy, for that would be ‘deification.’

Memorials of our Leader

It is interesting to note that shortly before her death, Mrs. Eddy’s childhood home in Bow was burned down and shortly after her death her home in Concord was razed and the property bulldozed over. The pyramid that marked her birthplace was dynamited, the two women removed from the cover of the Sentinel, the leaflet entitled “Mrs. Eddy’s Place” removed, and Mr. Tomlinson’s and other loving biographies of Mrs. Eddy removed from our Reading Rooms. Has all of this led to a strong and vibrant Movement?

It was not long ago that we traveled with friends to the Eastern seaboard. The previous two to three days had seen heavy snowfalls. The birthplace of the most important woman who ever lived was inaccessible. The gate was shut, the snow was a foot and a half deep, and no effort had been made to clear the drifts. We trudged in and noticed from footprints in the snow that, possibly the day before, two people had preceded us. We can go to the birthplace of Christ Jesus, Luther, Washington, Lincoln, some of the patriarchs, famous writers and poets, but we cannot get into the birthplace of the most important woman ever to have lived on this planet. Is this reasonable or is this animal magnetism at work? Then we went to Mount Auburn where her memorial is and, although the cemetery workers kept the roads to the memorial clear as they were to every gravesite, the snow had not been removed from her memorial and the inscriptions were covered so they could not be read. Once again there were footprints in the snow left by those who had preceded us.

Entering the New Hampshire Historical Society in Concord, we asked if anything was on display concerning Mrs. Eddy — there was nothing. They said they had a lot of material but it was stored. Upon leaving we asked if they had anything on sale in their gift shop concerning Mrs. Eddy — there was nothing. Dear friends, the Concord Church, Mrs. Eddy’s gift to Concord, will be the next to go if Christian Scientists do not come to their aid. They need funds to carry on the work of maintaining that large church. The Concord Church receives no monetary aid from The Mother Church. Christian Scientists cannot allow the sale of the Concord church.

Correct Recognition

The mentally shallow crucified our Lord because they said he called himself God. He did not. Intellectual shallowness in our own time repeats the age-old pronouncement of the Sanhedrin to crucify God’s anointed and says remove Mary Baker Eddy from her position and place, castigate her students who love her and condemn them as deifiers; although none of them has ever felt the sentiment of deification. How are we to think of her?

Mrs. Eddy did not think she was like everyone else or that anyone was like her. On July 10, 1898, she wrote to Mr. Knapp: “No greater mistake can be made than to disobey or to delay to obey a single message of mine. God does speak through me to this age. This I discern more clearly each year of my sojourn with you.” (Prec., Carpenter, p.122) She wrote to a student on December 20, 1889, “Twenty-three years have shown that everything that I have done has had back of it a higher wisdom than mine.” (Prec., Carpenter, p.52) The obligation to be obedient to our Leader did not stop at her passing. She did not cease to exist at that time.

Our Leader says in Science and Health, “This scientific sense of being, forsaking matter for Spirit, by no means suggests man’s absorption into Deity and the loss of his identity, but confers upon man enlarged individuality, a wider sphere of thought and action, a more expansive love, a higher and more permanent peace.” (S&H p. 265:10) Isn’t this why she tells us we owe Jesus ‘endless homage,’ that there is a forever Jesus to give homage to? Again in Science and Health, she says, “The identity of the real man is not lost, but found through this explanation; for the conscious infinitude of existence and of all identity is thereby discerned and remains unchanged.” (S&H p.302:4-8) And, “Breaking away from the mutations of time and sense, you will neither lose the solid objects and ends of life nor your own identity.” (S&H 261:24-27) “The identity, or idea, of all reality continues forever; but Spirit, or the divine Principle of all, is not in Spirit’s formations.” (S&H 71:5-7) Also, “God is individual and personal in a scientific sense, but not in any anthropomorphic sense. Therefore man, reflecting God, cannot lose his individuality; but as material sensation, or a soul in the body, blind mortals do lose sight of spiritual individuality. Material personality is not realism; it is not the reflection or likeness of Spirit, God.” (S&H p.336:32-6) If one loves Mrs. Eddy, sees her spiritual individuality and the grandness of her character and identity, why do some Christian Scientists proclaim that this is deification? Evidently, their mortal sense cannot fathom the grandeur of the spiritual idea, and it is amply clear that from their level of thought, they have no right to persecute those who do see her correctly.

In Retrospection and Introspection, our Leader makes all of this clear. “He who gains the God-crowned summit of Christian Science never abuses the corporeal personality, but uplifts it. He thinks of everyone in his real quality, and sees each mortal in an impersonal depict.” (Ret. p.76:23) Those who understand, through spiritual sense, Mrs. Eddy’s place in prophecy, are fulfilling this demand. Other Christian Scientists, thinking themselves spiritually perceptive, make light of Mrs. Eddy and her unexcelled accomplishments, and claim that any attention paid to her is mere personality worship.

All good is from God and is God and must be individualized; and if good is from God it must not be personalized. However, giving all power to God and knowing that all good is from God does not mean we deprive His idea or reflection of that goodness. In fact, we must know that the goodness of God is individualized; if it were not individualized, God would have no manifestation.

Thinking we are spiritually minded by impersonalizing Mrs. Eddy without seeing her spiritual individuality, we deprive ourselves of the means to demonstrate her Science because we have just rejected the practical application of the Truth as shown in her life and thereby lose its demonstration. Mortals, rejecting Mrs. Eddy, lose the way that shows them how to empty their thinking of the false mind and how to demonstrate the divine Mind. She has shown how this is to be done. Her life, including all her experiences, is just as important to study as is her revelation. Do we wonder why Christian Science is not growing? Too many Christian Scientists are so busy pretending they are in the third degree, they cannot get out of the first.

If we impersonalize Mrs. Eddy, and taking this step, see the spiritual individuality operating, we can then see that Mary Baker Eddy never left her place in the Movement. She is still the Leader. Her individual identity is no more lost than were Moses’ and Elijah’s when they appeared to Jesus and the disciples hundreds of years after their missions on earth.

Mrs. Eddy did not want her students filled with the desire to see her person, to see how she looked or what she wore and what she was doing. Mrs. Eddy sharply rebuked her students’ personal-sense view of herself and strove to awaken them to a correct sense of herself as the spiritual idea. As she says, “Scholasticism clings for salvation to the person, instead of to the divine Principle, of the man Jesus; and his Science, the curative agent of God, is silenced.” (S&H p.146:15-18) At the same time, we must “…love that which represents God most, His highest idea as seen today…” (Mis. p.336:8-9)

There is an infinite distance between the claim of personality and the truth of spiritual individuality, and we must understand the difference to be effective Christian Scientists. Let us all put a stop to the seducing claims of mesmerism that tell us that all love for Mrs. Eddy is personality worship. Christian Scientists are alert to the claims of malicious animal magnetism.

If we treat our Leader in an ignominious way, we are treating the idea embraced in Mind in this way. Hatred and disrespect for the idea is automatically hatred of God who imaged forth that idea. We cannot treat the human man or the human woman poorly, who best represent God on earth, and say they are just mortals like we are. How else could they appear except to partake of mortality? They could not do their work and appear here in any other form, nor could God operate for mankind if they were not in a mortal form.

Mrs. Eddy not only revealed the truth of identity and individuality but she showed mankind how to retain and protect those truths from the claims of life, substance and intelligence in matter, the first degree.

Because we are afraid of deifying through personal sense, we do not need to go to the opposite extreme of personal sense and refuse any recognition of our Leader, thus totally neutralizing her importance.

Laura Sargent wrote about her Leader: “Mother explained what Jesus meant when he said, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, on this hangs all the law.’ In order to love God we must honor and love the Way. How can we love God unless we love His idea which shows us the way and which is the way, and in order to honor and love the way we must have a true sense of the individual through whom the Way has been manifested to us, else we are not keeping the law to love our neighbor as ourselves, or doing by our neighbor as we would be done by.”

Divinity Course and General Collectanea, p.100

Every human seems to have a belief of personality (personal sense) and has at the same time spiritual individuality. This spiritual individuality can only be perceived through spiritual sense, as our Leader points out when she says, “Human beings are physically mortal, but spiritually immortal.” (Un. p.37:17-18) These are not two different entities. Can we not begin to see that the rejection of Mrs. Eddy could destroy our Movement and will produce terrible suffering for those in the vanguard of this attempt to remove her from her place? The following article on Reflection, written by Mrs. Eddy, shows very clearly the danger of rejecting our Leader.

Reflection
by Mary Baker Eddy

Everything done to Jesus and to me which could in any way harm us was a conspiracy against the welfare of him who did it and against the human race. It darkened the light that otherwise would have been reflected and would have shone for all. The individual who did this injured himself more than he did the Master a million times, and will live to learn this and see just how it was done and suffer until he destroys in himself the evil that caused him to do it. Even if it takes millions of corrections, it must be and will be accomplished. I have sometimes seen that eternity is scarcely too long for this consummation in certain minds; hence, the Scripture, ‘They shall go away into everlasting punishment prepared for the devil and his angels;’ that is, the tenacious human will made manifest through lust, envy, revenge and hatred, and the messages these evils are constantly pouring into the false consciousness called mortal mind, will produce and reproduce itself in himself and in others until the fire it kindles of sin and suffering can be extinguished only when the earth is burned up — that is, not until all the mortal consciousness is utterly destroyed. The Scripture saith, ‘He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, etc.’ His salvation can come only through the slow processes of seeing every sin he ever committed and suffering for it until he gladly escapes by repentance and reformation from the hell it brings. In this terrible struggle his sins are found to be a hard master and when he would reform he cannot, for this old master having long had dominion over him will not resign his power and release his captive without a desperate, prolonged, fearful warfare, a struggle and despair which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the sense of a mortal to comprehend it, for it goes on with invisible pangs so much beyond the apprehension of this sense through any visible token, that it can never be told and never known only by him that has endured it.

Here is the love of God — that this divine Principle sends forth through the universe its divine idea and some person will be found fit to reflect it to such an extent as to become the window for the world in every age and clime.

Through this window God pours in His light and blessings upon mankind.

But if they try to darken this window, to break it or to misrepresent it, and even to believe themselves that it is not the transparent medium through which the light shineth and turn in their dungeon to the opaque wall of their dark mind to let in light, can you not see the consequence?

Or if their blows at this kind window of God should so mar it that the reflection it gave was deflected and the image it gave forth inverted or even its light shut wholly out, would this be cause for rejoicing? Would the perpetrator of this finale of sin — as when Jesus was crucified — go and hang himself and thus be rid of the awful penalty consequent? No! He could not thus easily escape, but must master his own relentless master, must overcome in himself the terrible sins that caused his evil deed. And how? In his dungeon with the rays extinguished that came so kindly to cheer it and show him the way out of it and onto enthroned bliss, would not he remember the awful mistake of putting out the light, the tender warning, the fervid remonstrance, the solemn assurance, yea, the light or the life of love that so long patiently struggled to save him?

Yes, he would and more; he would have to repent of this sin which is designated in Scripture as never to be forgiven, the sin of striking down your best friend, your God-given guide, of sinning against the light — and how? He must repent in dust and ashes, in darkness and in nothingness. No light, no substance, no Soul rays, to yield one prop, to give one reflection of hope and help. Without hope and without God in the world, for he had sunken God’s idea through which the divine Love could reach him and inasmuch as he smote the person reflecting God’s idea, he had done it to the divine Principle and hidden from his understanding the Truth and Love that alone can save him. The window is gone, the reflection no longer shines for his guidance, the pillar and cloud pass not before him. He is alone in the desert an alien to the commonwealth of Israel and a stranger traveling, drifting he knows not whither.

Oh! What would he not give now for the light from the window, but how can he obtain it? What? Where? How? When? is all unanswered, for the spiritual idea is gone and his material beliefs are darker, harder, stronger than ever before. Why? Because with malicious hand ye have slain the Lord. (See Scripture.)

Does this poor sinner remember his boast: I have labored three years or perchance many more to change the superstitious views of the people as to this window for the ages, as to this person born among us whose mother was woman (see Scripture) and now I begin to see the effects of my work. I thought I saw a crack in the window and so had hoped to break it, but alas! I find it is of strange material. I can neither break nor destroy this window only to myself and to my own destruction. It will still be the true idea and I must come to it and if I had not marred it in my own belief, it would have lighted me on as it does others. Mine is the mistake, mine the darkness. Oh! How can I retrace my steps and enter now? The door is shut, the oil is not in my lamp, and yet the bridegroom has come, the spiritual idea could have been wedded to me if only I had seen it, if only I had not tried to shut out the light from God’s window and shade His reflection and deflect the true image and likeness.

What is so kind as reflection? It is not fraud, for it knows its light is crowned. It is not hypocritical, for it gives forth only the substance and idea of its substance and this is God. It is not unjust, for justice is its eternal objective state and it cannot shadow forth what is unlike its original.

— End of article on Reflection —

From Essays on Christian Science Ascribed to Mary Baker Eddy, compiled by Gilbert C. Carpenter, Jr., CSB, pp.68-71 (emphasis added).

Mrs. Eddy’s Quotes

The following quotes from Mrs. Eddy are included to support the preceding exposition:

The sick are healed to all appearance and the gospel is taught by mortal mind; but the fact remains that only the immortal Mind can heal the sick or save the sinner. Divine Love knows that love is light, even that light which is the Life of man. Divine Love knows His window, and knows that it gives light, not darkness, and is the means of love’s entrance into the hearts of men. The wonder is that aught can make God’s window seem to be what it is not. It was the doubt and ignorance of what Jesus was and did for all mankind that shut out and still shuts out the light of Love. What if the window does offend the senses with the objects it reveals and the path it points out! It is Love’s window and Love’s revelation to mankind. The good gaze at last with gratitude and joy on what they had not seen but now see through the window that disturbed the senses, but pointed the way in Science.

Mary Baker Eddy: Her Spiritual Footsteps, p.216

I can do you most good by pointing the path, showing the scenes behind the curtain. The united plans of the evildoers is to keep Mrs. Eddy as she is (what God knows of her and revealed to Christ Jesus) out of sight; and to keep her as she is not (just another white-haired old lady) constantly before the public. This kills two birds with one stone. It darkens the spiritual sense of students, and misguides the public. Why? Because it wrongly misstates the idea of divine Principle that you are trying to demonstrate and hides it from the sense of people.

Collectanea of Items about Mary Baker Eddy, p.74

I have been made the way-shower.

Divinity Course and General Collectanea, p.5

When a student loses the true sense of me, and what I do, he is at the threshold of the plunge so many make into darkness, believing that darkness is a greater light.

Collectanea of Items about Mary Baker Eddy, p.73

Take up at once: Students shall know their duty to their Leader. Grace divine yet lays many burdens on human hearts unworthy to bear them. When will blind eyes see their Leader as she is?

Divinity Course and General Collectanea, p.52

Your brief, brave, tender lines of loyalty are reassuring to the woman in the wilderness.

Christian Science Journal, Vol. 32 p.348

Upholding the Way-shower

The importance of upholding the hands of the way-shower cannot be overemphasized. In the time of Moses, we are told in the Scriptures that it was vitally important that his hands were held up in time of battle; when they were not held up, the battle began to go against the Israelites. (Exodus 17:11, 12) This account illustrates how important one man or woman can be, not because of their own power, but because they are God’s messenger to the age.

When Miriam and Aaron questioned Moses’ authority and thought they were on his level, they both received a strong rebuke from God. Does God think we are all equal with Mary Baker Eddy? Our salvation depends on how we treat her. Why was Jerusalem destroyed? Hadn’t Jesus told the Pharisees what would happen as the result of the way they treated him? Of course he did. Jesus railed against the Pharisees because they kept the nation from being converted to the truth; and how did they do that? By rejecting God’s representative. Ingratitude for the representative is ingratitude for God, and this disposition forfeits divine help, dissolves all of the progress made by God’s witness, and dooms mankind to suffer. In whatever age the pharisaical thought appears, it always considers itself righteous and its teachings correct. The danger of this kind of thinking is that it is always sure its teachings are correct. The pharisaical thought is always found rejecting the one God has given them for their correction.

“Each individual must fill his own niche in time and eternity.” (Ret. p.70:18) Those who resist and retard the demonstration of the stars of the first magnitude, deprive themselves of the place God has for them. When out of their own place, they are out of the Kingdom. Why is this? The place they should have filled and in which they might have been effective, is not theirs any longer, because the only place to be filled is in supporting those who work for God on the highest level. Those working to obscure Mrs. Eddy’s place harm all mankind and those doing so within our church are responsible for the most heinous crime ever perpetrated upon mankind and they will reap what they sow and will not awake to living glory.

And as the deepest night descends upon the earth, once again, and the darkest of the dark ages spreads its pall over the earth, the angels ask each Christian Scientist, why couldn’t you have loved her a little? Why did you deny her? The anguished cries will come back, I don’t know, and they will be informed that they have lost the Science of their own being. The angels will ask, why didn’t you read your Bibles? — there are so many examples of what happened to those who rejected God’s best witnesses, whole nations were destroyed for their disobedience and hatred of these individuals. But you had access to the greatest of all and you laughed at those who loved her. And to those who professed love for Mrs. Eddy, the angel will say to them, why couldn’t you have loved her enough to stand up for her? Where was your moral courage?

Everyone will wonder how it all happened, the glory of our civilization, all lost, how could it have fallen? But they all saw it falling and pretended it was not happening. As the Christian Scientists are asked again and again why they could not have followed her just a little, they will go into darkness, weeping and wailing for what they could have done and should have done and did not do. God had given them a task to support His best witness and they rejected her and thus rejected the One giving them the task. Do they deserve a second chance? — now that sounds fair, but there are no second chances here. Those former Christian Scientists who sought to douse the light of love for their Leader and, who, too late, recognized the fruits of their folly, now know what the sins against the Holy Ghost are. Now they learn what Jesus meant when he said, “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” (Mark 3:29)

Those who have rejected Mrs. Eddy have worked to keep every child, man and woman on the globe from receiving the Science of their own being. Then in a last ditch effort the guilty say, Why this can’t be, I’m God’s perfect child! and the angel will answer back, Yes, but you did not find that out by yourself; you did not love the one who struggled her entire life to give you that truth; you rejected the one who taught you that truth, who loved you enough to lift you up to that point of understanding, and your disobedience, lack of love, arrogance, and self will has placed you where you must be. You could not stand before the one you called in name only, your Leader, you would be embarrassed beyond measure. Jesus said, “I know you not.” You cannot enter, nor can you have the light. Now you must overcome the errors of your foul character by yourself, for you no longer have the Science.

Your brother in crime, rich Dives, could not enter because he would not give of his meager substance. You had it all, and were not grateful for the one who made it all possible for you. Your ingratitude far exceeds that of Dives. You didn’t deprive just one poor beggar of a little food, you kept all mankind from the Science of their own being. Now what do you think about your efforts to rid the Movement of its Leader who you called in your innermost thoughts, an embarrassment? But, I am a teacher, board member, practitioner. Well, says the angel, that makes your sin even more serious. Everyone you taught, every decision you made, everyone you prayed for, you imbued with a false sense, an immoral sense, of ingratitude and indifference because of your rejection and disloyalty towards the great lady. How could you have been so callous, so unthinking, so unkind? Did not Jesus and the prophets warn you? Oh, says the criminal, let me go back and warn them. The angel says, It is too late, it cannot be retrieved now. You have rejected and killed off every one of those who loved her, who could have saved the world. In your jealous zeal, you have assured the return of the Dark Ages. Why would you expect everlasting glory for the grievous sin you have committed against all mankind? There has never been anyone on earth who loved you more. Couldn’t you at least have left those alone who loved her? Did you have to harass them, hound them, kill them? Do you not remember that if only one righteous person had been found in Sodom and Gomorrah, the cities could have been saved? You made sure your nation could not be saved.

There may be some consolation for you, however. There is a more serious crime than yours. There are some who have professed an unswerving love for the woman, even understood her place in prophecy, but would not stand against those who sought to destroy this lady and her church. They called their cowardice — wisdom! Their anguish is so severe that they will not look me in the face. They let you and your silly friends get away with destroying the world and placing it back in the darkest of the Dark Ages. One’s sin is in direct proportion to the revelation he has understood. (See Luke 12:47,48.)

The following are some important questions:

1. Did Jesus measure his every word so as not to antagonize the Pharisees, placating and mollifying them, that he might protect his students? And he had no Constitution to protect himself or them, but we do.

2. After their Leader left them, were the disciples afraid to speak out and use his name and were they embarrassed by his name? And they did not have the full rights of religious liberty, but we do.

3. Was Paul cautious not to offend the authorities for fear of harming his pupils’ chances of carrying on? And was Paul afraid of losing his effectiveness? And he was not living under the Declaration of Independence, but we are.

4. Do you think Elijah would have enjoyed hearing from at least a few of the timid Remnant of 7,000 who would not speak to him or for him, the one God sent? They had no Bill of Rights, but we do. How many of today’s Remnant are afraid to speak up for their Leader?

   In Matthew we read, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven… And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it… He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward.” The Amplified Version reads, “He who receives and welcomes and accepts a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward.” (Matthew 10:32, 33, 38, 39, 41)

   

   

   

   

   Above are the frontispiece photographs in two different editions of We Knew Mary Baker Eddy, Third Series. The photograph on the left is found in the earlier edition, and the right in the later edition. Notice the crown upon Mrs. Eddy’s head in the left photo, and its subsequent erasure in the right photo.

   A crown was given to Mrs. Eddy by her students in Kansas City, the full account of which is in the Kansas City Star of Tuesday, October 12, 1897, included here. The Kansas City students knew what a crown meant, and didn’t Mrs. Eddy acknowledge this by having a picture of herself taken wearing a crown? What purpose does the erasure of the crown from her picture serve, except to further separate our Leader from her rightful place, and who ever had a right to attempt that? There is a picture of another crown on Mrs. Eddy’s desk in her study. (See Twelve Years with Mary Baker Eddy and p.245.) Evidently, Mrs. Eddy felt a crown was not out of place on her desk or on her head.

   
   
   
   

   Mrs. Eddy’s Crown

   Mrs. Woodbury, an early student who turned against her Leader, brought a lawsuit against Mrs. Eddy claiming that she, Mrs. Woodbury, was the one Mrs. Eddy referred to as the Babylonish woman in her Communion address of June 4, 1899 (My. p.124:5). In her lawsuit, Mrs. Woodbury also charged that Mrs. Eddy considered herself to be the Woman in the Apocalypse and that Science and Health was divinely inspired. If Mrs. Woodbury could prove that Mrs. Eddy taught that the Woman in the Apocalypse was humanly represented by Mrs. Eddy, she could very well have proven that when Mrs. Eddy spoke of the Babylonish woman, she was referring to Mrs. Woodbury. This was a very dangerous time for Mrs. Eddy as she and Judge Hanna had recently completed an article for the Journal that showed Mrs. Eddy did indeed fulfill Bible prophecy. Mrs. Eddy felt it was not wise to print the article at that time. (See Isaiah’s Vision by Judge Septimus Hanna at the end of this chapter.) Because Judge Hanna had written this article and intimately understood its contents, if asked, he could only answer in the affirmative to the question, “Does Mrs. Eddy consider herself the Woman in the Apocalypse?” He, therefore, was forced to leave town so he would not be questioned in court. The others who spoke to the court concerning this issue were all told to be very careful with how they phrased their answers.

   

   

   

   This is a reproduction of the picture of Mrs. Eddy’s room where she worked and prayed. This picture appears on page 168 of Twelve Years with Mary Baker Eddy, by Irving C. Tomlinson. A crown appears on the left side of the desk.

   In an interview printed in the June 8th, 1901 issue of the Boston Journal, Edward Kimball answered the question, “Does Mrs. Eddy consider herself to be the woman clothed with the sun?” He answered, “She does not. She does not teach or want anyone to teach that. On the contrary, we do not believe that the word ‘woman’ means any particular woman, but rather refers to conditions of thought, or the revelations of truth.” (Reprinted in C.S. Sentinel, June 13, 1901.) Had Mr. Kimball answered in the affirmative, Mrs. Eddy would most certainly have lost the case for libel which Mrs. Woodbury had brought against her. It is beyond question that Mrs. Eddy considered herself to be that woman but this did not mean that Mrs. Eddy considered Mrs. Woodbury to be the Babylonish woman. However, the court could have deduced that Mrs. Eddy implied that Mrs. Woodbury was the Babylonish woman. Even Mr. Knapp, who indeed held that Mrs. Eddy was the woman, answered very carefully in court without saying that Mrs. Eddy was not that woman of prophecy. Almost all of Mrs. Eddy’s early students recognized that she was that woman. Mrs. Woodbury, one of Mrs. Eddy’s early students, also knew that Mrs. Eddy’s students understood this point. If Mrs. Woodbury had not already known this, she would not have used it against Mrs. Eddy.

