In your issue of the 16th the Rev. Carlyle Summerbell makes rejoinder to my reply in the following words: "What I ventured to suggest was that Christian Science, while denying philosophically the existence of the body, gave paramount attention to the health of the body." He adds, "I judged this, not only from Christian Science literature, but from oral Christian Science testimonies, which I myself heard given in The Mother Church in Boston." The difficulty is that the clerical gentleman has overlooked the fact that gratitude of one who has been bodily healed through Christian Science is not so much a rejoicing because of a relief from pain, as it is because he has proven the power of God to overcome evil and discord. Jesus said, "Rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." Christian Science points to the spiritual benefit as a means of bodily improvement. It opens the door of understanding to the recognition of man's eternal inseparability from his Maker.

It is of course not at all surprising if some who have been healed in Christian Science are more conscious of the bodily improvement than of their spiritual benefits, as in the time of Jesus. Such may be amenable to rebuke. Be this as it may, the fact still remains that the prime object of Christian Science is to "improve the spiritual condition of its beneficiaries," and we would add here that we agree with our critic that "this is the mission of all religious denominations." Furthermore, experience will convince those who seek the benefit of Christian Science that the best results, the most substantial results, accrue to those who are willing to part with their sins, which are in reality the foundation of their trouble. It is not the goodness in the individual that gets sick, but his materiality. Christian Science acts as a preventive as well as a cure to those who are willing so to purge themselves as to become immune from discord, the just penalty for wrong-doing. Paul said, "The sting of death is sin." The sting that ultimates in death is sin. The term sin in the text is used in its broad sense and applies to ignorant blunders as well as wilful wrong-doing. Christian Science does not teach that man has no body. It teaches that man is the image and likeness of God. It repudiates only the false material concept of man. Healing the body does not mean a restoration or an increase of materiality. The body is better and looks better after Christian Science treatment because, under the influence of a higher, more spiritual consciousness it has become somewhat transformed, is less material and more spiritual.

The gentleman declares, "Personally I believe that Christian Science has often proved itself of practical value, in nervous diseases, where the patient simply thinks himself sick," etc. "But," he adds, "has Christian Science ever cured a single case of organic disease?" Upon what ground does the gentleman assume that it has not cured organic disease? He gives no reason, although he offers Dr. Cabot of Boston as his witness. How does Dr. Cabot, or any one else, know that Christian Science has not cured organic diseases? B. O. Flower of Boston, Mass. (5 Park Square), recently published a book, entitled "Christian Science as a Religious Belief and a Therapeutic Agent," which contains affidavits and statements that prove beyond all question that organic diseases have been cured by Christian Science treatment, if the testimony of experienced physicians may be accepted as evidence; and it is proper to say here that, if the testimony of Dr. Cabot is worth anything on this subject, the testimony of other physicians of experience should be considered. Mr. Flower has proved by the testimony of eminent physicians that organic diseases have been cured by Christian Science.

Dr. Cabot declares concerning Christian Science testimonies: "Their claims were the result of mistake or intellectual mistiness, and not of intentional deception." A few examples of medical diagnosis may not be amiss at this point. A lady had been treated for several years by a physician, who diagnosed her case as tuberculosis of the lungs. As a last resort she turned to Christian Science and was cured. The physician who had treated the case, when called upon to give her a certificate to the effect that she had formerly had consumption, declined to do so, affirming that he had "mistakenly diagnosed the case; that the woman had not had consumption, for if she had she could not have been cured by Christian Science. The fact that she had been cured by Christian Science was evidence that she did not have consumption to begin with."

A gentleman had been examined by one of the most noted, if not the most noted, specialist in this country, who pronounced his case Bright's disease in an incurable form. He was afterward healed by Christian Science and then returned to the specialist. After two very careful and painstaking examinations the famous doctor threw up his hands and very gravely said, "For the first time in my life I have been mistaken in my diagnosis. You never had Bright's disease." Is it any wonder that the Christian Scientist declines to have this question settled by the diagnosis of physicians? As a matter of fact a physician cannot believe that it is possible for a patient to be cured of a real disease by Christian Science and at the same time maintain his own belief in the incurability of the given disease, and it is useless to attempt to settle the question by physicians' testimonies as to the "before and after taking."

In conclusion we venture the assertion that the Rev. Mr. Summerbell might dispute the healings of Jesus and his apostles on the same ground that he brushes aside the healings of Christian Science. There is just as much ground upon which to assume that the Master did not heal organic diseases as there is to assume that Christian Science does not heal such cases. To insist that it is not possible to heal organic cases is to insist that Jesus and his disciples did not heal organic cases, or that when he urged his disciples and all Christians to "heal the sick," he meant only to heal those who simply "thought they were sick" and yet were not sick. To insist upon the impossibility of curing real disease by the divine power is to limit the divine power and amounts to an implication that Jesus and his disciples did not heal real diseases. We insist that God has never changed, that His laws have never changed, but that His power is as capable of demonstration now as it was in the early days of Christianity.