In you issue of the 13th ult. you published an article...

Christian Register

In you issue of the 13th ult. you published an article entitled "Excommunication," in which you say the Unitarian "church door stands ever open for all classes," and that "to any protesting voice it might be replied that the office of the church as that of the Christ is not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." The spirit of liberality is indeed commendable, but in marked contrast therewith the Register of the 20th contains an article by the Rev. John Snyder which advocates a campaign against a class of people who, he admits, are "righteous," but who are not identified with his church. Evidently Mr. Snyder does not agree with the editor of the Christian Register that persons should be left unmolested in their individual religious beliefs. On the contrary he goes so far as to advocate the circulation of literature which upon examination we discover to be nothing more nor less than a misrepresentation of the teaching of Christian Science.

Mr. Snyder declares that Christian Science is not new, but only "a new label for an old thing." He offers as his authority for this statement an opinion of an Indian Pundita who is said to have visited America, and "when it [Christian Science] was explained to her, said, 'That is not new. We have had it in India for four thousand years. It has ruined thousands of lives!" I am glad that our critic mentioned the point, "When it was explained to her, she replied," etc. As a matter of fact many persons have offered "explanations" of Christian Science which utterly fail to give a correct understanding of the subject. Some say, "It is just like spiritualism"; others say, "It is like theosophy"; others, "It is mental suggestion," etc. Just how it can be like all of these various things, which differ very greatly from each other, no one has attempted to explain, and we suspect that the only reason Christian Science has been likened unto these various isms is because the one who makes the "explanation" has the impression that they are not popular, and hence they are mentioned in connection with Christian Science as an indirect way of calling names. In any event, it is manifest that some of them must be wrong; for, as we have said, Christian Science could not possibly be like them all, since they are unlike each other. In regard to the Pundita's opinion, the difficulty was evidently with the explanation made to her, and not with Christian Science. The mere fact that she was impressed that Christian Science is like Hinduism is proof positive that it was not properly "explained to her," but, on the contrary, misrepresented.

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.