Article January 9, 1915 Issue

Now that the Rev. Mr.—has renewed his attack upon...

Judge Clifford P. Smith

The Springfield (Mass.) Union

Now that the Rev. Mr.—has renewed his attack upon Christian Science through your columns, I trust that you will again permit me to answer by the same means. In my former letter I offered as a definition of substance, "that which is real, in distinction from that which is apparent." The critic's comment on this is indeed interesting. He takes issue with it as being "in perfect accord with Christian Science definitions. That is to say, it is wide of the mark." Perhaps I should have saved him from this mistake by citing the New International dictionary, from which the definition was taken. It is practically the same as can be found in school books, encyclopedias, and other standard works of reference; hence it expresses natural science or philosophy as much as it does Christian Science.

Our critic's letter to the Union furnishes another reason for refering to those repositories of general information, the larger dictionaries. He challenges me to "tell us what principle is conscious." I will reply in the words of the Oxford English dictionary, "Soul, the principle of thought and action in man;" also in the words of the Century dictionary, "Spirit, the principle of life;" again, in the words of the New Standard dictionary, "Spirit, the principle of self-consciousness, self-activity, and of rational power in general ; that which signifies a likeness in man to the Divine Being." It is also possible to answer in the words of St. Paul, "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves ; but our sufficiency is of God ;" and in the words of Mrs. Eddy, "Intelligence is . . . the primal and eternal quality of infinite Mind, of the triune Principle,—Life, Truth, and Love,—named God" (Science and Health, p. 469).

The reverend gentleman's letter shows very clearly the reason for his attitude toward Christian Science. He is a champion of "the established denominations," and his complaint against Christian Scientist is that they have been guilty of "proselyting conduct." A description of this offense is also to be gathered by inference from the same letter. Evidently, it is committed by those who preach the gospel and heal the sick without sanction from an "established" church. Those who do this, or part of it, within the pale of the established denominations, are entitled "missionaries of the cross," while Christian Scientists, for endeavoring to fulfil all the Christian commandments, are called "proselyters for a cult." I am loath to believe that such a position canbe approved by the members of the churches for which this gentleman has spoken. It is only a brief span of time since the founders of those very churches were condemned in the same manner. History is easily forgotten unless all Christendom can remember that the Founder of the Christian religion was misrepresented, and accused "as one that perverteth the people," by representatives of an established denomination who had a mistaken sense of their duty.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Now that the Rev. Mr.—has renewed his attack upon...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access