Arthur Corey

    Christian Science Class Instruction

          Arthur Corey's monumental exposition on the rudiments of Christian Science.

Revelation

The one vital prerequisite to an understanding of Christian Science Class Instruction is an open mind. It is human nature for everyone to assume that he is open-minded, but mental freedom is evidenced only where there is a genuine delight to see the cherished landmarks slip away.(S & H 323:32-4). The progressive attitude is more easily affirmed than achieved. Make no mistake about that. It cannot be too strongly emphasized at the outset that the effort to abandon intellectual orbits of a lifetime's tracing - and that is just what the revolutionary process of Christian Science education entails - must rouse all the resistance of which the human mind is capable.

Any student who believes that he is immune to the automatisms of finite mentation is the sure victim of them. The tendency of the mortal to misperceive and distort through unconscious emotional bias and inherent inertia is so widely acknowledged that there is not a court of law anywhere which does not make broad allowances for glaring discrepancies in testimony under oath. It is a fact that two normal people may observe the same event and yet, despite honest efforts to describe it accurately, contradict each other on the major points.

Now taking up Christian Science does not immediately immunize us to these universal trends. Nor do we master these limitations of human thought by ignoring them. We recognize them as something to be guarded against. And let not the "seasoned" church worker presume that he is exempt, for he is more likely than the average newcomer to have a lot of fixed views and honored fallacies, invisibly obstructing his passage from sense to Soul. Plainly, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich (encumbered) man to enter the kingdom of heaven. We cannot hope to drag all our excess baggage - our favorite preconceptions and our entrenched convictions - through the straight and narrow way of the Pearly Gates. No matter how far along one is in his study of Christian Science, all progress ceases when childlike receptivity flags. Complacency is fatal to unfoldment.

William D. McCracken used to tell an amusing story that is apropos here. He was traveling in what was then the Far West of this country, during those pioneer days before the clattering thunder of the Iron Horse had shattered the primeval silence of the Great Rockies. On this occasion, the driver of the stagecoach was expert enough to be jauntily nonchalant about the drive, spurring his horses on to a lively clip along the familiar trail. To the passengers from the plains back East, it seemed that the carriage fairly careened along the rims of high precipices and tipped precariously over yawning chasms at the curves. Unused to the dizzying mountain heights, they drew back from the windows in mortal terror, instead of drinking in the epic scenery unfurled before them. Glancing back, the driver saw that his charges were sitting stiff as ramrods, desperately clinging to their seats and looking neither to the right nor to the left. Without slackening his pace, he called cheerily back over his shoulder, "Aw, ya gotta set loose to enjoy the ride!"

If we are in earnest, we are embarking upon the highest of the high roads to adventure. Let us sit loose and enjoy the ride. To do this, we must resolutely set aside, at least for the time being, everything we have believed or thought about Christian Science, and consider each proposition as a wholly new proposition, making no gratuitous comparisons with traditional positions and orthodox attitudes. Fear to leave the old must prevent anyone from embracing the new, and any effort to reconcile fact with fable is bound to retard progress.

Have no qualms. As a Scientist, you will hardly be expected to accept anything that is not recognizable as Truth to you. There is no vicarious unfoldment.(S & H 22:23-27). All truly scientific teaching is by way of analysis. This excludes personal opinion utterly. Such analytical and impersonal teaching is designed to lead thought forward to find for itself the Truth which is its impulsion, thus establishing Mind's communion as self-evident, irresistible, individual realization.(S & H 467:29-3).

Another point. Instruction in the things of Spirit does not involve memory. "Memory" implies forgettery and invites uncertainty. Christian Science is not something that you learn, it is something that you come to see. This point accepted brings a measure of emancipation at once.(S & H 223:21-22 and 90:24-25). The Christ consciousness is not an intellectual structure, nor is it in any way contingent upon academic qualifications.(S & H 505:22-28). It is simply the divine Presence realized.(S & H 68:27 only). Intellectuality is mental measurement, and a religion would be a mockery which would employ such a yardstick to determine spiritual fitness. There is not a conscious creature on earth who is not equipped with the God-given means and ability to comprehend the saving Truth, the Christ, and this will become patent as we proceed.(S & H Pref. xi:15-21).

Memory, scientifically understood and demonstrated, means the present perception of permanent realities.(S & H 518:29-2). Only a relative sense would make it appear to be the recalling of things from the past. Still, through the demonstration of Christian Science, it will continue to appear to be just that, so long as that is the only way in which we can see it. The understanding that nothing can be lost out of consciousness operates as a law of recollection to whatever has been lost sight of in belief.(S & H 302:8-9). True memory is not recollection, but perception.

Not memorization, but earnest consideration, unhampered by preconceptions, is what is required in the study of Divinity, and the endeavor is to establish a firm foundation for scientific reasoning from which the student may arrive at his own conclusions with regard to any phase or aspect of Truth as applied to human experience. Class (Group) Instruction is the systematic and orderly unfoldment of Science from the standpoint of perfect Principle as related to present living. Since the dynamic unfoldment of Truth cannot be contained in nor limited to any mere word forms, the method of providing a rounded survey is utilized to enable the student to grasp the meaning of that infinite something which outlines but cannot be outlined."(S & H 257:27-29 and No. 45:27-28).

The imaginative faculty is generally considered an asset in releasing thought to broader vistas, but flights of fancy have no place in Science. We cannot depict -that is, visualize in terms of matter or finity - we cannot depict the divinely spiritual facts of being. We may not know what they are from the human standpoint, but we do know that they are spiritually, with all the positive assurance of direct perception. We do not see them with the uncertainties of materiality, but we are through divine impartation more profoundly familiar with them than we could ever be with anything materially conceived.

The objects of the most vivid imagination are ephemeral at best, whereas the realities of Science are constantly accessible, changeless, indestructible, utilizable, satisfying. Demonstrable Science takes the mystery out of religion, establishing the divine Presence as a tangible help in time of trouble, whether we have taken the wings of the morning to dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, or made our bed in the sulphurous depths of hell. The lambent aura loses none of its beauty thereby, but takes on instead a brighter effulgence. The romantic excursions of mysticism have too long diverted us from the contentment that practicality alone can furnish. Seeking Christian Science as a means of escape from their circumstances, many fail to understand that it provides not for the evasion but for the solution of our problems. We are no escapists, but realists; and any demonstrating Scientist will enthusiastically testify that the scintillant splendor of the reality far outshines any promise held out by the imagination.

The purpose of all teaching is, of course, enlightenment, and the endeavor in Class Instruction is to rouse the dormant or potential understanding, "the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world," providing an impregnable foundation from which the student may in any instance arrive at his own conclusion with regard to any phase or aspect of Truth applying to his experience. The teacher who succeeds in this can say, "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon." (I Corinthians 3:10) Can this be done through blind faith in the words of another? Or must it be firsthand knowledge of Principle, anchored in demonstration?

Our revered Leader, in her important article "Principle and Practice," (Sentinel, Vol 20, P.10) warns against the universal tendency to accept Science through faith instead of through the understanding, pointing out that the approach through mere blind belief must dull spiritual perception and so rob the naive student of a workable knowledge of Truth. Statements are not true because the book is based upon Truth. Even though you parrot the words, twice-two is not four to you unless you actually perceive the truth of it. (Un. 8:5-8) So far as you are concerned, it can only be present as your knowledge of it. Then individual realization, rather than hopeful belief, is requisite if one is not to fall into that thwarted class whom Mrs. Eddy pityingly labels "faith Scientists."

Paul says and our books reiterate that every man must have ready a reason for the faith that is within him.(Un. 48:1 only) An inner conviction, fortified by reason and confirmed by demonstration, is the thing. It is not enough to seek understanding lo, here! or lo, there! outside yourself. Jesus drives this point home by saying that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. No one else can be born for you. That is to say, you alone are responsible for what you entertain as your own thinking. All experience is mental experience, and so is never external to individual consciousness. Because belief must yield to knowledge, you find your dominion in scientific conviction. Not another's conviction, but you own. (S & H 412:7-9).

You may be quickened and guided by another's example, but you truly understand only that which unfolds spontaneously as your own active knowing. The chanting of fancy phrases is but vain repetition, such as the heathen use, for what you echo as a mechanical act of memory does not begin in you and is therefore not necessarily truth to you. But what you yourself understand, can and does develop irrepressibly, as it is through application and experience made concrete and practical. The purely mental will not be confined nor restricted to a finite form, but expands endlessly of itself. Cultivate it, and you will see that the static sense inevitably yields to dynamic understanding.(My. 253:26-27 and 159:14-18).

This is worth exploring. When the parrot says twice-two-is-four, that gets him nowhere mathematically, for it is just a sound pattern to him. That illustrates finite fixation or corporeality. On the other hand, the instant you recognize the truth of twice-two-as-four, thought bursts from the corporeal outline and soars into twice-two-billion-is-four-billion, and so on and on, ad infinitum. It can no longer be confined. Genuine understanding always escapes from the lesser to the greater, from the inward to the outward, so that we increasingly find our higher nature - the freedom of our spiritually mental identity. (S & H 262:14-16). When you think of yourself as a corporeality, you are leaving out most of yourself. Realization is the New Birth, going on every moment. (S & H 548:15-16).

The Immaculate Conception is the unfoldment of pure Mind, without any material antecedents whatsoever. "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually." (Hebrews 7:3). God chooses you for this blessed event, just as the rising sun selects the highest mountain peak to paint first with the pale gold of the dawn. It is a matter of receptivity, as determined by individual progress. The most advanced thought earliest perceives the Truth. (S & H 333:19-26). Jesus - another name for spirituality - is saying to you, if you have ears to hear: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name [nature], He may give it you." (John 15:16). In a manner of speaking, you do not possess understanding, but understanding possesses you, in that it is divine Mind unfolding as your consciousness, taking possession as your Mind.

Where does the textbook fit into this scheme of things? Humanly speaking, "Science and Health" is the original and correct statement of Christian Science and, as such, remains permanently as the standard with which all scientific statements must accord. But if God being is Mind unfolding, this unfoldment cannot be ended with the printing of a book, however true, fundamental and vital that book may be. Mind's statement of itself cannot be circumscribed nor confined nor terminated. Thought of strictly as a book, "Science and Health" would obviously be a material volume of paper and ink; under-stood from the standpoint that God is actually All-in-all, it is your present sense of Mind unfolding.

To the human being, teaching can only appear as a teacher teaching, whether by word of mouth or stroke of pen. The disclosure of Truth must appear in such form as to be apprehensible, but you would lose your vision if you thought of that which is appearing as something between you and God. "Yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers: and thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it." (Isaiah 30:20-21). How is this so? The student must automatically interpret the filling of his need according to his current sense of need, and so Science comes to him in the form and language of his comprehension.(Mis. 370:12-13).

