Article January 11, 1913 Issue

To cite the practises of a mesmerist which the critic acknowledges...

Olcott Haskell

Lemoore (Cal.) Republican

To cite the practises of a mesmerist which the critic acknowledges were "only an exhibition of the force of suggestion or the action of the law of faith, over a patient in the impressible condition," as in any degree comparable with the practise of Christian faith and understanding as taught in the Bible and reemphasized by Mrs. Eddy, is to misunderstand the nature and modus of Scriptural healing. This critic refers to the "force of suggestion" as underlying many systems of so-called cure, but he surely would not wish to be taken as implying that this was the basis of the spiritual healings wrought by Jesus and the apostles.

If, as the Bible clearly teaches, it was God who healed those who turned to Him in ancient times, why should it be thought incredible that He should continue to save His children from sickness as well as from sin? Or why should a clergyman feel "compelled in the interest of truth and common sense to deny the reality of cures in cases of serious organic disorders"? This critic admits that "sometimes benefit is derived" by "people who are under a delusion" or by "invalids who have been wrongly pronounced incurable." But Christian Scientists recognize that to God no case is "incurable." Deformity, blindness, leprosy, and even death were dispelled by the understanding of Life which Jesus brought to light. Then shall Christian Scientists be censured for attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus the Way-shower? or condemned, when in some instances their understanding is not so clear as that of their Master? Even the immediate disciples of Jesus failed in at least one instance to heal a severe malady; yet Jesus did not condemn their effort, but explained that they needed a greater degree of consecration and spiritual understanding to meet these more stubborn cases. Notwithstanding the marvelous goodness of the Master, and in spite of the healing works which he had wrought, he was tried in court and condemned as a criminal. Must it be said today that some who profess to "preach the gospel" condemn those who are striving sincerely (and to a large degree successfully) to carry out Jesus' command to "heal the sick"? This command in the New Testament is given equal weight with its correlated command to "preach the gospel."

The practise of Christian Science does not consist in the repetition of verbal statements contradicting the evidences of sickness. Mrs. Eddy states: "Sickness is neither imaginary nor unreal,—that is, to the frightened, false sense of the patient. Sickness is more than fancy; it is solid conviction. It is therefore to be dealt with through right apprehension of the truth of being" (Science and Health, p. 460). It is a fact well recognized by all who are familiar with the practise of Christian Scientists, that these people are loving and kind to the sick; that they employ good nurses, and do everything they can to promote the comfort of those in their care. It is true that they do not cut out organs or torture the flesh in an effort to make it well, and neither do they experiment with dangerous drugs or inject poisonous serums; but their percentage of cures is very high, even with so-called "serious" cases.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

To cite the practises of a mesmerist which the critic acknowledges...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access