   Strangely, today Mr. Kimball’s words on the subject, given at that time to the press, carry more weight on this subject than do our Leader’s own words or the words of almost all of her other students at that time. It is interesting, indeed, that today’s Christian Scientists accord to Mr. Kimball the title of the foremost thinker in the Christian Science Movement, then and since. This was not true and Mrs. Eddy had to correct Mr. Kimball’s metaphysics quite often. Mrs. Eddy dearly loved Mr. Kimball and strove to help him overcome the limitations of his character. Mr. Kimball apparently found it difficult to be corrected and told what to do by a woman. Mrs. Eddy invited Mr. Kimball into her home to serve as a worker for her, but Mr. Kimball refused. Mrs. Eddy considered this request so important for her Cause that she placed a By-law in the Manual concerning the importance of this call and the penalty for refusal was excommunication. (Manual p. 67, Art. XXII, Sect. 11.) Mr. Kimball rejected all of Mrs. Eddy’s entreaties in this direction. It would have been a marvelous opportunity for him to get his metaphysics correct and to also gain a clear apprehension of her. Mrs. Eddy loved Mr. Kimball just as our Lord loved Peter. She saw his marvelous potential and hoped to make him a clear channel for Christian Science.

   Mr. Kimball, when making his statement to the press, was unaware that Judge Hanna and Mrs. Eddy had completed an article detailing Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy. It must be remembered that all of those early workers, both men and women, did marvelous work considering the short time they had been in Christian Science. But for today’s Christian Scientists, who have studied Christian Science for forty and fifty years and more, to use any of these early workers and their metaphysics as a higher standard than Mrs. Eddy’s and her revelation, is as unthinkable as Christians giving more weight to the teachings and examples of Peter, James and John than to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his revelation.

   Why has Mr. Kimball been upheld and approved as the clearest thinker in the Movement? Could it be because he was one of the very few who did not take a stand for Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible Prophecy? Why would Christian Scientists be trying to determine who was the best male thinker in the Movement when Mrs. Eddy, a woman, was the only one to be considered? Isn’t this scholastic theology at work? The statement in Miscellany, in regards to Mr. Kimball’s “clear, correct teaching of Christian Science…” (My. p.297:18), was not included in the packet that Mrs. Eddy left to be printed in Prose Works after she passed. It was included by someone after she left us. Since it was not Mrs. Eddy who added it, who did? Why?

   

   With the press circulating the events of the trial thoughout the world, Mrs. Woodbury’s attack on Mrs. Eddy proved to be very, very effective; and so much so, that it can truly be said that she erroneously influenced the Christian Science Movement to accept a false concept of Mrs. Eddy far more than has any other Christian Scientist from her time to the present. Mr. Kimball, one of the very few early students who did not see Mrs. Eddy’s place clearly, unintentionally promoted, through one statement to the press, a more adverse effect on Christian Science than all of Mrs. Eddy’s statements to the contrary given on the same subject. John V. Dittemore, an early apostate, circulated two letters to achieve acceptance of the following:

   1. Mrs. Eddy was not the woman of Revelation 12.

   2. Mrs. Eddy took drugs.

   3. Mrs. Eddy was a plagiarist.

   Today we find that Christian Scientists and some biographers, under the influence and mesmerism of Mrs. Woodbury’s and other apostates’ attacks against the Discover and Founder of Christian Science, have accepted Mr. Kimball’s and Mr. Dittemore’s false statements as correct. Why?

   Victoria Sargent told Mrs. Eddy, “My students recognize you to be God’s witness and mouthpiece… that you fulfill the prophecies of the Scriptures — that you represent the God-crowned woman mentioned in the Apocalypse.” Mrs. Eddy replied, “That is from above.”

   Isn’t it fascinating today to see how malicious animal magnetism has been able to totally reverse the correct perspective held as fact by the early CSB’s and CSD’s, that Mrs. Eddy is the woman of Bible prophecy? Is not this the result of the most active organized ‘ism’ at work against Christian Science? Mrs. Eddy tells us, “Keeping the truth of her character before the public will help the students, and do more than all else for the Cause. Christianity in its purity was lost by defaming and killing its defenders. Do not let this period repeat this mistake. The truth in regard to your Leader heals the sick and saves the sinner. The lie has just the opposite effect, and the evil one that leads all evil in this matter knows this more clearly than do Christian Scientists in general.” (Collectanea, p. 74, e.a.)

   In Mrs. Eddy’s day almost all loyal teachers taught Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy, but today no CSB who teaches her place is considered loyal to the Board of Directors.

   
   
   
   

   Romanism and the Two Witnesses

   Revelation 11:3,4,10-12 (e.a.) reads, “And I will give power unto my two witnesses… These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. [See Zech. 4:11-14, and the back cover of this book.] And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them… And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.”

   

   The picture shown above was drawn by Mr. Gilman at Mrs. Eddy’s request and direction. The man child is rising to the upper right of the tower. This same man child is shown in another picture, drawn by Mr. Gilman at Mrs. Eddy’s direction, but without the two witnesses in the clouds. Two weeks before the Woodbury trial Mrs. Eddy gave a statement to the world through a newspaper: “Science and Health makes it plain to all Christian Scientists that the manhood and womanhood of God have already been revealed in a degree through Christ Jesus and Christian Science, His two witnesses.” (My. p.346:29-2) Remember, she could not say she was the second witness and that she fulfilled Bible prophecy because of Mrs. Woodbury’s lawsuit. At that time, to state that Christian Science was the second witness was a very strong statement to make, but for her to say she was the second witness would have lost the Woodbury lawsuit and caused irreparable damage to her Cause. Even so, Mrs. Eddy makes it clear that she represented the womanhood of God and the motherhood of God and that she was the feminine representative of the spiritual idea.

   “This immaculate idea, represented first by man and, according to the Revelator, last by woman …” (S&H p.565:18-19)

   IMMACULATE IDEA REPRESENTATIVE NAME

   

   The Bible prophecy concerning the two witnesses states that “they ascended... in a cloud.” The picture on the preceding page shows a man and a woman, two prophets, “ascended in a cloud,” not a prophet and a religion. What Mrs. Eddy said to the nation through the press was, of course, correct. She could also have stated that Christianity and Christian Science are the two witnesses or Jesus and Mrs. Eddy or Christianity and Mrs. Eddy, but wisely stated it was Christ Jesus and Christian Science; nor does her statement exclude Christianity or Mary Baker Eddy as one of the two witnesses. The first coming of the Truth was prophesied as an impersonal dispensation and also as a personal representative, later known as Christianity and Christ Jesus. Both Christ Jesus and Christianity could be considered the first witness. The same can be said for the second appearing. Both an impersonal dispensation and a personal representative were prophesied, and evidently both were needed.

   In Christian Healing, Mrs. Eddy says, “The dragon that was wroth with the woman, and stood ready ‘to devour the child as soon as it was born,’ was the vision of envy, sensuality, and malice, ready to devour the idea of Truth. But the beast bowed before the Lamb: it was supposed to have fought the manhood of God, that Jesus represented; but it fell before the womanhood of God, that presented the highest ideal of Love.” (Hea. p.10:1-8)

   

   The spiritual idea is clad with the radiance of spiritual Truth, and matter is put under her feet. The light portrayed is really neither solar nor lunar, but spiritual Life, which is ‘the light of men.’ In the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel it is written, ‘There was a man sent from God... to bear witness of that Light.

   Science & Health p.561:26

   

   As Elias presented the idea of the fatherhood of God, which Jesus afterwards manifested, so the Revelator completed this figure with woman, typifying the spiritual idea of God’s motherhood.

   Science & Health 562:3-7

   

   The man in the foregoing picture is a representation of the first witness, Christ Jesus. Mrs. Eddy saw that he was one of the two witnesses who “ascended...in a cloud.” There is also a woman with a crown. If our Leader wanted to show Christ Jesus and Christian Science as the two witnesses, don’t you think she would have placed a cross and crown or Science and Health where the woman is? If the angel rising from the church in this picture is the man child of Revelation 12:5, then has Mrs. Eddy made a serious mistake because the man child “caught up unto God, and to his throne” is Christian Science? How then could the woman be Christian Science also? Seems rather strange for Christian Science to be viewing Christian Science, doesn’t it? Apparently, Mrs. Eddy did not see herself as an old lady did she?

   There were no Roman Catholic followers of Christ Jesus in his time. It was an unknown religious system and yet the elements of mortal mind that rejected our Lord and instituted centralized church government were quite evident in Jesus’ immediate disciples (except John the Beloved), — pride of power, love of place, infallibility, seeking esteem, establishing a hierarchy of personality, rebuking and disobeying their Leader, refusing to listen, reason, or follow and held in bondage by Jewish orthodoxy with all its customs, fashion, rules, and ordinances. Not following Jesus’ commands faithfully, they fought among themselves to decide who would be greatest, thus attempting to centralize authority before any church had even been developed. Jesus’ disciples did not follow their Lord’s example of upholding and defending genuine womanhood and, thus, womanhood was rejected and the elevation of male energy and male ego erased womanhood’s precious influence in the church.

   The disciples and male followers of Christ Jesus rejected their Lord’s position and place, and placed themselves in his place. They did, however, give him some obligatory recognition. As centralization of the church developed, Jesus had to go and so they deified him, the only route open that could preserve their own love of place and power. As our Leader says, “The ignoble conduct of his disciples towards their Master, showing their unfitness to follow him, ended in the downfall of genuine Christianity, about the year 325, and the violent death of all his disciples save one.” (‘02 p.18:25) Isn’t our Leader saying that the disciples produced Romanism, and thus the downfall of genuine Christianity? The disciples, by rejecting their Lord, and instituting fear among the people, produced a desire for hierarchy and authority, thus sowing the seeds of the destruction of all that Jesus had accomplished. They would not support Jesus’ place, but allowed him to be deified and, by doing so, lost his example of the human and divine coincidence both for themselves and for all mankind. They were responsible for the development of Romanism even before those inherent claims of mortal mind were manifested to the world as a church.

   If the claim that removed Christ Jesus from his church was deification, wouldn’t the claim that removed Mrs. Eddy from her church be excommunication? And if these two claims of Romanism reject the two witnesses, would Christian Scientists, who reject their Leader’s place in Bible prophecy as the second witness, fall under the influence of Romanism?

   The nature of Romanism is to hide the grand demonstration and example, clearly evident in the lives of God’s two witnesses, and to accomplish this blasphemy by deification or by excommunication. When Romanism removed Jesus’ grand example and demonstration, mortal mind could then continue to seek esteem, place and power for itself. For the same reason, the great reformer, pioneer and Leader, the demonstrator of the Science of Christianity, has been excommunicated from her own church. Mrs. Eddy says, “The old and recurring martyrdom of God’s best witnesses is the infirmity of evil, the modus operandi of human error, carnality, opposition to God and His power in man.” (‘02 p.10:24-27, e.a.) Our Cause has been under attack since its inception. The claim of Romanism in our church excommunicates our Leader, elevates male energy, hides all that pertains to her that is of a loving and correct nature, and gives lip service to our Lord.

   If our Leader speaks of the martyrdom of God’s best witnesses, how can she be referring to Christian Science when Christian Science cannot be martyred? She is speaking of the two prophets, the two witnesses of Revelation and Zechariah. In Science and Health Mrs. Eddy says, “The word martyr, from the Greek, means witness; but those who testified for Truth were so often persecuted unto death, that at length the word martyr was narrowed in its significance and so has come always to mean one who suffers for his convictions.” (S&H p.134:4)

   Every Roman Catholic has a right to the church of his choice, but a Christian Scientist has enlisted in the battle to lessen the beliefs of sin, disease and death. He must ever be vigilant and on guard that the claims of Romanism do not invade his church, claims that are inherent in mortal mind. It is not necessary that there be a single Roman Catholic in the world for the claims of Romanism to enter any church. The disciples of Jesus were evidence of that.

   The claims of Romanism in our church, claims of self-deification, self-importance, apostolic succession, love and fear of place and power, reject Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy. Romanism rid the world of Jesus’ example by deification. Romanism has rid the world of Mrs. Eddy’s example by excommunicating her from her own church. Where is the evidence? The six points detailing her place in Bible prophecy that were published by the 1943 and 1962 Boards of Directors have been rejected by the present Board [1987] and removed from our Reading Rooms. Her childhood home was burned down shortly before her death. Her favorite home, Pleasant View, was intentionally destroyed shortly after her death, and the property sold. The beautiful pyramid, erected to mark her birthplace, was dynamited by the Christian Science Board of Directors. (See photograph of pyramid in Landmarks from Bow to Boston in your Reading Room.)

   Her birthplace and memorial gravesite are inaccessible during winter. There is a present attempt to close down all of Mrs. Eddy’s historical homes and to gather up all the bound volumes of our early history. The women from the front of the Sentinel, put there by Mrs. Eddy, were removed. The olive trees from Zechariah’s prophecy concerning the two witnesses were removed from the front of the Christian Science Quarterly and replaced by photos of nature and animals. Biographies, which are totally alien to the truth about her, are accepted as gospel within the bosom of her church. Our Leader is seldom spoken of in lectures, a violation of the Manual. In periodical testimonials, she is now referred to as a faithful follower of Christ Jesus and that is the most frequent way in which gratitude for her is ever mentioned. If Romanism in our church claims that Mrs. Eddy is merely the faithful follower of Christ Jesus, then Jesus is now our Leader.

   If you will read the Journal testimonies from July 1911 to the end of December 1911, you will find that Mrs. Eddy receives deep and loving gratitude in 87% of the testimonies. As a stark contrast to these percentages, when you read the Journal testimonies from November 1986 to April 1987, you will see only perfunctory gratitude in only 9% of the testimonies. This sad trend is evident in the Sentinel also. From September 1911 through February 1912, of the 360 testimonies given, fully 67% expressed deep gratitude towards Mrs. Eddy. In the six month period from November 1986 to April 1987, a paltry 5% of the testifiers barely mentioned any gratitude for Mrs. Eddy at all in the 109 testimonies that appeared during that time, with the exception of one testimony that included heartfelt gratitude. If one were to research the years prior to this, a decided downward trend would be apparent. Why? These percentages are not indicative of the true feelings of individuals in our Movement as there are many who write loving testimonies. The severe editing of every testimony, with special attention to those that include gratitude to Mrs. Eddy, is just another attempt to control what is read in our Movement.

   

   Similarity to Romanism

   Some years ago, Boston requested that all pictures of Mrs. Eddy be removed from Reading Rooms and Christian Science Churches. Precious memoirs and reminiscences in which early workers expressed their love for the Leader and for her place in Bible prophecy have been suppressed and kept out of circulation. Accessibility to these is now being limited at The Longyear Foundation and all such material is hidden in the archives. Are you aware that Mrs. Eddy did not establish the archives? Have all Christian Scientists gone a fishin’ while their Leader has been excommunicated from her own church?

   When a Roman Catholic is excommunicated from his church, no member is to speak of him again, and they are to remove all evidence of the excommunicated one as ever having been in the church. Have our churches been warned against giving place to Mrs. Eddy, not to have her pictures, not to talk of her in testimonies, etc.? Have lecturers been told to simplify their remarks concerning her? Why? Have editors of the periodicals been told to delete gratitude for her from testimonies? Why? Have teachers been told not to teach her place in Bible prophecy? Why?

   Why have Christian Scientists continued to look down on the Roman Catholics? Is it because Catholics will not read anything their church has not authorized? Is it because they refuse to question the authorities of their church? Is it because they bow to authority and are afraid of being disciplined or excommunicated if they speak out? Do we pity them because they seem so docile they will not take a stand for what they believe and are in constant fear of not appearing to be in agreement with the bureaucracy? Do we consider them less than Christian because they want a person in a position of trust to handle all of their problems? Is it because the local churches look to Rome for all solutions? Is it because we feel Catholics go to church mechanically, unprepared to give and unaware of any individual responsibility to their church and its members? Do we disdain the total centralization of their church and the lack of self-government in it? Do we pity the Catholics who report their fellow members to the church authorities because they do not follow the prescribed rules? Do we pity those who report on their fellow church members who get out of line and who spy on members in hopes of obtaining a reward from the hierarchy? Do we think it strange that their people cannot understand how healing left their church and why it is not there now? We really have a good laugh about their lack of Bible study and their lack of biblical knowledge.

   Do we laugh that the Pope does not report his salary to the membership? There is only one other church in the world that does not report the salaries of its top officials to its membership. Guess which one. Does the Catholic Church, in addition to the privileged few, allow all their members the opportunity to study the vast accumulation of material stored in its archives? Do we think it strange that Catholics call upon church intermediaries to get them closer to God and expect church intermediaries to provide answers to all of their questions, yet never consider studying and praying for themselves? Do we scoff at them because they believe they belong to the one true church and need do nothing themselves? Do we look askance at the officials of the Roman Catholic Church and ridicule their love of place and power? Do we think it strange that this power builds upon fear?

   Do we think it absurd that they excommunicate for resistance to false church doctrine but never for gross immorality? Don’t we think it sad to think of the priests and bishops saying, I must be quiet or I will lose my effectiveness. What will become of my work if I speak out? All of those who rely upon me will lose my help if I am excommunicated. Do we look down upon them because priests and cardinals do nothing to dissuade members from revering them and do nothing to diminish adulation? Do we mock them because they do not discourage or reject the awe and reverence they encourage from those to whom they should be servants, the dearest servants and friends of those they should be lifting up? Do we think it so strange that Catholics follow a hierarchy and deride them because they do not follow their Leader? Do we laugh at them because Catholics love to hear what priest, bishop and cardinal tell them, but care little about what their Leader says? And, say you, isn’t it pitiful the way they are so intolerant towards those with differing opinions in their church. Isn’t that outrageous, you say. Do we laugh that the Pope considers himself the literal successor of their Leader and that he stands in the Leader’s stead? Do we think, if I were in that church and in their place, I would certainly take a stand against the errors in the church, and I would put a stop to all that adulation and error?

   Mrs. Eddy said that Christian Scientists love Protestant and Catholic alike, whoever promotes the prosperity of Zion. Perhaps Christian Scientists have been so busy laughing at others that they have failed to love, and their unloving characters have brought those same errors into their own church. Fear of deifying Mrs. Eddy and fear of looking like Roman Catholics have placed us under the claim of Romanism — that claim which has aided her excommunication. Roman Catholics have an excuse for allowing Romanism to affect them, they are, after all, Roman Catholics. We have the Science of being; we do not have any excuse.

   In the Manual, Mrs. Eddy established the salaries for the Board of Directors and for the Committee on Publication. Each Board member was to receive $2500 annually and each member of the COP to receive not less than $4000 annually. Evidently, Mrs. Eddy thought the COP job was worth more than the Board’s job. Times have changed. These salaries have apparently become so large, that they are no longer reported to the membership. What about class instruction? Class instruction then, and now, is still $100. Isn’t it interesting that the cost of spiritual instruction, class teaching, has remained the same, while the Board’s salary has increased so much that they are the only church officials outside of Rome who will not disclose their salary or retirement plan, a retirement plan not to be found in the Manual. Although both the COP’s and the Board’s salaries have increased over the years, the Board’s salary now far exceeds that of the COP, while the price for spiritual instruction has not increased at all, but remains the same as was originally provided for in the Manual. It would seem from this, that the emphasis has been on money, emolument, in the Movement and not on the spiritual; do we still wonder why the Boston bureaucracy has increased and teaching has diminished?

   It would be quite easy to remain obedient to the Manual in this matter and calculate the present salaries and teaching costs by using the value of an ounce of gold in 1910 [about $20 an ounce] and the value of an ounce of gold today, in 2007 [about $675 an ounce]. It seems that the love of money is far more evident in our church than the love of God. Dear friends, this is Romanism.

   Science and Health

   We spoke before of the rejection, trashing and burning of unauthorized material as Romanism. At a videoconference, the Board announced that the number of copies of Science and Health sold had increased by a large margin. There was loud applause. What was not included in the announcement was that one wealthy Christian Scientist had bought ten thousand copies. When this man graciously donated some of his copies of Science and Health to Christian Science churches, many of these same people who wildly applauded the increase in sales, returned them to him, others trashed them, and some even burned them. Yes, they rejected, trashed, and burned Science and Health. Why would Christian Scientists destroy our textbook? Answer: because the books did not come from Boston.

   Also in relation to Science and Health and Romanism, did you know that Science and Health is promoted only within the Christian Science Church [1987]. Can you imagine the extent to which thought could have been leavened and elevated through the worldwide distribution of Science and Health if it had been allotted even a fraction of the money that was budgeted to promote the Monitor? And do you realize that Science and Health can only be bought in Christian Science Reading Rooms? Romanism hid the Bible, and now it is hiding Science

   and Health.

   [Until the perpetual copyright of Science and Health was legally declared to be unconstitutional, Science and Health could only be purchased in our Reading Rooms. It is now available through national booksellers and online.]

   In the July 1891 Journal, page 135, Mrs. Eddy wrote the following:

   CARD.

   Since my attention has been called to the article in the May Journal, I think it would have been wiser not to have organized the General Association for Dispensing Christian Science Literature.

   1. Because I disbelieve in the utility of so wide spread an organization. It tends to promote monopolies, class legislation and unchristian motives for Christian work.

   2. I consider my students as capable, individually, of selecting their own reading matter and circulating it, as a committee would be which is chosen for this purpose.

   I shall have nothing further to say on this subject, but hope my students’ conclusion will be wisely drawn, and tend to promote the welfare of those outside, as well as inside this organization.

   MARY B. G. EDDY.

   Mrs. Eddy’s card placed in the Journal was in response to a group of students who in 1891 formed the General Association for Dispensing Christian Science Literature. Mrs. Eddy saw it as a move to control what Christian Scientists should read. Mrs. Eddy’s letter to Mr. Nixon in 1891 showed what she thought about authorized literature. Her response severely criticized the students’ attempts to ‘authorize’ only her works and “the literature best adapted to the demand [which] will be named by a Committee.” (See Journal, May 1891.) Mrs. Eddy referred to the students’ plan as “prescriptive and tyrannical, working against justice and love.” She stated that the authorizing of literature was “most wicked... uncharitable,” was a “curse” and “offensive.” She declared that her writings were for the entire world, and that she had not given God’s Word to just “a privileged monopoly to tyrannize over other writers.” What has happened since, dear friends, is Romanism.

   The page containing our Leader’s terse comments on this subject was later removed from the C.S. Journal in Reading Rooms throughout the country. Apparently Boston knew it could not maintain its authority without controlling what Christian Scientists read. This scheme has continued to this day. Not until six years after Mrs. Eddy’s passing, was the policy of ‘authorized literature’ decreed by Boston and, this scheme also, has continued to this day.

   NOTICE.

   Having awakened to the fact that material means and methods cannot be incorporated in the practical demonstration and work of Divine Science and especially in the circulation of Christian Science literature I hereby recall the request made in the May JOURNAL, namely —“that Scientists organize for the systematic distribution of Christian Science literature,” and hereby declare the General Association for Dispensing Christian Science Literature disorganized from date.

   CAROL NORTON,

   General Secretary,

   New York, June 26, 1891.

   This does not mean that Christian Scientists clamor for those things our Leader did not write and substitute those for our proper study. But the claim of authorized literature gives us a sense that we must be spoon-fed and accept all that Boston writes. This leads to poor writing and mistaken metaphysics in the periodicals, and these are not fit for Christian or Scientist alike. The claim of authorized literature leads to lack of study of even that which is authorized; it leads to a captive audience and Mrs. Eddy did not allow these claims of Romanism to operate in her church while she was present. The moment we accept the claim of Romanism, that authoritarianism must protect and spoon-feed us, that is the moment when we have masters instead of one Master and leaders instead of one Leader. With only the books, the impersonal pastor, to guide them, Christian Scientists will study and grow, taking in new ideas and comparing them with Science and Health and the Bible, our standards by which we judge. But given no choice and mentally in bondage to the decree of authorized literature, a person will not grow, will not study even the works of Science that he has, and he and the Movement will wither away. The arrogance of animal magnetism that elevates itself above the rest of us to determine and restrict what intelligent people can choose to read, also tells us we are not intelligent enough to make that choice all by ourselves.

   Christian Scientists who understand our Leader’s place in Bible prophecy cannot go astray because we cleave steadfastly to her writings. Those who do not see this point can easily be led astray. How could anyone label her writings as authorized when she told us that God had dictated these writings through His messenger? As God dictated these writings to her, they are already authorized! If Boston is honestly trying to keep Scientists in the books, they will elevate the understanding of Mrs. Eddy’s place. This will be a signal to us all just what is, or is not, ‘divinely authorized’ and this will protect her revelation far better than a stamp placed by men upon church literature that reads, ‘Authorized Edition.’ Citizens of the freest republic in the world’s history are uniquely qualified to make their own choice of reading material.

   These claims of Romanism are mental in nature and are not a property of the Vatican nor are they exclusive to the Roman church; they enter every church. A few years ago a Baptist friend told me that a new minister was coming to his church. As soon as the new minister arrived, he told the congregation, in a very authoritarian manner, what he was going to do and what they were going to do. They told him he would be happier in the Catholic Church down the street. We, too, have members of our church whose thoughts are more in line with that ‘church down the street.’ The Christian Science Movement needs its renaissance period, its new birth, the re-emergence of genuine Christian Science and the repudiation of Romanism in its ranks.

