A critic who had listened to the address on Christian Science...

Indianapolis (Ind.) News

A critic who had listened to the address on Christian Science by Hon. Clarence A. Buskirk in the Caleb Mills Hall, at once entered one of our city pulpits and gave a lecture on what he had heard. He began with the admission, among other things, that the Christian Scientist defined God as Spirit, Love, Truth, which was practically the same understanding that he himself had, with the exception that the Christian Scientist had also said that God is Principle, and to him principle was such a thing or condition that he would just as soon pray to the Constitution of the United States, presumably so far as the good it would do.

It is possible that our critic has not had his spiritual eyes sufficiently opened to know or realize that there is an all-pervading something that can be perceived throughout all things. ... Does it matter whether one calls it Principle or God, so that he has a clear conception of it? Why quibble about words when the true meaning is what we desire? Why strain at the word Principle until we are sure that it means something quite different from our present idea? Again, should it be difficult to understand that matter which are spiritual must be seen or known by or through the spiritual senses, and that matters which are temporal are to be seen and known through the material or mortal senses, and consequently matters that pertain to one are not of the other; that sin, sickness, etc., are of the temporal and are not lasting? This being so, why should the Christian Scientist be rebuked for saying there is no matter, when he speaks from the spiritual standpoint? There surely is no materiality in Spirit. ...

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit