Christian Science.

To the Editor:—I was much interested in certain statements by Judge Hanna in connection with the proposed prosecution of certain Christian Science healers (so-called). I have just returned from England after several months' absence, and can say that his statement, that Mr. Harold Frederic (whose death called such marked attention to the subject) was for a considerable time under the unsuccessful care of regular physicians previous to the employment of the Christian Science practitioners, is the general understanding of the case in England. There was at the time a vigorous attempt made by the health authorities and medical practitioners to incite popular indignation, but, in spite of the fact that the parties involved were very humble and obscure persons, the case dropped of its own weight.

While abroad I was for a time the guest of Major Edward Todd Smith, a bluff old Scotch soldier, little given to nursing fads or foibles, and he informed me that his family had in several instances been benefited by the practice.

In one issue of the Traveler I notice a symposium by a number of Boston divines. Now, all these gentlemen hold to certain theological tenets, based upon selections from what is assumed to be divine revelation. They each believe in his own special road to heaven, and each holds the other to be partially or wholly wrong. They do, however, display a singular unanimity in condemning the Christian Scientist. It is certainly pert and may appear sufficiently convincing to these self-contained gentlemen, to wrap about them the robes of mental superiority, and exclaim, "It is neither science nor Christianity," but, unfortunately for them, the average person will require some facts and arguments.

That the practice is unscientific will be demonstrated by an authority more competent than any minister of the gospel. That matter exists and is susceptible of change under certain conditions is well understood. The absolute failure of the practice in the realm of surgery is too clear to be discussed. The influence of mind over matter, while recognized, is not important. We hear much of the man who leaps from his bed, triumphantly, refusing to be ill. It is the experience of physicians that such apparent triumphs usually destroy the chance that might exist for recovery.

That Christian Science is Christian and finds its support in Holy Writ is as susceptible of acceptation as any other Christian postulate. From that day, ten days after the ascension of the Lord, nearly nineteen hundred years ago, when the apostles stood in the streets of Jerusalem to preach the new dispensation, the Scriptures bristle with references to this practice. The divine intervention was a potent force in the spread of the gospel. When reason found difficulty in accepting the preaching, the miracle was at hand to supply the deficiency. The history of the primitive church is equally eloquent on this point. The whole woof and warp of Christianity is interwoven with this principle of divine intervention. The field of Christian Science may be invaded by the charlatan. Is not this fact notoriously true of all religions? The livery of the Lord is much valued by the devil. Charlatanism is as old as religion. The doctrine of Christian Science may be wrong, probably is, but so long as its acknowledged aims are good, so long as the belief is shared by apparently intelligent and virtuous men; so long as its tenets find their origin and support in the supposed revealed divine Word, it is entitled to respectful attention and cheerful toleration from all, but particularly from other denominations.

Yours very truly,
Malden. Capt. Thos. Townsend.

To the Editor:—Captain Thomas Townsend of Malden, Mass., in a letter to the Traveler, volunteers his testimony as a disinterested witness that Judge Hanna, editor of the Christian Science Journal and Sentinel, has correctly stated the facts in regard to the Harold Frederic case, the captain's information having been gained in England, whence he has just returned.

He manifests a spirit of cordial toleration, which is very much to his credit, for it is apparent from his letter that he has not studied Christian Science, but has learned to respect it because of the favorable impression he has gained from his acquaintance with people who are trying to be Christian Scientists.

Captain Townsend rebukes the intemperate zeal of clergymen in denouncing Christian Science as being "neither Christian nor science," when its claim to Christianity is so clearly supported by Scripture. Such fair-minded championship from a non-Scientist is much appreciated by us, and, that he may like our cause still more, we wish to assure the captain that he is mistaken in implying that the practice of Christian Science is unscientific, that "the absolute failure of the practice in the realm of surgery is too clear to be discussed," and that "the doctrine of Christian Science may be wrong, probably is."

The practice of Christian Science is not unscientific, but, on the contrary, it is pre-eminently scientific. Materia medica is unscientific for the following reasons: It is without either fixed principle or rules of practice, and two practitioners of the same school even, will seldom or never agree on either diagnosis or treatment, and neither will be likely to agree with himself on two days of the same week. Materia medica busies itself with treating effects. It may trace a fever to the stomach and say that a congestion in that organ is the cause of the fever, but it does not recognize the scientific fact that the primary cause of all physical phenomena is mental, and proceed to handle the cause.

Christian Science is scientific in practice because it handles the cause of sickness and proves the correctness of its method by the resultant cure. It is scientific because all true Christian Scientists have the same text-book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," by Mary Baker G. Eddy, and all of them practise in accordance with the rules laid down in this book, and practitioners in every part of the earth obtain results that are so nearly identical by employing the same methods, that the rules may properly be said to have been scientifically demonstrated.

Whether or not Christian Science has failed in the realm of surgery is simply a question of fact. We know that Christian Science is successful in the realm of surgery, and Captain Townsend or any other sincere investigator can be provided with the means of obtaining enough proof to convince him that it is.

If Captain Townsend will question a few Christian Scientists and learn of the priceless benefits each one has received since becoming a convert to this scientific Christianity, he will be convinced that a religion which can do and is doing so much good for mankind cannot be wrong.

Henry D. Nunn.