   Mrs. Eddy says, “The twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse, or Revelation of St. John, has a special suggestiveness in connection with the nineteenth century.” (S&H p.559:32-5)

   

   Here, Mrs. Eddy explains Revelation 12:1: “The great miracle, to human sense, is divine Love, and the grand necessity of existence is to gain the true idea of what constitutes the kingdom of heaven in man. This goal is never reached while we . . . entertain a false estimate of anyone whom God has appointed to voice His Word.” (S&H p.560:11)

   

   Let me present a chart that will identify this seventh millennium of prophecy as the present thousand year period…. This is the seventh thousand-year period since Adam…

   1000 to a.d. …Fourth millennium (Christ Jesus)

   900 to 1899 …10th to 19th century — or Sixth millennium

   (Mary Baker Eddy) 1900 to 2899 …20th to 29th century or the Seventh

   millennium (1900-1910 Mary Baker Eddy)

   The twentieth century, beginning 1900, is the first one-hundred years of the seventh thousand-year-period since Adam and corresponds to the seventh seal in Revelation. It is also the fulfilling of the Seven days of creation in Genesis where God and man are revealed; man in the image and likeness of Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, and Love; fulfilling all time, even eternity.

   Millennial Glory, p. 2, by E. Bramhall Lowdon, published 1986

   You do not gain the true idea of the Kingdom of Heaven within yourself if you do not gain a correct estimate of God’s messenger, Mary Baker Eddy, who appeared in the 19th century.

   Picture of the man child

   When Mrs. Eddy gave this picture to the Board of Directors of her church, the board consisted only of those who understood her place in Bible prophecy. At her request, it was to be hung in the Director’s room. Since then we have been told that the picture has been removed.

   The child caught up unto God and to His throne is shown here. Some editions of Dr. Lyman Powell’s book, Mary Baker Eddy: A Life Size Portrait, include the child on page 30, some have it erased on page 198. Mrs. Eddy’s letter to the Board that accompanied her presentation of the picture, included in part, that may our lives be gathered “into one signal for future history to float over this church.”

   Apparently Mrs. Eddy thought it a very important picture.

   

   “Cowardice is Selfishness.” — Miscellaneous Writings 211:21

   Text of “Isaiah’s Vision”

   The material provided here, “Isaiah’s Vision,” is Judge Hanna’s. As you can see, the statements of his were approved by Mrs. Eddy and were to be included in our Journal. With the events surrounding Mrs. Woodbury’s lawsuit against Mrs. Eddy, it would not have been wise to print the material at that time and Judge Hanna stated that the Christian Scientists of his time were not ready for it. Now is an appropriate time to study this material that has been approved and recommended by Mrs. Eddy.

   
   
   
   

   ISAIAH’S VISION — Chapter 54

   In a letter dated May, 1898, Mrs. Eddy speaks of a vision she had as follows:

   . . . Twenty-one years ago, when the first revolt took place in our church, I had a vision, and uttered it. We then had no funds, I no salary, and God few followers. In this vision I prophesied great prosperity, plenty of money, blessings numberless, and the utterance was to the Daughter of Zion: ‘She shall sit under her own vine and fig tree, and all peoples shall hear her gladly.’ That was when I had but one or two loyal students. All had deserted in the darkest hour; the people scorned it, even those I raised instantly from the dream of death would shun me in the street. In 1898 that dear verse in my hall here was suggested to my thought, that for fifty years had been forgotten. Oh, the goodness and loving kindness of our God! Who can tell it? Oh, the long and still continued nail and spear and ‘My God, hast Thou forsaken me?’ Oh, the Love that never faileth!

   Ever lovingly, Mother,

   (signed) Mary Baker Eddy

   Yes, I would publish in Jour. the prophecy you sent. Verse referred to above:

   Daughter of Zion, awake from thy sadness;

   Awake! for thy foes shall oppress thee no more; Bright o’er the hills dawns the daystar of gladness;

   Arise! for the night of thy sorrow is o’er.

   [The following was written by Judge Hanna, C.S.D. The letters included here were between Judge Hanna and Mrs. Eddy and deal with an article he wrote for the periodicals.]

   In 1898 when work had accumulated to such an extent that I wrote Mrs. Eddy for permission to resign some of my places she asked me to adopt a method of relief by taking certain hours each day for self-work, during which I was not to be interrupted by anyone for any purpose. She said that had she not adopted such a course she never could have accomplished her work. I did this, and betook myself to the tower of her Commonwealth Avenue residence in Boston, No. 385, which we occupied while I was First Reader of The Mother Church. I called this tower room the ‘upper chamber.’ While working here I read as a part of my Bible study the 53d and 54th chapters of Isaiah. As I read the latter it came to me almost as a voice speaking that this chapter was as distinctly and literally a prophecy of Mrs. Eddy as was the 53rd chapter a prophecy of Jesus. I continued from day to day to study this chapter in this new light. The more I studied the more firm became the conviction that I was not mistaken in my view of it. I was not, as I then felt and as I now see, emotional or ecstatic on this question, but was governed by a deep spiritual sense of the meaning of the prophecy.

   Shortly before I began this study a student had sent in to us a little book entitled ‘Fragments from the study of a Pastor,’ written by the Rev. Gardiner Spring, pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church of New York City, to which reference is made in an article copied further along. This prophecy of Mr. Spring impressed me as being so in line with the prophecy of Isaiah that I read and studied them together. [see Christian Science Journal, July, 1898, vol. 16, no. 4]

   As a result, I became so imbued with the sense that they both prophesied so distinctly of the Christian Science movement and of Mrs. Eddy that I concluded to prepare an article for publication in our Journal setting forth my convictions, and publishing the ‘Church in the Wilderness’ in connection with the prophecies of Isaiah. I did so and had it set in galley proof, but, of course, would not have published my views without submitting them to Mrs. Eddy and having her approval. In the letter above quoted she wrote immediately before the quoted part, these words: ‘Yes, the prophecy was wonderful;’ then she proceeded to relate her own vision as stated in the letter which I have above quoted. I will now quote from the letters from her in which she referred to my article and the vision of Mr. Spring: (The prophecy of Mr. Spring is printed in full in Vol. XVI of the Christian Science Journal, page 230.)

   In a letter dated June 10, 1898, Mrs. Eddy said; ‘I have not the time to read your article before Laura returns but have seen it enough to say you may have the Vision and the accompanying circumstances at your control. I would make it a leader not editorial.’ “To this she added: ‘I have read your article ‘tis wonderful, sound, lawyer-like in argument. Please if you cast this bread on the water add the bit enclosed after fixing it to your liking. God be with us both and He will, is.’

   The following is what Mrs. Eddy added to my article as mentioned in her letter:

   We know there is but one God, one Christ Jesus, and one mother of Jesus. But we deem it no infringement to regard the fulfilment of scripture as indicated at the present period, and named therein, a self-evident proof thereof — not confined to personality but the works which declare the Word.

   The next letter I received relating to the article was dated June 18, 1898, which was as follows:

   My beloved Student:

   The time has not yet come in which to say the wonderful things you have written in proof read by me today, unless you qualify it. Now you may hold your ground as therein, but do not say blandly that I represent the second appearing of Christ. That assertion will array mortal mind against us, and M.A.M. has been putting it into your mind to say it, and the infinite Love has inspired you to say it. Now be wiser than a serpent. Throw out your truths not as affirmations or protestations, but as suggestions. Then catch your fish, and make the wrath of man praise Him.

   With deep love,

   (signed) Mother

   June 22nd she again wrote:

   Your vision article is too grand, true, to be tampered with. I ventured to send for it to see if it cannot be held together and be the leader, I want it where all will catch sight of it. I write this before Laura will get here. I am so bothered then to get time. Will add all else I wish to tell you after she brings proofs.

   Although the last letter indicated permission to proceed with the publication of the entire article (that is the one I wrote and the vision of Mr. Spring) I concluded it best to publish only that of Mr. Spring and the more general part of what I said of the prophecy of Isaiah, deferring the other until a future time and make it a separate article. After this, events in connection with the work and the Woodbury suit, came so thick and fast that there seemed no opportune time to again bring the matter to Mrs. Eddy’s attention (which I felt I must do before publishing it), and there it rested. My own conception of the whole matter, however, has not changed and I see it today just as I saw it then, but I see also that neither our own people, as a whole, nor the outside world were ready for the interpretation of Isaiah then made; and I do not know that they are yet ready.

   I here quote the article in full:

   EDITOR’S TABLE

   It has ever been a peculiarity of human nature to relegate prophecy and prophets to the past. It is as much a truism that a prophet is not without honor save in his own age and generation, as that he is not without honor save in his own country. When the great Prophet of Nazareth appeared on the world’s arena, teaching as no prophet had taught before him and proving the efficacy of his teaching by the performance of works that no prophet had performed before him, his age and generation rejected him and his teachings, and refused to believe in the divinity of his works, although compelled to admit that they were wonderful and above all human understanding.

   It was easy for that age and generation to believe that Moses, Elijah, and many others who had flourished in previous times, were prophets. Their teachings were unquestionably accepted by the Jews as of divine authority. But to believe that there was actually then amongst them a prophet greater than any who had preceded him was more than the blindness of that age and generation was ready for. Only a few would believe and accept. Yet Jesus’ coming had long and repeatedly been foretold, and a Messianic appearing was generally expected among the Jews, — the people who, more than any other, refused to receive him.

   A second-coming is as clearly prophesied as was the first coming. The Old Testament writers foretold it, Jesus plainly prophesied it, and the apostles reiterated these prophecies. The only question among believers in the Bible has been as to the time and manner of the coming. In respect to this there has been and yet is, much disputation, speculation, and controversy. A personal coming is generally believed in, and the only personality that will at present meet the general expectancy of Christendom is the identical personality of Jesus as he appeared nineteen hundred years ago.

   Only, as yet, a comparatively small part of mankind are ready to accept the larger coming comprehended in a re-establishment of the religious regime which Jesus inaugurated. This small part of mankind are satisfied that the second-coming has commenced and is now manifesting itself in the works which Jesus taught and should be the evidence of the fact that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand. While this coming is, in a sense, general, presaging a universal Kingdom, it is in another sense, individual. There can be no general or universal Kingdom that does not include, first and foremost, the individual. As units make millions and trillions, so individuals make an aggregate. Individuality, therefore, leads to universality. Individuality, in its best sense, includes personality. Not the false personality of mortal sense, but the true personality, which, in its individuality, reflects the Divine character. From this point of view Christian Scientists believe in a personal second-coming.

   God has ever manifested himself, in large measure, through persons or individuals. Through the Biblical writers, and through Moses, Elijah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and many others, He manifested Himself in a sense above and beyond that of the average of their contemporaries or the generality of those who preceded them. In Christ Jesus He manifested Himself in the largest sense of all and in ways apart from all. Yet, as we have said, notwithstanding the wonderful and striking character of such manifestations, the material perception of that age and generation could not accept them as of God. The ‘remnant’ only could see and accept. It has been so in a relative sense ever since.

   Christian Scientists see in the non-acceptance of the God-manifestations of today an almost literal repetition of early history. They see a blindness to the signs of the times which compares well with the ancient blindness. So long has the world been adrift from the moorings of a genuinely spiritual Christianity that it is not strange it should continue in its self-mesmerized condition until aroused therefrom by special circumstances or proofs of a higher Christianity brought home to individuals in signs and wonders of healing, and other impressive ways. Until so awakened, the great majority are indifferent to, and incredulous of, the tokens of the second-coming. That thousands are being awakened and are actually accepting the tokens is, nevertheless, indubitable proof that convincing circumstances are constantly taking place. Jesus’ saying, ‘By their fruits ye shall know them,’ is becoming more and more a verity.

   Must the ‘Spirit of Truth,’ or the ‘Comforter,’ that Jesus said should come be personalized or individualized? Undoubtedly. There could be no fulfillment of prophecy otherwise. (Emphasis added.)

   What, then, in the Christian Science estimate, is the second-coming?

   First appeared the person or individual. Then followed the works.

   Who is the personality or individuality manifesting the second-coming?

   The answer of every true Christian Scientist will be: The person or individual who has done, and is doing, the works, in a sense above and beyond that of the average of those, even, who are addressing themselves to the task of regenerating the race.

   Is there one such?

   Christian Scientists unhesitatingly answer, Yes: The Reverend Mary Baker Eddy.

   Where is the proof?

   We will produce it. First we go to the Bible. We find our proof in Genesis and Revelation and uniformly between those books.

   In the declaration in Genesis that God created man in his own image, male and female, we recognize the divine Fatherhood and Motherhood. That Fatherhood and Motherhood must logically express itself in the male and female. Otherwise there were no true, full “image and likeness.” That would not be a complete second-coming which did not express the ‘fulness of the Godhead bodily.’ In other words, there must be a personalized or individualized expression of the male and female of God’s creation before there is a full revelation of God to mankind. How could such an expression reach human conception unless it were manifested in human form?

   By common belief of all Christians, Christ Jesus represented the male-hood of God. Is it not reasonable to assume that a full or completed revelation includes God’s female-hood? If God is male only, it seems that he would embrace within himself but a half of Being or individuality; and it would be impossible to reconcile such a conception with his own declaration in Genesis that out of His self-hood He created ‘male and female.’

   Christian Scientists believe in a full Godhead; and thus believing they believe also in a full manifestation of that Godhead to humanity. (Therefore they see in Genesis a prophecy of the second-coming in female form. In Revelation they see the finality of prophecy.) To their understanding the Woman in the Apocalypse stands in type for the female of God’s creation spoken of in Genesis. They see in spiritual vision or perception the ‘Spiritual ideal as a woman clothed in (reflecting) light, a bride coming down from Heaven, wedded to the Lamb of Love.’ (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures). The Apocalypse is indeed a ‘revelation’ to their thought, and in it they see a ‘new heaven and a new earth,’ as the new tongue referred to in the Gospel.

   Must the Woman of the Apocalypse be personalized or individualized to mankind? By every principle of logical sequence in Biblical prophecy, yes. (Emphasis added.)

   Without undertaking to speak for any but ourself (the writer hereof), we read in the 54th chapter of Isaiah a distinct prophecy of the personalized or individualized woman spoken of in Genesis and revealed in the Apocalypse. All Bible commentators and students agree that the 53d chapter of Isaiah is directly prophetic of Jesus in his distinctively personal character. We see in the 54th chapter quite as distinct and direct a prophecy of a Woman. Is there not much significance in the fact that the female representing the second-coming should be thus placed in juxtaposition with the male who represented the first coming?

   Let us look at this 54th chapter of Isaiah: — ‘Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.’ Mary Baker Eddy had only one son born to her of the flesh,

   and in his early infancy he was surreptitiously taken from her and for years concealed. He has always lived away from her, and yet so lives, although it was her intense desire that he should be with her and be her child in every sense of the word. What mortal sense would call a strange and unaccountable fate has decreed otherwise, and neither son nor mother seems able to control the conditions which have separated them. She is, therefore, to all intents and purposes without a child of the flesh. But what of her other children, — her spiritual children? They are now numbered by the thousands, and their numbers are being augmented with amazing rapidity; and how spontaneously and unanimously have they arisen and called her ‘Mother!’ Long ere the writer had read the 54th chapter of Isaiah as he now reads it, scarcely knowing why, and like unto a little child, he lisped the word ‘Mother’ when he spoke of her. Thousands of others have done so and thousands more are daily doing so. Among the most touching sights that have ever come within our observation has been the childlike simplicity with which full-grown men — great strong men, physically and mentally — have addressed this delicate, sensitive little woman as ‘Mother’. Not in mockery or jest, but in the seriousness of profound conviction. Yea, her adherents call her their Mother and themselves her children as if by common impulsion, and that impulsion is known to them to be above the human.

   ‘Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.’

   The text book of Christian Science, ‘Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,’ is but a systematized amplification of the Mosaic Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount. The teachings of these constitute the groundwork of Christianity. Were they fully understood and practised the Kingdom of Christ would have fully come. To the extent that they are being understood and practised the Kingdom is coming into human consciousness, and the receiving of the Christ-Spirit into human consciousness is the true coming of His Kingdom. Let it always be borne in mind by believers in the Bible that Jesus declared the evidence of the presence of the Kingdom to be the healing of the sick, the casting out of devils, the cleansing of lepers, and the raising of the dead. Certainly these must be the evidences, for, carried to their ultimate effect, they comprehend the complete redemption of the human race.

   In so far as these evidences are being now brought into view through Christian Science, may it not be consistently claimed that the second-coming is here; and in so far as a single Woman has been the instrument of bringing these evidences into view, may it not be consistently claimed that she is the personal representative of that second-coming? Is there anything far-fetched or unreasonable in this?

   Spiritualization of thought and action is love of God, and love of God is love of the brother. The cords of this love are being rapidly lengthened through Christian Science; the stakes (solid foundation) of this love are being daily strengthened through practical works; literally are the demonstrators of this Science breaking forth on the right hand and on the left, and it requires not the eye of prophecy to see as the necessary result of this breaking forth that the seed ‘shall inherit the Gentiles (unbelievers), and make the desolate cities (barren aggregates of human thought) to be inhabited.’ If Christian Science is at all what it claims to be, this prophecy of Isaiah is even now in process of distinct fulfilment. For the verity of its claims its adherents point with confidence to its works.

   ‘Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.’

   When we recall the reproaches cast upon Mrs. Eddy because of her widowhood, especially by certain of the clergy, and think upon the irrepressible energy with which the tongue of slander has wagged against her, without any known or apparent reason, it is not strange that we read in the tender words of this prophecy God’s purpose to protect his child.

   Those who are in position to know of the inner life of Mrs. Eddy can most deeply appreciate the last of the above verses. They know that she walks constantly with God, looking to Him for guidance in her every step, and relying upon Him alone for direction in the great religious movement of which she is the head. Deeply was the writer impressed while sitting with her at her dining table in Concord not long since, when in childlike simplicity, yet with deepest seriousness, she said: ‘I am learning more and more to take God with me into every detail of my life.’

   If it be possible for ‘a widow,’ still living on this plane of existence, to make her ‘Maker her husband,’ surely that widow is Mrs. Eddy.

   ‘For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.’

   To those familiar with Mrs. Eddy’s life and career this is indeed literal prophecy. None could be more so. Alone, and often, in most trying times, forsaken by all but God, she trod the wine-press of her mighty endeavor, undismayedly yet with ‘bleeding footsteps,’ fighting and wrestling and praying against the opposition of the world. A ‘woman forsaken and grieved in spirit’ at times, but rallying quickly in the majesty and might of the Maker who is her husband. And well she might, for, whether she then knew it or not, God had said to her in explicit words, —

   ‘For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.’

   To those who know, has there not been a startling fulfilment of this prophecy? How often by some has that ‘small moment’ been witnessed, and how quickly have they seen the gathering with great mercies.

   Not less literally have they witnessed the verification of this prophecy: —

   ‘In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.’

   Again: — ‘For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.’

   If one who constantly walks with God, who lives the precepts of the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount, and who is giving her whole life to the work of enabling others so to live, does not come within these tender assurances, where shalt we find any who do?

   ‘O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children. In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression — for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee . . . No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.’

   Could there be a more explicit fulfilment of this prophecy than the following, written by Mrs. Eddy to the writer, but with no reference whatever to the use we are now making of it, and not intended for publication at all, until by special request consent was obtained?

   ‘Twenty-one years ago, when the first revolt took place in our church, I had a vision and uttered it. We then had no funds, I no salary, and Christian Science few followers. In that vision I prophesied great prosperity, plenty of money, blessings unnumbered, and the utterance was to the ‘Daughter of Zion; she shall sit under her own vine and fig tree, and all peoples shall hear her gladly.’ That was when I had but one or two loyal students, all had deserted in the darkest hour, the people scorned my teaching, and even those I raised instantly from the door of death would shun me on the street. In 1898 that dear verse in my hall at Concord was suggested to my thought which, for fifty years, had been forgotten: —

   Daughter of Zion, awake from thy sadness; Awake! for thy foes shall oppress thee no more.

   Bright o’er thy hills dawns the day-star of gladness; Arise! for the night of thy sorrow is o’er.

   She closes her letter with these words: —

   Oh, the goodness and loving kindness of our God, who can tell it?

   Oh, the Love that never faileth!’

   Millions are now hearing the ‘Daughter of Zion’ gladly. She is sitting under her own vine and fig-tree; God has prospered her and her Cause most bounteously in the financial and every other rightful way; she who was ‘afflicted, tossed with tempest, and (for a small moment) not comforted,’ has literally witnessed the rich fulfilment of God’s promise to her: ‘I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones.’ Literally enough has this promise been redeemed in the material sense, but with overflowing abundance in the spiritual —present and prospective.

   But what of this material abundance? To no selfish end is it being appropriated. It is fast being converted into the Lord’s treasury. Such use is being made of it as would be expected of one who in prophetic vision foresaw ‘prosperity, plenty of money, and blessings unnumbered,’ for a sacred Cause.

   In the April, 1898, Journal, Mrs. Eddy, speaking of the financial problem as she experienced it, says: —

   ‘After four years from my discovery of Christian Science, while taking no remuneration for my labors, and healing all manner of diseases, I was confronted with the fact of no monetary means left wherewith to hire a hall in which to speak, or to establish a Christian Science Home for indigent students (which I yearned to do), or even to meet my own current expenses, and halted from necessity.

   ‘I had cast my all into the treasury of Truth, but where were the means with which to carry on a Cause? To desert the Cause never occurred to me, but nobody then wanted Christian Science, nor gave it a half penny. Though sorely oppressed I was above begging, and knew well the priceless worth of what had been bestowed without money or price. Just then God stretched forth His hand. He it was that bade me do what I did, and it prospered at every step . . . It was thus that I earned the means wherewith to start a Christian Science Home for the poor worthy student, to establish a Metaphysical College, to plant our first magazine, to purchase the site for a church edifice, to give my church the Christian Science Journal, and to keep the ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing,’ from preying upon my pearls, from clogging the wheels of Christian Science.’

   The donation of the valuable lot of ground to The Mother Church in Boston, liberal aid to the erection of the church building, countless contributions to indigent students and to charitable purposes outside our ranks, a score of contributions to branch churches and societies for building and other purposes, the transfer in toto of the Publishing Society with all its property, prerequisites, and prospects, as well as her valuable residence on Commonwealth Avenue, to The Mother Church in perpetuity, and her latest donation in trust of four thousand dollars to the children of Scientists or ‘Busy Bee’s,’ — these are some of the evidences of the sense in which this Daughter of Zion is sitting under her own vine and fig-tree and dispensing the wine of Life and the figs of Love to hungering and thirsting humanity.

   This God-fearing, God-loving, and God-reflecting woman truly is witnessing the re-assuring and unmistakable evidences that her children are being ‘taught of the Lord.’ She can easily foresee that when they shall have imbibed and practised the fulness of such teaching ‘Great will be the peace’ of her ‘children.’

   Has not this Daughter of Zion also witnessed the fulfilment of this promise of God: ‘No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper’?

   Every form of opposition has been made against her and her teaching possible to humanity, saving only attempts to murder her in the ordinary or physical sense. The mental assassin has exhausted his ingenuity and resources in his vain efforts. But no weapon raised against her has prospered. Grandly and majestically has her work gone on, and mightily has it prospered. So much so that it is challenging the wonder and awe of the millions.

   We shall not stop to enlarge upon the ‘mighty works.’ They are becoming well known and widely recognized. Read of some of them in this Journal, and in the newspapers and magazines of the country. Hear of them in the weekly testimonial meetings. Hear how thousands have been raised from beds of sorrow, sickness, and pain, to joy, and health, and hope; how despairing sinners have been aroused from the lethargy of hades to a sense of their manhood in Christ Jesus and their childhood in God; how agnostics have become unquestioning believers in the Divine power to heal and save; how atheists have come to know that God is, and that in Him they live, and move, and have their being; how infidels have been reclaimed from all unbelief; how sceptics have become convinced by proof they could no longer dispute; how drunkards have been redeemed from hells of woe and made to rejoice in freedom from their dread tormentor; how licentiates and libertines have been made to blush for their sins and turned toward abstinence and purity; how dishonesty is being made to quail and cringe before the majesty of Truth and Right; how hate and selfishness are being supplanted by self-sacrifice and love; how all the blighting and damning qualities of human thought are being uprooted and destroyed to the purification and spiritualization of such thought; and how those who have only recently been the unhappy victims of some or all of these death-dealing trammels are now proving their disenthralment by healing their neighbors of sickness and pointing the way to their salvation from sin, whilst healer and healed, saver and saved, are alike coming into the temple of the New Jerusalem, literally ‘leaping and shouting, and praising God.’

   Observe too, how rapidly beautiful and stately church edifices, reared in the name of, and dedicated to, the God of the living, not of the dead, are springing into existence all over our land; how one common sermon, compiled from the Eternal Word, is preached in more than five hundred places in this country, England, and the Continental countries each recurring Sabbath, while the number is being almost weekly added to; how reading, and hearing these sermons read, are healing sickness and awakening sinners every Sabbath day; how the reading of the Bible and the books whose writing was divinely entrusted to the ‘Woman’s’ hand, is daily healing sickness and saving sinners; how the Spirit of God, through these manifold instrumentalities, is indeed moving upon the face of the troubled waters of mortal discord to the calming thereof, and how the Light whereof God said, Let it be, and it was, is shining athwart the world’s horizon and glinting into the darkest recesses of mortal thought, observe and think upon all this, and say: Is not ‘this the heritage of the servants of the Lord,’ and is not ‘their righteousness’ of him?

   While, in the foregoing, we plainly see the Woman, as in other Scripture we see the Man, we look beyond all personality and as plainly see the Male and Female, — the universal Manhood and Womanhood comprehended in the Divine scheme, — and know that the ideal Manhood and Womanhood of God’s Word personally typified as we have shown, is, — must in the Divine order be, — the heritage of every son and daughter of God’s creating; and He created all.

