The Fort Worth Register, Fort Worth, Tex., of November 17, 1901, contains the following from Mr. Alfred Farlow.

Boston, October 23.

Editor of the Register.

The Rev. Mr. Armstrong begins his rejoinder to my reply by saying: "The case must be desperate when a defender so remote must be called upon." I venture the assertion that I have not gone so far out of my way as Mr. Armstrong has, and that, though residing in Boston, I am nearer to the subject in question than my self-appointed guardian. Is it not a little strange that some clergymen should be so much troubled about a matter which they claim is senseless and impractical? If they really believe what they say about Christian Science, why do they not leave it to die a natural death? For surely a thing that is altogether unprofitable will soon fade out without any help from its critics. If this Science is so out of harmony with the Scriptures, why does it meet with the approbation of hundreds of thousands of devout Bible students and believers? Does Mr. Armstrong assume that the people are not intelligent enough to read and choose for themselves? If Christian Scientists are not healing the sick according to the method of the Master's appointing, will our critic please give us the proper way? Our Lord said: "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also;" "These signs shall follow them that believe." We will grant that those who accept Jesus' words, and by the application thereof are improved even in the least, are believers and followers to that extent. Nevertheless, according to the teaching of the Master, our ability to do the works which he did, registers the degree of our understanding, and tells to the world as well as to ourselves whether or not we are believers in a sufficient sense. Here is one who claims to be a minister of the gospel, and a teacher of the word of God, condemning one of the most worthy Christian denominations of this country, a sect which is healing the sick according to the command of our Lord, and yet he himself cannot heal with his interpretation of the teachings of Christ. Does he propose to destroy the little faith there is in the world? Talk about pantheism. Who is nearest pantheism, the Christian Scientist who believes that omnipotent God rules and governs His creatures, or the one who believes that the universe and man are governed and controlled by material laws and conditions? Has God created man, placed him upon the earth, and then taken His departure, leaving His creature to care for himself? From what source does Mr. Armstrong get his authority for preaching the Gospel? From the Scriptures? If so, by what authority does he reject the command to heal the sick which is given in connection with the admonition to preach the gospel?

He reaffirms that Christian Science is not a science because it is a discovery. Will he declare that a truth is not true or scientific because it is not yet found out?

Mrs. Eddy searched the Scriptures for a correct understanding of God's word and discovered therein an interpretation which is new to this age. This she has formulated and given to the world in the Christian Science text-book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures."

What right has Mr. Armstrong or any one else to declare any teaching to be unscientific because, being in harmony with spiritual understanding, it is opposed to human sense? It has never been claimed that this Science is in accord with the more materialistic philosophies or the testimony of the five personal senses. It is scientific only from a Scriptural and spiritual standpoint. It is the Science of God and His Christ.

Jesus taught the first lesson of divine Science when he said, "God is a Spirit." Will our critic deny this statement of the Master? The physical senses declare: "I do not believe there is any Spirit. I cannot see any Spirit." Material sense would deny the very foundation of the teachings of the Master, but Christians accept his words as true, contrary to the claim of the personal senses, and the results that we gain by their application prove to us the truth of his proposition. He declared, "It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." Will our critic kindly give the meaning of the word nothing? How much is nothing? Is not this saying of Jesus a plain declaration that Spirit is the only life, the only animating power of the universe, and that flesh, or matter, is altogether unprofitable? Whence comes this unprofitable thing? Did God create it? Has He been guilty of such a misdemeanor, and thereby brought into existence an element opposed to Himself to war against His will? We grant that God created all things, but how? is the question. What is the constituency of His creation? Darkness is the opposite of light. It is not an entity. It is not something, but the want of something—the want of light, and disappears as the light appears. So God's opposite must be regarded as a nonentity, for the evils which are mountains to mortals weigh nothing in the sight of Omnipotence.

I will admit that a "science is not proven until it works out results," but it must be a science before it is demonstrated, though it may not be so understood. Otherwise it would not be demonstrable. In other words, the embodied idea of truth is eternal and was in existence even before it was known to mortals. The science of which God is the Principle was, and is, formulated by Him, and was in existence before any mortal knew of it. We call mathematics a science. Was it a science before Mr. Armstrong knew aught of it? Were five times five twenty-five before he knew it? Was not this idea true before any mortal knew it? Our critic would leave God out of account and make man, instead of God, the creator and formulator of science. Is not the infinite Intelligence the first to know any and all truth? What God knows is supremely scientific.

If mathematics, or any other system of knowledge, is a science while a single individual is in a state of ignorance, it is scientific in the face of the universal ignorance of mortals, and why? Because all science, all things, are formulated and created by God, the eternal Mind, and are co-existent and co-eternal with that Mind, Mr. Armstrong does not recognize God in his science, but makes mortal man the originator of all truth, when mortals at best can only be discoverers.

