Article July 6, 1912 Issue

On account of some congratulatory remarks published by...

Society

On account of some congratulatory remarks published by Society a few months ago on the remarkable cure, through Christian Science, of Charles Dawson, the English ex-champion billiardist, when opticians and other specialists had failed to remedy his blindness, we are now favored with the following letter:—

"I am a reader of Society and a lover of clean sport and fair play, but I am not a Christian Scientist. I do not profess to have any special or intimate knowledge of Christian Science, but, numbering in my acquaintance some members of the cult, I confess to a little interest in the subject, arising primarily from the manifest change which has come into their lives since their adoption of this religion. I know of more than one specimen of the genus homo who was formerly a miserable, querulous sufferer, rarely out of the doctor's hands and never well, who is now a happy, healthy, smiling citizen, with a cheery word for everybody who comes along. And so I have been led to peruse carefully the text-book of Christian Science, 'Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" by Mrs. Eddy, and also to read such criticisms of her life and works as have come incidentally under my notice from time to time. I have read some pretty savage onslaughts on Christian Science and Christian Scientists, but I do not remember reading and I have never heard of any attack by a Christian Scientist on the religious beliefs of those from whom he may differ. I welcomed, therefore, a pamphlet entitled 'Should the Church Recognize Christian Science?' and looked to it for some valuable or at least original information on the subject, which might be of use to an unimpassioned lay investigator who, like myself, might be asking the question, 'Should I recognize Christian Science?'

"I have not sufficient knowledge of the subject to accept or reject some of the statements in Science and Health, but even a casual perusal of that book showed that it emphasizes right through only that which is good and elevating; that its basic declaration is the allness of God, Spirit, and that it regards man as made in God's image and likeness. These premises are claimed as strictly Biblical and Christian, and I have always considered them to be generally recognized as such. The head and front of Mrs. Eddy's offending, in the eyes of many opponents, appear to be that, having accepted these premises, she fearlessly accepted, insistently taught, and consistently practised the conclusions which she logically deduced therefrom. The pamphlet in question, however, argues from the fundamental but erroneous assumption, repeated over and over again, that 'the major premise of Christian Science is the non-reality, the nonexistence of matter.'

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

On account of some congratulatory remarks published by...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access