CORRESP ONDENCE. 



269 



the appended account of the matter, which 

 I think will satisfy your readers that I was 

 fully justified in classing this case among 

 the blunders of mental healing. 

 Very truly yours, 



Frederik A. Fernald. 

 Nbw York, May 8, 1889. 



269 Chestnut Street, Chicago, | 

 May 6, 1689. f 



Frederik A. Fernald, Esq. 



Dear Sir: The man Teed, whom you 

 speak of as doctor, was at the time of Bene- 

 dict's death the founder and president of 

 the World's College of Life, pastor of the 

 Arch - Triumphant Church, editor of the 

 " Guiding Star," proprietor of a restaurant, 

 etc., all conducted in one or two office-rooms 

 in Central Music Hall. The fellow claimed 

 to be a graduate of the New York Eclectic 

 Medical College, but at the coroner's inquest 

 could not produce a diploma, claiming as an 

 excuse that it was lost. As I remember it, 

 his method consisted in healing by prayer 

 and faith, including absent treatment, all of 

 which was employed in the case of Benedict 

 from the beginning of his illness until about 

 two or three days previous to his death, 

 when medicine was prescribed by an eclectic 

 practitioner whom Teed called to his assist- 

 ance. At this stage of the case Teed partly 

 or wholly abandoned his system, and also 

 prescribed medicines ; but, inasmuch as his 

 knowledge of the pathological conditions 

 which were present, and with which he had 

 to deal, amounted to almost nothing, the 

 treatment was of no avail. According to his 

 statements, made to me the morning of Bene- 

 dict's death, the patient was regarded as 

 having had diphtheria, pleurisy, intercostal 

 neuralgia, and heart-disease, all existing at 

 one and the same time ! The absurdity of 

 such a thing is apparent to almost any one. 

 The poM-mortem examination proved death 

 to be due to broncho-pneumonia. In my 

 opinion, under proper treatment the case 

 would have recovered. The following is a 

 copy of the verdict of the coroner's jury : 



"We, the jury, recommend that one 

 Cyrus R. Teed, who treated and prescribed 

 for the deceased during his sickness without 

 being properly authorized to do so, be held 

 by the proper authorities to the grand jury 

 for violating sections 10, 11, and 12 of an 

 act approved January 16, 1887, regulating 

 the practice of medicine in the State of Illi- 

 nois; and we furthermore recommend that 

 the penalty for the violation of the above 

 act should be made more severe, so as to in- 

 clude imprisonment in addition to fine, in 

 the future." 



In his instructions to the jury the deputy 

 coroner made a few remarks in which he 

 hinted at quacks, impostors, and " voodoo " 

 doctors, and declared that the public was 

 sick of having such frauds running at large. 

 Respectfully yours, 



C. W. Leigh, M. D. 



THE POSITION OF THE AGNOSTIC. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly: 



While sympathizing heartily with the 

 spirit of your editorial article on " Intellect- 

 ual Liberty," in the May number of the 

 "Monthly," yet it seems to me you have 

 overlooked an application of the word ag- 

 nostic which it is important that all lovers of 

 truth should recognize. Nay, more, in the 

 words of Nicole, whom you cite with ap- 

 proval, it is " the duty " of the modern 

 thinker to declare himself an " agnostic " in 

 regard to many questions that are still dis- 

 cussed in theological circles. 



It is one of the chief merits of the 

 school of philosophy of which Prof. Huxley 

 is so brilliant a member that it distinctly 

 recognizes what Mr. Spencer declares to be 

 "the conviction . . . that has been slowly 

 gaining ground as civilization has advanced," 

 viz., that " human intelligence is incapable 

 of absolute knowledge," and that " our duty 

 is to submit ourselves with all humility to the 

 established limits of our intelligence; and 

 not perversely to rebel against them." 

 Hence, when questions are propounded, to 

 which, from their nature, neither an affirma- 

 tive nor a negative answer can be given, and 

 which do not admit of solution by any natu- 

 ral process, but can only be solved by the 

 acceptance of a supernatural authority — that 

 authority being generally the very question 

 at issue — then it becomes the duty of those 

 who follow the scientific method in their 

 search for truth to declare themselves on all 

 such subjects " agnostics." 



Our theological friends occupy much of 

 their time in discussing questions of this 

 character, such as the origin of the universe, 

 the nature and personality of God, the di- 

 vinity of Christ, the immortality of the 

 soul, and the like. But all these are in- 

 scrutable questions, incapable of solution by 

 the human intellect. They have been dis- 

 cussed ever since the dawn of philosophy, 

 and are no nearer solution to-day than when 

 they were first propounded. If settled to 

 any one's satisfaction at all, they can only 

 be so accepted without proof and upon au- 

 thority. Moreover, there are many questions 

 capable of solution by the scientific method, 

 which theologians discuss only from prem- 

 ises founded upon the supposed solution of 

 the primary questions referred to above. 

 This inevitably prevents their proper dis- 

 cussion and solution. The premises can not 

 be accepted by the scientific thinker who is 

 convinced of the futility of all ontological 

 speculation as a means for establishing the 

 truth. This does not mean — as so many 

 seem to think — that science only concerns 

 itself with those things which can be seen 

 and felt. Nor does it even deny to the in- 

 dividual, who feels that his intellectual and 

 moral integrity can be best conserved by 

 such speculations, the right to indulge in 

 them, and believe in them if needs be. By 

 all means let him do so, if he is made a hap- 



