No. 6
JUNE, 1916
VOL. VII
^ ^ 1 l l = = .—lir S I ll =111 ?11 The King's Business
“ Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood/*—Rev, 1:5
Published once a month by the BIBLE INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, U. S. A.
O N E D O L L A R A Y E A R
ÎCtttg0 Wìxxmmm MOTTO : “I the Lord do keep it, I will water it every moment lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day "—Isa, 27:3, R. A. TORREY, D. D., Editor T. C. HORTON, J. H. HUNTER, WILLIAM EVANS, D. D., Associate Editors A. M. ROW, Managing Editor Published by the BIBLE INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES, Inc. Los Angeles, California, U. S. A. Entered as Second-Class Matter November 17, 1910, at the postoffice at Los Angeles, Cal., under the Act of March 3, 1879. Copyright by R. A. Torrey, D. D., and Bible Institute of Los Angeles, tor the year 1916.
DIRECTORS
R. A. Torrey, vice-president Leon V. Shaw, treasurer. William Evans. Giles Kellogg.
Lyman Stewart, president. William Thorn, secretary. T. C. Horton, superintendent. E. A. K. Hackett. H. A. Getz. J.
M. Irvine.
Nathan Newby
DOCTRINAL STATEMENT We hold to the Historic Faith of the Church as expressed in the Common Creed of Evangelical Christendom and The Trinity of the Godhead. The Deity of the Christ. eluding: The Maintenance of Good Works.
The Second Coming of Christ. The Immortality of the Spirit. The Resurrection of the Body. The Life Everlasting of Believers. The Endless Punishment of the Im penitent. The Reality and Personality of Satan. THE WORK (7 ) Bible Women. House-to-house visitation and neighborhood classes. (8 ) Oil Fields. A mission to men on the oil fields. (9 ) Books and Tracts. Sale and dis tribution of selected books and tracts. (10) Harbor Work. For seamen at Los Angeles harbor. (11) Yokefellows' Hall. Thoroughly manned. Our Mission for men with Street Meetings, and Bootblacks and Newsboys Sunday School. (12) Print Shop. For printing Testa ments, books, tracts, etc. A complete establishment* profits going to free dis-
The Personality of the Holy Ghost. The Supernatural and Plenary au thority of the Holy Scriptures. The Unity in Diversity of the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ. The Substitutionary Atonement. The Necessity of the New Birth. rU Y p O S e . Qf costt accredited men and women, in the knowledge and use of the Bible. ^ , . (1 ) The Institute Departments: classes held daily except on Saturdays and Sundays. (2 ) Extension work. Classes and conferences held in neighboring cities and towns. (3 ) Evangelistic. Meetings conducted by our evangelists. (4 ) Spanish Mission. Meetings every night. (5 ) Shop Work. Regular services in shops and factories. (6 ) Jewish Evangelism. Personal work among the Hebrews. SCOPE OF • The Institute trains, free
ES THE KING’S BUSINESS æ Voi. VII. JUNE, 1916 No. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Editorial Preparedness— What Wilt Thou Have Me to Do — The World Passeth Away— Hollowness of Mirth— Demoralizing Effects of War— Do We Want War? — The World War Mad........................................................ 483 Why I am Not a Christian Scientist (Concluded). By Wil liam Evans, D. D..1............. 489 Ours in the Field................................. ...................................... 499 The Seven R’s of the Full Gospel. By Rev. Mark A. Mat thews, D. D.....................1__........... .................................. 505 Promotion of Intercession........................................................... 510 Great Revivals and Evangelists— V. William C. Burns (Con tinued). By John H. Hunter........................................... 51 1 Light on Puzzling Passages and Problems............................... 5 15 At Home and Abroad................................................................. 5 17 Through the Bible with Dr. Evans............................................. 521 Bible Institute Activities. By the Superintendents............... 526 Homiletical Helps. By William Evans, D. D.......................... 533 The Opened Rock. By J. E. W°Ife........................................... 537 International Sunday School Lessons. By R. A. Torrey and T. C. Horton........................................................................ 539 Daily Devotional Studies in the New Testament for Individual Meditation and Family Worship. By R. A. Torrey .................................................................................. 555 SUBSCRIPTION PRICE In the United States and its Possessions, Mexico, Canada and points in the Central American Postal Union, $ I per year. In all other foreign countries, $1.24 (5s. 2d.). Single copies, 10 cents. Receipts sent on request. See date on address tag.
PUBLISHED BY THE BIBLE INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES 536-558 ^OUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CAL.
æ
æ
A New Correspondence Course B y the Faculty o f the BIBLE INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES 1. Fundamental Doctrines DR. R. A. TORREY 2. The Life and Teachings of Our Lord DR. R. A. TORREY 3. Through the Bible by Books and Chapters JOHN H. HUNTER 4. Personal and Practical Evangelism T. C. HORTON TERMS: ForNuifibers 1, 2 and3—$5.00 each. ForNumber4—$3.00 SEND FOR PROSPECTUS “The Coming of the Lord Draweth Nigh” An exam ination of the S criptures on the Length of Th e TIM E S of the G E N TIL E S l A l l i r M Did Th e y Begin? Th e Y ear Day Principle. V T i l E i n W ill Th e y Term inate? ;> Histories and Futurists Both W rong. 48 Page Pamphlet, Fourth Edition, 50th Thousand, Revised and Enlarged. Price 5c each, 30c per dtíz., or $2.00 per hundred Postpaid. EXTRACTS FROM LETTERS: let its size I ever saw, I think I can say—and still it is pondered and sought for.”
