It is openly apparent to the casual reader of Professor Riley's review of "The Quimby Manuscripts" that his view is that of the antagonist of Christian Science bent upon strengthening his preconceived conclusions, rather than that of the book reviewer undertaking to fairly evaluate the contents of a new volume.
Permit me to correct an erroneous statement as to the teachings and practice of Christian Science which your issue of recent date publishes in an article, "Many Modern Miracles," and under subhead of "Auto-suggestion Popular in London.
As
experience in dealing with humanity grows broader, one cannot fail to be impressed with the fact that all are looking for and endeavoring to reach a certain standard which, to them, embodies an ideal of correctness.
A writer in your "Free Lance" columns, under the heading of "Free Thinking and Churches" expresses some views on Christianity and takes occasion to say, "Christian Science is not a religion, it is a business.
Your issue of recent date carried a dispatch with a New York date line to the effect that the aid of the courts had been sought by a Christian Scientist for the collection of a claim against the estate of a former patient for "metaphysical help," and that it was the first time so far as known that one of this faith had employed legal means to force payment of such an account.
In an issue of your paper you publish a report of two sermons preached in the Ocean Grove Auditorium, and some of the reported statements do not accord with truth and fact.
