Article February 11, 1928 Issue

Having read the editorial in a recent issue of the Protestant Advocate,...

William C. Brookes, Committee on Publication for Midlothian, Scotland,—Edinburgh

Protestant Advocate

Having read the editorial in a recent issue of the Protestant Advocate, I am wondering what could possibly cause you to attack Christian Science when, at the same time, you are endeavoring to obey the Scriptures. Your last paragraph throws some light on this question, as it indicates that you are confusing Christian Science healing with healing brought about by means of hypnotism or suggestion. Now hypnotism is the name which in this age has been given to the efforts of the human mind to heal mentally. In past times such efforts have been variously known as magic, exorcism, witchcraft, sorcery, et cetera; and healing of this kind (such as it is!) is as far removed from Christian Science healing as the way of Judas was from the way of the Master. That this is so may readily be understood from what Mrs. Eddy says on page 104 of the Christian Science textbook, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures": "The hypnotizer employs one error to destroy another. If he heals sickness through a belief, and a belief originally caused the sickness, it is a case of thegreater error overcoming the lesser. This greater error thereafter occupies the ground, leaving the case worse than before it was grasped by the stronger error."

But apart from the fundamental mistake of confusing Christian Science with hypnotism, your article consists of an effort to prove that Christ Jesus was God, and that he gave the healing power to his immediate followers only. With regard to the first proposition, it should be unnecessary to point out that this doctrine was rejected by Christ Jesus himself in the question put to the young man who called him "Good Master": "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." And if, for the sake of argument, one were to admit that this unscriptural doctrine is true, what would become of the famous declaration, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"? No, if there is any meaning in plain English, the idea that Christ Jesus was God is flatly contradicted by the Scriptures themselves. That being so, it may be asked what was meant by the statement, "I and my Father are one"? The reply is that in this instance Jesus was simply claiming unity of consciousness with the Father.

Then as to the proposition that the power to heal was given only to the "immediate" disciples, what Biblical ground is there for such a notion? The gospel of healing is not confined to the New Testament; and no doubt that is partly the reason for the saying, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Moses healed leprosy; Elijah raised the dead; the Psalmist says, God "healeth all thy diseases." If we will get rid of our prejudices it must become as plain as plain can be to us that God's power to heal and to save to the uttermost is not merely a phenomenon of the first few years of the Christian era, but has been a demonstrable fact throughout all time. The more or less unconscious feeling that that is so has caused men of every clime and every race to turn to the "UNKNOWN GOD" whom they have "ignorantly" worshiped. Christianity came to destroy this ignorance; and Christian Science restores primitive Christianity.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Having read the editorial in a recent issue of the Protestant Advocate,...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access