Publication date
9/15/09
Volume
30
Number
18
The WatchTower
Views from The Watch Tower
The Watchtower Magazines
/../literature/watchtower/1909/18/1909-18-1.html
 
 
VOL. 
XXX 
BROOKLYN, 
N. 
Y., 
SEPTEMBER 
15, 
1909 
No. 
18 
VIEWS 
FROM 
THE 
WATCH 
TOWER 
DR. 
AXED'S 
CONGRATULATIONS 
idea 
of 
a 
~overnment 
of 
the 
State 
of 
New 
York 
sent 
the 
other 
The 
churches 
may 
now 
add 
to 
Mr. 
Rockefeller's 
responsi- 
antagonistic 
idea 
to 
the 
Divine 
idea 
of 
a 
grave. 
And 
the 
idea 
bility 
for 
the 
taint 
of 
wealth, 
that 
through 
his 
university 
he 
of 
the 
world 
will 
continue 
to 
revolve-in 
the 
One 
Mind-as 
has 
tainted 
the 
nation's 
theology. 
George 
Burman 
Foster 
has 
heretofore." 
finally 
been 
ousted 
from 
membership 
in 
the 
Chicago 
conference 
From 
this 
fantastic 
statement 
of 
the 
implications 
of 
Chris- 
of 
Baptist 
ministers. 
tian 
Science, 
Dr. 
Lambert 
passes 
on 
to 
an 
affirmation 
that 
the 
But 
he 
still 
remains 
a 
member 
and 
a 
minister 
of 
that 
de· 
new 
creed 
is 
sheer 
Pantheism. 
The 
very 
essence 
of 
Pantheism, 
nomination, 
as 
well 
as 
the 
professor 
of 
comparative 
religions 
in 
according 
to 
his 
definition, 
is 
the 
denial 
of 
the 
creative 
act. 
what 
is 
generally 
known 
as 
Mr. 
Rockefeller's 
Bl\ptist 
Dniver· 
"Those 
who 
hold 
to 
that 
ism," 
he 
remarks, 
"do 
not 
say 
that 
sity. 
It 
was 
a 
merry 
war, 
filled 
with 
expletives 
and 
unchurchly 
God 
is 
in 
matter, 
but 
that 
all 
that 
is, 
is 
God; 
that 
all 
the 
phe­ 
heat, 
which 
ended 
Mr. 
Foster's 
ministerial 
affiliation. 
nomena 
of 
which 
we 
are 
conscious 
are 
but 
the 
visible 
unfolding 
But 
now 
comes 
Dr. 
Aked, 
pastor 
of 
the 
Fifth 
Avenue 
Bap- 
of 
the 
Divine 
nature, 
as 
the 
rose 
unfolds 
itself, 
all 
unconscious 
tist 
church 
of 
New 
York, 
"the 
Rockefeller 
church," 
and 
agrees 
of 
what 
it 
does; 
and 
this 
universe, 
as 
seen 
by 
us, 
is 
to 
God 
with 
the 
professor, 
though 
he 
can 
see 
no 
exCUse 
for 
a 
book 
deal· 
what 
the 
surface 
of 
the 
ocean 
is 
to 
the 
ocean, 
whose 
waves 
and 
ing 
with 
the 
fundamental 
tenets 
of 
the 
Christian 
religion, 
and 
bubbles 
rise 
and 
fall 
back 
into 
it, 
never 
ceasing 
in 
all 
their 
"dashed 
off 
in 
thirty 
days," 
like 
a 
best 
seller. 
changes 
to 
be 
a 
part 
of 
it. 
Pantheism 
looks 
on 
the 
universe 
and 
He 
approves, 
however, 
of 
its 
purpose, 
which 
he 
says 
was 
to 
all 
its 
changes-including 
thought-as 
phases 
or 
forms 
of 
the 
supplant 
the 
foundations 
of 
the 
faith 
of 
our 
fathers 
with 
some- 
Divine 
Being, 
evolving 
and 
ever 
to 
evolve 
or 
unfold, 
by 
a 
fatal 
thing 
unbelievers 
may 
believe, 
but 
which 
more 
likely 
was 
to 
necessity." 
But 
this 
is 
precisely 
what 
Christian 
Science 
put 
cash 
in 
a 
purse 
that 
felt 
a 
money 
hunger. 
teaches. 
