Full text of "Christian science against itself"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http : //books . google . com/|

-gf,^* "*• "*• "S" •** 'U' 'U' :$:

'"i^M^I^:

isIrSf

/ '

OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

LAWS OF THE SOUL; Or, The Science of Reugion

AND the Future Life.

BAPTISM IN A NUTSHELL.

In Preparatum,

SOME MISTAKES OF EVOLUTIONISTS: With a

New Theory of Evolution.

FLOWING WELLS : A Series of Plain Sermons for
Plain People. (Heady for Press.)

Christian Science
Against Itself

By Rev. M: W. Gifford, Ph. D.,

Author of " Laws of the Soul,"
"Baptism in a Nutshell," Etc.

CINCINNATI: JENNINGS & PYE
NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS

t
I'

CONTENTS

^^ Chaptbr Pack
^ I. The Question Stated, 7

^ II. Mrs. Eddy's Methods and Claims, - - 30

III. Mrs. Eddy's Reugious Creed, - - - 56

"f IV. Christian Science, Unchristian and Anti-
cs christian, 78

V. Christian Science not a Science, but Destruc-
tive OF Every Known Science, even of
Christian Science Itself, - - - 121

VI. Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions in Science and

Health, 147

VII. The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations, - 179

^ ; VIII. Contradictions Between Christian Science

\ Theory and Practice, - - - - 222

^ IX. Christian Science is Infidelity, - - - 256

<N*, X. Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms, 270

XI. Summary and Conclusion, .... 299

■< ■

83617

Christian Science against Itself

CHAPTER I
.The Question Stated

There probably has not sprung up m
the last two thousand years a popular her-
esy that has so widely fastened itself in the
public mind, and so seriously threatened the
life of the Churches, as that recent fanatical
movement known as Christian Science. No
fanaticism, perhaps, in six thousand years,
has been built on more absurd and self-con-
tradictory tenets than this same system of
so-called Science and Healthy promulgated by
one Mrs. Eddy, who lays claim to having
"discovered" the secret of perpetual youth,
the true elixir of life. By her system she

8 Christian Science against Itself

claims to annihilate sin, sickness, and death
from the world, and prescribes a method
by which mankind may be freed of all suf-
fering, care, and anxiety, both for this life
and for that which is to come. Sin, sick-
ness, suffering, and death are "but the illu-
sions of mortal mind," and may all be easily
dispelled by the application of her principles
to human life and conduct. This science,
she claims, is easily demonstrable by any
one who chooses to adopt her method of
self-treatment, declaring that all kinds of
ailments and diseases are equally and *'abso-
lutely under the control of mind," which in
reality is the only existence in the uni-
verse.

That thousands of candid and appar-
ently intelligent people are carried away
with this new system of philosophy, there
is no room for denying. That certain bene-
ficial effects of the method of treatment
employed have often been experienced, is
equally clear. But that the cures are scien-
tifically attributable to this method and

The Question Stated 9

system, and not to be produced by any
other system or method, is a matter that
is subject to investigation; and that the
assumed cures are sufficient evidence of the
correctness of the views promulgated .by
Mrs. Eddy in the system of science and
health, which she terms "Christian Sci-
ence," is also a matter demanding our
serious attention. If Mrs. Eddy's claims
are demonstrable by any number of actual
tests, covering all classes of so-called phys-
ical ailments, including both diseases and
deformities, natural or otherwise, and the
same results can not be produced in any
other way, then the logical inference is, that
her system is scientifically correct. But be
it remembered that, if there is found a
single instance in the whole realm of sup-
posed diseases or deformities in which the
Christian Science method is ineffectual, when
the conditions as laid down have been fully
and explicitly complied with, then her sys-
tem of philosophy must be regarded as sci-
entifically unproved. I do not say that it is

10 Christian Science against Itself

unprovable, but that it is at present an
unproved hypothesis, and must therefore be
regarded with that degree of uncertainty
which all thinking people will attach to
theories that have been hitherto unproved.

I have put in the category of physical
ailments, physical deformities, including am-
putations; for if her theory is correct, that
"matter is nothing," and that "mind has
absolute power over all the functions of the
body," it logically and necessarily follows
that every deformity, natural or acquired,
is amenable to the dictates of mind; since,
according to her teaching, there is no
reality in physical deformities, any more
than in physical diseases, since there is no
matter — no physical world — and both dis-
eases and deformities are alike but mortal
beliefs or errors. Doubtless Mrs. Eddy will
be unable to see the force of this log^c, as
a woman who can contradict herself in
scores of instances (as we shall show later),
without being able to see the force of her
own logic, will not be likely to see any force

The Question Stated 1 1

in this point; or, if she sees it, will not be
likely to admit a point which must logically
let down her whole system, out of which
she is amassing a large fortune. Yet the
fact stands, challenging criticism; for if the
theory be correct, that there is no matter
in the universe, which she constantly reiter-
ates in her book, then there is not, as she
also logically claims, any material body to
man. And there being no material body,
and all supposed physical ailments being
purely "mental concepts," her conclusion is
both logical and necessary, that mind has
absolute power over all imaginary ailments.
These ailments must include supposed de-
formities as well as supposed diseases; other-
wise the power of mind over supposed
matter is not "absolute;" in which case her
theory goes to the ground under a limita-
tion of its applicability. Such a limitation
practically disproves her fundamental prop-
osition, which leaves her system an unproved
hypothesis. There can be no middle ground
between absolute and limited. ' If the power

12 Christian Science against Itself

of mind over matter, or supposed matter,
is "absolute," then there is no condition of
either, which mind can not control. If there
is, then the power of mind is not "absolute."
If, again, there is such a condition, where
the power of mind can not affect it, then
there is something to matter and a supposed
material body, which is not mind, and which
mind can not "absolutely" control. If this
should be found to be the case on a careful
investigation of the theory, then that theory
falls to the ground, arid its pretended or
supposed cures must be accounted for on
some other hypothesis than that propounded
by Mrs. Eddy.

Or, again, if it can be shown that the
cures effected by Christian Science methods
are only such as may and have been pro-
duced repeatedly in the experience of man
by other methods than those employed by
the votaries of this new philosophy, then
the claim that their cures "demonstrate" the
correctness of their theories, also falls to
the ground. For if it can be shown that

The Question Stated 13

the same results may be produced by other
methods which are at variance with the
Christian Science methods, and which are
fundamentally opposed to this new system,
then their claim that their cures are due
to the correctness of their views, is also
groundless.

Or, further, if it can be shown that the
theory and practice of Christian Science
are directly and constantly opposed to each
other, then we must conclude that there is
some misunderstanding of the true import
of the theories involved, or else some de-
ception practiced by these healers on the
credulity of their patients. Or should the
fundamental propositions on which the
theory is built be shown to be not only
contradictory to each other, but self -destruc-
tive in their character, and such as make
all science an impossibility, then must we
reject the theories built upon them as also
false, and without any rational or logical
support.

To these and other questions of a similar

14 Christian Science against Itself

character the author will direct his argu-
ments in the following pages of this book,
hoping that the thoughts and arguments
presented may be a means of saving some
honest seekers after truth from making
shipwreck of faith on the reefs of false phi-
losophy.

Let us then inquire, first of all,

IS CHRISTIAN SCIENCE THE FIRST OR ONLY

METHOD OF MIND-CURE OR MENTAL

HEALING THAT HAS BEEN

PRACTICED BY MAN?

No well-informed person will claim for
a moment that it is. Even Mrs. Eddy does
not lay claim to any such thing. She does
claim to have discovered a new method of
healing on an entirely new . principle from
anything that has been employed since the
time of Christ and the apostles; that she
performs the same kind of cures, and in the
same way, as those performed by Christ
and his apostles; and that the cures so per-
formed are eflfected in a manner entirely

The Question Stated 15

different from any other mental cures; and,
further, that these cures are due to the
correctness of the doctrines taught in her
book, "Science and Health," and are cited
by her as the infallible proof of the cor-
rectness of her theories. These cures she
repeatedly calls "demonstrations of her sys-
tem of philosophy" which she names Chris-
tian Science.

If her method of mental or metaphysical
healing, as taught by her, is not the only
method practiced by man, then what other
methods have been employed, or are still
employed? With what success have these
other methods been employed in healing
disease? To these questions we can give
but a passing notice in the present connec-
tion as we shall have occasion to present
the matter in another chapter. We there-
fore consider them in a very general way
at this point, that the reader may be pre-
pared for the arguments and facts that are
to follow.

Faith-healing is a method of curing dis-

16 Christian Science against Itsdf

ease that has been employed to a greater or
less extent for centuries by both Catholics
and Protestants, and in various countries;
and there are still many establishments sus-
tained for this express purpose of curing the
sick. A great many remarkable cures have
been claimed and published by the man-
agers of these institutions, cures quite as
startling and remarkable as any that are
claimed by Christian Scientists. There is
just as good reason for believing them to
be genuine cures as any that are performed
by their methods. Even the most ardent of
them will hardly deny this fact, though
they claim superiority for their method.

Hypnotism and mesmerism have also
effected many cures of a like character, and
no one can say that, in some instances, the
cures have not been genuine or lasting.
Spiritualists, Mormons, and many others,
have claimed miraculous cures by laying on
of hands, or other methods without the use
of drugs or medicines; and in some instances
they seem to have produced quite remark-

The Question Stated 17

able results. Others going about the
country independently of any Church or
society, have professed to cure all kinds of
diseases by their touch or word. No per-
son who reads the papers can be ignorant
of these facts. And in many instances they
have astonished the public with the cures
they have apparently wrought by these
means. People have gone to them in car-
riages or on crutches, unable to help them-
selves, and have come away leaving their
crutches or canes behind them as mementos
of the cures. How far or how long they
have gone without these, we shall not say
at present; but we venture that it is quite
as long as many of those who have claimed
to be healed by Christian Science. We
chance to know many who have professed
to be healed by this last method, who have
discovered in a few weeks that they have
been laboring under an awful delusion, and
soon fell into the undertaker's hands. But
more of this later.

Holy shrines, and sacred waters, and

18 Christian Science against Itself

miraculous grottoes, are made the causes of
many wonderful cures to the faithful, who
make pilgrimages to these holy places. Of
this kind may be mentioned Knock Chapel,
in Ireland, and the Lourdes Grotto in
France. Others of the kind may be found
in Montreal, Can., and in New Orleans, La.
To these places hundreds of thousands re-
sort to be healed of diseases that medical
treatment has failed to help, and many re-
markable cures are reported at these places.
In none of these methods of mental
healing is the patient required to deny the
existence of his material body or the reality
of sickness and disease, and repudiate his
senses and his consciousness except in
Christian Science. This system alone re-
quires him to ignore his reason, sensation,
and all rational thought, and base his cure
on the repudiation of all that commends
itself to reason and common sense. It is a
system that stands on a constant denial of
all that every rational mind must and does
believe. We except not even the votaries of

- The Question Stated 19

the system itself; for every one of them be-
lieves in the reality of the body, and accepts
the evidence of the physical senses, as we
shall prove before we get through with
these chapters. If the reader will follow us
to the close of these pages, we will satisfy
him that there is not one of them, not ex-
cepting even Mrs, Eddy lierself, but believes
fully in the reality of the body and material
things, notwithstanding their constant de-
nial of them in theory.

Let not the reader suppose, then, for a
moment, that Mrs. Eddy was the first to
practice mind-cure, or metaphysical healing,
as she designates her system. She is the
only one, or rather, I may say, the first one,
to base mental therapeutics on an irrational
basis; the first one to require the patient to
reject all rational thought, and declare irra-
tional and unthinkable things to be truth.

Since it is evident, then, that mind-cure
has been practiced for centuries, and by
persons of different ideas and methods, as
Mrs. Eddy herself admits, we will turn for

20 Christian Science against Itself

a little while to the consideration of the
rationale of the treatment as performed by
all of these systems and methods. For
generations the most learned and widely-
experienced psychologists, both in Europe
and America, have given the subject careful
and scientific investigation; not, indeed,
after the method of Mrs. Eddy, whose only
method is to conceive an idea, and then de-
clare that that is infallible truth, because she
says so, and God gave it to her, and man
must accept it alone as truth (although it
requires him to throw away his reason and
common sense in doing so), but by carefully
examining facts as facts, according to the
inductive method, and then drawing conclu-
sions from the results of these examinations
and experiments; not with a set of chimer-
ical ideas which are declared to be "noth-
ing," but with real facts, governed by laws.
This is the only true scientific method.
What Mrs. Eddy calls "Science," is pure
dogma, as we shall show later. The facts,
then, regarding mind-cures, as the conclu-

The Question Stated 21

sions of a long series of scientific experi-
ments, may be summarized as follows:

First. There is a certain recuperative
force inherent in all organic bodies, by
which nature repairs injuries and waste, and
overcomes the tendency to disease. With-
out this recuperative force, it would be im-
possible for the system to restore the equi-
librium of health and vitality after having
been emaciated by disease or exhausting
labor. We speak of rest recuperating the
system. This is not strictly correct. In
rest there is simply a cessation of wear and
tear, during which time the recuperative
forces of nature repair the waste, and build
up the tissue. It is not claimed that drugs
and medicines themselves cure disease; they
merely aid nature in putting her recupera-
tive forces to work.

Second. There is a subtle power of mind
over the body, often affecting functional or
organic action, and either aiding the recu-
perative forces of nature, or retarding them,
and thus tending to either health or disease.

22 Christian Science against Itself

Third. Certain abnormal conditions of
mind — such as fear, anger, hatred, grief,
disappointment, etc. — often produce an ab-
normal condition of the body. That is, the
abnormal condition of mind, through its
influence over matter, interferes with the
normal functions of the bodily organs.
People may as truly die of grief, disappoint-
ment, homesickness, or fear, as of the small-
pox or consumption. These are facts which
none can deny.

Fourth. This abnormal condition we
call disease. Disease is not always a thingy
but is often merely a condition. Where the
disease is in the form of an infection, or
caused by the existence of certain microbes
or bacilli in the system, it might then, with
some degree of propriety be called a thing.
But where the disease is merely in the form
of a functional derangement, caused by
some abnormal and disturbing condition of
mind, it may then be spoken of more cor-
rectly as a condition.

Fifth. Where the disease is merely an

The Question Stated 23

abnormal condition of the functions oi the
body, resulting from some abnormal condi-
tion of mind, it will be seen that medicines
will have less curative effect upon it than
has a restoration to a normal, and comfort-
able state of mind. To illustrate: Sup-
pose a person to be suffering from a disap-
pointment in love. This abnormal condition
of grief resulting from it will disturb the
healthy and normal condition of the body,
and often send the victim into a decline. All
the drugs in the world would probably fail to
restore the sufferer to a healthy condition
while the sorrow continued. But let the re-
creant lover return and seek reconciliation
and renewal of the old affection; or let some-
thing come in to convince the sorrowing one
that the object of the ill-requited love was
unworthy, and the old love is cast aside, so
that the grief is gone, and a new love takes
the place of the old; how quickly the physical
system will respond to the new and normal
condition of mind! Here the disease, being
merely a condition corresponding to the con-

24 Christian Science against Itself

dition of mind, readily responds to the resto-
ration of a normal condition of mind, and by
the recuperative forces of nature alone. This
is simply an illustration of numberless cases
of diseases of mental origin, any of which
may yield, perhaps, more readily to mental
than to medical treatment.

Sixth. The rationale of this method of cur-
ing disease is, that the normal mental state,
which has interfered with the normal func-
tions of the body, no longer existing (having
been removed by some mental process), na-
ture, being left to exercise without interrup-
tion her recuperative force, soon restores the
body to a normal or healthy condition.

Seventh. It is an established fact that will-
power also greatly aids nature in her effort
to overcome abnormal and defective condi-
tions of the body. Anything, therefore, that
will strengthen the will to rise above physical
ailments, tends to increase the power of mind
to overcome and cure disease. Whatever be-
gets faith in the patient increases the will-
power. Herein is the secret of the success

The Question Stated 25

of Christian Science undoubtedly; for the
first thing required in the patient is to declare
that he is not sick, he is well. Now, Mrs.
Eddy disclaims that faith has anything to do
with it. But herein she either fails to notice
that the surest way to rouse the will to its
highest possible limit is for a person to be
made to believe that there is nothing the matter
with him; for, having grasped that idea, he is
ready for the highest effort of the will, to
demonstrate that he is well; or else she, seeing
this fact, realizes the result of such knowl-
edge upon her patients in weakening their
faith in her exclusive system; and so "the
hope of her gains would be lost." It is there-
fore necessary that her followers should be
blinded to these established facts concerning
the influence of will-power over the body.

Eighth. Whatever, therefore, can restore
the mind to a perfectly normal condition (a
condition of faith, hope, and love), and hold
it there, becomes a means of cure for those
diseases which result from an abnormal con-
dition of mind.

26 Christian Science against Itself

Ninth. The secret of all mind-cure is the
use of means that will restore the mind from
an abnormal to a normal condition, when na-
ture by her recuperative forces will restore
a normal and healthy action to the organs of
the body. By a normal condition is meant,
not only a condition of faith, hope, and love,
but that cheerful, contented, and happy frame
of mind which is the natural result of such
qualities or graces of spirit, and puts an end
to worry and melancholy moods or feelings.

Tenth. Any method by which the mind
can be brought to a normal condition, and
kept there, may, and will, effect the same kind
of cures, regardless of the character of the
operator, the correctness of his views, or the
degree of his scientific knowledge.

Eleventh. It therefore follows that the
cures effected by Christian Science treatment
are not in any sense evidence of the correct-
ness of the theories taught by Mrs. Eddy;
nor have her theories anything to do with the
cures, any further than they serve to restore
the mind to a normal condition, and

The Question Stated 27

strengthen the will to help nature in her work
of recuperation of the body.

All mental cures are restricted to the
classes of diseases which are caused by some
abnormal condition of mind, or which the
recuperative forces of nature can, and will,
restore by the aid of the normal condition of
mind and the exercise of the will-power.

Be it observed that many actual dis-
eases — as measles, scarlet-fever, smallpox,
and some kinds of fevers — ^run a natural
course, and often terminate in health without
medicine or drugs, simply by proper care and
diet, allowing nature full play in the exercise
of her recuperative and restorative powers.
Cures in such cases as these by mental pro-
cesses can not be accepted as evidence of any-
thing supernatural or extraordinary. Thou-
sands of such cases have terminated naturally
in health, without either medical or mental
treatment, but simply with proper care and
attention to sanitary rules; and often even
without much sanitation. In all cases of can-
cer, scrofula, tuberculosis, deformity, curv-

28 Christian Science against Itself

ature of the spine, loss of limbs, blindness,
deafness, and such like difficulties. Christian
Science, and all other systems of mental heal-
ing, are utterly powerless to cure. That there
are times when some appearance of improve-
ment is noticeable is undoubtedly the case.
But these are seen just the same, whether the
patient is treated with Christian Science or
not. That certain quieting effects of such
treatment are sometimes experienced is
doubtless also true. But these have been,
and can be, produced without Christian Sci-
ence at all.

This law of limitation applies equally to
all kinds of mental healing practiced since
apostolic times, including Christian Science,
faith-curing, mesmerism or hypnotism, mag-
netic healing by manipulation, charms, etc.
Not one of these has ever restored a lost limb,
or straightened a curved spine or a club-foot,
by any mental process whatever. This prac-
tically reduces all these systems to the same
category of natural phenomena, and places
them all on the same common level.

The Question Stated 29

Christian Science, therefore, from the ac-
cumulated evidence of a wide range of scien-
tific experiments in the art of mind-cure, can
not prove anything regarding the correctness
of their theories by the cures they have ef-
fected by their treatment, since all that it can
do can be accomplished by perfectly natural
and scientific methods. We must look, then,
for proof of Mrs. Eddy's theories elsewhere
than in her curing of disease. We shall,
therefore, turn to the examination of her
theories themselves, to see whether they will
be found to be in any sense Christian and
scientific.

Note. — For further consideration of the subject of healing
we refer the reader to the chapter on ** The Fallacy of So-called
Demonstrations. ' '

CHAPTER II

Mrs. Eddy's Methods and Claims

Before entering upon the discussion of
her theory in detail, it may be well to con-
sider for a brief space the claims of Mrs.
Eddy as the founder of Christian Science, and
the methods she employs in setting forth the
theories of this so-called "Divine Science,''
of which she is the "sole originator and pro-
prietor." These words are not used in any
sarcastic or frivolous sense, but as setting
forth the true relation of Mrs. Eddy to the
system of which she claims to be the author,
and of which, by the copyrighting of her
book, she makes herself the sole proprietress,
and which she claims it would be theft for
others to take illegally and appropriate to
their own advantage (p. 6).

In a book written under the title of "Sci-

** Methods and Claims 31

ence/* we might justly expect to find some
scientific method of investigation of the sub-
jects under discussion. But we look in vain
for any method based on the recognition of
certain fixed laws in the universe, and oper-
ating in the field of investigation covered by
the discussion. Her method certainly is not
the method used in the physical sciences, in-
ductive or deductive; for, denying the reality
of the existence of matter, she inust of neces-
sity deny all physics, which she does, and re-
pudiate "so-called physical laws!" Neither
is it a psychological method, for she ignores
the evidence of consciousness to all the per-
ceptions of sense; and this denial of the evi-
dence of sense is the first condition necessary
to the securing of the benefits of her system
of mental healing. Repudiating the facts of
consciousness, there is no ground for a psy-
chology, as there is no possibility of observ-
ing the laws of mind and its operations except
through consciousness. Consciousness is the
"I know" of everything. She calls her sys-
tem a psychology ; yet it is a psychology with-

32 Christian Science against Itself

out a method. She does not apply to her rea-
soning the inductive method; for she neither
examines scientifically particular cases, nor
does her system allow of such an examina-
tion; for it rejects all the perceptions of sense
and the supposed facts of consciousness.
Doing this, she leaves no ground whatever
for the examination of particular phenomena ;
for if what you see, hear, feel, taste, and smell,
and know in 'consciousness, are all illusions
of mortal mind, there are no data left on
which an examination of facts can be made.
She does not apply the intuitive nor the con-
sciential method, for her system requires one to
repudiate all sensation and consciousness of
bodily existence and material things; and,
that being done, there is no reliance to be put
upon intuition and introspection.

She does, indeed, talk about "demonstra-
tion" of her theories, and cites several in-
stances to prove the healing power of her art.
But she overlooks the fact that these very
cases which she quotes in proof of her theory,
jf true at all, disprove her whole theory, while

Methods and Claims 33

it seems to prove a certain healing power; for,
either she knew these cases to be real cases
of healing, or she did not. If she does not
know them to be real cases of healing, then
they are of no value in demonstrating her
claims; and if she does know them to be
real cases, she knows it through sensation
and consciousness; that is, she is sure of it
because she knows she saw them. There-
fore these, being real cases of healing, make
her seeing and knowing of the facts a reality.
And this, again, knocks out the whole
foundation of her system, which is, that
seeing and knowing are not realities, but
errors of mortal mind.

What, then, is the method of Mrs.
Eddy's "Science?" It is not a method of
investigation at all, but consists in simple
assertion — pure dogma. It is, then, purely
the Dogmatic Method. She asserts; and
that is to be the end of it with all her
pupils, however irrational or absurd the
proposition. But she repudiates dogma, and
therefore she repudiates her own method !

34 Christian Science against Itself

We do not, however, ask the reader to
accept any statement we are about to make
on our simple assertion of the fact. We
have carefully read and closely watched
through the entire work on "Science and
Health'* for a single case in which she has
tried to prove her doctrines on any recog-
nized scientific method, but have failed to
find one instance. The whole system rests
on the simple assertion of things as facts, —
dogma and nothing more. She continually
talks of her theories as susceptible of demon-
stration; and yet not in a single instance
does she demonstrate her propositions in
a scientific and rational way, so as to sub-
ject them to scientific criticism. And if we
were to apply the tests of scientific criticism
to her so-called demonstrations, she would
meet these criticisms by dogmatically as-
serting that all our so-called science is false
and nothing but mortal errors. What else
could she say, consistently with her creed
as she lays it down in her book? We ask
the reader's careful and thoughtful consid-

Methods and Claims 35

eration of this fact, as we can not deal with
Mrs. Eddy as we would deal with any re-
puted or acknowledged scientist. Be it
remembered that Mrs. Eddy repudiates all
the natural or physical sciences, and does
so without any logical proof against them
whatever, but wipes them out by her own
imperious dogmatic assertion. This is the
logical and necessary sequence of her pri-
mary principle that "matter is nothing."
Of course, if matter is nothing, then ma-
terial science is nothing also. There can
not be a science that deals with nothing.
Therefore her assumption that matter and
material science are both nothing, places
her at once behind

A BARRICADE OF DOGMA

which no amount of reasoning or evidence
can penetrate. Her very position renders
her, so far as logical reasoning is concerned,
unassailable. Assuming that "matter is
nothing," no argument based on the sup-
posed laws or phenomena of matter will

36 Christian Science against Itself

count for anything. Yet this dogmatic
assumption and assertion she designates as
"Science." She designates "the tangled
barbarisms of learning" as "mere dogma"
(p. 91), and yet every proposition in her
whole theory is pure dogma, nothing more.
To illustrate this fact and show that we
are not misrepresenting Mrs. Eddy, we call
the reader's attention to the following in-
stances of her dogmatic assertion. On page
42 she says: "Medicine is not a science, but
a bundle of speculative human theories."
Then she attempts to prove this dogmatic
assertion by another, equally without proof:
"The prescription which succeeds in one in-
stance fails in another; and this is owing to
the different mental states of the patient.''
Thus she proves dogma by dogma, which
is equivalent to saying, "I say this is so, and
it is so because I say it is so." This is pre-
cisely her method through the entire book;
and this method she calls "Science." A
science that recognizes no laws as its base,
and no method but bare assertion, ought

Methods and Claims 37

hardly to commend itself to the common
sense of intelligent people. Yet the strang-
est thing in her theory is, that she requires
her pupils, at the threshold of her science,
to repudiate their common sense, and ignore
all the sources by which we are able to ac-
quire knowledge, and go on in this science
by continually denying all that commends
itself to the intelligence of a rational being,
walking blindly and by an irrational cre-
dulity in her dogmatic assertions, which are
not only unproved, but incapable of being
proved, according to the hypotheses laid
down in her own system. But of this we
will treat later.