Question: Speaking practically, is there any technical reason why "Science and Health" could not have been written in such unequivocal style as to forestall the several divergent views of Science that we encounter among sincere students of the book?

Answer: The author says herself and repeatedly that she is handicapped by the inherent limitations of the English tongue in preparing this basic statement of her doctrine for the general public.(S & H 349:13-30). To circumvent this difficulty, she iterates and reiterates her salient points in many forms, from many angles and at many levels. The unavoidable result is that the book appears on the surface to be a mass of contradictions, and passages torn from their context may be found to support or refute almost any view of the subject. In this connection, it is important to observe that her exact meaning in any instance can only be determined in the light of her writings as a whole. A consecrated study of her entire book brings one around full circle, so that all surface discrepancies are dissolved in the comprehension of her central theme.

There are other factors to be considered, and it might be worthwhile to take the main ones up briefly so that we shall not have to go back over any of this ground later on.

To function as a general textbook, "Science and Health" had to be written in such a way as to reach every grade of thinking, from the most ignorant to the cultured, from the plain stupid to the highly intelligent and from the crassest material to the eagerly spiritual. Consequently, its various statements are not of equal value. Therefore, they cannot every one of them be understood from the same standpoint. Each must be considered from the point of view which it is addressed. While the author goes out of her way on occasion to designate a declaration absolute or relative, as the case may be, to do this with every sentence would be to clutter up her argument until it was more confusing than clarifying. It is neither practicable nor desirable to hamper our free discourse with such rudimentary distinctions in order to be scientific. The reader is expected to follow her as she adroitly glides from the absolute to the relative and back again.

The thoughtful student quickly recognizes the necessity for distinguishing between those statements of absolute or spiritual Truth and those made from the comparative or human basis. Mrs. Eddy explains that she has to make concessions in order to reach thought where she finds it, just as Jesus had to walk part way to Emmaus with his groping disciples, in order to get them to turn and go all the way with him in the opposite direction.(Mis. 66:31-2). Then she points out that her major work appears to be contradictory only to those who fail to go deeply enough into it to grasp her fundamental propositions. In this latter passage, she gives due warning that she is not going to preface every sentence "relative" or "absolute," as the veriest tyro should not confuse the imperfect concept with the perfect ideal.(S & H 345:13-25).

When one is speaking of perfection, it should be evident that he is talking from the absolute or spiritual standpoint; while, on the other hand, any reference to the imperfect would have to be made from the comparative or human point of view.

Only in the rarest of instances should we find it necessary to use those much abused expressions, "to sense," "seemingly," "in belief" and the like. When we read that man is asleep, dreaming away the priceless hours,(S & H 95:28-29) we could hardly be talking about God's image and likeness; conversely, when we say that man is as perfect as his Maker, we are not thinking of man as mortal and material.(S & H 470:21-23).

When this point is understood, the reader discriminates constantly and effortlessly. When it is not, the results are often farcical, and sometimes tragic. Yet it is not uncommon to see poetic imagery confused with practical considerations, and words exchanged for realities.(My. 218:15-20). A theorist, on being introduced to a practitioner at church, was asked in the course of conversation where he lived. "Oh, I live in Spirit!" was the glib answer. "Yes, I know," shot back the practitioner, "but where do you get your mail?"

The absolute and the relative are admirably illustrated by the man climbing the mountain. As he ascends the slope, the view alters continuously. If he were to describe what he sees from different elevations, his descriptions must vary and perhaps even sound contradictory. That which loomed large beside him at the start of his journey has diminished in size as he climbed away from it, while the summit - which was a mere speck at the beginning - has grown out of all proportion, so that its pebbles have become huge boulders and certain trees which at first appeared close together are found to be simply on a line with each other but actually far apart. However, from the vantage point of the summit, the true proportions and relationships can be seen so that all the previous discrepancies become reconciled.

At the tip of Mt. Everest, the climber can properly say, "I am at the highest point on earth." The very same statement, made anywhere else on the globe, would be incorrect. At other elevated points, it would be relatively true. As your friend descended before you, you say, "She grew smaller and smaller as she walked down the path, finally disappearing altogether." This may be true enough from where you stood, although you know that your friend did not shrink and she knows that she did not disappear.

Similarly, a statement made at one point in "Science and Health" may not be true at any other point in the book. This must be kept in mind if the book is to be understood and controversies over doctrinal points avoided. Relative statements, in the light of absolute Truth, are seen to be relatively true, though not absolutely so. "Science and Health" challenges the fledgling at every step, thus forcing him to develop his understanding through the constant endeavor to resolve the literal discrepancies in reaching for the absolute. As the summit of spirituality is approached, the initial incongruities begin to disappear, and from the altitude of Spirit itself, they no longer exist.

Jesus discriminated between the absolute and the relative when he said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." By qualifying the noun "truth" with the article "the," he made it plain that not merely the fact about something, but the Truth itself, is what frees. And John had no sooner declaimed that "Now are we the sons of God!" than he quickly added, for the benefit of that thought which might not follow, "But it doth not yet appear" - meaning, of course, that we must not say man is perfect if we are holding in thought an imperfect sense of man as mortal.

Likewise, Mrs. Eddy addresses thought where she finds it, in order to pick it up and carry it beyond its embryonic limitations. Even a treatise on mathematics must engage the attention with the most rudimentary propositions, and then gently, perhaps imperceptively, lead the student on to consider the most advanced applications of the fundamental principle it sets forth. If it were to speak in advanced terms throughout, it would be beyond the beginning student's comprehension, and so fail to accomplish anything. For the same reason, Mrs. Eddy finds it expedient often to qualify her own absolutely correct statements in the same book, chapter, paragraph or even the same sentence. The most striking example of this last is where she writes that "good and evil talk to one another; yet they are not two but one, for evil is naught, and good only is reality."(Un. 21:7-9).

It is legitimate to state metaphysics from the absolute or spiritual standpoint, or else from the standpoint of advancing human understanding. Superficially considered, these statements would not appear to be in agreement. While presenting verbal contradictions and inconsistencies, they do agree metaphysically, and this becomes readily apparent as the student progresses.(S & H 354:31-2). But to judge relative statements from the absolute standpoint, or vice versa, or to deny the value of certain relative statements at this period, leads to obstructive confusion and to unfair judgment. Teaching statements, being explanatory, are largely relative, while the affirmations of Truth in treatment must be absolute. Absolute statements are always in the singular and also in the present tense. Observe that in making verbal statements, we are necessarily addressing corporeality, in the realm of belief, and we must speak accordingly.(S & H 599:3). While we may think in the absolute, we have no alternative but to act and speak in consonance with what appears to be reality at the moment.(My. 235:1-13).

A good way to set this point once and for all would be to look up examples of corresponding absolute and relative statements in Mrs. Eddy's writings. Here are some arresting contrasts to show concretely what is meant:

My. 242:8-10: Man is spiritual
My 242:10-12: Man is not spiritual

Mis. 282:4-5: Personality deprecated
'01. 5:14-16: Personality glorified

S & H 405:1 only: Mortal mind the culprit
S & H 487:21 only: Mortal mind nonexistent

S & H 305:12-13: Gender is of mortal mind
S & H 508:13-14: Gender is of God

S & H 462:31-1: Evils have real cause
S & H 207:20-23: Good is the only cause

S & H 411:20-21: Sin causes disease
S & H 419:10-12: Sin cannot cause disease

S & H 517:18-19: There are countless ideas
My. 239:17 only: There is only one idea

Mis. 333:17-21: Universe includes man
Un. 32:6-7: Man includes universe

My. 120:2-4: To be found only in her books
My. 133:26-27: Acquaintance not limited to book

S & H Pref viii: 30 only: Scriptural writings sole teacher
S & H 110:17-19: Taught by no writings

S & H 1:11: Prayer is desire
No. 39:17-27: Prayer is consummation

These citations, and many others which you can find, show that the matter of absolute and relative statements is no minor issue. Only through understanding this can you surmount the incongruities that must arise in the explanation of Divinity to humanity.

 
Discovering God

The central fact of our Science is that God is literally All-in-all. If this claim is sustained to the final analysis, then revelation must be Mind speaking and Mind hearing. (S & H 485:4-5) Strictly speaking, understanding does not come through finite means or personal mediumship. We can be grateful that it does come despite these beliefs, but we limit ourselves sadly by attaching such beliefs to it. Mrs. Eddy was above such faltering views when she stated that no tongue nor pen taught her the Truth which she expounded, and that Christian Science depends not upon human antecedents but upon individual realization -which would necessarily be independent of one's fellow man, past or present. (S & H 110:17-18, My. 318:31-4)

Revelation is Mind disclosing itself and so is essentially an individual experience. Mind's knowing or revelation is not something that can be projected outside of Mind. (Un. 3:20-26) According to John, the Word is not only with God, but the Word is God. Any true statement is a declaration of Truth and springs directly from Mind as propulsive Principle. While Truth may come to you as "Science and Health," it is still Mind unfolding as Mind alone, and there is not something between Mind and its unfoldment as conscious being.(S & H 6:5-6) To avail yourself fully of the benefits of revelation, you must recognize that it is in no wise dependent upon nor limited to any localized outlet, human relay or corporeal representative. The infinite cannot be confined to a finite channel, and omnipresence obviates the need for transmission.(S & H 73:31-32) You don't reach out for reality; you just experience it where you are thinking.

A slightest comprehension of the all-presence of divine Mind dispenses entirely with any beliefs of inbetweenness. Channels, windows, transparencies, intercessories, vehicles, agents and the like are all on the belief side of the question. Mrs. Eddy often cautioned her associates not to seek the window, but the light. We are grateful for the window, but it is to the light that we turn. Where is knowledge found but in Mind? And how could it come to you except as the purely mental? Then release revelation from the blighting restrictions of the personal concept, which would pour it into molds or force it through sieves!(My. 117:22-24) To the extent you believe revelation comes to you through selected people (even through yourself privately), exactly in that ratio will revelation be limited for you and subject to all the fluctuations of finite mentation. Doubt attaches itself to anything human. We must constantly turn to Mind - without any detours.(Mis. 307:30-1)

It is not as if Mrs. Eddy had arbitrarily defined God as Mind; Mind defines itself to that state of receptivity we call Mary Baker Eddy. That which is Mind must be determined by Mind and as Mind and cannot be determined in any other way. While we cannot define the meaning of ever-unfolding awareness to a handful of words, Mind is nevertheless declaring that meaning in unmistakable terms. Moses saw as much when he described God as "I AM that I AM" - that is, as existence conscious of itself or conscious existence proclaiming itself as self-conscious Being. This that is Mind asserting itself, is a repudiation of finite mentation, for the nature of Mind is unconfinability and the limited sense of mind must yield before this recognition.

