Evening journal., 1913-11-05
Hon. Clifford Smith Of Brook
line Addresses Audience in
Odd Fellows Temple
CHANCELLOR CURTIS
INTRODUCES SPEAKER

tist, by invitation, presided over the
meeting and introduced Judge Smith.
Judge Smith spoke In part as fol-
lows:
Perhaps the most frequent objec-
ton urged against Christian Science
is that it denies the divinity of the
Christ. What Christian Science does
teach on this subject is of such vast
Importance to all mankind that ! wish
to examine this question particularly
before taking up another topic. In
the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the
discoverer and founder OF Christian
Science, the divinity OF the Christ is
often affirmed and never denied;
hence this censure, as it is commonly
made, does not present a clear state
ment of the real issue.
THE fact is that what Christian
Science denies is not the divinity Of
the Christ, but the belief that Jesus
is God and the correlative theory that
God consists Of three persons. This
is the real issue; and Of course it is
one that ought to be referred to Jesus
and settled by his own utterances as
recorded in the New Testament. The
doctrine that would deify him is with
in the scope of the subjects on which
he spoke, and IT Il were true, he would
have confirmed 1t explicitly. But such
is not the case; on the contrary the
gospel records of his teaching show
both negatively and affrmatiyely that
Jesus did not teach that he was the
Deity, nor that God consists of three
persons. He expressed the desire
to be glorihed, but never to be DEL
fed.
Jesus Not God.
"On looking through the gospels we
md that Jesus frequently spoke Of
himself as distinct from God. For in
stance, he said, "Ye believe in God.
believe also in me-" He referred to
himslf with other men as Worship
ing God-"We know what We wor-
ship" Again he plainly said that he
was a mana man that hath told
you the truth"
Once he had dispute with the
Jews on this very question. They
asked them, Why? They answered,
For blasphemy, and because that
thou. being a man, makest thyseli
God" In reply he did not deny thai
he was man, but he corrected
them on the other point. His word.
we're, Il said. / am the son of God.
Surely in these circumstances if ht
were God, he would have said SO. II
the Deity were three persons of whom
be was one, he would not have spoken
as he did.
There is another incident, record
ed in three of the gospels. that ought
to be conclusive of this question. In
this he said. why callest thou me
good? None is good, save one, that
is God" This saying is squarely con-
| trary to the theory that Jesus was
God, and it is equally contrary to
the theory that God is three. Jesus
was, as Mrs. Eddy has said. God
like and glorified man" (Science aud
Health, page 54); but his words show
that even he was wholly dependent
on the Father
In order to understand the word
Son as used by Jesus we must con-
slider his use Of the word Father"
for each of these words is the coun-
terpart and complement of the other.
In the gospels We find that he spoke
not only of my Fatehr. but of the
Father, your Father. and our Father,
and that he used these titles inter
changeably. This fact of itself proves
that he did not regard himself as a
member Of a trinity with the Father
Further Proof From Jesus.
"But there is further proof from
his own lips. Several of his utter
ances plainly imply that the same re-
lation to God in which he stood is the
divine birthright Of other man. Thus
he spoke of other men as sons or chill
dren of God, and he expressed his
whole aim and object in the words,
that where l am, there ye may be
also"
It is to be observed, moreover. that
the words Father and Son as Jesus
used them expressed both kinship and
! likeness, both relation and kindred
nature. They denoted that the nature
of God is imaged OF reflected by man: I:
that is, by the real man. This is what
Jesus meant when he said. He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father
AS Mrs. Eddy has explained. His mis-
sion was TO reveal the Science Of
celestial being. to prove what God is
and what He does for man. (Science
and Health p. 26)
| Hdl. JESUS ulu nut AtdCu ludl ut
was identical with God is again clear
ly shown by what he said in prayer
for other men: The glory which thou
gavest me / have given them; that
they may be one, even as we are one
Jesus the Example.
The essence of his work was the
ILLUSTRATION or exemplifcation of what
is practical for us; but his life would
furnish no example unless he we're a
human person in all points tempted
like as we are 1t was essential to all
that he sought to accomplish that we
should follow his steps,; that we
should overcome evil and rise above
discordant conditions as they did: that
is, from the same plane or status OF
being and by virtue of the same law
and power.
Another argument against Christian
Science is so vague and inaruculate
that II is dificult to define. Perhaps for
this reason it has affected more people
than we're aware Of its influence. The
gist OF this argument is that Christian
Science should have been discovered
by some one else.
Human nature is disposed to dis
credit the ability of any particular per-
person to render the world a great
spiritual service. Especially is this
the case where the individual who
has rendered such a service is not one
whom tie world had thought of as