To show further her dogmatic method,
we quote her words found on page 44:
"The hosts of -^sculapius are flooding the
world with diseases, because they are ig-
norant that the human mind and body are
one." Here are two assertions which rest
purely on dogma, which she condemns:
First, that "the hosts of iEsculapius [the
medical profession] are flooding the world

38 Christian Science against Itself

with diseases;" and second, that "the human
mind and body are one." Neither of these
statements is backed up by any proof, other
than a series of assertions equally dogmatic
and without proof. Throughout the entire
book we have been unable to find the slight-
est evidence that the mind and body are
one, which could be considered worthy of
the name of a scientific proof. This is
equally true of all her fundamental proposi-
tions, as well as of her "reasoning" in sup-
port of them. For this reason we claim
that Mrs. Eddy's theory is not entitled to
the name of science at all, but rather be-
longs to the realm of philosophy. As a
system of philosophy it might be justly
classed in the category of philosophical
systems, as many of those systems, while
they afford an opportunity for speculative
thought, and so relieve pent-up brains of
surplus imaginations, are nevertheless not
regarded as worthy of the name of science.
Another instance of dogma may be found
on page 54 : "Unless muscles are self-

Methods and Claims 39

acting at all times, they are never so, —
never capable of acting contrary to mental
direction." Does she prove this by any
scientific evidence? Not at all. As usual,
the assertion is sustained by other assertions
equally without proof, or by a series of
questions that are calculated to delude the
readers who may not discern between argu-
ment and sophistry.

On page i68 we find another sample of
dogma: "The spiritual sense of the Scrip-
tures brings out the scientific sense, and is
the new tongue referred to in. the last
chapter of Mark's Gospel." What author-
ity has Mrs. Eddy for the assertion that
this "is the new tongue referred to in the
last chapter of Mark?" Nothing whatever,
save the assumption that she is inspired, —
has a revelation from God to open to the
world this new Hght, which she designates
as "Truth."

Her dogmatic method appears again on
page 1 66: "Matter and mind are antago-
nistic, and both have not place and power."

40 Christian Science gainst Itself

This, as usual, is backed up by no proof,
and yet the rational sense of mankind tells
us that there are both mind and matter,
and every Christian Scientist in the world
recognizes the fact in practical life, notwith-
standing her theory contradicts the fact.
Of this we will treat in the proper place.

Again, on page 170, she asserts that
"Natural Science, as it is commonly called,
is not really natural or scientific, because it
is deduced from the evidence of the physical
senses." So all the natural sciences are
annihilated by one fell sweep of her pen,
and with a single dogmatic statement.
There is not, in the whole of "Science and
Health," a single proof of this assertion so
often reiterated in this work, which she fain
would have us accept as "Divine Science."
And then, after annihilating all matter and
natural science by her dogmas, and declar-
ing the five senses "five mortal Beliefs"
(p. 484), she has the boldness to turn round
and tell us that "Ideas are tangible and
real" things (p. 175). What is the meaning

Methods and Claims 41

of the word "tangible?" Perceptible by the
touch. Now, after telling us that, when we
place our hand on a hard substance and
experience a sensation of . hardness, which
we call a property of matter, we must reject
the evidence of our consciousness to sensa-
tion as a mortal lie, and say, "There is no
matter, there is no sense of touch;" there-
fore, there being no sense of touch, and
nothing to touch, tangible is a delusive
word; there is no such thing as "tangible,"
— she turns around and tells us ^Hdeas are
tangible and real." What a stretch of
reason it must require to enable one to de-
clare and believe that a granite bowlder
striking him on the head is an illusion of
mortal mind; that feeling is a false sense;
and that the idea that such is the case is a
"tangible and real" thing, but the bowlder is
not! And yet an idea is something that we
never saw^ never felt, never tasted, never
smelt, and never heard; still we are to be-
lieve it to be a tangible thing. But, she
says, it is "tangible and real to immortal

42 Christian Science against Itself

consciousness." Now we submit it to rea-
son, whether, if we can not trust the con-
sciousness of "mortal mind," we can assert
anything positively of "immortal mind."
There is only one kind of consciousness of
which we are consciouSy and there is nothing
in that consciousness that tells us whether
it is mortal or immortal. All that conscious-
ness attests to, is present conditions of be-
ing and recollections of past experiences.
To declare this to be immortal conscious-
ness, is to indulge in simple dogma, and in
support of it Mrs. Eddy furnishes no proof
whatever but her repeated "dogmas."

How strange it is that people will con-
sent to throw away their reason as well as
the evidence of their senses, and, against
their consciousness, accept it as truth, that
"mind, supposed to exist in matter, or be-
neath a skull bone, is a myth, a miscon-
ceived sense, and false statement" (p. 177)!
And this is the kind of "truth that is to cast
out error" (p. 177).

Having thus far considered Mrs. Eddy's

Methods and Claims 43

scientific method, or rather her philosophic
method, of presenting what she is pleased
to call "Truth," we leave this part of our
subject for the present, and take up for a
few moments

HER PRETENSIONS TO INFALLIBILITY.

One would hardly think it possible that
one who has had so much to say against
the dogmas of science and religion would
herself lay claim to the dogma of infallibility.
Yet such is the case in substance in Mrs.
Eddy's claims to being the founder and only
reliable authority as an exponent of "Divine
Science," as she terms her philosophy.

That I may not be thought unfair in my
representations of the author of "Science
and Health/' I will quote again from her
own words, that the reader may fully un-
derstand her amazing pretensions.

On page 2 of "Science and Health" she
tells us how she received this new light or
truth, which she "named Christian Science."
She says: "Whence came to me this heav-

44 Christian Science against Itself

enly conviction — ^a conviction in antagonism
with the physical senses?" — the conviction
of "the false consciousness that life inheres
in the body." "The Divine Spirit testifying
through Christian Science unfolded to me the
demonstrable fact that matter possesses
neither sensation nor life; that human ex-
periences show the falsity of all material
things.'* That she claims her doctrine to be
a revelation is evident from the following
words found in the next paragraph: "My
conclusions were reached by allowing the
evidence of this revelation to multiply,"
etc. So, then, she claims her philosophy
to be a "revelation" from God. Now,
the reader's attention is called to the
fact that this is precisely what Mohammed
claimed for his religion and the Koran, or
Mohammedan Bible. It is just what the
notorious Joe Smith claimed for the ro-
mance written by Solomon Spaulding, and
which he secured from the publishing-house
where it had been deposited before Mr.
Spaulding's death, and converted it into the

Methods and Claims 45

Mormon Bible. It is precisely what Eman-
uel Swedenborg claimed for the visionary
fancies which he incorporated in his "True
Christian Religion." It is what Prince
Michael, of recent notoriety in Detroit,
claimed for the famous "Flying Roll." It
is what Mrs. White, of Adventist fame, has
claimed for all her "visions and revelations,"
out of which she has accumulated so much
notoriety and wealth.
Now let us ask,

DID THE SPIRIT OF GOD INSPIRE

all these divers and contrary documents,
and institute all these systems? Even Mrs.
Eddy would hardly claim that the Holy
Spirit was the author of all these systems.
Then, which one of them is to be received
as truth, when every one of these founders
lays claim, with Mrs. Eddy, to direct inspi-
ration from heaven for their words and
actions? And each one has, at least, quite
as good reasons for the claim as the author
of "Science and Health." Yea, much better

46 Christian Science against Itself

reasons for it; none of them requires man-
kind to repudiate their rational intelligence,
and accept a theory that does violence to
reason, consciousness, and every rational
conception of being; yea, and to every
rational method of scientific investigation.
Christian Science alone does this.

Like all other modern prophets, Mrs.
Eddy lays claim to infallibility (p. 4). In
fact this is necessary to make good her pre-
tensions to inspiration. We can hardly
charge mistakes, errors, or contradictions to
the Holy Spirit. With all these claimants
to inspiration, it is necessary to establish
this claim in the minds of their votaries, in
order to hold a grip on their reason and
conscience, as well as on their pocketbooks.
If that grip should be lost, all would be lost
to these traffickers in the credulity of man.
There is a slight difference, however, be-
tween Mrs. Eddy and Mohammed, Joseph
Smith, and Mrs. White. Whenever they
found themselves in a corner, and their
writings needed changing, they always had

Methods and Claims 47

a special revelation ready to bridge over the
difficulty. With Mrs. Eddy it is different.
She either does not discover the contradic-
tions and discrepancies in her arguments
and theories, or else she assumes that her
readers will not, and goes right on with her
arguments as if it never entered her mind
that any one would ever notice such trifling
discrepancies. And why should she, since
the first thing that is necessary to become
a Christian Scientist is to throw away one's
reason, and accept her statements without
question? Whatever contradictions might
appear to exist, must of course be attributed
to "the errors of mortal mind;" and so she
troubles not herself to find a new revelation.
All her disciples receive the initiatory train-
ing in the repudiation of the evidences of
the senses, mortal consciousness, and mor-
tal reason. They are then prepared to ac-
cept any theory, however absurd or self-
contradictory, and go on "demonstrating,"
as they call it, which is, in reality, nothing
more nor less than the persistent denial of

48 Christian Science against Itself

the "evidence of the senses" and the facts
of consciousness. This consciousness she
terms "mortal consciousness," as distin-
guished from "immortal consciousness."
Yet this distinction neither she nor any one
else has ever demonstrated by any scientific
method. Like all her other fundamentals,
it is pure dogma, and is accepted by her
followers without question. To question
would be to yield to "mortal mind."

IS IT ANY WONDER

then, that her votaries can see no contra-
dictions in her theories, when to think and
reason would be to turn away from the
truth? But to all who are not yet past the
point of rational thinking we call attention
to an important discrepancy in Mrs. Eddy's
claims. Please take notice that, four times
over in the first four pages of the first chap-
ter of "Science and Health," she claims that
her system of Christian Science came to her
as a revelation from God. Please notice
this word revelation^ for, after repeating it

Methods and Claims 49

over and over, she turns around almost with
the same breath, and in the same pages,
and claims it as her "discovery."

Now, let us examine a few passages in
which she claims it as her own discovery.
On page 8 of the Preface she says: "Since
the author's discovery of the adaptation of
truth to the treatment of disease," etc., on
page 9 (Preface) she speaks of "the degrees
by which she came at length to the solution
of the stupendous life problem," etc. Mark
carefully her words on page 12 of the Pref-
ace; she says she "closed her college, Oc-
tober 29, 1889, in the height of its prosperity,
with a deeplying conviction that the next two
years of her life should be given to the prepa-
ration of the revision in 1891 of "Science and
Health." *

"^An "Expose of Eddyism'* appeared in the May number of 7%e
Arena, 1899, in which the real cause why Mrs. Eddy closed her college
and left Boston at that time and took up the belief oi her abode in Con-
cord instead, seems to be accounted for, in mortal mind, in the follow-
ing paragraph from that article :

" In 1889, Mrs. Eddy ostensibly gave up her college, and retired to
Concord, N. H., at the very period when a Massachusetts district
attorney was looking for evidence of that institution's illegally confer-
ring degrees, of which there were thousands, punishable with a fine of
five hundred dollars for each offense. Is this the reason that for ten
years Mrs. Eddy has not visited Boston on a week-day, when she would
be subject to arrest ?"

Let the reader answer this question for himself.

50 Christian Science against Itself

Now, candid reader, if this new theory
was her own "discovery,'* as she claims so
often in her book, how does it come to be a
revelation from God? We hardly hear one
of the old prophets calling his prophetic an-
nouncements his "discovery." How funny it
would sound to hear Isaiah or Malachi or
John speaking of his "discoveries" in the
mysteries of God! Then, again, if this new
theory and system was a revelation from God,
and she believed that, how did she come to
get this "deeplying conviction" that the next
two years of her life should be given to the
preparation of the "revision" of "Science and
Health?" Is it not evident that she "discov-
ered" the need of such a revision? And if
so, were there not errors and defects that
needed alteration? If she found errors in
her system needing correction then, why may
there not be errors still that need correction?
Does she acknowledge such need, or intimate
that she may not, even yet, have attained
absolute perfection in her ideas of truth? Not
at all; but rather claims to be beyond im-

Methods and Claims 51

provement and above criticism. Why does
she do this? For the same reason that Mrs.
White and others of the same class claim in-
fallibility in their revelations — that she may
hold the monoply of the trade in Christian
Science literature. Let us notice how care-
fully she guards the financial side of her
scheme of philosophy. First, her claim to a
revelation is practically a claim to infallibility;
since, if it was a revelation from God, it must
be perfect and infallible, or it is not of God.
But her claim does not stop here. After tell-
ing us that she had it as a "revelatioji" from
the Holy Spirit, and that it was also her own
"discovery," she goes to work to revise it in
order to make it taking; and then copyrights
it in order that she may have the monopoly
of the trade it will create.

Now let us ask what right she has to copy-
right a "revelation" from God to the world,
and make the world pay two or three prices
for the only book that contains that message?
Is that much like the old prophets and apos-
tles, who laid down their lives that the world

52 Christian Science against Itself

might have the Word of Life? Evidently she
did think it was her own "discovery," or
else she has a little of the spirit that actuated
Simon Magus, who desired miraculous power
that he might speculate in working miracles.
Where is the difference between his case and
that of one who now claims to have a mission
to liberate the world from the awful thraldom
of "sin, sickness, and error,*' and who, having
received her message from God, goes out and
copyrights it, that none may get the knowl-
edge without paying her a twofold price for
it, looking at it from a commercial stand-
point? Is not this transaction somewhat like
that of Judas, who wanted to speculate in the
Lord of Glory, and sold him for thirty pieces
of silver?

To make herself doubly secure in this un-
righteous monopoly of her "Divine Science,"
she must again parade her infallibility. On
page 6 she says: "Is there more than one
school of Christian Science? Christian Sci-
ence is indivisible. There can, therefore, be
but one method in its teaching. Those who de-

Methods and Claims 53

part from this method forfeit their claims to
belong to this school, and become simply the
adherents of the Socratic, Platonic, etc. . . .
From the Infinite One in Christian Science
Cometh one Principle and its idea; and with
this one Principle come Spiritual rules and
their demonstration, which, like the great
Giver, are the same yesterday, to-day, and for-
ever. . . . Any theory of Christian Science
which departs from what has already been
stated, and proved to be true, affords no foun-
dation whereupon to establish a genuine
school of this Science. Also, if this new
school claims to be Christian Science, and yet
uses another author's discoveries, without giv-
ing that author proper credit, it inculcates a
breach of that Divine commandment in the
Hebrew Decalogue, Thou shalt not steal."

Really, how strongly this all smacks of the
tone of the patent-medicine venders: "Take
none without the trademark, or facsimile of
the manufacturers," etc. But aside from this
little piece of shrewdness to protect herself
in the monopoly of her book, there is another

54 Christian Science against Itself

feature to the matter which is of grave im-
portance in breaking down her theories. If
she believes, as she asks others to believe, that
"matter is nothing, and nothing is matter,"
why does she indulge in the "mortal error"
of thinking she has written a book, and then
spend two years in revising it; and then,
fancying that there is such a thing as money,
secure a copyright of this imaginary book,
when, according to her fundamental teach-
ings, the belief in the existence of both book
and money is but an "error of mortal mind?"
Either there is such a thing as a book, or there
is not. If there is, then the whole- theory of
her book goes down ; for it rests on the asser-
tion that there is no matter in the universe;
and if there is a book, it is a material book.
If, on the other hand, there is no such thing
as a book, why does she go through the form
of securing a copyright on an "error of mortal
mind," when the whole trend of her book is,
that we must deny all the beliefs of mortal
mind if we would enjoy the higher life of
Truth? And why should she accuse any one

Methods and Claims 55

of "stealing" the ideas contained in her book,
when, according to her teaching, there is no
hook? And if there were, there is no sin in
stealing, for "sin is nothing but the error of
mortal mind," which she affirms over and
over to be the case.

CHAPTER III
Mrs. Eddy*s Religious Creed

We would naturally suppose that "Chris-
tian Science'* would at least be Christian in
its fundamentals, whatever might be its minor
characteristics. Its title warrants this expec-
tation. What else should we expect of Chris-
tian Science than that it should be Christian,
or that it should be a system founded upon
the teachings of the Bible, and with a fair
show of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity?
But instead of this we find, at the very outset
of our investigation, that the teachings of
Mrs. Eddy in "Science and Health" are
neither Christian nor Biblical. A careful
analysis of this book will show very clearly
that while it purports to be based on the
Scriptures, it is wholly subversive of every

important doctrine in the Old and New Testa-

Religious Creed 57

merits. Whatever may be the sincerity or
candor of the author, she evidently is wholly
ignorant of the first principles of the science
of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
Many Christian people are being led every
day to embrace this new teaching, supposing
that there is nothing in it that is opposed to
the doctrines of the Bible and the teachings
of Christ, and little by little are drawn oflf
from the "fountain of living waters;" not sus-
pecting that they are embracing the veriest
idolatry that ever enticed humanity away
from God.

If the reader will carefully and honestly
follow the writer through these pages, and
take the trouble to examine and consider the
quotations from Mrs. Eddy's book, he will
doubtless see the awful delusion into which
the followers of this modern Antichrist are
being drawn. Thousands have already made
shipwreck of faith on this rock, and thousands
more are on the way of doing the same. Can-
did reason and investigation must pronounce
it a most subtle and soul-destroying heresy.

58 Christian Science against Itself

One can scarcely believe the ravages it is
making in the ranks of Christian people, un-
less he has actually seen the evidences of the
awful delusion. It would almost seem as if
God had "given them over unto strong delu-
sion, that they should believe a lie, that they
all might be damned who believe not the
truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness."
This may seem strong language; but if the
reader will follow the author through the
chapters of this book, he will no doubt con-
clude that the warning cry here raised is not
half so strong as it needs to be.

We have already said that the teachings
of Mrs. Eddy's book, "Science and Health,"
are wholly

SUBVERSIVE OF THE TEACHINGS

of the Old and New Testaments. Now, we
do not ask the reader to take our word for
this statement. All we ask is for him to go
carefully with us through Mrs. Eddy's reca-
pitulation of her own teachings, as she com-
piled it herself. We will not burden you with

Religious Creed 59

all her incoherencies relating to these doc-
trinal points, as that would be unnecessary;
but we quote all that embodies her real teach-
ings, without the mental incumbrances at-
tached. They neither elucidate nor explain,
but simply obscure and bewilder. There is
no finite being in heaven above, nor in the
earth beneath, nor in the waters under the
earth, that could understand what she does
mean by all her statements. No lunatic ever
uttered more incoherent babblings than are
collected together in her book, as any rational
being will see who reads it, using the reason
that God has given in considering it. But,
lest our judgment should be considered harsh,
we will ask the reader to join with us in a
short examination of her creed as she states
it herself. Remember, a person's creed is
what he believes. Like most impostors who
are seeking to make gain out of the credulity
of mankind, she denounces doctrines and
creeds, either willfully or ignorantly pretend-
ing to the listener that she has no creed
(p. 492). If you will take notice you will

60 Christian Science against Itself

see that, invariably, those who denounce
creeds have the most narrow and bigoted
creeds in the world. Any person who believes
anything and teaches anything has a doctrine
and a creed. Any teacher of philosophy or
religion who denounces creeds is either an
ignoramus or a knave. No one can believe
anything without having a belief and a creed.
Let us now examine

MRS. eddy's creed.

We quote from the 144th edition, begin-
ning on the 461st page, chapter on ** Reca-
pitulation.'' This chapter is a recapitulation
of the doctrines contained in her book, and
is arranged in the form of questions and an-
swers. Though she has not numbered these
questions in her book, I will do so here.

''Question i. What is God?

"God is Divine Principle, Supreme, incor-
poreal Being, Mind, Spirit, Soul, Life, Truth,
Love.

''Question 2. Are these terms synony-
mous?

Religious Creed 61

"They are. They refer to one God, and
nothing else.

''Question 5. Is there more than one Prin-
ciple?

"There is not. Principle is Divine, one
Life, one Truth, one Love; and this is God."

Now, dear reader, please take notice of
these propositions. Being, Mind, Spirit,
Soul, Life, Truth, and Love, are all but differ-
ent names for God; for these terms are synony-
mous, and there is but one Principle in the
universe, and "this is God." She tells us re-
peatedly in her book that Christian Science
also is "Truth," Therefore Christian Science
is God, for Truth and God are one. But she
secured a copyright on Christian Science.
Therefore, according to her log^c, she has a
copyright on God. This sounds very near
akin to blasphemy, does it not? But let us
go on :

''Question 4. What are Spirits and Souls?

"To human belief they are personalities
of Mind and Matter, Life and Death, Good
and Evil, Truth and Error. . . . The term

62 Christian Science against Itself

souls, or spirits, is as improper as the term
gods. Soul, or spirit, signifies Deity, and
nothing else. There is no finite soul or spirit.
Those terms mean only one existence, and
can not be rendered in the plural."

Now do we grasp the meaning of these
words of Mrs. Eddy? If so, there is but one
Spirit in the universe, and that is God. "Man
is Spirit,'' therefore man is God. To make
this more strong, she goes on to say that
"Heathen mythology and Jewish theology
have perpetuated the fallacy that intelligence,
soul, and life can be in matter;" that is, in
body. Further she says, right here, that
"Idolatry and ritualism are the outcome of
these man-made beliefs." But she has just
said that there is but one Spirit, and that is
God. Man, she says is Spirit, and therefore
man is God. If man and God are one, which
she repeatedly both affirms and denies, then
these "man-made theories" which she sneers
at are, according to her teaching, God-made
theories. If they are not God-made theories,
then God and man are two, not one.

Religious Creed 63

''Question 5. What is the Science of
Soul?"

Her answer to this question is indirect,
and we give a few selections to show her
meaning :

"The first commandment of this Science
is, Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
This Me is Spirit. Therefore the command-
ment means this. Thou shalt have no intelli-
gence, no life, no substance, no truth, no love,
but that which is spiritual. ... It should be
well understood that all men have one Mind,
one God and Father, one Life, Truth, and
Love. . . . Recollect that Science reveals
Spirit, Soul, as not in the body, and God is
not in man, but as reflected by man. The
greater can not be in the lesser. Such a be-
lief is an error that works ill. This is a lead-
ing point in Science of Mind, that Principle
is not in its idea.'* Just what she means by
this last clause it would be difficult for mortal
mind to divine. "Spirit, Soul, is not confined
in man, and is never in matter." The soul
is therefore not in the bodv. This is clearly

64 Christian Science against Itself

the teaching of Mrs. Eddy; according to her
own words here and elsewhere. This is
placed beyond doubt in the following ques-
tion:

"Question 6. What is the Scientific state-
ment of Being?

"There is no life, truth, intelligence, or
substance in matter. All is infinite Mind and
its infinite manifestation, for God is all in all.
Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal

error."

There can be no mistaking the import of
these words, whatever Mrs. Eddy may mean
by them.

"Question 7. What is Substance?

"That only which is eternal, and incapable
of discord or decay. Truth, Life, and Love
are substance."

One almost smiles and wonders what kind
of substance Truth is.

'Question 8, What is Life?

'Life is Divine Principle, Mind, Soul,
Spirit, without beginning and without end.
Eternity, not time, expresses the thought of

Religious Creed 65

Life, and time is no part of eternity. One
ceases when the other is recognized. . . .
Life is neither in, nor of matter. . . . Matter
is a human concept. ... If Life ever had a
beginning", it would also have an ending."

So we are assured here, as elsewhere, that
human life has neither beginning nor end,
neither birth nor death, but is eternal (page
140).

"Question p. What is Intelligence?

"Intelligence is omniscience, omnipres-
ence, and omnipotence. It is the Infinite
Mind."

Then man is either omniscience, omni-
presence, and omnipotence, or he is not an
intelligent being. So it is clear that she
teaches that man is God, and God is man.

''Question 10. What is Mind?

"Good or God, is the only Mind, . . .
There can be but one Mind, because there is
but one God," etc.

Then she goes on to show that, to admit

the existence of any other principle, would be

to destroy God's omnipresence, and that man,
5

66 Christian Science against Itself

being God's expression, is necessarily always
and forever perfect (p. 466).

"Question 11, Are doctrines and creeds
a benefit to man?"

In the answer there is nothing directly
bearing on the subject; but indirectly she de-
nounces creeds, reaffirms that "God is the*
only Life," and this Life is "Truth and Love."
And having assured us, in her answer to
Question i, that Life, Truth, Love, and God
are synonymous terms, it simply makes hu-
man life a part of God, which she always
teaches.

"Question 12. What is Error?

"Error is a supposition that pleasure and
pain, intelligence, substance, and life,, are ex-
istent in matter. Error is neither mind, nor
one of its faculties. . . . Error is unreal be-
cause untrue."

^Question 15. Is there no Sin?

^The only reality of sin, sickness, or death
is the awful fact that unrealities seem real to
human belief, until God strips off their dis-
guise. . . . The Science of Mind disposes of

Religious Creed 67

all error. Sin, sickness, and death are to be
classed as effects of error. . . . Soul is the
Divine Principle of man, and_ nez;^r sins*'

(p. 477).

'Question 14. What is Man?

'Man is not matter, made up of brains,

blood, bones, and other material elements.

The Scriptures inform us that man was made

in the image and likeness of God. Matter

is not that likeness."

Here Mrs. Eddy shrewdly omits that the
Scriptures also say that the Lord God made
man out of the dust of the earth. To admit
that there is dust or earth, would be to yield
up her position regarding matter. In this
connection she still further says: "Man is in-
capable of sin, sickness, or death" (p. 471).