“A genuine shock from__ which after these days I did not recover as. yet, is the result of reading your recent tract. I read it at one sit ting and then with the Bible in hand. I am surprised beyond measure, 3I am not yet suffi ciently sobered up to distill this very strong draught. But I rejoice secretly in my heart. It may be truth. O, how grand if you really have found the true key ter unlock this marvelous mystery.” “ I have read your tract twice. Read it aloud to Brother L. and I wish to express my appre ciation of it. I, too, think there is a strong probability of its literal fulfillment. Since ‘The wise shall understand’ I think that there is clear teaching of not only about when our Lord will come, but just when He will come, if only we have the spiritual discernment to see it.” “ The argument of the booklet is to my njind quite conclusive, and it is just what I have been expecting in these closing days. I am glad if the Lord is pleased to use you in the discovery and promulgation of such all important truths.” “ Your marvelous booklet on the ‘Times of the Gentiles’ is finding eager readers.” “ A booklet has come intd fny possession, ‘Tbe Coming of the Lord Draweth Nigh,’ written and published by yourself, which exposition has taken hold of my heart, and it seems should be a mighty stream of blessing to the ‘redeemed ones,’ and as we have over 1,000 on our tract list (for we publish same), we are anxious to get it into their hands, for we feel sure He must come very soon. Can we buy same of you? and if we can, what is the price per 100 and by the thousand?” “How I do thank Him for^ the wonderful rev elation of His word He has given you and I want several of my friends to be able to examine the Word by the aid of what the Lord has given you, so that they may be drawn closer to Him self, and be more occupied with the spread ing of the Gospel tidings while it is yet day. May the Lord of all grace richly bless you and use the little' book to His honor and glory in the awakening of His people and the quicken ing of His church.” Address: C. J. Baker, 621 Wyandotte Street, Kansas City, Mo., U. S. A.
“I consider this one of the most wonderful lit tle books in the world. It seems to me to be a positive revelation from the Lord-^-a drawing aside of the veil which by infinite wisdom kept the Lord’s people ignorant of that which they were better not to know. But at midnight (mid night sorrow exists now) there was a cry heard. ‘Behold, the bridegroom cometh.* “ Dear Brother in Christ: Some weeks ago I received through the mail four copies of your booklet ‘On the Length o f ' the Times of the Gentiles.’ I read it with great interest and then read it again and again and after much prayer I quoted, ‘I find no fault in this man.’ I laid it aside for some days and then read it again and again. Then I began wondering ‘Who is, sufficient for these things?’ ” “I received several day-s ago several copies of your excellent booklet, ‘The Coming of the Lord Draweth Nigh.’ I have read it and am reread ing it and propose then to study it through again with my wife. I have carefully studied the illustrations >that you have given of the year day prophecies, and I want to thank you for the help and the light that you have given me upon this long time precious and interesting theme. I have read considerable upon the sub ject, but this was absolutely iiew to me in sev eral most interesting details. . . . I am a Presbyterian pastor and shall pass on the solemn truth you have brought to my attention to my people.” Pi - | “ I thank you heartily for so kindly sending me the 4 copies of your booklet, ‘Times of the Gentiles.’ It is exceedingly interesting and how it makes the heart warm to think He may come this very year! I wonder if He will.” ’ *‘I am impressed that God has given you this truth and can’t but think it will be a great blessing to any one who would peruse it can didly and prayerfully.” “ Thank you many times for the booklets, ‘The Coming of the Lord.’ To inquiring minds the subject matter of your booklet has been of in- tensest interest. Everywhere near here and east 20 miles or so, where I had a week’s Gospel meetings, your message has had, shall I say, the ‘right of way.’ . . . . Your little booklet has claimed more time and attention than any book
THE KING’S BUSINESS LJj---------------------- I Voi 7 JUNE, 1916. ---------------------- E No. 6 a — ------- f? E D I T O R I A L These are indeed perilous times. Many of the rulers Preparedness. of the world seem to have lost their heads, and every nation should be prepared for any eventualities that may arise. But what is the best preparation ? Righteousness on the part of our rulers and on the part of our people. The real safety of any nation lies far more in the righteousness of its conduct than in a large army or in a large navy. working for Christ in China (because China is the field for which, for .roman tic or higher reasons, they have a great love, and to which they wish to go ); but they would not be willing to plod on quietly serving God at home, cooking, washing, and doing other things about the house that somebody must do. They will sing,gig will go where you want me to go, dear Lord,” but all the time they are thinking of some foreign land as where the Lord would want them to go. But when the Lord says, “ the kitchen,” or “ the laundry,” or some humble work at home, they are not at all willing to go where the Lord would have them go. Many a person is willing to die for Christ in China who is not willing to cook for Christ in America. The great thing in Christian life is not the willingness to go as a foreign missionary, but the all-controlling desire to serve God in the field which He chooses, whether it be missionary work, farm work, domestic work, or whatever it may be. We yield to no one in our interest in foreign mission work, we delight beyond measure when we see young men and women who are called to that work, going forth to do it, but to us there is something immeasurably more desirable than going to China, and. that is doing the will of God, whatever that may be. _ __ There are many people who are willing to make great sacrifices in serving God, if they can only serve Him in their own chosen way. They would be glad to face great sacrifices, and even to lay down their lives, What Wilt Thou Have Me to Do?