Ad.dressing 
himself 
directly 
to 
Mr. 
McCrackan, 
Dr. 
Dr. 
Aked 
also 
congratulates 
"the 
whole 
church 
of 
God" 
upon 
Lambert 
says: 
the 
admission 
to 
the 
Presbyterian 
ministry 
of 
three 
young 
men 
"As 
you 
deny 
the 
existence 
of 
all 
spirits 
except 
the 
Infinite 
who 
refused 
to 
accept 
the 
birth 
of 
Christ 
as 
miraculous, 
or 
the 
Spirit, 
and 
deny 
the 
existence 
of 
the 
material 
world 
also, 
there 
story 
of 
Adam 
and 
Eve 
as 
told 
in 
Genesis, 
or 
some 
of 
the 
mira- 
remains 
nothing 
in 
existence 
but 
the 
Infinite 
Spirit; 
hence 
you 
cles 
of 
the 
New 
Testament 
as 
authentic. 
He 
calls 
them 
"young 
can, 
by 
the 
term 
'expression,' 
mean 
only 
some 
form, 
state 
or 
men 
who 
think 
and 
are 
prepared 
to 
advance 
in 
the 
fulness 
of 
change 
of 
this 
Spirit 
himself. 
The 
term 
'expression,' 
then, 
in 
Christian 
thought 
and 
Evolution." 
your 
sense, 
clashes 
with 
creation; 
it 
goes 
further, 
and 
denies 
-Duluth 
News 
Tribune. 
creation, 
leaving 
nothing 
but 
subjective 
change, 
development 
THE 
ROMAN 
CATHOLIC 
REPLY 
TO 
CHRISTIAN 
SCIENCE 
or 
evolvement 
of 
the 
Infinite 
Being. 
This 
is 
Pantheism 
pure 
"Current 
Literature," 
presents 
briefly 
the 
Roman 
Catholic 
and 
simple. 
You 
may 
not 
intend 
this, 
but 
it 
is 
tl1e 
inevitable 
reply 
to 
Christian 
Science, 
as 
set 
forth 
by 
the 
Rev. 
L. 
A. 
Lam. 
conclusion 
from 
your 
Christian 
Science 
principles. 
bert, 
LL. 
D., 
as 
per 
the 
following 
extract:- 
"You 
confirm 
this 
conclusion 
when 
you 
say: 
'The 
only 
real 
According 
to 
Mr. 
McCracken, 
"Christian 
Science 
teaches 
universe 
is 
mental. 
Things 
are 
thoughts.' 
That 
is, 
thoughts 
that 
there 
is 
but 
one 
God, 
a 
God 
who 
is 
Infinite 
Spirit 
and 
in 
the 
mind 
of 
God. 
If 
things 
are 
nothing 
more 
than 
thoughts, 
Creator, 
the 
universe, 
including 
man, 
consistin~ 
of 
an 
infinite 
existing 
only 
in 
the 
Divine 
Mind, 
then 
things-this 
universe­ 
number 
of 
expressions 
of 
this 
One 
Spirit." 
ThIS 
conception 
of 
are 
eternal, 
for 
God's 
thoughts 
are 
eternal 
and 
unchangeable. 
God 
seems 
to 
approach 
the 
Christian 
concept; 
but 
actually, 
Dr. 
Consequently, 
there 
never 
has 
been 
a 
creation; 
for, 
had 
there 
Lambert 
contends, 
it 
is 
something 
very 
different. 
As 
he 
puts 
it: 
been, 
there 
would 
be 
something 
more 
than 
thoughts. 
There 
"You 
say, 
'God 
is 
Infinite 
Spirit.' 
Why 
not 
sayan 
Infinite 
would 
be 
thoughts 
plus 
their 
realization 
in 
time 
and 
space 
by 
Spirit? 
Why 
persist 
in 
avoiding 
the 
individual 
article 
an? 
You 
the 
creative 
act. 
You 
see, 
then, 
that 
when 
you 
deny 
the 
exis­ 
say, 
'God 
is 
Infinite 
Creator,' 
but 
in 
the 
same 
sentence 
you 
tence 
of 
everything 
but 
thought, 
you 
deny 
creation. 