Now think on this, ye who fancy that
Christian Science is in harmony with the
teachings of the Bible, and that you are not
rejecting the Scriptures in accepting this
teaching of Mrs. Eddy's. It is virtually a re-
jection of both the Old and New Testaments,
inasmuch as the Old Testament deals chiefly

68 Christian Science against Itself

with the sinner and his sins, and the New
Testament with the sinner and his Savior, and
practically rejects the doctrine of the atone-
ment. This rejection Mrs. Eddy seeks to hide
under the subterfuge of a visionary scheme of
self-saving. Christ only saves us from our
sins by teaching us that our ideas of the
reality of sin are all false. We are saved from
our sins by simply denying them (p. 493).
The idea of repentance, prayer, hope, and
faith in the atonement of Christ, she makes
a matter of ridicule. (See pp. 326, 327, and
311, 312, 331.) No one who has ever read
"Science and Health" can deny this fact. Yet
this arch-seducer of God's people calls this
teaching ''Christian Science," thus sugar-
coating this awful and damning heresy under
the name of "Christian."

''Question 15. What are Body and Soul?

"A material body is a mortal belief. . . .
Soul is the substance, life, and intelligence
of man. Soul is embodied, but not in matter,
and can never be reflected in anything inferior

Religious Creed 69

to itself. . . . What evidence have you of
soul or immortality within mortality? . . .
Who can see a soul in the body?" (p. 473).

So there is no body in which soul exists.
Reader, do you comprehend what that
means?

"Question 16. Do not brains think and
nerves feel? and is there no intelligence in
matter?"

Please take notice of this little piece of
sophistry. No one believes that nerves feel
and brains think. These organs are only the
instruments through which the soul com-
municates with the material world. It is, in-
deed, not the eye that sees, nor the ear that
hears, nor the brain that thinks; but the soul
that sees, hears, and thinks through these or-
gans. But Mrs. Eddy shrewdly takes advan-
tage of the thoughtlessness of the masses, and
plays upon their fancy by her sophistry, and
uses this to create the impression that she has
truth on her side, and that, therefore, the soul
does not operate through the organs of sense.

70 Christian Science against Itself

And yet she admits the reality of both matter
and body, times without number, as we shall
see before we get through.

This question she does not answer, though
she fills four pages with assertions that have
no real bearing on the subject embodied in
it. Her contradictions we shall show in an-
other chapter. At present we simply aim to
show what she gives herself, as a summary of
her teaching, that the reader may judge of the
Scripturalness and reasonableness of her
theories.

"Question J/. Is it important to under-
stand these explanations in order to heal the
sick?

"It is."

Then follows a little discussion about her
"sacred discovery," which has no support or
authority except her dogmatic assertion of
theories as facts.

''Question i8. Does Christian Science, or
Metaphysical Healing, include medication,
hygiene, mesmerism, or mediumship?

"Not one of them is included in it. The

Religious Greed 71

supposed laws of matter yield to the law of
mind in Divine Science. What are termed
Natural Science and Material Laws are rules
of mortal mind."

Please observe that this statement rests, as
usual, on her simple assertion; no proof is
adduced in evidence of it.

'^Question ip. Is not Materiality the con-
comitant of Spirituality, and is not Material
Sense a necessary preliminary to the under-
standing and expression of Spirit?

"If error is necessary to define or reveal
truth, the answer is. Yes; but not otherwise."

This answer is based on the assumption
that matter and material sense are both
"error," which she continually asserts, but
nowhere proves in her book.

''Question 20. You speak of Belief. Who,
or what is it, that believes?

"Spirit understands, and thus precludes
the need of believing. Matter can not be-
lieve, but mind understands."

Here she plays a little sophistical dodge
on mere words. Nobody of intelligence holds

72 Christian Science against Itself

that matter believes, and Mrs. Eddy knows
that as well as we. But by placing matter in
opposition to mind, she may make a point
with careless or unskilled readers. When she
says that "mind understands," she expresses
the whole gist of her method; she simply ac-
cepts the fancies and visions of her own mind
as "understanding." She has supernatural
sight and insight, and that is the end of it.
Swedenborg did the same. Her fancies are
therefore "Divine Science." This is the sum-
total of her method from beginning to end,
and we challenge a single exception in the
whole chain of her argument throughout the
entire book.

''Qtiestion 21. Do the five corporeal
senses constitute man?"

This question of Mrs. Eddy's is quite as
sophistical as the preceding. Who believes
that the "five corporeal senses constitute
man?" No rational and civilized man as-
sumes any such thing. Then why put the
question in such a way as to intimate that

Religious Creed 73

such is the case? But let us notice her an-
swer to this deceptive question :

"Christian Science sustains, with infalli-
ble proof, the impossibility of any material
sense, and defines those so-called senses as
mortal beliefs."

"Infallible proof is ever her watchword;
but, alas! where is the infallible proof? In
vain do we look through the entire book for
the "infallible proofs" so often spoken of.
Not a scientific proof is given for a single
statement, other than that she has a revela-
tion from heaven, — the same proof that Joe
Smith had of the truth of the Mormon Bible.
No more.

^^Qu£Stion 22. Will you explain sickness,
and show how it is healed?"

The answer to this question is funnier than
all that have gone before it. She says:

"Like a surgeon bandaging the limb and
arranging the plasters, before proceeding to
amputation, the author has been preparing to
answer this question."

74 Christian Science against Itself

Now that is exactly what we have been
noticing in studying these questions and an-
swers* As the huge anaconda prepares to
swallow its victim by first breaking all its
bones, and then sliming it over so it will go
down easy, so Mrs. Eddy has coiled herself
around the Christian system, breaking all the
doctrinal bones of Christianity, and then
slimed it over with her sophistries, so that her
pupils might have no difficulties in swallow-
ing it. But before doing all this, it seems
necessary first to hypnotize the victim, so that
there can be no resistance, and under this
strange spell the victim of these awful delu-
sions fancies that he is entering some en-
chanted ground of heavenly beatitudes.

'^Question ^j. How can I progress most
rapidly in the understanding of Christian
Science?

"Study thoroughly the letter, and imbibe
the spirit. Adhere to its Divine Principle,
and follow its behests, abiding steadfastly in
Wisdom, Truth, and Love."

Now let us ask what she means by "the

Religious Creed 75

letter." It means Mrs. Eddy's writings on
Christian Science, which she claims to be the
only infallible guide to light and truth. Just
as Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Mrs. White,
and Prince Michael hold their followers in
subjection on the assumption that they are
inspired, and their word must be accepted
without question and as supreme authority
for human conduct and human thought, so
Mrs. Eddy plays on the superstitious fear and
credulity of her pupils and readers. And
why ? Because her gains out of this new reve-
lation depend on this worshipful reverence
paid to her as the "Mother" of Truth. They
even go so far toward idolatrous worship as
to call her by that holy name of "Mother."
If men and women should cease to recognize
the infallibility or correctness of her theory,
all "the hope of [her] gains would be lost."
But she says further, "Abide steadfastly in
Wisdom, Truth, and Love." Now please
bear in mind that she says that Christian Sci-
ence is Wisdom, Truth, and Love. So her
prescription for progress in Christian Science

76 Christian Science against Itself

is simply, in other words, Study carefully Mrs.
Eddy's book, and stand fast in her teachings
without questioning or doubting. But Paul
says, "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith
Christ hath made you free, and be not again
entangled with the yoke of bondage."

'^Question 24. Have Christian Scientists
any religious creed?

"They have not, if we accept the term as
doctrinal beliefs."

Now this is marvelous indeed ! Can Mrs.
Eddy be so ignorant as not to see the fallacy
of this statement? Or does she think her
readers will not discover the fraud of it? She
has "no creed in the sense of doctrinal beliefs.*'
Now go to the dictionary and look up these
two words, "doctrine" and "creed." We find
that "doctrine" is "what is taught; a principle
of belief; instruction;" "creed," that which is
believed; a summary of the articles of faith.

Now, she has given these twenty-four
questions, and their answers, as her own sum-
mary of her teaching or belief. What is taught
and believed is doctrine. A creed is a state-

Religious Creed 77

ment of doctrines believed and taught. Yet
Mrs. Eddy, after setting forth this summary
of her doctrines, says she has no creed. The
only rational and consistent conclusion of
these statements is, that in all the arguments
or statements contained in her book, she has
taught nothing — given no instruction. And
that is the conclusion reached by all candid
and logical critics. She has literally taught
nothing, only asserted that which no rational
being can or does believe — not even Mrs.
Eddy herself, as we shall show before we get
through with this book.

CHAPTER IV

Christian Science — Unchristian and Anti-

christian

Having presented to the reader the gist
of Mrs. Eddy's doctrines as arranged by her-
self in her recapitulation of her book, and
which she designates as "Christian Science,"
we shall now proceed to show that her sys-
tem is neither Christian nor scientific. In the
present chapter it is our purpose to show that
it is not only unchristian, but antichristian,
unscriptural and antiscriptural. Her teach-
ing is not only wholly subversive of all the
teachings of the Old and New Testaments,
but is utterly opposed to all the cardinal doc-
trines of the Holy Book. She is at variance
with every sacred writer from Genesis to
Revelation. She denies the first chapter of

Genesis, ridicules the statements of the last

Unchristian and Antichristian 79

chapter of Revelation, and repudiates all that
lies between them.

Now, lest we be considered extreme in
our views of her teachings, let us look for a
moment at the first verse of Genesis, and see
how Mrs. Eddy disposes of that.

"In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth.'' Now, Mrs. Eddy says, "There
is no physical science" (p. 21). "Matter is
nothing, and nothing is matter" (p. 7).
"Nothing we can say regarding matter is
true, except that matter is unreal, and there-
fore a belief" (p. 173). "God never created
matter."

Now, Moses gets a slap on the mouth
from this modem prophetess on the utterance
of the very first sentence that he writes. How
stupid to write about the creation of the
"earth" when there is and can be no matter
out of which to form a world, and matter is
nothing but "belief!" This ancient and anti-
quated scientist is ordered down by the asser-
tion that "matter is nothing, and nothing is
matter" (page 7); that "matter is one of the

80 Christian Science against Itself

false beliefs of mortals, and exists only in a
supposititious mortal consciousness."

Therefore, all the first chapter of Genesis,
and whatever relates to the creation of this
earth, is but a myth, a "belief of mortal mind."
Those stories about the earth "bringing forth
abundantly" are but mortal dreams, since
Mrs. Eddy has discovered (p. 176) that
"trees, plants, and flowers are but ideas of
mind." Moses only had a "mortal belief"
that there were trees and plants. The poor
old man did not even have any brains to think
it with; for by this "divine discovery," Mrs.
Eddy has made known further that man is
"not made up of brains, blood, bones, and
other material elements" (p. 471); and "mind,
supposed to exist in matter, or beneath a
skull-bone, is a myth" (p. 177).

These are Mrs. Eddy's own statements re-
garding a material world, and these are but a
few out of hundreds of the kind appearing in
her "Science and Health," which she calls
"Christian Science." Reader, "What think-
est thou? How readest thou?"

^j^.-

Unchristian arid Antichristian 81

Having thus disposed of the first chapter
of Genesis, let us now see how her theory
deals with the last chapter of Revelation.
John says: "And he saith unto me, Seal not
the sayings of the prophecy of this book
[nor copyright it], for the time is at hand."
"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still;
and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still;
and he that is righteous, let him be righteous
still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still."

Hold on there, John ! Do n't you know
better than to teach those old beliefs of "mor-
tal error?" You are too material altogether
to be classed among the disciples of Truth!
Your old "Revelation" is out of date. A
modern prophetess has arisen with a new
"Revelation," by which she has discovered
to the world that there is no such thing as "sin
and wickedness." That is all belief of error.
"A wicked man is not the idea of God. He
is little else than a creation of error. To sup-
pose that hatred, envy, pride, malice, hypoc-
risy, have life abiding in them, is a terrible
mistake. Life and Life's idea, Truth and

82 Christian Science against Itself

Truth's idea, never make men sick or sinfur
(page 185). "Through discernment of the
spiritual opposite of materiality, even the way
through Christ, Truth, man will reopen, with
the key of [Christian] Science, the gates of
Paradise which human beliefs have closed,
and will find himself un fallen, upright, pure,
and free" (p. 63). "The belief of sin, which
has g^own terrible in strength and influence,
is an unconscious error in the beginning''
(p. 81). "The only reality of sin . . . is the
awful fact that unrealities seem real to hu-
man belief" (p. 468).

Now, John, why talk about man being sin-
ful, unjust, filthy, or unholy after that? How
sweetly this all must sound to those who "roll
sin as a sweet morsel under their tongues,"
and delight to think that this old idea of sin is
all a delusion after all!

But let us follow John a little further, and
see what becomes of his teachings, according
to Mrs. Eddy's new "divine discovery." John
says, verse 18: "For I testify unto every man
that heareth the words of the prophecy pf

\
\

Unchristian and Antichristian 83

this book, If any man shall add unto these
things, God shall add unto him the plagues
that are written in this book."

Now, here is a woman in our day who is
adding unto the sayings of God's Book a new
"revelation" that practically sets aside all that
God has ever written concerning the awful
reality of sin and evil, and tells us that there
is no such thing in the universe, and all that
is necessary to get rid of the supposed guilt
of sin, is to deny the reality of it. A wonderful
salvation, that!

Why talk about "the plagues that are writ-
ten in this book" when there are no plagues
but the errors of mortal mind, and she tells
us that God never creates nor sends evil, and
"mortal mind is nothing?" If she is right,
then John is wrong. Nothing could be more
diametrically opposed to each other than
Christian Science and the Revelation of St.
John. Which, then, is to be regarded as a
"Revelation" from God, the Bible or Chris-
tian Science, which Mrs. Eddy has copyrighted
for her own financial profit?

84 Christian Science against Itself

Thus it is very plain that Mrs. Eddy's
teachings are in direct opposition to the first
chapter of Genesis and the last chapter of
Revelation. The first claims to be the true
account of the beginning of all terrestrial
things, and the latter the end, or final out-
come, of all human life. It is impossible that
these chapters should be true, and the theory
that utterly contradicts them be true at the
same time. Moses says God created the
earth, and trees, and plants; Mrs. Eddy says
God did not create plants, nor trees, nor mat-
ter, for these are "nothing but ideas of mortal
mind;" and if there were anything else besides
God in the universe, there could not be God.
"There is but one Principle — God. God is
all, and all is God,*' As matter, plants, and
flowers are only errors of mortal mind, and
God did not make mortal mind, therefore God
did not create matter (earth), plants, nor
flowers. So Mrs. Eddy's theory, whatever
she may think or believe herself, denies that
God created the world. And as "God never

Unchristian and Antichristian 85

created evil/' there are no plagues added by
God to those who add to the prophecy (reve-
lation) of the inspired Book. Dear reader,
before you turn away from God's Book for
such teachings as these, turn to the Old
Testament, and see what terrible judgments
befell God's ancient people for turning away
from the Word of the Lord for other and idol-
atrous religions. Remember there is, and can
be, no concord between the Holy Scriptures
and Christian Science — between Christ and
Belial. I shall now proceed to show that, to
accept the teachings of Mrs. Eddy, is to reject
every cardinal doctrine taught in the Old and
New Testaments.

I. MRS. eddy's teaching REJECTS THE DOC-
TRINE OF THE CREATION OF THE
WORLD BY ALMIGHTY GOD.

We quote her own words on page 7:
"The fundamental propositions of Chris-
tian Science are summarized in the four fol-
lowing, to me, self-evident propositions.

86 Christian Science s^inst Itself

Even if read backward, these propositions will
be found to agree in statement and proof:

"i. God is all in all.

"2. God is good. God is mind.

"3. God, Spirit, being all, nothing is
matter.

"4. Life, God, omnipotent Good, deny
death, evil, sin, disease. Disease, sin, evil,
death, deny Good, omnipotent God, Life."

On these four propositions her whole ar-
gument in the book Is based. "There is but
one Principle, Spirit, Being, in the universe."
If there was anything else, then God could not
be omnipresent. She asserts (page 20),
"There can be nothing beyond illimitable Di-
vinity." "Matter and death are but mortal
illusions^' (p. 185).

Nothing can be plainer than these state-
ments. If "matter is nothing, and nothing
is matter," and there is but "one Principle,
one Mind" in the universe, then God did not
create any world, as is declared in Genesis i.

Mrs. Eddy very shrewdly puts in her state-
ment, as given above, the clause, "The four

Unchristian and Antichristian 87

following, to me, self-evident propositions."
But if she knows anything about science, she
knows that a proposition is not "self-evident,"
unless it is self-evident to all rational beings
alike; and must be so because it can not, to a
rational being be seen, or thought of, other-
wise. But instead of finding her propositions
self-evident, it is self-evident that her propo-
sitions are not true. For it is self-evident
that, if there is nothing in the universe but
God, then there was nothing created. If
something was created, and there is nothing
but God, then God created himself. But it
is self-evident that no being can create him-
self; therefore there was nothing created, or
else there is something besides God. Only
an irrational being can believe a self-evident
contradiction to be self-evident truth. If
Mrs. Eddy believes all the contradictory
things which she states in her book, she is
in an irrational state of mind; since a ra-
tional being can not believe two evidently
contrary propositions. To say that "God is
all, and all is God," and there can not be

88 Christian Science against Itself

two principles or things in existence, and at
the same time to say that "man is not God,
and God is not man," are self-evident con-
tradictions. Compare pages 85, 146, 230, and
476, and you will find that these are her
statements. In her chapter on "Genesis"
she ridicules the whole story of the creation
as myth.

II. MRS. eddy's teaching REJECTS THE

SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE THAT GOD MADE

MAN OUT OF THE DUST OF THE

EARTH, AND THEN BREATHED

INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE

BREATH OF LIFE.

On page 471 she says: "Man is not
matter, made up of brains, bones, blood,
and other material elements. The Scrip-
tures inform us that man was made in the
image of God. Matter is not that likeness."
If it is true that "the Lord formed man
out of the dust of the earth," then man
must have been matter before he possessed

Unchristian and Antichristian 89

a spirit; for then "God breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and he became a
living soul." To say that "body is an error
of mortal mind" does not help the case, for
the body was made before there was an
immortal soul or mind. If soul and mind
are identical, as she declares, there could
be no "mortal error" in man before he had a
mind to think with. Here Mrs. Eddy and
Moses contradict each other (p. 518, and
following).

III. MRS. EDDY REJECTS THE BIBLE DOCTRINE
OF THE FALL OF MAN AND HIS CONSE-
QUENT MORAL DEPRAVITY.

On page 184 she gives it as one of the
"chief stones" in her theory, that "soul is
sinless." "Man is incapable of sin', sickness,
and death" (p. 471). "God, and all which
he creates, are perfect and eternal" (p. 466).
Through Christian Science man "will find
himself unfallen, upright, pure, and free"
(p. 64).

90 Christian Science against Itself

IV. SHE DENIES THE PERSONALITY OF THE

HUMAN SPIRIT.

Listen! "The term souls, or spirits, is
as improper as the term gods: Soul, or
spirit, signifies Deity, and nothing else. There
is no finite soul or spirit. Those terms mean
only one existence, and can not be rendered
in the plural" (p. 462). Is that plain
enough? If not, let us read above these
lines her question, "What are spirits and
souls?" "To human belief, they are person-
alities of mind and matter." Mark! only to
"human belief are they personalities of
mind."

Turning to page 582, we find her defini-
tion of Mind as follows: "Mind — The only
I, or US; the only Spirit, Soul Principle,
Substance, Life, Truth, Love; the one God;
not that which is in man; but the Divine
Principle, or God."

So we find that man is not body and
mind, but mind only. But there is but one
Mind, God. Man is therefore God, and

Unchristian and Antlchristian 9 1

God is man. This Mind is "not that which
is in man,'' but is "the Divine Principle, or
God." Man, therefore, is God, as plainly
as language can put it. This is the whole
foundation of her theory in "Science and
Health." The conclusion is, that the whole
Scripture, from first to last, if this be
true, is a gigantic farce, an illusion of "mor-
tal mind." But here arises another diffi-
culty. This idea of body and personal
spirit is an error of "mortal mind." But
there is "but one Mind/' and that is God,
and God is immortal Mind. What, then, is
this mortal mind? She tells us it is "noth-
ing but error." But error is wrong thought.
Thought is the product of mind; and this
mortal mind being nothing, here is thought,
idea, without a thinker — a mind. No ra-
tional mind can think of a thought without
a thinker. Therefore this "mortal mind" is
an irrational thought.

To show that we are not misrepresenting
her position, we refer the reader to her own
definition of "mortal mind" on page 583.

92 Christian Science against Itself

"Mortal Mind — Nothing, claiming to be
something. . . Error creating other errors."
Thus nothing is capable of creating ideas
and all kinds of errors, and yet is itself
nothing. One can hardly believe it possible
that she intends this seriously, till he sees
that her whole book is full of such reason-
ings, and is made up of such contrary and
incoherent utterances. That an insane
individual should indulge in such ravings
is not surprising; but that rational, thinking
beings should be carried away with it, is
beyond comprehension.

But here also in her statement is a self-
evident contradiction of a self-evident truth.
She says, as quoted above from page 466:
P*God, and all which he creates, are perfect
and eternal.') Did Mrs. Eddy weigh these
words? or did she not see the contradiction
involved in them: — "All that God creates
is eternal?" Now, eternal implies without
beginning or end. Immortal only implies
without end. But it is a self-evident truth
that that which has been created must have

Unchristian and Antichristian 93

had a beginning, and therefore is not eternal.
Her statement, therefore, is a contradiction
in terms. This is a specimen of the logic
that is accepted by many as a Divine reve-
lation, superseding the Bible.

V. MRS. EDDY DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF

ANGELS AS SPIRITUAL BEINGS, AS

TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE.

Let US compare a few passages of Scrip-
ture with Mrs. Eddy's teachings, and see if
she is Biblical in her doctrines. On page
572, Mrs. Eddy says: "Angels — God's
thoughts to man; spiritual intuitions, pure
and perfect; the inspiration of goodness,
purity, and immortality, giving the lie to
evil, sensuality, and mortality." So angels
are nothing but "God's thoughts to man."
This is placed beyond a doubt as her real
teaching by her words again on page 195:
"My angels are exalted thoughts. . . Angels
are God's impartations to man; not messen-
gers, or persons, but messages of the true
idea of divinity, flowing into humanity."

94 Christian Science against Itself

Let us now apply this to the Scriptures.
In Genesis we read that two angels came
to Sodom, and talked with Lot after they
had appeared to Abraham. But "angels are
nothing but ideas, messages'' But the men
of Sodom saw them, and thought they
were men, like themselves. What a funny
thing that they should see "ideas" running
around the streets of Sodom on legs, like
men! ''Nothing but messages:'' but they had
hands, and reached them out and took hold
of Lot, and pulled him into the house, and
slammed the door. Funny ideas those, that
had eyes, and hands, and talked! How
queer it would seem to see thoughts walk-
ing around on legs in these times! Yet that
is Christian Science teaching, according to
Mrs. Eddy's book.

So w^are to understand that, when the
angel of the Lord came down and smote
the hosts of Sennacherib, and left a hun-
dred and eighty-five thousand of them "dead
corpses," it was nothing but an idea that
struck them. What tremendous force there

Unchristian and Antichristian 95

IS in some ideas, that strike so hard as to
kill such an army! But, then, when we
learn that death is only "mortal error," the
shock was not so severe as we have been
accustomed to fancying, after all; it only
^nockgd^the^error out of them.

When the angel of the Lord met Balaam
in the way with a drawn sword, it was
nothing but a message, an idea, that he saw.
But what is so funny about it is, that the /
ass^s aw the idea before Balaam did. Well, )
asses yet may see some ideas quicker than
some people; so it is not so strange that
Balaam's ass should be quicker to see an
idea than the old juggler himself. Quite
rational, after all, is Mrs. Eddy's science!

Again we read, "The angel of the Lord
encampeth round about them that fear him."
Now we are told that it is only a message,
idea, that encampeth round about the right-
eous. When the angel of the Lord struck
Zachariah dumb, we understand that it was
a message that struck him, and struck him
hard. When the angel opened the prison

96 Christian Science against Itself

doors to Peter, it was not a "spiritual
being," but a message that struck the door:
— lucky hit for Peter that that message
missed the mark, and hit the door instead
of him! It certainly would have knocked
him senseless if it had hit him, instead of
the door of the prison. Well, really, ideas
do seem to strike some people so hard yet,
that they knock the senses out of them!
By the way, here is a new idea about that
story of^._Herod being smitten by an angel
\ of the Lord, and eaten up of worms while
\ he was yet alive. That_^id_seem^jQieer;
; but now, we are informed that it was noth-

/ ing but an idea that struck him; and he

• just imagined that he was eaten up of worms.
Of course, there are no worms, and he had
no body to be eaten; that is all "an error
of mortal belief." Strange, we never had
known these things before!

Then, there is another mysterious pas-
sage about little children's "angels always
beholding the face of our Father which is
in heaven." Now, we understand that it is

Unchristian and Antichristian 97

only God's messages — ideas — that behold
his face in heaven. How could it be any-
thing else, when there are neither angels
nor spirits, and there is only "one Spirit"
in the universe, and that Spirit is God?
"God, and his idea'' are all there is; and
therefore it is only his ideas that stand be-
fore his face in heaven. Then, that parable ^
about the beggar being "carried by theA
angels into Abraham's bosom" is made clear
by the explanation that he was carried
a way by ^.^a-^ei^'atic idea. Well, that is not
so strange, after all, since we find multi^
tudes of people nowadays carried away with
strange ideas, and they seem to think they
have reached Abraham's bosom, or some
other sinless and unsuffering place, even
when they are dying of cancer or other
wasting disease. Finally, there is a solution
of that old story that we have so often
heard, about the women seeing two angels
at the sepulcher after the resurrection. It
was only two messages — ideas — that they
saw, dressed in white, sitting at the head

98 Christian Science against Itself

and foot of the grave. Now we shall be
able to understand the Scriptures better
after this new elucidation of truth! Reader,
are you willing to exchange the old Book
for such mysticisms as these?