The transitory character of earthly greatness and power is strikingly illustrated in the Empress Eugenie. Some of us can remember when the Empress Eugenie was the most universally admired and envied woman
The World Passeth Away.
in the world. She had great power. It is supposed that it was because of her influence that her husband, Louis Napoleon, went to war with Prussia. It is thought that she instigated the war that her son, the Prince Imperial, might be made secure as his father s successor as Emperor of France. The Empress is reported to have spoken of the war as “ my little war.” But her short time of
484 THE KING’S BUSINESS glory was: followed by years of sorrow. Her husband lost the throne of France as the outcome of the war to which she had instigated him, and shortly after died in exile of a broken heart. Her son, the Prince Imperial, for whom she entertained such lofty dreams of power, died a wretched death in Africa and his body was brought back to her, pierced with many wounds from the assegais of the South African natives, received in an inglorious war. She herself became a recluse, For years she has dropped entirely from the public gaze. Probably most people think she is dead, if they think of her at all, but the poor woman is not dead. She was 90 years of age last month. At times she may be seen, a bowed woman in black, leaning upon crutches, talking with men wounded in the present war, which is in no small measure an outcome of her own war of nearly half a century ago. It is reported by an Italian writer who wandered upon the grounds set apart for her by the English at Farnborough, that when he entered into conversation with her she replied: “ I am the past. I am the distant horizon, where exists a mirage, a shadow, a phantom, a living sorrow. Mine wa,s a dream killed by fate. Now I am an old woman, poor in everything that makes a woman rich. I have lived. I have been what I have been. I do not ask more. I ask only not to be remembered.” Pathetic indeed, but only another illustration of the transitory character of earthly glory. Slivers was the greatest clown, “ attaining such eminence that he had all his audiences under his spell before even he began to act. A wave of .the hand, the lifting of one finger, the shuffle of a foot, and the hundreds gaping and grinning about him fell off once more into paroxysms of laughter.” But the other day this mirth-maker ended his own life in a New York boarding house. How hollow is the world’s mirth, and how cruel it is too. This same Slivers has himself pictured the wretchedness of the clown’s heart back of the smiling mask. He once said to a newspaper reporter: , “ I never see the lights go up and hear the band strike up for the grand procession but I think of Dan Luby. He was a great clown, a good friend of mine, my side partner. About ten years ago, in the big tent in some place in Indiana, we marched out together behind the elephants. Dan was feeling kind of low-spirited and had been talking all day about a hunch he had that some thing was going to happen to him. That kind of talk always makes me shaky, but I cheered him up, and we frolicked along behind the big beasts until tbe grand entry was over. Then they brought out the elephants again and Dan and I began to jump over their backs. At least Dan did; he was a good jumper — I was the faker, the fellow who tries to jump and makes all sorts of funny tumbles. O f course, Dan had to ‘horse’ his act, too, but just the same he had to put over his thriller—you know the sort of stuff. Well the time came for him to make his jump from a spring board over four elephants’ backs. He got away in good shape, but in clearing the last back he didn’t right himself as he should. He hit the tan-bark flat on his back. The crowd yelled with laughter— funny stuff-—see ? I knew what had happened; we all knew. But it was the first night of a three-day stay, and we couldn’t do anything to make that bunch Over and over again in the history of comedians and A minstrel men and clowns it has come out how sad were the hearts of the men whose business it was to make other people laugh. It is said that in his day Hollowness of Mirth.
THE KING’S BUSINESS 485 unhappy. I flipflappéd up to the best friend I had on earth. He lay there with his back broken, dead. Up came the other clowns. We picked him up and carried poor Dan off, doing funny stuff every minute, while the spectators roared with laughter. When we got Dan behind thé scenes we cried over him. That’s two sides of a clown’s life all in a nutshell.” Immediately after this: sad recital Slivers went out to perform his act. The reporter’s words were-: “ Slivers’ eyes were soft when he turned away to his dressing table. He painted his face so skillfully that you smiled when he turned it toward you. He put on his baggy black-and-white costume, his preposterous shoes, and his familiar bonnet of the Civil War period, with its array of rib bons and chicken feathers. With a little wave of his hand he ambled out into the arena, and a great roar of laughter went up at his very appearance.” Often the gayest man in a social gathering, the man that moves the others most to mirth, is the man with an unspeakably heavy heart. We remember well the j oiliest' man we ever knew. He was in greatest demand at every social gathering ; for every one knew that if he were present there would be mirth and laughter throughout the whole evening. One night as we walked home together he opened to me his heart. He told me how behind the mask of mirth was a heart bitter in its sadness, discontent and unrest. How much better is “ the joy of the Lord” than this world’s hollow mirth. upon the men was to bring out the higher qualities of character. An article has recently appeared in The Open Count, Chicago, by Mr. Bertrand Russell, a leading philosophical writer of England, which sets forth in a very forceful way the utter folly of those who advocate war because of its moral effects. He says: “ The men who repeat this hoary falsehood must have learned nothing from the reports of friends returned from .the war, and must have refrained from talking with wounded soldiers in hospitals and elsewhere. It is true that, in those who enlist of their own free will, there is a self-devotion to the cause of their country which deserves all praise; and their first experience of war fare often gives them a horror o f its futile cruelty which makes them for a time humane and ardent friends of peace. If the war had lasted only three months, these good effects might have been its most moral consequences. But as the months at the front pass slowly by, the first impulse is followed by quite other moods. Heroism'is succeeded by a merely habitual disregard of danger; enthusiasm for the national cause is replaced by passive obedience to orders. Familiarity with horrors makes war seem natural, not the abomination which it is seen to be at first. Humane feeling decays, since, if it survived, no man could endure the daily shocks. In every army, reports of enemy atrocities^ true or false, stimulate ferocity, and produce a savage thirst for reprisals. On the Western front, at least, both sides have long ceased to take prisoners except in large batches. Our newspapers have been full of the atrocities perpetrated by soldiers. Whoever listens to the conversation of wounded soldiers returned from the front will find that, in all the armies, some men become guilty of astonishing acts of ferocity. Will even the most hardened moralist dare to sáy About a year ago there appeared in T he K ing ’ s Busi- ness an editorial on “ The Demoralizing Effects of War.” We had many letters of protest against the article, some even maintaining that the effect of war Demoralizing Effects of War.
