IN studying the Old Testament we find that the name Jehovah (I AM; the eternal living one) was not used until Moses had advanced sufficiently in his understanding of the Supreme Being to enable him to begin the work of leading his people out of Egyptian bondage. This name was held very sacred by the Hebrew people, as representing their great deliverer and supreme Lawgiver, but in time its significance was obscured by anthropomorphism, in which, to quote Mrs. Eddy, "the true idea of God seems almost lost." She adds, concerning this false concept, "God becomes 'a man of war,' a tribal god to be worshiped, rather than Love, the divine Principle to be lived and loved"(Science and Health, p. 524).
When the text-book of Christian Science was given to the world the Supreme Being was made known to humanity by the august name of divine Principle, and the profound significance of this designation of Deity can hardly be overestimated. Those who were awakening to the spiritual sense of being beheld in this idea of God "the rock of ages"(Science and Health, p. 380), a revelation of absolute being, of certainty and security amidst the fluctuations and mutations of material belief. On the other hand, those who still clung to a concept of God as the author of materiality and its discords,—these assailed Mrs. Eddy for applying the term "Principle" to the Almighty rather than the familiar but uncertain word "person." They complained that she had taken away their God and offered them nothing but a cold abstraction, all of which goes to show how vaguely mankind has come to think of the infinite I AM whom Jesus declared to be Spirit and whom John declared to be Love. This prevailing concept of God has not healed the sick, nor to any great extent reformed the sinful; while the recognition of "the divine Principle to be lived and loved" is reaching both the sick and the sinful as they have not been reached since the great Teacher offered his healing works as the proof that he knew the Father and that the Father worked through him.
It may be well at this point to give some of the accepted definitions of principle, and it is noteworthy that although they are widely comprehensive, none of them reach up to the concept or significance of the word as used in Christian Science. Etymologically, principle signifies "beginning, commencement" (Cent. Dict.). Further definitions are: "Cause, in the widest sense; that by which anything is in any way ultimately determined or regulated;" "a truth which is evident and general; a truth comprehending many subordinate truths; a law on which others are founded, or from which others are derived." Under synonyms for this term the same authority says, "You can make a rule; you cannot make a principle; you can lay down a rule; you cannot, properly speaking, lay down a principle. It is laid down for you. You can establish a rule; you cannot, properly speaking, establish a principle. You can only declare it." We find, however, that in general usage very few persons are careful to observe the distinctions here made. They speak and write of principle with vagueness and uncertainty, yet in spite of this "a man of principle" is regarded as the right man on every occasion, showing that no misapprehension or lack of understanding can wholly obscure an essential truth.