Consciousness is self-defining and self-explanatory.(S & H 591:19-20) Mind characterizes itself in expressing itself as itself. Even as we talk, you can go to China and back again in thought, and you can think of the Empire State Building, in all its immensity, as readily as you can think of this modest room. Is this not Mind defining its infinitude? You can be effortlessly aware, under the title of memory, of all you say happened yesterday or a year ago, and you can accurately foresee the future (insofar as you can read the present potentialities of being). Is this not Mind defining eternality? You can see yourself in your mind's eye as vividly tangible. Does not Mind so define its immateriality? And any verity mentally cognized - such as 2 X 2 = 4 - is found to be indestructible and omnipresent. Are not these things Mind self-defined?

Thought cannot stop and still be thought, for thought is mental action. Mind to be must be be-ing. Thinking is uninterrupted and uninterrupible, exhibiting the divine continuity of being, or omniaction. "To know is to be," and if knowing ever is -as it most obviously is - it forever is.(No. 16:1-3) Being means actively existing, and you are doing just that. Not because of yourself, but because of cause, Principle. And by just being, you are Mind declaring its nature in being itself. Theorizing about Mind is not experiencing Mind as the living reality. But knowing is Mind realizing its divine nature in concrete and palpable manifestation, so that what God knows is all that is true about anything.

Do you have a Mind? Of course, you do. You have the only Mind there is. (S & H 319:20 only) It is the suggestion that it is private and exclusive which would rob you of your boundless possibilities and perpetually keep you from enlarging the borders of your rightful domain.

What knows that God is Mind? Why, Mind. Naturally. What else but Mind could know anything? There could be no Mind without knowing and certainly no knowing without Mind.(S & H 303:25-26) It is Mind which is knowing that God is Mind - despite the appearance of it as a person knowing. Is God Principle? Who says so? Nothing could be said without mental impulse, surely. Mind as cause, or Principle, is all that could say anything at all.(Mis. 190:25 only) It matters not that this appears to you as personal conviction, it is still Principle speaking, hearing, knowing.

God is Spirit. How is this known? Paul says, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit."(Rom. 8:16) Omnipresent Spirit, to whom anything unspiritual would be impossible, recognizes its own substantiality or reality. Do you know this? If you do, you know it with Spirit - because Spirit is all there is to you.(S & H 316:20-21)

What establishes God scientifically as Truth? Truth, of course. What else could? That which is knowing itself as that which must forever be itself, would have to be the living or conscious Truth.(S & H 325:7 only) No doubt could dwell for a moment in this conscious isness that constitutes you.

The Soul of man is declaring Himself the God that is All and eternally yours.(S & H 302:8-9) The Divine Onlyness does not dwell in a cramped world of limited perception, and this makes possible the only joy that is unfettered by material sensation. You are the knowing of God as Soul in the painless appreciation of all that could be conceived, perceived and experienced in the way of color and tone, of rhythm and form, of phrase and melody. (S & H 507:25-28)

Is God, rather, Life to you? If so, why? Who knows this as a matter of fact? How? That which lives is the only thing that could possibly comprehend in any way the meaning of Life. And that comprehension is the experiencing of Life eternal, here and now. Living being is God as Life in manifestation. Are you this manifestation? Well, you are alive, aren't you?(S & H 306:7 only).

Whence comes the assurance that God is Love? Surely from Love alone. The consummation which means contentment is inconceivable except as Love knowing itself as the Provider. Love giving of itself, fulfilling every need, is God defining Himself as Love. Anything that would challenge this would find Love inconceivable.(S & H 17:7 only).

These are things you of yourself positively know. They represent the irrefutable realization of divine Being. Because this is unassailable cognition, you can never for the briefest moment be deprived of the vitalizing and revitalizing sense of the divine Presence. This is not vague theory, but exact knowledge. Because God is known through Mind, your acquaintance with Him is more intimate than the human sense of a material person could ever seem to be to you.

"Let there be light!" is the dictum of omniscient Mind. Without Mind all would be stygian darkness. Mind is not light merely in the figurative sense, but it is literally light and the only light.(S & H 596:14-15 and 558:15-16). You can truly sing with Isaiah, "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory."(Isaiah 60:19).

Consciousness is Being and the only being.(Ret. 56:18 only). You can't get away from it. You may be uncertain about all other things, but you can never be uncertain about consciousness. Doubt, it you will, the existence of all other people and places and things, but your own conscious existence remains unchallengeable. Coming and going belong to belief, for consciousness remains unmoved by this relative and finite sense of things. All things may pass away, but consciousness is untouched. It is not only the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, but - to mix metaphors - it is the bridge upon which you will cross from "the unreal" to "the real." Here is your "indissoluble spiritual link." (S & H 491:15).

But, says the skeptic, all this evidence is of a subjective nature. How does it stand up under the cold glare of detached reasoning? To qualify as a science, our doctrine must present a logical, coherent, unified whole, utterly devoid of loopholes, gaps or inconsistencies.(S & H 242:25-26). The skeptic is entitled to his question, for Mind is intelligible and Truth is amenable to analysis. Not only are reason and revelation reconciled in the growing effulgence of Mind, but logic must correct the errors of superficial observation and assumption. We make correct the errors of superficial observation and assumption. We make these claims, so we must be ever ready to substantiate them. (S & H 93:10-13 & 494:19-20). In a manner of speaking, the intellectual approach, through pure reason, gives us a cross-bearing which serves in human experience to keep us on the true course.

It should be most convincing if we could summon as our unimpeachable witnesses only those intellectual leaders of the day who are not Christian Scientists. Certainly the physicists could not be accused of bias in our favor? Let us hear, then, from their accepted spokesmen. Half-a-century too late, they concede all our major premises - even if they do not follow these premises out to their implied conclusions. Sir Arthur Eddington says that consciousness is fundamental and that it is meaningless to speak of anything except as forming a part of the web of consciousness. (New York Times, 1931). Nothing could exist for us which we do not see, hear, feel, taste, smell and experience consciously, or hold in thought. Sir James Jeans points out that we used to think we were studying an objective, physical universe which existed independently of our thinking, but we now recognize that the only nature we can study consists not necessarily of what we perceive but necessarily of our own perceptions.("The Mysterious Universe," by Jeans).

It is not a question of the reality of things, but a question of the nature of things. They are real, all right -at least in thought -or we could not be talking about them. But we have absolutely no evidence beyond inference that they exist other than mentally. So the eminent Doctor Haldane cheerfully admits that "Materialism, once a scientific theory, is now the fatalistic creed of thousands, but materialism is nothing better than a superstition on the same level as a belief in witches and devils." (The Sciences & Philosophy," by J. S. Haldane). Does this seem an extravagant statement? Once upon a time, the statement that the earth is round was looked upon as pretty far-fetched. Couldn't everybody see that it was quite flat? Today, the claim that it is flat would be shrugged aside as rank superstition. It still appears flat, though, despite our knowledge that it is round. It appears equally material. But its materiality is as demonstrably unreal as its flatness. Both are simply deceptive inferences from the optical images. An understanding of perspective disposes of the earth's flatness, just as an understanding of Science does away with matter, as such.

So Sir James Jeans concludes that "the old dualism of mind and matter seems likely to disappear, not through matter becoming in any way more shadowy or insubstantial than heretofore, or through mind becoming resolved into a function of the working of matter, but through substantial matter resolving itself into a creation and manifestation of mind."("The Mysterious Universe.") Mary Baker Eddy had long since anticipated him by writing that scientific understanding translates matter into Mind, and that whatever you see, hear or feel, being by way of consciousness, could have no other reality than the sense you entertain of it. (Mis 25:12 only & Un 8:5-8). Logic and intuition converge, reducing everything to its common denominator, the mental.

Our secular authorities go much farther than this, as we shall see later on, but let us pause here to explore this subject of consciousness a little more thoroughly.

We cannot depend upon anything external to ourselves for a knowledge of reality. Even the Scriptures warn us that we must not attempt to reach absolute conclusions on the basis of mere appearance. (John 7:24). Otherwise, ours would not be a Science, but a house built upon shifting sands.(S & H 581:19-22). Optical, auditory, gustatory, olfactory or tactile interpretations are unreliable and deceptive at every point. A straight stick immersed in clear water appears bent, receding objects become smaller, echo puts sound where it is not, sometimes it is impossible to distinguish between a taste and an odor, a very cold object seems hot to the touch, and all sensory impressions are profoundly affected by the emotions, so that human observations, when uncorrected by scientific knowledge, are misleading. Obviously, we do not know that a thing exists in the way it appears to exist just because we see it so.

No. We must begin with something that we know to be true, irrespective of anything which might merely appear to be true. Anything that exists to you exists as thought, so you never attempt to reach final conclusions on the basis of what is ordinarily denominated objective, nor are you in the end going to be satisfied with any external "authority" to do your deciding for you. If what you are conscious of is fugitive and capricious, where is the rock upon which to build your structure? You can't possibly be aware of anything you aren't thinking, or anything outside the area of mental perception, hence you are going to have to seek your foundation-stone within. You cannot prove to anyone, or even to yourself, that anything is the way it seems to be, because you cannot get outside your own range of thought.

You could never be conscious of anything your awareness did not include. This excludes material objects as external realities, while embracing them as mental concepts, thus exchanging materiality for mentation. What you are conscious of is what you are thinking - not the result if what you are thinking, but the thinking itself. Your thinking constitutes your consciousness, your world of experience, of cognizant being. Then what do you know that does not pivot upon something or someone outside yourself? What is it that you absolutely realize of your very own self? What is the one basic thing that your experience declares? What is it you are so positively sure of that it requires no outside evidence to back it up nor even any process of reasoning to establish?

There is one thing you do know which constitutes its own proof. You know it from the human point of view and you realize it divinely, so that it is indeed the indissoluble spiritual link. What is it? Well, you are conscious, aren't you? Is it not then the fact of your conscious being? Consciousness is the one inescapable, self-evident, overwhelmingly obvious fact of your experience. What you are conscious of, though constantly shifting, does not alter the self-evident truth of consciousness. It matters not whether you think of yourself as material or spiritual, sane or insane, or whether you look upon experience as objective instead of subjective, the truth of conscious being and its evidence as thought remain incontrovertible and compelling.

Mind is primal and final. Consciousness is the essence. It is self-perpetuating, self-existent, self-defining. You can't escape consciousness, and you can't go back of consciousness. It is the underlying reality of all things. No reasonable person can sidestep this truism. You consciously are and you know you are consciously being. It makes no difference how you interpret this consciously being or what your theories are about it, it still remains the proof of itself as yourself. Despite any sense of change, you are now and always experiencing conscious existence as the one changeless, inescapable reality. Mind never stops. (S & H 240:14-15).