It 
will 
not 
deny 
that 
he 
is 
Creator 
when 
you 
say 
the 
universe, 
man 
in- 
do 
to 
say 
that 
God 
created 
his 
thoughts, 
for 
that 
would 
necea­ 
cluded, 
consists 
of 
an 
infinite 
number 
of 
expressions 
of 
the 
One 
sarily 
imply 
that 
he 
had 
to 
do 
something-create-before 
he 
Spirit, 
or 
God. 
If 
by 
'expression' 
you 
mean 
that 
the 
universe, 
could 
think-a 
supposition 
too 
absurd 
for 
a 
sane 
mind. 
To 
with 
all 
its 
phenomena 
of 
changes 
and 
individuations, 
is 
only 
say, 
therefore, 
that 
only 
divine 
thoughts 
exist 
is 
to 
deny 
creation 
subjective 
changes 
and 
evolvements 
of 
the 
Deity, 
you 
should 
say 
and 
fall 
into 
Pantheism. 
While 
you 
hold 
such 
views 
you 
it 
frankly, 
as 
the 
Pantheists 
do, 
and 
take 
your 
place 
among 
should 
eliminate 
the 
term 
'creation' 
from 
your 
Christian 
them, 
and 
drop 
the 
word 
Creator 
from 
your 
philosophy. 
If 
you 
Science 
vocabulary; 
it 
llfls 
no 
place 
thcre 
whatever. 
mean 
by 
the 
word 
Creator 
what 
Christian 
philosophy 
means 
by 
"In 
contrast 
with 
this 
is 
Christian 
philosophy, 
which 
it-the 
production 
by 
God, 
from 
nothing, 
of 
things 
distinct 
teaches 
that 
from 
all 
eternity 
the 
archetypes, 
patterns 
or 
exem­ 
from 
himself-you 
should 
drop 
the 
term 
'expression' 
and 
Use 
pIal'S 
of 
all 
things 
that 
have 
real, 
substantial 
existence 
were 
in 
the 
word 
Creator. 
Exact 
science 
does 
not 
tolerate 
the 
use 
of 
the 
Divine 
mind, 
as 
the 
plan 
of 
a 
yet 
unbuilt 
palace 
is 
in 
the 
both 
these 
terms 
in 
the 
same 
sense. 
Not 
the 
least 
objection 
to 
mind 
of 
the 
architect, 
and 
that 
by 
the 
creative 
act 
of 
Divine 
Christian 
Scientists 
is 
their 
misuse 
or 
vague, 
non-committal 
use 
Omnipotence 
copies 
or 
replicas 
of 
thpse 
eternal 
archetypes 
were 
of 
terms; 
it 
is 
characteristic 
of 
all 
their 
literature." 
brought 
from 
nothing- 
into 
real 
being-, 
separate 
and 
distinct 
Christian 
Science, 
Mr. 
McCrackan 
asserts, 
"does 
not 
deny 
from 
their 
Creator. 
Here 
it 
will 
be 
seen 
that 
the 
creative 
act 
the 
existence 
of 
the 
universe. 
It 
does 
not 
question 
the 
reality 
is 
the 
mark 
of 
di~tinction 
between 
Christian 
teaching 
and 
Pan· 
of 
a 
single 
object 
in 
the 
universe. 
But 
it 
teaches 
that 
this 
real- 
theism 
in 
all 
its 
forms, 
including 
Christian 
Scicnce 
as 
Olle 
of 
its 
ity 
is 
an 
expression 
of 
mind, 
and 
not 
matter." 
But 
this 
forms." 
statement, 
Dr. 
Lambert 
holds, 
is 
a 
mere 
subterfuge. 
"There 
can 
Proceeding 
to 
an 
examination 
of 
the 
Christian 
Science 
atti­ 
be 
no 
doubt," 
he 
observes, 
"that 
Christian 
Science 
denies 
the 
tude 
toward 
evil 
and 
"mortal 
mind," 
Dr. 
Lambert 
quotes 
this 
reality 
of 
the 
universe 
in 
the 
sense 
that 
Christians 
affirm 
it. 
statement 
of 
Mr. 
