Principle

The word Principle is one of the terms used by the author of Science and Health , our text-book, to designate God. Christian Science treats of God as Principle rather than as Person. Many persons object to this. To their apprehension, when the personality of God is removed God himself is removed. They cannot conceive of a God who is not a person, and such a person as their finite senses tell them He should be. They are content with nothing more and with nothing less than an Infinite God confined to, or embraced within, a finite personality or body: and the finite senses can tell them of no personality or body that is not made up of flesh, blood and bones. It is in this sense, they maintain, that man is made in the image and likeness of God. Any suggestion to the contrary horrifies them; and the author of the suggestion is at once regarded as unorthodox, if not blasphemous. To these persons the term Principle as applied to God, is shocking; to others less disposed to conceive of God as a mere person, the term sounds harsh and cold, if not meaningless. Christian Science, in a general sense, defines God as the great I am ; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-loving, all-wise, eternal, supreme, individual being—Divine Principle .*

Does not this definition of God comprehend the highest possible personality? Let us briefly analyze it:—

1st. Great I am: What greater I am can there be than the "great I am "? This implies the greatest I am , the highest possible personality,— in the sense that I constitutes personality.

2d. All-knowing: Can we conceive of a greater personality than one who possesses all knowledge, who knows everything which can be or should be known? Can the finite mind conceive of a grander, better or more satisfactory person than one who embraces Omniscience,— nay, who is Omniscience?

3d. All-seeing: Tell me of a better definition of a person, than one who can see all things, everything,— from the infinitesimal to the Infinite? All-seeing implies, as well, all-knowing, all-understanding.

4th. All-acting: Think of the mighty depth of meaning implied in that term. What so grand, so powerful, so comprehensive and absolute, as that which is all-acting! Tell me of a greater person than he who does all things, performs all acts.

5th. All-loving: Again think, so far as we can think, of the overwhelming import of this term. Mr. Drummond in his wonderful analysis of Love, which he entitles "The Greatest Thing in the World," gives this the chief and highest place. He estimates it above all other things; gives it more power, more activity, more wisdom and more grandeur than anything or all things else. So does Paul: "Faith, hope, love; these three; but the greatest of these is love." Tell me, if possible, of a greater, better person than he who is all-loving.

6th. All-wise: There is, and can be, no greater wisdom than that which is all wisdom. Can there then be a greater person than he who possesses all wisdom?

7th. Eternal: How shall we conceive of, how shall we describe a greater a more glorious, than that person who is Eternal, without beginning and without ending; one perfect, complete, everlasting entity? That which is eternal can be nothing less than perfect; and that which is perfect, can be nothing less than harmony and glory.

8th. (a) “Supreme, individual being:” Can there be a grander, nobler idea of personality than this language conveys? What an infinity of personality is here implied! That which is supreme, is higher and better than all else. No human form of expression can lift our thoughts above that which is supreme. The Dictionary thus defines it: “Highest in authority; holding the highest place; highest, greatest, or most excellent, as supreme love, supreme glory, supreme degree.”

(b) Individual: What does this word mean? Hear the lexicographer: Not divided, or not to be divided; subsisting as one entity, or distinct being; single, one, of or pertaining to one only; not capable of being separated or divided; undivisible. Find a better or clearer definition than this, from any standpoint sacred or profane; and point, if you can, to a better description of the one and only God, who is the personality worshipped by Christendom. Compare the common definition of the word person, with this definition of the word individual, and tell me which suffers by the comparison. Person is thus defined by Webster: from the latin prefix per (through) and sonare (Sound). Hence, to sound through; a mask; the corporal manifestation of a soul; the outward appearance; expression, etc.; a living soul; a moral agent; especially a living human being; a man, woman or child; an individual of the human race! Which is the clearer and more satisfactory verbal declaration of the idea of God? God is distinctively and infinitely individual; hence, in that sense. He is distinctively and infinitely personal,—but in no other.

