IT is inevitable that comparisons should be made between Christian Science and other methods of healing the sick, as well as other forms of religious belief; indeed the religionist and the physician have long been engaged in calling attention to the difference between them. They have not hesitated to contrast Christian Science with creed-orthodoxy and drug-orthodoxy, by means of striking juxtaposition; all, presumably, with the intent of disparaging Christian metaphysics.
Mrs. Eddy, in her great work on Christian healing, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," also alludes to the gulf which separates the material and spiritual methods of healing. She saw that matter and material modes are the fictitious opposites of Spirit and spiritual laws, and she did not hesitate to say so. What she says of matter and material systems is as inevitable and inexorable as the basic law back of "twice two is four," and she could say nothing less.
To advert, from time to time, to the claims of the so-called mortal mind, to refute these claims by showing their weakness and inconsistency, is the work of the "exact metaphysician." This is not to be confused with retaliation, which is not one of the weapons in the Christian Scientist's warfare. It is a tool which turns both ways, and the metaphysical student has learned how dangerous it is to indulge in resentful thoughts. Mrs. Eddy has well said that "the evil-thinker takes his own dose and dies of his own physic" (Christian Science Sentinel, Feb. 4, 1905). It is with no spirit of "getting back," therefore, that attention is called to a recent medical convention in Boston. There would be ample justification for pointing out the lack of unity and cohesiveness in medical beliefs, on the ground that the metaphysician has no choice, but must tell the truth about error. There is a further excuse, if any be required, in the fact that materia medica has always claimed to be scientific and has never been willing to admit that Christian Science was anything but guesswork. Charge and countercharge seldom change the opinions of earnest advocates and are for the most part profitless, but when a system which claims for itself the highest known standard of scientific procedure in the matter of healing disease, offers unmistakable evidence of the futility of that claim, it is not unfair to call attention to it.