   Hence we recognize personality in type only that we may thereby understand the unified Individuality of Father and Son, and Mother and Daughter, in the fulness of that Godhead whose second-coming is upon us, wherein we see ‘a new Heaven and a new earth.’ We see the man who was ‘despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief . . . oppressed and afflicted;’ and we see also the Man of whom God said: ‘Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.’ (Isaiah, 53).

   We see also the woman of travail, spoken of in Isaiah, as before shown, and of whom God further spake in Jeremiah, 4: ‘For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers;’ and we see also the Woman of whom God said: ‘Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children’ (Isaiah, 66). ‘Behold, the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh’ (Isaiah, 62). And we read of the man and woman: ‘For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their hand shall they possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them . . . And I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed’ (Isaiah, 61).

   By way of epilogue to this effort to ‘render tribute where tribute is due,’ and, in some small part, meet the imperative demands of the history of our times, we present herewith what seems to us a remarkable prophecy; a prophecy in direct line with the Scripture prophecies to which we have above referred. Nor let us sneer at the author’s claim that this prophecy came to him as a vision and by apparently supernatural means. Until we know more of God and his methods let us withhold our feeble, finite judgement, — unless we are ready to acknowledge that God does, in these latter days, speak to His faithful ones through vision and voice as He did of old. We refer to an article entitled, ‘The Church in the Wilderness,’ contained in a little book written in 1838 by the Rev. Gardiner Spring, Pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church of New York, the work itself being entitled, ‘Fragments from the Study of a Pastor.’

   We should like to make some comments on this, to us wonderful article, but space will not permit. Let it be observed, however, that some of the Scriptural quotations are from the 54th chapter of Isaiah.

   It may be interesting to know how this somewhat ancient little book came to light at this particular time, and we will mention how.

   A faithful student of Mrs. Eddy’s sent it us, saying: —

   ‘I would like to tell you how the book came into my hands. It is interesting to know how it came to light. Two years ago last winter I was living in furnished house which I rented of a dear friend. There was in the house a large number of books which once belonged to an old uncle. I used to sit by a window when reading; close to this window stood a small bookcase filled mostly with small old books. Two or three times, perhaps oftener, when sitting there the thought came, I wonder if there is not something among those books that would give light on the Bible, or explain its truth, and would say, Sometime I will look the books over. One morning I was sorely tempted; after the morning’s work was finished I sat down with Science and Health to dispel the seeming error. I had read but a short time when the thought again came that there might be something in the bookcase of value. I looked at the books, took one out; the first or second — I cannot remember which was ‘The Church in the Wilderness.’ I commenced reading in the middle of the chapter, but the little I read healed me. The next day as soon as I returned from church I read the whole chapter. I then invited the students up to read it. When I read it a year from that time I saw far more than at first.

   I am filled with gratitude that I reflected God sufficiently to bring to light this marvelous history of the appearing of Truth. It helped me to realize what our Mother is, as never before, for I knew I was reading of her experiences. Also those of The Mother Church.’

   The ‘Mother Church’ is the material expression of that church universal implied in the second-coming; but we ask, in all sincerity, could that Church have been thus expressed but for the labor, toil, and self-sacrificing devotion of the Daughter of Zion to whom its building was entrusted?

   The prophet Isaiah clearly saw the personalized Woman. The Bible commentators, not discerning the fact of a female appearing as the type of the second-coming, naturally enough saw in Isaiah’s prophecy only the Church of Christ, apart from any particular person.

   Christian Scientists recognize in the material structure, called ‘The Mother Church’ — The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., with its branches throughout the world, the type of the second-coming of the Christ, or the final and universal application of the Christ-Principle. They also recognize in the Founder of this Church the typical embodiment in human form of the female of God’s creation prophesied in Scripture.

   – End of article by Judge Hanna –

   These are evidences presented to mortal sense of the universal idea of the Church and of the Woman embraced in Revelation.

   
   
   
   

   Does God Know Mary Baker Eddy and Christ Jesus?

   1986

   Some Christian Scientists have said that God doesn’t know anything about an old lady from New Hampshire, and God didn’t know anything about the human Jesus. Our Lord said, “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father…” (John 10:15)

   “Our Coincidence with God”

   In the Christian Science Sentinel (June 30 1986, p. 1205) article entitled, “Our Coincidence with God,” we read, “Still, God does not choose certain mortals to carry on His work. After all, He could have no knowledge of the false sense called mortality — and in truth neither do we.” So, here we are told that God has no knowledge of mortals. This would be true if there were no second degree, but the second degree is God’s provision for mankind. Next, the article quotes Mrs. Eddy, “Now this self-same God is our helper. He pities us. He has mercy upon us, and guides every event of our careers. He is near to them who adore Him.” (Un. p.3:27-1) The Sentinel article continues, “To believe that God chooses certain mortals to do special work is to believe what cannot be reconciled to the nature of God and man.” Why did the writer use Mrs. Eddy’s quote that God “guides every event of our careers,” when it disproves the other two statements taken from the article?

   To say that God does not know mortals and does not choose them for His plan is partially untrue. How is God to operate on earth if not through a mortal? The statement, “God does not choose certain mortals to carry on His work,” is half right and half wrong. God does not choose a man as a mortal but he does choose that man for a specific purpose through the second degree. Every individual has identity known to God. The statement given above that God does not choose mortals and therefore does not know a mortal is, we assume, based on Mrs. Eddy’s statement, “There was no incorporeal Jesus of Nazareth. The spiritual man, or Christ, was after the similitude of the Father, without corporeality or finite mind.” (Mis. p.162:22) Does this mean that when Jesus left earth he no longer had the identity of Jesus? “Jesus of Nazareth was a natural and divine Scientist. He was so before the material world saw him.” (Ret. p.26:17-18) Is this quote opposed to Mrs. Eddy’s previous statement that there was no incorporeal Jesus of Nazareth? No, because the latter statement speaks of Jesus as being spiritual, not corporeal. The spiritual Jesus always remained spiritual, but the limited sense of him called corporeality, was never his real identity. Mrs. Eddy’s latter statement refers to the selfsame Jesus who was on earth, but never was in reality corporeal, and who retained his spiritual identity before, during and after his experience on earth. Mrs. Eddy’s quote, “There was no incorporeal Jesus of Nazareth,” just says that matter cannot become Spirit nor the mortal become immortal or that the limited becomes the unlimited. It does not say man loses his identity.

   The biblical illustration of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration is helpful in understanding this question. Moses and Elijah were incorporeal when they spoke to Jesus on the Mount and yet had lost none of their individual identities, and this was some 1200 and 800 years, respectively, after they were on earth. Could Moses and Elijah have retained their identities, but Jesus could not? Then is this the selfsame Jesus to whom we still “owe endless homage”? (S&H p.18:3-5) Of course! The mortal Moses and Elijah did not become spiritual but their spiritual identity was certainly intact while they were on earth and that identity was not corporeal. It was mortal mind’s view that said they were mortals, but they were not. Did the identities of those spiritual beings, still known as Moses and Elijah, begin on earth? If we think their identities began on earth then we deny that they always existed, even before they appeared humanly. Do we think the distinctiveness and individuality of Mind’s ideas begin on earth? Or was our identity and individuality with the Father before the world began? If Moses and Elijah were with the Father before they came to earth, were they not chosen by God for a special task? If not, then mankind is subject to chance and luck, and not to the law of God. Continuing this argument, if the mortal is nothing, then to what could Moses and Elijah have been speaking when on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus? Was it not Jesus’ “sinless humanhood,” his spiritual identity, created by God in the second degree? If that had not been there, Moses and Elijah could not have spoken to Jesus nor could the disciples have seen the event.

   Saying that God does not choose us and does not know us is oriental mysticism; it is not Christian Science. It is an argument of malicious animal magnetism that says, because we are mortal and because Mrs. Eddy was mortal, God did not know her nor choose her for her special work. That argument is not true. In the time of Abraham and Lot, God knew there were no righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. In Elijah’s day He knew there were 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal. Were the 7,000 not known through the second degree? The Bible is very clear on this point and, if we do not accept that God knew the time and knew who was righteous, then we reject the Bible and it appears that Christian Science is not in accord with the Bible — and it is.

   “But, say you, is a stone spiritual? To erring material sense, No! but to unerring spiritual sense, it is a small manifestation of Mind, a type of spiritual substance, ‘the substance of things hoped for.’ Mortals can know a stone as substance, only by first admitting that it is substantial. Take away the mortal sense of substance, and the stone itself would disappear, only to reappear in the spiritual sense thereof.” (Mis. p.27:27-2) Would it not follow that the stone is known by God as spiritual, even when it appears to mortals to be material? If not, it could not reappear as spiritual, could it? Likewise, although man appears to mortal sense as a mortal, God knows him as His spiritual image at that very moment. If God does not know His image as His image right now, then man could never be seen as that image, ever! You cannot separate one’s identity and individuality from God just because that idea appears to mortal belief to be a mortal. Man never was a mortal. (See Scientific Statement of Being, Science and Health, on page 468:8.)

   Some Christian Scientists would say that God knows the stone but not Mary Baker Eddy. Our Leader says, “This testimony of Holy Writ sustains the fact in Science, that the heavens and earth to one human consciousness, that consciousness which God bestows, are spiritual, while to another, the unillumined human mind, the vision is material.” (S&H p.573:5-9, e.a.) Notice, the human consciousness, the second degree, is bestowed by God. Is this not the way God chooses His ideas for their special missions? In light of our Leader’s quote just given, what do you now think about the earlier statement from the Sentinel article, “Still, God does not choose certain mortals to carry on His work. After all, He could have no knowledge of the false sense called mortality — and in truth neither do we,” and, “To believe that God chooses certain mortals to do special work is to believe what cannot be reconciled to the nature of God and man”?

   In Reminiscences of Mary Baker Eddy, on page 4, Edward E. Norwood speaks of Mrs. Eddy in one of her classes, “She lifted herself up in her chair and said, ‘I am right here. Where this seems to be, the real child of God is.’” Helen Nixon and other early workers recorded that Mrs. Eddy asked each member of the class, “What is this? putting her finger on each one’s shoulder. Each said, ‘Nothing, Mother,’ She said, ‘You’re mistaken, everyone of you is mistaken, it points to the real.’” That is why we care for our bodies and know as she says, that God governs our body. (S&H p.111:26-29)

   Man is certainly not in the body, and right where man is he is reflecting Spirit. Man expresses the Mind that is God. We are not nothing. We are much more than what appears as matter. The material body is not the home of Spirit, but the body must manifest Spirit. Saying that Mrs. Eddy or Jesus were just mortals, and therefore unknown to God, is not only untrue, it is metaphysically incorrect. Such thinking produces gross disobedience that reasons, Well, I have the revelation but don’t need that mortal who was a Leader. If, as our Leader said, she, the spiritual idea, was right in that chair, then disloyalty to what we call a mortal is actually disobedience to the spiritual idea and this is definitely disobedience to the Mind which that spiritual idea reflects.

   In Miscellaneous Writings we read, “The prophet whose words we have chosen for our text, prophesied the appearing of this dual nature, as both human and divinely endowed, the personal and the impersonal Jesus.” (Mis. 161:14) Mrs. Eddy also speaks of herself as both personal and impersonal. “The personal Mrs. Eddy is pliant as wax, the impersonal impregnable to wind and wave. In the spiritual altitude of the latter I stand alone, none can see from my standpoint there.” (Letter to Judge Hanna.) From the point of view of the human consciousness, the second degree, that she just told us God created, Jesus was both human and divine, being seen by mortals in a personal way, and impersonally seen and known by Mind. But he always had identity and individuality and, according to Mrs. Eddy’s statement in Retrospection and Introspection on page 26:17-18, before he appeared humanly. This is the Christ-idea, but again, not without identity and individuality. These are never lost. From our Father-Mother’s point of view, the Christ-idea is begotten of Spirit. It is never Jesus or Mrs. Eddy becoming incorporeal. “Coming and going belong to mortal consciousness.” (Un. p.61:2-3) Then it is evident that from God’s viewpoint Jesus was never corporeal, but he was still Jesus and will always be Jesus. God saw His beloved Son, but this identity was not separate from the identity of the man the world saw. The world called him mortal but God saw him as spiritual, and this is how God sees you and me. The Christ-idea was Jesus’ divine nature but this does not mean he became nameless and lost his individuality when he ascended. Identity and individuality are never lost.

   In like manner, the world saw only the corporeal Mary Baker Eddy and many Christian Scientists, sad to say, see that also, but do not see the Christ-idea, the spiritual idea, operating right there. And just as Jesus, as the Christ-idea with identity and individuality, could speak to Paul after his ascension to further direct his cause, so our Leader is still our Leader. She is still leading on as she did when she was here. She has not given up her post. Jesus said he would be with us even until the end of the world. The Bible tells us that Jesus will give them up (his followers) when she that travaileth comes forth. (Micah 5:3) Is she not then the Leader and still leading? Did not our Lord accord her that position in his revelation? Carefully read Science and Health, page 309:7-23. Notice, Messiah, Christ Jesus, renamed the true Israelites, who were to become his followers, Christians. Later, the true followers were to be renamed in Christian Science, but by whom? Didn’t Mrs. Eddy rename them? Also of interest, the Scofield Bible says that the time between the Bethlehem babe of Micah 5:2 and the woman of Micah 5:3, is the interval between the first and second advents of the Christ.

   If the article, quoted in the Sentinel, says that God does not know or choose a mortal, then Mrs Eddy is not the forever Leader, is not the Leader now and does not fulfill Bible prophecy. But she is and she does. Perhaps this will help to make clear the importance of getting one’s metaphysics correct. And if we deny the fact of our Leader’s spiritual identity, individuality and place, how can we see and understand our own relationship to God? Could this be why healing has so deteriorated in her church? Have we not rejected the human and divine coincidence?

   Mrs. Eddy has not given up her post. So, can it be true, as some Christian Scientists assert, that the human identity of Jesus or Mrs. Eddy was unknown to God? Certainly not. God bestows the true human consciousness, the second degree, and this true human consciousness derives its nature from God. In our textbook we read, “This testimony of Holy Writ sustains the fact in Science, that the heavens and earth to one human consciousness, that consciousness which God bestows, are spiritual, while to another, the unillumined human mind, the vision is material.” (See S&H p.573:5, S&H p.44:23, S&H p.561:16-20.) Divinity reaches humanity through the true human consciousness. We must not deny the consciousness which God bestows; it is our link with God, and it is through this consciousness that God knows His idea. This idea may appear to be a mortal but God knows your identity through the second degree. (S&H p.115:25)

   Our Leader said, “The more I understand true humanhood, the more I see it to be sinless, — as ignorant of sin as is the perfect Maker.” (Un. p.49:8) In this quote, she is not speaking of the first degree, but of the second. The understanding of the second degree was something she was seeing more clearly and with this clearer understanding she saw that she was chosen before the foundation of the world for her work for mankind, because the second degree was known and chosen by God. God knew His idea, Mary Baker Eddy, just as God knew His idea, Christ Jesus. If God knew Jesus before the world saw him, could God not choose him? And, didn’t Jesus say I have come from my Father and now I return to my Father and I have finished the work He gave me to do?

   (John 16:28, 17:4) Wouldn’t it be dangerous for any of us to declare that God didn’t know the human Christ Jesus or the human Mary Baker Eddy?

   What is malicious animal magnetism suggesting in the widely accepted statement, ‘God does not choose certain mortals to do special work nor does He know a mortal’? Malicious animal magnetism is saying:

   1. God did not choose Mary Baker Eddy.

   2. God does not know Mary Baker Eddy.

   3. God knows nothing about our existence, therefore there are no Bible prophecies concerning Mary Baker Eddy.

   4. Because God doesn’t know her, we only need the revelation.

   5. Because God doesn’t know her, we do not need her.

   6. Because God doesn’t know her, we do not need to be obedient, other systems are helpful.

   7. Because God doesn’t know mortality nor Mrs. Eddy, I can do whatever I like with impunity.

   8. God has no connection with this experience, therefore I need do nothing; I need not take a stand.

   9. Denying her demonstration of “sinless hurnanhood” we can say there is no need to demonstrate, no need to follow.

   10. Mary Baker Eddy is not the Leader.

   11. Get rid of Mary Baker Eddy and the Movement will prosper; she is the impediment to progress.

   12. The Movement will not be accepted with Mrs. Eddy in it.

   13. We must therefore reach out to the world through more interesting and newer channels than through the ones she established. She is unimportant.

   14. She was no better than I am; I am just as important as she.

   15. Because God does not know us, there is no reward for purity and excellence nor punishment for wrong doing; this is all just a dream.

   During the crucifixion, the fainting form of Christ Jesus on the cross was the mortal condition the world tried to attach to the Christ-idea. This was not the Christ identity of Jesus, but we know the true individual Christ-idea was right there and could say, “forgive them...” Does the world’s view of Christ Jesus give any religion the right to portray him as continually suffering on the cross? Does the appearance of age in Mary Baker Eddy give her followers the right to call her an old lady, especially after what we have been taught, then or now? Isn’t this the same as the Pharisees who stood at the foot of the cross and taunted Christ Jesus? Those who knew Mrs. Eddy when she was around sixty years of age thought her to be between thirty-five and forty. It was not until the wicked ones began to malpractice upon her and crucify her with hatred and old age beliefs that she began to suffer from these arguments and appeared older.

   The burden of the cross and the appearance of age that appeared as these two messengers was the world’s hatred attacking and attaching itself to them. Disobeying Christ Jesus’ commands because he fainted under the load of the cross and died, or criticizing Mrs. Eddy because she failed to handle the outward appearance of age is not only unkind but is incorrect. These errors were then and are now the hatred of malicious animal magnetism directed at the spiritual idea, — the spiritual idea that was operating right there at that moment, right where mortal sense was trying to attach itself to their individualities.

   We must not ever accept the suggestion that God did not know His idea, Christ Jesus, or His idea, Mary Baker Eddy. He knew them before they appeared humanly, He knew them while they appeared humanly, and He knows these dear ones right now. We owe both of them endless homage, forever homage. (S&H p.18:3-5)

   God does know Mary Baker Eddy and Christ Jesus and their identities. What does the Bible say on this subject? In Luke 1:26-35 we read, “…the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth.” We are told the angel was sent to a particular city. In verse 27 the angel goes to the one chosen, the Virgin Mary. In verse 28 the angel tells her she is highly favored. In verse 29 she is troubled and the angel in verse 30 calms her fears. In verse 31 the angel tells her she shall conceive, bear a son, and the name he is to be given. In verse 32 his work and mission are described. Verse 33 tells us he will reign over the house of Jacob, another name God apparently knows very well. In verse 35 the angel answers her question as to how this is to be accomplished. In verse 36 Mary is also told that Elizabeth, her cousin who had been barren, has conceived and is six months pregnant. Does this sound like God is unaware of the human condition?

   You might say, well the Virgin Mary was very important and certainly God would know her, but why then would the angel of the Lord appear to some shepherds? The angel tells them not to be afraid but that he is bringing them good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. (Luke 2:10) Isn’t this a message from God? How can we say God doesn’t know what is going on? Then in verse 11 we are told that the Messiah is born in Bethlehem; in verse 12 the angel tells them the babe is wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. How many spiritual ideas are wrapped in birth garments? Did God not know His idea that appeared to material sense as a baby and wrapped in swaddling clothes?

   The Bible says that God chooses us. “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen…” (Mat.12:18) “…but for the elect’s sake, whom He hath chosen…” (Mark 13:20) Some Christian Scientists say that is incorrect because we must turn to God first, then we are accepted. So, what would there be in a baby, that God should know that individual? Was it because that baby was ‘reaching out’ to God while cooing and nursing at his mother’s breast?

   Does Mrs. Eddy say we are not to pay attention to what we call the mortal concept of Jesus? In Miscellaneous Writings we read, “It is most fitting that Christian Scientists memorize the nativity of Jesus.” (Mis. p.374:17-18, e.a.) Nativity is birth. Are we then not to pay any attention to her life? In Luke we read, “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22) When she was eight years of age, Mrs. Eddy heard God’s voice call her name repeatedly for about a year’s time.

   There cannot be diverging viewpoints in Science concerning this issue; one is right, one is wrong. We cannot have the metaphysics of Mary Baker Eddy and a school of thought that ‘interprets’ her metaphysics. The only authority is Christian Science, the theology of Mary Baker Eddy, while the other is a philosophy, oriental mysticism, Gnosticism, a cult. It is indeed interesting that the latter charges are being leveled today at Christian Scientists and the Movement.

   Continuing with the Sentinel article, “Our Coincidence with God” (p.1204), we read, “Because Jesus was the incarnation of Christ, he illustrates the coincidence of divinity with humanity.” ‘Incarnation’ is defined as “endowed with a human body” and its root word means ‘flesh.’ The Bible tells us the Word must be made flesh — must be manifested to the view of mankind. “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of anti-Christ…” (I John 4:3) John very clearly states that Messiah came in the flesh and the fact that he was in the flesh is a fact, and if denied, is anti-Christ. Mrs. Eddy states very clearly about the woman with the leaven, that she illustrates “the second appearing in the flesh [incarnated] of the Christ, Truth, hidden in sacred secrecy from the visible world.” (S&H p.118:6) We cannot have it one way and not the other; if the Fatherhood is incarnated, the Motherhood of God must be incarnated. If we deny that the Motherhood is incarnated, is this not the spirit of anti-Christ?

   “It is not hard to see, then, how the anti-Christ referred to in the Bible would attempt to confuse the facts about Mrs. Eddy.” This writer made a profound statement. This quote is taken from, “Finding Mary Baker Eddy in Her Writings” (C.S. Sentinel, April 7, 1986, p.630).

   Are we to assume Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures was prophesied but not its writer, Christian Science prophesied but not its Discoverer, The Mother Church but not its Founder? Was every detail of Jesus’ life prophesied but not Christ Jesus? Was the masculine representative of God prophesied but not the feminine representative?

   To repeat, the Bible says that God chooses us. (Matt. 12:18, Mark 13:20) And in Science and Health, “God had been graciously preparing me during many years for the reception of this final revelation…” (S&H p.107:3) Does this tell us Mrs. Eddy was choosing God or that God had chosen Mrs. Eddy? Does this tell us Mrs. Eddy was preparing so she could receive the revelation or that she was being prepared by God for the reception of the revelation?

   Didn’t Jesus say that he finished the work God gave him to do? Did God not have work for Mary Baker Eddy to do? Were they not mortals to human sense? Yes, but God can and does and has always operated through the second degree to accomplish His good for mankind. The Bible states clearly that the devil was aware of Jesus’ identity and knew his purpose — what God had chosen him for. If we say God did not know or did not choose Jesus, but the devil knew Jesus, aren’t we saying the devil knows more than God? If mortal mind knew that Moses and Jesus were to come forth and tried to kill them as babies, do we say it was accidental that they arrived and that God did not know of those events, that He had not chosen them, and was not protecting them? How could God know there was a coin in a fish’s mouth and enough to pay their taxes, but did not know Christ Jesus? How could God tell Elijah to go to the widow of Zarephath if God didn’t know her? (I Kings 17:9) How was Ananias told to go find Saul (Paul) to restore his sight? (Acts 9:10,17) And Cornelius was told to find Peter. (Acts 10) How can God help, direct, sustain, heal or choose any of us if He does not know us? Did God not know these individuals and had God not chosen them?

   Pre-Existence

   Speaking of Jesus, we read, “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” (I Peter 1:20) This is similar to Jesus’ statement, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Moses is recorded as saying, “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.” (Acts 7:37) And in John, Jesus says he was the one Moses referred to. (John 5:45,46) Was Jesus not chosen before he appeared humanly? Didn’t Jesus say “that the Father hath sent me”? (John 5:36) God demanded that Jesus fulfill a job, definite work. And in John, Jesus said, “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” (John 17:4) Is that not being chosen?

   Did God give Mrs. Eddy something to do before she appeared humanly? Did she finish the work God gave her to accomplish? One might say, Well, only Jesus was foreordained. In Jeremiah it is recorded that God said, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jer. 1:5) and then God told Jeremiah for what purpose he was brought forth. Does anyone out there know how God would appear to mankind if not through a mortal? Was the most important work ever done for mankind left to chance or did God choose a greater than Jeremiah for the work? We do know that Jesus prophesied that a woman would do that work and write the book, so that eliminates fifty percent of the population. Mrs. Eddy refers to 6,000 years since Adam as the time for the reappearing. (S&H p.559:32) That narrows it down to a particular woman in a particular time period. We are further informed of pre-existence in Psalms 139:13-

5. Ephesians records that we have all been chosen before the foundation of the world, “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” (Ephesians 1:4)

Our Leader tells us we each have our place (our niche) in time and eternity, — so, why do we not apply this to pre-existence? (Ret. p.70:18) Eternity does not begin now; therefore, we have always had our place, before we were here, in the bosom of the Father-Mother and not just as abstract ideas but as vibrant reflections of Mind, doing and being. If each of us has his own niche, then each has his own task and, before the worlds were framed, Mrs. Eddy was given her task to do while she was here and after she left, and that is the nature of eternity. Mortality alone thinks of eternity in terms of the future, — after death. Doesn’t our Lord tell us that he was born to be a king? As a king to do what? To fulfill God’s prophecies that foretold his appearance before he came here.