Question: Not even in sleep?

Answer: Even at night, this continuous mentation goes on, in every sense of the term. Innumerable laboratory tests and clinical observations have proven conclusively that even those who sincerely insist they never dream do so all the time, whether they remember it or not upon awakening. (S & H 491:22-23). The interruption of thinking would be death.

There could be no Science for us without a fixed foundation, so we must start with what we positively know: namely, consciousness. As long ago as 1641, Rene' Descartes showed the possibility of positive knowledge on the basis of self-consciousness. The relation between consciousness and existence he expressed in the phrase, "Cogito, ergo sum" -"I think, therefore I exist." Why, you ask, did he not enter this open door to Christian Science? He went awry in the elaborate structure he built up from this sound foundation because he, in common with all his successors, made the fatal mistake of trying to define basic Mind, God, in keeping with his own limited sense of a private, circumscribed mind, instead of letting Mind define itself in all its natural illimitability. His exponent, John Locke, said their efforts were directed toward determining the limits of the possibilities of the human mind. Bishop George Berkeley, whom Mrs. Eddy quotes, undertook to prove by logic that all must be mental, but his theory broke down in practice for the same old reason.

These great men failed to look beyond a limited sense of mind. (My 151:23-27). Their conclusions fell short because they were unwittingly sought from the human standpoint. They would endow God with humanly mental characteristics instead of the reverse. (S & H 269:9-10). We can never find God from the basis of human sense testimony, and this is what their search amounted to. "But the Lord said, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance," and "It is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard . . . the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." (I Samuel 16:7 & I Corinthians 2:9).

The trouble was that they all began at the wrong end of things, in trying to reason from the human up to the divine. (Mis 103:21-23). Beginning with the finite, the infinite is unattainable. The immeasurable cannot be reached through measurement. Trying to establish the illimitable from the standpoint of limitation is like trying to lift yourself up by the bootstraps. Infinite Mind is nothing like finite mind, as generally conceived. "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?" (Isaiah 40:18). We cannot climb up to Mind, but must look out from it. The way is that of discovery, and revelation is Mind discovering itself in its boundless capacities. The reality of all things cannot be built up through ingenuity of human speculation, but must be brought to light through spontaneous disclosure. (S & H 505:26-28).

Now, then, if Mrs. Eddy was not the first to pronounce existence totally mental, what was her unique discovery that she should be honored above all explorers? The unreality of matter - which the public mistakenly supposes to be the main thesis of Christian Science - had been taught from the dim antiquity by her predecessors, under the title of "idealism" as opposed to materialism. Because the restrictive thought could not grasp the unrestrictable, the greatest scholars had not been able to escape the confines of their finite premises. (S & H 208:2-4) It was something like the human eye trying to observe itself: it cannot be seen from within (finity) but must be examined from without (infinity). With the perspicacity of true spiritual genius, Mrs. Eddy by-passed the philosophers' pitfall by beginning with the proposition that God alone is Mind, proceeding then to think out from Mind instead of trying to think up to Mind. (S & H 275:6-12).

Mrs. Eddy's basic discovery was that of Mind as infinite - therefore One and All. This finding sets at rest every question arising from a relative sense of Mind. It remained for Mrs. Eddy to state that for Mind to be Mind, it must be illimitable, indivisible, irreducible, incorruptible, incompressible, without dimensions or chronology, cognizable in its true nature as substantial and forever a law unto itself.

From the day the Founder of the Christian Science movement began to proclaim that infinite Mind must be all there is to all, the thought of the world has been undergoing a profound metamorphosis. The influence of this fundamental precept has permeated every department of human endeavor, altering at once and continuing to do so with cumulative effect the popular concepts of science, theology and medicine. Ere the stilling of her voice, the pulpits began to ring with her distinctive phraseology, and it was not long before the learned doctors, through quill and oratory, began to disclaim any responsibility for an explanation of substance -although this had been their favorite pastime heretofore!

A classical example of this last is the introductory statement by Henderson and Woodhull, in their Columbia University textbook on physics, that the only evidence we have of matter is the indirect or purely mental evidence of the senses, which see, hear, feel, taste and smell it, with no proof that matter has any substantiality apart from consciousness. The passage concludes with the surprising assertion that the physical sciences are concerned only with the observed properties and behavior of the objects of human cognition, but not at all with the ultimate nature of existence. In a tag line of dramatic impact, they graciously leave the task of explaining substance to the metaphysicians!

Yes, our self-styled realists are conceding step by step the validity of Mrs. Eddy's proclamations of long ago. Oh, for the day when they will abandon that self-defeating "state of mortal thought, the only error of which is limitation!" (S & H 585:21-22). Already the signs are in the skies. Charles P. Steinmetz, the renowned mathematician and director of physical research for the great General Electric laboratories, has said publicly: "Some day people will learn that material things will not bring happiness and are of little use in making men and women creative and powerful. Then the scientists of the world will turn their laboratories to the study of God and Prayer, and the spiritual forces which as yet have hardly been scratched. When this day comes the world will see more advancement on one generation than it has seen in the past four."

  
The Supreme Being

What do Christian Scientists mean by the word "God"? They mean what everybody means by that word: namely, the Supreme Being. Doing violence neither to general usage nor to scientific precepts, it may be said that the word God or its equivalent has from time immemorial meant to all peoples a Supreme Being. Even those who had gods many considered all but one lesser gods, no more than manifestations, instruments or creatures of the one sovereign Being, whether they called that mighty entity Jehovah, Zeus or Mithra. There has always been God, the Supreme Being, in human conviction. Why? The cynical psychiatrist will tell you that humanity believes in a mythical God and a fabulous heaven only because of an unendurable dread of the unknown and an intolerable fear of impending extinction. But the psychiatrist is betraying his own mental myopia. And when the scholarly philosopher insists that the Great First Cause is unknowable "because mind, being finite, cannot encompass the infinite," he is admitting his own inability to conceive of that which transcends his accepted limitations. (S & H 189:18-24).

Again, why has humanity always had a Supreme Being? As little as people understood and as inarticulate as they may have found themselves in the presence of almighty Divinity, they did see - even if they did not analyze it - they did see that this complex creation about them and including them did not originate and does not operate itself, so that it must be the effect, result or manifestation of a godlike Cause or Creator. The religionist, the scientist or the philosopher, each being unable to account for his own existence in any other way, has been compelled to postulate a transcendent Producer, a prolific Principle or divine Esse. As little as they understood it, they intuitively grasped that much. They knew it in spite of their intellectual and emotional limitations.

Beyond that initial recognition, few have gone. Overawed by the magnitude of their discovery, they have hesitated to follow through, seeking refuge instead in such escape phrases as "the Inscrutable," "the Great Unknowable," "the Ultra-Rational." The divinely creative Being remained their none-the-less-evident God, so that He has dwelt forever with men, no matter how dimly they glimpsed Him and no matter how inadequately they may have construed His guidance. Which brings us to the question of what do you mean by the "Supreme Being" and how do you know that He exists? While you may intuitively feel that there is a One, the human being requires reason to confirm revelation if he is to enjoy the practical conviction of the divine Presence and set about demonstrating the nature of that Presence in everyday affairs.

Is it not obvious that intelligence is a prerequisite of law, order and harmony? With the advance of thought, even the materialists have had to concede that a mindless basic reality would be impossible in an orderly universe. The celebrated physicist, Dr. Arthur H. Compton, observes that it would be absurd to suppose that senseless matter could form itself into the involved universe of infinite variety which we find about us, and that such a creation clearly evidences a directing intelligence or Mind. Whether the things of human experience exist materially or mentally, the self-evident fact remains that there is an intelligible relationship between them. From the infinitesimal patterns of the atoms to the majestic constellations of the stars, there is an impressive coordination which is plainly indicative of underlying plan and purpose. (S & H 192:17-19)

Nor could real thinking rest there. Progressive students in all fields have gone on to see and to say that this basic Principle, or Mind - if such it be - would have to be flawless in order to survive at all, since any element of imperfection in fundamental and essential being would mean its own deterioration, disintegration, decay. An imperfect principle - if such a thing were conceivable - would be self-destructive, the source of imperfection or failure. Following this line of reasoning to its only logical conclusion, it is readily seen that the perfection of cause must be manifest in perfection of effect (or creation), since cause must inevitably express itself according to its own nature.(S & H 370:8-9). So we find our John Scott Haldane declaring that the apparent evil and imperfection of the universe can no longer be interpreted as evil and imperfection, but must be interpreted as imperfect apprehension.

Mankind finds itself in an intricate creation of immeasurable proportions, a universe of infinite variety which obviously does not create or run itself, and sees in this the inescapable implication of an unseen Creator. Creation declares a creator, a conclusion from which none dissents. Not only is intelligence manifest in this creation, but any examination beyond the most superficial shows that this production is not only Mind-directed, but Mind-created and therefore Mind-constituted. This implication is confirmed in experience by the fact that you can be aware of only that which consciousness includes. And that must be purely mental. You do not of yourself produce the things of consciousness, but entertain them - oftentimes involuntarily. You find yourself always and forever at the standpoint of effect, and thereby you are the living testimony of Mind as cause.

You have established that God is. Just by thinking, you are proving the presence of Mind. Indeed, you are that presence. You think in spite of yourself, whether you like it or not. Thought is spontaneous and, regardless of any construction which may be put on this activity called thinking, it still goes on independently of your personal volition, thus proving to you in a very clear-cut and practical way that you are not the source, origin, cause, motivator, producer or beginning of thought. Which implies what? That there must be, of course, a thinker, a consciously creative Principle or mental cause, and this Principle we call "Mind." This that is Mind unfolding perpetually in, through, by and as Mind, is all there is to you or to anything or anyone.

The self-evident fact of conscious existence on your part is the basis of all your scientific and absolute conclusions. Like a mathematical axiom, it needs no proof, but proves itself or constitutes its own proof. It is the one element in human experience that is wholly divine, the only pure, changeless, indestructible thing in a swiftly changing phantasmagoria. It is the link which establishes man as inseparable from his creator, Mind. (S & H 491:15-16). It is the long-sought magic touchstone, for no sooner do you see it as a fact that you exist mentally and only mentally, than thought passes spontaneously from effect back to cause and divine Principle is established as your very Being, the only Ego. (S & H 195:18 only). "Know ye not that the Lord He is God; it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves?" (Psalms 100:3).

