Mr. Editor.

A recent essay on Christian Science by Rev. Luther T. Townsend, D.D., is presented as an "answer by an expert." The gentleman admits that Mrs. Eddy, the Leader of the Christian Science movement, is a woman of more than ordinary ability, and that her writings "contain sentences and aphorisms that in wisdom and rhetorical excellence would not suffer in comparison if placed alongside of some of the sentences of Arnold or Emerson." Since Dr. Townsend is a professor of rhetoric, we note the value of this admission. He also declares that a great and important truth lies at the basis of Mrs. Eddy's Christiar: Science theories. That he indorses the basic lesson of Christian Science is noted in the following statement: "She says correctly that God is supreme, the only Life, Substance, and Intelligence of the universe and man." Having admitted this premise, it seems strange that the gentleman could not indorse the whole of Christian Science, since every statement contained in the Christian Science textbook is a consistent deduction from that which he acknowledges to be true. Unfortunately, however, he has misconstrued a large portion of the teachings of Science and Health, and, as a matter of course, has not been able to indorse his misconception. In this, however, he does not differ from Christian Scientists, for what he has condemned is as offensive to them as it is to him. His general treatment of the subject leads us to believe that the opinion of an "expert" on Christian Science is not worth as much as the absolute understanding of a practising Christian Scientist who may not be so expert in other matters.

Mrs. Eddy has given to the world ideas which are new, but in so doing she has been careful not to intrude them upon ears which do not welcome them, nor to speak disparagingly of the good works of others. On this subject she teaches in her book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," p. 444: "Students are advised by their teacher to be charitable and kind, not only toward differing forms of religion and medicine, but to those who hold these opinions."

During a period of sixteen years I have carefully compared the teachings of Science and Health with the teachings of Christ, and have found the two identical. While our friend declares Christian Science to be un-Scriptural and un-Christian, he quotes no Scripture to prove his assertion. He declares the teaching of this Science, "God is to be understood," to be erroneous, giving his opinion that God cannot be understood, but must be merely "believed and feared." Therefore, instead of declaring Christian Science to be un-Christian and un-Scriptural, he should have said I believe Christian Science to be un-Scriptural and un-Christian; instead of declaring: "Christianity teaches that there are evil spirits and a personal devil," he should have said I believe there is a personal devil. Furthermore, inasmuch as he had nothing to give on the subject of Christian Science and Christianity but a belief, it would have been well for him to have waited for the day of understanding. He should, consistently with his admission, declare his unfitness to challenge the correctness of the teaching of this Science concerning God, devil, disease, atonement, etc.

We fail to see wherein the public can be benefited by mere opinions on a question so vastly important as that of Christian Science. If our critic admits that he does not understand God, he must of necessity admit that he does not understand any part of Christian Science, for every statement contained in the Christian Science text-book is a consistent deduction from the Scriptural definition, "God is Spirit." After declaring that he himself does not understand God, how can he consistently declare the Christian Scientists' definition of God to be erroneous? How does he know that Christian Science defines God incorrectly, if he knows nothing at all about God, but simply believes? One may believe an error.

We will agree with the proposition that the human mind can be evil, though we may differ from our critic as to the constituency of the human mind as well as its evil. Indeed, we would declare that the human mind can be nothing else but evil. Furthermore, in proportion as it is evil, it is not mind at all. Though good and bad seem to exist in the same individual, they mix even less than oil and water. Man is himself—in his right mind—free from dementia, using the word in its broad sense, only as he has the Mind of Christ.

We will not quarrel with our friend in his belief that the devil is a person, but we are surprised, for we have found very few Bible students who retain the old belief that the devil is a person with horns and hoofs, and who disagree with Christian Science in its teaching that the devil is "evil ... the opposite of Truth" (Science and Health).

Science and Health teaches "God is personal in an infinite sense, but not in an anthropomorphic sense." Possibly if Dr. Townsend could and would define his sense of the personality of God we might find it identical with that of Christian Scientists. If he had given the exact wording of the Christian Science text-book he would not have found so much to criticise, nor would he have found it so easy to make it appear non-scriptural if he had presented the Science itself instead of his misconception of it.

I was a member of an orthodox church when Christian Science was first presented to me, and, though I was quite ready to accept the theory of this Science, I was determined not to do so, for I believed it conflicted with the Bible. Upon searching I found some Scriptural verses which were plain statements of Christian Science, and this encouraged me. Later I found others, and again others. As my knowledge of Christian Science grew, its harmony with God's Word became more and more apparent. Now I find the entire teaching of Christ in strict accord with that of Science and Health.

Dr. Townsend declares that a Christian Scientist attempted to prove to him that she could place her hand in the flame without feeling any pain, but that a burned hand was the outcome. Then he adds: "Our friend, however, insisted that Mrs. Eddy could put her hand in fire and suffer no harm," whereupon he offered money to Mrs. Eddy to do this and other miracles. Mrs. Eddy's reply that she had wrought a greater cure, had "cured a man from the habit of opium eating," I consider a very good one. To save a man from the cursed habit of using opium is more important than to take upon herself the protection of a hand unnecessarily placed in the fire. Christian Scientists, like other Christians, have troubles enough which come uninvited, and there is no need of hunting for them. It is no part of Christian Science practice to venture into trouble wilfully or otherwise, though adherents of this Science faithfully apply their understanding of God's power and presence when circumstances force them to encounter danger. Dr. Townsend should note that the Master of Christianity refused to cast himself down from the pinnacle for the purpose of convincing the devil, and that Mrs. Eddy, wiser than her student, was consistent with Christ's example when she refused to accept the challenge. If it was not right for Jesus to cast himself down for the purpose of convincing the devil, it would not be right for Christian Scientists, his followers, to accept such a challenge for the purpose of convincing those of this age, who, though probably Christians in character, offer the identical temptation which the devil suggested to Jesus. It is an important feature of Christian Science practice to keep out of trouble as well as to work out of it.