Our critic's theory implies that God has created another god, called nature, and left this pantheistic god to re-create the world materially, operate and govern it by laws over which God has no control, feed or starve it, make it sick or well, and finally destroy it because this imperfect creation of an imperfect god has become unfit to exist.

Does Mr. Armstrong believe he can demolish Christian Science by quibbling over technicalities? I dare say that he has never healed a single patient through his understanding of this science, to prove, even to himself that he understands it, and if he does not understand it, what right has he to pose as capable of giving his readers an intelligent opinion of it? What would be thought of one who attempted to teach mathematics without having demonstrated a single proposition to prove his understanding, and who has only this one qualification, namely, he does not believe in it?

We insist that this is a science and must be so treated. No one is capable of giving an intelligent idea of it who is not a practical Christian Scientist and able to heal the sinner and the sick man through his knowledge of it. This science is demonstrable to mortals in its destruction of disease and discord. The influx of spiritual understanding dispels the illusion of the senses, even as the light dispels the darkness.

Our critic "I submit that the Bible as a whole, containing the teaching of Christ, is not a science but a revelation. It is not antagonistic to true science, but it is not a science." This is strange logic. True science and revelation are always identical. Eternal truth is not man's science, but is formulated and systematized by divine Intelligence—is God's science and is scientific in His sight, though unknown to mortals.

In his strained effort to disprove our logic, our critic loses sight of the point in question. We have never claimed this to be a science in the human sense but in the light of spiritual understanding. It is God's science—the Science of God discovered and taught by that one whose goodness, spirituality, and experience had been of such a character as to prepare her to perceive it. It is not claimed that Christian Science adds anything to the Bible, but that it correctly interprets God's word, thereby rendering it more practical to mankind in working out their salvation.

I am inclined to believe that Mr. Armstrong can teach his own religion better than he can teach Christian Science, and would advise him to make his own a specialty and leave the teaching of this faith to Christian Scientists, just as he would leave the teaching of mathematics to mathematicians, and the teaching of music to musicians.

He declares that in my explanation of Paul's statement, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned," I have "violated the rule of hermeneutical interpretation." It may be that my interpretation of the Scriptures differs somewhat from his, and it is very apparent that my interpretation of the Christian Science text-book is at direct variance with his. But does he prove that his interpretation is correct? Jesus declared, "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also," which is equivalent to saying, He who understands as I understand, and deports himself accordingly, will be followed by the same results. He also said, "These signs shall follow them that believe." The ability to overcome sin and disease must follow those who believe, if our Lord spoke the truth. There is no other test named by the Master.

Paul truly said, "There is a natural body and a spiritual body." He did not wish his hearers to become confused in respect to his sayings. He wanted them to compare "spiritual things with spiritual," and to understand that the body which he expected to be raised up to eternal life was not this corporeal earthly house, since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," but the spiritual man; while the false man, "the old man with his deeds," is "put off."

A careful study of his first letter to the Corinthians will convince your readers that Paul, in his discussion of the gospel, was seeking to make clear that what he taught was not in harmony with the perception of the material man, but foolishness thereto. He declared, "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence." Then follows the chapter which includes my former quotation, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned." What is the natural man, if it is not the five personal senses? Do we understand spiritual things through the material senses? Was Paul right when he said, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are contrary, the one to the other."

Mr. Armstrong makes the statement, "There is no natural man, if we take Mrs. Eddy's gospel. I deny the right to any defender of Mrs. Eddy to use this Scripture." A false claim brought into court is not a claim in reality, but as it so appears it must have a hearing before the judge, and when the testimony is in, the judge declares there is no claim. But first this fact must be proven. So mortality and materiality have claims upon us which must be recognized and dealt with according to spiritual understanding. Meanwhile many material customs and usages are suffered to be so now, and must be continued until we have grown to a sufficient degree of spirituality to live absolute Christian Science.

My critic dwells at length upon what he chooses to claim a glaring contradiction in Mrs. Eddy's teachings in that she claims this science to be a revelation, and yet holds that she obtained it by searching the Scripture.

If Mrs. Eddy gained a true interpretation of the Bible, that interpretation must have come from God. It could not have come from any other source, for the divine Mind is the only Intelligence. The fact that she searched the Scriptures did not lessen the divine influence upon her, for surely one would expect to be guided more by divine Providence in meditating upon His word than in any other attitude of mind.

Mr. Armstrong suggests a "dilemma," and kindly offers two horns. He is writing from the wrong standpoint and I decline to accept either his "dilemma" or his "horns." Indeed, I have long ago ceased to believe in that personality who comes with horns, hoofs, and dilemmas.