486
THE KING’S BUSINESS that such men are morally the better for their experience of war? If the war had not occurred, they would probably have gone through life without ever having the wild beast in them aroused. There is a wild beast slumbêring in almost every man, but civilized men know that it must not be allowed to awake. A civilized man who has once been under the domain of the wild beast has lost his moral self-respect, his integrity, and uprightness : a secret' shame makes him cynical and despairing, without the courage that sees facts as they are, without the hope that makes them better. War is perpetrating this moral murder in the souls of vast millions of combatants ; every day many are passing over to the dominion of thé brute by acts which kill what is best within them. Yet, still our newspapers, parsons, and professors prate of the ennobling influence of war.” country has in its mood something of the heroic—unless it feels not only devo tion to ideals, but the purpose to measure the realization of those ideals in action.” These words, taken in their context, if they mean anything, mean that this nation must not nominate him for the Presidency unless it is. desirous of going to war with Germany or some other country (presumably however, Ger many, when one remembers what Col. Roosevelt has said in the past on this subject). In other words, Col. Roosevelt declares that no one must support him for the Presidency who is not desirous of going to war, and his choice by the people as a whole would practically mean a declaration by the people as a whole that they want war. O f course, there is a possibility that if Col. Roose velt were elected to the Presidency he might be sobered and calmed by the responsibility of the office. Men oftentimes are calmed under those circum stances. And it is not altogether impossible that he is playing, more or less to the galleries. But if he is sincere, then his election to the Presidency would in all probability mean war. Every one who is eagerly desirous of war should therefore vote for him. I f we believe that there are better .ways of settling international difficulties, more Christian ways, then we should vote against him. Perhaps there is no possibility of his being elected even if he got the nomina tion o f some leading party, and yet in these strange times one can hardly tell what might occur. Doubtless many, many thousands of those who voted for him in 1912 are glad that he was not elected, and are rejoicing that we have had, in these perilous times, a calm and self-restraining, and well-poised man in the Presidential chair, and yet, there is a very large class of people in this country to whom such manifestoes as those of Col. Roosevelt appeal. A promi nent Republican newspaper, The Des Moines Capitol, speaks of the Colonel’s declaration as being “ so full of American red blood that one who loves his country feels like proposing three cheers.” Doubtless this is the feeling of a great many. Bravado, bluster, and national self-assertion appeal to a great many American people, and there are not a few who consider calm, Christian reasonableness and self-restraint as cowardice. These are days in which Ameri cans who really love their country and who love other countries also, and who believe that nations as well as individuals should be governed by Christian prin ciples, should spend much time in prayer. Col. Roosevelt has issued what is practically a mani- festo as to what he shall demand if any party sees fit to nominate him for the Presidency. He has said: “ Now it would be a mistake to nominate me unless the Do We Want War ?
THE KING ’S BUSINESS 481 There was never a more unreasonable or unnecessary war in all history than the present one. A mania for war took possession of one nation and then spread to another, and then others. For a while America seemed
The World War Mad.
in a large measure to escape the frenzy. At last the war mania seems to have taken possession of a large part of our leading statesmen and most of our lead ing newspapers. They are trying to plunge us into a fathomless ocean of expenditure for a colossal navy and a colossal army. They advocate universal military training in our schools. It is natural, of course, that our military men and our naval men should advocate a large army and a large navy, because that is for their own interest. They advocate it for the same reason that brewers- and distillers are opposed to prohibition. Of course they are not distinctly conscious of this, they imagine it is patriotism, but their patriotism is rooted in something else that is far deeper. But why cool-headed statesmen, brought up in the atmosphere of American traditions, should advocate such schemes for a colossal navy and a colossal army can only be explained by the fact that there is a world-wide epidemic of war madness. We are told that we should.not only have a navy as large as that of any other nation, but larger than that of any other nation. But why? Such a navy is not needed for defense, it is only needed for aggression. The Providence Journal, one of the newspaper leaders in the agitation, says: “ The great mass of the American people do not want war, ‘but want to lessen the chance of war by preparing against it.’ ” And then goes on to say: “ They have seen the evils of unpreparedness tragically demonstrated in Europe.” But any one who will stop to think knows perfectly well that what we see in Europe today is not the evils of unpreparedness, but the evils of over-preparedness-. It was the nation that was most perfectly pre pared for war that had most to do with war being begun. The vast armies of Europe and the vast navies are directly responsible for the présent war. A ' large army begets pride and self-assertion, it leads directly and swiftly to war. Th ^Boston Advertiser advocates preparedness, on the following grounds: “ 1. To defend its own territories from invasion. 2. To sustain its policy of protecting South America from foreign aggression. 