VI. BUT MRS. EDDY DENIES THE PERSONAL-
ITY OF THE DEVIL.

She spells devil without a capital D —
Evil. On page 575 she defines Devil as
"Evil; a lie; error; neither corporeality nor
mind." Thus she declares that the devil is
UQthing but evil, and evil is nothing but
"a lie." A lie is nothing but error, and
error is nothing. Then the devil, the error,
and "the lie," are all nothing, according to
her teachings. So there is no "Satan, who
goeth about as a roaring lion, seeking
whom he may devour," after all. "There is
no evil spirit because Spirit is God" (p. 230).
How comforting that must be to those who^
have always been in mortal fear of that old
Serpent, and have been trying so hard to
believe that he is nothing but a myth !

Unchristian and Antlchrlstlan 99

VII. SHE DENIES THE REALITY OF SIN AND

GUILT.

She says,r^oul is the Divine Principle of
man, and never sins" (p. 477)/ It is need-
less to burden the reader with further quota-
tions to prove her position, as this one asser-
tion sweeps the whole world of the reality of
sin. Her book is full of assertions backing
up this statement.

"Man never sins!" This statement alone
robs the Bible of all truth, and makes it the
most ridiculous book in the world, if this is
true. For the whole Bible is a record of sin-
ful man, and God's dealings with him, and his
effort to save him from his sins. Is Christian
Science Scriptural?

VIII. HER THEORY DESTROYS THE REALITY OF

THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST.

Mrs. Eddy has, indeed, a theory of atone-
ment. Taking the term to imply "at-one-
ment," she puts her own mystical construc-
tion upon it. But she denies the all-important
truth of atonement; viz., the idea of sacrifice.

1 1 ■>

100 Christian Science against Itself

the innocent taking the place of the guilty.
Let us see how she deals with the atonement.
She must root that old idea of sacrificial offer-
ing out of the Bible, or her theory of Chris-
tian Science will not stand. For, if Christ
had a body to suffer and be nailed to the
cross, then her theory that body is nothing
would fall to the ground. So the atonement
as taught in the Bible must go out. Her book
would yield no profits while she allowed the
doctrine of sacrificial atonement to stand in
the Bible.

How does she go at this? First, she inter-
prets the first commandment, "Thou shalt
have no other gods before me," to mean,
"Thou shalt have no belief of life in matter.*'
Her wild and visionary interpretations of
Scripture are to be accepted as the infallible
explanation of truth, even if it be contrary
to rational thought. Rational is a word that
is not to be tolerated in her vocabulary; for
all rational thought must be rejected as "mor-
tal error," or you can not be a Christian Sci-
entist. You must deny all that you see, hear.

• » • •

Unchristion and Antichristian lOl

feel, taste, or smell, as a lie of mortal mind, or
you are none of her disciples.
/ Next, she interprets the passage, "Through
his stripes we are healed," to mean, "Through
his denial of error we are healed" (p. 325).
Sublime thought, indeed !

Next she knocks out the doctrine of sub-
stitution. On page 326 she says : "If truth is
overcoming error in your daily life, you can
finally say, 'I have fought a good fight, I have
kept the faith,' because you are a better man."

But how do you become a better man?
Through the atonement of Christ on Cal-
vary? Not at all; but by your own works.
Vicarious atonement she utterly repudiates.
Read, page 327, "Work out^your own salva-
tion. . . . Final deliverance from error . . .
IS neither reached through paths of flowers,
nor by pinning one's tsiith^to another's vicari-
ous effort Whosoever believeth that wrath
is righteous, or that Divinity is appeased by
human suffering, does not understand God."

Now remember, that word vicarious im-
plies one acting in the place of another. Mrs.

102 Christian Science against Itself

Eddy, therefore, rejects and ridicules the idea
of Christ making atonement by suffering in
our place. Yet the Bible declares that /'He
died, the just for the unjust, that he might
bring us to God." This, Mrs. Eddy denies
point blank; and with this denial she rejects
all the sacrificial offerings and services of the
Old Testament. To make her position still
stronger, and place herself beyond doubt,
she says (p. 328), ("One sacrifice, however
great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin." )
(Yet how can this be, when there is no sin?)
So Christian Science denies all the teachings
of both the Old and New Testaments con-
cerning vicarious and sacrificial atonement.
Her denial of the reality of sin destroys the
need of such atonement. Recognizing this
fact, she seeks to clear the way of all obstacles
to her theory, by substituting a mystical and
senseless meaning to the term atonement, by
which she can destroy the "vicarious" idea as
taught in the Scriptures. That "vicarious"
element in atonement spoils her whole theory

Unchristian and Antichristian 103

that sin is nothing but a mortal error, and
also her whole financial scheme.

It is highly important from another con-
sideration. The fact of the atonement as
taught in the Scriptures destroys her pet
theory that matter and body are nothing but
"mortal error," which she so often declares
in her book. If Christ really did suffer and
die on the cross, as the Scriptures teach, then
several things are facts, and not mortal errors,
as she declares.

First. Christ had a material body, or it
could not be nailed to the cross. Nails would
have no effect on immaterial substance. You
could no more nail an immaterial body to the
cross than you could nail light or electricity
or ether to a cross. Of course, Mrs. Eddy
would claim that she could nail a mortal
thought (which she says is nothing) to a cross,
or anything else. But no being who uses his
rational intelligence could think it possible.
But Mrs. Eddy builds her theory on a set of
irrational thoughts and arguments.

104 Christian Science against Itself

Second. To admit the reality of nails, and
hammer, and cross, is to admit the reality of
matter, which admission would destroy the
whole foundation on which her philosophy is
built. Therefore it is necessary that she
should mystify the plain teachings of Scrip-
ture, by making the phrase, "By his stripes
we are healed," to mean, "By his denial of
error we are healed." That does not mean
any suffering for us any more than it does
for Mrs. Eddy to "deny error," by saying that
"there is no sin, suffering, or death;" and then
charge us $2.50 for our privilege of reading
that, and of discovering that there is no such
thing as a book, and we are fools for thinking
there is either book or money. What a mor-
tal error she must be laboring under to think
that she really has anything to copyright, and
that she really is making money out of her
delusion ! Wood, and hammer, and nails, are
only "mortal errors;" but gold, and silver,
and banknotes are genuine realities 1 O, Mrs.
Eddy!

Unchristian and Antichristian 105

IX. MRS. eddy's theory REPUDIATES THE

NECESSITY OF REPENTANCE, FAITH,

AND FORGIVENESS OF SIN.

Of course, if there is no reality in sin, then
there is no ground for repentance or forgive-
ness, either one. There is nothing to repent
of, and nothing to be forgiven. Is this really
Christian Science? It is, and it is just what
Mrs. Eddy teaches in her book, "Science and
Health," from beginning to end. And this
teaching is what her followers are taking for
Christianity, Let us hear Mrs. Eddy again:

"To suppose that God forgives or punishes
sin, according as his mercy is sought or un-
sought, is to misunderstand love, and make
prayer the safety-valve for doing wrong"

(p. 312).

(^hus Christian Science teaches that there
is no need of repentance or prayer to secure
salvation or eternal life. Love will make it
all right with us, whatever we think or do;
for man is "eternally perfect," and "God
could not create a being capable of sinning."

106 Christian Science against Itself

} This is what Mrs. Eddy says. But God says,
"Repent ye, and be converted, that your sins
may be blotted out, when the times of re-
freshing shall come from the presence of the
Lord." (Acts iii, 19.) Whom shall we be-
lieve — Mrs. Eddy, or the apostles?

Mrs. Eddy says, <^'To suppose that God
forgives or punishes sin . . . is to misunder-
stand love," J Jesus said to the sinners of Jeru-
salem: "Think ye that those eighteen upon
whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them,
were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jeru-
salem? I tell you, Nay: but except ye repent,
ye shall all likewise perish.'' Which one is
supposed to know best?

When the apostles were arrested and for-
bidden to preach any more in the name of
Christ, "Peter and the other apostles an-
swered and said. We ought to obey God
rather than men. The God of our fathers
raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged
on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his
right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, for to
give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of

Unchristian and Antichrlstlan 107

sins. And we are witnesses of these things."
(Acts V, 29-32.) In Acts xiii, 38, we read : '*Be
it known unto you therefore, men and breth-
ren, that through this man is preached unto
you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all
that believe are justified from all things, from
which ye could not be justified by the law of
Moses."

Paul before Agrippa declared that God
had called him to declare unto the Gentiles
that great truth of salvation by repentance
and faith: "To open their eyes, and to turn
them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, that they might
receive the forgiveness of sins and inheritance
among them that are sanctified by faith that
is in me." (Acts xxvi, 18.)
(^ The great doctrine of forgiveness of sins
through repentance and faith is the silken
thread that runs through every book in the
entire Bible.] By rejecting this doctrine, Mrs.
Eddy rejects the whole teachings of the in-
spired Book, and makes it a gigantic farce.
The Bible is literally full of the offers of for-

108 Christian Science against Itself

giveness of sins, to them that repent of their
sins, forsake their evil way, and turn unto the
Lord with all their heart. (But Mrs. Eddy
teaches that all that is necessary to get rid
of our sins is to deny that we have any.^ That
is an easy way for sinners to be saved. But
she goes farther, and says that Christ's "de-
nial or error" (sin) is the means by which we
are healed. So whether Mrs. Eddy or the
Scriptures are right, it is certain that they
are opposed to each other in every essential
particular pertaining to salvation from sin.
To accept Mrs. Eddy's teachings, therefore,
is to reject the whole teachings of the Word
of God regarding sin, and the plan of salva-
tion from sin. Dear reader, will you take
your chances of eternal life on Mrs. Eddy's
method of saving yourself by denying your
sins, or by accepting God's plan of "confess-
ing your sins," that they "may be forgiven
you for his name's sake?" Every one of the
sacred writers, from Moses to John the Reve-
lator, recognized the reality of sin. If Mrs.
Eddy accepts their writings as inspired, then

Unchristian and Antichristian 109

must she concede the reality of sin. If she
denies the inspiration of all of them, and
claims alone to be inspired, then it is for us
to say which one we will take as our guide
to eternal life. The wisest of men declares,
"He that covereth his sins shall not prosper:
but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them
shall have mercy." According to Mrs. Eddy,
we neither need forgiveness nor mercy; all
that is necessary is to deny our sins. Man,
therefore, becomes his own savior.

X. MRS. eddy's teaching DENIES THE PER-
SONALITY AND AGENCY OF THE
HOLY GHOST.

On page 579 she defines the term "Holy
Ghost" to mean "Divine Science; the develop-
ments of eternal Life, Truth, and Love."
Two things are noticeable in this definition:

First. The Holy Ghost is a thingy not a
person; for science is not being, and being
is not science. Science is a thing, not a per-
son. Science is knowledge, and knowledge
is not a person, or being. While being is

1 10 Christian Science against Itself

necessary to knowledge, knowledge is not
being. The Holy Ghost, therefore, is a thing,
not a person, according to her teaching.

Second. The Holy Ghost is Christian Sci-
ence, and Christian Science is the Holy Ghost;
for she claims that Christian Science is Di-
vine Science. Therefore, if the Holy Ghost
is Divine Science, and Divine Science is
Christian Science, then the Holy Ghost is
Christian Science. This is nothing less than
blasphemy; yet it is exactly what Mrs. Eddy
teaches in her system. (See also p. 227, X.)

XI. THE DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION IS

WIPED OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES BY

HER THEORY OF CHRISTIAN

SCIENCE.

Her statement that "man is spiritual and
perfect, and is incapable of sin" (p. 471)
makes all regeneration impossible. If there
is no spiritual or moral depravity, then there
is no occasion for regeneration.

On page 466 she puts this beyond doubt
as her meaning: "Science [Christian] knows

Unchristian and Antichristian 1 1 1

no lapse from, or return to, harmony, but
holds the divine order, or spiritual law, to
have remained unchanged in its eternal his-
tory, wherein God and all which he creates
are perfect and eternal."

Further, she says (p. 225), "God is Su-
preme Being, the only Life, Substance, and
Soul, the only intelligence in the universe, in-
eluding man.'' Therefore man, being God, is
eternally perfect, and consequently there can
be no regeneration of God.

True, she has a kind of regeneration in her
theory. That is necessary to make it take
with conscientious people. But what is it?
It is simply to deny the reality of matter and
sense, and even consciousness itself. In other
words, you are regenerated when you imbibe
the spirit and teaching of Christian Science
and deny the existence of body, sin, sickness,
and death; when you throw away your rea-
son, and claim that you are God; since there
is nothing in the universe but God. Chris-
tian Science annihilates everything except
God (p. 139) and — dollars and cents.

112 Christian Science against Itself

XII. DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION ARE

BOTH IGNORED IN CHRISTIAN

SCIENCE.

Concerning death and the resurrection,
her belief or teachings may be summed up in
the following definitions:

1. "Body — Mortal mind; nothing claim-
ing to be something" (p. 583).

2. "Death — An illusion, the lie of life in
matter, the unreal and the untrue*' (p. 575).

3. "Resurrection — Spiritualization of
thought; a new and higher idea of immortal-
ity, or spiritual existence" (p. 584).

Of course, there being nothing to die and
no death, there is nothing to have a resurrec-
tion.

XIII. THE JUDGMENT DAY GOES OUT ALSO.

One stroke of her prolific pen sets aside
the judgment-day as a fact. To show her
teaching on this point we have simply to
quote her words on page 187: "No resurrec-
tion from the grave awaits mind; for the
grave has no power over mind. No final

Unchristian and Antichrlstlan 1 13

judgment awaits mortals; for the judgment-
day of Wisdom comes hourly and continually,
even the judgment by which mortal man is
divested of all material error." So, then, that
We must all appear before the judgment-
seat of Christ, that every one may receive
the things done in his body, according to that
he hath done, whether it be good or bad," is
a gross error of mortal mind. Poor material
Paul! to talk about body and judgment-seats,
when these are but material beliefs of mortal
mind ! What a pity Paul had not had a better
revelation than that !

XIV. HELL IS ALSO WIPED OFF THE SPIRITUAL
MAP BY MRS. eddy's META-
PHYSICAL SPONGE.

Her definition of Hell is found on page
579, as follows: "Hell — Mortal belief; error;
lust; remorse; hatred; sin [when there is no
sin]; sickness [when there is no sickness];
death [when there is no death]; suffering
[when there is no suffering]; effects of sin
[when there is no sin possible]; that which

1 14 Christian Science 2^;ainst Itself

maketh and worketh a lie [when there is no

lie, except mortal mind, and that is nothing]."

Divine Science this, with a vengeance !

XV. god's punishment of sin, here and

HEREAFTER, IS SIMPLY A MOR-
TAL ERROR.

Inasmuch as the "soul is God," and "God
is the only Spirit or Soul in the universe," of
course God can neither sin nor punish himself
for nothing. Therefore, there is no such thing
as punishment of sin, here or hereafter.

"Does Mrs. Eddy teach that?" you will
ask. That is exactly what she teaches. Let
us examine a few passages once more to make
sure that we are not mistaken in her teach-
ings. She says, on page 230: "There is but
one Spirit, because there can be but one In-
finite, and therefore but one God. There are
neither spirits many, nor gods many." "Soul
and Spirit are one. God is Soul; therefore,
there can be but one Soul."

On page iii she says further: "If soul
could sin or be lost, then being and immortal-

Unchristian and Antichristian 1 15

ity would be lost, with all the faculties of
mind; but being can not be lost while God
exists."

On page 206 she says, "Science [Chris-
tian] reveals Soul as God, untouched by sin
and death."

On page 471, again, she says: "Man is
spiritual and perfect, and because of this he
must be so understood in Christian Science."
"Man is incapable of sin. . . . Hence the real
man can not depart from holiness; nor can
God, by whom man was evolved, engender
the capacity or freedom to sin."

So her teaching is, that man, being God, \
is incapable of sinning or of punishing him-
self, either in this world or in the world to
'come.

XVI. THE GLORIFICATION OF THE BODY, AND

THE TRIUMPH OF CHRIST OVER DEATH,

ARE A DREAM OF MORTAL MIND.

Paul's climax of Christian triumph, as set
forth in i Cor. xv, is set down as one of the
mortal errors into which the apostles were in

116 Christian Science against Itself

the habit of falling. For eighteen centuries
that chapter has been the comfort and solace
of the dying and the bereft Paul declared,
"There is a natural body, and there is a spir-
itual body." Now, Mrs. Eddy has made a
discovery" that there is no such thing as a
natural body" at all. Paul declared that
death would seize upon this natural body, and
it should perish in the grave. Mrs. Eddy tells
us that that is all a mortal dream; "there is no
death." Paul says that, in death, this body is
"sown a natural body," and in the rusurrec-
tion it will be "raised a spiritual body." Now
Mrs. Eddy has "discovered" that there is no
such thing as death or resurrection. Paul
says, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive." Mrs. Eddy says
that none die, "there is no death." "Man
is immortal, and the body can not die, be-
cause it has no life" (p. 424). Mrs. Eddy
says there is no resurrection of the dead:
"Resurrection means spiritualization of
thought," "material belief yielding to under-
standing" (p. 584). Paul says: "If there be

Unchristian and Antichristian 1 17

no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ
not risen; and if Christ be not risen, then is
our preaching vain, and your faith is also
vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses
of God." Paul says,J^!Xlie first man [Adam]
is of the earth, earthy." Mrs. Eddy says he
was not of the earth: "God did not make
matter," and man is not earthy, only in mor-
tal thought, and that is nothing. Paul says,
"This corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal [body] must put on immor- \
tality." Mrs. Eddy says there is no corrup- ]
tion, for there is nothing but spirit, God, and \
he is eternally perfect and spiritual. After /
receiving all this contradictory evidence, on /
which side shall we place ourselves, and take
our chances of eternal life?

XVII. EVEN HEAVEN ITSELF IS TAKEN FROM

THE BIBLE AND THE UNIVERSE

BY MRS. EDDY.

"Universal salvation rests on progression
and probation. . . . Heaven is not a locality,
but a state" (pp. 187, 578).

118 Christian Science against Itself

So, then, Christ did not ascend into
heaven at all, he only went nowhere. Of
course, his body being nothing but a myth,
a mortal dream, it requires no place for it to
exist. And we are to understand that when
he is to come again to "receive us unto him-
self," it is to take us nowhere to be nothing but
a condition or a state.

Thus we fin^on examination of this new
revelation, that it robs Christianity of all its
cardinal doctrines, and takes out of the Holy
Scriptures all -that God ever taught concern-
ing the terrible nature and consequences of
sin, and the only way to escape those conse-
quences in the world to come.

Aside from this wholesale mutilation of
the Scriptures in doctrinal teaching, it sets
aside every iota of secular history that is con-
tained within the lids of the sacred Book.
Yea, it denies the existence of such a book in
toto; for if there is no matter, no material
world, then there is no history of the lives of
men in the flesh, and no book in which to
record events. To admit that there is such

Unchristian and Antichristian 1 19

a book as the Bible, is practically to admit
all that Christian Science denies, — ^the reality
of matter and of the facts of human life and
history.

Therefore, to say the least. Christian Sci-
ence, so-called, is anything but Christianity.
It is antichristian in every doctrine that it
teaches. It is unscriptural in every particu-
lar. To accept it is to reject the Word of
God as the guide of human life and the reve-
lation of God to man. Either the claims of
Mrs. Eddy to a divine revelation, in her "Sci-
ence and Health," must go out, or the claims
of the Bible to inspiration must go out. They
never can be harmonized in rational minds.

In view of all the foregoing facts, we
would ask those who are becoming tinctured
with this new teaching to pause and ask
whether they can consider that as, in any
sense. Christian which denies and rejects all
the historical facts recorded in the Old and
New Testaments ; denies that God created the
worlds, that the Lord God formed man out
of the dust of the earth, and then breathed

120 Christian Science against Itself

into his nostrils the breath of life, and made
him a living soul; denies that man is a fallen
being needing redemption or forgiveness; de-
nies the personality and responsibility of the
human spirit, saying that "there is no soul,
spirit, principle, or being in the universe but
God;" denies the existence of angels as spir-
itual beings as taught in the Scriptures; de-
nies the personality of the devil; repudiates
the reality of sin and guilt; rejects the doc-
trine of atonement of Christ by suffering in
our stead, saying (p. 98) that the way man
is to be saved through the merits of Christ is,
by the perception and acceptance of Christian
Science (Truth), when to accept Christian
Science is to reject the need of the atone-
ment; ridicules the necessity of repentance,
faith, or pardon; substitutes Christian Science
for the Holy Ghost, the Comforter; scorns
the need of regeneration; denies the reality
of death, the resurrection, the judgment-day,
heaven and hell, and all merits and demerits
in human conduct. Mrs. Eddy does all this,
and yet calls her system "Christian" Science !

CHAPTER V

Christian Science not a Science, but De-
structive of every known Science,
even of Christian Science Itself.

In the preceding chapter we have shown
the unscripturalness of the teachings of Mrs.
Eddy. We have shown, not only that they
are unscriptural, but that they are both un-
christian and antichristian in reference to
every doctrine of the New Testament; that
Christian Science, so-called, is^jiot^Christian,
and has not a vestige of Ch ristian doctrine
in it. It is utterly inharmonious and irrecon-
cilable with the Christian system. In the
present chapter we shall endeavor to show
that it is not a science in any particular sense,
and, therefore, that it is doubly wrong in its
very title of Christian Science, Self-evident

121

122 Christian Science against Itself

it is, that if it isjneither Christian nor scien-
tific in its cHaracter, it can not be, in a true
sense of the words. Christian Science.

If Christian Science is a science at all — ^as
Mrs. Eddy not only claims, but claims it to
be a Divine Science — and if it is infallible and
omnipotent, which she constantly endeavors
to make us believe, then we must assume that
it is a science which deals with some depart-
ment of knowledge. But on investigation we
find that it is not a science at all, inasmuch
as it does not recognize either the necessary
laws to build a science upon, nor does it pro-
ceed with its investigations according to any
scientific method. It is built entirely on
dogma, and that is not scientific in any sense,
till its positions have been established by in-
dubitable evidence drawn from actual tests.
If Christian Science is a science, let us try to
ascertain

WHAT KIND OF A SCIENCE IT IS.

Mrs. Eddy says it is a "Metaphysical Sci-
ence." But that is a vague and indefinite

Christian Science not a Science 123

term, and does not prove anything. And in-
asmuch as she never introduces any proof of
her positions or theories, except the bare as-
sertion that they are susceptible of demon-
stration, we can give her statement no cre-
dence till she produces the "indubitable
evidence" of which she talks. In the mean-
time we must proceed with our arguments as
if there were no evidence at all. Science rec-
og^izes no evidence that is purely theoretical;
that is, it accepts no evidence that is believed
to be possible, or likely to appear in the future.
Science recogfnizes no trade in futures or pos-
sible contingencies. It demands of all her
customers, Down with the cash! It tries
cases only on the evidence in hand, not on
evidence presumably forthcoming.

If Christian Science is a science at all, it
must be some kind of a science; that is, it can
not be a science dealing with nothing. \ That
is what Mrs. Eddy claims it to be, inasmuch
as she claims it to be a science dealing with
the illusions of "mortal mind," which she re-
peatedly declares "is nothing." Now, noth-

124 Christian Science against Itself

ing is nothing, and never can be something.
If it becomes something, then it ceases to be
nothing. So Mrs. Eddy's proposition that
"mortal mind is nothing" is self-contradic-
tory and self-destructive; for if she is dealing
with the errors of mortal mind, and that is
nothing, then her science is a science that
deals with nothing. Now, as science is the
study of something according to the laws
governing it, and "mortal mind is nothing,''
there can be no science dealing with that
which has no laws governing it. There can
be no laws governing nothing. Therefore,
there can be no science dealing with "mortal
mind," if mortal mind "is nothing." Can
even Mrs. Eddy deny this? To deny it would
be to give away her whole theory; for the
moment she admits the reality of mortal mind
and its beliefs, she throws up her whole po-
sition in "Science and Health," which is built
on the assumption that all sensation is "a
false belief of mortal mind," and "mortal mind
is nothing." So it follows that her so-called

Christian Science not a Science 125

"Metaphysical Science" is a science dealing
with nothing, and nothing has no laws. Thus
it is very clear that Christian Science

IS NOT A PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

This requires no argument to prove it,
since Mrs. Eddy herself claims that it is not;
and farther that "there is no physical science"
(p. 2i). This assertion is perfectly compat-
ible with her theory, that "there is no mat-
ter;" for matter being nothing, nothing can
have no laws governing it, and can not be
governed. Herein she is logical and rational.
But is it not strange that she did not apply
this same logic to the study of "mortal mind?"
For if there can be no phenomena nor laws
to that which is nothing, there can be none to
mortal mind any more than to matter; for
both alike, she says, are nothing. Her science,
therefore, is a science dealing with meta-
physics where there is no mind. Now, meta-
physics is the science of mind. It can, there-
fore, deal with nothing but mind. But Mrs.

126 Christian Science against Itself

Eddy applies it to the study of "mortal mind,"
which she says is "nothing." The study of
nothing can not be metaphysics, but is simply
the fancy of an irrational being, since a ra-
tional being can not talk of the phenomena
of nothing or laws governing a nothing.