If God revealed to the prophets events that were to occur in the future, then God knew of those events before they took place. God also knew the prophets. Does this not account for the type of individuals God sent, or are we to assume that God left it all up to mortal mind to choose the exact time prophesied and the exact one to fulfill His promise? God tells us that it was a greater error to reject Moses because he was greater than a prophet. How did God know that Moses was greater than any of His other prophets? God knew because God chose and sent Moses and all the prophets, and He knew the shining magnitude of each. (Numbers 12:1-16)

To clear up any confusion, the following quote in Miscellaneous Writings by Mrs. Eddy makes the entire subject crystal clear. She says: “Science reverses the evidence of material sense with the spiritual sense that God, Spirit, is the only substance; and that man, His image and likeness, is spiritual, not material. This great Truth does not destroy but substantiates man’s identity, — together with his immortality and preexistence, or his spiritual coexistence with his Maker. That which has a beginning must have an ending.” (Mis. p.47:19)

Pre-existence is not predestination. The doctrine of predestination teaches the preordination of men to everlasting happiness or misery. Pre-existence is of God, and “God selects for the highest service one who has grown into such a fitness for it as renders any abuse of the mission an impossibility.” (S&H p.455:20-23) Many Christian Scientists misunderstand this statement and believe growth is limited to a mortal existence, but that is not what the quote says. Growth is a product of Mind and has always gone on even before we appeared humanly.

Mortals and material sense believe this experience is reality, and that true growth out of material sense begins here; mortals cannot understand growth in spiritual sense. Did Moses and Elijah do all of their growing while here on earth, or did their enlarged individualities and identities develop after leaving this experience? If Mind is always unfolding, then Mind was unfolding each of us even before we appeared humanly and Mind has a niche or place for each of us to fulfill.

Jesus of Nazareth was a natural and divine Scientist, he was so before the material world saw him.

Retrospection and Introspection, p.26:17-18

Mary Baker Eddy refers to John the Baptist’s pre-existence thus, “John the Baptist had a clear discernment of divine Science: being born not of the human will or flesh, he antedated his own existence. . .” (Mis. p.181:31-1) If John antedated his own human existence as did Jesus, then it is easy to see why God referred to Jesus as His beloved Son. And if John, Jesus, and Jeremiah all antedated their own human existence, why do we think the most important woman in the history of the world did not? Could we say that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed but not Mary Baker Eddy? Continuing Mrs. Eddy’s statement, John the Baptist “began spiritually instead of materially to reckon himself logically; hence the impossibility of putting him to death, only in belief, through violent means or material methods.” (Mis. p.182:1) Notice John, in Mrs. Eddy’s words, understood his mission, what he was here for.

The Bible says it this way in Matthew, “But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (Matt. 11:9,10) Here Jesus says that God sent John the Baptist. It had nothing to do with John the Baptist choosing God. Jesus continues in verse 11, “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.” (Matt. 11:11) Did this not make John more important than Moses and the patriarchs? Then Jesus said, “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen...” Jesus very carefully used the term in its past tense because he knew there would be a greater than John born of woman in the future. Hence the one in the future would also, like Christ Jesus, be greater than John, the patriarchs and the prophets — guess who?

Suppose we give credence to the silly statement that it could have been anyone to write Science and Health who was ready and waiting and not necessarily Mrs. Eddy. Does God not know which of His ideas are more suited than others? Didn’t Jesus tell us there were positions of greater importance in the kingdom reserved for those whom the Father had in Mind?

Why, if God does not know the human Jesus or Mrs. Eddy, could they have fulfilled Bible prophecy? How can we accept the fulfillment for Jesus, Moses, John the Baptist and John the Beloved as fulfilling Bible prophecy, but not for a woman?

When are we to assume that God knew Mary Baker Eddy? Was it in 1866, one of Daniel’s dates, when she received her revelation? Was it in February of 1866 which had no full moon, (although one was forecast), a “remarkable feat of nature” that “had never happened before?” (Grit Newspaper, Jan. 31, 1971, p.16) Was it when God was “graciously preparing” her, and when did that begin? Was it when she was a young girl and the voice of her Mother-God spoke audibly to her and even lifted her off her bed three times? (Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy, by Adam H, Dickey, C.S.D., p. 47) Was it halfway through the pregnancy when her mother could not shake the conviction that the child was to be set apart? Where were these angel thoughts coming from? If from God, was not God telling Mrs. Eddy’s mother something very important? Did God know what He was doing? Was it during the time prior to Mary’s birth when this nation felt the worst earthquakes recorded in its history? Or was it when the Arctic Aurora, on the 25th of February, 1866, provided one of the grandest displays which had been observed for more than fifty years? Did mortal mind know something was about to take place, but God did not? Was it when God prepared this nation for a special purpose but had no one in mind to fulfill that purpose? Was God just hoping that someone could be found when needed? Were Jesus’ prophecies concerning the woman made in jest? Were the Old Testament prophets joshing when they described the life of the ideal woman? If Jesus proclaimed that he was one of the great lights in Genesis, doesn’t that tell us there had to be another light because the Bible reveals and prophesies two?

History

The human and divine coincidence must be understood in its relation to history. In one of Mrs. Eddy’s classes, a student remarked about her, “She begged of us not to get into the way of trying to spiritualize everything in the Bible; it has its history and we cannot destroy that. If we did, we destroyed the whole. The children of Israel walked over the Red Sea just as much as we were here, and Adam and Eve were as real beings to sense as we were. We must believe the history of the Bible as literally as we do other histories. The tendency of this age is to extremes. There can be an intermediate state, and God works in the intermediate. The children of Israel crossed the Red Sea just as literally as Washington crossed the Delaware — it is just as much a matter of history. God works in the intermediate, remember that; the mediator must be between.” (Mis. Doc., Martha Bogue, p.69) Similar accounts are given by others in Mrs. Eddy’s classes.

Most Christian Scientists today would say they believe the Adam and Eve story is not true and is a fantasy, and others have described it as a Chinese fairy tale and oriental fiction. However, Mrs. Eddy refers to the story as an allegory. The dictionary definition of allegory is: “A figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances The distinction in Scripture between a parable and an allegory, is said to be that a parable is a supposed history, and an allegory a figurative description of real facts.” (e.a.) Speaking of Adam and Eve in Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy says, “This represents the serpent in the act of commending to our first parents the knowledge of good and evil…” (S&H p.92:13-15, e.a.) Concerning the second chapter, she writes, “…the continued account is mortal and material.” (S&H p.521:20) “This second record unmistakably gives the history of error in its externalized forms, called life and intelligence in matter.” (S&H p.522:12-14, e.a.) Continuing in Science and Health, she speaks of the account as “legendary” — not as a fairy tale. (S&H p.526:14) Webster’s definition of legend: “any story coming down from the past, esp., one popularly taken as historical though not verifiable; A story of a saint, or a collection of such stories.” (e.a.) Mrs. Eddy says, “Adam and his progeny were cursed, not blessed; and this indicates that the divine Spirit, or Father, condemns material man and remands him to dust.” (S&H p.532:10) And there are many more such statements in our Leader’s writings on the subject. When we read Genesis II as allegory and legend, but not as a fairy tale or fantasy, we gain the truths it imparts and understand Mrs. Eddy’s marvelous lessons concerning it, and this can be said of all Bible history. To understand the story of Adam and Eve, we must not be confused by the errors of oriental mysticism.

The error of oriental mysticism, ‘speak, hear and see no evil, for this is all a dream,’ is not Christian Science. We should not say the Bible is just history, therefore it is not necessary that we understand it. Would this not produce an entire group of people who do not see the importance of understanding the history of the Christian Science Movement or the importance of their Bibles? When Mrs. Eddy was asked to recommend a practitioner, she told the inquirer to find a practitioner who knew the history of Christian Science. “The history of our country, like all history, illustrates the might of Mind, and shows human power to be proportionate to its embodiment of right thinking.” (S&H p. 225:14-16)

If there is a human and divine coincidence in history, then Mind must interpret that history. Mrs. Eddy says, “The human history needs to be revised, and the material record expunged.” (Ret. p.22:1) To ‘expunge’ means to rub out or erase. Contrary to what our Leader says, there are some who think human history needs to be expunged, but that is not what she says. She says, “The history of our country, like all history, illustrates the might of Mind, and shows human power to be proportionate to its embodiment of right thinking.” (S&H p.225:14-16) Do we want to expunge the history that illustrates the might of Mind? In Science and Health we read, “All forms of error support the false conclusions that there is more than one Life; that material history [not human history] is as real and living as spiritual history…” (S&H p.204:3-5) If we expunge the material record by revising human history, we do what? Do we not bring history into accord with the human and divine coincidence and see this human and divine coincidence operating in the so-called past? Isn’t this what we are to do individually also? Yes, we are to take stock of our past, expunge the material record and revise our human history, remove the belief of materialism from it and see the human and divine coincidence in operation and from this have a revised account of our lives that bears witness to the Grand Creator. If we do not do this, the history of error repeats itself on individual, national, and international levels, in the political, social, economic and religious arenas.

The false argument of oriental mysticism that says we must impersonalize all good without seeing individual spiritual creation is the same as saying we must expunge human history. We should not expunge our individual history any more than we expunge human history. It is all to be revised in order to further glorify God. Science and Health says it in a similar way, “If mortals are not progressive, past failures will be repeated until all wrong work is effaced or rectified.” (S&H p.240:19-21) Good must be individualized.

Some of our brethren will tell you that God doesn’t know about time because there is no time, and because Mrs. Eddy says it is a “mortal measurement.” But Mrs. Eddy revealed that God is divine Principle, Love. Did God know when to appear to Mary and Elizabeth, know the time their children were to appear, and when to direct the wisemen to the right place at the right time to see the infant Jesus? Jesus said no one knows the time, not even the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:31, 32) Then God does know time! But how? We must reconcile these statements and see that God knows the working out of the mortal belief through the second degree that is always connected to Him through the human and divine coincidence. Mrs. Eddy said she fulfilled Daniel’s prophetic dates of 1866 and 1875. As God knew Daniel and revealed these dates to him, didn’t God know these dates? Knowing this, how could we say God did not know exactly when these dates were to be fulfilled, and then believe it was all accidental?

Our Leader says that history repeats itself. (S&H p.28:28; p.36:30) If this is true, then there is much revising that needs to be done and much expunging of the material record that has been left undone. It is important to see what our past tells us and not to sweep it all under the rug. Whatever is revised is kept and the ability to see what must be kept is also the ability to see what material record must be expunged. Our Leader says in Science and Health, “It is the prerogative of the ever-present, divine Mind, and of thought which is in rapport with this Mind, to know the past, the present, and the future.” (S&H p.84:11) Some say, it is nothing, nothing but material history and it must be expunged. Our Leader does not say that. She says, “The human history needs to be revised, and the material record expunged.”

If spiritual sense does not view history correctly, the memorabilia, property and events connected with Mrs. Eddy will be destroyed and covered over in the name of advanced spiritual thinking. It is not advanced, it is not spiritual and it is not thinking.

If history is not important, then why did Mrs. Eddy have to declare, “My history is a holy one” (DCC p.24), when the reporters were telling lies about her history? Evidently, mortal mind thought her history important enough to lie about and this tells us that it is vitally important to understand her history correctly and honestly. To destroy memorabilia, to suppress precious memoirs and reminiscences, to remove access to important biographies is an attempt of malicious animal magnetism to support a false view of Mrs. Eddy and ends up expunging human history and revising the material record — the reverse of what she told us to do. Only Christian Science can expunge the material record and revise human history correctly, and only those imbued with spiritual sense can determine which paths are correct. We must love and understand the history of the Christian Science Movement, but the materiality in it must be expunged.

Revising history is not the exercise of relating mere historical events in chronological order. To revise history means we must understand the human and divine coincidence in operation that gives an entirely different meaning to history. It is then that the mortal mind, or material record, is expunged. Would we want to destroy all of the lovely things that relate to our Leader’s history? Some Christian Scientists think so. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to find Noah’s Ark and the Ark of the Covenant? Wouldn’t this give further evidence of the factual events that took place in history and give evidence of the human and divine coincidence that took place? If these things were found, would it be wise to say, let’s destroy them, they are just matter? Our Leader said we would cherish all these important things that belonged to her. (Recoll. by James F. Gilman, p.51) We are not cherishing them. Why not? Because we are believing malicious animal magnetism when that lie says God did not choose Mary Baker Eddy nor did He know her.

Some of our fellow Christian Scientists have declared that events and remarks recorded by Mrs. Eddy’s early pupils are not legitimate. The attempt to hide these records is the attempt of malicious animal magnetism to expunge human history. Our Leader says, “His [Jesus’] “immortal words were articulated in a decaying language, and then left to the providence of God,” (Mis. p.100:3) and in no one thing was he more certain than that his words would not pass away. No one even began writing his words down until about thirty to sixty years after he ascended; yet, does not the Christian world claim these words to be infallible? Mrs. Eddy’s students wrote down the events and words she spoke almost immediately after they happened or were spoken. Were the words of Jesus’ revelation, written thirty to sixty years later, infallible, but Mrs. Eddy’s words, written immediately after they were spoken, were not? Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Mark 13:31 and Mis. 163:18) Wouldn’t this same truth declared by Jesus concerning his words apply to all of our Leaders’ words also? Mrs. Eddy’s writings are the standard for understanding her life and light. For example, if one had not read some of the early memoirs, they would not know that Mrs. Eddy was the ‘he’ spoken of who was dyspeptic and on the Graham cure recorded in Science and Health on page 221, or that when she was eight years of age she was lifted up off her bed and lowered again three times when the call came to her from God. (Mem. p.47, Adam Dickey)

Mrs. Eddy’s marvelous work for humanity was her reflection of the Mind that is Love, as given to us in her published writings. What is just as important was her marvelous demonstration of her revelation of divine Science as it was expressed in her daily life, a demonstration that could only have been made by uncovering and destroying malicious animal magnetism. Therefore, her contribution and her demonstration, or her life, is of equal importance with her revelation and must be understood to be inseparable from it. Her life illustrates the beauty of the human and divine coincidence.

Our identity is not lost after we leave this experience

All that has been said so far in this article concerning man continues and does not stop after this human experience. If, as some contend, God does not know the mortal Jesus or Mrs. Eddy, or us, then this experience would be totally forgotten once we pass on. Some say that we do forget all we have done here and everyone we know. Apparently, the teaching is as follows: mortality is a dream, therefore everything to do with this dream is unreal and the individuals in it have no past, present, or future. This is oriental mysticism. The thought that we are nothing must be handled. This lie has arisen to supposedly prove there is no Leader in heaven, therefore, we have no Leader. We do not forget all we have done here, nor do we forget every one we knew. Doesn’t our Leader tell us that we each have a place in time and eternity? (Ret. p.70:18)

A student wrote, “After her husband passed on Mrs. Eddy once said, ‘What a welcome Gilbert must have given mother!’ When asked why, she said, ‘Because she and Gilbert both loved God, loved Christian Science, and both loved me. It would not take them long to find each other.’” (Coll. p.133)

After Flavia Knapp passed on, her husband, Ira Knapp, and her son, Bliss, were visiting Mrs. Eddy when she told them what Mrs. Knapp was doing at the moment she, Mrs. Eddy, was talking with Mr. Knapp and his son. Mrs. Knapp’s identity was not lost.

In Golden Memories, Clara Shannon wrote, “One day we received a letter from our Leader, addressed ‘To the Home Folk,’ and sent to those at Pleasant View.” It was dated June twenty-third, 1892, and began:

Mother’s Darlings,

Which one of these will rip off the border that is patchwork, from the carpet in the library, and its border on the opposite side of the room, and have Mr. Chesley reverse them and sew it and lay it down at once. May the smile of the ‘Big Spirit’ lighten your labor and heighten your steps each day towards our heavenly home where we shall reunite in songs of perpetual joy for our earthly lives — for your help to me and mine,

To thee, lovingly,

Mother

You will notice in this letter that Mrs. Eddy says:

1. There are steps to the “heavenly home.”

2. We will rejoice in songs of perpetual joy. Why?

3. For our earthly lives. Why?

4. For the help her dear ones gave to their Leader. So, is all forgotten once we have left this experience?

If we do not remember individuals after passing on, then all our deeds are forgotten, and there can be no reward for good deeds and no punishment for bad deeds. How can this be, when we read in Matthew that those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake are rewarded in heaven? (Matt. 5:11,12) And what of those who must be punished for evil? According to oriental mysticism, there would be no punishment. But Mrs. Eddy speaks about “the prison and the scaffold” disciplining mankind. (S&H p.202:10) If we do not remember our former lives after passing on, the scaffold could not be a discipline for felons. Mrs. Eddy says, “As death findeth mortal man, so shall he be after death, until probation and growth shall effect the needed change.”(S&H p.291:23-25) “When the hearts of Christian Scientists are woven together as are their names in the web of history, earth will float majestically heaven’s heraldry, and echo the song of angels: ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.’” (Mis. p.145:26) Mrs. Eddy very clearly says our names are not forgotten — either for good or for evil, for supporting her or for rejecting her.

Our Leader says, “The divine Mind maintains all identities, from a blade of grass to a star, as distinct and eternal.” (S&H p.70:12-13) How could Jesus’ or our identity ever be lost? And if our identities are never lost, how could it ever be said we would forget those we know while on earth?

“God is the Life, or intelligence, which forms and preserves the individuality and identity of animals as well as of men.” (S&H p.550:5-7) If God forms and preserves the individuality of animals, how can any Christian Scientist say that God did not know Christ Jesus or Mary Baker Eddy? If a blade of grass to a star, potato-patches and worlds rolling in subtle ether are spiritual or have spiritual identity — how can Christian Scientists say that man does not have a spiritual identity, or that he can lose his spiritual identity? (See Mis. p.26:6 and S&H p.70:12.) Then they’ll say, Yes, that is true, but God doesn’t know about every event and circumstance of our lives. But our Leader says, “Now this self-same God is our helper. He pities us. He has mercy upon us, and guides every event of our careers.” (Un. p.3:27-1) And, “The Father in secret is unseen to the physical senses, but He knows all things and rewards according to motives, not according to speech.” (S&H p.15:7-9)

If there is no memory of our time here, why would Jesus have prayed for three days to return? He also said, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:2,3) In his own words, he remembered his disciples after his ascension and knew he would recognize them when they passed on.

In the transfiguration on the mount, Elijah and Moses knew Jesus and each other, and Jesus knew them. Jesus also said that Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus’ day and was glad, that he was glad to see the time of Jesus. How could Abraham ‘rejoice’ if he ceased to exist after his sojourn on earth? And Jesus said Abraham was glad for what he saw taking place. So, had he forgotten it all? Guess what, this experience is not ‘nothing.’

In Jesus’ account of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), Dives recognized Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham and he also remembered his own brothers (v. 28) who had not yet passed on. It must be true that we remember associations after we pass on, for Jesus would never have taught an incorrect principle. Also it is possible that the account of Dives and Lazarus was actually taking place while Jesus was viewing it. Jesus did not name people in his parables, so this account may not have been a parable.

If we forget our associations and deeds after death, then we would have to relearn lessons in each successive stage of experience, and character growth would be subject to retrogression. Mrs. Eddy says, “An improved belief cannot retrograde.” (S&H p.442:19 only) And, “In Christian Science there is never a retrograde step, never a return to positions outgrown.” (S&H p.74:29-30) She also said, “In Science, individual good derived from God, the infinite All-in-all, may flow from the departed to mortals...” (S&H p.72:23-25) How could these statements from Science and Health be true if the departed had no remembrance of their former lives, associations, and of individuals who needed to be helped? Mrs. Eddy’s quotes given here are similar to the one about Abraham’s rejoicing to see Jesus’ day and was glad.

Continuing along this line of thought, Mrs. Eddy wrote, “In the vestibule through which we pass from one dream to another dream, or when we awake from earth’s sleep to the grand verities of Life, the departing may hear the glad welcome of those who have gone before. The ones departing may whisper this vision, name the face that smiles on them and the hand which beckons them…” (S&H p.75:29-3) Those on the other side must have memories of past associations, and thus be able to recognize the ‘departing,’ in order to express a glad welcome to them.

As our Leader tells us that Jesus and Paul are stars of the first magnitude fixed in the heaven of Soul, does this not tell us there are other magnitudes, second, third, etc., fixed as spiritual ideas in the heaven of Soul, God? This is a reference to gradations of thought in heaven and is similar to what we experience here. Heaven is not a vast socialistic community where all are identical and equally spiritual. Divine Principle does not operate in such a manner. Didn’t our Lord say there is a least in the Kingdom and a great also? (Matt. 5:19) Will we be included with those who will “reunite in songs of perpetual joy for” our “earthly” lives, for our help to our Leader here? What will be the mark upon us throughout eternity? How will we stand in the estimation of future generations; and will we stand in the presence of our Master and our Leader?

Did the illusion of death, which we know to be nothing, remove Mrs. Eddy from her position of leadership? We cannot demonstrate Christian Science if we think it did, nor can the Movement succeed. Let us stop the claims of oriental mysticism that falsely state because there is no sin we can sin with impunity, that because God knows no mortal, He knows no Leader named Mrs. Eddy, that we need not uncover evil because this experience is nothing and we are nothing. We must not let malicious animal magnetism speak in this manner.

The people asked Jesus, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” (John 6:28) Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:29) What other work is there, then, for a Christian Scientist, than to believe on the one God sent? There is only one Leader and we are not that one.

In the Third Series of We Knew Mary Baker Eddy, p.18, Calvin Hill relates that Mrs. Eddy asked him who his teacher was. “Well, Mrs. — Mother,” I replied, “I believe I shall have to call you my teacher. I have been studying your book, Science and Health, and your other writings for the past four years, and if what is said to me by one of your own students or by one of your students’ students is not backed up or verified by your writings, I take no stock in his statements, none whatever!” Mrs. Eddy stepped forward, placed her hand on my shoulder and patted it gently, saying, ‘My child, my child, my child, you’re safe, you’re safe, you’re safe!’”

Mrs. Eddy’s Address at Christian Science Hall, 1898

Sunday was a memorable day in the history of the Christian Science church of this city. …[It] was the first time, at a regular service, that the Rev. Mary Baker G. Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, has appeared in person in [the] pulpit [of Christian Science Hall]. The audience-room was found inadequate to accommodate the people who gathered early to attend; many were unable to obtain seats, and others failed to gain even admission.

Mrs. Eddy invited as guests to attend the service, the forty-seven First Members of the Mother Church in Boston, nearly all of whom were present, coming and returning on a special train, and there was also a delegation of fifteen from Montreal.

The visitors included various eminent persons, and in the congregation, which was a very intelligent and cultured one, were many people of Concord.

The preliminary exercises were conducted by the Rev. Ezra M. Buswell, First Reader, after which Mrs. Eddy herself appeared. She was modestly but very elegantly dressed. As she entered the hall, everybody present rose in deference and respect, and she took her place upon the platform amid profound silence. Mrs. Eddy appeared at her best, as sprightly and energetic as a young woman. She was escorted by Edward P. Bates…

Mrs. H. K. Harrison, of Boston, the charming soloist, sang, ‘Saw ye my Saviour,’ a church communion hymn… Mrs. Harrison is the lady who lost her voice about eight years ago, and was recently restored to health by Christian Science, as expounded by Mrs. Eddy, and this is the first time that she has sung in public since her recovery. She had volunteered to sing whenever Mrs. Eddy might signify her wish to have her do so, and this occasion was selected for the purpose, and most effectively did Mrs. Harrison fulfil the mission. Many eyes were wet with tears as her rich voice sounded the notes of the beautiful selection…

When the time came for Mrs. Eddy to speak, she stepped forward gracefully to the desk designed for her, and read the 91st Psalm, without using glasses.

Her rich, clear, melodious voice served to the very best advantage to emphasize that beautiful passage of Scripture, which she characterized as containing more of meaning than is condensed into so many words anywhere else in all literature, except in the Sermon on the Mount by the great Galilean and hillside teacher. She made this Psalm her text and theme, and taking it passage by passage, she explained its meaning with an eloquence, force, and impressiveness that held her congregation in profound attention for three quarters of an hour. She spoke extemporaneously, bringing out especially the theory of Christian Science as applied to practical life, and she explained the doctrines of her faith with such simplicity, and yet with such choice language and richness of illustration, that the address was pronounced one of the most instructive and ennobling ever delivered in this city.

Alluding to that significant epoch in her own career when she put forth her hand for God to lead her, and felt a wondrous strength of power, her auditors, many of them, were moved with emotion, but she opened the way from this depth of feeling up to a plane of trust and faith and joy, an inspiration which seemed to move everybody within the reach of her pleasing voice.

Her followers here felt afresh the wondrous influence of her remarkable spirituality, and the very atmosphere of her presence seemed to thrill them with enthusiasm, and to awaken in them zeal. The Founding of Christian Science p. 329 by Doris Grekel.

With permission.

The arctic aurora, described in the following article by George Kennan, took place on February 26, 1866, a momentous month and year for all Christian Scientists and for all mankind.

AN ARCTIC AURORA.