3. To protect the foreign trade that is doing its utmost to expand, which means to protect its citizens as, they have not been protected during the past year, and their property.” Then it goes on to admit, without probably intending to admit, that having such an army and navy as it is possible for us to have, will not accomplish these ends, but advocating “ an alliance with such nation or nations as have interests that will not conceivably clash with ours.” Saying furthermore that it would be absurd to keep up an army and navy “ adequate to meet any hostile com bination without support.” But any one who will do a little calm thinking knows perfectly well that forming an alliance with other nations^would not save us from war, but embroil us in the wars of those nations. A far better way to keep out of war than to have a colossal army and à colossal navy (to squander the money that ought to go into schools and reforms and other social improvements, and to rob our young men of some of the best years of their life) is to act righteously and generously and in a Christian spirit toward other nations. O f course if our statesmen are going to act like a lot of fool school boys and resent every imagined offense by other countries by rushing into a fight, then we will either have to have a large army and navy or be whipped- But if we will treat other nations as we would have other nations treat us; if we will appreciate that other nations have rights as well as ourselves ; if we will
488
THE KING’S BUSINESS respect the rights of other people, and even when wronged deal temperately and calmly and reasonably with the wrongs done us; and see that they are righted in answer to reason and not in answer to force and foolish bravado, neither a large army nor navy are needed. Humanly speaking, the probability is that when the present war is over the nations will have had enough of war to satisfy them for some time to' come, and there never was a time in our history when a colossal army or a colossal navy were less needed than today. If we had had them during the last two years, we would probably have been in the war by this time, and our having escaped the scourge of war is not altogether due to our having had a calm, and reasonable, and righteous President, though it is in a measure due to that fact, but it is also due to our not being in shape to go to war, for which every lover of country, and lover of his fellowman ought to devoutly thank God. ---------------O --------------- A LENTEN LITANY DR. S. J. MAHER, in the N. Y. World ly rO S T HIGH, Our God, W e are but quickened clay And you are God. You keep the stars alight, For you are God. You made and blessed our day, And this our earth bedight, For love o f us. You wrought a mother’s voice,. The evening hill to blush, The heart o f man to know; Then teach us how to crush This leering monster, Hate. But yesterday from hell— Unloosed by men called,great— Today its blazing breath Has charred men’s minds, has speared
Men’s souls, has cracked the spell O f faith your saints had reared, Has stilled our youth in death— Have mercy, Lord. Supreme, Our God. Your footfalls are the ages, Your songs the Milky Way, Your smiles our joy o f right. Then come, dear Lord, Oh, come where murder rages; Again on Easter Day, Show man your loving might. Almighty G od !
You gave her tenderness, You led her to rejoice, In writhing pain and stress
For you, O Lord. Have pity, Lord,
For, see, in winter’s flood, Our women weep alone— Their pride has left their blood, Their babes to wolves are thrown— *Heed them, O Lord. All Wise, Our God, You taught'the rose to blow,
Why I Am Not a
Christian Scientist (Concluded)
By Dr. William Evans Associate Dean Bible Institute of Los Angeles
Note.—This address has been delivered in the leading cities of the United States. The first of it was published in the May number of “The King’s Business.”
connection with the first section o f this lecture, pub- lished last month, the explanation was made that ’ s based on the state
States, and had already many disciples. The philosophy was called Christian Science ; and when I asked what the teaching was, I recognized it as being the philosophy that had been taught among my people for four thousand years. It has ruined millions o f lives and caused immeasurable suffering and sorrow in my land; for it is based on selfishness, and knows no sympathy or com passion. In. our late famine, our philoso phers felt no compassion for sufferers, and did not help the needy. For why should they help when they claim the suffering was not real, neither were the dying chil dren real.” Christian Science is pagan, not Christian, and it will be readily seen that when Mrs. Eddy declares that matter has no exist ence, she simply echoes the teachings o f pagan philosophy. Christian Science shows itself to be unchristian in that it claims to be the relig ion o f Jesus Christ, while asserting that it was discovered and revealed to the world
ments o f Christian Science itself as gath ered from its own text books,” and a full explanation was also given o f the difficulty o f verifying statements, because o f the many and startling changes made in these same Christian Science text books, from time to time. The first section closed with a discussion o f the topic, “ I. I am Not a Christian Scientist Because Christian Sci ence Is Not Scientific,” and I now take up Section II. II. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN SCIEN TIST BECAUSE CHRISTIAN SCI ENCE IS NOT CHRISTIAN When the Pundita Ramabai came to this country in 1898, she remarked: “ On my arrival in New York I was told that a new philosophy was being taught in the United
THE KING’S BUSINESS
490
