In a brief extract from a sermon which was reported in a recent issue of The Oregonian, it would seem that the clergyman was attacking that system of religious thought which denies the reality of sin, sickness, and death; and further, that he was attempting to show that such denial is contrary to Jesus' teachings.
[On March 17 the supreme court of California rendered a decision construing the constitutionality of the medical practice act, which had been attacked upon the ground that it was class legislation, inasmuch as it did not require all kinds of practitioners to pass the examinations.
As the patient shepherds saw the star that gave them hope of a savior, so disappointed travelers, the earth weary and heavy laden, are today finding that same star of hope in this new light of Truth which our beloved Leader, Mrs.
A CRITICISM
of Christian Scientists, once very common, was after this manner: "They are provincial; they never talk about anything except Christian Science.
So
accustomed are mankind to accepting without question the testimony of the physical senses, that many an inquirer, when confronted with the truth revealed in Christian Science, is moved to exclaim like Nicodemus, "How can these things be?
WHEN
the patriarch Samuel set up his Eben-ezer "between Mizpeh and Shen," on the occasion of a signal victory over the Philistines, he not only commemorated God's ability to help, but foreshadowed a willingness to do so, and intimated large possibilities in this direction throughout all time.
A letter published in your paper contained the following statements: "I have a hearty admiration for the Christian Scientist who can actually make himself believe there is no pain when his body is racked by it.
Perhaps the principal cause of our reverend critic's failure to understand Christian Science is found in his inability to perceive the difference between the real and the unreal, and as this distinction constitutes the groundwork of Christian Science teaching, it is well worth our while to consider it.