He quotes from the last chapter of Revelation: "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." I herein challenge our critic to produce a statement in the Christian Science text-book that is not a consistent deduction from its fundamental lesson, "God is Spirit," and would respectfully call his attention to the fact that this fundamental statement of science is Spiritual, the words of him who "spake as never man spake."

Mrs. Eddy does not claim to have added anything to the Scriptures. She claims simply to have learned what there is in the Bible, and Christian Scientists stand ready to defend their doctrine from a Scriptural standpoint.

Our critic reiterates his argument "Christian Science is pantheism," and quotes again from the Standard dictionary. Suppose we stop our discussion of the technical meaning of words for a moment and consider what Christian Science really teaches. His contention is, without doubt, that Christian Scientists believe man is a part of God, that he has no individuality, and that, in accordance with the Hindoo philosophy, he will eventually become merged into God and lose his identity.

Now if this is what he means by declaring Christian Science to be pantheism, I declare emphatically he is wrong, for we do not believe any such thing nor teach it. Furthermore, our experience convinces us that as we progress spiritually we improve and strengthen our individuality, and this indicates that such progress will continue even unto infinitude. But man is nothing of himself and can do nothing of himself. Even our Master declared, "I can of mine own self do nothing." "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Man is the image and likeness of God. He is inseparable from God and yet is not God nor any part of Him. In "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," p. 472, we read: "In Divine Science, God and the real man are inseparable, as Principle and its idea."

Pantheism in its literal meaning, all-godism, is equivalent to the Greek cosmos-theism, world-godism, teaching that God is constituted by the sum-total of the world. This is as far from Christian Science as anything can be. Webster defines pantheism as "the doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, constitutes God; the doctrine that there is no God but the combined forces and laws which are manifested in the existing universe." Now the additional definition which my critic has quoted from the Standard dictionary, does not in any way affect the essence of the explanation that the sum-total of the universe constitutes God. In other words, there are not two kinds of pantheism taught, one which is the exact opposite of Christian Science and another which is exactly like it, as Mr. Armstrong would have it appear. The Hindoo belief represented as translating the material universe into a mental one, does not in any way affect the proposition that pantheism means all-godism, but still retains that notion. The so-called idealistic pantheism, or Hegel system, "maintaining that the entire phenomenal universe is the ever-changing existence—form of the one single universal substance, which is God," is the direct opposite of Christian Science, and in its essence is identical with the more material teaching in respect to pantheism, and is but a shift from material evil to "spiritual" wickedness in high places. Christian Science teaches that God is infinite, unchanging, and eternal, and His creation is His infinite manifestation, co-existent and co-eternal with Himself, maintaining forever its myriad individuality, reflecting the Intelligence, Life, and Substance of the Creator, retaining forever this relation to the Creator and never becoming absorbed into Deity. By seeking to draw out pantheism in the direction of Christian Science and Christian Science in the direction of pantheism, Mr. Armstrong has striven to make them meet, but has utterly failed. His charge that Christian Science is atheism, I have already answered in the foregoing explanation of this Science.

As authoritative Christian Science theism I quote briefly from Mrs. Eddy's latest message to the Mother Church delivered in June, 1901. "We hear it said the Christian Scientists have no God because their God is not a person. Let us examine this. The loyal Christian Scientists absolutely adopt Webster's definition of God, 'A Supreme Being,' and the Standard dictionary's definition of God, 'The one supreme being, self-existent and external.' Also we accept God, emphatically, in the higher definition derived from the Bible, and this accords with the literal sense of the lexicons: 'God is spirit,' 'God is love.' Then, to define Love in Divine Science we use this phrase for God—Divine Principle. By this we mean Mind, a permanent, fundamental, intelligent, divine Being, called in Scripture, Spirit, Love;" "God is person in the infinite Scientific sense of Him, but He can neither be one nor infinite in the corporeal or anthropomorphic sense."

In his communication published in your issue of October 20, Rev. Mr. Armstrong endeavors to maintain his position that women have no God-given right to teach theology, quoting again, "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, for Adam was first formed, then Eve."

Doubtless our critic has introduced this argument for the special purpose of denouncing a good woman in Concord, N. H., who has for years been a most faithful and conscientious religious teacher, but in so doing he has made assertions which are non-acceptable to millions besides the Christian Scientists, including people of his own denomination. All our Sunday Schools and many of our pulpits are filled with teachers from the fairer sex.

If our critic maintains that woman in the pulpit is out of place, he must include in his condemnation the one who stands before a Sunday School class, for she, too, is expounding the word of God. One of the best Methodist preachers I ever knew was a woman. According to Mr. Armstrong she was an impostor, though she made many converts. Most Biblical writers as well as most modern thinkers disagree with our friend on this point.

