Sometimes the argument is advanced that the "first cause" is unknowable, or, if the person be a theologian, that God is unknowable. This is frequently stated with an air of finality, and generally is supported by some quotation of Scripture torn from its natural context. That this assertion is certainly a mistake becomes perfectly clear when we consider that if accepted it would counteract much of Jesus' teaching; for he said, "Ye shall know the truth," and further declared that a knowledge of God not only was possible, but was life itself.
The "wisdom of this world," after having announced the impossibility of knowing first cause, quietly assumes its existence and goes on with its own reasoning about what it calls "secondary causation." A strange inconsistency then appears. Asserted secondary causes, though also declared beyond the knowledge of the human intelligence, are nevertheless studied and an attempt is made to prove that their so-called laws are practical, at the same time that first cause is maintained as unknowable, that practical science can take no account of its action, and that law cannot be related to it. It is evident that there must be some kind of science explaining first cause, but instead of deducing this science from its cause, the "wisdom of this world" views it through a belief in secondary causation.
Now if God is first cause, Christianity, the outcome of God, is the science which reduces knowledge of this cause to practice, and it is not and never has been confined to the wise men of this world. The complete result of first cause in its perfection is the Christ-idea, and the science which explains it is correctly designated Christian Science. This Science must have existed as divine knowledge before time was, and Jesus and his disciples by no means confined their use of it to affairs other than physical healing. They used it at all times and in all ways, frequently to produce physical healing, which they looked on as the sign of God with them, or the demonstration of divine Science.
