THE following excerpt from the letter of a reverend critic, reveals the unprogressive and unpromising attitude toward Christian Science which has been assumed by a few Christian ministers, while the judicial and kindly tone of the answer thereto, will appeal to all liberal-minded readers. In his caustic reference to the asserted technical ignorance of the symptoms of disease upon the part of Christian Science practitioners, the critic ignores a very important fact; viz., that in a large proportion of the cases of healing in Christian Science, the malady had been carefully and repeatedly diagnosed by eminent physicians whose faithful efforts to relieve or heal had been wholly unavailing. He also overlooks the further unquestioned fact that the disciples whom Jesus pronounced capable, in his unrestricted command that they should heal the sick, were not equipped with that knowledge of anatomy, therapeutics, and symptomatology which is required of the graduates of medical schools; and yet it is conceded by all that they accomplished this beneficent work.—()
My Dear Mr. S—:—Your letter is to me one of the most confirming proofs of the hysterical and irresponsible nature of Christian Science. You are a lawyer, far above the average, astute and far-sighted; and a judge of evidence. Now, you wish me to hear in those Christian Science temples testimonies of "Cures" of "incurable diseases such as cancer, locomotor ataxia, tuberculosis, paralysis, etc." Now, whose diagnosis declared those ailments to be such diseases? The healer's of course; and nine tenths of them—yes, ninety-nine hundredths of them know as little of the nature of disease as a mole knows of the solar system. You know it is so! As a lawyer you would argue such a case out of court in ten minutes. Think of Miss—, a splendid girl, averring she had healed a person of cancer, or tuberculosis, etc. What does she know about such diseases to diagnose and pronounce on their nature and names? And yet she will do as well as nine-tenths of her fellow-healers. Is it on such testimony that you ask me to put confidence in Christian Science "healings"? Why. S—, such an attitude on your part perplexes me. You are too honorable to try to foist on me such an unspeakable incongruity as a fact. I thought you too bright and mentally strong to be swayed by such preternatural unreasonableness; but when I remember that so great a mind as Matthew Hale, a lawyer, believed in witchcraft, and Judge Durand in spiritualism, and Billingsley in theosophy, I can conceive that your mind may be subject to a kindred aberration, and yet I cannot conceive it. I see how a hysterical, credulous, bright female might, but you, you! O forgive me, my old friend, for this; but I am nonplused, confused, and dazed at the gyrations, gymnastics, and tortuous inflections of the human mind. Sincerely,
—.
My Dear Dr.—:—In your late letter you assail my intelligence for believing in Christian Science upon what you say is insufficient evidence. Your letter is a frank statement of the doubts you entertain about the correctness of the conclusions reached by those of us who claim to have been healed through Christian Science. In short, it is apparently an invitation to me to consider the question of evidence, which I shall gladly do.