(c). Being: What does this word imply? It comprehends all of personality that is susceptible of comprehension. Again, hear Webster. (We are now endeavoring to probe this question of personality to at least a sensible and rationalistic basis, and hence call the lexicographer to our aid at every turn; I know of no better way to do.) Being: “Existing in a certain state; existence; a particular state or condition; a person existing an immaterial, intelligent existence or spirit.” “Being” comprehends Life, Truth, Love, Substance, Intelligence, Mind, Power,—in fact all terms which constitute the descriptive or definitional sum of God, or Deity. Is it not a most expressive term to apply to a person?

Take, then, the united signification of the three words, “Supreme, Individual, Being,”Science and Health, p. 403. See “What is God?” and where shall a more complete or powerful or profound definition of God as a personality be found? In this sense, Christian Science has no quarrel to make with believers in a personal God; and, if the latter will but stop to consider what personality in its real and true sense means and is, believers in a personal God will have no quarrel to make with the Christian Science definition and concept of God.

Now, if I have in the smallest degree succeeded in establishing the premises taken thus far, what reasonable ground of objection is there to the use of the word Principle, in this same connection? Is not Good, Principle? Is not Love, Principle? Is not Intelligence, Principle? Is not Omniscience, Principle? Is not Omnipotence, Principle? Is not Omnipresence, Principle? Is not Spirit, Principle? Is not Supreme Individuality the highest conception of Principle? Let me once more, and finally, take you to Webster. Principle: “Beginning; commencement; source or origin; that from which anything proceeds; fundamental substance or energy; primordial substance or indecomposable element; an original faculty or endowment of the soul.” Is not God, Beginning—so far as there is or can be a beginning? Is not God the Creator of all things—did he not make all that was made; if so, do not all things proceed from Him? If he created all, and all proceed from Him, is he not the fundamental substance or energy? If this be true, and he is Spirit as the Bible, declares him to be, is he not also primordial substance or indecomposable element? Is He not each and all of these? He is almost literally thus defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the strictly orthodox definition of God; then why should our orthodox friends object to the word Principle as applied to Him? Indeed, there is a striking similarity between the Westminster and the Christian Science definition of God; and yet, Christian Scientists are charged with denying the personality of God, because we refer to Him as Principle. Is not, indeed, the wisdom of this world foolishness with God?

Now, let me take you to the Bible in support of our definition of God as Principle. Look at the verses composing the text. “In the Beginning was the Word.” What Word? To show that the word as used here has more than ordinary significance, the first letter is capitalized. “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Does the term Word, as here used, imply or even suggest a person, in the ordinary sense of that term? Surely not. The Word, here conveys the idea of authority, power, command, in the purely impersonal or spiritual sense. This is clearly shown in the verses following: “All things were made by him.” By whom? “By the Word which was God. “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” In whom was life, which was the light of men? In the Word; and the Word was God, and the Word is God. Then what does the Word imply? A material or localized person; or an impersonal, omnipresent Principle? Again: “Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is none else; I am God and there is none like me.” (Isaiah xlvi. 9. ) If there is none else than God, if there is none like him, if he is the all and in all clearly implied by this language—and that we are elsewhere distinctly told he is—then what higher ideal of Principle can we conceive of? The Lord our God is one Lord. (  Mark xii. 29. ) If there is but one God, there is but one Principle. The idea of more than one Principle would destroy the idea of any Principle; and if there is no Principle, there is no God. It is as difficult to conceive of two Principles as of two Gods—in the real and spiritual sense. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” (1 Cor. xiv. 33. ) Could there be greater confusion than that which would obtain were there two Principles controlling in the Universe? If we can conceive of such a thing as Principle, if there is such a thing, it is and must be a unit; and is therefore but another name for that eternal Unity which is Good.