Christian Scientists recognize that evil and disease exist in erroneous human experience, though they differ from others in their understanding of their nature. Science does not teach, however, that sin and disease can be overcome by merely denying their existence, any more than they teach that darkness can be destroyed by denying that it is an entity. As darkness is overcome by light, so sin and disease are scientifically overcome by the divine Omnipresence. Darkness is not regarded as something, but the want of something, the want of light. So sickness should be understood as the absence of health, and evil the lack of good. Evidently our friend has confounded the Christian Science healing method with what is commonly called "mental suggestion."

It is the spiritual man which Christian Scientists believe to be "eternal and always harmonious," not the mortal or material sense of man.

In its teaching, All is mind, there is no matter, this Science does not deny the existence of created things. It recognizes that all visible phenomena are real, and exist as the creations of Spirit, but are not what they seem to be to the uneducated human mind. Here our critic has failed to grasp what this Science gives in return for what it repudiates; hence his objection.

The statement, "We are never Spirit until we are God" is not a statement of Christian Science. We prefer not to accuse our critic of a misquotation, but will follow the usual method of charging it up to "typographical errors." Christian Science does not teach that man will ever become God or any part of God. It teaches that "God is Spirit," and man, in his normal and God-made condition, is the Spiritual likeness of God.

The statement, "God never forgives sin," severed from its context, does not give a correct understanding of Christian Science. While this Science fails to indorse that definition of divine pardon which some seem to accept, it is nevertheless in perfect accord with the Scriptural teaching in respect to pardon and forgiveness. In her chapter on "Prayer," in Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy declares: "Truth bestows no pardon upon error, but wipes it out in the most effectual manner. Jesus suffered for our sins, not to annul the divine sentence against wrong, but to check the sin and show that it must bring inevitable suffering." It is not correct to say that sin can be destroyed by merely thinking that it is unreal. It is acknowledging that there is nothing in it by ceasing to sin that overcomes it. Science and Health teaches: "The evildoer can receive no encouragement from the fact that Science teaches that evil is the unreality of existence; for the sinner is making a reality of sin—making that real which is unreal—and thus heaping up 'wrath against the day of wrath.' ... Only those who repent of sin and forsake all evil can fully understand the unreality of evil." Christian Scientists fully indorse the teaching of St. John: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

It can be readily seen that he who continues in sin is not admitting it to be an unreality. He indulges in sin because he thinks there is something in it, not because he believes there is nothing in it. On this subject Mrs. Eddy teaches in her 1901 message to the Mother Church. "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 Scientists believe in the atonement and the resurrection and all else contained in the teachings of Christ, though they may differ from our critic in their understanding of these. That Christian Scientists have an intelligent and Christian understanding of how to heal through praye, is evidenced by the results which follow their prayers. The declaration on the part of one who cannot heal through his own prayers that the Christian Scientist who heals through prayer does not pray, ought not to have much weight with thinking people. It is not in good taste for critics to say to Scientists, "You are not healing through the divine power, but by the suggestion of the human mind." Who knows how the Christian Scientist heals but the practitioner himself who produces the results in question? True prayer is such a communion with God as brings the petitioner into a conscious realization of His omnipotence and omnipresence. This breaks the power of sin and disease and "sets the captive free."

Our critic declares, "Christianity says that God is the ruler and lawgiver of every realm in the universe, and that, so far as the laws themselves are concerned, apart from the evil nature in man, there is not and there never has been and never can be any conflict or opposition." With this we heartily agree. The evil nature in man is the only thing that Christian Science condemns as not being of God, and we would add that the individual misconception of the universe and the misinterpretation of its nature and constituency is by reason of this very "evil nature" which our critic repudiates. And all evil and sickness are consequent to an erroneous conception and appropriation of creation. Hence the necessity of understanding God and His creation and deporting ourselves accordingly.

Christian Science teaches that God, though unseen to human sense, is the ruler of the entire universe. In her text-book Mrs. Eddy teaches that healing the sick, in fact, all marvelous manifestations, are "not supernatural, but divinely natural." Christian Scientists believe that results which are wrought contrary to material laws are marvelous to human sense, hence properly named miracles in the Bible, but they are in perfect accord with divine law and are not by reason of a suspension thereof. When this fact is understood by all mankind, health instead of disease will be contagious.

Our critic insists that Christianity declares heaven to be a location. If this be true, why did Jesus say, "Let no man say lo here, or lo there, for behold the Kingdom of God is within you!" Heaven is God's kingdom.

This Science teaches that heaven is the state or condition of the perfect, spiritual man. Heaven is where God is, and God is everywhere present. To be fully conscious of the divine presence is heaven itself, while to live according to erroneous belief is hell.

Alfred Farlow.

In Chicago Record-Herald.