The attack on Christian Science by a Newark preacher which was printed in the Jerseyman was so mistaken as to be an imposition on the public. The writer's bias was betrayed by the manner in which he referred to Mrs. Eddy. For instance, he spoke of her as the "much be-married Mrs. Eddy." Such an expression constitutes what Jesus called "the leaven of the Pharisees." It does not explicitly state a derogatory fact, but it is calculated to convey a derogatory impression by insinuation.

Mrs. Eddy was married three times in eighty-nine years. Her first marriage occurred when she was twenty-two years old, but it was ended within six months by her husband's decease. Her second marriage took place nearly ten years later, when she was thirty-two years old. It was dissolved twenty years afterward by a divorce which she obtained for long continued desertion caused by her husband's adultery. Her third marriage occurred four years later, when she was fifty-six years old, and it was followed after five years by twenty-eight years of widowhood, which continued to the end of her earthly life. The facts are such, therefore, that Mrs. Eddy's marriages furnish no reason for criticism nor excuse for insinuation.

The same assailant also said that Christian Scientists put Mrs. Eddy before Christ, and he offered as proof the alleged fact that Christ is not given credit for his words over the pulpit of The Mother Church in Boston, while quotations from Mrs. Eddy are "blazoned" with her name. Christian Scientists do not put Mrs. Eddy before Jesus or Christ; they could not do this without rejecting her teaching. The quotations on the walls of The Mother Church have the names of the persons quoted immediately under their words. The quotations over the pulpit or readers' platform are from St. Paul and Mrs. Eddy. At the sides of this platform and above it are two quotations, one credited to Christ Jesus, the other to Mrs. Eddy. All these quotations and names are cut in gray stone, not artificially colored, and the names are cut in the same sized letters as the quotations. The condition of thought which would make a visitor see these quotations with one name omitted and the other blazoned is not conducive to just or fair criticism.

It is almost usual for clerical opponents of Christian Science to claim, for one reason or another, to be specially qualified to speak against it. This gentleman's claim was that he lived for ten years in India and could speak as an authority on Hinduism. Thus equipped, he tried to identify Christian Science with Hinduism and to produce the impression that the latter, hence the former, is very bad and dangerous. His first and main specification was that both Hinduism and Christian Science teach that God is all. He neglected to say that this is also taught by the New Testament. The following citations are pertinent: Acts xvii. 28; I Cor. xv. 28; Eph. iv. 6; Col. i. 17; Heb. xi. 3; Rev. iv. 11. The proposition that God is All-in-all is understood by Christian Scientists to mean "one God and His creation, and no reality in aught else" (Christian Science versus Pantheism, p. 9). The beginning of this teaching is to be found, not in Hinduism, but in the Hebrew Scriptures. It can be found in the first chapter of Genesis (thirty-first verse), the twenty-ninth chapter of I Chronicles (eleventh verse), and elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Two other contentions of the same critic may be disposed of in this connection. One was that Christian Science teaches or permits its adherents to ignore the difference between good and evil. The other was that its denial of evil dispenses with the need of a Saviour. These are fables that could not survive a fair minded reading of the Christian Science textbook, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" by Mrs. Eddy, a book which any one may examine for himself by going to a public library. It would be as just to say that Jesus ignored the difference between good and evil and dispensed with the need of salvation by asking, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" The viewpoint from which he spoke is that of Christian Science.

Continuing his attack, the gentleman in question declared that Christian Science "emphasizes the motherhood of God in Mother Eddy." Here is more of the leaven of the Pharisees. Christian Scientists do not speak of their Leader as Mother Eddy, nor do any of her friends. It should be evident, however, to all thoughtful people, or at least to all who believe in one creator, that the infinite One must possess completely all the attributes of being. Unless the Deity is Mother as well as Father, men and women considered together would possess more mental and spiritual qualities than their creator. Unless God is Father and Mother, Paul should have said, In Him we men, but not women, live and move and have our being.

Not constrained to be consistent, the gentleman in question also charged Christian Scientists with regarding themselves as God and with praying to themselves accordingly. There is no decent pretext for this canard. Whether Hindus do this or not is another question. However this may be, Christian Science teaches specifically that "man is not God, and God is not man" (Science and Health, p. 480), and Christian Scientists not only pray to God but try to make their lives a constant prayer.

The final thrust was as follows: "Since God is all, to the Christian Scientist as to the Hindu, there is no personal God." Now, Christian Science teaches that God, though not like a human being, is personal in the highest and best sense of this term, and that He is the infinite Person. This religion also teaches that God is personal to each of His children in that sense which Jesus implied when he spoke of Him as "my Father, and your Father; ... my God, and your God." In short, to quote from Mrs. Eddy, "human philosophy has made God manlike. Christian Science makes man Godlike" (Science and Health, p. 269).

The Scriptures declare, "The wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." An attack on Christian Science may praise God and bless men by inducing them to learn what this religion actually teaches and what it does for its adherents. Sooner or later its present adversaries will seek its benefits. Meanwhile there is food for thought in the fact that it was not the chief priests but the common people who heard Jesus gladly.