Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1899-06-29
A CRITICISM
or Rev. Dr. Kantner Is Answered by
That Gentleman,

THE Journal presented its readers
with synopsis Of Rev Kantner's SER
mon on "Why Cannot Accept Chris
an Science7' Later his sermon was
published in full in another paper, and
was the strongest local presentment that
has been made against Christian Science.
Mr.. Kantner is an educated gentleman,
an eloquent preacher, and progressive
thinker, who has the courage Of his con-
victions, inclining somewhat to the doc
trines Of Christian socialism. The
JouRNAL prints Rev. Kantner's reply 10
Consistency" not 10 carry on a con-
troyersy but TO present both sides of a
question, just as it prints articles on
both sides Of the Expansion question.
Toleration in matters Of opinion is a
sacred principle in a free country. =
Ed. j.
THE CRITICISM or THAT LECTURE.
EDITOR JoURNAL:--The criticism OF
my lecture on Christian Science, which
appeared in Tuesdays issue would not
need word Of reply II all your readers
had n copyof my lecture 10 read side by
side with the labored effort Of the critic.
As many read the criticism, who did
not read the address; and as the criti-
cism is 10 belated that many who did
read the address do not now have IL 10
make a comparison, few words OF crit.
icism Of the critics criticism may not
| be wholly unnecessary.
The critic, despite the disclaimer is
evidently deeply in sympathy with
Christian Science, or lives next door 10
some OF It's followers. A striking illus
tratiOn of that sympathy is seen in the
claim Of several millions OF Christian
Science adherents, when Carol Norton,
G. $. d., speaking for the Christian Sci
entists in the Independent for January
3, 1892 reports total membership of
| 10000, with from 10000 TO 800 900 adj
ditional adhercnts, who do not adhere
enough 90 join.
Another illustration of a vivid imag-
| inatiOn is seen i'm the charge that | com.
| pared the Christian Science ladies. of
| Salem, with the MOrmons. Only pref.
udice could discover any such thing in
the address. | simply compared the
two distinctively American systems Of
religions with each other, AZ systems of
| theology and discovered remarkable
similarity which no one can deny.
Then in the matter of finance. II
Christian Science simply professed To be
a system Of medical practice no objec-
| tiOn could be made TO its custom of
charging fees for it's reported cures, but
when IL processes 10 rc-discover Christ's
method Of healing, ii has evidently
failed 10 discover an important feature
| OF the Christ-method, when il makes
provision for such immense money re-
turns. II the critic has succeeded in
turning the financial question on the
preacher, the preacher fails to see il. ID
is certainly clear that the critic is not
very well acquainted with the Bible or
such astounding assertions and illogical
positions would not be taken. The
preacher does not assume TO be divine
healer. lie heals no one of his sins. as
the critic charges. lie believes i'm no
one ~ u divine healer, but Jesus Christ,
and 10y his side lac does not for mo.
ment place any one ~ deserving 10 be
classed with Him. Jesus Christ's
method Of healing was without money
and without price. To rediscover his
method involves the discovery of the
whole method.
That Christian Scientists practically
put Mrs. Eddy in the place of Jesus
Christ, the critic in very confus Il way
tries TO deny, but does not succeed.
The critic has been informed, and in
formed, but in some ease sadly mis-in-
| formed.
That Christian Science makes no war.
fare on the churches and does not solicit
mcuIbers isa case. OF fmis-information. DR..
| flunoia filings at the Christian church
| Itt nj .t.Hg. 4 Al.
sertiOn, and know OF a number of cases
where persons have been pursued and
| troubled with the importunitv of
Scientists in their efforts to get them 10
take up Christian Science. Ii is very
strange that Scientists are requested 10
leave their churches il Christian Science
make no warfare ON the church. simply
cite these facts for the information
of the critic. Others do not
need IT, The "information" that
my citations are not correct is am
other ease of mis-iniormation. The in
sinuation of the critic may pass for what
II ~ worth. OF course the frequent
changes In the revelation" makes il
difficult To keep up with the "reyela-
ton.
Though am charged with being il. !
logical, and with making astounding AS
sertion, have looked in vain for logic. |
or cool deliberate reasoning. and /
absence of astounding assertion
ia the critics attempted an /
alysis. am sorry that the critic did /
not profit by my mistakes. "To him /
who knoweth 10 do good and doeth il |
not, To him it il sin.
The plea Tor fair play is evidently not
sincere; or why object Ia the presenta- 4
tion Of incontNyertible facts from the .
standpoint of Christianity, after DIR.
Fluno had presented the iancies of |
Christian Science2
Most respectfully,
W. G, HAMMER,
Salem, June 2S 1879.
ANOTHER WOMAN WRITES