CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20090, 20 November 1930, Page 13

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.

TO THE EDITOB OF THE PRESS. Sir,—ln Mr Cuthbert Booth's letter in reply to Archdeacon Taylor, I notice a statement "that the Bible is the sole basis of Christian Science." Christian Scientists certainly extract their beliefs from the Bible, but they do so in a fashion which is somewhat queer. I have a copy of "Science and Health with Key to'the Scriptures," and the "key'' consists of a glossary of words found in the to each of which Mrs Eddy has- given an arbitrary meaning or meanings in order to make the Scriptures fit in with her scheme of belief. The word "Adam," for instance, has a whole page-full of different meanings, including "red sandstone," "the first god of mythology," "an inverted image of spirit," "the opposer of truth, termed error,"

"the image and likeness of what God has not created,'.' "the opposite of love, called hate." So, in one's reading of the Bible, whenever the word "Adam" occurs, there are thirty or forty different ways of interpreting it, according to the particular meaning which the Christian Scientist wishes to read into that particular passage or text. A large number of words occurring in the Bible are also interpreted in this way—which, as Mrs Eddy states, gives the "spiritual" and "original" meaning thereof. 'Rock," for instance, is given as meaning "spiritual foundation,'' "truth," or "coldness and stubbornness." Would Christian Science interpret the text "That rock was Christ" in the first, second, or third sense of the word? The fact is that Mrs Eddy showed a touch of unconscious humour when she

described these explanations of words as "original." They are. Christian Scientists claim that all their teaching is derived from the Scriptures, but this "key" is really an elaborate attempt to insert the teachings of Christian Science into the Scriptures by means of an arbitrary system of interpretations, which, in many cases, have little or no foundation either in Christianity or science. You can read some strange things into the Scriptures if you come to them with a strange enough mind. 1 have a little "secret cypher" which purports—and very plausibly, too —-to prove that Shakespeare wrote the Authorised Version or the Psalms. The conclusion is absurd, of course, but the reasoning is quite :is neat and logical as any of Mrs Eddy's "'interpretations." 1 shall give the public the benefit of it in another letter, as this

letter is already long enough.—Yours, TItEMAVNE M. CTJRNOW. The Vicarage, New Brighton. Nov. 19th, 1930-