Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-14
REPLYTo DR.. LOTION.

What Christian Science Student Has
to Say About the Doctors Criti-
cism OF Christian Science.
Editor virginfan-P Pilot:
In your issue OF January 18th you pub
lished the address of DR.. Lotion, the
retiring president of the Seaboard Med
ical Association, in which he says some
very disparaging things about Chris
tian Science. You WILL ] am sure, give
a student of Christian Science space in
your paper to reply.
I believe that DR.. Lotion Is too gen
erous to be knowingly unjust, and I
am sure he would not have written or
said what he did ir he had been fa-
miliar with Christian Science. The sur
prise is that he attempted to criticise
anything With which he was not ac-
quainted. That he has not given Sc
rious study to Christian Science I feel
sure. One might suppose from what
he says that this Science teaches that
material things are. TO the physical
senses. Imaginary" I would like to
say here, for the benefit of DR.. Lotion
and the public. that It does not SO
teach. 1t does. however, teach 'men-
tai causation." which is very differ
cnt thing. 1t teaches that we'll mind
will produce Il we'll body. and sick
mind will produce sick body; that as
the condition of the body is product
of mental action its undesirable con-
ditions can be corrected by going to the
cause.-the mnd-and correcting that
DR. Lotion says that Christian
Science Is a bundle of Ignorance and
superstition" AS he doesn't under
stand Christian Science-as shown by
his Use OF the word ''imaginarv"--
nlicl,t T ell L.,
ignorance. Sc" Certainly DR. Lotion
has discovered before this that IL will
not do to brand as Ignorance" every
thing with which We are not acquaint-
ed. He knows that the Copernican
theory OF the solar system, which the
world now accepts as the truth, was
at one time considered "a bundle of ig-
norance'-but did that make it so?
Not by n great deal.
Or. Lotion says Christian Science is
n "misnomcr." How can he mako such
statement when he does not under
stand Christian Science? Without un-
derstandng its teachings. how does he
know whether il is misnamed or not?
He seems to think so because the
name combines "Chiistianity'' with
Science" He appears to believe that
those words have no relation. In fact,
he says that Christ did not have any
science in His makeup" Is that true?
Has DR.. Lotion thought seriously, has
he pondered that assertion? Is he pre-
pared TO reiteratc that He. of whom it
was said never man spake like this
man." who Taught as one having an
thority," and who revealed things that
had been kept secret from the foun-
dation OF the world" had mo science in
His make-up?"
DR.. Lotion says science means
facts" and Wcbsters International
dictionary says it means "asccrtained
truth or facts" Is DR.. Lotion pre-
pared to contend seriously that He who
came 10 ''fulfll the law" didn't have
the "ascertalned truth or facts" of
being? And il Jesus did have the
"ascertancd truth" didn't he have
Science in His make-up?" So what
becomes Of pr. Lotions assertion? And
if Dr. Lotion made such rash asser-
ton about Jesus. may he not have been
Just rs rash in what lie asserted about
Christian Science? Agan--is it posi-
ble that He who could draw upon the
divine store-housc--ha the resources
OF the Creator OF The Universe at His
command-was not scientific. was not