Why I Am Not A Christian Scientist -- By: Charges Caverno

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 059:236 (Oct 1902)
Article: Why I Am Not A Christian Scientist
Author: Charges Caverno


Why I Am Not A Christian Scientist

Rev. Charges Caverno

Somewhere in the forties Horace Greeley wrote an article for the New York Tribune which he entitled, “Why I am a Whig.” Such personal frankness was a new departure in politics. But it left its mark, and from that day onward it has been easier for a man to express his personal views in politics, his individual convictions on any topic in the public mind.

I purpose in this article to tell why I am not a Christian Scientist. My excursion will be in the domain of philosophy, and mainly from a psychological point of view. I start out with the following declarations, taken from the works of the founder of Christian Science: —

“There is but one I, one mind or spirit, because there is but one God.”

The science of being destroys the belief that man is a separate intelligence from is Maker.”

“Man has no distinct mind from his Maker.” “The soul of man is God.”

At old common law the system of pleadings usually ran like this: —

Declaration : Plea.
Replication : Rejoinder.
Surrejoinder: Rebutter.
Surrebutter.

It will not be necessary to go through all the old common-law forms to find an issue in the case before us. The issue is joined at once on the declarations above. They are, each and all, denied on their simple statement. The exact

opposite of each of them is the truth. There are as many I’s, minds, or spirits as there are intelligent self-conscious beings in the universe. The facts of being uphold the belief that man is a separate intelligence from his Maker. Man has a distinct mind from that of his Maker. The soul of man is not God. The issue ought to be plain.

Now, at the outset, I might grant pantheism, idealism, or any system of thought that looks back to an original unity, and that unity, one entirely of mind. What we have to look at is not what things were, but what they have become. It may be that the universe was once fire-mist distributed equally in space, or quiescent stuff at an absolute zero of temperature, or “an indefinite incoherent homogeneity.” But such is not the case now. It may be that the speculation of Lockyer may be true, that all the chemical elements were originally one; but that is not the condition now, and we must deal with them as we find them. More than that, they show no signs of willingness to return to that primitive unity. So far they are absolutely refractory to compulsion in that direction. If the elements were originally one, it is a great deal more likely that new ones will appear than that old ones will slide b...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()