Article August 6, 1927 Issue

I am in possession of one of "The Ryerson Essays" advertised...

Miss Jean A. Danskin, Committee on Publication for the Province of New Brunswick, Canada,—Sackville

United Churchman

I am in possession of one of "The Ryerson Essays" advertised in the United Churchman, entitled "Divine Healing or True Science versus Christian Science or Faith-Cure." Your advertisement states that the essays offer "pertinent, authoritative, and the most recent information" on the subjects discussed in the essays. I am writing to inform you that that statement is not true in regard to the essay which deals with Christian Science; therefore the advertisement is misleading. This essay contains many statements about Christian Science that are not "authoritative"; nor is the "recent information" from a reliable source. Having accepted the advertisement as true, I feel that you will not object to my pointing out a few of the misleading statements. It is stated on page 10 of this particular essay that Mrs. Eddy defines God in "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" as "the divine principle of all being." Commenting on this definition, the author says that God is not a principle, because a principle is a "fundamental law," implying that Christian Science teaches that God is a principle or a "fundamental law." In the first place, the quotation is not correct, as the word "Principle" in the book from which it is taken is spelled with a capital "P"; and in the second place, when God is referred to as divine Principle, in Science and Health, Principle means the producing, governing, great First Cause, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Every standard dictionary gives as definitions of the word "principle"—cause, source, beginning.

On the same page, after stating that Science and Health defines man as "the spiritual image and likeness of God," the author states that "Christian Science ignores the moral likeness predicated of man by the Biblical writer, which is the possession of self-conscious reason, implying a capacity for knowing God and for holding communion with Him." Nothing could be further from the truth than that statement. Science and Health states on page 106, "God has endowed man with inalienable rights, among which are self-government, reason, and conscience." Also, on page 516 of the same book Mrs. Eddy writes, "The substance, Life, intelligence, Truth, and Love, which constitute Deity, are reflected by His creation." The author's statement on page 14 of his essay that "Christian Science is partly pantheistic" is only another proof that the author is giving his own perverted interpretation of Science and Health, for that book states on page 275, "The starting-point of divine Science is that God, Spirit, is All-in-all," and every chapter in the book is a denial of pantheism. On pages 20 and 21 of the essay it is stated that "Christian Science virtually ignores evangelizing agencies, missionary enterprises, and humanitarian movements," and that it is "essentially a selfish organization," and that "Christian Scientists scarcely concern themselves in the elevation and improvement of society." Much data could be furnished to refute such statements. This data is within reach of anyone desiring to be correctly informed. The Christian Scientists may not be carrying on their beneficent activities and moral reforms in just the way that the author understands and appreciates, but it can be truthfully said that there is not a Christian church in the world to-day that is more earnest in trying to establish God's kingdom on earth.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

I am in possession of one of "The Ryerson Essays" advertised...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access