The decision as to whether or not Christian Science is true does not rest with the opinions of men, however eminent in their own line some of them may be; and those who attack it or its believers from no better motive, or upon no more reliable basis than their difference of opinion, have no reasonable justification or defense. A difference of opinion indicates nothing more than that all but one of the disputants are in error, and who that one is can be settled only by an appeal to the facts involved. That others believe differently from us does not necessarily prove them in the wrong, and until one can furnish definite proof of his position he had better maintain that generous, unbiased attitude of mind which welcomes truth even at the expense of cherished opinions. The almost countless phases of belief that have emanated from the popular concept of God should preclude mutual intolerance or antagonism, so long as these beliefs are honestly held and their influence is for the betterment of mankind. If one is confident that he is right, he can well afford to leave the establishment of this fact to divine wisdom and the fruits of experience; whereas the manifestation of bigotry or uncharitableness towards the views of others is a sure sign that if one's beliefs are right at least his practice of them is not.

The Leader of the Christian Science movement in a recent article sums up the entire wisdom of the question when she says: "It is of comparatively little importance what a man thinks or believes he knows; the good that a man does is the one thing needful and the sole proof of rightness" (Mrs. Eddy in The Independent). If this rule were the guide of judgment, the attacks upon the Christian Science movement and its revered Leader would cease, and the great blessings which they have bestowed upon humanity would be recognized and acknowledged. And what other right way is there whereby to judge of one's own or of others' beliefs than by the good resulting therefrom? Men do not abandon the opinions of a lifetime, nor leave the legacy of their ancestral faith, without a weighty and sufficient reason. They do not change their beliefs for the mere love of change, and the very fact that they have done so should appeal to the considerate judgment of others even if it does not win their approval. Those who have turned from their former beliefs to accept the teachings of Christian Science have done so because of the larger good received by them, and for nothing else. If they are deriving more help, physical, moral, or spiritual, than they found possible before, what rational cause is there why they should not make the change? To pass upon their course from any other point of view than the welfare of those most concerned, is to be guilty of the overweening dogmatism that says, "No one can be right that does not believe as I do."

Is it not true that humanity would never have progressed out of its cruder conditions had not some brave spirits dared to cross the boundaries of popular opinion and open the way to better and higher things? One has but to look back to the darker ages of the race to see that the spirit of intolerance is the spirit of savagery and of animalism. Had mortals remained content with existing opinions regarding the universe and the so–called laws of nature, we should never have had the telephone or a railroad, we should never have had the Copernican system, nor the discovery of our western hemisphere, nor the Reformation. Think of this, and what it means! Coming to our own age, if Mrs. Eddy had not dared to cross swords with popular material and theological opinions, the world would not have received Christian Science at this time; but that she had the courage to do this, and to give to mankind the results of her discovery, delivering thousands from sin and suffering, should forever shield her from persecution in a country whose people have struggled through oppression and bloodshed for their liberties.

After all, a mortal's opinions are the least part of him, and the part he can afford to lose with least loss. One needs no opinion and has none concerning what he knows: and hence opinions are little more than confessions of ignorance or uncertainty. An opinion may be right or it may be wrong, one cannot decide which until the truth is learned and demonstrated. One's opinion concerning Christian Science proves nothing either way, and is an impossible basis for correct criticism. That one may or may not believe a thing, is of no value in determining the actual truth of the matter. One may sacredly cherish the religious beliefs of his fathers, and feel firmly convinced of their truthfulness, and yet have no ground of practical certainty to stand upon with regard to them. Such a position does not warrant him in attacking the beliefs of others, and especially when proof is offered in support thereof. One may with dignity and respect differ with the teachings of Christian Science, if in broad–minded hospitality he recognizes the right of all to worship God after the manner that appeals most to them; but to aggressively antagonize what we may not understand and cannot disprove, is at best unwise and unjust. The enmity of any person or persons against any cause, no matter what their position or reputation, does not in any degree determine its worthiness; its own nature and its influence upon its followers alone decide if it be good or bad.

It is possibly a matter of opinion, with an individual or a body, as to what extent the truth of God's omnipotence shall be accepted and practised; but the whole world's opinion does not affect the fact itself, nor its availability in mortals' behalf. The fact, and not the opinion entertained of it, is the one important thing. It were a sad outlook for the salvation of the race if Christianity were founded upon human beliefs and conclusions, instead of upon the actual demonstration of the eternal verities of divine Truth. Mortal opinions are ever changing, but there is no change in the fundamental facts of being which Jesus relied upon and taught. Even the best human belief or opinion is not the interpreter of Truth. The teachings of Christian Science are not the outcome of personal belief; rather are they the revelation of God's omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence,—of His allness. These truths are the essentials of Christianity, and who shall weigh his opinions in the same scale with them?

The only justification for assailing a cause is that of wrong–doing; but even its opponents admit the good results that flow from Christian Science. Many medical men even admit that it does heal disease in many cases where they have failed; some of our foremost clergymen admit the moral reformations it is accomplishing and the peace and harmony it has brought to many lives, and all classes of observers have noted and admitted its Christian and beneficent influence upon its adherents. These must be the things that decide its truth and worth, and not the pronouncement of adverse opinions, formed and maintained through ignorance of the subject by those who are culpably negligent of opportunities to learn. One may become familiar with a house as it appears to him from the outside, but from that point of view would it not be folly to declare what are or what are not its interior arrangements? Yet this is the method of some who attempt to analyze Christian Science, or claim to write its history.

In view of the fact that in nearly every community there are numbers of Christian Scientists of unimpeachable integrity, many of whom are in the higher walks of life, who stand ready to testify of the uplifting and ennobling influence of Christian Science upon their lives,—their health, their character, and their home,—and will gladly assist in any honest investigation of their belief and practice; in view of this palpable fact, the continued misrepresentation of Christian Science or of its Leader can have no other animus than malice and hate. Such procedure must stand self–condemned before all fair–minded and just men. In the name of humanity, and in common love of our kind, why not let every good work, of whatever name, go on, and in the name of God do with its might what it can toward the alleviation of the world's misery?

Differing opinions may be entertained concerning a tree, but when the fruit turns out to be good the decision is beyond dispute. All honest opinions yield to proof. Opinions adhered to in the face of fact are essentially dishonest, they are inconsistent with moral uprightness. The history of the Christian Science movement is being written in the good it is accomplishing in the healing of disease and sin, in the overcoming of all the phases of the belief in evil. The whole nature and purpose of this movement is toward the accomplishment of these things in conformity with Jesus' command, and to write or attempt to write its history apart from or in belittlement of this fact, is as vain as would be the attempt of a botanist to describe a tree accurately without considering its fruit. As the bearing of fruit is the whole life–purpose of a tree, so the redemption of mankind from all evil, moral and physical, is the all–inclusive purpose of Christian Science; and all the efforts of its detractors cannot make bad this tree that bears such good fruit.