10
1
10
download/literature/watchtower/1909-18.pdf
../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)
Pentru a vă îmbunătăți experiența pe site-ul nostru, folosim cookies și tehnologii similare. Unele cookies sunt esențiale pentru funcționalitatea de bază a site-ului nostru și nu pot fi refuzate. Puteți alege să acceptați sau să refuzați cookies suplimentare. Vrem să vă asigurăm că aceste date nu vor fi vândute sau utilizate în scopuri de marketing. Puteți ajusta preferințele dvs. în orice moment accesând Setările de Confidențialitate din subsolul paginii. Pentru mai multe informații, vă rugăm să consultați
Politica de Confidențialitate
Condiții de utilizare
.
