gain the spiritual meaning of Christian Science, and then the ambiguity will vanish.
The charge of inconsistency in Christianly scientific methods of dealing with sin and disease is met by Practical arguments something practical, — namely, the proof of the utility of these methods; and proofs are better than mere verbal arguments or prayers which evince no spiritual power to heal.
As for sin and disease, Christian Science says, in the language of the Master, “Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.” Let discord of every name and nature be heard no more, and let the harmonious and true sense of Life and being take possession of human consciousness.
What is the relative value of the two conflicting theories regarding Christian healing? One, according to the commands of our Master, heals the sick. The other, popular religion, declines to admit that Christ's religion has exercised any systematic healing power since the first century.
The statement that the teachings of Christian Science in this work are “absolutely false, and the most Conditions of criticism egregious fallacies ever offered for acceptance,” is an opinion wholly due to a misapprehension both of the divine Principle and practice of Christian Science and to a consequent inability to demonstrate this Science. Without this understanding, no one is capable of impartial or correct criticism, because demonstration and spiritual understanding are God's immortal keynotes, proved to be such by our Master and evidenced by the sick who are cured and by the sinners who are reformed.
Strangely enough, we ask for material theories in sup-