sonal God.” Page 3, By the individuality o f God is meant “ the infinite and divine Principle.” 61. & H. Index, pp. 616, 604, 1894; p. 616, 1899, “God as (a ) principle, not (a) person saves man.” Nothing possesses reality or existence except mind, God. This means that as God is mind, and mind is principle, nothing exists but principle. In quoting 1 Timothy 2 :4, Mrs. Eddy says: “ That which will have all men to be saved is principle, not person.” (Italics ours.) The god whom the Christian Scientist would have us worship is not the Divine Being a$ presented to' us in the Scriptures —a loving, kind, personal, heavenly Father, such a God as the human heart longs for; but, instead, it presents to us an abstract, impersonal principle, o f definition, which no man can either worship or love, and calls that thing God. To the Christian, God is an almighty omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, personal Being, who not only created all things, but who also sustains His creation by the continual manifestation o f His power; a God who cares personally for each individual child o f His, yea, who cares even for. the sparrow that falls. God is not man, nor is man God; God is not nature, nor is nature God. God is in nature and in man, but He has an existence sep arate from both nature and man. The God o f the Christian Scientist is nothing but a “ cold, formal abstraction, instead o f the warm, loving, personal God and Father as set forth by the Christian faith. The Christian Scientist set us a ghostly image fashioned o f the thin abstrac tion o f the mind, and would have us take' it for the living God. But this is not the sort o f God for which men’s hearts and flesh cry out.” I cannot worship'a prin ciple, I cannot pray to a definition, I can not love an idea. Such a conception of God is not Christian. To the Christian, God is a living, personal,- self-existent God who in the beginning created all things, and who by His mighty power has, through all these ages, kept them in being; He is a Being who loves, cares and is person-
for the first time by a woman. According to the precepts o f this new cult the world from the time o f Christ up to the advent of Mrs. Eddy has been in darkness; it has had to wait nineteen hundred years for the light vouchsafed by a woman (who frankly confesses that she once humbugged patients by treating them with unmedicated pills)' before it could know the real religion of Jesus. A consideration o f its teachings reveals the fact that the very fundamental doctrines o f the Christian faith are denied by the teachings of Mrs. Eddy. 1. Christian Science Denies the Person- ality of God. Indeed it is considered by Christian Sci ence authorities that no one can become an adept in that science as a healer or teacher without absolutely relinquishing the idea o f a divine personality. Strange as this may seem, it is neverthe less true. Christian Science does not teach a personal God. God is individual, not per sonal; God is principle, not personality. This principle pervades the universe— indeed, is the universe. There is no other substance but God— for God is all and all is God. This means that Christian Science is pantheistic, or words have no meaning. Christian Science is, therefore, pagan; for the heathen who bows down and worships his gods o f wood and stone, sun and water, does so because he believes that God is in everything and that everything is God. Christian Science is pantheistic, not Chris tian; therefore, I am not a Christian Sci entist. To quote from Christian Science itself: “ Principle and its idea is one, and this one is God” (S. & H., p. 465, 1909, 1916). “ The theory o f three persons in one God . . . suggests heathen gods (polytheism)” (S. & H ; p. 152, 1899; p. 256, 1909, 1916). God is an impersonal being. God is not a person. Rudimental Divine Science, p. 2: In Christian Science we learn that God is defi nitely individual and not personal.” Page 2, “An individual God, rather than a per
THE KING ’S BUSINESS
491
ally interested in thé well-being o f His creatures. He is a Being who can be grieved, angered, who has indignation, who can be moved to mercy; He is gracious and merciful. He has appeared to His children, spoken to them, and given them the names by which He is to be called. He is a King, seated on His throne in the heavens. God is not one great Allness. He is not an angel, nor Satan, nor man. 2. Christian Science Denies the True Christian Doctrine of Jesus Christ. (a) In the first place, it denies the Incar nation. Luke 1 :35 says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb o f the Vir gin, and that in the fullness o f time, Mary brought forth her first son. Christian Science says, in Science and Health: “Mary’s .conception o f him (.Christ) was spiritual” (p. 228, 1899; p. 332, 1916). Not by the Spirit, but “ Spirit-, ual.” “ The Virgin Mother conceived this idea o f God, and gave to her ideal the name o f Jesus” (p. 334, 1899; p. 29, 1909, 1916). “Jesús was the offspring of Mary’s self- conscious communion with God” (p. 33S, 1899; pp. 29, 30, 1909, 1916). Christ is an idea, not a person, conceived in the mind o f the virgin (cf. p. 334, 1893, 1899; p. 29, 1916). Christ is the impersonal Saviour (cf. Mise. Writings, p. 180, 1916). A dif ference is made between Jesus and Christ. Jesus and Christ are not the same; they are two, not one. Jesus is the appearance assumed by Christ, although this appear ance was only apparent; it only seemed so to the mortal mind. The Christ is the divin ity o f the man Jesus (cf. p. 331, 1894, 1899; p. 26, 1916.) “ The eternal Christ and the corporeal Jesus manifest in the flesh, continued until the Master’s ascension; when the human, material concept, or Jesus, disappeared” (S. Sr H., p. 334, 1909, 1916; cf. p. 229, 1899). “Jesus as material manhood was not Christ” {Mise. Writings, p. 84, 1909, 1916). “A t the time when Jesus felt our infirm ities, he had not conquered all the beliefs
o f the flesh or his sense o f material life, nor had he risen to his final demonstra tion o f spiritual power” (S. Sr H., p. 358, 1899; p. 53, 1909, 1916). “ To accommodate himself to immature ideas o f spiritual power . . . "Jesus called the body, which . . . He raised from the grave, ‘flesh and bones’ ” (S. Sr H., p. 209, 1899; p. 313, 1909, 1916). “These instances show the concessions which Jesus was willing to make to the popular ignorance” (S. Sr ¡1., pp. 396, 397, 1899; p. 398, 1909, 1916). “A portion o f God could not enter (corporeal) (mortal) man, neither could His (God’s) fullness be reflected by Him (a single man).” “God can only be reflected by spiritual, incorporeal man” (S. Sr H., p. 231, 1894, 1899; cf. p. 336, 1916). “ The fullness o f the Godhead bodily” therefore, never dwelt in him. In Christian Science, Jesus is not called corporeal, but “material concept” -(.S'. <5- ~H., P- 334, 1909, 1916), or “Jesus.” What the disciples saw as the body o f Jesus was only a concept o f the mortal mind. This concept passed away from their minds after the resurrection and ascension. The ascension o f Christ to, the Christian Sci entist is nothing more than an ascended thought in the minds o f His disciples. Inas much then as Jesus passed away, and only the Christ remained and this Christ is an invisible, corporeal, impersonal idea, there fore Christian Science * teaches that the incarnation never really took place. All this Is in direct contradiction to the teaching o f the Scriptures: 1 John 4:2; Isaiah 9 :6 ; Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:35; Luke 2 :7 ; John 1:14, 18; Matthew 26;67, 68; Matthew 20:22, 28; - Colossians 2 :9; Romans 1:4; Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 10 : 10 . In saying all this, the Bible contradicts everything Christian Science says about, it. “ Christian Science says the incarnation o f Christ was ideal. The Bible says it was real. Christian Science says it was due to the self-consciousness o f the Virgin Mary. The Bible says it was due to the sovereign,
