Jewish faith. Merely to teach the Divine unity and existence is not sufficient, but the secondary and important truth of Jewish Science should be constantly emphasized, viz: that God alone is the Healer of the sick of His people, Israel.

CHAPTER V.

A Refutal of Anti-Jewish References in Science and

Health.

In this Chapter, I propose to answer and refute many anti-Jewish statements, contained in Science and Health, written by Mary Baker Eddy. As stated in the previous chapter, the author evinces a strange bias towards Judaism and Jewish Literature. Either through ignorance or prejudice, she has glibly published in her book sentences and passages which reveal a woeful misunderstanding of the true spirit of the Jewish Faith. All such statements are taken for granted by her followers, and Jews who have become Christian Scientists are completely misinformed as to their former religion. Elsewhere, I have answered the general charge of Mrs. Eddy, that Judaism teaches a material view of the God-head, and that the principle of Divine Healing is not taught by the Jewish Faith. Now I will take up in detail every passage in Science and Health in which Mrs. Eddy attacks Judaism, and in so doing will follow her book from beginning to end.

(1.) On Page 23, Science and Health makes the following statement: "Rabbinical lore said, 'He that taketh one doctrine firm in faith, has the Holy Ghost dwelling in him.' This preaching receives a strong rebuke in the Scripture, 'Faith without works is dead.' Faith, if it be mere belief, is as a pendulum swaying between something and nothing, having no fixity."

In the first place, the quotation from the rabbis is mistranslated. In the Talmud, this statement is made which Mrs. Eddy has perverted: "He that taketh one doctrine in the spirit, has the holy spirit dwelling in him." The phrase "The Holy Ghost," is not Jewish. Moreover, the author of this statement meant to teach exactly the opposite of that which Mrs. Eddy has stated. He really attacked Dogmatism, and declared that Doctrines or Dogmas should be accepted and realized in the spirit which means the Deed. Moreover, Judaism has never emphasized mere faith in creed or doctrine. If anything, Judaism has laid stress on religious acts, ceremonies, and moral actions. The New Testament constantly attacks the Old Testament because it teaches the value of works or deeds. In fact, Christianity arose as a protest against the overpractical interpretation of religion by the Pharisees. In one sentence, Mrs. Eddy attacks Judaism because it teaches faith with works, and in this passage, she has taken an isolated statement in the Talmud, mistranslated it, and declared that Judaism teaches faith without works. As stated above, Judaism emphasizes Deed and not Creed, and the inner or spiritual truth in its practical effect, rather than a mere dogma or doctrine.

(2.) On Page 30, Science and Health contains the following statement: "Rabbi and priest taught the Mosaic Law which said, 'an eye for an eye,' and 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.' Not so did Jesus the new executor for

God, present the divine law of Love, which blesses even those that curse it."

First of all, the rabbis and priests did not teach the Mosaic Law which said, "An eye for an eye, etc." The Jewish Law of punishment was gradually developed in the Second Commonwealth by the Synhedrion or Sanhedrion-the Great Jewish Assemblage which laid down all the laws for the Jews between the Babylonian exile and the Fall of the Second Temple in 70, A. D. The Jewish authorities of that epoch naturally believed in and enforced the law against crime, just as all civilized nations do to-day. Capital punishment still exists in almost all modern nations, and each crime is adequately punished. Without proper enforcement of the law, society could not exist.

Now, let me explain the Mosaic law, "An eye for an eye, etc." This statement is found in Exodus, Chapter 21:24. In this sentence, Moses laid down the principle still known in law as "Lex Talionis" or "The Law of Retaliation." Every Bible student knows this. Moreover, this law was never meant nor taken literally by Jewish people. It would be a physical impossibility to exact such ridiculous punishment, as taking an eye from a man who had destroyed the eye of another. Jesus, in the New Testament is credited with some very cruel statements. For example, take the following passage from Matthew, Chapter 10, verses 34, 36: "Think not that I came to send peace on the earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. I came to set a man against his father, the daughter against

her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Now, if this statement is taken literally, Jesus should be considered in a very harsh light. But every student of the Bible knows that a prophet or leader should be judged by his noblest expression, and not by ignoble thoughts which often are credited to him. Now, Moses did not mean to teach literally the doctrine of "An eye for an eye." On the other hand, he and not Jesus presented for the first time "The Divine Law of Love." Even the New Testament admits this absolute fact. Let me quote from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 22, verses 35-40: "And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question trying him. Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And he said unto him, THOU SHALT LOVE THE LORD THY GOD, WITH ALL THY HEART, WITH ALL THY SOUL, AND WITH ALL THY MIGHT (taken from a verse spoken by Moses in Deut. 6:5.) This is the great and first commandment, and a second like unto it is this, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF (taken from a verse spoken by Moses in Lev. 19:18.) On these two commandments, hang the whole Law and the Prophets."

(3.) On Page 30, Science and Health contains the following statement: "As the individual ideal of Truth, Christ Jesus came to rebuke the rabbinical error and all sin, sickness and death-to point out