On the 26th of February [1866]… there occurred one of the grandest displays of the Arctic Aurora which had been observed there for more than fifty years, and which exhibited such unusual and extraordinary brilliancy that even the natives were astonished … Late in the evening . . . there burst suddenly upon our startled eyes the grandest exhibition of vivid dazzling light and color of which the mind can conceive. The whole universe seemed to be on fire. A broad arch of brilliant prismatic colors spanned the heavens from east to west like a gigantic rainbow, with a long fringe of crimson and yellow streamers stretching up from its convex edge to the very zenith. At short intervals of one or two seconds, wide, luminous bands, parallel with the arch, rose suddenly out of the northern horizon and swept with a swift, steady majesty across the whole heaven, like long breakers of phosphorescent light rolling in from some limitless ocean of space.

Every portion of the vast arch was momentarily wavering, trembling and changing color, and the brilliant streamers which fringed its edge swept back and forth in great curves, like the fiery sword of the angel at the gate of Eden. In a moment the vast auroral rainbow, with all its wavering streamers, began to move slowly up toward the zenith, and a second arch of equal brilliancy formed directly under it, shooting up another long serried row of slender colored lances toward the North Star, like a battalion of the celestial host presenting arms to its commanding angel. Every instant the display increased in unearthly grandeur. The luminous bands revolved swiftly, like the spokes of a great wheel of light across the heavens: the streamers hurried back and forth with swift, tremulous motion from the ends of the arches to the center, and now and then a great wave of crimson would surge up from the north and fairly deluge the whole sky with color, tinging the white snowy earth far and wide with its rosy reflection. But as the words of the prophecy, “And the heavens shall be turned to blood,” formed themselves upon my lips, the crimson suddenly vanished, and a lightning flash of vivid orange startled us with its wide, all-pervading glare, which extended even to the southern horizon, as if the whole volume of the atmosphere had suddenly taken fire. I even held my breath a moment, as I listened for the tremendous crash of thunder which it seemed to me must follow this sudden burst of vivid light; but in heaven or earth there was not a sound to break the calm silence of night, save the hastily-muttered prayers of the frightened native at my side, as he crossed himself and kneeled down before the visible majesty of God. I could not imagine any possible addition which even Almighty power could make to the grandeur of the Aurora as it now appeared. The rapid alternations of crimson, blue, green, and yellow in the sky were reflected so vividly from the white surface of the snow, that the whole world seemed now steeped in blood, and then quivering in an atmosphere of pale, ghastly green, through which shone the unspeakable glories of the mighty crimson and yellow arches.

But the end was not yet. As we watched with upturned faces the swift ebb and flow of these great celestial tides of colored light, the last seal of the glorious revelation was suddenly broken, and both arches were simultaneously shivered into a thousand parallel perpendicular bars, every one of which displayed in regular order, from top to bottom, the seven primary colors of the solar spectrum. From horizon to horizon there now stretched two vast curving bridges of colored bars. Across which we almost expected to see, passing and repassing the bright inhabitants of another world. Amid cries of astonishment and exclamations of ‘God have mercy!’ from the startled natives, these innumerable bars began to move with a swift dancing motion, back and forth along the whole extent of both arches, passing each other from side to side with such bewildering rapidity, that the eye was lost in the attempt to follow them. The whole concave of heaven seemed transformed into one great revolving kaleidoscope of shattered rainbows. Never had I even dreamed of such an aurora as this, and I am not ashamed to confess that its magnificence at that moment overawed and frightened me. The whole sky, from zenith to horizon was ‘one molten, mantling sea of color and fire, crimson and purple, and scarlet and green, and colors for which there are no words in language and no ideas in the mind, — things which can only be conceived while they are visible.’ The ‘signs and portents’ in the heavens were grand enough to herald the destruction of a world: flashes of rich quivering color, covering half the sky for an instant and then vanishing like summer lightning: brilliant green streamers shooting swiftly but silently up across the zenith: thousands of variegated bars sweeping past each other in two magnificent arches, and great luminous waves rolling in from the inter-planetary spaces and breaking in long lines of radiant glory upon the shallow atmosphere of a darkened world.

With the separation of the two arches into component bars it reached its utmost magnificence, and from that time its supernatural beauty slowly but steadily faded. The first arch broke up, and soon after it the second: the flashes of color appeared less and less frequently: the luminous bands ceased to revolve across the zenith: and in an hour nothing remained in the dark starry heavens to remind us of the Aurora, except a few faint Magellan clouds of luminous vapor.

“Tent Life in Siberia” by George Kennan

Christian Scientists and the Child Court Cases

1985

This subject is a serious problem confronting the Christian Science Movement. How did the problem develop and how can it be resolved? This article was written to uncover the root causes.

Why have so many recent court cases involved the deaths of Christian Science children? What must we handle metaphysically to have this situation resolved and corrected? Answer: We must know that malicious animal magnetism has no power to keep us in Judge Medicine’s court and out of the Court of Spirit. We must destroy its claims.

Under the inspiration of God, our Leader wrote, “CHILDREN. The spiritual thoughts and representatives of Life, Truth, and Love.” (S&H p.582:28) And what wonderful healings have come from this recognition. The revelation of Truth continues: “Sensual and mortal beliefs; counterfeits of creation, whose better originals are God’s thoughts, not in embryo, but in maturity; material suppositions of life, substance, and intelligence, opposed to the Science of being.” (S&H p.583:1) She also writes of malicious animal magnetism, “The great red dragon symbolizes a lie, — the belief that substance, life, and intelligence can be material. This dragon stands for the sum total of human error.” (S&H p.563:8-10)

Notice there are two aspects to malicious animal magnetism, — the more personal or individual claim of substance, life, and intelligence in matter, and the collective claim, the sum total of human error. Our Leader tells us malicious animal magnetism is “the belief that substance, life, and intelligence can be material” and of mortal children as “material suppositions of life, substance, and intelligence…” The claim of the red dragon and the false claim about children are allied in belief. And is not this alliance opposed to the Science of being? Can we not then understand that the claim of the “sum total of human error” will operate as “life, substance, and intelligence in matter,” that which is “opposed to the Science of being”?

If a child is not held to be in the first part of the definition of children, is he not held in the second? Is he not then under the claims of malicious animal magnetism? The belief of life, substance and intelligence in matter as an individual, personal claim is acted upon by the vicious claim of the sum total of human error, the collective form of evil. Parents must claim the spiritual individuality of their children as representatives of Life, Truth and Love or the collective form of evil will operate through the channel given it to attack Christian Science. Parents must not fail to support their children with spiritual care; otherwise when problems beset their families and parents call upon a practitioner to shoulder the burden of their problems for them, it is more difficult to heal because the problem then is not just sickness that must be handled, but oftentimes sin also. When the “sum total of human error” is invited on the case — the little ones then suffer. Practitioners many times see the innocent little ones suffer for the sins of the parents.

If Christian Scientists are handled by the claim of life, substance, and intelligence in matter, alias malicious animal magnetism, and are, in effect, opposed to the Science of being, who in their families will suffer most from the sum total of human error in its war to stamp out Christian Science? Parents must pray for their children, must see them as spiritual representatives of Love, not as products of the parent’s own selfishness.

Introducing the court case in Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy says, “I here present to my readers an allegory illustrative of the law of divine Mind and of the supposed laws of matter and hygiene, an allegory in which the plea of Christian Science heals the sick.” (S&H p.430:13)

The allegory begins, “The courtroom is filled with interested spectators, and Judge Medicine is on the bench.” (S&H p.430:24, e.a.) Christian Scientists, because of their love for materiality (pleasure and ease in matter), — even using Christian Science to support this false love, have allowed medicine to grow in importance by default. We either accept and love the Science of being or we are “opposed to the Science of being.” There is no neutral ground. If Christian Scientists do not grow and keep pace with the Truth, the truth that has been revealed in Science and Health, Judge Medicine will take us and pronounce sentence. He will force us to surrender our religious rights to medicine and thereby to the courts.

Yes, we have given the field to Judge Medicine. The life, substance and intelligence in matter that Christian Scientists love so much and pray to keep has virtually destroyed genuine Christian Science. Will Christian Scientists continue to aid the enemy, refuse to handle sin, and at the last possible minute pile all their problems on a practitioner?

Are Christian Scientists holding crime in check? Obviously not — we’ve given that one to the courts too. Are Christian Scientists interested in fighting sin and standing for Truth? The only interest seems to be in phoning a practitioner to hear them say they will take care of the problem for us. Do we ever ask a practitioner to help us destroy sin, that which is “opposed to the Science of being”?

Mrs. Eddy wrote, “In 1880, Massachusetts put her foot on a proposed tyrannical law, restricting the practice of medicine. If her sister States follow this example in harmony with our Constitution and Bill of Rights, they will do less violence to that immortal sentiment of the Declaration, ‘Man is endowed by his Maker with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’” (S&H p.161:11) If our Maker endows us with these rights, why don’t we avail ourselves of them and protect them? When we do not protect them, we surrender our rights to medicine and scholastic theology.

Science and Health tells us that Scholastic Theology informs man of his sentence — death. (See S&H p.433:28, e.a.) Is not Scholastic Theology that which teaches that life, substance and intelligence are in matter, all in the name of God? Is this not what Christian Scientists are trying to prove through their misconceived prayers? Is this not that which rejects man’s spiritual status as a child of God, enforces material beliefs, and opposes Christian Science? Is there any wonder why Christian Scientists, who should know better, are trying to make Christian Science palatable to scholastic theology, yearning for the approval of other religions?

The spiritual depth of Mrs. Eddy’s book has hardly been plumbed while Christian Scientists are praying to extend their pleasures in matter and find less and less time for spiritual study. They appear to be only interested in physical healing, more money, and in adding to their dream of matter with little interest in spiritual growth and purity. It is not easy to resist the strong tide of materialism, but where does that strong tide emanate? Would it not emanate from those using prayer to stimulate the material senses? Would this not add to and reinforce the power of the sum total of human error?

There is only one way out of these legal difficulties in which we find ourselves. Christian Scientists must get a change of venue, away from Judge Medicine and his courtroom filled with mortal minds, into the Supreme Court of Spirit with Judge Justice on the bench. The Court of Spirit is open and available to those willing to destroy sense testimony and challenge the sum total of human error.

Continuing in Science and Health we find permission is obtained for a trial in the Supreme Court of Spirit with Judge Justice presiding. (See S&H pp.434:9, 437:28.) The Bible calls the Comforter the “Advocate;” therefore, the Comforter is the legal defense attorney. Thus Christian Science is our legal Advocate. Christian Science is allowed to appear as counsel for the unfortunate prisoner. Up until this point the Advocate, the true Comforter, Christian Science, has not been allowed to appear because Christian Scientists are keeping the trial in the lower court with their prayers for more life, substance, and intelligence in matter, with unfortunate results. There is no comfort in matter! Christian Scientists have rejected their Legal Advocate and Comforter. Mrs. Eddy writes, “The foam and fury of illegitimate living and of fearful and doleful dying should disappear on the shore of time; then the waves of sin, sorrow, and death beat in vain.” (S&H p.203:27) Wouldn’t it be nice if we Christian Scientists accepted the most marvelous words ever written, the Scientific Statement of Being. (S&H p.468) If Christian Science heals, then why isn’t it? Could it be because many Christian Scientists like their porno magazines and movies, Playboy and Playgirl magazines that are widely read by Christian Scientists, cablevision, sensuality, lust, destruction, killings, all the etceteras of excitement — filling up dull lives that refuse to turn to God? Christian Scientists want their religion to give them a good sex life, or as some call it, a complete and meaningful relationship whether married or not. How can that foul spirit get a hearing in the Supreme Court of Spirit with Judge Justice presiding? Those Christian Scientists have, in general, added to the parental burden of all Christian Scientists who have children.

Christian Scientists have reinforced, strengthened and accelerated the claims of malicious animal magnetism by praying for and demanding the fulfillment of their sensory desires. They have become a powerful, organized, mental force demanding an easy life in matter, comfortable and painless substance in matter, and a desire to be seen as intelligent, wise mortals, and, hopefully, as spiritually minded. If we do not handle the belief of life, substance and intelligence in matter, the belief handles us. If we support malicious animal magnetism by praying for it, we are indeed in deep water. Has there ever been a group in the history of the world able to pray, and mistakenly willing to pray, for more pleasure in matter, healthier matter and the fulfillment of sensual pleasure? Jesus said to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things (your needs) will be added unto you. Christian Scientists pray to have all things added unto them while rejecting righteousness and the Kingdom. Didn’t our Leader tell us, “The emphatic purpose of Christian Science is the healing of sin…”? (Rud. p.2:25-2)

Sin has persuaded Christian Scientists to reject their spiritual identity, reject Christian Science, reject their childlikeness, and reject Mary Baker Eddy. Who gave the ‘broadcast powers’ to medicine on news programs for their latest discoveries, for advertisements and program content? We did! If medicine has not the power of God, why do we bow down to it and look for a diagnosis? — because nothing is then required of us spiritually. When we aid the claims of life, substance and intelligence in matter, mortal mind ego, intellectualism, mortal wisdom, etc., we aid the sum total of human error in its efforts to destroy Christian Science. Don’t we give animal magnetism its authority and in this way lose our children to drugs, pornography, and death? Don’t the children then become dissatisfied, belligerent and uncontrollable? Where is the problem, in the world or with Christian Scientists? Haven’t we all heard the trite remark made by Christian Science parents whose children no longer want Christian Science, Well, the seed has been planted. What a marvelous way to justify a lack of metaphysical work for our children.

Entertaining the thought that God knows no sin and therefore believing I can do whatever I want, is a psychological narcotic and is not Christian Science. Christian Scientists who say, Well, as a mortal I am nothing, therefore I can live it up, are under the influence of oriental mysticism. They are attempting to use their misunderstanding of Christian Science to silence their conscience. It does not work and the results are catastrophic.

Our Leader writes, “The Constitution of the United States does not provide that materia medica shall make laws to regulate man’s religion; rather does it imply that religion shall permeate our laws. Mankind will be God-governed in proportion as God’s government becomes apparent, the Golden Rule utilized, and the rights of man and the liberty of conscience held sacred. Meanwhile, they who name the name of Christian Science will assist in the holding of crime in check, will aid the ejection of error, will maintain law and order, and will cheerfully await the end — justice and judgment.” (My. p.222:22)

How can Christian Scientists regain what they have surrendered and begin to demonstrate what they have neglected? They must reject masked Personal Sense, blind Hypnotism, Physiology, Materia Medica, and Scholastic Theology and take up the practice of Christian Science. (See S&H p.439:15.) The Jury of Spiritual Senses will render the verdict but not while Christian Scientists love material sense testimony and reject their Advocate — their legal defense attorney.

In Miscellany we read, “A coroner’s inquest, a board of health, or class legislation is less than the Constitution of the United States, and infinitely less than God’s benign government, which is ‘no respecter of persons.’ Truth crushed to earth springs spontaneously upward, and whispers to the breeze man’s inalienable birthright — Liberty. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.’ God is everywhere. No crown nor scepter nor rulers rampant can quench the vital heritage of freedom — man’s right to adopt a religion, to employ a physician, to live or to die according to the dictates of his own rational conscience and enlightened understanding.” (My. p.128:6-17) Society has accepted the right of an adult Christian Scientist to die in his own way, but public opinion will not allow this to take place with the little ones.

Malicious animal magnetism has attacked our children to produce an issue that the courts cannot refuse to recognize. Christian Scientists have placed the child cases in the hands of Judge Medicine. As medicine governs the thought of most Americans, it is that which dictates court policy and the defense attorney, the Advocate divine Science, does not get a chance to appear. Christian Scientists have surrendered their children to the courts through inaction, neutrality, and sensuality. We can be released immediately from the judgment of Judge Medicine if we will turn to the counsel for the defense, Christian Science. There is no adequate hearing in the Court of Spirit without it.

Mrs. Eddy writes, “Christian Science and the senses are at war. It is a revolutionary struggle. We already have had two in this nation; and they began and ended in a contest for the true idea, for human liberty and rights. Now cometh a third struggle; for the freedom of health, holiness, and the attainment of heaven.” (Mis. p.101:8) We have already had two wars, the Revolutionary and Civil wars, and now we are in a third, but who is to fight? — Christian Scientists! What are they to fight? The senses. Are they? No. How can a people laden with iniquity fight that struggle? Those who love pleasure in matter and use Christian Science to ensure that they get it are a plague spot upon the body of humanity and are the antithesis of genuine Christian Scientists, for they perpetuate and contribute to the domination of “the sum total of human error.”

Our Leader says, “Like our nation, Christian Science has its Declaration of Independence. God has endowed man with inalienable rights, among which are self-government, reason, and conscience. Man is properly self-governed only when he is guided rightly and governed by his Maker, divine Truth and Love.” (S&H p.106:6) Have Christian Scientists declared their Christian Science Declaration of Independence by getting into the struggle? If Christian Scientists will not be self-governed by God, they will be ruled by human law, medicine and the courts. The American Declaration of Independence gives us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but Mrs. Eddy elevated these concepts so Christian Scientists would not misunderstand the true Declaration of Independence. Life is not possible without ‘self-government;’ liberty is not possible without ‘reasoning;’ and the pursuit of happiness is not possible without ‘conscience.’ Are our people dying because they lack self-government, refuse to grow spiritually and to be governed by God? Are we losing our liberty as Christian Scientists because we refuse to think things out, — reason from cause to effect?

“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” A lover of liberty thinks carefully and reasons properly about his obligations. Are Christian Scientists using Christian Science to pursue happiness without conscience and are they reaping the sad results?

The purpose of America is unique. It was brought forth to protect the revelation of Christian Science even before that revelation came forth. Mrs. Eddy tells us, “Religious liberty and individual rights under the Constitution of our nation are rapidly advancing, avowing and consolidating the genius of Christian Science.” (My. p.200:1) Have Christian Scientists appreciated this fact? No. Have they aided in ejecting the errors that would destroy our government? No. Have they supported laxity, neutrality, sensuality, cowardice, etc., by using Christian Science to support their pleasure in matter and thereby aid the agents of destruction that seek to destroy our Nation and Christian Science? Yes. Christian Scientists have supported and prayed for those claims of sense that destroy character. What group would be used to destroy religious freedom through a call to alter our Constitution because they are not healing their children? What group, instead of preparing the way for spiritual healing, would nail the coffin on the ability of future generations to choose spiritual healing? The only purpose for the Constitution is to protect our nation and thus make the free exercise of Christian Science possible. If Christian Scientists will not exercise that right, they will be responsible for losing Christian Science, our Constitution, and our nation.

There is too much pretended spirituality among Christian Scientists and, it seems, the more important the position the more the pretense. Where is the meekness and genuineness? Practitioners have been prattling with patients, supporting and praying for their life, substance and intelligence in matter. If you are a practitioner, when was the last time you rebuked a patient for his or her love of materiality and encouraged him or her to grow spiritually and to love purity? Practitioners can stop this error right now by not pampering the sinner. Practitioners may spend their lives doing excellent healing work, yet still meet with strong resistance, lose the case and find themselves in court. It is up to you to wake the patients up, make them come to grips with their sins, with their love of matter. We all must get down on our knees and get over our pride and puffed up sense of self. Are practitioners and teachers demanding that their patients and pupils “Study thoroughly the letter and imbibe the spirit”? (S&H p.495:27-28) We know the truth, we have the final revelation, and our responsibility is much greater than in the past and our punishment will be far more severe if we fail mankind. Our prayers must not act as escape valves or as excuses for sin while never touching the sin, but trying to heal its results. Christian Scientists are accustomed to receiving cradle to grave metaphysical care. Are practitioners and teachers handling sin and demanding that their patients and pupils live up to the high standard?

Can we imagine the Prodigal’s plight if he had had a practitioner helping him who didn’t make him change? ‘Oh yes, dear, you seem to have a venereal disease and there is discomfort, well, I’ll get right to work on it, you are God’s perfect child.’ A week later, ‘Your pig business isn’t going too well; it seems to be falling apart, that’s just not true, God didn’t make any such thing.’ One week later, ‘Your girlfriend is threatening to leave you, yes dear, I’ll work.’ Would this Prodigal ever have had the opportunity of being embraced by his Father? Why not? He has been deprived of getting into the second degree. This is obviously not true about many practitioners who demand spiritual growth of their patients and who also handle sin, but it represents a large enough number and the results are most evident in the Movement.

Christian Scientists must not be allowed to proclaim the dissolution of the second degree because of their attraction to the first, and therefore their inherent contempt of the second and their chimerical, airy-fairy view of the third. (See Three Degrees, S&H p.115.)

Christian Science does not present us with a goal of being super mortals but as humble servants of Divine Love, thus losing self in laboring for mankind — the self-sacrifice that, instead of appearance without substantiality and pretense without purity, transcends the love of materialism. There will be no golden age of materialism. The inherent self-destructive nature of self-interest will smash collectively before their eyes and Christian Scientists will learn that they cannot use God like gasoline as a means to get to their fun and games, for their upward mobility in materialism. Christian Scientists will learn either by suffering or Science that the appearance of status in the eyes of men cannot be dignified by what we call important positions and is certainly not honored by God.

The following are some examples of the semantic fraud and self-deception of Christian Scientists:

I am God’s perfect child, which means we can think and do as we please. This excuses the lack of self-discipline and self-government.

God doesn’t know sin, which means I can do whatever I want. This excuses sensuality.

God is all, which means I need do nothing, make no commitment.

This excuses laxness and apathy.

God will work it out, which means I need not stand. This excuses cowardice and the unwillingness to stand and speak for the right.

God is Love, which means excuse sin, and as the one uncovering evil is then not thought of as ‘loving,’ we can turn on him or her.

These examples of Christian Science jargon, which are not Christian Science at all, are used by those who desire a counterfeit that will enable them to look sufficiently scientific while they appear to be working it all out metaphysically.

Christian Science is not a theory. Christian Scientists had better stop being theorists and become practical metaphysicians.

Christian Science is no exception to the rule that when spiritual truth reveals that God is the measure of all things, the negative rises to contradict this and says that man is the measure of all things. Christian Scientists must stop the attempt to place man as the measure of all things and believe that all things revolve around him, then use the words of this precious truth to produce a semantic heaven on earth, a corrupted view of this Science to placate their temporal and sensory demands — a decadence far beyond the wildest imaginings of ancient Rome and Babylon.

Mortal man wants no moral control, no second degree, — the second degree our Leader reveals in Science and Health on page 115. But to reestablish the Christian Science Movement on a firm foundation, moral control must be recovered and spiritual order reinstated. Mortal mind, however, meets these attempts with overt, covert and deep hostility. Morality demands submission to Mind. The materially minded will call upon God, or preferably have a practitioner call upon God, only when there is pain. At all other times the hostility is quite evident. Christian Scientists are using Christian Science like a drugging prescription for material happiness. It has not worked, it will not work, and it will destroy Christian Science if it is not stopped. It is already destroying large numbers of our people who are not getting their healings. This false concept of Christian Science has contributed to the problems with our children and is directly responsible for the present child court cases.

In an 1884 treatise Frederick Engels, a close collaborator of Karl Marx, wrote of the ways in which his communism could begin to bring about the collapse of the West by destroying spiritual values. He wrote, “With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unity of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of children becomes a public affair: society looks after all the children alike, whether they are legitimate or not… Will not that suffice to finally bring about the gradual growth of unrestrained sexual intercourse?” Have we not seen the move in this direction eradicate the moral fiber of our families and of our nation? Had Christian Scientists been alert, this would not have happened. They have put individual pleasure and interest above the good of their families’ futures, their church and nation. They have dissolved the foundation of a once strong Republic, a once strong family structure, and a once strong and flourishing religion.

A discerning Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, writing during the 1830’s, concluded that the exceptional virtue, moral fiber and self-restraint shown by Americans was due to the extraordinary influence of the Christian faith in this land. “It was religion that gave birth to the English colonies in America…” He noted that sexual morality was “infinitely stricter” in America than anywhere on the globe. He stated that in America all of the books, even novels, supposed women to be chaste and there were no men boasting of amorous adventures. He concluded that the key to this advanced purity was American women. “There have never been free societies without moral values, and . . . it is woman who shapes these values.” He stated that the chief cause of America’s extraordinary prosperity, growing power and self-confidence was due “to the superiority of their women.” This was an era that could cradle Mary Baker Eddy and her Science. Have we maintained what former generations have bequeathed to us, or have we used what our Leader gave to us, to support and extend the pleasures of sense testimony? Is that testimony in Judge Medicine’s court or in the Supreme Court of Spirit?

Remember, our Leader tells us, “Nothing except sin, in the students themselves, can separate them from me.” (Ret. p.81:4-5) Then what is stopping Christian Science from being understood and accepted? Is it not sin in the students themselves? Would not this sin produce an environment hostile to the example of Mrs. Eddy’s purity and self-abnegation, of her love and devotion to mankind, an example so unlike that of her so-called followers?

Mrs. Eddy wrote, “The ignoble conduct of his disciples towards their Master, showing their unfitness to follow him, ended in the downfall of genuine Christianity, about the year 325, and the violent death of all his disciples save one.” (‘02 p.18:25) ‘Ignoble’ means “of low birth or family; not noble; not illustrious; worthless, base, meanness, dishonorable, disgraceful.” Are we to assume that their ignoble treatment of Jesus is what killed them? How could this be? Treating contemptibly the messenger God gave to mankind is the same as treating God contemptibly. What were the disciples responsible for when they treated Jesus in such a shabby manner? Doesn’t Mrs. Eddy tell us they were responsible for the downfall of genuine Christianity? Were they not responsible for depriving every man, woman and child on the globe then,

and in the future, of receiving the Christ that Jesus came to shed upon all mankind? And do you think that their punishment ended at the time of their deaths? The tree lies where it falls. The dark ages descended upon the world because the disciples did not love Jesus; they would not listen; they would not be obedient.