We will again consider I Corinthians, 14:33, reading in connection therewith the verse preceding and the one following: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." It should be noted that in those days the discussions held in the synagogues were oftentimes full of disputations and heated controversies. Some authors believe Paul's admonition was applied specifically to those public debates. Adam Clark, LL.D., who is regarded by most Methodist clergymen as one of the best authorities on Biblical exegesis, quotes from Dr. Kling on p. 154, vol. 6, of his commentaries: "It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, etc., in the synagogue, but this liberty was not allowed to any woman, ... because it was deemed indecorous for women to be contending with men in public assemblies on points of doctrines, cases of conscience," etc. Dr. Clark adds: "From this it is evident that it was the disorderly and disobedient that the apostle had in view, and not any of those on whom he poured out his spirit. ... The Jews would not suffer a woman to read in the synagogue, though a servant or even a child had this permission. This was their condition till the time of the Gospel, when, according to the prediction of Joel, the spirit of God was to be poured out on the woman as well as the man, that they might prophesy—that is, teach—and that they did prophesy or teach is evident from what the apostle says, where he lays down rules to regulate this part of their conduct while ministering in the church." I make this quotation simply to show that great men as well as women have differed from Mr. Armstrong.

Now let us consider other statements of Paul in order that we may understand his meaning here, for it is better that we allow him to interpret for himself. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." Paul declares in Galatians; "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." This law was an effort to specify what men should and should not do without any scientific principle or definite standard. The gospel of Jesus Christ giving the spirit of truth in contradistinction to the letter thereof, making clear to human consciousness the ideal manhood, affords a guide and admonisher at all times and under all circumstances, doing away with the literal law, though not its spirit and purpose, nor the observance of its real essence. When the circumstances and conditions cease, under which Paul commanded silence in the churches on the part of women, the law no longer holds good. While he recognized that the law of Moses was superseded by the higher law of Christ, he nevertheless advised them to be governed by the Mosaic law, because the world in general had not grown sufficiently above that law to permit its being disregarded without confusion and the appearance of unwarranted disobedience in the eyes of the general public. The essence of Paul's admonition is embodied in Jesus' words: "Cast not your pearls before swine;" also in his own writings wherein he advised against contentions and strivings about the law. Nearly two thousand years have passed since Paul made this statement, and things have changed very much. Woman has in a large degree taken her rightful place. The law of this age permits her to speak, and in so doing she is not violating Paul's admonition, since the "thus saith the law" of this period is not of such a character as to demand her continued silence in the church.

Mr. Armstrong writes: "Mrs. Eddy declares that man is not fallen, that there is no sin, no soul is ever punished, no hell, no vicarious death of Christ." It should be noted here that in the world of material sense, Christian Scientists recognize the evils and errors that are to be conquered and overcome, and though they may seem to differ from others in their understanding of the nature of evil, they nevertheless note that sin exists in human experience and will so continue until it is repented of and forsaken. On this subject Mrs. Eddy writes in her June message to the Mother Church: "In Christian Science it is plain that God removes the punishment for sin only as the sin is removed—never punishes it, only as it is destroyed, and never afterwards, hence the hope of universal salvation. It is a sense of sin, and not a sinful soul, that is lost. Soul is immortal, but sin is mortal. To lose the sense of sin we must first detect the claim of sin; hold it invalid, give it the lie, and then we get the victory, sin disappears, and its unreality is proven. So long as we indulge the presence or believe in the power of sin, it sticks to us and has power over us. "Again: To assume there is no reality in sin, and yet commit sin, is sin itself, that clings fast to iniquity. The Publican's wail won his humble desire, while the Pharisee's self-righteousness crucified Jesus."

Christian Science teaches that whatever may be the constituency of matter and its supposed evils, we must attain to spirituality and outgrow the flesh, and thus reach a condition wherein we are immune from hell and punishment. The vicarious death of Jesus Christ might be explained as his self-sacrifice, passing through an experience for the purpose of demonstrating to mortals that God was his life when he might have escaped this experience so far as his own necessities were concerned. This he indicated when he said: "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" His vicarious death was prompted by pure love and the necessity of giving mortals the key to the kingdom of God by demonstrating to them the true science of being—what God really is, and the relationship between God and man.

Alfred Farlow.

"I can forgive, but I cannot forget," is only another way of saying, "I will not forgive." A forgiveness ought to be like a canceled note, torn in two and burned up, so that it never can be shown against the man. There is an ugly kind of forgiveness in this world—a kind of hedgehog forgiveness, shot out like quills.—Beecher's "Life Thoughts."