intended to mean “on account of.” It has to mean that or nothing, if
“our” is allowed to stay. The clause then says:
“I shall claim no especial gift on account of my divine origin.”
And I think that the full sentence was intended to mean what I have
already suggested:
“Although I am of divine origin, and gifted with supernatural power, I
shall not draw upon these resources in determining the best method of
elevating the race.”
When Mrs. Eddy copyrighted that Preface seven years ago, she had long
been used to regarding herself as a divine personage. I quote from Mr.
F. W. Peabody’s book:
“In the Christian Science Journal for April, 1889, when it was her
property, and published by her, it was claimed for her, and with her
sanction, that she was equal with Jesus, and elaborate effort was made to
establish the claim.”
“Mrs. Eddy has distinctly authorized the claim in her behalf, that she
herself was the chosen successor to and equal of Jesus.”
The following remark in that April number, quoted by Mr. Peabody,
indicates that her claim had been previously made, and had excited
“horror” among some “good people”:
“Now, a word about the horror many good people have of our making the
Author of Science and Health ‘equal with Jesus.'”
Surely, if it had excited horror in Mrs. Eddy also, she would have
published a disclaimer. She owned the paper; she could say what she
pleased in its columns. Instead of rebuking her editor, she lets him
rebuke those “good people” for objecting to the claim.
These things seem to throw light upon those words, “our [my] divine
origin.”
It may be that “Christian Science eschews divine rights in human beings,”
and forbids worship of any but “one God, one Christ”; but, if that is the
case, it looks as if Mrs. Eddy is a very unsound Christian Scientist, and
needs disciplining. I believe she has a serious malady–“self-
deification”; and that it will be well to have one of the experts
demonstrate over it.
Meantime, let her go on living–for my sake. Closely examined,
painstakingly studied, she is easily the most interesting person on the
planet, and, in several ways, as easily the most extraordinary woman that
was ever born upon it.
P.S.–Since I wrote the foregoing, Mr. McCrackan’s article appeared (in
the March number of the North American Review). Before his article
appeared–that is to say, during December, January, and February–I had
written a new book, a character-portrait of Mrs. Eddy, drawn from her own
acts and words, and it was then–together with the three brief articles
previously published in the North American Review–ready to be delivered
to the printer for issue in book form. In that book, by accident and
good luck, I have answered the objections made by Mr. McCrackan to my
views, and therefore do not need to add an answer here. Also, in it I
have corrected certain misstatements of mine which he has noticed, and
several others which he has not referred to. There are one or two
important matters of opinion upon which he and I are not in disagreement;
but there are others upon which we must continue to disagree, I suppose;
indeed, I know we must; for instance, he believes Mrs. Eddy wrote Science
and Health, whereas I am quite sure I can convince a person unhampered by
predilections that she did not.
As concerns one considerable matter I hope to convert him. He believes
Mrs. Eddy’s word; in his article he cites her as a witness, and takes her
testimony at par; but if he will make an excursion through my book when
it comes out, and will dispassionately examine her testimonies as there
accumulated, I think he will in candor concede that she is by a large
percentage the most erratic and contradictory and untrustworthy witness
that has occupied the stand since the days of the lamented Ananias.
CONCLUSION
Broadly speaking, the hostiles reject and repudiate all the pretensions
of Christian Science Christianity. They affirm that it has added nothing
new to Christianity; that it can do nothing that Christianity could not
do and was not doing before Christian Science was born.