But Mrs. Eddy will doubtless say in reply
to this, that she is dealing with the laws and
science of "immortal mind," and there are
laws governing immortal mind. Very well;
but here again she places herself in an un-
scientific position, for she does not stand
either by her subject or the laws governing
it. She professes to be dealing with meta-
physics, or the laws of mind; and yet almost
her entire work is spent in telling us about
the operations and illusions of a mind which
does not exist, according to her theory; viz.,
"mortal mind," which is "nothing." She re-
peatedly declares that "there is but one Mind
in the universe;" and yet goes on telling us
about the errors of another mind which she
says is "nothing at all." This self-contra-

Christian Science not a Science 127

dictory nonsense she calls "Divine Science."
There is but one ground on which such a
course of reasoning, or rather thinking, can
be accounted for; that is, on the ground of
mental unbalance, or a species of mania. Her
book is not a work on metaphysics, but on
theories of cure. Cures of what? Not of
bodily ailments, for she tells us there are
none: ^here is no body, and no sin, sick-
ness, or death.''^ What, then, does she profess
to cure? Simply the "errors of mortal
mind," and both the errors and the mortal
mind, she says, are nothing. The ills of life
are all imaginary; but there is no imagina-
tion, since an imagination is something, and
she says the errors of mortal mind are noth-
ing. It therefore follows that we have no
imagination, even of bodily ills. But thought
being something, we do not even think we
have; we only think we think we have, and
that again is something. Her so-called sys-
tem of metaphysical healing, or Divine Sci-
ence, is, therefore, neither healing nor science.

128 Christian Science against Itself

It can not be a method of healing nothing,
nor can it be a science of nothing. It is

NOT A METAPHYSICAL SCIENCE.

We do not say that Mrs. Eddy never
strikes a metaphysical truth; it would be
scarcely possible to write a book on such a
subject without hitting the truth once in a
while. She does hit the truth occasionally,
and a half-truth a great many times. But
these truths and half-truths are so distorted
and warped out of shape that they only
serve to mislead and deceive the readers
or pupils of her system. Her system is
really built on a self-contradiction, that
"sin, sickness, and death are but illusions

of mortal mind, and mortal mind is noth-

mg."

Now we propose to show that Christian
Science, so called, is not a science at all, but

IS DESTRUCTIVE OF ALL SCIENCE AND ALL

CHRISTIANITY.

Its fundamental principles make all
science and all Christianity impossible.

Christian Science not a Science 129

The three fundamentals of Christian Science
are:

1. Matter is unreal — nothing.

2. There is no evil — ^sin, sickness, nor
death.

3. Consciousness is unreliable; all sensa-
tion is an error of mortal mind, and mortal
mind is nothing.

On these three propositions hang "all
the law and the prophets" of Christian
Science. And we now propose to show
that, by these three propositions all science
and all Christianity are rendered impossible;
according to them there is, and can be,
neither.

In seeking to lay its foundations. Chris-
tian Science strikes out, with one sweep,
the foundation of every known science in
the universe. So utterly annihilating are
these propositions that they leave no foun-
dation for even Christian Science itself to
stand on. If the readers will follow us
closely, every one capable of appreciating
the force of a scientific and logical argu-

130 Christian Science against Itself

ment will see that Christian Science seals
its own doom in the enunciation of its
fundamental principles.

Mrs. Eddy says: ''Matter is nothing,
and nothing is matter;" "There is no mat-
ter;" "There is no physical science;" "The
supposed properties of matter are properties
of mind." Then, of course, all the supposed
properties of matter — ^as extension, weight,
inertia, mobility, porosity, expansibility,
tenacity, brittleness, and malleability — are
either qualities of mind, or idle dreams and
childish fancies. Attraction, electricity,
magnetism, light, sound, and heat, are but
different forms of error, nothing more. All
the sciences which deal with matter or its
supposed laws go down with these funda-
mental propositions. Mrs. Eddy intends
they shall. She says they must.

Natural philosophy, or physics, then,
goes out at the bottom. Our public-school
system is made a gigantic swindle, aiding
in the propagation of these popular illu-
sions and childish errors. Chemistry also

Christian Science not a Science 131

goes down with natural philosophy. All
the boasted experiments of chemistry are
but forms of "mortal error," since, there
being no matter, there can be no chemical
properties of that which is only mind, and
that mind is nothing. Geometry is an idle
dream, because there are no dimensions
nor forms to that which is not. Geology is
no longer entitled to the name of a science.
We vainly thought that it revealed to us
the story of the rocks; but this is all an
idle fancy, since rock is a name for hardened
matter, which, according to Mrs. Eddy, has
no existence save in human fancy. There
are no rocks, no mountains, no seas, no
fossils, no bodies to be fossilized in the
bosom of mother earth; yea, and no mother
earth with any bosom to enfold a helpless
offspring in. Astronomy, that splendid dream
of the stars, is also but a dream, an illusion
of the senses. "There is no matter," so
those wheeling worlds and sparkling orbs
are but fancied sparks, flitting before the
eye of a deluded fancy. They are but

132 Christian Science against Itself

mental fireflies that flit across the empty
spaces of the human brain. Pardon us:
there is no brain, since brain is a form of
matter, and "mind does not exist in brain;"
we should rather have said, the human
fancy, or human nothing, for "mortal mind
is nothing." Anatamy is no longer a sci-
ence, since bones are said to be chiefly lime,
and flesh and blood but chemical com-
pounds, and all that implies matter.

Now, since matter does not exist, it is
the height of folly to cram the minds of
youth with "mortal errors" regarding arms,
and bones, and muscles, and hair, and
stomachs, and livers, and lungs. Of course,
there being no matter, there is no such
thing as the circulation of the blood, or the
rupture of a blood-vessel or the fracture of
bones, or the dislocation of joints, or nerves,
or muscles, or pains. Physiology likewise
shares the fate of all the other natural
sciences. Hygiene is a humbug; why should
any one burden himself with rules of diet,
or exercise, or cleanliness, when all these

Christian Science not a Science 133

things are but "the belief of error?" Why
scrub and bathe ourselves and go through
that annoying performance known as house-
cleaning, when dirt, that has been supposed
to be the very essence, of matter, is now
discovered to be but the embodiment of
error? Yea, and "Christian Science does
away with bathing and rubbing" (see Index,
p. 6oi, and pp. 381, 382).

Thus we may pass through the whole
category of the natural sciences, and every
one of them passes away from the field of
human knowledge before the destructive
sweep of the first principle of Christian
Science, — *^here is no matter." Human
thought, like Noah's dove, flits hopelessly
over the bosom of infinite chaos, but finds
no resting-place for the soles of her feet.
Thus Mrs. Eddy, with a single stroke,
wipes out all the scientific progress of the
ages, and sets the world back to the dark
days of ancient pantheism and superstition.
Incredible as this may seem, there is no
other rational and logical conclusion that

134 Christian Science against Itself

can be drawn from the fundamental princi-
ples on which Christian Science is built.
If there is no matter, there is and can be
no natural science. This Mrs. Eddy does
not deny. Therefore, Christian Science is
not a physical or natural science.

But it is not only destructive of all the
natural sciences, for, while it claims to be
a mental science, it is itself, in its first prin-
ciples, destructive of all psychological science
as well. It wipes out at a single stroke the
only foundation on which a psychology can
be built,^-consciousness. Its repudiation
of the evidence and facts of consciousness,
or, in other words, of the reliability of
consciousness, makes all psychology impos-
sible; for if we are not sure of what we
seem to be conscious of, then we are not
sure of anything, since this is the only
means nature has provided by which we
may know our experience of our internal
states, or our sensations of external objects.
In short, consciousness is the only means
by which the mind grasps the knowledge of

Christian Science not a Science 135

anything within or without. When Chris-
tian Science repudiates the reality of pain or
suffering, it rejects the evidence and relia-
bility of consciousness. When it rejects
consciousness, then there is nothing else to
be known, not even Christian Science; for
if consciousness is not reliable, men are not
sure of anything, not even of their thinking.
To reject the facts and evidence of our
consciousness, and at the same time to
assert anything else to be a fact, is the
height of absurdity; for if one fact of con-
sciousness is not reliable, we have no reason
to believe that another is. If the conscious-
ness of pain is an illusion, then what reason
have we for believing that our reasoning
and consciousness of existence are not also
illusions? Mind itself becomes an uncertain
commodity as well as matter. If matter is
unreal, and consciousness an illusion, then
may not mind also be an illusion, a mere
dream? But, alas! how shall we know that
we even dream, if our consciousness is not
to be relied upon? Mrs. Eddy will probably

136 Christian Science against Itself

say that her science is a science dealing
with "immortal mind," and not with "mortal
mind," and immortal mind alone is a reality.
So saying, she would be doubly wrong; for
in her book she treats chiefly of the errors
of mortal mind, and does not treat at all,
scientifically, of either one. And, secondly,
she is unscientific in declaring a difference
between mortal and immortal mind, as she
has no ground in consciousness for any
such difference. Consciousness grasps the
facts of. what she calls "mortal mind" as
much as it does the facts of "immortal
mind." Then if consciousness grasps the
facts of sensation the same as it does the
fact of existence, there is no scientific or
rational ground for making any distinction
between mortal mind and immortal mind.
No such distinction is known by conscious-
ness. Mind is conscious of only one mind,
that is itself. Therefore, Mrs. Eddy's theory
of two minds in man, and one of them a
nothing, is pure dogma, and nothing more.
Yea, it is a contradiction in terms; there

Christian Science not a Science 137

can be no consciousness of a nothing, any
more than there can be a law governing
nothing. Her "mortal mind" theory, there-
fore, is not a psychology at all, but an irra-
tional or delirious fancy, which the rational
mind must reject as false and unthinkable.
And, further, as there is no ground for
building a mental science upon, except the
facts of consciousness, when Mrs. Eddy
repudiates the facts of consciousness, she
rejects its reliability, and leaves herself no
foundation on which a psychology can be
built. All psychological science, therefore,
is impossible. Christian Science, therefore,
is not and can not be a metaphysical or
psychological science.

Having annihilated all physical and psy-
chological science. Christian Science does
not stop there, but goes on with its de-
structive sweep, and tears away the founda-
tions of all ethical or moral science as well.
"There is no sin, there is no evil; all is
God, and all is good." This proposition
wipes out all moral distinctions on which

138 Christian Science against Itself

a moral science must be built. If there is
and can be no sin, then there is and can be
no morality. A being which can not commit
sin or violate a moral law is not, and can
not be, a moral being. No credit or blame
can attach to an act over which there is no
voluntary choice or power to choose.
Where there is no choice, there is no merit.
This Mrs. Eddy herself recognizes when she
says, r*No judgment-day awaits mortals;'^
"God could not make a bejng capable of
sinning." Therefore, of course, he could
not hold him responsible for doing what he
has made it impossible for him or any one
else to do.

Without the distinctions between good
and evil, there is, and can be, no ethical
science. There is, therefore, no sin in
whatever act a man can commit, since there
is no moral law, and no sin possible. Chris-
tian Science, therefore, is not a moral or
ethical science.

Nor is this all: — For, before it go down
all the foundations of judicial science also.

Christian Science not a Science 139

"There is no evil, there is no sin." There-
fore, there can be no righteousness, or sense
even, in the punishment of supposed sin. And
if Christian Science is correct, it is impos-
sible to inflict punishment to a Christian
Scientist, since he is to disclaim all suffer-
ing or pain. So a judicial system for the
administration of punishment to criminals is
a double farce: first, because there is no sin
to punish; and second, because there is no
such thing as pain or death, by which pun-
ishment can be inflicted. Supposed crimi-
nals, therefore, have nothing to fear, since
all that is necessary is to disbelieve in pain,
punishment, or death, and they will have
none.

Now, it is a principle in judicial science
that "a necessary act incurs no blame,"
and a compulsory act carries no virtue. If
man is "absolutely and eternally perfect,"
"incapable of sinning," then there is no
ground for a judicial government with a
system for the punishment of that which
can not exist. Why maintain a governmental

140 Christian Science against Itself

judiciary at g^eat expense if there is no
moral evil or moral distinctions in the
actions of men? And there is not, if sin is
impossible, as Mrs. Eddy repeatedly de-
clares.

If the fundamental principles of her
science are correct, then all judicial pro-
ceedings are the most absurd nonsense.
What folly, for instance, to proceed to pun-
ish a man for theft, when theft is a thing
impossible, since there is nothing real for
a man to steal? All that he sees or covets
are but the images of a deluded fancy!
"There is no matter, all is mind, all is
spirit." How ridiculous the Ten Command-
ments, or at least those of them which re-
late to theft or covetousness, when there is
nothing either to covet or to steal. By the
way, why did Mrs. Eddy copyright her book
if she did not believe there was anything in
it to steal, and stealing is nothing but be-
lief of error? Let the reader judge whether
she is honest in her belief and teachings or
not, when he considers these facts.

Christian Science not a Science 141

But, again, how cruel and silly to punish
a man for murder, since, according to Mrs.
Eddy, "there is no death," and there is noth-
ing to kill, since all is mindy and nothing
else. Certain it is, from all this, that Chris-
tian Science is not a judicial science. Its
first principles destroy all grounds of any
judicial science.

Neither is Christian Science a social
science. That system which recognizes no
earthly relations and no natural body, and
only one Spirit or Being in the universe,
can not consistently talk of society. There
can be no society formed out of one spirit.
Christian Science declares, or rather Mrs.
Eddy declares — and she is the supreme
authority and teacher in this system — that
there is but "one Spirit in the universe" —
God. "Soul or Spirit signifies Deity, noth-
ing else; the term souls, or spirits, is as
improper as the term gods'* (p. 462). There
is but one Mind, Spirit, Being, in the
universe, and that is God. Therefore, there
can be no such thing as society, where there

142 Christian Science against Itself

IS but one Being or person in existence.
There can not, therefore, be a social science
governing the relations of a Being to itself,
when there is no other Being in existence
to form a society with. Social science is
that science which deals with the conduct
of different individuals in their relations with
each other in a social capacity. Two or
more beings are necessary to the formation
of society. If there is but one Spirit, Soul,
Being, in the universe, there can be no
society, and consequently no social science.

If, then. Christian Science is neither a
natural, psychological, moral, judicial, or
social science, what kind of a science is it?
It is not, as she claims, a science of healings
since there is nothing to heal, according to
her fundamental principles. There being no
matter, no body, no sin, sickness, nor death,
and no reality even, to mortal mind, there is
absolutely nothing to heal. And there being
nothing to heal, there is no healing; and con-
sequently no science of healing. To say that
it is a science of healing is to deny the truth

Christian Science not a Science 143

of the whole system; for if there is any heal-
ing, there must be something to be healed;
and iiF there is something to be healed, then
her first proposition, that "there is no mat-
ter," goes to the ground. Christian Science,
therefore, is destructive of every known sci-
ence, in that it destroys the foundations on
which all science must be built. It therefore
destroys itself by making all science impos-
sible.

But it equally destroys all Christianity by
making it also an impossible thing. Chris-
tianity is a system embodying two distinct
facts — B, Savior and a salvation. Without
these two. facts, Christianity is a sham, a de-
lusion. Nor is it enough to say that these
are suppositional facts. A suppositional fact
is a contradiction in terms. If a thing is only
suppositional, it is not a fact; and if a fact,
it is not suppositional, but real, i Christianity,
therefore, is a dual fact : it implies a real Savior
and a real salvation. \This, again, implies that
the something from which men are saved is
also a reality. Mrs. Eddy says that ''there is

144 Christian Science against Itself

no sin, sickness, nor death;" that "the only
reality about them is that unrealities seem
real;" they "exist only in mortal mind, and
mortal mind is nothing." (Therefore, Christ
saves us, in her theory, only from nothing.^
^e is therefore not a real Savior, since he
does not save us from anything real. \ It will
not do for her to say that he saves from mor-
tal errors, for she says repeatedly that mortal
"error is nothing." Christianity, therefore, is
not a system of salvation at all, as there is
nothing to be saved from.

ABut, according to Mrs. Eddy, there is no
Savior. There was no Christ-man to die for
the world, since there is no mortal body; and,
there being no matter in the universe, there
could be no cross on which to crucify the Son
of man if there had been any Son of man.
Nor were there any nails with which to nail
him to the cross, if there had been any cross;
and no hammer to drive the nails with. And
as there is "no pain, suffering, nor death,"
Christ never suffered and died on the cross
for the salvation of the world. But Mrs.

Christian Science not a Science 145

Eddy admits that he went through the form
or show of crucifixion to advance his disciples
in Divine Science. Yet she says, on page 349,
that "His disciples believed Jesus was dead
while he was hiddea in the ^epulcher ; whereas
he was alive, demonstrating, within the nar-
row tomb, the power of spirit to destroy
human material sense." So this modern
prophetess tells us that Christ did not_d iey
but only perpetrated a big deception for
the spiritual advancement of his disciples.
"They could not kill the body of Jesus"
(pp. 606, 347). / According to her teach-
ing, therefore, Christianity rests on a gi-
gantic fraud, which has no foundation what-
ever in fact. /The whole scheme of the
atonement and sacrifice of Christ for the sins
of the world, she tells us, is a grand illusion
of mortal mind.^ (Christianity , therefore, is a
farce and delusion, nothing more?) And yet
she calls her system "Christian !" Well, if her
theory is correct, that Christianity is a delu-
sion, it is quite logical and proper to say that

her theory is Christian also; that is, delusion.
10

146 Christian Science against Itself

This is the only sense in which it is, or can be,
Christian. ^If Christianity is real, then Chris-
tian Science is false.) If Christianity is a de-
lusion, then Christian Science necessarily is
also delusion, or it can not be "Christian," in
,a true sense. Which horn of the dilemma will
she choose?

If, then, as we have shown. Christian Sci-
ence destroys all science and all Christianity,
it can itself be neither science nor Christian.
What, then, is it?

CHAPTER VI

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions in Science and

Health

In the preceding chapters we have been
pointing out chiefly the absurdities in the
methods, claims, and doctrines of the founder
and "mother" of Christian Science. We now
purpose to show that her book on "Science
and Health" is full of contradictions in its
declarations and teachings. We have shown
that it is contrary to all science and all Chris-
tianity, as well as all consciousness. Now we
shall proceed to show that Mrs. Eddy is also
opposed to Mrs. Eddy in numberless in-
stances throughout the book. Of course, to
attempt to point out all her contradictions
in a work of this size would be out of the
question, as they are hundreds. It would

hardly be possible to count them even, as they

147

148 Christian Science s^ainst Itself

are so numerous and complex, and ever mul-
tiply as one rereads the book from time to
time. We have, therefore, selected a few of
the more prominent ones, to illustrate the
irrational condition of the author's mind in
"Science and Health." For the convenience
of the reader, we shall number these as we
present them, and also that the self-contra-
dictoriness of the book may be the more ap-
parent.

1. We find Mrs. Eddy contradicting her-
self in the very Preface to her book by claim-
ing her system to be given her of God as a
Divine Revelation, and then turning around
and calling it her "discovery." Now, if it was
a revelation from God, it was not her dis-
covery; and if it was her discovery, then it
was not a Divine revelation. She repeatedly
renews the claim to a Divine revelation in the
first and following chapters; and again and
again asserts it to be her "discovery."

2. After claiming it to be a Divine reve-
lation, and the only one that is reliable and
worthy of the student's patronage, she tells

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 149

US in the Preface that, after teaching this Di-
vine Science, which she got from God, for sev-
eral years, she closed her college in October,
1889, "with a deeplying conviction" that the
next two years of her life should be given
to the preparation of the revision in 1891 of
"Science and Health." From this it is evi-
dent that she did not herself believe what she
pretended to others, that it was a revelation,
but, as she claims in other places, her "dis-
covery ;" for had she believed it to be a Divine
revelation, she would not have had the deep-
lying conviction that it needed revising and
correcting.

3. She then set to work to copyright her
revised edition of her new "revelation," in
order that she might prevent other publishers
from using it; or, in other words, that she
might have the monopoly of the sale on the
book; and then charges three prices for all
copies sold, because of that monopoly se-
cured by copyright. Now, if she really did
get this system as a revelation from God, then
she has proved herself unworthy of her sacred

150 Christian Science against Itself

trust, and of the same spirit as Simon Magus,
who desired the apostolic power, and offered
to pay for it, that "on whomsoever he should
lay hands they might receive the Holy
Ghost," in order that he might speculate out
of this Divine gift.

4. She contradicts her whole theory in
"Science and Health" in securing, a copyright
on her book; for if her fundamental propo-
sition is true, that "there is no matter," then
there is no book; for books are matter, or else
they are simply what she asserts all matter to
be, "belief of error." Now, if she believes that
it is merely a "false belief," why did she copy-
right it? And if she believes it really is a book,
then she does not believe the fundamental
proposition which she has filled her book with
arguments to prove to be true. Which po-
sition will she choose to take?

5. She denies that God created the worlds,
or that there is any earth in existence. All
there is in the universe is "God and his idea.'*
On page 230 she says : "Spirit has created all,
in and of Spirit; God never created matter,

Mrs. Eddy*s Contradictions 151

for there is nothing in Spirit out of which
matter could be made;" "Matter has no real
existence" (p. 575). "Creation consists of
the unfolding of spiritual ideas and their iden-
tities, which are embraced in the Infinite
Mind, and forever reflected. . . . The Divine
Principle and idea constitute spiritual har-
mony, — heaven and eternity. In this uni-
verse [of principle and idea] matter is un-
known*' (p. 497). Matter, she says, is an
error of mortal mind, and never creates erring
thought. Therefore, there is no material
world, and none was ever created. Her uni-
verse is nothing but Spirit and ideas. This
she affirms over and over; and yet she admits
the facts of an "outward world" (p. ix of
preface); "astronomical order" (p. 15); a
"material world" (p. 164); and talks of "solid
bodies," "drugs," "salt," "dome and spire,"
"wheels," "sculpture," the earth's "axis," and
all other earthly things, just the same as other
ordinary beings. Evidently she does believe
that there is a world that she lives in that is
more than "belief of error."

152 Christian Science against Itself

6. She denies the personality of finite
beings. "AH is God;" "The Ego-man is the
reflection of the Ego-God. . . The one
Ego, one Mind, or Spirit, called God, and
infinite individuality, supplying all form and
comeliness, which reflects divinity in indp-
vidual man and things.'*

Now, here is a double contradiction. She
first says the "Ego-man is the reflection of
the Ego-God," and yet is an "individual
man." Now, it is evident to a rational being
that there can be no true reflection of a
rational and personal being, without itself
' being a rational and individual being. Then
there would be two individual beings, the
being reflected and the being that reflects.
This is necessary, as a being can not be a
reflection of itself. True, the reflection in a
mirror is not a rational being; but it is only
a reflection of man's material nature, not of
his rational or spiritual being. If there are
two beings, the Ego-God and the Ego-man,
then it is wrong to say that there is but "one
Ego, one Mind, or Spirit, called God." But

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 153

this statement again contradicts her other
statement that there is "but one Mind, Soul,
Spirit, in the universe;" for if Divinity is
reflected in "individual man and things," then
there is something in the universe besides
the individual, — God. (See her definitions on
p. 9.)

7. She declares God and man to be one,
and yet says they are not one. Now let us be
sure that we are not mistaken in what she
says. On page 225 she says: "God is Su-
preme Being; the only life, substance, and
soul in the universe, including man.'* And
yet, after making this sweeping and dogmatic
assertion that God includes man, she goes
right on to say, in the same paragraph, that
"the individuality of Spirit is unknown." On
page 85 she says: "Spirit can not believe in
God: Spirit is God." But she has just said,
"God is the only intelligence, including man."
She repeatedly affirms that "God is all in all."
It either follows, therefore, that man is
neither a mind, soul, spirit, nor intelligence
at all, or else he is God, and God is man;

154 Christian Science against Itself

since "God is the only Mind, Soul, Spirit, or
Being in the universe." But, after teaching
this all through her book, and building her
whole theory of healing on this proposition,
she coolly turns around when she finds her-
self cornered with a difficulty, and tells us
(p. 476) that "man is not God, and God is not
man;" and, to make it clear to her readers,
she tells them further, on page 582, that "Man
is the infinite idea of infinite Spirit," and that
"Mind is the only I or Us, the only Spirit
Soul," etc., "the one God, not that which is
in man, but the Divine Principle, or God, of
whom man is the full and perfect expression."
So, then, we find that man is neither mind,
matter, soul, nor spirit; has neither mind nor
God in him; and is therefore nothing but an
idea; and yet is "the full expression of God."
What kind of a God does she believe in, that
that which is nothing but an idea is a full ex-
pression of?

8. After arguing at length that man is
not matter but spirit, she then tells us (p. 259)
that "man is not spirit" at all, but that he

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 155

"is spiritual.*' Seeing the difficulty into
which her previous propositions had driven
her, she hides under this subterfuge, that
"man is not spirit," since she has said that
there is but one Spirit — God; and to say that
man is spirit, logically makes God and man
one. Now she says he is only "spiritual."
But the word "spiritual" expresses the qual-
ity or attribute of an object or being. If man
is "spiritual," there must first be man, the
object. There can not be an attribute to
nothing. To say that man is spiritual is to
say that he is either spirit or matter, or else
only an idea. Whichever position she might
take would be to contradict herself. If he
is matter, then her theory goes out at the
bottom; to say that he is only an idea, is to
deny his personality of being, which she
affirms; and to say that he is spirit, is to
contradict her own statement, that he "is
not spirit."

9. She both denies the reality of the
body, and admits it continually in her writ-
ings. The great burden of her argument, is

156 Christian Science against Itself

to show (not prove, as she never does that)
that "soul and body are one;" that is, that
there is nothing but soul or mind, to man;
for these terms, she says, "are synonyms"
(p. 461). All is mind; matter and body are
nothing. And yet she contradicts all her
previous arguments when she says (p. 350)
that, after the resurrection, Jesus "presented
the same body he had before his crucifixion."
So she admits he had a body, both before
and after that event. This practically admits
the reality of body. She can not say here,
that body is the error of mortal mind, for
that mortal mind she can not attribute to
Christ.

10. Again she contradicts herself in say-
ing that "Flesh is an error of physical belief;
a supposition; ... an illusion" (p. 577),
and at the same time claiming that she heals
diseases of the body. She practically admits
the reality of the body in her argument above
quoted to prove that Christ triumphed over
death. She says: "His disciples at first
called him a spirit, ghost, or specter; for

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 157

they believed his body to be dead. His reply
was, Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see
me have." This implies the reality of his
flesh and bones. She can .not say that he
appealed here to their "false sense" to prove
his resurrection; for this would be doubly
false. Appealing to a false sense would
prove nothing. Nor would it, if true, prove
the fact of his resurrection; for if he did not
die, as she asserts, then he had no resurrec-
tion. But his whole conversation was in-
tended to prove to them, and to the world,
that he actually did die, and that he had a
resurrection from the dead. If he was not
dead, then he was an arch-deceiver of man-
kind; for he asked them to feel the prints
of the nails in his hands, and the hole in his
side, "and be not faithless, but beUeving."
Now, if he had no body, and did not die, as
Mrs. Eddy asserts (p. 167), and there is no
death, then he deliberately deceived the peo-
ple by pretending to all these things.

