Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-10-28
ANOTHER CHAPTER
On the Discussion of the Cult of
 Christian Science.
Editor Evening Democrat:


 In your edition of Saturday even-
 ing you publish a communication
 from one who signs herself Rose
 mary o. Anderson. In replying l am
 at the outset in a difficulty whether
 to consider. her Mrs or Miss. l will
 therefore use the word respondent. v
 I was in hopes that any reply would
 shed some light on the subject, but
 whether my mental obnubilosity is
 still at fault" l must confess that
 the respondent" has not clarified
 the atmosphere. To style her reply
 an answer would be a violent wrench ing of the truth. It has left unan-
 swered the main difficulties. The
 respondent" seems offended that 1
 used only fragmentary words. Most of my citations were not mere words
 but complete sentences, and am
 sure that comparison with the book Science and IIealth) will not show that the context gives them a mean ing other than l have attached to
 them. Besides, the whole book is
 only a series of unconnected asser-
 tions.
 The respondent" asserts that the classification of Mrs Eddy's doctrine
 with ancient and modern philosophies
 is an unfounGed statement. If Mrs Eddy's ''all is mind and mind is God" is not pantheism, then no such
 thing ever existed. If her dual per sonality in Christ is not Nestorian-
 ism, then all that history tells of in
 Nestorius is lie. If the denial of
 the reality of Christ's sufferings is not the heresy of the Docetal I am at loss to classify it. The "re- spondent" says: "Our critic takes exception to the teaching of Chris tian Science because this matter is no real part of creation." I certain ly do, for if matter is not created, then it is eternal. Then, too, the respondent" and Mrs Eddy and all of us existed, even as to our bodies, from all eternity, and here again is pantheism. The responder" states that I took exception to the state ment that physical science is de- duction from the testimony of the material senses" Here she is in error. What took exception to was Mrs Eddy's statement that natural science is not scientific because it is deduced from the evidence of the physical senses" What I asserted ly because it is 2 deduction from the physical senses.
 The respondent" seems offended that minister of the gospel should think the physical universe and ma terial laws are real and tangible things. I certainly believe that the universe is d very tangible thing. I believe that the respondent" herself is something quite tangible, and I believe also that if I were ungallant enough to give her a resounding whack in the face she would consid- CT my hand something real. If she herself is not real, what is she? Surely not "an airy, fairy" nothing The pen wherewith she penned her reply, was it not material pen? The book which she defends, and Mrs Eddy herself, are they not real? Nor can I see where I am opposed to the mission of Christ. Where Christ denied the reality of material things 1 am not aware. Was not the body, bruised and wounded for our in iquities, material body? Was not the blood he shed material blood? And his resurrection, far from being a denial. of the existence of the ma terial, derives it's transcendent glory from the fact that it was a brilliant victory of the spiritual over the ma terial. The respondent" could not have chosen 2 worse argument for her cause than the verses she cites from St Marks gospel. The very first verse she quotes, the fourteenth of the sixteenth chapter, says: And he upbraided them with their in- credulity because they did not be- lieve them who had seen him." Who were the them? Magdalen, Peter, the disciples of Emmaus. And were they not real, material beings? It is true that the Lord upbraided the apostles and disciples, not because they did not believe the spiritual to be real, but because they doubted the resurrection of Christ's material body.
 Divine metaphysics" says the respondent" concludes that only the spirit and spiritual manifesto tions to be real and eternal" If understand then rightly then our bodies are not real; the trolley car is not real; the steam engine is only a phantom, and so on ''ad infinitum." And divine science sets at naught all the teachings of the schools" Precisely what I contended, that it is not scientific in the ordinary ac- of the word. Again. "Di- vine science has proved adequate to heal all manner of disease and sin," which is in direct opposition to facts that prove that many patients have died whilst experimenting with the therapeutics of Chris tian science. Moreover, if the spirit only is real, it would be interesting to know how it can be afflicted with smallpox, the gout, appendicitis, etc.
 Jesus" says the respondent, de nounced all theories based on the testimony Of the material sense. He healed in opposition to all such the Ories." That Christ wrought miracu- lous cures gladly admit. But when, for example, ne cured the leper did he heal the spirit or the body?
 As to the healing powers of Chris | tian Science, I said nothing in con- i of it's doctrine in that re- spect- Mrs Eddy's work" says the l respondent" has been for the en- Tightening Ot man" If the Ire