492
THE KING’S BUSINESS
uncaused and personal action o f the three persons o f the eternal Godhead. Christian Science says that Jesus and Christ are two. The Bible says that they are one and indi visible. Christian Science says that cor poreal Jesus was so only to the false belief o f His disciples. The Bible says He is real and abiding. This is the immense and cli macteric thing the Bible says: ‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and for ever.’ (Hebrews 13:8). As though heaven anticipated the terrific attempt to make a schism between Jesus and Christ, an attempt to take away real existence from Jesus, and the body from Christ, it sends down this inspired proclamation: Jeshs Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. According to Christian Science, Jesus was not Christ (cf. p. 84, 1893), yet 1 John 2 :22 says, ‘Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son’ ” (Haldeman). But this is not all. Hear what the Bible has to . say o f those who deny that Christ has come in the flesh. “Hereby know ye the Spirit o f God; every spirit that con- fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is o f God. And every spirit that con- fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not o f God; and this is that spirit o f antichrist ^whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:2, 3). (b) The Perfection o f Chrises Life and Teachings are Denied. Mrs. Eddy claims that her revelation is “ higher, clearer and more permanent” than that given by the Man o f Galilee. According' to Christian Science, Jesus Himself was not -always superior to the environment o f mortal belief. He was yielding to this error when He foretold His death. He never really cast out de mons; He made as though He did, but in reality He cast out nothing more than the false beliefs (cf. p & H., p. 79, 1909; 1899, p. 245; 1916, p. 79). “At the time when Jesus felt our infirm ities He had not conquered all the beliefs
o f the flesh—nor had He risen to His final demonstration o f spiritual power” {S. & PL., p. -53, 1909). This means that inasmuch as belief in the flesh is false, there was a time when Jesus was under the power and dominion o f the flesh, and not under the power o f the Holy Spirit. “Jesus’ wisdom ofttimes was shown by His forbearing to speak, as well as by speaking, the whole truth.” “This wisdom, which character ized His sayings, did not prophesy His death, and thereby hasten or (and) permit it” ( Misc. Writings, p. 84, 1916). This is equivalent to saying that Jesus, by foolish talking about -His death really hastened it; that He lacked wisdom in so doing; that He was not wise when He foretold His death. “ To accommodate Himself to immature ideas o f spiritual power . . . . Jesus called the body, which . . . He raised from the grave, ‘flesh and bones’ ” (S. & H „ p. 209, 1899; p. 313, 1909, 1916). This is equivalent to saying that Jesus was deceiving His disciples; that He was lying to His friends; that what He said was not true. “These instances show the concessions which Jesus was willing to make to the popular ignorance” (S. & H., pp. 396, 397, 1899; p. 398, 1909, 1916). What then becomes^ o f the authority o f Christ’s teach ings? What becomes o f His claims to be the infallible Teacher o f spiritual truth? How can He be not only the Way, and Life, but also the Truth, if He thus lied to His disciples and the people? W e at once see into what awful uncertainty we are thrown by such teaching. (c) The Deity of Jesus Christ Is Denied. The C. S. textbook reads: “W e acknowl edge His Son.” Yes, Jmt'how is God’s Son acknowledged? Jesus was not God’s Son jn any other sense than as every man is God’s son—this is Christian Science teach ing regarding the deity o f Christ. Mrs. Eddy says that “Jesus was a good man” ■(S. & H., p. 335, 1893), “ The offspring o f Mary’s self-conscious communion (self- communing) with God” (5 . & H., p. 335,
493
THE KING’S BUSINESS
that Christ made was great; but it also, just as clearly states, that it was but the sacri fice o f one, and no sacrifice o f one, how ever great, can take away the sin o f another. If words mean anything, the creed o f Christian Science regarding the atonement, is that Christ’s sacrifice has -no value what ever to take away sin. If this were true it would mean not only the destruction of many o f our beautiful hymns, which deal with the death o f Christ as the remedy for our sins, but it would also compel us to exclude from the Bible all such passages as clearly teach this doctrine. The Scrip tures distinctly teach that “ we are sancti fied by the offering of the body o f Jesus Christ once for all;” that we have received the atonement through the death o f our Lord Jesus Christ, and that we are recon ciled to God by the death o f His Son ; that “He, His own Self, bare our sins in His own body on the tree;” that we are reconciled by “the blood o f His cross” (Colossians 1:20), and not by the blood that flowed through His veins as Chris tian Science would have us believe. There is probably no more important point than this upon which Christian Sci ence and the Bible absolutely and hopelessly contradict each other. Argue as we will there is no point o f possible agreement between them. Either one sacrifice is suf ficient to take away sin as the Bible declares, or one sacrifice is not sufficient to take away sin as Christian Science asserts. According to the teaching o f Chris tian Science, the shed blood of'Jesus Christ is nothing more than a consequence o f the unwise life He lived on the earth—an event hastened by His foolish talking about it. Then it is not what the Scriptures declare it to be, namely, the divine sacrifice which takes away the sin o f the world. Christian Science tells us “ Final deliverance from error is not reached by pinning one’s faith without works to another’s vicarious effort,” •but the Bible distinctly tells Us that we are saved by faith in Christ without absolutely any works o f our own ( Galatians 2:16; 3:10). The Christian declares that:
