Article May 2, 1908 Issue

Regarding our critic's claim that Christian Scientists...

George Shaw Cook

Danville (III.) Democrat

Regarding our critic's claim that Christian Scientists are inconsistent because they wear clothes, eat food, heat their homes, etc., while contending for the actual unreality of matter, I will say that most people have sufficient discernment to enable them to see that Christian Scientists have perceived more of truth than they are yet able to practise, and most people I think are aware that Christian Scientists do not themselves claim to have reached the zenith of demonstration of the allness of Mind and the nothingness of matter, but simply accept this fact as a scientific and demonstrable proposition which they have only begun to prove. Peter was able, through the power of Mind, to heal the lifelong cripple at the gate of the temple, but his faith or spiritual understanding was not sufficient to enable him to walk on the water as did the Master. Jesus, whom Christian Scientists accept absolutely and unreservedly as the master Christian and master metaphysician, not only walked on the water and multiplied the loaves and fishes, by means of his perfect understanding of the substance of Mind, but he healed the sick and raised the dead through this same understanding of spiritual law, with which he was endued "without measure;" and yet he wore clothes, ate and drank. Christian Scientists claim no more than to be humble followers of Jesus the Christ, and they know perfectly well that they have but taken their first steps in following him.

Our critic attempts to make the explanation that in order to heal the sick the Christian Scientist does not "center his mind on the patient" nor "hold the patient in thought" (as some express it), and that this contradicts the statement of Mrs. Eddy in Science and Health (p. 412), that if one wishes "to heal by argument, ... array your mental plea against the physical," etc. A further search of Science and Health would have shown him that Mrs. Eddy in another place says that the better way of healing is through what she describes as the "unlabored motion of the divine energy" (p. 445). However, when the mental argument is used in healing, it is not used in any mesmeric manner, but the argument is arrayed against the erroneous belief of sickness and not against a sick man. Suppose a lawyer to be defending a client who has been falsely accused of crime. His argument would be made against the false evidence which had been presented by the prosecution. If this evidence was refuted and successfully proven to be erroneous, his client would be free. It is in this manner that the "mental argument" of the Christian Science practitioner frees his patient from the false testimony of physical sense. It is not what a Christian Scientist knows about a sick man which heals, but rather what he knows about man as the likeness of God who is not and cannot be sick. Christian Scientists have healed the sick in the manner described by means of what they have learned from the study of Science and Health, and respectfully claim the right to say that they know whereof they speak; and the writer would suggest that until the critic has put his knowledge of Christian Science to the same practical test, he is in no position to criticize consistently the methods of Christian Scientists.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Regarding our critic's claim that Christian Scientists...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access