Effect, as the evidence of cause, must be of like nature; consequently, by your thinking, you are proving the nature of your cause to be mental, or Mind. Your existing as thought, to the necessary exclusion of all else, demonstrates your mental origin. And this you do in spite of yourself, but because of cause. The primal cause of all being, or Principle, in order to be, must be self-existent. If it included anything contrary to itself, if it embraced any flaw whatsoever, it would bear within itself the seeds of its own dissolution. It cannot be in conflict with itself but, in order to continue at all, has to be pure, perfect, absolute. Because Mind is that which is and must be all-inclusive, anything else would have to be is not. Mind can entertain nothing apart from or unlike itself. Its isness cannot be adulterated. No fraction of that which is true can be untrue.(S & H 287:32 only). This Mind that is foundational must be divine or perfect, and so it is the law of perfection to all being.

"Principle" is a grand name, with unimaginable possibilities! First off, let's get rid of that shallow notion of Principle as no more than a static base upon which something rests. In explaining Principle, the hackneyed comparison with mathematical principle will never do, since the principle of mathematics is unliving. It doesn't do anything of itself, but is just something that we use to our own mathematical ends. Ah, but divine Principle! It is the omnipotent Do-er. You can't trifle with creative Mind as dynamic cause. It is not just an inert foundation. It cannot be disposed of as a theoretical source, origin or beginning. It is the living animus, the vital motivator, the irresistible energizer to all that is going on. ('01. 9:4-5). Prolific Principle is not something to work with or by, but as.

Principle is Mind governing itself from the basis of its own perfect nature, guiding, directing and controlling all that is going on. Thus it determines all that could ever be meant by quantity and quality. Expressing itself as itself, it establishes perpetual equilibrium. The Mind that is thinking is all there is to the thought, so that it is forever in consonance with itself, maintaining the accord that is the harmony of being. The correlation of divine Principle and spiritual idea is the harmony that is produced by Principle, is controlled by it and dwells in it.(S & H 561:14-15 & 304:16-17). Stability abides here. Principle knows only its own unchallenged doing, for there is nothing in addition to its infinite selfhood to oppose it, obscure or divert it. Unhindered, it prompts, engenders and impels all action according to its own divine intention. It is supreme and serene in its potency, so that it may be said that Principle is power and its manifestation of itself is the embodiment of all the power there is.(No. 30:11-13).

And let it be kept well in view that Principle does not produce something else, called "idea," which forthwith takes on the character of another entity. (Mis. 186:18-21) Not only does Principle govern its own idea of itself with intelligent intent, but Principle constitutes its idea. "They" are one and inseparable, though not interchangeable, cause and effect being dual aspects of Being. Because Principle and its idea is one, Mind is its own great cause and effect. (S & H 465:17 only and Mis. 173:12 only.) In short, idea is Principle manifest. What Principle is determines what Principle expresses as its idea of itself. Principle is not an implacable judge, but a warm and vibrant impulsion to be demonstrated. Thus God, as creative cause or prolific Principle, is the law of orderly, harmonious, irresistible, infinite progression or unfoldment to everything forever. "Underneath are the everlasting arms." (Deut. 33:27.)

Are you beginning to appreciate the importance of the synonyms for "God"? To stop with calling God the Supreme Being does not get you very far. To discover that He is Mind, is not enough, either. "Mind" is a wonderfully enlightening synonym. It is the most educational of them all. But to consider God exclusively as Mind, as that which thinks, is to have a cold, intellectual, mechanical (if not sterile) sense of God. It leaves Him without incentive, without substantiality, without joy or satisfaction. Why should Mind want to think? What can it think? Where is there any satisfaction in merely thinking aimlessly and automatically? That would be a woefully one-sided sense of God. You need all the synonyms to round out your definition. If you cannot use them with equal facility, you are getting a somewhat warped sense of the Supreme Being, a slanted view which would accentuate but one or a few of His aspects at the expense of the others. While each synonym embraces all the others, each is used to bring out a particular aspect, phase or function of that Mind which is inexhaustibly versatile.

Seven synonyms were not selected arbitrarily or on the basis of numerology or symbolism - that is, because they might correspond to the "seven days of creation" or because the number seven may signify completeness in the ancient writings. Don't take in any of these funny notions so often voiced in the Field. If you will just proceed scientifically, you will see how each synonym arises naturally in the analysis of divine Mind and how all are required to give a full sense of that infinite Being that could never be understood except as Mind-Spirit-Soul-Principle-Life-Truth-Love. (S & H 465:8-10.) It is imperative that we come to know God not merely in one aspect of our being, but in all of them.

This can be illustrated in a simple way. Suppose your brother is a lawyer by profession, that he has been elected Treasurer of your Church and that he is often called upon for Christian Science help. Someone comes to your door and asks for "the Attorney." You know immediately, of course, that the caller wishes to talk with your brother, and you may safely assume that his mission has to do with legal matters. The next caller may ask for "the Practitioner." It is still your brother that is meant and the request doubtless has to do with metaphysical work. Again, someone asks for "the Treasurer." It is the same brother who is sought, but this time in his capacity as a Church official. Whether visitors ask for the Treasurer, the Attorney or the Practitioner, it is your brother who must respond - not in part, either, but as an indivisible being, whether functioning in one capacity or another.

You do not say that your brother is several men, but that he is a many-sided person. Treasurer, Practitioner and Attorney are one and inseparable, though not interchangeable. Let us say that one of the callers has long known him through his legal activities. He may find it impossible to conceive of your brother as a practitioner or as a father or as a cook, for example. He cannot be said to really know your brother. Thinking of his Attorney as such exclusively, he must have a very distorted view of his character. While approaching him in a single capacity at a time, one must have a rounded view of his various functions or offices in order to understand and commune with him fully.

It is something like this with our synonyms for the word "God." While each embraces the other, they none of them mean exactly the same thing - or there would be no occasion for using them. Each brings out a different aspect of that Mind which is the same in essence though multiform in office. (S & H 331:29-30.) God is Mind and Mind is God, for God is the only knower; Truth is Life and Life is Truth, for Truth in be-ing is living and living is true; Truth is God, and God is Life, for that which actually is actually is, and its being is certainly not inaction. The persistent use of but one synonym would tend to restrict the sense of God to one only of His offices. To consider God as Mind only would be to have a coldly mechanistic sense of Him, and as something shadowy. To consider Him additionally as Spirit would be to establish His substantiality, but existence would still have no significance. Only as you go on to see that He must be Soul, too, can you have any inkling of the meaning of existence. So it is throughout the list.

The value of all the synonyms has just been emphasized, but it might not be amiss to point out the futility of trying to "learn" Science by rote. If you find it helpful to memorize the textbook definitions do not hesitate to do so; but remember that parroting the words does not indicate understanding nor bring about demonstration. It is surely more important to know what Mrs. Eddy means than to just know what she says, isn't it? Try reading a sentence, a page or a paragraph, and then ask yourself, How would I say that? She uses words only to convey ideas, and if you have gotten her idea in any particular passage, you are bound to state it in your own words. If you can't, it's sure proof that you haven't caught the meaning.

And let us not quibble over words, or we shall get lost in the jungles of semantics. The meaning of any word is determined by universal acceptance, and for all practical purposes, this is enough to know about words as words. The Christian Scientist cannot use words to state ideas without respect for their established usage. This is not to imply that the student should become a dictionary addict, by any means, since dictionaries are written from the standpoint of physicality always. There may be occasions when the dictionary should be consulted for the basic meaning of some word in order that it may be intelligently and effectively employed. But the Scientist cannot leave it there. He must amplify, clarify and transform that word, and every word, in order that it may serve the stately purpose of spiritual enlightenment.

Take the four qualifying adjectives which Mrs. Eddy's magnificent statement applies to the seven synonyms. (S & H 465:9-10.) How would you explain them if you were challenged on their meaning? Could you? If not, you do not understand them as you should. Again, have you considered each and every one of the synonyms individually in connection with all four of the adjectives? Have you considered the incorporeality of Truth? The infinity of Love? The supremacy of Soul? The divinity of Life? For the sake of brevity, we shall discuss these descriptive terms as applied to the first of the names of God:

God, as Mind, is incorporeal, divine, supreme, infinite consciousness.

The dictionary definition of "incorporeal" is: Not materially formed or physically embodied. That is not good enough for our purpose. In Christian Science, "incorporeal" means: illimitable, or irreducible to a finite outline. Is it not evident that the Psyche is forever boundless, non-spatial, immeasurable? It would be unthinkable to try and compress consciousness within a finite form, or imprison it materially, to restrict awareness to dimensional proportions, chronological boundaries or degrees of actuality. (S & H 262:9-16.) The extension of awareness is without limit. Consciousness is never included in anything, but is inclusive always of everything. Mind is the one Incorporeality.

Divine? The basic meaning of this word according to general usage is: holy, sacred, inviolate. Isn't Mind just that? No material object can get into consciousness. Awareness can include nothing but the strictly mental. Mind is always just pure Mind, sanctified and inviolable. The psychical cannot be adulterated with the physical. Mentation is utterly incorruptible. The essentially mental can include nothing but thought. Mind is wholly Mind. It is mentally pure and purely mental. Its purity is its divinity, and in its allness it is the law of mentality to all things, totally precluding the unmental or material. (S & H 325:10-19.) The one Divinity enforces purity.

How can Mind be "supreme" if Mind is All? Supreme over what? "There is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside thee." (I Samuel 2:2.) Mind is supreme in the sense that it governs its own manifestation of itself in every respect. Being All-in-all, it excludes all else, establishing its own supremacy. Governing. directing, controlling its own formations without interference, it is a law unto itself. (S & H 209:5-6.) Mind is the one Supremacy.

If we do not immediately grasp in some measure the meaning of the word "infinite," as inexhaustibly spontaneous, irresistible, dynamic, boundlessly expansive, and so on and on, we have only to consider for the briefest moment the mental nature of Being - as it is right now making itself known by way of fetterless thinking. (S & H 258:13-16.) The present action of Mind is without start or finish or interruption. Infinity is easily understandable as pure Life, as the activity that is incorruptibly mental. Progressive unfoldment, appearing as your own thinking, is showing forth this very instant the infinity of Mind. This that is awareness is Mind knowing - and essentially, the one boundlessly versatile consciousness is continually unfolding in forms of beauty and utility. This is Mind defining its infinity. Mind as the one Infinity is the law of eternal action to all.

With nothing possible beyond illimitable Divinity, Mind rests in the serene confidence of its own free activity. (S & H 127:8 only.) It can conceive of nothing contrary to itself and so is not in conflict with itself. The allness that is infinity, therefore, spells omni-potence. In its onlyness, this is the power that is the unlabored motion of divine energy. (S & H 445:20-21.) "Thine is the power and glory forever."

If action is a fact, it is uninterruptibly the fact. This means perpetual motion in every conceivable capacity. Being is the one indivisible, interminable activity that we call "omniaction." (S & H 283:4-6.) "And this is Life eternal."

Wherever anything is known to be, it exists consciously and so declares the presence of Mind. Infinite and therefore all-constituting awareness testifies to consciousness as omnipresence. (S & H 471:18-19.) "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?"

Consciously including the reality of all things and continuously explaining (revealing) itself, Mind is the infallible and complete knower, or Omniscience. Nothing could be known to exist except by way of conscious recognition, so that nothing is hidden from the tender concern and intelligent consideration of Mind. (No. 16:1-3.)

As our books point out, because God is All and by nature perfect, perfection is the universal law and the only law. (No. 30:11-13.) God is the law in the sense that He manifests His own character throughout His infinite expression of Himself. (S & H 370:8-9.) Practically speaking, the recognition of Divinity makes divinity the law to all that consciousness entertains. Thus it is that man lives by divine decree. Mind determines that all shall be psychical. Love makes everything lovely, loving and loved. Truth maintains incorruptibility. Life vitalizes all. Spirit entrenches substantiality. Principle provides harmony. Soul beautifies.

The "New Tongue" is not the substituting of arbitrary meanings for accepted definitions. In no way is it the distortion of human language standards. Least of all is it a game of symbols, poetic imagery or literary gymnastics. If our use of words was not anchored in objectivity, we could not reach those to whom they are addressed. It is simply that spirituality cannot confine itself to the literal or finite definition of a word, but must expand that definition to include infinitely more than physicality could imply. The basic meaning of a word is that point of contact where the curve of infinity touches the straight line of finity, but from that point on, Mind must carry thought onward and upward and outward to ever higher and broader meanings. This is not only translation, but transfiguration. (Hea. 7:6-10.)

More and more we see why "God's being is infinity, freedom, harmony, and boundless bliss!" (S & H 481:3-4.)

  
The Divine Nature

Mind not only conceives and thereby controls all that is, but Mind is the stuff of which all things are made. When you understand that existence in its entirety is purely mental, you escape the tyranny of what you have been calling external circumstances. If Mind could be limited at any point, it would not be mental. To be Mind, it must be infinite -that is, continuous, indivisible, flawless, illimitable. To say that all there is to a thing is thought, is not to exchange substance for shadow, however, and it is imperative that this be appreciated before going any farther. To find that the "objects of sense" are mental concepts is not to lose them, but to gain a far more vivid apprehension of them, to find them more intimately knowable, more tangibly palpable, instantly available and utilizable.

When you awaken from the night dream, do the objects of your dream cease to be? Not a bit of it. You can recall them as accurately as if you still regarded them as made out of matter. To "awaken" in the morning is not to be transported to another realm, but simply to recognize that the experience of the past few hours was purely mental, even though it seemed at the time to be material. You do not thereby destroy any matter in your dream; you merely correct your misinterpretation, now calling the substance of your dream "mind" instead of "matter." The substance of your dream doesn't go anywhere; mentality displaces physicality through understanding. (Un. 35:20(from "matter")-22.)

In a way, Christian Science is like this, in that it is rousing you from this "waking dream," to give existence a more vivid reality, a more tangible concreteness. An arresting declaration is to be found in Miscellaneous Writings: "Science, understood, translates matter into Mind."(Mis. 25:12 only). Now "translate" does not mean to change or exchange, strictly speaking. It means to make understood. If you look puzzled when I say, "Parlez-vous francais?" I quickly add, "Do you speak French?" Observe that I have not at all changed the meaning, but only made it clear. Then to go back to our statement above, we may legitimately paraphrase it: Matter, properly understood, is Mind. This is not just giving it a new name, for when you are seeing it as Mind, you are not regarding it as matter. And recognizing the nature of existence as psychical does away with the limitations inherent in the physical or finite sense of existence as mundane, material, mutable.

When we refer to God as the one substantiality, we call Him "Spirit." So the word "spiritual" does not mean ethereal, but substantial. The word substance is derived from the Latin sub stare, meaning to stand under, so that substance is the underlying reality of all that appears or is being evidenced. The use of the word Spirit for substance helps us wonderfully to rise above fettering materialism, for it emphasizes the true nature of substance as the antithesis of matter. "Matter is substance in error, Spirit is substance in Truth." (Ret. 57:17-18). As Spirit, substance is uncontaminated, incorruptible, indestructible, flawless, vividly tangible and satisfyingly palpable, undecaying, useful, beautiful, harmless. (S & H 468:21-22).

Things are actual as Spirit - not as matter. Nothing can ever happen to anything that you truly identify with Spirit, and it will be found all right all the time everywhere. Since God can be manifest as nothing other than Himself, the only substance to a seed, a thought or a flower is God. (S & H 508:5-6). The substance of the idea is the Mind conceiving it. (S & H 316:20-21). To say it in Scriptural style: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear," (Hebrews 11:3), but "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." (Romans 1:20). And we are warned by those sterling metaphysicians of another day to "Judge not according to the appearance, but [to] judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24).

Do you see the importance of mastering the various synonyms? While the word "Mind" is at once an appropriate name and explanatory, it conveys no idea of substantiality; whereas "Spirit" instantly focuses attention on the concrete, indestructible and immutable nature of Being in its every aspect. It signifies the palpability of mentation as essential reality, disposing of the instability, decadence and dissonance of physicality or matter. Thus is thought dematerialized and material thinking spiritualized, so that substance is apprehended divinely. God's cognizance of Himself as substantial is substance manifest directly, so that Spirit is its own evidence. (S & H 505:9-12). Spirit in expression is still Spirit, and such manifestation, expression or evidence is not had indirectly through, by way of or as something else. It presents itself to itself as itself, the irrefutable, unassailable, palpably apprehensible entity, devoid of any flaw, discord or lack. The evidence of essential tangibility is therefore as omnipresent as Spirit itself.

If you were confronted with confusion or ignorance, would you not have to turn to God as Mind, the source of all intelligence? That would be the appropriate, the scientific and effectual approach, undoubtedly. But supposing you were called upon to handle a claim of disintegration, deterioration or dissolution (as in gangrene or consumption), you would surely have to establish true substance as indestructible, incorruptible, immutable, under the divine laws of adhesion, cohesion and attraction, by turning to God as Spirit, wouldn't you? It is somewhat like turning to a competent friend for help in time of mathematical trouble. You would not be looking to him as a cook or a chemist, but in his capacity as a mathematician. Or, again, if you sought your friend to do some typewriting for you, you would then necessarily appeal to him as a stenographer. Analogously, it is essential that we recognize God in a particular function in any specific instance, even while leaning upon Him throughout as Mother-Father.

As the underlying reality or essence of all that appears, Spirit is the law of substantiality to all.

Soul is something else, quite! Our clue is found in the fact that the Bible uses the word "soul" to signify material sense on the one hand and to denominate God on the other. (S & H 482:10-12). Then Soul is spiritual Being as opposed to sentient existence. It is manifest as the awareness of pure Mind in place of material experience. Dwelling in the senses means submitting to limitation in every direction. (S & H 249:31-32). This may not at first seem to be of vital moment; but consider. If you stop with God as substance, or Spirit, you have given up the shadowy sense of mere mentation, gaining palpability - but to what end? What care you how substantial existence may be if it carries no meaning for you? Here you are forced to advance to God as Soul - Mind as its own evaluator, giving significance to all being. The Psyche finds singing uplift and rich spontaneity in the relishing of its own values. The thing that enjoys is Soul.

The glorying of Soul, "the direct opposite of material sensation," in the unfoldment of its own infinite versatility, implies that "this divine Principle of all expresses Science and art throughout His creation," (S & H 507:25-27). What is "art"? You may say a natural sunset is beautiful, but you do not say it is artistic. Why? You do not hesitate to call a painting, a dance, a symphony, a lilting sonnet, artistic. What do all the various art forms have in common that makes them art? All art is the purposive arrangement of concrete elements to bring out new values. The jangle of a piano's indiscriminately struck notes becomes the voice of angels when these same notes are combined in recognized harmony. The uninteresting movements of the body are given new meaning and strange fire when thoughtfully arranged with others in the dance. The drab words of the workaday world, the very same ones, drop as pearls from the lips of him who selects them lovingly and strings them on a song. The artist is neither aimless nor haphazard in his artistry, and his masterpieces are not mere accidents.

Oh, yes, there are those students of Christian Science who say we should not enjoy beautiful things because they are material. But such students are only exposing their own crass materiality. The things may be material in belief, but their beauty is purely spiritual, now and always. (S & H 89:18-20 and 247:21-27). When you thrill to an exquisite painting, you are not concerned with the chemical composition of its pigments, nor yet again with the physical processes of their application to the canvas. No, you are happily lost in the meaningful play of light and shadow, the flash of concordant colors, the balancing of form with form in rythmic sweep. And, mark you, this is the wholly mental appreciation of mental expression mentally apprehended. There is not a grain of materiality about it, and to know this is to have it stand forth in its pristine loveliness, embodying ineffable joy.

The objection is often put forward that a beautiful woman could be cruel, despite her charm, as though this invalidated our claim that all beauty is rooted in eternal Truth. (S & H 247:10 only). Notwithstanding any appearance of evil, all good is of God. Regardless of any other qualities which a human being might exhibit, woman's comeliness and grace, her dewlike radiance, would have to be Soul in manifestation - as much as twice-two-is-four would have to be of mathematical truth even though seen in the midst of mathematical mistakes. Her beauty is to be revered, while the wickedness which mortal mind would attach to her is to be demonstrated unreal. In her incomparable style, Mrs. Eddy brings this very thing out when she writes that a fragrant flower can be nothing less than the happy expression of God, and that it would be a sacrilegious abuse of natural beauty to consider it a manifestation of evil or injurious. (S & H 175:9-15). She shows that it is only error which would associate evil with that which is obviously good.(S & H 377:31-3).

Forever appraising its own glorious qualities of action, Soul exchanges physicality for spiritual being. Because Soul is God as aesthete, its law of beauty is the law of right feeling, of inspiration, of spontaneity. To say that a painting or a poem has Soul, is quite correct, for all that there is to beauty is apprehensible only through Mind as Soul. It is Soul that sings! While material sense (the finite viewpoint) would blight all things, robbing life of joy, of satisfaction and even of meaning, Soul lends a tender sweetness to every little experience and a noble splendor to the grand ones.

"Truth" is a generally neglected synonym for God, because the mistaken impression prevails that it is nothing more than another word for "fact," and remarks are not uncommon which show that it is widely regarded as an abstraction, a theory, or even just a quality. When understood, "Truth" is fully as important and useful as any of the other synonyms. Truth is not merely a characteristic, a quality or an attribute, but it is the subject of characteristics, qualities and attributes. Truth is actuality, reality, isness - which is eternally pure isness, because it cannot be contaminated with that which is not. In order to be true, it must be entirely true, or else it isn't Truth at all.

