Article October 10, 1901 Issue

Inverted Witchcraft

B. Haworth-Booth

The Spectator

To the Editor of the Spectator.

In an article entitled as above in the Spectator of May 25th (I) you begin by saying you "can find no promise in Scripture from which a hope might be deduced of a possible second revelation." Here surely you are in a minority among students of the Bible. How, for instance, do you interpret the promise of "the Comforter ... whom the Father will send in my name" (John, 14 : 26), "who will guide you into all truth" (16:13)? Also, what does Peter refer to in 2 Peter, I : 19, 20, if not to a great revelation? Christian Scientists believe that this "knowledge of Christ's teaching," now revealed in Christian Science, is the "light that shineth in a dark place," the "day star" that should "arise in your hearts."

(2)You then proceed to adopt the usual method of most of those who attack Christian Science. You dress up a grotesque figure and label it "Christian Science," and pelt it with stones and mud; meanwhile the real Christian Science walks on,—a different person, in a totally different dress. You say, "What we do not understand is why an intermediary should be required. ... They do not leave the cure to God, ... they do not rely on faith. ... They simply assert that if the patient believes sufficiently, not in God, but in them, ... they will do wonderful things," etc. All this quotation simply proves that you do not know what Christian Science is. No intermediary (as you call it) is "required." A vast number of the cures are effected without any intermediary, simply by studying and applying the precepts of "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures."

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

From the Christian Guide