1893, 1899; pp. 29, 30, 1909, 1916). “Jesus is the name o f the man who more than all other men, has presented Christ, the true idea o f God.” “Jesus is the human man, and Christ is the divine idea” (.S'. & H., p. 473, 1916). “Jesus was the highest human concept o f the perfect man” (S. & H., p. 482, 1916). That Jesus is not God, how ever is very clear. “ The personality o f Jesus is not to be worshipped” (S'. & H., Index, p. 627, 1894, 1899). Jesus Christ is the name the Chris tian Scientist never worships. Mrs. Eddy and her teachings, and not Jesus Christ and the Bible, is the uppermost theme in the testimony meetings in Christian Science churches. The . Bible distinctly says that at the name o f Jesus every knee shall bow (Philippians 2:9-11). Thomas fell at Jesus’ feet, and exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). This worship Jesus accepted, has accepted all through the ages; this worship God commands all men to render to His Son (John 5 :20-23) ; those who refuse to worship the Son will perish (Psalm 2:12). (d) Christian Science Denies the Sacri ficial and Atoning Merits of the Death of Jesus Christ. Christian Science claims that “ The mater ial blood o f Jesus (Christ) was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon the ‘accursed tree’ than when it was flowing through His veins as He went daily about His Father’s business” (S'. <5* H., p. 330, 1899; p. 25, 1909, 1916)'. “ One sacrifice, however great, is insufficient to pay the debt o f sin” (S. & H., p. 328, 1899; p. 23, 1909, 1916). “ Does erudite theology' regard the cru cifixion o f Jesus as chiefly providing a ready pardon for all sinners who ask for it, and are willing to be forgiven ? . . . Then we must differ from it (them)” (referring to Spiritualism) (S. & H., p. 329, 1899; p. 24, 1916). These statements admit that the sacrifice
494
THE KING’S BUSINESS
“ Upon a life I did not live;
which has since been called ascension” ( S. &■ H„ p. 339, 1893, 1899; p. 34, 1916). This is clear language and at least shows us where Christian Science stands on these matters. The resurrection and ascension of Christ are to the Christian Scientist noth ing more than a risen and ascended idea; heaven does not today contain the risen, glorified, and ascended Lord Jesus Christ, who is Priest and Intercessor for His peo ple ; there is no need to turn our eyes upward for the help o f such an Intercessor; then Stephen was mistaken when he saw the Son o f God; then Paul was mistaken when he spoke o f looking for the Lord from heaven; then John was mistaken when in the Apoc alypse, he prays for the Lord to come speedily from heaven; then the whole o f Christendom is sadly mistaken in ardently looking for the' coming again o f our Sav iour from heaven." Indeed, Christian Sci ence denies the resurrection o f the body altogether. How could it do otherwise and be consistent? In speaking o f Laz arus, whom Christ raised from the dead after he had been dead four days, Chris tian Science says: “Jesus (he) restored Lazarus by the understanding that (he) Lazarus had never died, not by an admis sion that his body had died and lived again” (S. & IT., p. 241, 1899; p. 7f, 1908- 1909, 1916). But Jesus said very plainly, according to the Scriptures, “Lazarus is dead,” 3. Christian Science Denies the Christian Doctrine of Sin. “ To get rid o f sin through Science, is to divest sin o f any supposed (mind or) reality” (S. & H., p. 234, 1894, 1899- p 339, 1916) / Matter and evil are unreal” ( Misc. Writings, p. 27). “I f God made all that was'made, and it was good, where did evil originate? It never originated or existed as an entity. It (sin, evil) is but a false belief” (Misc. Writings, p. 45). Man is incapable o f sin, sickness, and death” (S. & H., p. 471, 1899; p. 475, 1909 1916).
Upon a death I did not die ; Upon another’s life, another’s death, I risk my soul eternally. “Bearing shame and scoffings rude; In my place, condemned He stood; Sealed my pardon with His blood; Hallelujah, what a Saviour!” Startling as it may seem, it is neverthe less true that Christian Science denies that Jesus Christ died at all. In Miscellaneous Writings, p. 212, we find these w ords: “ Pitying friendg took down from the cross the fainting form o f Jesus, and buried it out o f their sight.” “ His disciples believed Jesus to be dead while He was hidden in the sepulchre, whereas He was alive” (S. <5-, II., p. 349, 1889; p. 44, 1909, 1916). “Jesus’ students . . . did not perform many wonderful works, until they saw him after his (the) crucifixion and learned that he had not died” (S. & H., pp. 350, 351, 1899; p. 46, 1909; pp. 45, 46, 1916), Indeed, how could Jesus die if He had no material body? Then the tragedy on Cal vary never took place! (e) Christian Science Denies the Resur rection and Ascension of Jesus Christ. According to the teachings o f Christian Science, the resurrection o f Jesus was merely a risen thought in the minds of His disciples, and not as the Bible clearly teaches it to be, a real resurrection o f the physical body o f Jesus from the tomb. The resurrection o f Christ was mental belief yielding to spiritual understanding; i t ,was only the incorporeal idea o f Christ that ascended. ' “ Our Master reappeared to his students —to their apprehension he rose from the grave—on the third day o f his ascending thought” (S. & H., p. 502, 1899; p. 509,. 1910, 1916). “ His reappearance in idea” (S. & H., p. 348, 1894, 1899). “Resurrec tion (is) spiritualization o f thought; material belief yielding to spiritual under standing” (S. & H., p. 572, 1893; p. 584, 1899; p. 593, 1910, 1916). “ He would dis appear to material sense in that change
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs