Mr. Editor.

E. H. Judkins, L.L.B., D.D., pays his ardent respects to me in the September issue of your Journal and challenges me to answer certain questions. He quotes my statement, "Christian Science does not aim to practise medicine."

This was made in answer to the assertion that Christian Scientists assume to be medical practitioners and are therefore liable to the regulations intended for the medical system. Laws regulating the practice of medicine insist that physicians shall be qualified in their special departments. A surgeon must understand that the amputation of a foot is more practical than the amputation of the head, and that the administration of strychnia is more dangerous than bread pellets. But the Christian Scientist administers no medicine, attempts no-surgical operations nor physical manipulations of any character; hence he does not need the restrictions which apply to those schools which deal with material remedies any more than the ordinary layman. Though the prayers of a Christian Scientist may be more effectual than those of his good neighbors who do not understand Christian Science, they are not therefore dangerous and not in need of legal restriction.

Dr. Judkins declares: "He has, in reply to another article of mine said that the 'basic lesson of this Science is Scriptural,' but failed to produce the proof." Will the gentlemen accept my apology therefor and give ear to my proof herein. Jesus declared, "God is Spirit." This is the basic lesson of Christian Science, and every statement contained in the Christian Science text-book is a consistent deduction therefrom.

Our critic declares: "One of the leading medical journals of Philadelphia has brought to the notice of the profession many cases of criminal neglect .... In that city two malpractitioners, probably of this cult, were recently held by the coroner for causing the death of an infant." I am well informed in respect to the case to which our critic refers, having made a thorough investigation of it, and I desire to say in unmistakable terms that Christian Science had nothing whatever to do with it. Merely excluding medicine and having nothing in its place is not the practice of Christian Scientists. The power of Christian Science may not be apparent to the eye, but that it nevertheless exists is proved by its results.

Our critic declares : "Two females 'Christian' Scientists, in Milwaukee, Wis., were indicted for practising medicine without a license." He adds, "They were convicted and fined," I am led to ask, if Dr. Judkins knew all about this case, why did he not say that the Supreme Court reversed the decison of the narrow-minded police judge, and the Christian Scientists were dismissed?

He declares: "In Victoria, B.C., a child died from laryngeal diphtheria lately; and the jury stated that the 'Christian Scientists' who maltreated the little boy 'did unlawfully kill and slay the said child.' " I have a letter from a reliable citizen of victoria, B.C., in answer to my inquiry, in which he declares, I would say that there is no truth whatever in the report you speak of. No child has died under Christian Science treatment in this city." Thus we note that of the three examples held up in such a flaming manner by our critic, two had nothing whatever to do with Christian Science, while the other case he misstates. It is not strange that those who are used to depending upon medicine, and have only a slight knowledge of the great benefits which have been accomplished through Christian Science, should consider a dependence upon this faith and the exclusion of medicine unsafe, but the Christian Scientist has proved convincingly to himself that a firm reliance upon God is the safest sort of a remedy for the ills of the flesh. There are multitudes today who testify to having been healed through Christian Science, after having exhausted all hope in other remedies. In view of such a record, there is little ground upon which to assume that those who believe in the use of medicine should be the sole guardians of the health of mortals. There is little ground upon which to plead for legislation forcing Christian Scientists to resort to those methods under which millions of their brethren have died.

Our critic asks, "If Christian Scientists do not aim to practise medicine, why do they try to treat diseases that doctors of medicine only are competent to treat under the laws of the state in which they live?" The question is not a competent one, since it assumes a proposition which has not yet been established. It has not been shown that the laws of any state exclude the practice of Christian Science, though this attempt has been made in several states. Since Christian Scientist practitioners have healed all manner of disease successfully, notwithstanding they have lost some cases, while, on the other hand, notwithstanding whatever of success may have crowned the efforts of medical practitioners, they, too, have lost cases, not to say many cases, upon what ground can it be assumed that the medical practice is a sufficient success to waive all dissatisfaction therewith, while Christian Science is set aside as worthless?

Our critic asks, "Why do Christian Scientists appear before committees in various states in opposition to bills regulating the practice of medicine, if they are not aiming to practise it?" I would respectfully call the gentleman's attention to the fact that Christian Scientists have appeared before committees for the purpose of urging that the laws relating to the practice of medicine shall be confined to the subject in hand, and shall not be manipulated in such a manner as to apply to those who heal by spiritual means and without medicine. Christian Scientists have no objection to the doctors' regulating themselves and their practice. It is the attempt to prevent Christian Scientists from praying for their sick to which they object.

As to the dealing with contagious disease on the part of Christian Scientists, I desire to say that no class of practioners are more extremely careful in respect to quarantine than Christian Scientists. They recognize the general law of contagion, and that even Christian Scientists who are not properly and sufficiently protected by their understanding of the divine power and presence are liable to contagion. Like other classes, they have troubles enough which come uninvited, and do not intentionally or wilfully venture into the presence of contagious disease. Furthermore, they are extremely careful not to allow their sick to mingle with others, for they seek to avoid intruding danger upon their neighbors, and do not care to incur the unnecessary risk and additional labor that might be incurred when their patients with contagious disease are allowed to mingle with others. It is in strict accord with the teaching of this Science, not contrary thereto, that they use care in this respect.

Our critic asserts that a Christian Scientist stated, " 'We do not believe in infectious diseases, and a person, if a Christian Scientist, could not contract such diseases.' " If a Christian Scientist made such an assertion, he was certainly unwise, to say the least. Christian Scientists do believe in infectious diseases, though they may differ from others in their interpretation of their nature, and why? Because they have not yet attained to a sufficient realization of what Christian Science teaches to enable them to unbelieve altogether in disease. A Christian Scientist, or a Christian who is one in the full sense of that term, would be a perfect man, and would be able to claim the promise of the Psalmist, "Because thou hast made the Lord, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling."

Christian Scientists are not boasting as to their ability to remain immune from disease. They only claim that they are safe in proportion to their reliance upon God. I doubt if any Christian Scientist was foolish enough to make the statement that he could without evil consequence "bring patients with the small-pox into a room with other persons, or send children to school with scarlet fever." This may be possible, but a Christian Scientist would consider it a very foolish thing to attempt. It would be entirely contrary to the teachings of Christian Science to do this, for it is part of the practice of this Science to avoid trouble as well as to overcome that which has already found judgment in us. If it was not right for the Master of Christianity to cast himself down to convince the devil, it certainly would not be right for Christian Scientists to do this for the purpose of convincing those who offer the same temptations which the devil suggested.

I am inclined to believe that successive generations of Christian Scientists will greatly improve the health and morals of mankind and increase their immunity from disease, and it is possible that a few hundred years from this present time there will be Christian Scientists far enough advanced to parade their patients with the small-pox in the presence of their neighbors without any trouble. But a Christian Scientist far enough advanced to justify such an have could probably heal small-pox instantly, and would have nothing to parade. At this period, it is enough for a Christian Scientist to undertake the healing of a patient, without incurring the necessity of preventing his neighbors who have been exposed to the disease, from taking it.

Our critic declares, "How many hundreds of innocent persons might thus be fatally stricken if 'Christian Scientists' could carry out their theories." The gentleman may rest assured that Christian Scientists are carrying out their theories. The only reason why the fatality to which he refers is not forthcoming is because the theories of Christian Scientists are not what he believes them to be. When he is better acquainted with Christian Scientists, their methods and their practices, he will certainly have a better opinion of them and will conclude that, after all, they are people of good sense and not dangerous to the community.

Our critic declares that Christian Science is not Christian Jesus said, "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also." The ability, on the part of Christians to do the works which Jesus did, demonstrates the degree of their Christianity according to the standard of Jesus, We repeat again, Christian Science is demonstrable. It is not a belief, nor an ism. It is not claimed that this Science is in harmony with the more material philosophies, but it is scientific from a Scriptural standpoint and proves its truth by its results, the healing of the sick according to the method which Jesus taught and practised. Moreover, many modern physicists approximate very nearly to the teaching of Christian Science: "All causation is mental."

Alfred Farlow.
In Journal of Medicine and Science.