A Bill was recently introduced in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, the purport and aim of which seemed to be the prohibition of the practice of healing by any other methods than those of medicine and surgery. A public hearing was given before the committee to which it was referred, and the plea and protest of Christian Scientists and others was heard. Representative Ray, the sponsor for the bill, withdrew it soon after and substituted therefor a measure applying simply and exclusively to the practice of medicine and surgery. We give below, extracts from some of the addresses which were made in opposition to the bill, our clippings being taken from the Philadelphia American.—ED.

Charles H. Fahnestock, First Reader of First Church of Christ, Scientist, of Philadelphia, said in part:—

"Methods of treating diseases by materia medica in our boyhood, are obsolete to-day, and the methods in vogue today will probably be discarded a few years hence. Treatises on disease and their remedies are multiplying so rapidly that the standard works of to-day are old almost to-morrow. The whole system is admittedly largely empirical. Every medical practitioner in every case reaches the point of which confession must be made that nothing more can be done but to trust in God. The Christian Scientist claims the inherent right to trust in God from the start.

"If God can be depended on in extremes can He not be entrusted with the case in the beginning, or at all points? Is it honest to doubt His ability to cure our diseases in their inception, and then throw ourselves on Him when hope has fled?"

"We are not here to antagonize medical schools. We respect and admire the honest, conscientious labors of all who are striving to help mankind, whether their methods accord with ours or not.

"We do, however, assert our claims to the same freedom that they possess in the exercise of our firm convictions as to the proper means in which to place our reliance for ourselves and ours overtaken with any physical ill.

"Homœpathy, in its high attenuations, practically discards the drug, and is now, after a hard battle with opposition, firmly entrenched in its recognition by the law. We go just a step in advance and say, God requires not the aid of any drug, however much diluted. Omnipotence is allpower and needs no material aid. We have His authority for trusting Him alone, and human law has no legitimate right to enter your home and mine and strive to annual our God-given privileges.

"We, as Christian Scientists, respect and abide by the law as strictly as any good citizens can, and we claim the protection of the law in our right to reliance on the Great Physician at all times and under all circumstances."

James Laws of Philadelphia, attorney for the Christian Scientists, said in part:—

"The ostensible object of this act is to protect the public from unskilled medical practitioners, and so far as it is confined to this object it is unobjectionable to Christian Scientists.

"It is only when an attempt is made to go outside of the practice of medicine, and prohibit the use of spiritual means only for the healing of the sick, that the legislation is an infringement of the personal and religious liberty of the people of this state, and creates a medical trust, which is more objectionable than any other form of trust that has been created in modern times.

"The passage of this provision, in effect, will be to compel every one who is afficted to seek treatment only from duly licensed medical practitioners, and in extreme cases, where these gentlemen have done their best for the patient, and have given him up as incurable, their sentence of death upon the patient will be final, unless he has the courage, and unless the Christian Science healers have the courage to defy the law and run the chance of being branded and convicted as criminals for attempting to heal, or actually healing, those who have been given up by the medical profession.

"In the state of Illinois an act with provisions similar to this one was introduced, and, after a careful hearing, it was amended so as to exclude from its provisions Christian Science healing.

"A similar attempt was made in the State of Massachusetts, and aroused a storm of protest from people who were not Christian Scientists, but who felt it their duty to appear before the legislative committee and remonstrate against its passage as a violation of individual rights, and in the interest of special privilege. Such well-known physicians, citizens, scholars, and divines as Professor James of Harvard University, William Lloyd Garrison, the Rev. B. Fay Mills, and others who are not affiliated in the slightest degree with Christian Scientists, appeared before the committee and urged the rejection of the bill so effectually that the committee, on the very next day after the hearing, unanimously reported adversely to the bill, declaring it inexpedient and unnecessary.

"In order that this committee may understand what Christian Science does in the way of healing the sick, I may state that they claim to be able to heal, through the operation of a divine law, which was established by Jesus Christ when he came into the world to preach the gospel and heal the sick. The practical effect of Christian Science work may be more clearly stated by saying that Jesus Christ came into the world to preach the gospel by healing the sick. Christian Scientists heal through the medium of prayer, and every Christian church believes in the efficacy of prayer to heal the sick.

"No medicines are administered by Christian Scientists. No attempt is made, directly or indirectly, to practise medicine, in any sense of the term. No pretence is made by Christian Scientists to the possession of any knowledge of medicine whatever. No attempt is made by them to pose as doctors or physicians, nor do they hold themselves out to the public as such.

"It has been demonstrated that hundreds of citizens of this commonwealth who have suffered from the most trivial to the most malignant diseases have been cured, and radically cured, by Christian Science treatment. It has been demonstrated that persons who have been given up as incurable by licensed physicians of both schools, and who have been told that they had only a short time to live, have been healed and restored to sound health by Christian Science treatment. It has been demonstrated that men who had become hopelessly addicted to the use of liquor, and other vices, and who had entirely lost their will power, have been saved, and right-mindedness has been restored through Christian Science healing.

"If these facts be true, then, before the medical practitioners, who must be back of this bill, are entitled to ask this committee to pass it, they should demonstrate to the committee that they control the only unerringly successful method of healing the sick that is now known to the world."

Mr. Williams of Sharon, who said he was not a Christian Scientist, opposed the bill. He admitted the necessity and propriety of more education for medical students. His specific objection, he said, was that the bill would create a gigantic medical trust. It was in conflict with the idea of civil and religious liberty. Cases where the sick had been cured by Christian Science, after having been given up to die by regular practitioners, were cited. Under this bill, he said, the nation could have been indicted in 1881, for offering up prayers for the recovery of President Garfield, and again when McKinley was shot.