Article June 5, 1902 Issue

A Christian Scientist answers Rev. Dr. Utter

Alfred Farlow

Denver Republican

To The Republican.

Referring to Christian Science, the Rev. David Utter declares, "Mrs. Eddy reads out of the Bible, or reads into it, a whole new system of healing. New, however, in the main because it is old, so old as to be discredited and forgotten."

If, according to this statement, the Bible contains a method of healing which has been discredited and forgotten, we would ask, has not Mrs. Eddy accomplished a very desirable thing for the human race by discovering and reviving such a system? If, as he declares, "The system of healing which she and her followers believe and practise really belongs to the Christianity of the second, third, and fourth centuries," we would ask why should it not still be extant? If Christianity was sufficient to heal sickness as well as sin in the second, third, and fourth centuries, why should it not heal to-day? Is it not because the church has lost some essential element of Christianity? Having lost the spiritual sense of God's word and the consequent ability to heal the sick, naturally significance corresponding with our ignorance has been read into the Holy Scriptures until the Bible, to mortals, has been changed in its meaning, and the science which it contains and by which the sick were formerly healed, has become buried. Now that it has been discovered and resurrected by Mrs. Eddy, it must wait for acceptance until individuals become prepared to endorse it. The difficulty is that we are slow to note new meanings because we are slow to give up the traditions of the elders which have been read into the Bible for us. Should Christianity be less efficacious to-day than it was ages ago? Should not God be a present help in time of trouble in this age as well as in former times?

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

Christian Science Claims