“God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John iv. 24. ) How much of personality, in its common acceptation, is here implied? rather, is there not an eternity of Principle suggested? “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” (Matt. i. 23. ) “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,…full of grace and Truth,” (John i. 14. ) Here is the embodiment of the Word in the flesh; and this is the only fleshly embodiment of which the Bible speaks—the embodiment of Jesus the Christ as God manifest in the flesh. Was not this embodiment of the Word, as well an embodiment of Principle? If God were already a person of flesh, blood and bones; if He were other than Spirit, Principle, why the necessity for manifesting Himself, in the fleshly personality of Jesus? Is not the fact that Truth must be brought to human understanding through a fleshly instrumentality, most conclusive assurance that Truth, other than thus manifested, was a great, impersonal something back of this personal phenomenon? If there was, or is, such a something back of all so-called personality, is it not in the highest sense Principle? The personality rejected by Christian Science and its text-book, Science and Health is the personality of the material senses ; the limited personality of human understanding, as distinguished from that Infinite Personality that universal Presence and Power, that great Individuality which I have endeavored to describe. If we substitute the word Principle for Mind, Soul, Spirit, Good, Deity, etc., we are but using another and interchangeable term of designation for God.

The more we can conceive of God as Principle rather than person, the more we shall learn to adore and understand Him. It is easier to think of understanding Principle than it is to understand person. What is there about mere personality that we should love it with all our hearts, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind? If God is but a person, why should not the love and worship of Him be as much idolatry as the love and worship of human personalities? All through the Scriptures we are warned against idolatry; and yet, it is impossible to separate mere personal worship and adoration from idolatry. John tells us that God is Love, and that no man hath seen God at any time. Why hath no man seen God at any time? Because he is Love, and Love cannot be seen by man—that is, by the man of material senses. If God is Love, God is Principle; because Love is Principle. We are taught by the Scriptures to worship God in spirit and in truth, and this implies that we are to worship him as Principle, not person. No man hath seen God. We are elsewhere told that no man can see Him and live; that is, live in the flesh or the material senses. If God is a person, why should we not see him in the flesh, and with the eyes of the flesh? If he is a person and as such is our creator, we are each one of us a person; and our real and only ego is but the personality of our mortal senses, instead of the immortality of the spiritual. If we are personal in this sense, and God is also person and we shall never see Him, it follows that we are to be kept forever away from Him and His presence. Now which should we prefer; a God who is a person having a fixed locus away off somewhere, we know not where, whom we can never see or approach, and therefore whom we can never know except by faith: or that all-pervading, all-powerful, all-loving Presence which the Scriptures tell us is an ever-present help in time of need? Which is the colder, the more distant; ever-present love and force, or a far-off and unapproachable person whom no man can see, and live? It is about time we were getting out of the cold personalities of paganism and idolatry, into the warm, bright atmosphere of impersonal, but ever-present and ever-active Principle—that Principle which never changeth, never faileth, never dieth, because it is Eternal Love. It is this Principle that Jesus came to demonstrate upon earth. It is this Principle that is the Way, the Truth and the Life. It is this Principle that maketh us, “To lie down in green pastures;” that leadeth us “beside the still waters”; that restoreth our souls; that guideth us in the “paths of righteousness”; and if we but live in it, as we may and should, we shall “fear no evil,” because It is with us. It is our rod and staff, and our comfort. Surely goodness and love shall follow us all our days; for in dwelling in Principle, we shall “dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”

In conclusion, let me ask: Is it more difficult to think of God as Principle than to think of music as Principle? We know that music exists as an universal Principle. It can as easily be produced in the jungles of Africa, or the interior of Asia, as in the heart of the society of London, or Paris, or New York,—if the Principle is as well understood and applied in the former places as in the latter. The Principle of music is manifested through certain instrumentalities, as Divine Principle is brought to human understanding by means of certain instrumentalities. It is not more difficult to think of Love as Principle than to think of mathematics as Principle. We know that mathematics exist as Principle susceptible of exact demonstration everywhere. There is not a place in all the world where two and two added together will not make four. There is not a place in all the world where the circle is not always a geometrical symbol. Mathematics may be demonstrated in a thousand different ways; but, only by working from the same undeviating base. If figures, characters and symbols in mathematics convey the idea of Principle, why may not Principle as Life, Truth and Love be demonstrated by right living and right acting? It can be, and is. It is this thought, this understanding, this application of Principle, that lifts us out of the depths of misery and despair in which the false claims of the material senses would keep us bound, and that brings us into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God. Let us abide in Principle, and Principle will save us to the uttermost; in redeeming us from the lost estate of human error and fleshly bondage.