and tends to blight the fruits of my students. A faithful student may even sometimes feel the need of physical help, and occasionally receive it from others; but the less this is required, the better it is for that student.
Please give us, through your Journal, the name of the author of that genuine critique in the September number, “What Quibus Thinks.”
I am pleased to inform this inquirer, that the author of the article in question is a Boston gentleman whose thought is appreciated by many liberals. Patience, observation, intellectual culture, reading, writing, extensive travel, and twenty years in the pulpit, have equipped him as a critic who knows whereof he speaks. His allusion to Christian Science in the following paragraph, glows in the shadow of darkling criticism like a midnight sun. Its manly honesty follows like a benediction after prayer, and closes the task of talking to deaf ears and dull debaters.
“We have always insisted that this Science is natural, spiritually natural; that Jesus was the highest type of real nature; that Christian healing is supernatural, or extra-natural, only to those who do not enter into its sublimity or understand its modes — as imported ice was miraculous to the equatorial African, who had never seen water freeze.”
Is it right for a Scientist to treat with a doctor?
This depends upon what kind of a doctor it is. Mind-healing, and healing with drugs, are opposite modes of medicine. As a rule, drop one of these doctors when you