Truth is that which is forever itself. And what do you know to be forever itself? Consciousness, of course. Mind is truly conscious and consciously true, aware of itself as that which actually exists exactly as it is. This is conscious Truth, or true consciousness. As such, it is not an abstraction, but a concrete entity. Truth is not, like a fact, something about something. It is something, and the only something. Anything else would have to be untrue and non-existent. That which really is can only evidence itself as Truth, and Mind's awareness of its own absoluteness must mean conscious Truth. The recognition of the facts of being is the very presence of Truth as fact, in all of its exactitude, changelessness and perpetuity. Mind's realization of its own isness, its perception of its own actuality, declares God to be All as Truth. (No. 30:18-20).

The law of Truth must be the law of changeless actuality to everything eternally. Because it must exist precisely as it is, Truth is the law of accuracy and exactitude. Excluding anything unlike itself, it is the law of incorruptibility throughtout infinity. Truth must be flawlessly true, and so - with perfection its nature - it is the law of perfection with regard to everything in the range of reality. (S & H 424:11 only). Security, invincibility, confidence lie this way. How is it that God comes to you as Truth? That which consciously is, knows that it is that which is, and in this is experiencing right now eternality. As Life is to be lived, Soul is to be experienced and Love indulged, so Truth is to be known.

The popular expression, "We must seek Truth for Truth's sake alone," has proven unfortunate, for taken at it's face value, it is nothing more than an appeal to barren intellectuality. Toying with Truth as an abstraction or even as an ideal, is nothing more than a scholastic exercise or a doctrinal sport. Of what concern is Truth to you if it does not relate to you? And to yours? The only legitimate appeal of Truth lies in its vital application to, in and as your universe. Let us recall that the term "Christian Science" covers the human application of divine Truth, (S & H 127:15-16), and that flights of intellectual speculation, without their human correlatives, leave its Principle unexplained, confused and ultimate in what Jesus denounced - straining at gnats and swallowing camels. (My. 218:15-20).

God, to be God, must be a living God. The Supreme Being is existence in the active sense. Mind as activity is Life. The "Vital Fluid" is living existence. Anything else would be inactivity, stagnation, nothingness. "Mind" implies intelligent mental activity, and in order to exist at all it must be activity itself, or perpetual motion. (S & H 240:14-15). Mind inactive is inconceivable, an irrational proposition. Mind to be must be energetic Being, so that there is no such thing as an inanimate idea, concept or thought. Anything that exists at all is alive, as mental action. Mind does not stop, cannot stop, for it could not cease being Mind, Life, for a single moment. Life cannot conceive of death nor experience inaction, stoppage, unconsciousness. Existence cannot be transformed into non-existence, the one becoming the other. Being is inextinguishable.

Life is inconceivable in the abstract, but is concretely manifest as living. Life is expressing itself and defining itself every moment as your being. You are Life in the living. Living, are you not the very consciousness of Life? What cognizes God as Life? Life can only know itself as Life, and can never know (include) any element foreign to itself, so that it knows all as living. Living Mind, active knowing, is conscious living, and this vitalizing immanence self-perceived is the "one moment of divine consciousness" (S & H 598:23-24), which, in its isness, defines eternity as the boundless now. Death (nothingness) is inconceivable from the standpoint of Life (conscious somethingness).

If Life is in fact - as it self-evidently is - it must remain the fact forever. (S & H 516:9-10). Its isness is its eternality. There is nothing to intercept its continuity. Consciousness can never cease to be consciousness or become unconsciousness, for facts do not change. You are consciousness rather than physicality, and as such can never change. God must be, and Life demonstrates itself as your very being. (S & H 306:7 only). This is life eternal, right now revealing itself as something you cannot lose nor escape. As awareness, you are this instant the acknowledgement of immortality. Existence, with regard to anyone or anything, cannot be terminated, and the recognition of this fact embodies the power to demonstrate it. You know that you are and therefore forever must be. Thus does Life operate as law. (S & H 63:10-11). As Truth, Life is constant - in the same sense that twice-two never ceases to be four; but such continuity is present isness, having nothing to do with has-been-ness nor going-to-be-ness. (Eternity cannot be understood from a chronological standpoint.)

God, as the Life of all, is the law of immortality which is seen operating in resurrection or wherever death is forestalled in Christian Science treatment.

God as the Provider is Love. Divine, all-embracing consciousness brings all together consciously in the sublime consummation that means unutterable satisfaction. In referring to Mind in its completing nature, we speak of it as "Love," manifest in the fullness of its expression, or creation, and realized in the conscious union of all being. Here lies serene contentment. Love holds its entire creation in conscious embrace as Mind.(My. 185:14 only). Love as Spirit constitutes, substantiates and sustains its creation. Love as Soul beautifies and inspires creation. As Principle, Love ceaselessly guides its creation. Love as Life vitalizes, awakens and propels its creation in radiant unfoldment. Love as Truth blesses every aspect of its creation with legitimacy. God as Love is Father-Mother, tenderly and warmly concerned with everything, down to the last infinitesimal detail, governing His offspring accordingly from His infinitely generous nature. Love is the law of infinite satisfaction and eternal contentment.

Love is manifest as loving. And how do we recognize anything as loving? In gentle care and kindly provision we see it, unmistakably. Mrs. Eddy says that Jesus defined Love by the amplitude of his pure affection. (S & H 54:3-4). And how was that? Well, wasn't he always supplying the need, restoring something lost, fulfilling a shortcoming? He fed the hungry multitude not on platitudes, but upon fish and bread. He brought Lazarus back from decay. He supplied the tax money. He redeemed the sinner's self-respect. He gave back his reason to the lunatic. In all these affairs, we see illustrated the completing, unifying, consummating nature of Love. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:10).

Love is the law of perfection more in the sense of completeness. Whatever is the work of Love falls short at no point but presents everything that could be desired, is of a character unmarred by defect or deficiency, lacking in nothing to make for harmony and perfection, but presenting all the elements that go to make up the lovable. So it is that Love's halo rests upon its object and that a friend is never less than beautiful. (S & H 248:3-5). Thus it is that you speak of Jesus as a lovely and loving character, or a concrete example of Love.

You can never love God objectively. Love is to be felt. When you are thinking of God as loving, you are thinking of Mind as Love. Love is no mere selfish attachment or finite desire for completeness. Infinite Love is infinitely loving, and can only be manifest so. The adorable One is Love knowing itself as indivisibly All, and therefore satisfied. You cannot just think about Love; you must be Love. With Love being All, you can be nothing less than Love in expression. There is no Love where there is no evidence of Love. It cannot be left an ideal apart from your present experience. If you did not see Love in terms of your present comprehension, you would have no intimation as to what Love is and no proof that it is.

Nor are there two kinds of love - spiritual and material. There is just one Love and it is divine. If we should construe it as physical, material, degraded, it still remains the only Love there is, expressed in the only way possible: as affection, as loving, as goodness with activity and power. In our everyday lives, we have learned surely that the only real joy and happiness is found in each other, in sharing, and what is that but the consummation, unification, completion of Love? (S & H 518:17-19). If you could not experience Love in the language of your current interpretation, you could not even conjecture as to its nature and essence.

One of the most beautiful and valuable passages in all of Mrs. Eddy's writings is that one in which she says Love is not an ideal to be locked away in the chambers of fantasy, but a vital reality, demanding noble sacrifices and grand achievements as its evidence. Read that wonderful paragraph on page 250 of Miscellaneous Writings (lines 14 through 29).

  
Reflection

Establishing the fact of God explains nothing of man. At this juncture, REFLECTION is the key, as indicated in this passage from "Unity of Good":

"God is All-in-all. Hence He is in Himself only, in His own nature and character, and is perfect being, or consciousness. He is all the Life and Mind there is or can be. Within Himself is every embodiment of Life and Mind. If He is All, He can have no consciousness of anything unlike Himself; because, if He is omnipresent, there can be nothing outside of Himself." (Un. 3:20-26).

Now what must be the function of Mind? To know, must it not? And what is there for God to know or take cognizance of if He is all there is? Must it not be Himself alone? Mind, of course, is consciousness; but, in order to be that, it must be conscious of something, and since there can be nothing beyond Mind's infinity, it is conscious necessarily of itself and of nothing else. Omniscient Mind knows itself perfectly, has a perfect concept of itself, and this is the infinite, divine idea called "man" or "manifestation." It is the divine self-consciousness, or Mind looking back at itself, seeing itself as itself. The quotation above, then, is at once a declaration and an explanation of spiritual reflection.

As used in Christian Science, the word reflection is generally misunderstood. (S & H 301:5-6). Consider it in this wise. You can see yourself in your mind's eye, can't you? You can visualize yourself exactly as you are, as surely and as accurately as if you were looking into a mirror. As a matter of fact, isn't this something like looking into a mirror? This should clarify the subjective nature of divine reflection. It's not "done with mirrors"! Seriously, there is no component, factor or element involved in spiritual reflection which corresponds in any manner to a mirror, mentally or otherwise. Man is not something that reflects something else. He is reflection itself. (S & H 258:11-12). An idea or knowing is not something besides God which reflects or echoes God. Hardly! Mind taking cognizance of itself is its own reflector and its own reflection. The knowing is the divine idea or reflection. Man is not a reflector; he is reflection.

The Oxford dictionary defines "reflection" as "the mode or faculty by which mind has knowledge of itself and its operations," while Webster explains it as "the action of the mind by which it takes cognizance of its own operations." It is synonymous, according to these philologists, with meditation, contemplation, cogitation, consideration, thinking, thought or idea. As usual, we find the dictionary definition basically correct for our purpose, requiring only amplification, expansion, extension. We do no violence to the orthodox definition when we apply it to the infinite, so as to see that divine reflection is the endless self-awareness of inexhaustible Principle.

God is fully cognizant of Himself and of nothing else. That is to say, He has an unrestricted conception of Himself. Knowing Himself perfectly, He sees Himself as He is. Infinite Mind beholding itself infinitely is true, spiritual reflection. As in a mirror, so to speak, Mind perceives its own incorporeality, recognizes its own unopposed supremacy, realizes its absolute divinity, and this clear comprehension of its own nature and isness constitutes Mind's evidence of its tangible existence. Being All, if God was not knowing Himself, He would be unconscious. Mind unexpressed would be a nonentity, and Mind as the knower predicates the knowledge that is "man the reflex image of God." (S & H 303:25-30; 259:16-17).

