The
rights of persons who elect to employ Christian Science to preserve or recover their health, do not depend solely upon the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom.
An article in a recent issue indicates your appreciation of Christian Science, and I am therefore sure you will be glad to correct a misapprehension that might occur from reading the statement in your columns.
My attention has been drawn to a paragraph in a recent issue, in which the term "faith-healing" is used as if it were synonymous with Christian Science, and I will ask you to allow me to say that there is a very great gulf fixed between what is known as faith-healing and the practice of Christian Science.
If Christian Science were what our critic claims it to be, there would be nothing left to consider, because there would be neither Christian Science nor Christian Scientists; but fortunately for all, the truth it teaches enables every one to prove each step of the way in individual consciousness.
When the critic of Canon McClure's recent book set out to criticize that book in the columns of your newspaper, it would have been wiser and in better taste had be confined himself to that object.
The report in the Star of a sermon delivered at Bethany Park, credits a minister from Columbus with statements which show a lack of correct information on his part.
In a recent issue, under the heading of "The Healing of the Mind," you say that you wish some doctor would write sympathetically and with practical knowledge of what is comprehensively known as faith-healing.
"If
I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you," said Jesus, showing as clearly by his words as by his works the "consummate naturalness".
