Article October 15, 1910 Issue

A critic says that "if that book [Rudimental Divine Science]...

Frank C. Barrett

Portland (Me.) Argus

A critic says that "if that book [Rudimental Divine Science], and Science and Health, were offered to any church, they would be rejected on the ground that they were unscriptural." Then he goes on to say that a statement of Christian Science might be submitted to the Methodist conference or the Episcopal convention for final judgment. But would the judgment of such a conference or convention be entirely reliable? To make my meaning more clear, let us suppose the Methodist conference should sit in judgment on the creed or doctrine of the Episcopal church, and vice versa. Would not each find that they themselves were right, and the other wrong, on Scriptural authority? No doubt they might attempt to disprove the Scriptural authority of Christian Science by the same token.

The "scientists" mentioned by our critic who have sat in judgment on the discovery of the North Pole, understand the "science" of astronomy. Unless the clergymen likewise understand Christian Science, and prove it by actual demonstration, how can we be sure they are competent to pass judgment until they do understand it? Christian Scientists have proved their claims. The Master said. "By their fruits ye shall know them." It matters not whether Christian Science is approved by certain individuals in the churches, or not: it must stand or fall on its own merits. That is the reason why I did not refer to our critic's statement in reference to putting the books before a committee of men who do not profess to understand Christian Science. I do not see that the opinion of such a committee would carry any more authority than our critic's opinion.

I assure you, I propose to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth: therefore I must thank our critic for giving me this opportunity to answer the whole statement. However, it has not been proved that Christian Scientists are "impostors," nor that Christian Science does not heal the sick and sinful. And what is more to the point is that the public is turning to it for moral, spiritual, and physical healing, in ever increasing numbers. Would this be so if the claims made for Christian Science were not being proven? If it is desired, the writer will furnish testimonies of healing, made on oath in court. Also testimonies by physicians of renown concerning cases which passed under their own observation. In fact, there is so much evidence to sustain our claims that even our critic's only excuse for rejecting them is that the cures were not effected instantaneously in every instance, and because of some failures on the part of Christian Scientists to demonstrate Christian Science.

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

Send a comment to the editors