Article January 24, 1914 Issue

Some time ago, you were kind enough to publish a short...

George Shaw Cook—Aurora, Ill.

The Beacon-News

Some time ago, you were kind enough to publish a short letter correcting a misrepresentation of Christian Science made by an evangelist who was then in your city. In this letter I made the general observation that evangelists are not always noted for the accuracy of their statements concerning Christian Science, and this remark seems to have been taken very much to heart by Hugh T. Smith, judging by a letter from him in a recent issue. He even goes out of his way to recall that a certain medical doctor failed to reach the north pole, but I am sure that he does not intend to hold Christian Science responsible for that failure.

To return to the question of inaccuracy, our critic seems determined to demonstrate that the "shoe fits" by proceeding again to misquote Mrs. Eddy. He says that on page 118 of the 1910 edition of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy says, "Christian Science is the second coming of Jesus." I have consulted the 1910 edition as well as other editions, only to find that these words do not appear on page 118 or on any other page, so far as it is possible to discover. In fact it may be safely assumed that the quotation is incorrect, for Mrs. Eddy did not teach anything of this kind; but if our critic had really been desirous of knowing what Mrs. Eddy did teach, instead of reading the text-book for the purpose of finding fault with her teachings, he would probably have discovered that what she said was quite different, for it was the reappearing of the Christ, Truth, or "Spirit of truth," to which she referred.

Then, while insisting that we be accurate, our critic once more misquotes Mrs. Eddy by making her say, "Jesus was not the Christ." What she really said was, "The spiritual Christ was infallible; Jesus, as material manhood, was not Christ" (Miscellaneous Writings, p. 84). It seems to be a way with some critics of Christian Science to quote part of a sentence, and sometimes to leave out or put in a word which makes a vast difference in the author's meaning. Perhaps in the present instance the mistake should be charged to the critic's haste or to the compositor's carelessness, but the effect is the same in any event, and our critic insists upon accuracy.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Some time ago, you were kind enough to publish a short...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access