Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-04-02
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE ANSWER
To Medical Students Who Suggested
 Fighting Duel.

Editor of Democrat:
 In your issue of March 25th you | publish an article under the caption, Sensation in Duels," and cite the fact that two medical students from the Baltimore Medical college have challenged followers of Christian Science to the death with pure test l culture of streptoccus pyogenes.
 They say we are to rely upon medical treatment and our Christian Science friends upon their mode of l treatment for relief" and further say: Tt seems to us that a test, l fair and square, is the only means to prove or disprove the value and properties of medical treatment, or l the foolishness and fallacy of the | faith cure"
 Alfred Barlow, in replying to this challenge. in a recent issue Of the New York American, says in part: Will the gentleman allow me to say that they are several years late in their proposal. Christian Scien- lists have already made this test for themselves. They have had their experience, first, with medicine, and then with Christian Science, hence their choice. If these students are yet in need of a test, they have our permission to inject all the poison into their system that is acceptable to their taste. When they have failed to cure themselves by their material remedies, they can then turn to Christian Science 3s last resort, as we too have.
 To treat the subject seriously, we would say Christian Scientists, in so far as they are able, are Eracticing in accord with the precepts and ex- ample of our Lord, and l know no instance where he accepted chal- lenge to prove his power over the devils propositions. His reply was, Get thee behind me, Satan,' and know of no reason why this same reply should not be made to those who are to-day making the same challenge, and who thus evidence the fact that they are speaking for the devil. If it were not proper for the Master to accept a challenge for the benefit of seeptics, there is no Christian precedent for such prac- tice on the part of his followers. There is vast difference between loyal dependence upon God in time of unavoidable trouble, and a wilful venture into trouble. It is d direct violation of divine law to invite calamity, and such a venture would weaken ones faith in the outcome. One might ignorantly blunder or mistake and still have faith in divine deliverance, but with guilty conscience, supported by the knowl- edge of being a wilful sinner, one might not have sufficient faith in divine salvation to be delivered from the effects of his sin. To wilfully enter into combat, which jeopar- dizes the life of neighbor would be equal to manslaughter, to say the least. It is quite as scientific, and quite as Christian, to keep out of trouble as it is to seek way out after one has fallen into it. Chris tian Scientists, like others, have eonugh troubles which come unin- vited, and have, therefore, no neces- sity for seeking trouble"
 The very nature of this challenge proves the complete ignorance on the part of these gentlemen of the spirit and purpose of Christian Sci ence practice, and it recalls to mind how Christ Jesus. when he, too, was challenged to give proof of the sav- ing power of God, answered in these words: Tt is written again, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God Matthew Al. and further said, An evil and adulterous generation seek eth after a sign," Matthew 12-39.
 The evident insincerity of this challenge is manifested first, from the fact that reputable physicians would not lend themselves to any such practice, and, second, that these students must know that the law of any state would interfere with | and prevent the carrying out of any such absurd and senseless exhibition. l
 ROSEMARY O. ANDERSON, Committee on Publication for the |
 State of Connecticut.
 New London, Ct, March 2S, 1908. l