The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-01-15

A REPUTATION and nm Explanation in
Behalf of That Belief.

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:
In your issue of the 18th inst. a paragraph
is issued concerning Mrs. Eddy's successor,
etc, in refutation of which 1 respectfully
ask space to state to your readers as fol-
lows: First, neither Mrs. Stetson nor anyone
else has ever been mentioned as the success
sor of Mrs. Eddy; the paragraph being
based upon a New York city newspaper
reporters surmise, which was promptly
contradicted in the same paper over Mrs.
Stetson's signature. Second, the annual dues
of each member of the Boston Christian Sci
ence Church are 81, and these do not go to
Mrs. Eddy, as the paragraph in your paper
incorrectly stated. but to the church itself.
and there never has been any trouble over
the matter among the Christian Scientists,
and the gratuitous advice to them in the
paragraph is an unwarranted impertinence
from their opponents.
Your same issue also publishes a sermon
by Rev. j. Cumming Smith, Of your city,
in which an allusion is made to the Chris
ness, and which betrays a serious misappre-
hension on the preachers part in respect
TO the Christian Science doctrine concern
ing the efhcacy of prayer. The preacher
rightly argues in his sermon that our duty
TO pray to Goo for assistance does not ex-
cuse us from using the means and methods
FOR curing sickness which God intends us
to use and has placed within our reach for
US to use. But when the preacher argues
that, therefore, we should assist our pray
ers with drugs, we answer that he is guilty
or a non sequitur, unless it be taken for
granted that God intends us to use drugs
10 assist our prayer. Upon what authority
does the preacher take this for granted?
lie wholly fails TO state in his sermon. If
we take Christs teaching and example
as our guide in the matter, surely We are
taklng the best guide from the standpoint
of the Christian believer. Do Christ's
teachings and example show us that God
wishes to aid the efficacy of our prayers
10 him for assistance with drugs and ma
terial methods? No. They show that Christ
depended solely upon spiritual methods.
Sometimes His using the mud-and-spittle
on the blind mans eyes has been instanced
TO the contrary. But this is a puerility;
else he would have used 1t on the other
blind men whose sight was restored through
His ministry, and the apostles would have
used 1t, and the medical profession now
that God is the Great Physician" and
that "it is for Him that we live, and move,
and have our being" and the Bible no.
where teaches us that our prayer need to
be aided by pills, and that drugs and di-
vine help, If used together, are more trust
worthy than either of them alone. Yet the
preacher mentions Christian Science slight
lngly because ii teaches absolute depend
ence upon Gods loving kindness. Is a half
dependence upon God and the efficacy of
prayer intended to be urged by the preach
er? Yet that is the only logical outcome
of his allusion TO Christian Science.
Shall we leave the teachings and exam
pies of Jesus out of the inquiry, and try to
ascertain Gods intention in respect to the
use or drugs from authority or experience
solely human? Even if the preacher bases
his opinion of the necessity for drug medi-
cation upon his reading and observations
apart from the Bible. he will soon find that
the medical profession itself is largely at
sea in the matter. For example, he will
find that if the theory of homeopathy be
true, than ~allopathy IS pernicious and dan
gerous; and if allopathy be true. then home
opathy is pernicious and dangerous. If he
takes the opinions of many learned drug
physicians he will find that they doubt the
utility of drugs. One of them. for instance,
the well-known DR.. Oliver Wendell Holmes,
who was a medical lecturer for many years,
made the pungeEt statement that if all the
drugs in the United States were thrown
into the ocean il would be a good thing
for mankind, however disastrous it might
prove to the fishes. Many emphatic state
ments of a like tenor could be quoted from
medical writers. Did God intend forty
years ago that the doctors lancet should
assist prayer In sickness? Does the preacher
believe that only a score of years ago the
doctors added to the efficacy OF prayer by
denying water TO fever patients and by ad-
ministering potent drugs in typhoid cases?
If so, he differs from the doctors of to-day,
as well as from Christian Scientists. If
God intends the drug doctors TO be His al
lies. why does He permit them to change
their methods so often, as we'll as their
drugs? Doctors frequently administer
whisky as n drug TO sick people. sometimes
leading patients into lives of drunkenness.
Does the preacher really think that whisky
is an aid TO prayer? OF course, he will not
presume 10 substitute his own unlearned
Judgment for that OF an educated physician
If he consistently believes in drug medical
ton. And how about such a drug as CO.
caine. when it Is well known that il is now
largely abandoned by the medical profession
after its former extensive use sent hundreds
10 insane asylums and TO their graves?
Are these mistakes a part OF the Divine in
tentiOn that men shall use drugs 10 help the
therapeutical efforts of the Great Physician
TO whom omnipotence and omniscience be-
long? CLARENCE A. BUSkIRK,
OF the G. 5. Publication Committee.
Indianapolis, Jan, IA.