Jesus said he would send another comforter, advocate, implying he represented one form of that Advocate. He said, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32,33) This does not mean that Jesus would personally deny those who denied, rejected, or treated him ignobly before men, but that mankind, by turning against His anointed, would forfeit the Father’s love. They would then have no advocate with the Father. Do Christian Scientists wonder why they are having trouble in Judge Medicine’s court and why they cannot get into the Supreme Court of Spirit? Haven’t they rejected their legal Advocate, their Comforter? If we advocate life, substance and intelligence in matter, can our legal Advocate operate? If we desire to be comforted in matter, can our Comforter comfort?

In an important article in the October, 1969 Christian Science Journal, entitled “Handling Animal Magnetism in Healing” by E. Vera Gorringe Plimmer, we read:

We know our Leader’s revelation of Truth means the complete destruction of animal magnetism in all its forms. But animal magnetism, symbolized from the beginning as the serpent, still tries to bite the heel of the woman, its destroyer, because its supposititious subtle instinct tells it that the woman, the spiritual idea of Love, will bruise its head, will utterly destroy its so-called intelligence. Therefore, in our healing work it is essential to deal with malpractice against Mrs. Eddy, who represented the divine idea, as an important part of our counteracting the animal magnetism operating against the healing Truth itself. I am deeply convinced that bringing our Leader’s name and place more into the front line of our practice and handling the world’s resistance against her divine mission can do more to facilitate good and quick healing than any other single factor.

If we reject the woman, we destroy man’s connection with the man child caught up unto God, we shut ourselves out from the presence of the Advocate. Attacks upon our Leader are the result of impurity, lost innocence, hardness of heart and coldness of character, all traits that are opposed to childlikeness. And then who are harmed? The children.

Why? Because these attacks are all “opposed to the Science of being.” Christian Scientists ask, Why is everything going downhill for our Movement? And yet they maintain that the principle thrust of thought in the Movement, which is to make Mrs. Eddy appear as an average old mortal, is consistent with our Leader’s thought. What baloney! Scientists go to church without giving gratitude for God’s messenger, the one who made it all possible. They deny her place in Bible prophecy, deny the importance of establishing her place, and, therefore, the importance of her revelation. Lecturers rarely speak of Mrs. Eddy’s place in their lectures as the Manual requires and, if they refer to her at all, it is often inadequate. Testimonials in the Sentinel and Journal now maintain that she is a follower of Christ Jesus and that as Christian Scientists we are now his followers also. Now it is rumored that the bound volumes are to be removed from our Reading Rooms, — all the marvelous history of our Movement taken from us. Malicious animal magnetism is actively working to obscure and remove the only remaining obstacle to its final purpose, the destruction of Christian Science, by attempting to remove from her followers the love for and correct recognition of our Leader. Animal magnetism has made progress by deceiving the very elect, — only they will not admit it because they have not the humility to admit they have been wrong in their estimate of Mary Baker Eddy.

As all of this activity is “opposed to the Science of being,” do we wonder why our little ones are being adversely affected? Was it a belief of intelligence in matter, intellectualism, malicious animal magnetism that tempted Miriam and Aaron to think they were equal to Moses and to also think that this iniquity against God’s chosen one would go uncorrected? What was the result? Miriam contracted leprosy, in the most virulent form. (Num. 12:2) The disciples, with the exception of John, all met violent deaths because of their contemptible treatment of their Lord. Jerusalem was destroyed because the ruling Jews would not recognize God’s appointed and anointed. We are aiding malicious animal magnetism in its warfare against the woman.

Immature metaphysicians with mundane mentalities say God didn’t know Mary Baker Eddy. How was divine Mind able to inform Jesus’ and John’s parents that they were to be born, specify their names, and tell them in an audible voice? Did God not know John or Jesus? Mary was even informed that Elizabeth was bearing a child! And our Lord said he antedated Abraham, — did God not know him then? The angel even talked to the shepherds and told them that Jesus was in a manger wrapped in swaddling clothes!

Now we are told our Leader was so unimportant that God did not even know her and she, like all Christian Scientists, was a follower of Christ Jesus. Did God say that? The diabolical nature of animal magnetism was uncovered by Mary Baker Eddy, not by Christ Jesus. We are followers of the one who revealed the final revelation, the one who uncovered malicious animal magnetism. But then all the men want a male leader and most of the women do too. To love and support our Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, is not deification; it is obedience to God and anyone who says it is deification doesn’t know the difference between the right road and road apples.

Included in Reminiscences of Edward P. Bates, C.S.D., concerning his considerable part in the construction of the original edifice of The Mother Church, is the following conversation:

‘Mr. Bates, but for you the church would never have been built.’ After a general conversation, she looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘Mr. Bates, are you prepared for what is to come?’ I could not think what she meant, and asked her. She said, ‘Are you prepared for the treatment you will receive?’ I could not imagine what she meant. I supposed that everybody would be so glad the church was built and we could hold services in our own temple that they would rejoice with everyone who had anything to do with its construction. She went on to say, ‘You came here in answer to prayer. I prayed God for three months to send me a man to finish the church. He heard my prayer and sent you and you followed my demonstration and the church is finished; — but they will hate you for helping Mother.’ This seemed incomprehensible. She went on to say, ‘They will shun you; they will try to ruin you morally, physically, financially and spiritually.’ Of this I had ample proof within a few weeks.

Reminiscences of Edward P. Bates, C.S.D., p.20

This shows us what Mr. Bates had to deal with for being faithful. Mrs. Eddy knew the treatment very well for she had received it a thousand times more severely than did Mr. Bates. She knew how malicious animal magnetism operated through her materially minded students to deny her and they deny her still.

Bates continued, “Before my leaving, she said, ‘We have built the church; it will be easy for branch churches to build their structures as we have cleared the way. If The Mother Church had not been finished at the time I designated, it would have remained a monument to the error and my students would have died sudden and unnatural deaths. You have helped me to save them.’” (Bates p.20, e.a.) Wasn’t she saying that had he been unsuccessful, malicious animal magnetism would have had the upper hand, remained unresisted and unhandled, and would have operated through the material mindedness of her students to resist the Christ and thus produce sudden and unnatural deaths? But because she and Mr. Bates destroyed its ability to do so, they prevented the demise of many of her students. Mrs. Eddy and Mr. Bates diminished the power of the sum total of human error. Can you see the importance of being obedient, and loving the revelator, as Mr. Bates did? Did it not get The Mother Church built? Would not disobedience and lack of love for her dissolve her church and bring about serious diseases all stemming from malicious animal magnetism and would not healing become more difficult? Has this happened? Wouldn’t all of this be “opposed to the Science of being”? Wouldn’t we find ourselves in court cases involving the deaths of our little ones?

Mrs. Eddy further defined the hatred that was directed at her when she wrote:

Christian Science is susceptible of being made the repository for all the sins of the other two religions [Catholicism and Protestantism] in marked face and form, whereby the most aggravated and exaggerated and liberated powers of evil have full sway.

The woman has cast into these three measures of iniquity, the leaven that is fermenting them. Therefore, they, inherent in mortal mind, take vengeance on their destroyer. Alas for the masquerade of their friendship, of their gratitude, of their honesty, of their virtue, and especially of their humanity towards this woman. Does one human heart love her? No! It is all a farce. The carnal mind hates her, and deserts her, lies about her, steals from her, mocks her, betrays her, nails her to the cross and spits on her, saying ‘Come down from the cross’. Then parts her seamless robe that has not one ridge of the three religions [Catholicism, Protestantism, and Christian Science] as interpreted by this trio of error — and casts lots for it. Rending it into rags it picks up the shorn glory and decks itself therewith in harlequin jacket. Not one of these three religions — misused — is the Rock on which Christ, Truth, builds the church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. And the last one is named the final one; therefore it holds the most relentless war against the woman.

Essays and Other Footprints. pp.54-55, e.a.

How can we handle malicious animal magnetism sufficiently to heal the sick, if we surrender to its primary purpose, that of warring against the woman? Whenever a leader appeared in Bible times it usually took one generation after they left for their followers to turn from that leader and fall into pleasure in matter. But those followers never had a Leader like ours, a Leader dedicated to God and loving enough to write and give to us a textbook that uncovers evil and points the way home. Yes, and healing was easier in the early days of the Movement because there was greater love for Mrs. Eddy and therefore less resistance to the Christ, Truth. This was due primarily to Mrs. Eddy’s systematically and continually clearing away the mortal mind debris. Now Christian Scientists can get a good look at what she accomplished because they are facing all the errors she held back. As we have diminished our Leader’s importance, we have given weight to the arguments of malicious animal magnetism. We have let our best friend down. Do not wonder that sin, disease and death are going unchallenged and unhealed in our Movement. Do not wonder why we are losing the battle and why our nation and church are on the edge of the precipice.

Christian Science practitioners must take a stand against sin and require that their patients who refuse to grow, who are content in materiality, work. Is it any wonder practitioners are feeling so heavy and burdened? The sin is becoming overwhelming and the patients are asking, even demanding, that the practitioners heal all of their problems but not touch their sins.

The hatred of Christian Science, the sin that does not want us to heal it, operates against us more forcefully when we listen to and accept the seducing claims that make us embrace materiality. Many Christian Scientists have touchy problems that have never been handled and these individuals are the same now as they were ten, twenty and even forty years ago. If we are the ones who say we understand the Science of our own being and reject childlikeness, do we really love Christian Science?

The Comforter does not permit comfort, ease, achievement or success in matter. Every healing brings forth some spiritual growth. We have all been too complacent, lethargic and apathetic. Sympathetic mesmerism rules where alertness and concern for the patient’s spiritual growth should be uppermost. It is easier to work for the patient, but not take a stand, because it is far easier not to confront and uncover evil and sin. But taking the easy way has been devastating to the cause of Christian Science.

Some cases can be healed mentally with a love that dissolves the sin while other sins must be spoken to firmly, as Jesus did many times and which our Leader did also. She found that rebukes were necessary in a majority of cases and especially to save the cause of Christian Science. She said that these rebukes caused her the most severe burdens because of the hatred and ill feeling they occasioned. Our Leader referred to this error that has to be uncovered, as mental drunkenness. We all have this mesmerism to handle in ourselves; and practitioners and teachers must help their patients and pupils to overcome it. Will you follow?

In an essay entitled “Marriage and Progeny” by Mrs. Eddy, we read, “Parents who understand spiritually the law of Truth, through disobedience thereto cannot improve the human race and propagate a generation more exempt from error. Is not sin exceedingly sinful in proportion to the light that is sinned against and might not the offspring of such mental conditions be the wickedest generation since Adam and have to pay the heaviest debt of posterity?” (Ess.CS p.54)

Mrs. Eddy said, “When I see a student grateful I know he is safe.” (DCC p.235) We must handle malicious animal magnetism and its hatred of Mary Baker Eddy. Future generations will look back on our time and wonder aloud at our ignorance and sensuality. They will shake their heads in disbelief, and cry over the intentional blindness with which we rushed headlong into disaster. There is a Court of Spirit and it is usually the court of last resort. Will we choose it?

Our little ones, hopefully future Christian Scientists, deserve much more from us than clothes, food and a roof over their heads. They need all of us to put away our love of materiality, to become genuine Christian Scientists, and to stop the mental contamination that enforces the claim of life, substance, and intelligence in matter and free our children from being “opposed to the Science of being.” (S&H p.583:4)

Gratitude or Indifference — Love or Deification

1986

Mrs. Eddy, on April 17, 1902, wrote to the artist who painted her picture and which is in the front of Dr. Lyman Powell’s biography (Mary Baker Eddy: A Life Size Portrait). “I can never express my full appreciation of the loving care which prompted the dear church in Baltimore to give a portrait of me to the world. I have often wondered, when thinking of the indifference that other churches have shown on this point, which does concern the history of Christian Science at present, and will in the future more than to-day.” (Mary Baker Eddy: Her Spiritual Footsteps, p.36, emphasis added) There are quite a few Christian Scientists today who think a displayed picture of Mrs. Eddy is deification. It certainly doesn’t sound as if Mrs. Eddy thought so. In fact, she tells us it is important and wonders why the other churches were indifferent to its importance. She saw the great danger, not of deification, but of indifference. Material mindedness, however, barely tolerates those who display pictures of Mrs. Eddy, scorns them as either deifiers or sentimentalists, and claims they are filled with emotion. Is this why many of our churches and Reading Rooms no longer have pictures of Mrs. Eddy? Our Leader tells us that pictures of herself will be important “in the future more than to-day.” Yet far less interest is shown in her today than was shown in her time.

Julia S. Bartlett wrote, “It was customary for a few of Mrs. Eddy’s students in those days to remember her at Christmas time with a few gifts that would be useful or enjoyable to her. I had a picture of Jesus which was said to be copied from the portrait carved on an emerald by order of Tiberius Caesar. The face was such as I had never seen in ideal pictures of him, so I decided to have one painted from it for Mrs. Eddy for Christmas, 1884, but when the time came, it was not finished and was not to be mentioned. The other gifts were arranged in her reception room and she was asked in to see them. As she looked she seemed surprised and turned immediately to me and said, ‘I thought it was a picture.’ I replied, ‘I do not see why you should think it was a picture.’ ‘Well,’ she said, ‘I did.’ Then I told her there was one, but it was not done, and she said, ‘I thought so.’ She said every time she had seen me for some time, there was a most beautiful picture in my thought and it was a picture of Jesus and there seemed to be a history connected with it, and that it was so beautiful it almost filled her with awe.”

Events intervened until the painting was ready to be given to Mrs. Eddy. “I now felt the time had come to give her the painting of Jesus above referred to, but we had a church meeting that evening to which I must go, so I asked one of the students in the College not to disturb her by going to her door, but when Mrs. Eddy returned to her room from supper to please take the picture to her and tell her it was from me. Mrs. Eddy was so affected by it that she wished to see me at once and sent this student for me. When I met dear, dear Mrs. Eddy, she was deeply moved, and expressed her love and gratitude and joy. I could not say all that this picture brought to her thought of the real Christ Jesus as one who had suffered and triumphed over all claims of evil, but she at once rose above it, and I rejoiced with her in that great love which she reflected and which is sufficient for all things.” (Mis. Doc. pp. 198, 199)

Did this picture represent the historical Christ Jesus to Mrs. Eddy and was that why she loved it? Is a love for Mrs. Eddy’s picture personality worship? Was her love for Jesus’ picture personality worship? Her tenderhearted regard for Jesus should be repeated in our Christian love for them both.

In Recollections of Mary Baker Eddy (p.51, e.a.), by James Gilman, he relates the following conversation with our Leader, “She pointed to a low rocking chair without arms, old-fashioned mahogany... saying, ‘In that chair I wrote Science and Health.’ I said, ‘It is a very valuable chair.’ ‘Yes,’ she replied, ‘the world will cherish all these things in future time.’” Is the present considered future to that time and are we cherishing “all these things”? No, Christian Scientists are doing exactly the opposite. An abiding ignorance concerning the importance of these things is just as dangerous as an emotional thrill received from seeing such things. A balance is required, and that comes through spiritual sense alone. Mortals, handled by personal sense, always choose the wrong path. Reasoning incorrectly, many Christian Scientists say that all the memorabilia concerning Mrs. Eddy must go, and that it is all personality worship and deification. Yet, this is contrary to what Mrs. Eddy believed and said. To cherish her chair is proper regard for her; but if we cannot cherish her chair, how can we cherish the one who spent many hours, days and years in that chair to give Science birth?

Pray that Christian Scientists cannot be handled by silent aggressive arguments to forget this dear one.

In her letter to the Board of Directors in 1895, concerning a painting of the chair she used while writing Science and Health, she wrote:

My dear students:

I said in the first place that the painting of the chair should not be itinerant, nor placed in the vestibule, but placed permanently in the auditorium or in Mother’s Room. The present arrangement is M.A.M. giving another occasion for saying, ‘Personal worship of Mrs. Eddy!’ Pulling it up and down for exhibition is enough to make people say you are gone wild on Mother, and the church is turned into a theatre, while the fact is if you loved Mother, you would keep her commandments. It destroys the dignity of the history associated with the chair to twaddle it up and down the walls.

With love,

Mother

Rev. Mary Baker Eddy

Per Frye

Mrs. Eddy cherished that chair and its history and wanted the sacredness of it to be kept inviolate, and not allow mortal mind an opportunity to say that Christian Scientists worship her. We can all be alert enough not to minimize or reject our Leader nor give others the impression that we worship her. The tendency to put Mrs. Eddy out of the way because we don’t want others to think we deify her, is just as dangerous as deifying her. It is the lack of spiritual understanding that would either minimize her importance or worship her. Are we deifying a Leader by following her and loving her or are we deifying ourselves by not following her and not loving her? Is it egotism that serves as a channel to reject all that pertains to Mrs. Eddy? Harmless as it may outwardly appear to be, is this, in fact, another attempt of malicious animal magnetism to remove Mrs. Eddy from her position of leadership? Do we deify Mrs. Eddy by recognizing, through spiritual sense, her place in Bible prophecy? Do we deify ourselves by placing our wisdom above God’s infinite wisdom and, rejecting her place in Bible prophecy, say it is deification to accept her place?

A worker in Mrs. Eddy’s home recounted the following story. Mr. Rathvon, an early worker, was in Mrs. Eddy’s home and came down the stairs one day, bowing before her with tears in his eyes, proclaiming she was the Woman in the Apocalypse. Mrs. Eddy immediately said, “Get on your feet and don’t let me see you do that again!” She recognized his view of her was through emotion, not spiritual sense, and rebuked him just as Jesus had rebuked some of those who saw his place through emotion.

On another occasion, Victoria Sargent told Mrs. Eddy that her (Mrs. Sargent’s) pupils recognized her as the woman in the Apocalypse and Mrs. Eddy commented, “That is from above.” (Sketch p.12) Here are two statements that appear to be the same; one was rebuked, the other accepted. Why? Because one was deification through personal sense, or emotionalism, while the other was based in spiritual sense and was proper recognition. Both Jesus and Mrs. Eddy appreciated and commended a recognition of their place gained through spiritual sense, and both rebuked a recognition produced by personal sense. “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:15-17) Peter’s recognition seen through spiritual sense was commended by Jesus; whereas the following illustrates a recognition that came through material or personal sense. “And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.” (Luke 4:41, see also Luke 4:34.) Jesus also spoke a soft rebuke to the one who kneeled to him, as Rathvon did to Mrs. Eddy, calling Jesus, Good Master. (Mark 10:17,18)

Is it deification then to visit and love the places our Leader owned and lived in, to appreciate, even cherish, her pictures and memorabilia? Is it deification to love her place in Bible prophecy and to appreciate the reverence with which some biographies were written? Is it deification to speak lovingly about her, to say why we are grateful for her in our testimonies and appreciate loving accounts of her in lectures? Of course not! But, if I thought it was, and I dynamited the marker over her birthplace and took the women off the front of the Sentinel, and if I bristled at hearing her name read from the desk and I refused to have her picture in Reading Rooms and in our churches, one might think, and rightfully so, that I was in great need of spiritual discernment.

My Leader is a loved member of my family and, as such, I respect her place of birth, the places where she lived and accomplished her work, and where her body lies and she can be remembered by the world. I have pictures of all my family members and I have some of her. I speak of family members and the good they have accomplished and speak also of the good she accomplished. It is normal and natural to love this dear one who has done so much for my family and unnatural to be indifferent towards her. I find it incomprehensible that those who love her are targets of hostility.

Clara Shannon writes in Golden Memories:

One thing that our Leader taught me was always to give God the glory and whatever I undertook to do, I was to say, ‘With God’s help l will do so and so,’ and to know that the good that I would do, I do, and the evil I would not do, I could not be made to do. She also said that in years to come, the loyal Christian Scientists would have to make it clear to people that it was not Mrs. Eddy who did the healing, but Truth and Love — ‘God will heal the sick through man, whenever man is governed by God’ (S&H p.495:1) and that she would be more worshipped than Jesus had been. Our duty would be to overcome the belief in mortal mind of worshipping her personality.

Golden Memories p.33

Christian Scientists have the spiritual vision to recognize and understand all of these precious insights so important to their growth and to the stability of her Cause.

We all love to sing the hymn, “I love to tell the story of Jesus and his love” and “O Jesus, our dear Master” and why is it that no one considers this deification? Imagine the outcry, if such a thing were even hinted at with respect to Mrs. Eddy! Many Christian Scientists don’t even like to hear her name read in our churches as the author of her poems and writings. Is this a problem with deification of Mrs. Eddy, a total lack of gratitude for her, or the suggestions of malicious animal magnetism?

In Golden Memories, the following poem was sung by Clara Shannon, “There is a Green Hill Far Away.” The poem …“had been set to music as a song by Sir Arthur Sullivan, an English composer, but this hymn speaks of death and crucifixion, so I [Clara Shannon] saw that the words must be changed. These are the substituted words that were sung to suit the occasion.

There is a green hill far away, Without a city wall,

Where the dear Lord is glorified Who lives to save us all.

We may not know, we cannot tell What joys she has to share

But we do know it is for us She works and watches here.

She lives that we may be forgiven, She loves to make us good,

That we might know the way to Heaven,

Saved by her precious love. There was no other good enough To show the ways of sin,

She only could unlock the gate Of Heaven and let us in.

Oh, dearly, dearly does she love, And we do love her too,

And trust in her redeeming love, And try her works to do.

As soon as that song was finished she said, ‘The words! Where did you get them?’ And she asked me to read them to her. When I reached ‘There was no other good enough to show the ways of sin,’ she was so moved, she bowed her head and put her little sunshade to her face as it lay folded in her hand. At the end, she rose from the sofa, put her arm around my neck, and we went in silence down the walk to her carriage. It was a touching scene. I put the carriage blanket over her knees, and neither of us spoke. Then she drove away.”

Her tender acceptance of the sweet regard for her evidenced in this poem reveals our Leader’s nature, her natural meekness and unfailing love, unlike the harshness attributed to her by some. Reading this account, how could there be a single Christian Scientist’s heart that does not go out to this dear one who sacrificed her all for us?

To proclaim her place does not even remotely suggest Christian Scientists want a personal second coming. But when prophecy has been fulfilled, it gives revelation status to her work. Without that fact, Science loses its authority to the human mind. How grateful Christian Scientists are for divine Love’s provision for the sons of men. We cannot be made to forget our duty to be grateful to God for her. We must love even the “type and shadow” of Truth’s appearing. All we see humanly is the type and shadow and without gratitude for what we see humanly we cannot progress to see her spiritually, thus depriving ourselves of the human and divine coincidence.

The commandment tells us to honor our father and mother, but following the reasoning of some Christian Scientists, we should not love our parents because that is personal sense. The disciples rejected the “type and shadow” on the cross and it cost them their lives and the world lost genuine Christianity. Some will say you have no need to appreciate the human appearing, but don’t believe that. If the disciples had loved Jesus enough they could have seen the glory of the anointed. What was it in John that protected him from violent death? He was obedient. John did not reject nor did he deify Jesus. He loved Jesus’ individuality, and thus grew to the understanding of spiritual sense. It was his spiritual sense that enabled John to receive the revelation of the Apocalypse from Jesus Christ, and to be known as John the Beloved.

Immature metaphysicians who have not yet gained the spiritual maturity, the spiritual sense, to see the difference between love and deification, are handled by fear to do the wrong thing. They take the opposite extreme and do not give her any recognition at all. In the end, indifference is just as destructive as deification. These errors aid the misunderstanding, or no understanding, of who God’s anointed is. This is the tactic of malicious animal magnetism in this age. After Jesus left us, it took Christians less than 300 years to completely lose genuine Christian healing. Why? Because they were not interested in understanding his life experience in relation to his discovery.

Only seventy-five years [now, ninety-seven] have gone by since our Leader left us. The healing work has been severely diminished. Why? Because there has been a more persistent effort of malicious animal magnetism to remove the life of Mrs. Eddy from view than there was to remove the truth of Jesus’ life through deification. The removal of God’s anointed can be done just as effectively through deification as it can through indifference and ingratitude. In both instances the revelator is misunderstood, or not understood at all, and the revelation is lost.

Christian Scientists must know scientifically that healing cannot be difficult or lost when we retain the vision of gratitude for the one who made each and every Christianly scientific healing possible.

Mrs. Eddy wrote:

The united plans of the evildoers is to cause the beginners either in lecturing or teaching or in our periodicals to keep Mrs. Eddy as she is (what God knows of her and revealed to Christ Jesus) out of sight, and to keep her as she is not (just another white-haired old lady) constantly before the public. This kills two birds with one stone. It darkens the spiritual sense of students and misguides the public. Why? Because it misstates the idea of the divine Principle that you are trying to demonstrate and hides it from the sense of the people.

Letter to Judge Hanna, October 13, 1902, e.a.

Christian Scientists are alert to the seducing claims of the enemy, and the love we have for our Leader will not allow these errors to be propagated. We can see why she stated, “All the people need in order to love and adopt Christian Science, is a true sense of its Founder. In proportion as they have found it, will our Cause advance.” (WKMBE Vol. I, p.40, e.a.) Is our Cause advancing? If the Christian Science Movement will not rise to see Mrs. Eddy through spiritual sense, can healing result and the Movement prosper? And if the Movement cannot see her correctly, then are we not ruled by personal sense?

