The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1910-03-30

where in Christian Science, does Mrs
Eddy say, God is the universe But
on the contrary she states, Every
i thing in Gods universe, excepting
man. Again, God creates and gov.
ems the universe. including man
And again, The universe of spirit re
fleets the creative power of truth.
The universe is therefore Gods crea
tion,-not God, although God is ex-
pressed therein as in that He has Gre
ated. The creation is not, and can.
not be the creator The creation is
an idea of which God is the principle.
! The misunderstanding of this teach
! ing upon the part of Father Gig
linger explains the reiteration of his
statement that Christian Science is
'pantheistic.' Another reason for
his difficulty in getting our view
point, consists in his insistence that
matter" is substance Inasmuch
as Father Giglinger objects to the
statement on this point made by Pro-
lessor Oswald. will quote from some
we'll known Scientists who are con-
sidered as authority in the scientific
world. James T. Bixby. Phi. D., SAYS:
We can mentally think away every
thing that Is an object of sensation.
Everything visible we know is tran
scient, ii there be any thing perma-
nent, it must be in the Invisible
sphere. This agrees win st. Pauls
statement, The things which are
seen are temporal, the things which
are not seen are eternal Grant AL
len, the well kown autho- states,
The universe as known to us, con-
sists wholly of mind, and matter is a
doubtful and uncertain inference of
the human intelligence" Mr.. Huxley
writes, After all, what do we know
OF this terrible MATTE except as a
name for the unknown hypothetical
cause OF states of our own conscious
ness To quote asa;n from ST. Paul,
Now faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the ev .dence of things not
seem The attempt of our critic to
be facetious is not argument, and
his copious quotations from Science
and Health and from the Bible which
he takes away from their original
contexts, and TO which he gives
meaning OF his own. prove nothing
against Christian Science. Neither
is there any basis for his : Sumption
that the Bible quotations which
cited are less to be credited or less
worthy OF acceptance than those
which he cites in the article indi-
Gated.
Father Giglinger states of Christian
Science, at is not fail cure at all for
it is not your faith in God that cures,
but as Mrs. Eddy says, This faith re-
lies upon an understood principle as
given in the Science and Health,
reference quoted), is capitalized and
is synonymous with Cod therefore
the words, Not upon Cod which
Giglinger placed in parenthesis again
betrays his lack of understanding of
what Christian Science teaches God
is the divine principle of Christian
Science and OF all that really exists"
says Mrs. Eddy. 1t is the spiritual
understanding of this principle or God
that heals the sick. Therefore Chris
tan Science is faith cure in its
highest definition, Notwithstanding
the fact that Father Giglinger states,
Now il il is understanding. 1t is not
faith" The Bible states. Wisdom is
the principle thing, therefore, get wis
dom, and with all thy getting. get I'M
derstanding;;" Again 1t states. I'm
Outstanding is a well-spring of life
unto MIN that hath it, Jesus said,
This is life eternal that they might
know, funderstand) thee. the only
true God and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent Father Giglinger objects
to ny statement that results are the
only raid standard of judgment and
he cites the experience of "the Apos-
ties Of old VINO iabored all night and
caught nothing and states "if we
jnlge them from results We call them
oilers. a careful reading of this ac-
count brings OUT the fact that They
caught nothing until Jesus told them
10 cast the net On the right side"
obeying His Injunction, they got their
results" Jesus knew what was the
mater rith them and they did not.
I would advise Father Giglinger to
himself follow Jesus' Injunction, and
Ee viii then find much in Christian
Science to which he now seemg 10 be
blind and he viii find that his present
nisconception of It is due 10 that
blindness. 10 which also is due his
statement that Christian Science at
tacks The fundamental doctrines of
Christianitg By this he evidently
means in the last analysis of It.
which his church accepts as such
Christian Science seeks not 10
make evil real, bur rather does ii
expose and denounce II a. that which
viii be overcome through me under.
standing Of trush a. given in Chris
tian Science.
In conclusion I desire 10 state that
this controversy vas not sought by
Christian Scientists, but was forced
upon them in defense 81 the religious
teaching which has been Of inestima-