They place her upon an Alpine solitude and supremacy of power and
spectacular show not hitherto attained by any other self-seeking enslaver
disguised in the Christian name, and they persuade me that, although she
may regard “self-deification as blasphemous,” she is as fond of it as I
am of pie.
She knows about “Our Mother’s Room” in the Supreme Church in Boston–
above referred to–for she has been in it. In a recently published North
American Review article, I quoted a lady as saying Mrs. Eddy’s portrait
could be seen there in a shrine, lit by always-burning lights, and that
C.S. disciples came and worshiped it. That remark hurt the feelings of
more than one Scientist. They said it was not true, and asked me to
correct it. I comply with pleasure. Whether the portrait was there four
years ago or not, it is not there now, for I have inquired. The only
object in the shrine now, and lit by electrics–and worshiped–is an oil-
portrait of the horse-hair chair Mrs. Eddy used to sit in when she was
writing Science and Health! It seems to me that adulation has struck
bottom, here.
Mrs. Eddy knows about that. She has been there, she has seen it, she has
seen the worshippers. She could abolish that sarcasm with a word. She
withholds the word. Once more I seem to recognize in her exactly the
same appetite for self-deification that I have for pie. We seem to be
curiously alike; for the love of self-deification is really only the
spiritual form of the material appetite for pie, and nothing could be
more strikingly Christian-Scientifically “harmonious.”
I note this phrase:
“Christian Science eschews divine rights in human beings.”
“Rights” is vague; I do not know what it means there. Mrs. Eddy is not
well acquainted with the English language, and she is seldom able to say
in it what she is trying to say. She has no ear for the exact word, and
does not often get it. “Rights.” Does it mean “honors?” “attributes?”
“Eschews.” This is another umbrella where there should be a torch; it
does not illumine the sentence, it only deepens the shadows. Does she
mean “denies?” “refuses?” “forbids?” or something in that line? Does she
mean:
“Christian Science denies divine honors to human beings?” Or:
“Christian Science refuses to recognize divine attributes in human
beings?” Or:
“Christian Science forbids the worship of human beings?”
The bulk of the succeeding sentence is to me a tunnel, but, when I emerge
at this end of it, I seem to come into daylight. Then I seem to
understand both sentences–with this result:
“Christian Science recognizes but one God, forbids the worship of human
beings, and refuses to recognize the possession of divine attributes by
any member of the race.”
I am subject to correction, but I think that that is about what Mrs. Eddy
was intending to convey. Has her English–which is always difficult to
me–beguiled me into misunderstanding the following remark, which she
makes (calling herself “we,” after an old regal fashion of hers) in her
preface to her Miscellaneous Writings?
“While we entertain decided views as to the best method for elevating the
race physically, morally, and spiritually, and shall express these views
as duty demands, we shall claim no especial gift from our divine organ,
no supernatural power.”
Was she meaning to say:
“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?”
If she had left out the word “our,” she might then seem to say:
“I claim no especial or unusual degree of divine origin–”
Which is awkward–most awkward; for one either has a divine origin or
hasn’t; shares in it, degrees of it, are surely impossible. The idea of
crossed breeds in cattle is a thing we can entertain, for we are used to
it, and it is possible; but the idea of a divine mongrel is unthinkable.
Well, then, what does she mean? I am sure I do not know, for certain.
It is the word “our” that makes all the trouble. With the “our” in, she
is plainly saying “my divine origin.” The word “from” seems to be