II. She tells us repeatedly that "death is
an illusion," and yet, to prove this false

158 Christian Science against Itself

theory, she tells us that some people "died"
(PP- 47. 52, 55» 81, 140, 187). So in trying
to prove too much she contradicts herself.

12. Anatomy she ridicules as one of the
errors of "false physical sense;" and yet she
talks of the heart and its functions, the head,
the hands, the feet, the sexual organism,
and all the functions of the body, just the
same as other folks, and claims to heal all
organic and functional diseases of the same.
Now if the body is all an illusion, then there
are no such diseases to heal. So she again
contradicts herself by asserting too much.

13. Christ, she tells us, "had a corporeal
body" (p.35), and an "earthly life" (p. 557);
and yet she says that man is neither matter
nor spirit and there is no earth. He is
"spiritual, but not spirit" (p. 259). Mortal
mind, she asserts, "is nothing." Then, if
Jesus had a "corporeal body," and it was
neither matter, spirit, nor mortal mind,
what kind of corporeality was it? Of fioth-
ing?

14. She tells us there is "no pain, sick-

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 159

ness, or death," and yet she says that Jesus
did suffer on the cross (p. 36); yet he did
not die, for "there is no death" (p. 606).

15. She denies all physics, but admits
the revolution of the earth on its axis, the
return of the seasons, the chemical proper-
ties of matter; and yet declares that the
"properties of matter are properties of mind"

(p. 18).

16. "Mortal matter, or body, is but a
false concept of mortal mind," she tells us
on page 70; and on the next page tells us
that, "Perhaps an adult has a deformity,
produced thirty years ago, by the terror of
his mother." What! no body, but a false
belief? and yet that false belief may really
have a deformity? But what if it has a
deformity? She says again on page 65,
"But the loss of a limb or injury to a tissue
is sometimes a quickener of manliness; and
the unfortunate cripple may present more
nobility than the statuesque athlete." What
a blessing these mortal errors really are
sometimes I But the perplexity just here is,

160 Christian Science against Itself

if "man is eternally perfect," as she declares,
how can anything be a greater blessing to
him? How can "manliness" be graded by the
qualifying adjectives, tnore and most, if man
is "eternally perfect?" And, further, if the
"mortal error" that a man has a physical
deformity is sometimes a blessing in devel-
oping a nobler character, may not the so-
called errors of mortal mind always be
a blessing? Why, then, should she try to
correct them? Better let them all alone!

17. Again, she tells us that "God and his
idea" are all that exists; and yet she fills
her book with tales of woe about a "mortal
mind," which is filled with "mortal errors,"
"false beliefs," and "terrible delusions," that
afflict humanity. Now, if there is nothing
"but God and his idea," then these mortal
errors must be God's ideas. This is the
only logical conclusion of this proposition.
But logic cuts no figure in "Science and
Health," nor in Christian Science, so called,
inasmuch as its first requisite is to ignore
one's reason and consciousness, and reject

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 161

all that commends itself to the common
sense of man. In fact, that common sense
is "false sense."

1 8* Her teaching denies that God is the
Creator, while she affirms that he is the
Creator of the universe and man. On page
471 she tells us that "man is the compound
idea of God, . . . and therefore is eter-
nal." Now, it is self-evident that that which
is eternal never had a beginning, and there-
fore was never created; for if created, it had
a beginning. Man therefore, if eternal, was
not created by God nor any one else. Again,
she tells us that man is God's idea. If he is
an idea only, then he was not created; for
ideas are not creations, they are thoughts.

19. On page 154 she says, "God created
everything that is to be found in the king-
dom of mind." Now, she tells us repeatedly
that "sin, sickness, and death, are but the
errors of mortal mind." Therefore she
shows that the errors of mortal mind are
God's creations, or else they are not errors

of mind,
iz

162 Christian Science against Itself

20. Immediately following the above
sentence she says, "We know no more of
man's individuality, as the true Divine im-
age and likeness, than we know of God's."
Then, after telling us that we know nothing
of that individuality, she tells us in the very
next sentence what that individuality is; at
least she pretends to. She says, "The In-
finite Principle is reflected by the Infinite
Idea and spirituality, but the material senses
have no cognizance of either.".

Quite clear indeed! Now, if the indi-
viduality of both God and man are not
known to mankind, on what grounds does
she assume to tell us what either one is?
She confessedly is telling us something that
she does not know, and that can not be
known by man. Is this a specimen of her
"Divine Science" and infallible "revela-
tion?"

21. Then, immediately following the
above very intelligible sentences, she speaks
of humanity's "conception of God." Now,
inasmuch as she declares that there is noth-

Mrs. Eddy*s Contradictions 163

ing to humanity but mind, and *'God is the
only Mind," humanity's conception is noth-
ing but God's conception of himself.

22. Still more marvelous is Mrs. Eddy's
theory, when we discover that she makes
God the Creator of himself. As quoted
above, she tells us, on page 154, that "God
created everything in the kingdom of mind;*'
and, as previously quoted, "God is the only
Mind, Soul, Spirit, Being, in the universe"
(pp. 461, 462, 465, 225, etc.). Now if "God
created everything in the kingdom of mind,"
and there is nothing in the kingdom of mind
but himself, then it is evident that God cre-
ated himself. But as she says God is eternal,
he never could have had a beginning, and
therefore could not have been created at all.

23. On page 158 she inculcates "unself-
ishness;" and yet she copyrights this pious
fraud, and charges us three prices for the
privilege of reading her book of "loving
deeds" and heavenly messages. Reader,
ponder these things.

24. She makes it appear that God alone

164 Christian Science against Itself

is error, and error is God. She repeatedly
declares that there is "nothing but God and
his idea;" "No Mind, Being, Spirit, or
Principle but God." Then, this "mortal
mind" that she talks about is God also, or
else there are two minds, since she says "God
is Mind." But she asserts that there is but
"one Mind, God." Therefore mortal mind,
and all its ideas, are God also. She is try-
ing to destroy the errors of mortal mind,
therefore she is trying to destroy "God and
his ideas." But she also is God, since there
is but one Being in the universe; therefore
it is God trying to destroy himself and his
ideas, since there is nothing "but God and
his idea" in the universe. Hence God is
trying to destroy himself, in Christian Sci-
ence. Now, our Savior said, "A house
divided against itself can not stand." Chris-
tian Science, therefore, can not stand, accord-
ing to Mrs. Eddy's teaching.

25. Her whole argument is an effort to
show that mortal errors are evil; and yet
she repeatedly affirms that "there is no

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 165

evil." Now, which are we to believe?
That these "mortal errors" are not evil, or
that there is evil in the world, even if it be
only a false belief?

26. She and her patients claim healing
by the denial of the existence of the body,
and in the same breath declare that their
bodies have been healed. Either they have
bodies or else they have not been healed.
Which is it?

2y, On page 159 she says, "Mortals are
egotists;" and yet she claims to be infallible,
in that she is above criticism, and not to be
superseded by the teachings of any other.
Her claim proves herself an egotistic mortal,
surely.

28. She tells us "there is nothing but
God and his idea;" and again she tells us
that man "coexists with God and the uni-
verse." Either man is God, therefore, or
else there are two principles, — beings, co-
existing from eternity. But she has said,
"Man is not God, and God is not man" (p.
476). Alas! alas! what shall we believe?

166 Christian Science against Itself

29. On page 134 she intimates that she
has suffered greatly for "the truth;" and
yet she is reaping a fortune out of the sale
of her books and her lectures on these
absurd and contradictory theories. (See
Chap. X.)

30. God says, "I, the Lord, make peace
and create evil,'* Again and again God
declares in the Bible that he will send evil
upon the people who transgress his laws;
but over and over Mrs. Eddy declares "there
is no evil." And yet she claims to teach
God's Word! And after denying the ex-
istence of evil so often, she tells us, on pa;ge
137, that "whom the Lord loveth he chas-
teneth."

31. On page 145 she tells us that "the
mortal mind is a dreamer." Yet that mortal
mind is not a being, "it is nothing.** Here
is, then, a dreamer without a mind; yea,
that is nothing. How intelligible, indeed, to
read of a nothing, and that dreaming. Only
an irrational being can think of such impos-
sible things as being possible.

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 167

32. On page 103 she tells us that "evH
is not mind. We must learn that evil is the
awful deception and unreality of existence."
So evil is not mind, but still it is deception.
Deception of what? Of mortal mind? But
"mortal mind is nothing." Now, there can
be no deception without a mind to be de-
ceived. So either mortal mind is something,
or else her "deception" is an illusion of the
real Mind, which she says is God. God,
therefore, must be the one deceived.

33. She talks of embryology and pre-
natal influences on the embryo (p. 132),
and yet ridicules heredity on page 124, and
elsewhere. Now, if there is no such thing as
heredity, then there is no such thing as pre-
natal influence on an embryo; for that is
precisely what is implied in heredity. Did
she not know this? Or did she think others
would not notice it?

34. In her chapter on Marriage, she
talks of reproduction, generation, gestation,
birth, marriage, and sexual pleasures, etc.;
and again tells us that "man is eternal" (p.

168 Christian Science against Itself

471, and elsewhere); "Is never born and
never dies'' (p. 154). "Where, then, is the
necessity of re-creation or procreation" (p.
loi)? Now, if there is neither birth, gener-
ation, gestation, nor procreation, what does
she mean by such insane ravings as are
found in her chapter on Marriage?

35. She talks of the sexual relations
between man and woman, and of marriage
as "the only legal and moral provision for
generation among human kind" (p. 266),
and yet builds her theory on the assertion
that there is no body^ and tells us on page
653 (index) that "Sexes are not required to
assist in the creation of the human race."
(See also p. 524.) What does all this
twaddle mean, about "marriage," "gener-
ation," "reproduction," the "social evil,"
"masculine and feminine qualities," and
mutual fidelity to each other, if people have
no bodies, and "God could not make a being
capable of sinning?" What does she mean
by "generation," "foetus," and "period of
gestation," if people have no material bod-

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 169

ies and are never born nor die? She does
believe in the reality of the body, as she
shows in a thousand ways, and admits in so
many words on page 272, "Mind, which
forms the bud and blossom, will care for the
human body, even as it clothes the lily." So
there is a body, and there is a lily, is there?
— though she has denied it over and over.
Of course there is, and she knows it as well
as we.

36. But she reaches the climax of the
ridiculous in this chapter on Marriage (p.
276) when she says: "Husbands and wives
should never separate, if there is no Christian
demand for it. . . . If one is better
than the other, as must always be the case,
the other pre-eminently needs good com-
pany." Well, really! How does this com-
pare with that other declaration, that "man
is eternally perfect?" If he is eternally per-
fect, how can one be any better than the
other? Does she believe that woman is not
human— man?

37. Still more ridiculous does she make

170 Christian Science against Itself

herself appear on page 278, where she says,
"We live ridiculously, for fear of being
thought ridiculous." How do we live
ridiculously? By perpetuating the idea of
the necessity of getting married, thus show-
ing our belief in "pains or pleasures." Yet
she is quite willing to appear ridiculous (by
this contradiction of her whole theory) to
• avoid being thought ridiculous in not getting
married; so she has had her fourth husband.
If there is no death, where are they all? Is
she a bigamist, or an adulterer? If there is
no death, she must be one or the other. So
she has only married to avoid being thought
ridiculous, eh? Quite comforting that must
have been to her husband, indeed! But,
then, her large profits out of her book will
atone for a multitude of faults, no doubt.

38. But still more ridiculous does she
make herself appear in that sentence quoted
above from page 276, "Husbands and wives
should never separate, if there is no Christian
demand for it." What is that Christian de-
mand? Does she mean infidelity or adul-

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 171

tery on the part of either husband or wife?
How can that be, when "man is eternally
perfect," and is "incapable of sinning," or
falling? Where is the cause for separation?

39. This strange woman claims the Bible
as her only text-book; and yet ridicules the
religion and worship of the Jews as myth-
ological and idolatrous (compare pp. 4,
20, and 2y), She rejects part of the Bible
as myth, and the rest she mystifies till not
a single fact or doctrine of the Scriptures
remains. She says her only guide and text-
book is the Bible (p. 20), and yet she has
rejected every doctrine contained in the
Holy Book, and denied everything that God
has declared therein. (See Chap. HI of this
book.)

40. She claims her "science" capable of
scientific demonstration; and yet asks us
to accept her insane ravings and contradic-
tory statements as truth, without proof,
even if we have to throw away our reason
and consciousness in order to do so.

41. She talks repeatedly of "power over

172 Christian Science against Itself

the sick and sinful" (pp. ii, 20, 28, 29, 46,
47); and yet denies the reality of "sin, sick-
ness, and death," in times without number.
They are nothing; therefore it is power over
nothing. Marvelous power, that!

42. After telling us so often that "there
is neither sin, sickness, nor death," she tells
us, on page 92, that ''sin alone brings death.''
How does this sound for an inspired writer?
What sinners her husbands must have been !

43. On pages 284, 285, she claims that
"mortal mind" is the only criminal in the
world; and yet she says repeatedly that
"mortal mind is nothing." Then, after tell-
ing us that mortal mind is the only criminal,
and that it is "nothing," she goes on to
argue the reasonableness of judicial admin-
istration and the punishment of such crimes,
when there is no sin, no mortal mind, if that
is "nothing," and man is forever "perfect
and unfallen," and "incapable of sinning."
So she advocates the judicial punishment of
nothing for nothing, as necessary to deter
this "nothing" from doing "nothing" again.

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 173

This IS the science that she calls "Truth,"
"God," "The Holy Ghost," and the "Com-
forter," etc. On page 292 she says, "The
nothingness of nothing is plain." It did not
seem to be very plain to her when she wrote
those pages on the judicial punishment of a
nothing, as quoted above!

44. On page 178 she tells us that this
mortal mind is neither intelligence nor mat-
ter; "neither the mind nor body of man;"
yet she is continually telling us about the
"false beliefs of mortal mind." Now, let
the reader think for a moment of the
absurdity of a belief without a mind, or
thinker, and a thinker without intelligence.
If this mortal mind is neither matter nor
spirit, but "nothing," all of which she asserts
repeatedly, then there is no "mortal mind,"
according to her own logic; for she has said
as just quoted above, "The nothingness of
nothing is plain."

45. Again, she tells us that "Christ liad a
triumphant exit from the flesh" (p. 11), and
yet writes her whole book to convince us

174 Christian Science against Itself

that there is no flesh and no matter in the
universe.

46. She tells us also that Christ "taught
by similitudes." Well, really now, that is
funny! Similitudes of what? Similitudes!
Similitudes ! Did she really weigh that word?
A similitude is the likeness or resemblance of
one object or figure to another. Now, how
can there be any similitude where there is no
form, and there is nothing in the universe
but one Being, and he is Spirit? But suppose
there were other things, how could he teach
truthfully by "similitudes," or figures visible
to the senses, when "the evidence of the senses
is never to be accepted, but is to be re-
versed?" (See Index, "Senses," p. 653). If
the senses are "false senses," how could Jesus
teach by appealing to these false senses?
What a poor memory Sister Eddy must have !
y 47. "Man is eternally perfect and unsin-
ning," she says, and yet she tells us, on page
30, that Herod "was a wicked king and a de-
bauched husband." How was this?

48. On page 30 she tells us that "Christ

Mrs, Eddy's Contradictions 175

was crucified/' and that he rose "a victor over
sin, sickngsSy and death," when she repeatedly
declares there is neither of these in the world.

49. On page 32 she talks of our giving up
"sinful pleasures," and yet declares over and
over that there is no sin in the world.

50. A lady in Lynn, she says died of
taking ether (p. 52), and yet she declares
"there is no death." Marvelous science, this !

51. On page 53 we are informed that
"man's belief produces disease;" and yet she
affirms there is no disease.

52. Christian Science, she tells us, on page
55, "changes the secretions, relaxes rigid mus-
cles, restores carious bones to soundness."
Secretions, muscles, bones! Of what? Of
the body, of course! Yet she denies that
there is any body with secretions, muscles, or
bones.

53. On page 78 she tells us of a case of
painless labor under Christian Science treat-
ment; and on pages loi, 102, instructs us that
there is neither "birth nor death for man;"
and on page 185 tells us that "Man is not the

176 Christian Science against Itself

offspring of flesh, but of spirit; because life
is of God, it must be eternal, self-existent."
Marvelous ''labor" case, that! And marvel-
ous philosophy also, that a thing can be cre-
ated, and yet "self-existent" and "eternal" at
the same time! Did Mrs. Eddy not know
that that which is "self-existent" can not be
created, and that which is "eternal" could
never have had a beginning? And this stu-
pendous ignorance many people accept as
"revelation," Divine Science, and infallible
truth !

54. After telling us repeatedly that man
is "eternally perfect," and "can not depart
from holiness," etc., she says, on page 187,
that "universal salvation rests on progression
and probation." Marvelous, indeed i How
can there be any probation to that which is
"incapable of sin," or any "progression," to
that which is "eternally perfect?"

55. On page 175 she tells us that "all hu-
man systems of philosophy are pantheistic."
Christian Science, as we have shown in pre-

Mrs. Eddy's Contradictions 177

vious chapters, is not a science, but a system
of human philosophy, and therefore must be
pantheistic.

56. On page 585 she gives as her defi-
nition of Son, "The Son of God, the Messiah
or Christ; the Son of man, the offspring of
neshr So Christ is the "offspring of flesh,"
is he? though her book is full of arguments
to prove that there is no Aesh — "all is mind,
all is spirit," and "Man is not the offspring of
flesh" (p. 185).

These are a few specimens of the hun-
dreds of contradictions that are to be found
in Mrs. Eddy's "Science and Health." And
this is the book which she has offered to the
world, at three times its actual commercial
value, as the infallible and only guide to man
in seeking to know the way of life !

We will not weary the patience of the
reader with further contradictions in "Science
and Health." These are sufficient to prove
conclusively one of three things, — either the
incompetency of the author's intellect to rea-

178 Christian Science against Itself

son, or the insane condition of her mind, or
the dishonesty of her whole scheme as a gi-
gantic fraud, perpetrated for the purpose of
making gain out of the credulity and gullibil-
ity of mankind. I leave the reader to judge in
the case, for the present.

CHAPTER VII
The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations

Mrs. Eddy's Demonstrations Demonstrate the Falsity of Her

Whole System

Inasmuch as Mrs. Eddy claims to have
proved her theory in "Science and Health"
by actual "demonstrations" of the healing
power of mind over supposed diseases of the
flesh, it may be well for us to give some atten-
tion to her claims and teachings in this par-
ticular.

It will, therefore, be necessary to stop and
ask. What does she really claim in this direc-
tion? She claims to heal, not only both sin
and disease, but all sin and all disease. But
let Mrs. Eddy speak for herself. On page
viii of her Preface, she says, "Since the au-
thor's discovery of the adaptation of Truth

179

180 Christian Science s^inst Itself

[by which she means Christian Science] to
the treatment of disease, as well as of sin, her
system has been fully tested, and has not been
found wanting."

Now, please observe these two things,
"fully tested," and "not found wanting." That
being the case, there is no sin, no disease, that
Christian Science can not heal. That is what
Mrs. Eddy claims in her own words.

Now drop your eye down the same
page, and read again, "What is truth? is an-
swered by demonstration, — ^by healing disease
and sin."

Well may we pause and ask, "Who is this
that forgiveth sins also?" But let us go on.
On page x of the Preface she says again : "By
thousands of well-authenticated cases of heal-
ing, many of her students have proven the
worth of her teachings. . . . The principle
of her system is demonstrable by the personal
experience of any sincere seeker after truth."
Then, after making these sweeping state-
ments, she forestalls all future tests of her
statements by adding a footnote to her Pre-

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 181

face saying, "The author takes no patients,
and declines medical consultation." This
declinature simply drops her to the level of
the common juggler or trickster, such as the
modern magicians and spiritualists. If she
believes what she says, why should she, after
her publication of such an assumption and
declaration of her principles, decline all fur-
ther practice of her healing art? After declar-
ing that she has the power to heal all sickness
and all disease, and that God "called her to
proclaim this gospel to this age," she turns
around, the very first thing, and copyrights
her prescription which she says God gave her,
and sent her to proclaim on the principle of
"freely ye have received, freely give," goes
into a gigantic speculation scheme with this
revelation, and refuses either to treat patients
or accept consultation! By this act, and by
her own words, she makes herself the most
diabolical traitor that ever left God's presence
since Lucifer fell a victim to the same kind of
selfishness, and tried to make himself equal
with God. Or like Antichrist, "who opposeth

182 Christian Science against Itself

and exalteth herstll above all that is called
God, or that is worshiped; so that she, as God,
sitteth in the temple of God, showing A^rself
that she is God." All this is taught in Chris-
tian Science, as we have shown in the pre-
ceding chapters of this book. Let those who
follow her beware, as Paul warns them in the
following words regarding Antichrist: "For
the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only he who now letteth will let, until she be
taken out of the way. And then shall that
Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall con-
sume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall
destroy with the brightness of his coming:
even her, whose coming is after the working
of Satan, with all power and signs and lying
wonders, and with all deceivableness in them
that perish ; because they received not the love
of .the truth, that they might be saved. And
for this cause God shall send them strong de-
lusion, that they should believe a lie : that they
all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
(2 Thess. ii, 7-12.)

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 183

In the above quotation I have simply
changed the pronoun from the masculine to
the feminine form, as there has been nothing
in eighteen centuries that more exactly fits
this prophecy than this modern prophetess,
who claims to sit in the temple of God, as
God, and forgive all sins and heal all diseases.

By "demonstration" she means, as she
says in the above passage from the Preface,
"healing disease and sin." Now, these are her
own words, so there is no possibility of mis-
taking her meaning. She unequivocally
claims to heal sickness and sin, and to do so
to the uttermost, in demonstration of her
theory.

Let us examine a few of the terms she
uses in expressing her pretensions in the heal-
ing line of her so-called science. Remember,
first of all, that she denies the reality of the
human body. On page 70 she says : "Mortal
mind and body are one. Neither exists with-
out the other, and both must be changed by
Immortal Mind." "Mortal matter, or body,
is but a false concept of mortal mind." And

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 185

prove nothing at all, except it be the incom-
petency of the author's mind to treat of a
subject logically and rationally.

We shall now proceed to show the fallacy
of Mrs. Eddy's so-called "demonstrations,"
from the following ten considerations :

1. The fact, as stated above, that she de-
nies both the existence of the body and the
reality of all disease and supposed deformities
of the same. Certain it is that, if there is no
body, there can be no diseases or sickness of
the body. Therefore, to claim to demonstrate
the theory that there is no body by pretending
to heal the diseases of the body, certainly does
not prove that there is no body, but rather
proves, if such cures are genuine, that there
is both a body and disease. Mrs. Eddy's
demonstrations, therefore, instead of proving
her theory, fully disprove it, if they prove any-
thing at all. Strange she has never seen this
fact!

2. Her so-called "demonstrations" further
disprove her theories, or else her theories dis-
prove her demonstrations, in that she appeals

186 Christian Science against Itself

to the evidence of her senses in proof of her
theory that the senses are "lies," "false be-
liefs," "delusions," etc. Take notice that, in
the cures which she cites on pages 86, 87, 88,
and elsewhere, she appeals to what she saw,
heard, did, and produces these as evidence
of the truth of her theory. Now, what is her
theory that she is trying to prove by this ap-
peal to her senses? Simply that both the
body and the "so-called senses are false be-
liefs," "errors of mortal mind," and "mortal
mind is nothing." If the physical senses are
to be rejected as false beliefs, as she con-
stantly affirms, then all that we perceive
through them must be regarded as delusion.
Then her claims that she healed this one or
that one, of such and such a disease, and gives
it as a fact, a "demonstration," are either to
be received as false belief Sy or else that they
disprove the very theories that she is seeking
to prove by them.

3. Still more funny is her "demonstration"
theory, in that she presents the testimonials
of those who claim to have been healed, or

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 187

who say they saw others healed, when her
theory, if correct, disproves the truth of all
that they say they saw or witnessed, or of the
cures they believed they experienced, since
she says, "The evidence of the senses is never
to be accepted." These testimonials, there-
fore, either prove the reality of disease, or the
falsity of her pretended cures. If the con-
sciousness of disease or suffering is a delusion,
then there is no reason to say that their con-
sciousness of a cure is not also a delusion,
according to her logic.

4. All the so-called cures of Christian Sci-
ence can be duplicated any day, and have been
duplicated through the ages past, by various
methods, and by all kinds of persons, and en-
tirely without anything essentially a part of
Christian Science at all. Books have been
published for centuries setting forth various
methods of mind-curing, and in all of them
the essential fact necessary to the cure has
been for the patient to believe that he was
cured. It matters not what the means used
to bring the sufferer to this point, so long as

188 Christian Science against Itself

he could be made to fully believe it, and to
act upon that belief; or, as Christian Science
has it, "demonstrate."

The limited space of the present work for-
bids our going into any detailed description
of these multitudinous cures and curers. We
refer the readers to a few of the more recent
and available works that have been published
on the subject, so that they may inform them-
selves if they wish. Among these are, "Faith
Healing, Christian Science, and Kindred Phe-
nomena," by J. M. Buckley, D. D. ; "Law of
Psychic Phenomena," by T. J. Hudson;
"Mental Physiology;" "Influence of Mind
upon Body;" "Phantasms of the Living."

Innumerable instances might be adduced
from various sources to illustrate the power
of mind over matter in effecting cures of dif-
ferent affections of the body, would time and
space permit. But we can do no more than
cite a few cases which have been demonstrated
in the personal experience of the writer him-
self.

