Article October 26, 1907 Issue

Will you allow me to correct one or two mistakes in...

Rev. Claud Heurtley, B.A.,

Brighton (England) Gazette

Will you allow me to correct one or two mistakes in regard to Christian Science which occurred in a leading article of your last issue. In it Mr. Lovell is quoted from the Daily Telegraph as saying "that the idea put forward by Mrs. Eddy in her book will not be generally accepted as an adequate exposition of the Science of Christianity, for the one feature in Christ's teaching of appealing to the understanding of his hearers is conspicuous by its absence in Mrs. Eddy's treatment." Now, it will be admitted that the best proof which a man can afford that he understands any given science, is his capacity to demonstrate or prove it. Mrs. Eddy insists all through her work on the necessity of this practical understanding of Christian Science by its adherents. Nor did Jesus make any other appeal to the understanding of his hearers, for he said, "These signs shall follow them that believe" (i.e., understand).

Again, it is suggested in this article that Christian Science is not a common-sense religion, and yet this is the very quality to which Christian Science may most justly lay claim. Firstly, if "common sense" means exact reasoning, Christian Science is a religion of flawless reasoning, absolutely satisfying the logical faculty. Secondly, it is eminently "common sense," in that it is an every-day religion, entering into every problem of daily experience, small or great, and showing men how to overcome every difficulty and phase of evil. The writer evidently quite misunderstands the meaning of many of the scientific words used in Christian Science, and this understanding would only come from an earnest and careful study of the text-book. Nor is it just, in this connection, to class Christian Scientists with crystalgazers, theosophists, clairvoyants. There is no mystery in Christian Science—at least to those who understand its teachings. In "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" by Mrs. Eddy (p. 110), we read, "No analogy exists between the vague hypotheses of agnosticism, theosophy, spiritualism, or millenarianism and the demonstrable truths of Christian Science."

This article further states that the world does not need the miracle of Christian Science. Here it will be well to examine what is really meant by the word "miracle." Is not a miracle really the unfoldment of God's law, which seems miraculous to the limited human senses? And is not this unfoldment by divine healing necessary for the redemption of mankind from sin, sickness, and death? This redemptive mission is the work of Christian Science. Nor can we otherwise explain why the Master was so determined in emphasizing Christian healing as a mark of true discipleship. He said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." In this same connection the writer refers to "mental suggestion," by which he means a certain impulse given to thought from outside, which will drive out some forms of disease. Thus, to quote: "There are hundreds of 'malades imaginaires' who would be cured to-morrow if they would only rise in the morning with a determination to think more of their fellow-creatures and less of their own wretched bodies.... They should get into the open air and expand their minds by a contemplation of the wonders of the universe." While we quite agree that it would be best to forget our bodies and meditate upon the wonders of creation, still we have the proof within ourselves that this task is not possible without a proper understanding of God as the only Life and sustainer of mankind. This understanding Christian Science teaches.

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

Send a comment to the editors