Oftentimes erroneous inferences are drawn from the old theological terms, "image" and "likeness." To some, image suggests picture, and likeness a duplicate, so that they find it impossible to dissociate the word "reflection" from parallelism. How can there be anything like infinity? Infinity is All. (S & H 287:16 only). The word "manifestation" is not open to as many interpretations, however, and might be used until the words are purged of their finite connotations for you. To illustrate this essential oneness or inseparability of Principle and idea, let us say that your friend visits you and you acknowledge his presence. Is not your friend manifested to you? When he departs, you would not expect him to leave his manifestation with you - for his manifestation is your friend manifest. Likewise, thought cannot be detached even figuratively from Mind, for it itself is Mind thinking. Mind is wherever it is manifest as thought, and nowhere else. Its expression is its presence. Manifestation is God in expression. Man, perforce, is God - expressed. "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him." (Genesis 1:27). But this that is God beholding Himself is one Being, so that God is all there is to man.

Mind's infinite individuality is the boundless awareness of its own character and nature. This that is Mind identifying itself as idea must exhibit all of the attributes of Mind, its every quality and property. (S & H 470:23-24). Man, the expression of God's being, is here and now disclosing the hereness and nowness and isness of God, showing forth God's spirituality, intelligence, substantiality, vitality, actuality, loveliness, His infinity, eternality, indestructibility, incorruptibility, utility, variety, resourcefulness, His omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience and omniaction, His absoluteness, completeness, perfectness, as well as His oneness, allness and onlyness, and so on, ad infinitum. Man, or God in expression, cannot be restricted, confined, limited, curtailed, afflicted, impaired, displaced, obscured, obstructed or subverted.

Parenthetically, it is well to note that students of Christian Science occasionally ascribe certain attributes to God which have objectionable connotations. We speak of "a patient God," for instance, only as a concession to those who have not yet outgrown their bias of orthodoxy, for usage has narrowed the meaning of the word "patience" down to where it is strictly a human appellative. God is anything but resigned! He is not placidly waiting around for the opportunity to really be All! Quite the contrary. Scientifically considered, God is intolerant of all but His own selfhood. (S & H 129:5-6, 243:27-29). Words used carelessly become meaningless, and Mrs. Eddy covers this point when she calls attention to the inappropriateness of giving "pity" as an attribute of God: "To gain a temporary consciousness of God's law is to feel, in a certain finite human sense, that God comes to us and pities us." (Un. 4:7-9).

To resume. Mind can only be known through the thoughts which reveal it. Humanly speaking, you know that you have a mind, yet this mind is evident only as conscious idea. Even so, God is seen only in spiritual idea. (S & H 300:29-30). This implies that an idea is necessarily an idea of something, and this something we call the subject, the principle or the substance of the idea. To use a homely illustration, Cat is the principle of the idea cat, and the idea presents all the identifying characteristics of cat - whiskers, tail and all! Then the divine idea is the idea of Principle, and it is never without its Principle; while Principle, in order to remain Principle, must always be accompanied by that to which it is Principle. "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matthew 28:20). Love, divine Principle, embraces all that exists as its own self-expression.

The only I or US is truly one - the Adorable One. (S & H 588:11-15). Jesus said, "I and my Father are one," in that thought and Mind are a unit. (John 10:30). But, speaking from the standpoint of effect, he had to say, "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28). Mind as cause must precede Mind as effect - in point of sequence but not chronologically, of course. What cause does, effect is, so that the instant there is cause, there is effect. They are simultaneous or coexistent. Cause could not be cause without effect and effect could not exist without cause. The old precept of cause and effect as two separate things has given way before the recognition that effect must be cause manifest, or in evidence.

God would not be God without man to be God to, and the Revelator declaims: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:11). All credit to cause; none to effect. The only demand in all infinity is that of cause for effect, and effect is for the satisfaction of cause. Principle completes itself by way of idea and could not be complete otherwise. Which is another way of saying that Mind completes itself by way of reflection. Thus it is that "Love cannot be deprived of its object." (S & H 304:9-11).

Effect never becomes cause and cause remains forever cause. But since the function of cause is to produce effect, cause requires effect in order to exist as cause. So cause and effect cannot be dual entities, but simply the one entity evidencing itself. Nor is there anything to thwart this functioning. God, being All, is free to express Himself without opposition or limitation, and inevitably does so. Therefore, man is the achievement of God's purpose. Through (or as) man, God establishes and maintains a continuous state of progressive contentment.

Nothing represents God but God Himself. Mind manifested is just Mind. It is simply God being Himself, and this absolute unity precludes inbetweenness. In analyzing spiritual reflection, if you "call the mirror divine Science," you mean that Science is Mind explaining itself as idea. (S & H 304:9-11). The divine self-knowledge is, naturally, Mind's conscious concept of itself. Cause defines itself by way of effect, and the effect remains cause - defining itself. The reflection is not an entity in and of itself, but is Mind reflecting. Effect does not outline or define cause, but is cause self-defined. (S & H 591:19-20). Thus effect may say: "The Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works." (John 14:10).

Nor can reflection be understood as substanceless shadow. (Ret. 57:15-17). Reflection, or effect, is the Do-er doing. Such reflection is not only "at one with" Principle, but it must be that one that is Principle itself, functioning. Principle is not cognizant of idea, but of itself, and this cognizance is idea. An idea is not something that is aware of something else that is called "Mind," any more than Mind can be something that is aware of something else besides itself, called "idea." The idea is Mind knowing. The consciousness of God is not something that I have, but something that I am.

So it is that when you look for God you find man. (S & H 258:16-18). When you get a correct concept of God, see Him as He is, attain the right idea of Him, why that is man. That is you. The true you. What you know of Truth is all that could be true of yourself. (S & H 213:5 only). Literally, man is the awareness of God. Man is not aware of something; he is the awareness - God's awareness of His own infinite selfhood, or active reflection.

Understanding means knowledge or the possession of ideas. And what is there to possess ideas but the one Ego called God" (S & H 281:14-17). Man is idea, and an idea is not something with an idea. (That would be mind.) Ideas are not egos. Man is not a knower, absolutely speaking; he is the knowing or knowledge. Only Mind, God, is knower, originating ideas. Only Mind can have an understanding and "His understanding is infinite." (Psalms 147:5). Understanding belongs to God, and while it is true that man reflects God's qualities, it cannot be said that effect ever becomes cause or that understanding ever becomes the understander. (S & h 506:5 only). Man does not have understanding; he is understanding. He is not somebody doing something; he is the doing. You do not have ideas; you are idea, or God's knowledge of His own infinite individuality. Thus you find the eternal Ego and yourself inseparable as God and His reflection, or spiritual man. (S & H 314:5-7).

If, on the other hand, instead of looking for God you were to look for man, you would get a concept of a concept, for man (idea) is Mind's concept of itself. This would be something entirely removed from the original image and likeness of the creator. Such a derivative concept would be a counterfeit and, as an entity, suppositional. The Lord said, "Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no [mortal] man see me and live." (Exodus 33:20). As mortal man, you cease to be the moment you perceive God, for this is the disclosure of God in His own immortal image and likeness and is His own concept of Himself.

It is like twice-two-is-five disappearing in the perception of twice-two-is-four. Nothing is lost, but all is redeemed. Knowing God truly is yourself. "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with [as] thy likeness." (Psalms 17:15). This is not the image of man, mark you, but the image of God. (S & H 325:13-15). Your business is not primarily to seek the right idea about man, but rather it is to seek the right idea of God. The knowing and the doing of His will, by just being divinely, is the whole of man. (S & H 340:9-12).

Knowing is being, so it is God (not man) that we must not lose sight of. "But," opines Paul, "we all, with open face [unveiled], beholding as in a glass [or mirror] the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit [understanding] of the Lord." (II Corinthians 3:18). Come to identify yourself with and as the divine consciousness, so precluding an objective (external-to-consciousness) notion of God, as a Being apart or remote. This that is realization is true identification, and it means the experiencing of existence as it incorporeally, naturally, harmoniously is. Do this, and you will find the infinity of Mind, Being, unfolding its own events joyously, freely and in divine order. This spontaneous unfoldment is your real being - Mind itself in living expression. (Un 24:6-9).

The recognition of existence as divine is the infinite self-knowledge of God, which can only be described as reflection or divine identification. So considered, all the human connotations or finite limitations fall away and you discover reflection to be Mind knowing itself, with you the knowing. You must be the thinking, thought or idea, with Mind as Principle the only knower, for you as that which is formed obviously cannot be underived Entity. (Mis 255:5-6). The sight of this clears up the misapprehension, with its tribulations and afflictions, revealing the divine presence in place of the human seeming. And remember that God is not waiting for you to reflect Him more fully! He is the only one who is doing any reflecting, with you the inevitable reflection. This is finding your true selfhood in God.

"Identity" means self-sameness. When you identify a person, do you not say, "He is the same one?" Exactly so, spiritual reflection is the divine identification. (S & H 477:20 only). It is Mind saying, "I AM." The "I" is Principle and the "AM" is idea. This apperception that is the Psyche recognizing itself, is the essential and only possible evidence that Mind is. Without this recognition, reflection or identification, God would be without a witness, a childless Father, a total nonentity. (S & H 303:25-30, 306:8-12).

Identity and individuality are not, of course, precisely the same. Notwithstanding the general tendency to think of individuality as apartness or isolation, the fact is that Mind is infinitely inclusive and indivisible. (S & H 259:1-5). The word "consciousness" itself means inclusion - mental inclusion. But this does not imply absorption or loss of character through any sort of blending. (S & H 265:10-15). Mind does diversify, classify or specify, even if it does not segregate. (S & H 513:17-21). But never could Spirit, Soul, Principle externalize itself literally, for there could be nothing extraneous to consciousness which consciousness would ever know about.

The only "objectification" there could be would be Mind regarding itself through reflection. To objectify is for Mind to distinguish itself by way of idea, identification or effect. Reduced to simplest terms, individualization is realization. It is like the universal multiplication table being individualized as your knowledge or apprehension of it. Any aspect of Being perceived as distinct is an instance of individualization - or objectification, if you prefer. While no illustration can be carried far, perhaps we can cast a little more light on the subject by exploring this analogy a bit.

To say that twice-two-is-four is present whether known or not is as absurd as saying that effect can exist without cause. The one cannot be without the other. In fact, the one is but an aspect of the other. There is no call for getting lost in abstractions of that kind. Plainly, twice-two-is-four can only be present as your knowledge of it. Otherwise it does not exist for you. Your recognition of the fact is its concrete presence, or individualization. Likewise, Mind can be present only as thought or realization. The apprehension of Spirit is its individualization, embodying all the power of Principle, all the beauty of Soul, all the spontaneity of Life - much in the same way that the mathematical expression embodies the irresistible truth of mathematics. (My