It has long been known that warts may

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 189

be removed by various methods, such as
charms, counting the warts, buying them, and
numerous other ridiculous methods. When
the writer was about eighteen years of age
he had upon one hand a number of wiarts,
perhaps a dozen, of various sizes. The largest
was perhaps a quarter of an inch in diameter.
These warts had been growing for between
two and three years. One day a semi-idiotic
young man, who lived in the neighborhood,
remarked that he could give him a "sure cure
for those warts." On being asked what it
was, he said : "Well, if you are going through
the field or the woods any time, and happen
to find a bone in your track, why, you just
stoop down and pick up the bone, and rub
it over the warts, and lay it down again and
go on; be sure and never look behind you, and
those warts will all leave, sure." This was
told with that kind of gravity which the sim-
ple and superstitious usually assume under
such circumstances.

Of course, the writer smiled at this evi-
dence of rustic simplicity, never thinking of

190 Christian Science against Itself

even trying the experiment. Some months
afterward, however, while going through the
woods, he chanced to find a bone lying in his
path. The sight of the bone recalled the pre-
scription for warts. Smiling to himself at
the ridiculousness of the idea, he nevertheless
had sufficient curiosity to try if anything
would come out of the experiment. So, pick-
ing up the bone, he applied it to the warts,
and then, carefully laying it down, passed on,
thinking to himself that it was "a case of one
fool following another." No more was
thought of the matter for some two or three
weeks, when it chanced to come to his mind,
and, looking at his hand, great was his sur-
prise, indeed, to find that not a vestige of a
wart was to be seen, and they never returned
afterward.

Now we are not superstitious, but there
can be no question as to the cause of the re-
moval of the warts. So the bone did it, eh?
We did not say that. We believe it was
simply the effect of the mysterious power of
mind over matter. It was a case of mental

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 191

healing, pure and simple. The method of its
operation no man knoweth. The fact of such
cures no well-informed person will deny.

To show the power of mind over the func-
tional derangements of the bodily organs, we
may cite a case of a young lady who was a
member of our Church on one of my charges.
This young lady, who was about seventeen
years of age, had some peculiarity in the
action of the heart, and had been consulting
a traveling "doctor," who was a wonderful
healer of all the ills that flesh is heir to, if his
word might be accepted for it. He had, in
his usual way, assured the girl that she had "a
very serious heart difficulty, and one that re-
quired immediate attention; and it would be
a slow process of cure, requiring months of
medical treatment." Finally he told her that
he would undertake the case for fifty dollars
down, and so much every month.

Before deciding the matter she concluded,
with the advice of her parents, to call and ask
the opinion of her pastor. After listening to
her statement of the case, I examined her

192 Christian Science against Itself

pulse, and found it about 120 a minute. Then,
assuming an attitude of indifference to allay
her fears, I proceeded to ask some simple
questions concerning the condition of her
stomach, her digestion, diet, etc., and found
that she was troubled sometimes with acidity
of the stomach. I assured her that this con-
dition would often produce temporary func-
tional derangement of the heart, and that I
did not think her case half so serious as the
traveling doctor had represented; that he evi-
dently wanted a good long case and a good
fee; that my advice would be, that she wait
awhile, and try some simple remedies for the
acid condition of her stomach, and see if it
did not result in an improvement in the action
of the heart.

Again we felt her pulse in a careless way,
and found that it had been reduced to no
beats a minute. We assured her that it was
improving already, and that its undue excite-
ment was caused by the doctor scaring her,
and went on trying to allay her fears, even
making light of her anxiety. After a few min-

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 193

utes more I again counted the pulse, and
found it only lOO. Again proceeding with
our conversation, so as to divert her attention
from herself and allay her fears, and taking
the pulse occasionally, I found that, in course
of an hour, it had reached almost the normal
condition. I then showed her how her feel-
ings or her fears had been probably the chief,
if not the sole, cause of this unnatural agita-
tion of the heart; advised her to go home and
be a little careful about her diet for a month
or so, and cease all worrying about it, and
then see how it was; and if it were not better
then, to consult the best physician in her own
town, or some specialist of known reliability.
She went off quite relieved of her fears, and
I heard no more of her heart trouble.

Now, we cite this case to show the influ-
ence of the .mind in either exciting or allaying
the action of the heart. Such cases are nu-
merous, and can be tested any day in the
year; and no doubt that fear could be kept up
to such a degree, and for such a time, as to

produce serious functional, if not organic,
13

194 Christian Science against Itself

disease of the heart. Then, simply by restor-
ing the mind to its normal condition, nature
would restore itself.

In that same town resided another lady
who was also a member of my Church, who
had a very large inward tumor. She had been
examined by various physicians, who had told
her that they could do little or nothing for
her, and one of whom told me the particulars
of the treatment by which she was cured. A
certain magnetic healer was spending some
time in the town, treating "all the chronic
cases he could find," and he was called to see
this lady. He examined the case, and said he
could cure her. After consulting the phy-
sician who was attending her, and who related
the facts to me, her husband decided to try
the magnetic healer. He gave her treatment
every day, not allowing his hands to come in
contact with her person during the treatment,
but, covering her body with a sheet, he would
place his hands together spread open, and
move them slowly around over the abdomen,
as if he were gently rubbing some invisible

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 195

thing. This treatment was kept up for some
days, when the tumor began to dissolve and
slough away. Whether the cure was total and
permanent or not, I am not prepared to say;
but the physician told me it was a fact, as he
was allowed to be present and examine the
case and pronounced it genuine. The woman
was greatly reduced in size, and is still living,
after the lapse of several years, and in appar-
ently her usual health.

These are facts with which the writer is
personally familiar. I have withheld the
names from the public, but will furnish the
names and addresses of the parties to any one
desiring it, and sending a stamp for the same.

We could fill a volume with well-authenti-
cated cases of cures of various kinds of dis-
eases, and by different methods. But this we
shall not do. Mrs. Eddy's "demonstration" of
carrying a woman through a period of labor
without pain (p. 78), proves nothing for
Christian Science.

First. According to her theory, her "dem-
onstration" was all a delusion of the false

196 Christian Science against Itself

senses, since nothing that we see, hear, taste,
smell, or feel is true, and therefore she did not
see anything of the kind, but was only under
a "delusion of mortal mind," since she tells
us, on page 83, that reproduction, the embryo,
and the birth of man are matters that come
"from human belief." She also declares, on
pages 140, 154, 549, and elsewhere, that man
has neither birth nor death. Therefore, this
"demonstration" falls to the ground on her
own declarations.

Second. If the facts were true, which is
quite possible, it proves nothing, except that
her theory is false; for it proves the reality of
the body and of childbirth, which she denies
to be facts in other places; and it also proves
a case of hypnotic or other subjective con-
dition of the mind, in which the patient is
temporarily unconscious of pain. This is no
evidence of the principles of Christian Science
teaching, for the same results have been pro-
duced without Christian Science at all. Also
the extraction of teeth without pain or the
use of anesthetics, is now a common occur-

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 197

rence, by simply hypnotizing the patient. Of
course, Mrs. Eddy disclaims anything like
hypnotism, but that does not make it so, nor
does she give any proof of the statement,
other than her simple assertion. But that is
all she gives for anything she has written in
her "Science and Health." It is all pure
dogma, nothing more; and, according to her
theories, is incapable of any other proof, as
we have shown in other chapters of this work.
These cases are simply introduced to show
that the so-called cures of Christian Science
can be duplicated without the aid or doctrines
of that system at all.

As to her case of carrying a lady through
child-birth, we can tell of many cases quite as
remarkable as that, where labor has been com-
paratively painless, and quite as rapid, by cer-
tain hygienic means, without either Christian
Science, hypnotism, anesthetics, or instru-
ments, and with those who have before had
the severest times, or have lost several chil-
dren at birth.

The climax of imbecility in her argument

198 Christian Science against Itself

IS reached on page 94, where, in trying to
show the power of mind over the body, she
says: "Because the muscles of the black-
smith's arm are strongly developed, it does
not follow that exercise has produced the result,
or that a less-used arm must be weak. . . .
The triphammer is not increased in size by
exercise. Why not? Because mortal mind is
not willing that result on the hammer."
Amazing intelligence that! The fact is, the
hammer is not organized like the arm : that is,
the arm has the factors of life and growth,
while the hammer is simply inanimate matter.
One belongs to the animal kingdom, while
the other belongs to the mineral. What an
insult to the popular intelligence to write such
twaddle, and try to palm it off as "science" —
yea, as a revelation from God! Mohammed
and Joe Smith never equaled such an outrage
on human intelligence as that !

5. The fallacy of these so-called demon-
strations is further seen in the fact that many
of the supposed cures soon lapse, and many
die. In the closing weeks of the year 1898, a

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 199

man in Detroit, a strong believer in, and ad-
vocate of, Christian Science, became despond-
ent over the failure of the cure in his own case,
and committed suicide, as reported in the sev-
eral papers. Was this a "demonstration" of
the claims of the system? or of its failure?

A lady has just reported to the writer the
case of a lady friend of hers, a schoolteacher,
who was a Christian Scientist, who upbraided
her for employing a physician during an at-
tack of the grippe, instead of demonstrating
by Christian Science that she was '^not sick."
In a few days she also had a "mortal belief" of
the grippe, and it seized her so severely that
she very soon became convinced that, in a
genuine case of grippe, such senseless twaddle
did not affect her mortal belief very much,
and she, too, called a physician, and said no
more about Christian Science.

In the village of P , Mich., there came

along some Christian Science healers and
teachers several years ago, and organized a
school for teaching the mysteries of this art
of healing. The writer was invited to enter

200 Christian Science against Itself

the class free of charge, though the others
paid twenty-five dollars for the instruction.
Among the students was a lady of wealth, who
was up in the fifties, and was a member of
my Church. She had been ailing for some
time, and her husband had concluded to let
her join the class, hoping that it might not
only cure her ailments, but his rheumatism as
well. Of course she began demonstrating by
denying the reality of sin, sickness, and death,
and for a time kept up a constant assertion,
"I am not sick, I am well!'* etc. The fol-
lowing summer we heard that this sister was
seriously ill. Taking my wife, I called to see
her in her country home, and found her in
bed in a very weak condition. She spoke of
her physician, and I remarked to her, in a
humorous way, that I did not suppose she em-
ployed a physician. She smiled significantly,
and said : "Well, Christian Science may be all
right when there is nothing the matter with
one; but when we get really sick, I guess we
need something different from that." In a
few weeks she died of inward cancer. Reader,

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 201

what does this "demonstration" prove? The
infallibility of Christian Science healing, or
the fallacy of it? Such cases are common all
over the country, where those who have testi-
fied to being curedy have soon been buried
instead.

Nor are these cases confined alone to
Christian Science cures, but they are found
among faith cures, and all others of this class.
We have in mind just now a young lady who
was a member of the Church of which my
brother was pastor. The young lady had been
ill for some years, with some kind of spinal
trouble, and was bedridden for a long time.
All medical treatment had failed to help her,
and finally, having been told of the remark-
able cures of a certain faith-cure institution,
she wrote for instructions as to how to be
healed in answer to prayer. The day was
fixed, and her faith seemed to rise to grasp
the fact of healing, and, believing she had
been fully healed, she soon arose and dressed;
and it was heralded abroad that she had been
"miraculously cured in answer to prayer."

202 Christian Science against Itself

Having visited the family once in com-
pany with my brother, I felt a little curious
to know more definitely about the case, and
wrote him, asking some pointed questions as
to her strength, and whether she had the ap-
pearance of a really healthy person. To these
inquiries I received the reply that she did
not appear so, although he seemed to think
there was something remarkable about the
case. I determined to keep my eye on it to
ascertain how it would come out. She went
to Manitoba, to spend some time with a sis-
ter, and went about testifying to her cure.
The next time I inquired about her she was —
buried. This was a year or two after she had
been healed by faith. Many interesting cases
are to be found in Dr. Buckley's work on
"Faith Healing,'' which we can not here
quote. If Mrs. Eddy's "demonstrations"
prove anything, therefore, they prove the
reality of disease and death, and her theory
false to the core.

6. Another fact that spoils her "demon-
strations" is, that many are delusions and

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 203

frauds, or are greatly exaggerated, at least.
This is true also of many of the so-called faith-
cures. We have seen people going about de-
claring that they were well, when they were
so weak with heart or lung trouble that they
could barely walk a few rods without gasping
for breath. Others conceal important facts,
which would greatly weaken their testimony
if known.

A young preacher, who was fond of re-
ligious sensations, used to tell how he had
been healed of a carbuncle in answer to prayer.
He told the story to the writer, who twenty-
five years ago was more credulous of such
things than he is at present. He succeeded
that young preacher on the charge where he
claimed this miracle was performed, and one
day he related the story to a company of
friends, among whom was a physician. When
he had finished the story, the physician smiled
and remarked, "Well; he may have been cured
in answer to prayer, but I lanced the car-
buncle for him just the same." There were
others there who knew the circumstance well.

204 Christian Science against Itself

In almost every community where Chris-
tian Scientists are at work, as well as all other
kinds of mental healers, there may be found
numerous cases wherein they have failed to
cure, as seen by the after results. These fail-
ures and lapses are, of course, never men-
tioned. An explanation, or reason, with such
systems is easily found to account for the
failure. But there is no reasonable excuse
with a system that declares, as Mrs. Eddy
does, that "neither profanity nor atheism" is
any barrier to a man receiving the benefits
of its curative principle (p. 33).

7. The fallacy of her so-called "demon-
strations" is, therefore, seen in the absolute
failure of her method to effect either help or
cure in many cases. If her system is what
she claims it to be, there should be, and can
be, no failure to cure every ill or accident
that supposed Hesh is subject to. Be it remem-
bered that she claims absolute power for mind
over "all the functions of the body" (p. 45).
This is necessary to make good her system.
If there is no body, and no disease because

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 205

there is no body, then it logically follows that
there is no such thing as a broken limb or a
dislocated joint, or an amputated member, for
the same reason that there is no material
body. If there is no material body to be sick,
then there is no material body to be maimed
or injured, or even healed. No rational being
can deny the correctness of this logic.

If, then, there is no such thing as a dis-
located joint, or broken limb, or an amputated
member of the body (and there is not, if there
is no body), then all the cases of fracture, am-
putation, and dislocation are nothing but illu-
sions — false concepts of some kind of a mind,
either mortal or immortal. Now, as Mrs.
Eddy claims that this is the case, and that the
power of mind is absolute over all the imag-
inary ailments of this imaginary body, there
is, and can be, nothing that she can not cure
by restoring the mind to a right "understand-
ing" of itself, if her system is what she claims
it to be.

But is this what Mrs. Eddy claims in her
book on "Science and Health?" It is exactly

206 Christian Science against Itself

what she claims; or, at least, what her lan-
guage implies, whatever she may think or
mean. Now, let. us examine again, carefully,
her language in this regard, that there may
be no doubt as to her pretensions, and her
"demonstrations."

On page 75 she says, "Mind's government
of the body must supersede the so-called laws
of matter." Observe here, the two words
"so-called" and "supersede." These two
words imply, first, that the laws of matter are
only so called; and, second, that the laws of
mind are supreme over the supposed condi-
tions of matter. But, it may be asked, "Is
not that word supreme a little stronger than
she intends us to understand?" It is no
stronger than she herself uses, whatever she
intends. On page 43 she says: "Since the
author's discovery that mind governs all, not
partially but supremely, she has submitted her
metaphysical system of treating disease to the
strongest tests." Here she claims the suprem-
acy of mind to cure all diseases or ills of hu-
manity, by simply denying them as realities.

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 207

On page 45 she says that ''every function
of man is governed by the Divine Mind."
Now remember, she says, "There is but one
Mind in the universe, including man." God
and man are therefore one. So this one Mind
governs "every function of man." Is that
absolute? or limited?

But, to leave no doubt as to her preten-
sions and meaning, she puts the climax to
her arguments on page 115. She says: "My
method of treating fatigue applies to all bodily
ailments^ since mind should be, and is, su-
preme, absolute^ and final. . . . Mind heals all
ailments'' Here she claims her system of
treatment supreme, absolute, over all human
"ailments." /T^hat must include amputations
and deformities^

Now let us consider this term "absolute"
for a few moments. Absolute means absolute,
and not limited. There can be no middle
ground between absolute and limited. A
thing is either absolute or limited, and never
can be both. Therefore, Mrs. Eddy, having
carefully chosen this word as the measure of

208 Christian Science against Itself

her power, and the "demonstration" of her
system, must stand by it, or recant. To recant
would be to give up her whole theory, and
all the profits financially accruing from it.
That she could never do. So she prefers to
take the chances of dodging the criticisms,
and go on, standing on the word absolute.
Then, to shield herself, she puts the footnote
at the bottom of her Preface, "The author
takes no patients and declines medical con-
sultation."

How cunning, indeed, to base her system
on the "infallible demonstrations" of "the
strongest tests," and then turn around and
refuse all patients and consultation! If she
means what she says, that her system is appli-
cable to, and equally efficient in, all cases, even
to the taking of poison, as she claims on page
70, and that "what is termed disease does not
exist" (p. 81), then why is she not willing
to let her whole scheme rest on actual tests,
in cases of supposed deformities and amputa-
tions ? We challenge all the Christian Scientists
in the zvorld, singly and collectively, to submit

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 209

to an "actual test" of their theory, as taught
by Mrs. Eddy and by them generally, in one
single case before competent witnesses. We
will select a case of poisoning, or of an ampu-
tated limb; and if they will "demonstrate" the
"absolute" power of mind over body, either
to resist the power of the poison without re-
medial agents, or to put a limb — b, real limb —
on a man who has lost a leg, we will accept
their theory in toto, and confess ourselves in
"mortal error."

Of course, they will not accept this chal-
lenge. But why not? If they really believe
what they teach, why should they refuse such
a test? Mrs. Eddy says her "science must be
demonstrated by healing" (Preface, p. 9),
and that it is capable of absolute "demonstra-
tion." Come now, Sister Eddy; if you believe
that, let me give you the dose of poison, which
you say is harmless, or let me bring the one-
legged man for you to "demonstrate" on. I
shall be most happy to abandon my false po-
sition if you can demonstrate on these two

classes of cases.
14

210 Christian Science against Itself

If they are not willing to put their system
to these tests, then we have no reason to be-
lieve in their absolute power over the body
to heal "a// the ailments" of humanity. Be it
remembered, that if there is a single instance
where their method will not heal, then its
power is not absolute, but limited. But they
have based it on the assumption that it is
absolute, and not limited.

If they are not willing to put their system
to the "severest tests," as Mrs. Eddy claims
it has been, there is but one conclusion, and
that is that they know it would be a failure in
all such cases. That it is a failure in these
classes of cases is evident from the very admis-
sion of Mrs. Eddy herself. She does not claim
that she has ever healed the man who had lost
a leg by amputation or accident, nor that any
one else has ever done so, by causing a new
limb to come in the place of the old one, ex-
cept it be Christ himself, who did heal "the
maimed;" yet she says she believes the time
will come when such will be the case.

Now, two things are evident from this ad-

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 2 1 1

mission: First, that her theories have not
yet been proved, by any actual experiment,
to be true; viz., that the power of mind to
heal "all bodily ailments,'* as she declares, "is
supreme, absolute, and final." And, second,
that the cases in which their system of heal-
ing is effectual are limited to certain classes, be-
yond which no metaphysical or faith healers can
ever go. And inasmuch as the whole system
of Christian Science is built on the theory of
the absolute power of mind over matter, on the
assumption that "matter, or body, is but a false
concept of mortal mind" (p. 70), and there-
fore is nothing; and this theory must be proved
by its absolute power in healing "a// the ills
or ailments of humanity;" and, there are cer-
tain classes of "ailments" which it can not
heal, it is fully proved that Christian Science
is not what it claims to be, and therefore is an
awful delusion, based upon an awful untruth,
as is shown by the utter failure to carry out
the "demonstrations" which, they say, is the
only proof of their theory.

But this failure is not limited to cases of

212 Christian Science against Itself

amputation, poisoning, raising the dead, or
curing deformities; but in almost all the actual
diseases of life may be seen numberless in-
stances of their failures. The writer has per-
sonal knowledge of a large number of cases of
total failure to cure or help, in consump-
tion, typhoid-fever, rheumatism, cancer, nerv-
ous prostration, and many other diseases.
But these failures are so common in every
place where these people operate, and pretend
to cure by mental treatment, that it is useless
to burden the reader with multiplied cases
in detail. All are familiar with them. But
this limitation of their power to heal, simply
proves that all their so-called demonstrations
are a farce, and nothing more, so far as prov-
ing the fundamentals of the system is con-
cerned.

8. The fallacy of their demonstrations is
further shown in the fact that they all decline
to accept any practical test of their curative
power, and say that "Christ did not work
miracles to satisfy the curiosity of men."
True : but that was not necessary in his case.

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 213

for he was continually working all kinds of
miracles in the presence of the people, even
to raising the dead, opening the eyes of the
blind, and the ears of the dumb, and restoring
the paralytics, and even making whole those
who were maimed ; that is, those who had lost
some member of the body. These people
were known by the masses, both before and
after their healing. When Christian Scien-
tists have this kind of "demonstration" to
offer in proof of their theories, then we will
not need to challenge them to a practical test
of their power at healing. Until they have
other proof of their "absolute power" than
their mere say-so, we shall refuse to recognize
their system as a "Divine Science." When
they raise the dead, restore the eyes of the
blind, and make the maimed whole — make
new limbs grow on old stumps — ^then we will
accept their "demonstrations" as genuine;
not till then.

9. Mrs. Eddy's "demonstration" theory
is seen to be a farce in the fact that her most
important tests are yet in the future. She

214 Christian Science against Itself

predicts, on page 485, that when her sci-
ence is "understood, then the human limb
would be replaced as readily as the lobster's
claw; not with an artificial limb, but with the
genuine one.'' Now, isn't that scientific?
after building her whole theory on the asser-
tion of the "absolute demonstrability" of the
"absolute power" of the mind over "all hu-
man ailments," and that that "absolute
power" can be demonstrated by "any honest
seeker after truth," finally to confess that
she has never seen or known it to be done,
but she is sure it can be done, when her "rev-
elation" comes to be "understood!" This is
"scientific demonstration" with a vengeance!
But the query is, if she got this science as
a revelation from God, and God sent her to
preach this new gospel, and to demonstrate
it by healing "all human ailments," and she
claims to be the only person inspired so to
preach it, and is infallible authority on this
Divine Science, why can she not do that
which she says can be done when her science
is understood? Did she not see that even

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 215

Mrs. Eddy did not, or does not, yet "fully
understand" this so-called science, of which
she claims to be the only infallible exponent?
If she does not understand it fully, why does
she condemn, and brand with infamy, those
who do not agree with her in all that she
says? Did it not occur to her that if God
gave her a revelation, he might have given
some other folks also a revelation? He did
not give all his revelations to one man or
woman in the past; why should she fancy
that he has given it only to one person now?
Has it evpr occured to her that, as her revela-
tion needed "a revision in '91," it might, —
in view of its not being yet sufficiently un-
derstood by her for her to demonstrate it
by causing a new leg to grow on an old
stump (like the claw of the lobster), — need
another "revision," in order that she may so
fully understand it as to give the world the
much needed demonstration of its "abso-
lute" power over "false beliefs in matter?"
Alas! alas! what fools we mortals be!
10. But the last and funniest thing about

216 Christian Science against Itself

her claim to absolute "demonstration" is
that, while making these pretentious claims,
she says, on page 86, "I have never made a
specialty of healing disease; but healing has
accompanied all my efforts to introduce
Christian Science." Is that true? Then her
healing "demonstrates" the untruth of Chris-
tian Science; for if genuine healing did ac-
company all her efforts, then there certainly
was something to heal; and if so, her whole
theory is false, and "sin, sickness, and death"
are real. But if she has never made a spe-
cialty of healing disease, and therefore has
never put her theory to "the severest tests,"
how does she know that it is susceptible of
"absolute demonstration?" Evidently she
has been giving theories for facts, and simple
dogma for science, throughout her entire book
on "Science and Health." Hence all her
so-called demonstrations are demonstrations
of the failure of her system to do what she is
constantly claiming for it: in other words,
that it is a failure in proving its claims.
This failure she has practically admitted

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 217

herself, and therefore proved conclusively
that she does not believe what she has pub-
lished in her book, that her "method of
treating fatigue applies to all bodily ailments,
since mind should be, and is, supreme, ab-
solute, and final" (p. 115). For, after de-
claring this emphatically and repeatedly, and
claiming the actual demonstration of this
absolute power over all human ailments,
she has acknowledged the failure of her sys-
tem heretofore to heal certain classes of
"ailments," but thinks it can be done when it
is fully understood.* And in contradiction of
all that she has said to the contrary, she says
that when that final demonstration has been
made, it will be by causing a new leg to grow
on an old stump; "not an artiUciaV or sham
leg, "but a genuine one,' as real as that of
"the lobster's claw," that grows on where
an old one has been lost (p. 485).

Amazing logic, this ! After spending some
six hundred pages in telling us that there is no
reality to the body of man, and that "man is
not made up of brains, bones, and muscles,"

Ill Wl^Sifi^lif^SP

'$ff&'^'§(>Si&?SL^Bt<S ate iiolh-

kA'3«juili(a'&v both the

leg" to
'i.^Uginary one

'fA'^^fi^ ftl^^nstration"

lt|»lJ^fi%B«£Sve demon-

' ^^^i?^'^"^'^ bodies are

]WM" At the

Mi:*:

ihce it dem-
iMrs. Eddy
^tly is very
V, while she
ir her system
^ical quack-
;■ out of the

prl-'Mr^:!*.

SlJc(i:^Ji|:i|:ciBed "demon-

[r^W^!gee^:I^3ve consider

■»*•»*•*■•»■•

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 219

that "that alone can furnish us with absolute
evidence'* of truth which demonstrates the
power of Christian Science over SIN, as well
as over sickness and death.