We must not think of our Leader as a little old white-haired mortal any more than we would think of a patient as a young or an old mortal; we must see the human and divine coincidence in operation as John saw in Jesus. This is the way to see good individualized and to recognize its true source. We are always grateful to those individuals who are working in the second degree; if we are not, we are filled with neutrality and do not get the message, even if we think we do. Spiritual perception shows the facts of being but it does not show a mortal. No person could see ‘the woman’ through spiritual sense and then see her as a nice little old white-haired lady. Do we want others to see us this way? Do we want others to recognize age beliefs in us? Why then is it all right to hear or speak about our Leader in this way? Why is it so fundamentally important to recognize her properly? Because malicious animal magnetism wants to reject her and anything that malicious animal magnetism wants, it must not get.

If you, as a tough, unprincipled businessman wished to destroy a thriving competitor whose product is far better than yours, what would you do? The company is run by a superb leader and the employees admire and support him, as they have been the direct beneficiaries of his exemplary leadership. You would have two problems: 1. the boss, and 2. the employees. You have already found that it is very difficult to attack the product. Attacking the employees would do little as they will simply band together and openly attacking the boss will do little to aid your efforts. You might begin your attack that way, but would soon find it to be futile. Now you realize that it is necessary to attack the boss and the employees in a much more subtle manner. The boss is the main problem so you begin saying untrue things about him, bringing his background into question and making him appear to be no better than anyone else who works in his plant. You then accuse, as pedestal pushers, those employees most loyal to the boss who openly love him and place them in the position of being looked down on by the remaining employees. Continuing to deride them, the term catches on and the other employees begin to look down on them. These workers get a name as deifiers of the boss and are known to be full of emotion. The remaining workers, although still receiving benefits from the boss’ leadership, keep quiet. These intimidated workers openly diminish their boss’ importance and, not wanting to be considered deifiers, go in the opposite direction and accept any attempt to minimize his importance. The boss then loses his support, his effectiveness wanes, productivity suffers, workers are laid off, benefits decrease, the plant is devalued, property values plummet, and branch offices close quickly. Then the rival comes in and takes over and the last remaining unproductive workers have to leave.

Some Scientists and others complain that we are always talking about and quoting Mrs. Eddy and we certainly don’t want to offend them do we? Suppose we told why we are grateful for her and, at the same time, tell of our love for our Lord’s great example and demonstration. If we give reasons for our gratitude by sharing a physical healing we’ve experienced as the result of prayer, that would make more of an impact; but if we do not have any gratitude, how can we deliver an adequate answer?

On January 15, 1895, our Leader wrote, “Conduct your [testimonial] meetings by repeating and demonstrating practical Christian Science. Tell what this Science does for yourself and will do for others. Speak from experience of its Founder, noting her self-sacrifice as the way in Christian Science.” (December 1939 CS Journal, p.469) Are Christian Scientists correct when they equate love expressed for her in testimonies as deification?

In the Manual we read, “It is the duty of the Board of Lectureship to include in each lecture a true and just reply to public topics condemning Christian Science, and to bear testimony to the facts pertaining to the life of the Pastor Emeritus.” (Manual p.93, Art. XXXI Sect. 2, e.a.) On April 10, 1902, Mrs. Eddy wrote to Henrietta Chanfrau, “Take up at once the so-called C.S. Lecturers that they do their duty to their God and their poor unworthy Leader and Friend. A city that is set upon a hill cannot be hid, and the life of their Leader must be shown as it is. Never did I neglect Jesus in my sermons in the first days of Christian Science; now they must not forget me. The scandalous attacks on the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science will stop if the truth about her be shown to the world.” (Mary Baker Eddy: Her Spiritual Precepts, p.117)

Pray to know that Christian Scientists in positions of trust cannot be handled by projected mental arguments and thus made to diminish their regard for their Leader.

In the Manual, under Duties of the Committee on Publication, we read, “It shall be the duty of the Committee on Publication to correct in a Christian manner impositions on the public in regard to Christian Science, injustices done Mrs. Eddy or members of this Church by the daily press, by periodicals or circulated literature of any sort.” (Manual p.97, Article XXXIII Sec 2.) Notice that these are not statements to the Committee on Publication, lecturers or members about being alert not to place Mrs. Eddy on a pedestal or to deify her. These statements declare just the opposite. Mrs. Eddy understood the nature of the attack organized against her.

Many Christian Scientists, like Timothy, seem to be ashamed of the testimony of Mary Baker Eddy (II Tim. 1:8). For years and years we have worried about what others think and what has it gotten us? Maybe it was animal magnetism talking all the time and we were too busy listening.

When you see or understand spiritual truth, do you say I as a mortal understand that? Hardly, since that recognition came through the reflection of the one Mind. It may appear to be a mortal understanding an important point, but it is not. When one seeks to understand revealed Truth through personal sense, one will always come up short and interpret things and events incorrectly. We can interpret correctly, but only through spiritual sense. Those who attempt to understand Truth through personal sense will interpret incorrectly in either one of two ways: they will either underestimate or overestimate. “The pioneer of something new under the sun is never hit: he cannot be; the opinions of people fly too high or too low.” (Hea. p.6:5-7) For our subject, let us say they will either deify or they will give no recognition at all. Both of these errors proceed from material or personal sense and operate as intelligence in matter.

No mortal concept can reveal who the woman of Bible prophecy is any more than a mortal can heal the sick. Spiritual sense alone reveals the truth. Understanding “the divine method of warfare” (S&H p.568:5-7) as shown in the twelfth chapter of the book of Revelation, spiritual perception can realize the human and divine coincidence. Not having that spiritual perception, we experience the “fatal effects of trying to meet error with error” (S&H p.568:7-8) and that is the danger to our church and nation.

To say that all who saw Jesus as the prophesied Messiah deified him, is wrong, or to say that all who believed he was Messiah saw that point spiritually, is wrong. If a majority of Christians were to say that everyone who talks about Jesus Christ and claims he fulfilled Bible prophecy deifies Jesus, the destruction of Christianity would be ensured. No one would think of his grand example any more. The arguments used 2,000 years ago were far different from the more subtle arguments of malicious animal magnetism being employed today.

Everyone was not Messiah; only one proved the ideal and opened the way for all mankind. Can you imagine a Christian saying, “Christianity is my only ideal and there is no need to understand the demonstrator of that ideal”? Could that one demonstrate? Isn’t this what Christian Scientists are doing to Mary Baker Eddy? Today, Christian Scientists put the ideal out of reach by rejecting her and are therefore unable to prove her ideal. This is not a divisive issue, this is a healing issue; an issue that must be resolved or our Cause will not last.

Today, animal magnetism attempts to diminish the importance of anything or anyone who stands for the highest idea. It operates as a claim of intellectual honesty and is found striving with the righteous and excusing iniquities. We see this modern trend in attacks against and ridicule of our nation, minimizing its importance and belittling its efforts and accomplishments. We see the excusal of communism’s philosophy, an attack on our system of economics and an excusal of socialism, thus raising false systems into popular estimation. Television makes sport of virginity, purity, righteousness, the Christian clergy, and those who stand for what is right. All of this is done under the guise of intellectual honesty and pseudo-humility, or humanism. Intellectual honesty without spiritual mindedness is always destructive; it has no basis for right comparisons. Socialism, communism and atheistic governments are not constructive alternatives, although, in the popular estimation, they are given equal importance and have equal rights to existence.

The methods of mortal mind cannot be elevated or excused and made to appear respectable. Apologizing for evil and denigrating good is a mesmerism that Christian Scientists cannot be fooled by if they are alert to the methods of animal magnetism. The acceptance of this mentally immoral contagion, suggestions that increase the influence of intelligence in matter, operate under the guise of ‘intellectual honesty.’

We see this strange fascination with topsy-turvy morality in many Christian Scientists. When anything is done immorally by a Christian Scientist, some will say, Oh, don’t criticize; we must forgive. Yet, when a Christian Scientist takes a stand for what is right in his church, he is condemned, and oftentimes by the same person who would not condemn immorality. Don’t criticize those who say and do wrong but condemn and turn on those who stand for the right. Thus we find personal sense justifying sin and condemning righteousness. Our priorities and sensitivities must be Christian. Do you wonder why many Christian Scientists will not give gratitude for the most righteous woman who ever walked upon this earth? This issue is not personal; it is malicious animal magnetism handling the very elect.

The early Christians felt to a large extent that they could not follow Jesus’ marvelous example because he left no definite rules for them to follow. It was a species of inability and inferiority and as they gave in to this, they deified Jesus. That was the easy way out. In order to mask its intent and design, the evil of our time, operating through egotism and intellectualism, says, We must not deify Mrs. Eddy; we must not love and revere or appreciate her. Mortal mind fools us by saying we Christian Scientists must not repeat the error of the early Christians and deify like they did. That is not the error to watch today, though, is it? It has taken a different approach in our time. The error of tearing her down and making her appear common and ordinary must be stopped. “Whoever proclaims Truth loudest becomes the mark for error’s shaft. The archers aim at Truth’s mouthpiece…” This error is even more deadly than the error that deified Christ Jesus. So, when we hear this, Don’t talk about her, don’t recognize her place, remember it is only mortal mind wanting to be on her level without demonstrating righteousness. It is not person, it is always a claim of malicious animal magnetism. What we can look for in our own time is the error that denigrates her memory, makes her appear ordinary and, in so doing, would have us believe we are all on her level of thought.

Mary Baker Eddy revealed the Science of Christianity. The claim of egotism and intellectualism is furious. It cannot gain the heights of demonstration through this Science as she did. Does it attack the Science? No, it attacks the revelator. The claim of egotism and intellectualism works continually to pull her down, minimize her accomplishments and importance, and tries to approximate her lustre. Egotism and intellectualism will never be able to rise to the level of God’s messenger.

Christian Science gives us the antidote for this mesmeric poison and Christian Scientists cannot be fooled into embracing these seducing spirits. We have divine authority for trying the spirits. (I John 4:1)

Christians looked too much to the man Jesus and he became their all and his Christianity became nothing. Genuine Christianity was then lost, not because they openly rejected Christianity, but because they lost the true import of his life. Malicious animal magnetism, using a different method today, centers Christian Scientists’ thoughts on the revelation and keeps them from recognizing the true import of the revelator’s life. As Mrs. Eddy’s life has become little or nothing to a large number of Christian Scientists, and Christian Science has become their all, genuine Christian Science has just about been lost, not because they have turned from the revelation like the early Christians, but because they have turned from the revelator. Both then and now, the true sense of the revelator is lost and the revelation has no way of existing. In the first instance, it was deification of the man that showed an incorrect understanding of him. Today, it is rejection of the woman that shows an incorrect understanding of her.

Does it seem strange to you that the most important woman ever put on this planet and known by millions of people around the world in her time, is unknown today? Does it seem strange to you that none of her human achievements are known today? Is this not proof of the conspiracy of mortal mind to hide her life? No other woman in history has accomplished so much, nor has any group of women come even close to accomplishing her demonstration as the Discoverer, Founder, and Leader of Christian Science. And yet she is basically unknown in the world today.

In an article from the May 1986 Christian Science Journal, “Gaining an Understanding of Mrs. Eddy’s Life,” some fine statements and correct points were made, but the impression given of our Leader is not correct. We read, “Paul’s dual confession of his divine calling and of his life history required the people of his day to render proper judgment of both the man and his spiritual commission.” (p. 265) Later the writer says, “With Pauline boldness, Mrs. Eddy planted her flag of spiritual discovery on the mountain peak of divine revelation.” The writer alludes to Mrs. Eddy’s life by comparing her to Paul, as well as to others. The word allude means, “a reference to something not explicitly mentioned; a hint; a suggestion, by which something is applied or understood to belong to that which is not mentioned, by means of some similitude which is perceived between them.” A large percentage of this article deals with the characters of Paul, Moses, Elijah and Peter, and through allusion uses them to describe Mrs. Eddy’s life, the stated subject of the article.

Continuing on we read, “Christian Scientists do not claim personal infallibility for Mrs. Eddy — anymore than they would for Moses (who in his earlier years killed an Egyptian), or for Elijah (who once in a moment of despair sought God to take his life), or for Peter (who, despite his prior professions of loyalty to Jesus, forsook his Master on the night before the crucifixion).” (p.265, e.a.) How do we “gain an understanding of Mrs. Eddy’s life” by alluding to the worst moments in the careers of these men, none of whom were on her level of thought? It might be added that Christian Scientists do not claim a personal infallibility for Mrs. Eddy nor for Jesus, who did not claim such for himself. Jesus very clearly stated, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” (John 5:30)

Mrs. Eddy said, “My history is a holy one.” (Mary Baker Eddy: Her Spiritual Footsteps, p.281) Yes, she experienced many trials and personal attacks but her life was about as sinless as a human’s life can be, certainly far more so than mine or yours. It was recorded in later years that in forty years she had not made a single mistake in being guided in matters pertaining to her Cause and in all of her healing work she never lost a case. Mrs. Eddy claimed no personal infallibility but constantly worked to know, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” We might ask ourselves, if Mrs. Eddy were in the room, would we even hint that her background was suspect? Would we openly parallel her background, before her discovery of Christian Science, with the worst moments in the lives of the men alluded to in the Journal article we have just been discussing?

In “Gaining an Understanding of Mrs. Eddy’s Life” (p.264), the author writes about St. Paul, “How were they to reconcile the proclaimed spiritual authority of his writings with the ‘humanness’ of the writer?… ‘His letters,’ they argued, ‘are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.’ One Bible scholar explains the dilemma this way: ‘The contrast seems …to be between the character of [Paul’s] letters and the character of the man himself.” What are we being told here about Mrs. Eddy? What is the writer inferring? Who is the article about and to whom is the author alluding? Is it not that to reconcile the proclaimed spiritual authority of her writing with her ‘humanness’ is very difficult? Her writing is weighty and powerful, but her bodily presence weak, and that the character of her writing seems to contrast with the character of the woman herself. There were some who attempted to destroy Paul’s marvelous work by attacking him personally and made sport of his bodily presence when there was nothing wrong with Paul. The Christians said nothing against Paul. But to take the small-minded pagan intellectuals’ attacks upon Paul’s character and give them added weight by paralleling them to the life of Mary Baker Eddy is worse still.

Continuing, we read, “But, significantly, in what he wrote and said the apostle did not hide from his readers or his listeners the personal events in his life that preceded his conversion to Christ (including facts about his family background and his persecution of Jesus’ followers). Nor did he try to whitewash the personal struggles that attended his apostleship (including the many persecutions and adverse circumstances, the factionalism among some of his fellow Christians, and even the afflictive thorn in his flesh).” Now, these facts are true concerning Paul, but how do they allude to the life of Mrs. Eddy? Are we to assume there is something in Mrs. Eddy’s life that needs to be exposed, or that has already been uncovered that we all must focus on? How do we reconcile this with, “My history is a holy one”? Doesn’t the foregoing quote subtly foster a doubt about her background and life and produce questions about her comments concerning herself? What are we being told in this article that can be used to gain an understanding about Mrs. Eddy’s life?

We may refer to Moses, Elijah, Peter and Paul as alluding to the life of Mrs. Eddy, but not from those portions of their lives that dealt with serious mistakes and the fruits of sin. We may refer to Moses as the leader of millions and a man who had to be meek at all costs, suffering under the sins and reprobate actions of his ungrateful followers. We may refer to Elijah’s direct confrontation with the sinister forces of Jezebel and archaic religion and to a manipulated and weak remnant that left him to struggle alone. We may refer to Paul, his great love of right that brought him eventually into the embrace of divine Love. Peter, however, is not of a sufficient character to use as a reference, or to allude to, in order to gain an understanding of Mrs. Eddy’s life. To allude to the negative periods of their lives, as in the Journal article, would make a lovely article about God’s saving grace and great forgiveness, or an article about the power of divine Love to draw us to Himself, but not to gain an understanding of Mrs. Eddy’s life.

None of the allusions to Mrs. Eddy, used in this Journal article, hold even a scintilla of fact. Mrs. Eddy’s mother and family all told her that as a child she possessed the disposition of an angel. Also, her joy and love were sadly missed when she left the family home. At the age of eight she heard God’s voice speaking her name many, many times. Because of her spirituality, she was a natural healer, even as a child. As a young person, she was a constant and close student of her Bible and unfailingly faithful to God. It was noted by those who knew her that there was never a comment or word uttered against the good name of Miss Baker. From the age of twenty-three she longed for the answer to the mental cause and cure of disease and desired to find this truth for the sake of mankind. A large portion of her life was lived in constant pain, semi-invalidism and total debilitation. But none of this kept her from her love and purity. Our Leader went through periods of semi-starvation, constant bodily pain, through such severe lack that she did not have money enough for the bare essentials of life, and the few clothes she had were threadbare. Job could not have withstood the trials of this woman.

Christian Scientists do not claim that Mrs. Eddy walked through life on a bed of rose petals. But her life must be understood correctly. Malicious animal magnetism tried to destroy both Moses and Jesus as little babies. With Mrs. Eddy, it did not stop there. Evil knew its destroyer. Mrs. Eddy’s mission was different than either Moses’ or Jesus’. Her quote from a letter makes this clear, “You know my trials are not confined to one person, or one thing, as their source, but take in all earthly things and mortals.” (S.L. p.30)

Her work was to discover the Science of the Christ, to uncover the nature of malicious animal magnetism, and to write her discoveries in a book for all mankind. The promise of this life accounted for the severe problems that attended it, not through any sin of her own, but from sin’s revenge upon its destroyer. Moses, Elijah, Peter and Paul’s own sins caused their suffering. Because she suffered for the sins of others and because she was the one chosen to uncover animal magnetism, her life must be understood. Her life reveals how to handle malicious animal magnetism and, once it is handled, the freedom obtained to go forward and heal through the Science of the Christ. It is as equally important to understand her life as it is to understand her Science. Do we wonder why we are not healing as we should? Have we gotten too far away from this dear one, forgotten her life sacrifices, and imputed that to her which was never a part of her?

The problem within our Movement is not a misunderstanding of Christian Science, it is a misunderstanding of her life, —the life that contains the key to overcoming the claims of malicious animal magnetism. Mrs. Eddy says, “Christian Science is my only ideal; and the individual and his ideal can never be severed. If either is misunderstood or maligned, it eclipses the other with the shadow cast by this error.” (Mis. p.105:20) Has Christian Science, her ideal, been eclipsed by the shadow cast by the error that has severed her from her ideal? That which separates us from her, also uses us to see her incorrectly. What is it that casts the shadow to hide her place? She says, “Nothing except sin, in the students themselves, can separate them from me.” (Ret. p.81:4-5)

L. Ivimy Gwalter, CSB: “[Prophecy] comes to glorious fulfillment in the advent of Mary Baker Eddy, who, in her fulfillment of prophecy, typifies the spiritual idea symbolized by the woman in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse…Mrs. Eddy’s discovery was not the product of human reason but of divine revelation. She speaks of herself as a scribe whose orders came from heaven (see Miscellaneous Writings, p.311) but she was more than a person transcribing a heavenly message. Her spiritual stature transcends mortal measurements. She is one with the revelation; through her the revelation speaks.” (Mary Baker Eddy: A Centennial Appreciation, pp.109-110)

George Wendell Adams, CSB, who knew Mary Baker Eddy: “Several members of the class rose to their feet and humbly paid grateful tribute to the one whom God had appointed to voice His Word.” (WKMBE Vol. II, p.34)

Elizabeth Glass Barlow, CSB: “She too had been commissioned of God to speak.” (Mary Baker Eddy: A Centennial Appreciation, p.60)

Dr. John M. Tutt, CSB: “There was a strong element of prophecy in Christ Jesus’ parable of the kingdom of heaven likened to ‘leaven’ which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.’… The leaven of Spirit is the influence Mrs. Eddy hid in the measure of meal called material medicine.” (Mary Baker Eddy: A Centennial Appreciation, pp.99-100)

Sue Harper Mims, CSD: Mrs. Mims stated to Mrs. Eddy that she was “God’s messenger today.” She also said, “There is not a day of my life that I do not declare at least once, often twice, that malicious animal magnetism cannot blind me to her. We must fix our gaze on Principle, think of God, and yet we must recognize who she is.” (WKMBE Vol. II, p.55)

Paul Stark Seeley, CSB: “Hers was the God-ordered mission — symbolized in Revelation as a woman clothed with the sun, the radiance of spiritual truth —inspired by deific Mind to proclaim the message which, Christ Jesus said, ‘will guide you into all truth.’” (Mary Baker Eddy: A Centennial Appreciation, p.45) “Micah and Zechariah foresaw that two messengers would appear to further and fulfill this divine purpose. First, with Christ Jesus, by the spoken word and mighty proofs of the healing power of God’s Word… That the divine purpose demanded a subsequent revelation of truth the Master made clear in these prophetic words: ‘I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.’ John, in the twelfth chapter of Revelation, reiterates Micah’s prophecy that she who travaileth shall bring forth that revelation of eternal truth which shall rule all peoples… Christ Jesus, the first of Truth’s great messengers to mankind, foretold by the prophets, spake to men as no man had ever spoken… Mrs. Eddy, who had made his teachings her own, through years of study, prayer, and self-immolation, became qualified to be the subsequent messenger of Truth, foreseen by the prophets…” (ibid, p.39-44)

W. Stewart Booth, CSB: “Evidently, however, the Revelator was led to show that, as the Christ, Truth, had been presented by the man Jesus, who taught the fatherhood of God, so the motherhood of God should be presented by a woman. Early issues of The Christian Science Journal when she was its Editor and later when she watched and supervised its contents, carry definite statements which indicate that Mrs. Eddy’s place in Scriptural prophecy was apprehended and appreciated by her and her faithful followers. In April, 1938, The Christian Science Board of Directors, after fully considering this important subject, appointed a committee of six to ascertain what Mrs. Eddy considered herself to be in the light of Scriptural prophecies. The committee was composed of editors and former editors of The Christian Science Journal, Sentinel and Heralds. In addition to all our Leader’s published writings, the committee was furnished from the archives of The Mother Church important pertinent statements by Mrs. Eddy, which, however, she had decided should not be published. After carefully and prayerfully considering the subject the committee unanimously arrived at certain conclusions which were submitted to the Directors.” (Christian Science Sentinel, Nov. 2, 1946, emphasis added)

Clara Knox McKee, CSD, who knew Mary Baker Eddy: “Of the ideal woman it is said in Proverbs 31:26: ‘She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.’ This certainly is descriptive of our beloved Leader and friend, Mary Baker Eddy.” (WKMBE Vol. II, p.75)

Julia Michael Johnston, CSB: “In the depths of her consciousness Mrs. Eddy knew that in her discovery of Christian Science was fulfilled the Bible prophecy of a woman who would bring forth a man child to rule all nations with the power of God (Rev. 12:5) …the woman divinely foretold fulfilled her mission.” (Mary Baker Eddy: Her Mission and Triumph, 1st ed., p.183)

Albert F. Gilmore, CSB: “Her works furnish positive proof of her position as the revelator —the woman representative —of the Christ in this age, through whom the prophecy of the ‘second coming’ is fulfilled… There is abundant proof that Mrs. Eddy was aware of her unique work in relation to revelation… Convinced that her discovery, Christian Science, is the leaven of Truth, she could scarcely fail to

recognize the spiritual position of its Discoverer…” (“The Second Coming,” Christian Science Journal Nov. 1939, p.407)

Daisette D. S. McKenzie, CSB: “…Perhaps we sometimes read Science and Health without a thought of the author. May we not rather realize that we are not only reading the word of God, but that our communion with Him is through the message written by His chosen scribe?... ‘It was not myself, but the divine power of Truth and Love, infinitely above me, which dictated ‘Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.’ The prophecy of the Apocalypse was fulfilled —a woman had brought forth a child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron, unchanging Principle.” (WKMBE Vol. I, pp.40-43)

Appendix

To order works by Paul R. Smillie:

In Defense of Mary Baker Eddy and the Remnant of Her Seed

A paperback collection of Mr. Smillie's articles that defends Mrs. Eddy's place in prophecy and also those who recognize her place.

Click here to purchase the paperback version on Amazon.

Mary Baker Eddy The Prophetic and Historical Perspective

A thought provoking and loving biography of the Leader of the Christian Science Movement, Mary Baker Eddy.

Click here to purchase the paperback version on Amazon.

The edited edition in paperback may be ordered from Amazon.com or TheBookmark.com.

Paul R. Smillie

The Gethsemane Foundation was a non-profit, tax-exempt religious foundation, which sought to promote a greater public understanding of Christian Science and its Discoverer, Founder, and Leader, Mary Baker Eddy.

The Gethsemane Foundation was dissolved in 2018.

Here is some background information concerning the cover graphics previously registered to The Gethsemane Foundation:

When the trademark of the two women, owned by the Christian Science Board of Directors, expired and was not re-registered, Paul Smillie, the founder of The Gethsemane Foundation, saw the need to protect the trademark and registered it for the foundation’s use until such time as the Christian Science church was willing to follow their Leader and was, therefore, in need of the trademark as the cover for all of Mrs. Eddy’s periodicals. That time has not yet arrived.