Science are in a system that is not only non-Christian and pagan but anti-Christian, a system that was inspired by those who wanted to resist the spreading tide of Christianity, then I disprove the second point of her claim. Mrs. Eddy's language suggests her mental process and a plan of procedure for us in our investigation. She says that “in the latter part of 1866 I gained the scientific certainty that all causation was Mind and every effect a mental phenomenon.” This she claims was a great discovery, but it is no new doctrine. Armed with this theory and the many views logically connected with it in a philosophic system which Christian Science is little more than a reproduction of, Mrs. Eddy turned to the Bible and studied it three years. For what? To read this philosophy into it.
The prudence of Mrs. Eddy kept her from claiming that she found in the Bible the “scientific certainty that all causation was Mind and every effect a mental phenomenon”. This is that “definite rule” that was “discovered in Christian Science”. But what one may not get out of the Bible she may put into it. As a result we have “Key to the Scriptures”. If any one doubts Mrs. Eddy's genius let him study this specimen of verbal and mental gynmastics. If she had been equally gifted for physical feats, the moon would have been a plaything for her. It is amazing that any number of persons can take this performance, this caricature, seriously. But necessity is the mother of invention. Mrs. Eddy had to get her system into the Bible or fail. It would not do to tell sick people that she could cure them by the metaphysics of a pagan philosophy. So she worked her ideas into the Bible and very naturally what she gets in she can get out. It should be said, however, as a matter of truth, that there are some ideas common to Christianity and Christian Science. This is only natural and what any one might expect. The same is true also of Christianity and Buddhism. But these similarities are accidental. The two religions are essentially different. So, too, there are a number of similarities between Christianity and Platonism and consequently between Christianity and Neoplatonism. And these are those similarities which appear between Christianity and Christian Science. But these similarities, I repeat, are accidental; that is, they do not belong to the genius of the two systems.
For example, Mrs. Eddy teaches the self-existence of God and says certain pretty things about it, quoting legitimately God's word to Moses at the “burning bush”, “I am that I am”.[13] Now this truth is taught in the Bible. It is implied in the favorite name for God in the Old Testament, Yahweh, improperly transliterated in King James' version, Jehovah. But this conception of God was well proclaimed by Philo, who tried to harmonize Plato and the Old Testament,[14] and was taught by the Neoplatonists; and it would seem to be a necessary belief of every man who turns his reason to religion. Let it be said also in this connection that Philo's attempt to interpret the Old Testament according to Plato was a prenatal preparation for Christian Science. It is not my purpose to meddle with the Quimby question. Whether or not Mrs. Eddy was influenced by P. P. Quimby does not affect the contention herein made. One thing is certain, Quimby was not the originator of the principles of Christian Science. That Mrs. Eddy got many of her ideas from him is well established.[15] But I am concerned with the original source of them. If Quimby had them where did he get them? To answer this question is the problem.
And let it be stated without further delay that Christian Science is a system of ideas or philosophic principles. A philosophic system is a body of doctrines or a collection of conceptions that are logically related and interdependent. Let no one hastily conclude that Christian Science is a jumble of notions thrown together by a fanciful and unsystematic mind, or, as one puts it, “unorganized speculation”.[16] It is speculation but not unorganized speculation. Many are bewildered when they attempt to understand Christian Science and are offended at what appears to be glaring inconsistencies. I do not deny that it contains irreconcilable inconsistencies. But many of the inconsistencies complained at are only apparent and are the result of not understanding Mrs. Eddy's standpoint. If we grant her principles we must grant most of her conclusions and admit that her application of them is in general legitimate. Mrs. Eddy realized this and so do all well-informed Christian Scientists. So they urge us to study her teachings much and carefully. Christian Science is a metaphysical system, as Mrs. Eddy claims; and, as all students of metaphysics know, such a body of ideas must be carefully studied before one can have even an intelligent opinion as to it.
My purpose is to show that the metaphysical principles of Christian Science are a reproduction of those of Neoplatonism. How Mrs. Eddy came upon them I do not know and I do not care. Others may investigate that question. I am concerned with establishing a fact, not with how the fact came to be. Mrs. Eddy was aware of Neoplatonism as a historical event, and had some knowledge of its religious character.[17]
Neoplatonism, as the word indicates, is a modified form of Plato's philosophy. It is also an application of the principles of Platoism to religion; that is, pagan religion. Christianity has felt its influence; but a zeal to revive paganism and to re-establish its power caused Neoplatonism to rise and reign for several centuries. It is perhaps the most powerful philosophical system that was ever given to the world.
The honor of originating this system is attributed to Ammonius Saccas, a teacher of Alexandria, who flourished in the first part of the third century after Christ. Almost nothing is known of him; and he probably would have been entirely forgotten had it not been for his brilliant pupil, Plotinus, the real founder of Neoplatonism. He was born in Alexandria about the year 205 A. D. He came to Rome in the year 244, where his lectures were received with great enthusiasm. He died in 270. Plato and Aristotle have had no follower whose thought is more penetrating or more sublime.
The next greatest name among the Neoplatonists, the one after whose death the school rapidly declined, is Proclus, who lectured at Athens. He died in 485. For breadth of learning, for productiveness, for brilliancy of imagination, for analytical ability, for gifts for systematizing his thoughts, for finished, scholarly productions, we shall hardly find his equal. He was a literary genius.
There are two other great names second only to Plotinus and Proclus, namely, Porphyry, the pupil and great admirer of Plotinus, and Iamblichus, the pupil of Porphyry. The former was a popular expounder of the views of Plotinus; the latter was a fluent orator and religious enthusiast.
After these five great names, the founders and builders of the structure, there come a host of others who have worked upon it and given it the touch of their genius. I mention Julian the Emperor of Rome, called the Apostate, Syrianus, the predecessor and teacher of Proclus, Olympiodorius (the younger), Marinus, Simplicius and the Christians, Synesius and Boethius. Boethius was a Christian who subscribed to certain Neoplatonic principles, as many Christian theologians have done. Synesius was a Neoplatonist who adopted the Christian faith. He was more a philosopher than a Christian. The anti-Christian character of Neoplatonism is manifest in the fact that the Emperor Julian, who was mad against Christianity, was an enthusiastic supporter and defender of it. Iamblichus was his teacher and guide.
Neoplatonism is, I repeat, one of the mightiest metaphysical systems that have been given to the world. Though it is a purely rational view of the universe and was at first inspired to defeat Christianity, by virtue of its intellectual power it affected profoundly scholastic theology. And not a few remains of it linger in modern theology and the “old” psychology. It professed to be unmaterialistic, spiritual and intellectual, as Christian Science does.
We shall find in Christian Science certain features that show a modified or developed form of Neoplatonism. For example, Mrs. Eddy's conception of Christ, and of Christian theology in general, is in the main the same as Spinoza's, the great Jewish philosopher and the world's greatest pantheist. Now Spinoza did little more in his philosophy than to reproduce Neoplatonism and his teaching as to Christ is a forging of him into the Neoplatonic mould. He could not deny his historical reality. But he could attempt to explain him according to his philosophy. Mrs. Eddy, with the aid of the same philosophy, makes the same disposal of him. The refined and scholarly infidelity of our age owes more to Spinoza and to David Hume, the great English historian and empirical philosopher, than to all other persons combined.
That Mrs. Eddy borrowed from Bishop Berkeley or David Hume is a most superficial suggestion. That she resembles Ralph Waldo Emerson is true, for he is little more than a Neoplatonist.