McCmckan's: 
In 
saying 
it 
is 
an 
expression 
of 
mind 
they 
deny 
its 
ereation; 
in 
"The 
use 
of 
the 
word 
'Mind' 
in 
Chri~tian 
Science 
deserves 
saying- 
it 
is 
not 
matter 
they 
contradict 
the 
common 
sense 
of 
special 
notice. 
Spelled 
with 
a 
capital 
M 
it 
is 
synonymous 
with 
mankind." 
The 
argument 
proceeds: 
Spirit. 
Thus 
God 
is 
spoken 
of 
as 
Mind 
or 
Spirit. 
Rpellpd 
with 
"Christian 
Science 
denies 
the 
real 
existence 
of 
the 
type- 
a 
small 
lett 
PI', 
mind 
is 
uRed 
to 
designate 
that 
human 
mind 
writer 
by 
means 
of 
which 
Mr. 
McCrackan 
wrote 
his 
letter, 
which 
rise~ 
in 
rebellion 
against 
the 
Divine 
Mind-that 
mortal 
and 
the 
paper 
on 
which 
he 
wrote 
it, 
and 
the 
train 
that 
brought 
mind 
which 
attempt'! 
to 
counterfeit 
the 
Immortal 
Mind. 
This 
it 
to 
us. 
All 
these, 
it 
tells 
us, 
are 
mere 
mental 
expressions, 
Mortal 
Mind 
is 
the 
'carnal 
mind.' 
spoken 
of 
by 
Paul, 
and 
is 
the 
having 
no 
real 
existence 
outside 
of 
and 
distinct 
from 
the 
Divine 
fruitful 
source 
of 
all 
sin 
and 
sickness. 
It 
is-not 
to 
put 
too 
Mind. 
The 
bullet 
that 
entered 
the 
body 
of 
President 
McKinley 
fine 
a 
point 
upon 
it-the 
lying 
serpent, 
the 
devil, 
which 
tries 
was 
only 
an 
idea 
of 
a 
bullet 
existing 
in 
the 
Divine 
Mind" 
as 
to 
separate 
man 
from 
his 
Creator." 
was 
also 
the 
President, 
and 
the 
assassin 
who 
killed 
him, 
and 
the 
This 
method 
of 
di'!tinguishing 
the 
Divine 
Mind 
from 
the 
hu­ 
chair 
in 
which 
the 
as'!assin 
sat 
to 
receive 
the 
idea 
of 
a 
death 
man 
mind 
is 
crprlited 
by 
Dr. 
Lambert 
with 
originality. 
if 
with 
shock 
from 
an 
idea 
of 
electricity, 
is 
only 
the 
idea 
of 
a 
death, 
nothing 
else. 
But 
it 
leads, 
hp 
thinks, 
to 
an 
identification. 
existing 
nowhere 
but 
in 
the 
Divine 
Mind. 
And 
the 
human 
mind 
rather 
than 
a 
diffprpntiation, 
of 
the 
two 
kinds 
of 
mind. 
For 
if 
that 
believes 
in 
the 
material 
reality 
of 
the 
bullet 
that 
killed, 
the 
Divine 
J\find 
is 
all, 
how 
can 
the 
existence 
of 
mortal 
mind 
and 
the 
wretch 
who 
shot 
it, 
and 
the 
chair 
that 
he 
sat 
in, 
and 
be 
even 
imagined? 
To 
quote 
verbatim: 
the 
electricity 
that 
killed 
him, 
is, 
according 
to 
Christian 
"The 
logical 
conclusion 
is 
that 
the 
human 
mind, 
alias 
mol'­ 
Science, 
a 
mind 
victimized 
by 
delusions 
and 
hallucinations. 
The 
tal 
mind, 
alias 
the 
lying 
spirit, 
alias 
the 
devil, 
is 
an 
ex 
pres­ 
assassination 
was, 
in 
reality, 
only 
a 
clash 
of 
incompatible 
ideas 
sion 
or 
mode 
of 
the 
Divine 
Mind. 
