The fact that a clergyman would not allow a lecture on Christian Science to appear in your columns without giving vent to a tirade of vilification, is one of the signs of these times. An evolution of religious thought is going on, and the rate of its progress is indicated by the nature of the opposition it has aroused.

The speaker whose lecture was recently published, preached the gospel of Christ as it is understood in Christian Science, and left all other religionists to do the same from their different points of view. He presented what he had found to be true, in a dignified, orderly, and dispassionate manner, so that all who might be interested in his subject could calmly consider the points we stand for in the quiet of their own meditation. This was something which your reverend and censorious correspondent would not tolerate. He said, "The American people are a busy folk, and have not time to think out the answer to every word-puzzle." In fine, he reasserted the claim—outworn by the clergy of a former period—that the people are not able to think for themselves.

It is to be observed, however, that your correspondent paid but little attention to the particular lecture for which his letter was to be an answer, since it for the most part consisted in a prolonged effort to say whatever might be prejudicial to Christian Science. Only on one point did he fairly state the teaching of Christian Science, and even this single point was not without erroneous comment. After stating that Christian Scientists do not believe that Christ is God (and it is true they do not believe that Jesus is God), your correspondent went on to say: "Christian Science thus breaks with historic Christianity, and allies itself with Unitarianism, Judaism, and Mohammedanism against the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, the incarnation."

What is "historic Christianity"? If it is something different from what was taught by Christ Jesus, Christian Science does indeed break with it. On the other hand, if it is the Christianity he taught, as this is recorded in the Bible, then Christian Science is based on it and identical with it. For Christians at least, the question whether Jesus is God ought to be settled by what he said. He must have known whether he was man or God, and this subject is within the scope of the topics on which he spoke. If therefore he were God, he would have said so plainly and often. Your readers are accordingly invited to consider the following facts: First, Jesus never said that he was God; second, he spoke of himself as "a man who hath told you the truth;" third, twice he virtually denied that he was God; fourth, several of his sayings are flatly inconsistent with the theory that he is the Deity.

The gospel record also shows that Jesus did not teach that God is three persons, but plainly taught that He is one. When a scribe asked him, "Which is the first commandment of all?" the answer which Jesus gave included the words, "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." The scribe's reply which Jesus expressly approved, included the words, "There is one God; and there is none other but he." The truth thus affirmed and reaffirmed was the cardinal point or central fact in the religion of the Jews. They had always steadfastly held to the oneness of God. Surely it cannot be said that Jesus intended to introduce a contrary belief. The theory of three persons in one was formulated by the ecclesiastics of a later time.

On this subject the New International Encyclopedia contains the following information: "The doctrine of the trinity is not found in its fully developed form in the Scriptures; but is supposed to be fully revealed in its elements in the New Testament. It is generally conceded, however, that the Christians of the second and even of the third century did not treat the subject with the same definiteness and accuracy of expression as later writers." In this extremely moderate comment is the fact, guardedly stated, that the doctrine of a personal trinity dates from the fourth century. Perhaps this was the beginning of what your correspondent described as "historic Christianity." However this may be, the introduction of this theory was the beginning of an endless disputation, during which doctrine more than demonstration, words rather than works, liturgy instead of life, became the accepted criterion of ecclesiastical Christianity.

Although Christian Science does not deify Jesus, it neither breaks with his Christianity nor agrees with the religions which reject the Scriptural account of the conception that led to his birth. "The divine origin of Jesus," Mrs. Eddy has written on page 539 of Science and Health, "gave him more than human power to expound the facts of creation, and demonstrate the one Mind which makes and governs man and the universe." Christian Science, therefore, attaches much importance to Mary's spiritual conception, and to his knowledge of it. Without this wonderful proof of God's fatherhood, Jesus might not have been able to say in his youth, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" nor able afterward to perceive and teach the further fact of spiritual being, "Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

And what is to be said about "the incarnation"? On this subject also Christian Science goes directly to what is written in the Scriptures, and ascribes first importance to the teachings of the Master. He did not use the word incarnation, nor any word of which it is a translation; but he said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Did he mean that he was the Father? At present nobody claims that he meant this. What did he mean? According to the first chapter of Genesis God created man to be "his own image," and according to John the divine life "which was with the Father" was made manifest to human perception through Jesus the Christ.

With entire consistency Mrs. Eddy has said: "Man is not absorbed in Deity, and man cannot lose his individuality, for he reflects eternal Life ... The divine nature was best expressed in Christ Jesus, who threw upon mortals the truer reflection of God and lifted their lives higher than their poor thought-models would allow,—thoughts which presented man as fallen, sick, sinning, and dying" (Science and Health, p. 259). It was the mission of Jesus the Christ to demonstrate the truth of being so that we may know it and be free,—free from all that is adverse to the welfare of man. This he was able to do, and did, not because he was God, but because he was, as St. Paul declared, "the first-born among many brethren." He manifested for himself and for us the infinite Life which is not confined in man, but is reflected in the truth or reality of being by all men. It was therefore possible for his to say, "Because I live, ye shall live also."

I reiterate that the letter to which I have referred did not truly present the teachings of Christian Science on any other point, and I shall speak briefly of two comments which your correspondent made on the works of Christian Science and the conduct of Christian Scientists. He said, "Christian Science has been the death of hundreds of confiding men and women." If these words have any logical meaning, they imply that there is some method other than Christian Science by which death can be surely averted or prevented; but such is not the case. In the entire history of the world no method of preventing or overcoming death, other than original Christianity, ever has been developed to the point of perfection in practice. At the present time Christian Science is the most effective and reliable method of dealing with mortality that is known to mankind.

In 1909 the government printing office at Washington issued a "Report on National Vitality" which was prepared for the national conservation commission by Prof. Irving Fisher of Yale University. In this report Professor Fisher said: "There is no reason why it [the medical profession] should have lost hundreds of thousands of patients to Christian Science, except that these patients were for the most part benefited, and greatly benefited, by Christian Science after having received no benefit, and often injury, from the profession."

The clergyman further said: "Mrs. Eddy's disciples are busy curing ills that Mrs. Eddy denies exist. On the very face of the returns they are practising humbug. They are curing where there is no disease." It would seem that the same conduct may appear to be either evil or good from different points of view. For example, the editors of the Living Church, although of the same communion with your correspondent who has spoken evil of us, have seen our efforts in a different light. Their comment, as recently published, was this: "Christian Scientists are now taking seriously the command to heal the sick; and they are having much success."