INVERTED WITCHCRAFT.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTITOR.1
Sur,—In an article entitled as above in the Spectator of May 25th (1) you begin by saying you "can find no promise in Scripture from which a hope might be deduced of a possible second revelation." Here surely you are in a minority among students of the Bible. How, for instance, do you interpret the promise of "the Comforter whom the Father will send in my name" (John xlv. 26), "who will guide you into all truth" (xvi. 13) P Also, what does Peter refer to in 2 Peter i. 19, 20, if not to a great revelation? Christian Scientists believe that this "knowledge of Christ's teaching," now revealed in Christian Science, is the "light that shineth in a dark place," the "day star " that should "arise in your hearts." (2) You then proceed to adopt the usual method of most of those who attack Christian science. You dress up a grotesque figure and label it "Christian Science," and pelt it with stones and mud ; meanwhile the real Christian Science walks on,—a different person, in a totally different dress. You say :—" What we do not understand is why an inter- mediary should be required They do not leave the cure to God they do not rely on faith They simply assert that if the patient believes sufficiently, not in God, but in them they will do wonderful things," &c. All of this quotation simply proves that you do not know what Christian Science is. No intermediary (as you call it) is "required." A vast number of the cures are effected without any intermediary, simply by studying and applying the pre- cepts of "Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures." If people would only take the trouble to understand the prin- ciples of that book for themselves, most of them would be able to obtain the healing without going to another, whose only superiority perhaps lies in the fact that he has through long and prayerful study obtained a higher understanding of the omnipresent and eternal principle. Christian Scientists do, moreover, proclaim without ceasing that God alone is the healer, and that "of my own self I can do nothing," as Christ said. Nevertheless, they claim the precise promises of Christ that " Whosoever believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do," and "These signs shall follow them that believe—they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover," the power being God's entirely, absolutely, as Christ proclaimed it to be in His days. And yet you call these people "white magicians,"—do not magicians claim to have power in them- selves P I can easily understand, and heartily sympathise with, your difficulty in trying to master the deep spiritual meanings of "Science and Health,"—the task which Mrs. Eddy set herself, of describing spiritual matters in a language only suited for material purposes, was a vast one. An anonymous writer says well : "To undertake to account for spiritual by the logic of material phenomena is an infinitely greater paradox than to express a mother's ecstasy in algebraic terms, or to analyse grief by the chemistry of a tear " ; and yet, Mr. Editor, I notice that this is precisely what you have been attempting to do. (3) You say "it is but a craze, and will pass " : only time can put this to the test, and Christian Scientists have no fear of the result. (4) You then discover (as though for the first time) that Christian Scientists link together sickness and sin. What said Christ on this connection "Thou art made whole : sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee" (John v. 14); What does it matter, whether I say Thy sins be forgiven thee, or whether I say Arise and walk" (Matt. ix. 5). In a recent article in the Christian World Professor Frederic Godet, D.D., writes : "it is a law derived from the divine holiness, that suffering, interior or exterior, is the inevitable consequence of sin." Isaiah in his prophecy of millennial blessedness says : "The inhabitant shall not say I am sick, the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity" (xxxiii. 24), thus showing that health comes as the result of iniquities forgiven. (5) You argue that "the liability to accident must be independent" of such a cause as sin, and that "it cannot be because of sin that a bullet hits you," &c., but you give no reasons for this assumption. In Luke xiii. 1-5 Christ shows that accidents (so-called) occur as a punishment to sinners, though not necessarily to the greatest of sinners. His prophecy of a similar punishment to his hearers "except ye repent" was fulfilled by the Roman sword. (6) I confess I do not understand your reference to "heredity." You say : "Those who think thus [presumably Christian Scientists] always have to affirm heredity in an extreme form." But Christian Scientists do not affirm heredity in any form ; they deny it entirely, and point to the prophecy in Jeremiah xxxi. 27, 30, 31, and again in Ezekiel xviii. 2, 3, 4, 19, 20. These prophecies are even now being ful- filled, for I learn that Sir Douglas Powell (physician to the King) and others with him have actually declared that there is no heredity of disease. Thus the days have come in which "they shall no longer say, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the
Previous page