It 
cannot 
be 
anything 
sep­ 
in 
the 
Divine 
mind, 
and 
one 
of 
them 
went 
down 
into 
the 
idea 
of 
arate 
and 
distinct 
from 
the 
Divine 
Mind, 
since 
according 
to 
a 
grave, 
which 
also 
exists 
only 
in 
the 
Divine 
Mind; 
and 
the 
the 
writer 
above 
quoted, 
what 
ever 
is 
not 
that 
Mind 
or 
a 
mode 
V-49 
r 
44 
71 
J 
(275-276) 
VoL. XXX BROOKLYN, N. Y., SEPTEMBER 15, 1909 No. 18 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER DR. AKED’S CONGRATULATIONS The churches may now add to Mr. Rockefeller’s responsibility for the taint of wealth, that through his university he hag tainted the nation’s theology. George Burman Foster has finally been ousted from membership in the Chicago conference of Baptist ministers, But he still remains a member and a minister of that de. nomination, as well as the professor of comparative religions in what is generally known as Mr. Rockefeller’s Baptist University. It was a merry war, filled with expletives and unchurchly heat, which ended Mr. Foster’s ministerial affiliation. But now comes Dr. Aked, pastor of the Fifth Avenue Baptist church of New York, “the Rockefeller church,” and agrees with the professor, though he can see no excuse for a book dealing with the fundamental tenets of the Christian religion, and “dashed off in thirty days,” like a best seller. He approves, however, of its purpose, which he says was to supplant the foundations of the faith of our fathers with something unbelievers may believe, but which more likely was to put cash in a purse that felt a money hunger. Dr, Aked also congratulates “the whole church of God” upon the admission to the Presbyterian ministry of three young men who refused to accept the birth of Christ as miraculous, or the story of Adam and Eve as told in Genesis, or some of the miracles of the New Testament as authentic. He calls them “young men who think and are prepared to advance in the fulness of Christian thought and Evolution.” —Duluth News Tribune. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC REPLY TO CHRISTIAN SCIENCE “Current Literature,” presents briefly the Roman Catholic reply to Christian Science, as set forth by the Rev. L, A. Lambert, LL. D., as per the following extract :— According to Mr. McCracken, “Christian Science teaches that there is but one God, a God who is Infinite Spirit and Creator, the universe, including man, consisting of an infinite number of expressions of this One Spirit.” This conception of God seems to approach the Christian concept; but actually, Dr. Lambert contends, it is something very different. As he puts it: “You say, ‘God is Infinite Spirit’, Why not say an Infinite Spirit? Why persist in avoiding the individual] article an? You say, ‘God is Infinite Creator,’ but in the same sentence you deny that he is Creator when you say the universe, man included, consists of an infinite number of expressions of the One Spirit, or God. If by ‘expression’ you mean that the universe, with all its phenomena of changes and individuations, is only subjective changes and evolvements of the Deity, you should say it frankly, as the Pantheists do, and take your place among them, and drop the word Creator from your philosophy. If you mean by the word Creator what Christian philosophy means by it—the production by God, from nothing, of things distinct from himself—you should drop the term ‘expression’ and use the word Creator. Exact science does not tolerate the use of both these terms in the same sense. Not the least objection to Christian Scientists is their misuse or vague, non-committal use of terms; it is characteristic of all their literature.” Christian Science, Mr. McCrackan asserts, “does not deny the existence of the universe. It does not question the reality of a single object in the universe. But it teaches that this reality is an expression of mind, and not matter.” But this statement, Dr. Lambert holds, isa mere subterfuge. “There can be no doubt,” he observes, “that Christian Science denies the reality of the universe in the sense that Christians affirm it. In saying it is an expression of mind they deny its creation; in saying it is not matter they contradict the common sense of mankind.” The argument proceeds: “Christian Science denies the real existence of the typewriter by means of which Mr. McCrackan wrote his letter, and the paper on which he wrote it, and the train that brought it to us. All these, it tells us, are mere mental expressions, having no real existence outside of and distinct from the Divine Mind. The bullet that entered the body of President McKinley was only an idea of a bullet existing in the Divine Mind,, as was also the President, and the assassin who killed him, and the chair in which the assassin sat to receive the idea of a death shock from an idea of electricity, is only the idea of a death, existing nowhere but in the Divine Mind. And the human mind that believes in the material reality of the bullet that killed, and the wretch who shot it, and the chair that he sat in, and the electricity that killed him, is, according to Christian Seience, a mind victimized by delusions and hallucinations. The assassination was, in reality, only a clash of incompatible ideas in the Divine mind, and