3physical help, and occasionally receive it from others; but the less this is required, the better it is for that student.
6Please give us, through your Journal, the name of the author of that genuine critique in the September number, "What Quibus Thinks."
9I 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, ob-
12servation, intellectual culture, reading, writing, exten- sive travel, and twenty years in the pulpit, have equipped him as a critic who knows whereof he speaks. His allu-
15sion to Christian Science in the following paragraph, glows in the shadow of darkling criticism like a mid- night sun. Its manly honesty follows like a benediction
18after prayer, and closes the task of talking to deaf ears and dull debaters.
"We have always insisted that this Science is natural,
21spiritually 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
24sublimity or understand its modes — as imported ice was miraculous to the equatorial African, who had never seen water freeze."
27Is 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
30medicine. As a rule, drop one of these doctors when you
1employ the other. The Scripture saith, "No man can serve two masters;" and, "Every kingdom divided
3against itself is brought to desolation."
If Scientists are called upon to care for a member of the family, or a friend in sickness, who is employing a
6regular physician, would it be right to treat this patient at all; and ought the patient to follow the doctor's directions?