[pg 029]
they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” [1]
Do you believe his words? I do, and that his prom-
ise is perpetual. Had it been applicable only to his
immediate disciples, the pronoun would be you, not them. [5]
The purpose of his life-work touches universal human-
ity. At another time he prayed, not for the twelve
only, but “for them also which shall believe on me through
their word.”
The Christ-healing was practised even before the Christ- [10]
ian era; “the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.” There is, however, no analogy between Christian
Science and spiritualism, or between it and any specu-
lative theory.
In 1867, I taught the first student in Christian Science. [15]
Since that date I have known of but fourteen deaths
in the ranks of my about five thousand students. The
census since 1875 (the date of the first publication of
my work, “Science and Health with Key to the Scrip-
tures”) shows that longevity has increased. Daily letters [20]
inform me that a perusal of my volume is healing the
writers of chronic and acute diseases that had defied medi-
cal skill.
Surely the people of the Occident know that esoteric
magic and Oriental barbarisms will neither flavor Chris- [25]
tianity nor advance health and length of days.
Miracles are no infraction of God's laws; on the
contrary, they fulfil His laws; for they are the signs fol-
lowing Christianity, whereby matter is proven power-
less and subordinate to Mind. Christians, like students [30]
in mathematics, should be working up to those higher
rules of Life which Jesus taught and proved. Do we
[pg 030]
really understand the divine Principle of Christianity [1]
before we prove it, in at least some feeble demonstra-
tion thereof, according to Jesus' example in healing the
sick? Should we adopt the “simple addition” in Chris-
tian Science and doubt its higher rules, or despair of [5]
ultimately reaching them, even though failing at first to
demonstrate all the possibilities of Christianity?
St. John spiritually discerned and revealed the sum
total of transcendentalism. He saw the real earth and
heaven. They were spiritual, not material; and they [10]
were without pain, sin, or death. Death was not the
door to this heaven. The gates thereof he declared were
inlaid with pearl—likening them to the priceless under-
standing of man's real existence, to be recognized here
and now. [15]
The great Way-shower illustrated Life unconfined, un-
contaminated, untrammelled, by matter. He proved the
superiority of Mind over the flesh, opened the door to
the captive, and enabled man to demonstrate the law of
Life, which St. Paul declares “hath made me free from [20]
the law of sin and death.”
The stale saying that Christian Science “is neither
Christian nor science!” is to-day the fossil of wisdom-
less wit, weakness, and superstition. “The fool hath
said in his heart, There is no God.” [25]
Take courage, dear reader, for any seeming mysti-
cism surrounding realism is explained in the Scripture,
“There went up a mist from the earth [matter];” and
the mist of materialism will vanish as we approach spirit-
uality, the realm of reality; cleanse our lives in Christ's [30]
righteousness; bathe in the baptism of Spirit, and awake
in His likeness.
[pg 031]
Chapter III. Questions And Answers.
What do you consider to be mental malpractice? [1]
Mental malpractice is a bland denial of Truth,
and is the antipode of Christian Science. To
mentally argue in a manner that can disastrously
affect the happiness of a fellow-being—harm him [5]
morally, physically, or spiritually—breaks the Golden
Rule and subverts the scientific laws of being. This,
therefore, is not the use but the abuse of mental treat-
ment, and is mental malpractice. It is needless to
say that such a subversion of right is not scientific. Its [10]
claim to power is in proportion to the faith in evil, and
consequently to the lack of faith in good. Such false
faith finds no place in, and receives no aid from, the
Principle or the rules of Christian Science; for it denies
the grand verity of this Science, namely, that God, good, [15]
has all power.
This leaves the individual no alternative but to re-
linquish his faith in evil, or to argue against his own
convictions of good and so destroy his power to be or
to do good, because he has no faith in the omnipotence [20]
of God, good. He parts with his understanding of good,
in order to retain his faith in evil and so succeed with his
[pg 032]
wrong argument—if indeed he desires success in this [1]
broad road to destruction.
How shall we demean ourselves towards the students
of disloyal students? And what about that clergyman's
remarks on “Christ and Christmas”? [5]
From this question, I infer that some of my students
seem not to know in what manner they should act towards
the students of false teachers, or such as have strayed
from the rules and divine Principle of Christian