one of them went down into the idea of a grave, which also exists only in the Divine Mind; and the V—49 [4471] idea of a government of the State of New York sent the other antagonistic idea to the Divine idea of a grave. And the idea of the world will continue to revolve—in the One Mind—as heretofore.” From this fantastic statement of the implications of Christian Science, Dr. Lambert passes on to an affirmation that the new creed is sheer Pantheism. The very essence of Pantheism, according to his definition, is the denial of the creative act. “Those who hold to that ism,” he remarks, “do not say that God is in matter, but that all that is, is God; that all the phenomena of which we are conscious are but the visible unfolding of the Divine nature, as the rose unfolds itself, all unconscious of what it does; and this universe, as seen by us, is to God what the surface of the ocean is to the ocean, whose waves and bubbles rise and fall back into it, never ceasing in al) their changes to be a part of it. Pantheism looks on the universe and all its changes—including thought—~as phases or forms of the Divine Being, evolving and ever to evolve or unfold, by a fatal necessity.” But this is precisely what Christian Science teaches. Addressing himself directly to Mr. MeCrackan, Dr. Lambert says: “As you deny the existence of all spirits except the Infinite Spirit, and deny the existence of the material world also, there remains nothing in existence but the Infinite Spirit; hence you can, by the term ‘expression,’ mean only some form, state or change of this Spirit himself. The term ‘expression,’ then, in your sense, clashes with creation; it goes further, and denies creation, leaving nothing but subjective change, development or evolvement of the Infinite Being. This is Pantheism pure and simple. You may not intend this, but it is the inevitable conclusion from your Christian Science principles. “You confirm this conclusion when you say: ‘The only real universe is mental. Things are thoughts.’ That is, thoughts in the mind of God. If things are nothing more than thoughts, existing only in the Divine Mind, then things—this universe— are eternal, for God’s thoughts are eternal and unchangeable. Consequently, there never has been a creation; for, had there been, there would be something more than thoughts. There would be thoughts plus their realization in time and space by the creative act. You see, then, that when you deny the existence of everything but thought, you deny creation. It will not do to say that God created his thoughts, for that would necessarily imply that he had to do something—-create—before he could think—a supposition too absurd for a sane mind, To say, therefore, that only divine thoughts exist is to deny creation and fall into Pantheism. While you hold such views you should eliminate the term ‘creation’ from your Christian Science vocabulary; it has no place there whatever. “In contrast with this is Christian philosophy, which teaches that from all eternity the archetypes, patterns or exemplars of all things that have real, substantial existence were in the Divine mind, as the plan of a yet unbuilt palace is in the mind of the architect, and that by the creative act of Divine Omnipotence copies or replicas of these eternal archetypes were brought from nothing into real being, separate and distinct from their Creator. Here it will be seen that the creative act is the mark of distinction between Christian teaching and Pantheism in all its forms, including Christian Science as one of its forms.” Proceeding to an examination of the Christian Science attitude toward evil and “mortal mind,” Dr. Lambert quotes this statement of Mr. McCrackan’s: “The use of the word ‘Mind’ in Christian Science deserves special notice. Spelled with a capital M it is synonymous with Spirit. Thus God is spoken of as Mind or Spirit. Spelled with a small letter, mind is used to designate that human mind which rises in rebellion against the Divine Mind—that mortal mind which attempts to counterfeit the Immortal Mind. This Mortal Mind is the ‘carnal mind,’ spoken of by Paul, and is the fruitful source of all sin and sickness. It is—not to put too fine a point upon it—the lying serpent, the devil, which tries to separate man from his Creator.” This method of distinguishing the Divine Mind from the human mind is credited by Dr. Lambert with originality, if with nothing else. But it leads, he thinks, to an identification. rather than a differentiation, of the two kinds of mind. For if the Divine Mind is all, how ean the existence of mortal mind be even imagined? To quote verbatim: “The logical conclusion is that the human mind, alias mortal mind, alias the lying spirit, alias the devil, is an expression or mode of the Divine Mind. It cannot be anything separate and distinct from the Divine Mind, since according to the writer above quoted, what ever is not that Mind or a mode (275~276)

This website uses cookies to improve the website and your experience. By continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. If you require further information or do not wish to accept cookies when using this website, please visit our Global Policy on Use of Cookies and Similar Technologies .