Now, where, in all her so-called "demon-
strations," has she proved her power to
annihilate sin, or to save from sin by destroy-
ing it? Here, like Antichrist, she puts herself
in the place of God, and claims to destroy
sin, or to save the world from it. Now mark !
she claims, that in order to prove its power.
Christian Science must destroy sin, as well
as disease and death; and the "absolute
evidence" must include all three of these
things, as she claims on page 35. If, there-
fore, her "demonstrations" do not cover
all three of these kinds of evils, "sin, sickness,
and death," and all classes of each kind
within the range of its actual tests, then her
"absolute evidence" is not yet produced.
But has she demonstrated all these claims?
Not at all. She has not whispered a syllable
to prove that she, or any of her followers,

220 Christian Science against Itself

have ever raised the dead, or that they can
save any one in the world from dying. If
she could do that, why did she allow her three
husbands to die? Here is, then, a shortage
in her "absolute evidence" of the "absolute
power" of her system, by absolute failures.
Now, what evidence has she produced, or
can she produce, to prove her power over
sin to destroy it? That is something that is
not demonstrable by any human methods,
or known by any human science. To say that
this, or that, has been the means of saving
individuals from committing outward acts of
sin, is not in any sense proving that the heart
is saved from the guilt of sin. To destroy
the consciousness of sin in the conscience,
by denying that we have any sin, is no evi-
dence that sin no longer exists. Yet this
is the very method, and the only method,
by which Christian Science saves or "heals
from sin." You are to say, "It is nothing!
It is nothing!" and that is the end of it.
The demonstration of this fact belongs alone

The Fallacy of So-called Demonstrations 221

to the eternal world. No human science can
demonstrate it, as Omniscience alone can
deal with the question of sinlessness or guilt.
In professing to save men from sin, Mrs.
Eddy is an arch deceiver and base impostor.
Her teachings are not only ridiculous non-
sense, but damnable heresies.

CHAPTER VIII

Contradictions Between Christian Science

Theory and Practice

Having shown the self-contradictoriness
of Mrs. Eddy's teachings in "Science and
Health," and the contradictions between her
theory and her so-called "demonstrations,"
we shall show that neither she, nor any
Christian Scientist so called, in the world,
believes for a single moment the doctrines
they teach and profess to believe. As to
their honesty or sincerity in presenting their
views or holding them, I have nothing to
say at this point of our argument. What
I propose to show just here is, that, what-
ever they may reason themselves into think-
ing that they believe, they do not, and can
not, in reality, believe it; and this their daily
conduct proves conclusively.

222

Christian Science Theory and Practice 223

Let us again place before us Mrs. Eddy's
fundamental propositions, that we may the
more readily see the practical rejection of
them in their every-day practice, whatever
theories one may have reasoned himself
into accepting mentally.

Mrs. Eddy's leading propositions are:

1. "Matter is nothing, and nothing is
matter."

2. "Mortal existence is a dream, it has
no real entity." "Mortal mind and body
are one. ... Is there any more reality
in a waking dream of mortal existence than
in the sleeping dream? There can not be,
since whatever appears to be a mortal mind
or body is a mortal dream" (p. 146).

3. "Either everything is matter, or
everything is mind: which is it?" "Matter
and mind are antagonistic, and both can not
have place and power" (p. 166). "Nothing
that we can say or believe regarding matter
is true, except that matter is unreal, and is
therefore a belief" (p. 173).

4. There is no material body. All is

224 Christian Science against Itself

mind, all is spirit. Body is nothing but a
mortal thought, and that is nothing.

5. "There is but one Mind or Spirit in
the universe, that is God." Man, therefore,
is nothing but mind, and mind is nothing
but God. "God is the only mind or intelli-
gence, including Man" (p. 225).

6. Having no material body, it needs no
protection from heat or cold (p. 272).
Flannels and clothing are of no account.

7. The body, being nothing but a mortal
thought, has no real need for food; and eat-
ing, taste, and appetite are only forms of
mortal error, or false belief. She says:
''Food neither strengthens nor weakens the
body, though mortal mind has its material
methods of doing its work, one of which is
to declare that proper food supplies nutri-
ment to the human system" (p. 118). There-
fore eating is a foolish fad of mortal mind,
and wholly needless, and a delusion; we only
fancy we eat, and it is foolish to fancy it.

8. As people have no material bodies,
there is no such thing as distinctions of sex.

Christian Science Theory and Practice 225

Male and female, man and woman, birth
and death, are all "delusions of mortal
mind." "Man has neither birth nor death,"
she says, on page 140.

9. There being neither "birth nor death,"
it follows logically, as she says again on page
140, that man never grows old: "He is
neither young nor old." Of course', being
God, he is "eternal," and therefore "has
neither beginning nor end."

10. There being no material body, and
no material world, and neither "sin, sickness,
nor death," there is nothing to feed, clothe,
carry about, wash, bathe, nurse, hug, nor
kiss while living, nor to bury when the
mortal idea comes over somebody that some-
body has died.

11. There being no matter, there is no
material earth in which to bury a supposed
material body, when somebody fancies some-
one is really dead (pp. 424, 427, 351).

"Is that what Christian Scientists be-
lieve?" you will ask in amazement! No; it

is not what they believe, as we shall endeavor
15

226 Christian Science against Itself

to show; but it is exactly what they teach, and
what Mrs. Eddy gives in her "Science and
Health;" and what she occupies over five hun-
dred pages to make us believe; and what she
claims God gave her as a "revelation," and
which, she also says, she "discovered;" and
on which she has secured a copyright in her
book; and which hundreds of people are
paying from $200 to $800 to have expounded
to them, to enable them to put it in practice.
And then, after they have paid their inspired
teacher $600 or $800 to tell them all this,
they can sit down to the same table with her,
and see her stow away as much beef and
potatoes as any other "mortal mind" that ever
fancied that it was feasting on material food.
Now, all this nonsense is what is taught
in the system which Mrs. Eddy has named
"Christian Science," and "Divine Science,"
as every one knows who has ever read her
book on "Science and Health." We unhes-
itatingly declare, that neither Mrs. Eddy,
nor any living, rational, earthly being, ever
really believed that. While they may have

Christian Science Theory and Practice 227

done so in theory, in actual life they have
demonstrated that they did not, and could
not, believe it.

Let us now apply this first proposition,
"There is no material world," to the life
and practice of any one of them, and see
how their theory and practice agree. If
there is no material world, no matter, then
all recognition of such a world, or such a
thing as matter, is "delusion." Was it
"delusion" when Mrs. Eddy conceived the
idea in mortal mind that she had written a
book? If so, she is still under the delusion
of "false sense," and she has no copyright
on "Science and Health." If she insists that
she has, then she confesses the falsity of her
whole system. Was it delusion when she
secured this copyright with the idea that she
would really make money out of it? Is it
delusion that she receives from $200 to $800
for telling other people what fools they are
for believing that there is such a thing as

228 Christian Science against Itself

gold and silver in the world; that "all is
mind, all is spirit?" Was matter a "delusion"
when she prosecuted a competitor for using
that which she had a copyright on, and got
damages from him for thinking that there
was really such a thing as a book to steal
from, when she herself copyrighted a "mortal
error," under the false belief that she could
really get dollars out of it?

Is it "delusion" when they stand behind
the counter and tell their customers that
their wares are "all wool and a yard wide,"
"genuine English make, imported right from
the Old Country;" "real cut-glass or china-
ware;" that it is "genuine cane-sugar, and
not beets;" or that "it is solid gold, and not
filled goods?" If that proposition is correct,
then, when they represent their goods in this
way, they make themselves the veriest liars
in the world.

Is that proposition true, when they sell
a piece of land, and give a clear title to it,
and receive money for it? Then they make
themselves the veriest rascals in the com-

Christian Science Theory and Practice 229

munity, since all the deeds in the world are,
according to that proposition, nothing but
"mortal lies/'

Does Mrs. Eddy believe that "there is
no matter," when she buys or builds a house,
or a church perchance, and deals in other
supposed real estate? If she believes it is
true, she is one of the biggest fools in the
world of fools, for dabbling in imaginary
real estate. And if she does not believe that
first proposition, as she evidently does not,
then she has, by her dabbling in deeds to
mortal errors, "demonstrated" that all she
has written in her book is a gigantic fraud,
to "squeeze" the real dollars out of her fol-
lowers.

If there is no matter, or they believe
there is not, why do they recognize a dif-
ference in the kinds and qualities of materials,
or supposed materials, which the contractors
put into their buildings? Would any of them,
under a contract for a building of stone,
accept from the contractor, a wooden struc-
ture, or a drawing on paper, under the

230 Christian Science against Itself

assumption that "all there is in the universe,
is Spirit and its idea?" If that is true, then
the building on paper is just as real as the
one of stone. Why not, since both are false
beliefs?

Is it true that there is no matter, or
material world, when they step into a carriage,
street-car, or railway train, to go from one
place to another? If it is true, then change
of location is all "a mortal error." If heaven
is "not a place, but a state," then that must
be true now also. If there is no earth on
which we have supposed we lived, there can
be no change of place.

If there is no material world, why do
they buy coal and zvood for fuel, and use
water to put out an imaginary iire that
"mortal mind" fancies is destroying their
material property? Did ever any of them
stand by and see their property go up in
flames, and not use water to put out the
flames, but coolly remark that, "It is nothing
but a false concept of mortal mind; there is
no matter, nothing to burn?" Never! Yet

Christian Science Theory and Practice 231

these same people will stand by the bedside
of husband, wife, or child, as we have often
known, and say, "There is no matter, there
IS no sickness nor death,'' and allow them to
die for want of medical care! Of course,
they will say, ''There is no death." But
whether there is or not, they go through
the form of burial just the same as if there
were, supposing that they bury them "out
of sight," when they say there is neither
sight, smell, corruption, nor matter. If
there is not, why do they fancy that it will
help matters to go through the delusion of
an imaginary burial? But if they really
believe that "matter is nothing," why can
they not "demonstrate" it in putting out
fire, just as well, by saying so, as they claim
to do in healing the body? If there is no
reality to matter, then a building is just as
unreal as a human body. If mind has
"absolute power" over matter, and both
disease and fire are unreal, then mind ought
to control one illusion just as well as the
other, since all that is necessary in either

232 Christian Science against Itself

case is to deny the reality of matter and the
testimony of the physical senses, which are
but mortal lies, and sickness at once be-
comes nothing, and fire an optical illusion.
If Mrs. Eddy's teachings are true, then this
is true; for this is exactly what she teaches.
Two opposites can not be true at the same
time. If there is matter, then it can not be
true that "there is no matter;" and if it is
true that there is no matter, then it can not
be true that there is matter. We must, by
accepting one of these propositions, reject
the other, or we are not rational beings.
Now, Mrs. Eddy repeatedly declares that
"matter is nothing," and "nothing that we
can say about it is true, except that it is
unreal." That being true, a house, a lot, a
horse, a car, a deed, a book, a copyright,
are all alike unreal, and nothing but "false
concepts of mortal mind," or some other
kind of mind.

If there is no matter, or if they believe
there is not, then rain, snow, hail, cold, and
heat are all but false ideas of mortal mind

Christian Science Theory and Practice 233

also. That being the case, can any one
account for these people, who claim to
believe all that, carrying an umbrella to keep
out the heat or rain, or wearing winter
clothing or shoes to keep out the snow, or
going into an imaginary house to get out of
an imaginary storm? Not one of them was
ever so idiotic or insane as to believe their
doctrine in a practical way; that is, to believe
it strongly enough to allow their theory to
govern them in their conduct, in anything,
except in the supposed cure of disease, which
they say never existed except as delusion.
Thus their every-day actions "demonstrate"
that, whatever they may fancy they believe
in theory, they do not for a moment believe
it in their inmost heart. This demonstration
is "absolute and final" when applied to any
department of human conduct.

They ignore the evidence of the senses,
denying their testimony, and declaring them
"five mortal beliefs" (p. 484). Mrs. Eddy

234 Christian Science against Itself

says, "The testimony of the senses is false;
their evidence is never to be accepted.*^ (See
Index, under "Senses," p. 653.)

Now, please notice she says, "The evi-
dence of the senses is never to be accepted!*'
But does Mrs. Eddy practice what she
preaches? Not at all. Probably, like some
we have heard of, she can not both preach
and practice, and therefore she finds it much
easier to do the preaching than the prac-
ticing, and so does not try to do the latter.
Certain it is, she does not practice what
she preaches in this respect. She says we
are not to accept the evidence of the senses;
and yet goes right on accepting the evidences
of every one of her senses every day of her
life, and in every act of her life. Does she
use her hands to feel with, or work with?
She is using what she says we must reject
as false sense. Does she use her eyes to
see? Then she is crediting her senses.
Yea, she even produces her senses in evi-
dence of her healing power, and tells us
that she saw such and such a thing, as proof

Christian Science Theory and Practice 235

of her system of healing. Does she ever
eat? Then she is crediting her sense oi taste.
Can she detect any difference in the odor of
a putrid carcass or limburger cheese, and the
fragrance of the rose or the sweet syringa?
Then she accepts the evidence of her senses.

On page io8 she ridicules the idea of our
beHeving the testimony of our senses to the
fragrance of the rose. Yet in all her daily
actions she recognizes, and accepts, the evi-
dence of her senses. Her conduct demon-
strates that she does not really believe what
she teaches in her book, and that in every par-
ticular.

So we find that, in all human conduct,
there is indubitable evidence that it is impos-
sible for any rational being to act upon the
principles taught in Christian Science. It
may not be so strange that ordinary folks do
not "understand" this Divine Science suffi-
ciently to practice all that it teaches; but in
Mrs. Eddy's case there is no excuse for not
practicing all that her system implies. She
claims to have been inspired of God, to have

236 Christian Science against Itself

had a revelation, and to be beyond error or
improvement in her teachings. There is,
therefore, no ground for excuse, and no ex-
cuse that can be made, for lack of knowledge
on her part, without giving up her whole
theory as taught and claimed in "Science and
Health." To admit her ignorance would be
to destroy her claims, and spoil her whole
financial scheme. Every brick in her house,
every picture on her walls, every table, chair,
and bedstead, carpet and dish and musical in-
strument, cries out against the falsity of Chris-
tian Science, and declares the full belief of its
founder and teachers in the reality of the ma-
terial senses. We will, therefore, reject the
theories and teachings of this system as false,
until they can demonstrate the truthfulness of
their fundamental principles in their own lives
and daily conduct. When they do that, any
of them, from the founder down to her hum-
blest follower, then it will be time enough to
give it our serious attention, say nothing of
our financial support. Let us keep our funds
to do just what Mrs. Eddy and all other

Christian Science Theory and Practice 237

teachers of this so-called Divine Science are

doing, — buy food, and comforts, and shelter for

ourselves and our imaginary families; take

good care of our health, and demonstrate that

we have not lost our rational intelligence by

accepting such irrational nonsense as "Divine

Science."

III.

Next they ignore the existence of a ma-
terial body to man. "Mortal mind and body
are one; . . . whatever appears to be a mor-
tal mind or body is a mortal dream'' (p. 146).

Now, does either Mrs. Eddy, or any of her
pupils, believe that? Not one of them! If
they believed it, would they go through the
hollow mockery of daily buying, cooking, and
eating food; or, rather, of imagining they do?
For they say it is all delusion — mortal error.

No material body? Only "a mortal
dream?" Yet they will cherish the false idea
that it is real, and indulge in the false pleas-
ures of "gustatory sense," when they declare
that it is all a "false belief" of mortal mind.
Amazing consistency, this!

238 Christian Science against Itself

The body is "nothing but a dream!" Yet
they are just as anxious . to get imaginary
dollars to buy imaginary clothes to cover this
imaginary body, as any one who believes that
body to be real and material. No body, of
course! But they feed, clothe, shelter, con-
ceal, protect, and care for it; yea, and even
marry themselves to other supposed individ-
uals having bodies; and if one of those im-
aginary beings happens to "pass from mortal
sight," they look around for another one to
marry, just the same as other folks. There
is no sex, yet they always manage to marry
"a dream" that is supposed to be of the op-
posite gender from themselves. How shall
we account for all this, if we accept the pro-
fession of faith of these individuals? These
things are all "mortal errors !" Yet they con-
tinue to practice them. The body is a "mor-
tal dream!" Yet Mrs. Eddy has, according
to accredited statements, been married four
times. Pray why did she marry "a dream,"
and do it four times over? O no, Sister Eddy,
that won't go down, quite!

Christian Science Theory and Practice 239

The body is "nothing but a dream," they
say. Yes, when that suits their financial pur-
pose best. A certain individual who was sup-
posed, in mortal mind, to be of the masculine
gender, who was a member of my Church,
went off with this new fad. He took particu-
lar pains to disseminate his views among the
other members of the Church, when I had oc-
casion to instruct them against the fallacies
of the system. This aroused his animosity,
and he sought revenge by seeking to preju-
dice the people against me. I learned of his
conduct, and resolved to put a quietus upon
him, which I eflfectually did. Knowing that
he professed to believe the doctrines of Chris-
tian Science, and that he had openly avowed
them, and that he had at the same time made
application for a pension from the Government
on the ground of physical ailments contracted
during the war, and that he had made affi-
davit to that effect after proclaiming his doc-
trine that "there is no body, and no sickness
nor death," I sent the individual word that if
I ever heard of his interfering again with me

240 Christian Science against Itself

or my business, I would report him to the
Government officials at Washington as hav-
ing perjured himself in his application for a
pension on the ground of physical disability,
when he was publicly declaring his belief that
there is no such thing. He became instantly
quiet, and I had no further trouble with him.
Did he believe that matter, dollars, and body,
and sickness were all mortal dreams? or did
he only fancy it mentally? Certain it was
that he did not believe his doctrine strongly
enough to take any risks of losing that imag-
inary pension. How strongly they do cling to
their old "mortal errors" when the matter of
dollars and cents is involved! If Mrs. Eddy
and all her teachers would teach their doc-
trines for nothing, and go without food, shel-
ter, or clothing, and shut their eyes, nose, and
mouth, and use none of their "so-called
senses," and thereby "demonstrate" that they
really believe what they preach, and practice it,
then we would give them credit for consistency
and honesty at least, if not for sense. And if
they will continue this mode of living for a

Christian Science Theory and Practice 241

year, and go through a Michigan winter with-
out food, clothing, or shelter, and come out
in good condition in the spring, we will then
seriously consider the correctness of their
theories; not till then. Come, now, Sister
Eddy! if you really mean that your system
has been, and can be, "subjected to the sever-
est tests," don't object to this one; for there
are many others nameable that are more se-
vere than this. I am moderate in my de-
mands, as I do not wish to embarrass you at
all. Come, now ! Either "demonstrate" that
there is neither matter, body, dollars and
cents, and the senses are all "false beliefs" of
mortal mind, or else give up the game, and

quit!

IV.

They deny all personality, all mind, soul,
spirit, being, and intelligence but God. Over
and over, Mrs. Eddy declares this in her "so-
called" book, and all her followers echo what-
ever she says, since "there is but one method
of teaching it." And yet they are just as keen
to strike a bargain for personal gain in dollars

242 Christian Science against Itself

and cents as any one else. In fact, they seem
to be especially gifted in these matters. Mrs.
Eddy copyrights her books, and charges an
exorbitant price for them, and then divides up
her system into several courses, in order to
get several exorbitant fees out of her pupils
for teaching them the mysteries of her so-
called science. Of course, "there is no mat-
ter;" money is nothing but a "false concept;"
but she likes to believe it is real just the same.
Now, if her first proposition is true, that mat-
ter is nothing, then money is nothing. If
money is something, then matter is something.
Now, which is correct ? Both can not be true.
But Mrs. Eddy's copyrights and big prices
for books and instruction "demonstrate" fully
that she believes that money is something;
therefore she believes that matter is some-
thing. So she does not believe her first and
fundamental proposition, that "matter is noth-
ing." She also demonstrates that she does
not believe that "God is the only Being, Soul,
Spirit," or individual in the universe. If she
did, she would not fancy that she was teach-

Christian Science Theory and Practice 243

ing God her system, and charging him such
prices for instruction; and if she did, then she
would prove that there are at least two beings
in the universe, she and God.

Now, let us imagine anything, if we can,
more incongruous and self-contradictory than
for a person to deny the existence of a mate-
rial world and a material body, and the plu-
rality of "souls or spirits," and then go right
on dealing with other folks, taking out a copy-
right on an imaginary book to prevent other
folks from stealing her rights, and then prose-
cuting somebody for infringing that copy-
right, when that somebody and the one who
prosecutes are both the same person, and
neither of them is a personal being, but both
are God, who is "the only being in the uni-
verse." Yet this is what Mrs. Eddy teaches
in "Science and Health." Sublime science,
indeed !

Imagine, again, one marrying an idea, that
is "neither body nor mind;" and, when that
idea is supposed in mortal mind to have died,
holding a funeral over it, and investing im-

244 Christian Science against Itself

aginary money in an imaginary casket, in
which to encase that idea, and then go
through the form of burying that "mortal
error" in an imaginary grave, in an imaginary
earth; and then, further, to go and invest in
an imaginary granite monument, to set up
over that imaginary grave that is supposed
to contain the mortal remains of "a mortal
belief!"

We have seen all this done by a woman
who claimed to heal "all sin, sickness, and
death," and who passed for both a preacher
and healer of this new "science." O no; there
is no body ! But she loved to fancy that she
had a horse and phaeton to carry about her
"mortal error" of two hundred pounds avoir-
dupois, which had so fastened itself to her
that she fancied it much easier to "believe the
mortal error" that she was riding than to walk
about town on her imaginary feet. We saw
this lady bargaining for a supposed granite
monument, to place over the imaginary grave
of her imaginary husband, which she thought
she had buried a short time before; though

Christian Science Theory and Practice 245

the Christian Science preacher did stand over
the imaginary casket, and tell the people that
"there is no death;'* that Christian Science
had "banished sin, sickness, and death from
the world."

Yea, this same lady, who thought she had
invested in a granite monument, and held
Sunday services to teach the people that
"there is no matter, no body, no death, and
no sickness nor disease," had, hanging in
front of her "mortal error" of a house, a sign
which read, "Christian Science Doctor."
Pray, what did she doctor, if there is no body
to be sick, and no sickness to cure? And why
did she charge a dollar a call if she really be-
lieved that there are no dollars in the world?
Why did she hang out an imaginary sign-
board in front of her house, when she was
teaching the people every Sabbath that that
sig^-board, house and all, were only "false
beliefs of mortal mind," as "there is no mat-
ter?" Did she believe it? Why did this same
lady call in at a neighbor's house one winter
morning when "mortal error" supposed the

246 Christian Science against Itself

temperature was some twenty degrees below,
and show her how she had frozen her ear the
day before? Did she really believe she had no
ears, and that her body was "a dream," and
the freezing was all "an error of mortal mind?"
Not at all ! Her Christian Science belief was
all "an error of mortal mind" that time, and
she "demonstrated" that she did not, in re-
ality, believe the doctrines she was teaching
others as Mrs. Eddy's "Revelation," or Di-
vine Science; nor that "the evidence of the
senses is never to be accepted." Not a Chris-
tian Scientist in the world believes these doc-
trines, nor can believe them, as all their ac-
tions clearly prove. We find that they work,
ride, walk, talk, eat, feel, smell, use tools, cut
themselves, or pound off their finger-nails,
just the same as other people.

In view of all these facts concerning the
practical life of these strange people, what
shall we conclude concerning them? That
they .are all dishonest, and intentionally lying.

Christian Science Theory and Practice 247

when they say they believe the teachings of
Mrs. Eddy? Not at all. No doubt many of
them are talking this system for the simple
reason that "there is money in it;" and they
are taking advantage of the gullibility of the
public to make gain, or are anxious for a
little more notoriety than they have been
accustomed to. But no doubt there are
many honest people who, by the shrewd
sophistry of Mrs. Eddy, have been mentally
persuaded of the truthfulness of her general
teachings, who have never noticed the logical
absurdities and contradictions of her funda-
mental propositions. They never grasp the
full import of those subtle arguments and
propositions when given a practical applica-
tion to the things of actual life, as we have
here pointed out.

Shall we say, then, that they are fools?
That does not necessarily follow. Many in-
telligent persons are not literary or scientific
critics. They may see a degree of apparent
reasonableness in a theory, without being
either sufficiently educated in science or ana-

248 Christian Science against Itself

lytical in mind to discover the fallacy of an
argument. Yet when they come to give to
their theories a practical application, they may
see the unreasonableness of them. Thus
many who fancy they see truth in the theories
of Christian Science will find it impossible to
put those theories into practice in every-day
life. Every intelligent person will see that it
is no evidence of the truthfulness of a theory
or system, because one can not see wherein
the fallacy exists. A sleight-of-hand trick is
not a real miracle, simply because others can
not detect the method of the magician. So
it is no evidence of the correctness of the
theories of Christian Science, that they may
appear plausible to unskilled minds. Nor is
it any proof of the truthfulness of their theory
that certain cures have been wrought in the
name of such a system, when the same kind
of cures have been produced, and can be pro-
duced, and are being produced, without these
teachings or theories at all.

How shall we account, then, for the
strange spell which Christian Science brings
over many apparently intelligent people?

Christian Science Theory and Practice 249

First. They fail to grasp the logical sig-
nificance of its fundamental propositions.
They do not distinguish between the power
of mind over matter, or body, and the non-
existence of that body; or, of the influence of
mind and will over the organs and functions
of the body, and the denial of those organs
and functions in fact; or, they do not discern
the difference between the superiority of mind
over matter, and the non-existence of mailer.
So in theory they deny the existence of the
body, while in their demonstrations of their
theory they only recognize the superiority
of mind over body. And, as we have shown,
their so-called demonstrations of the non-
existence of body prove the reality of the
body.

Second. They do not understand the
rationale of mental healing according to the
true scientific facts, as it has been practiced
for ages before Mrs. Eddy promulgated her
"new revelation.'* But comparatively few
people are instructed in mental therapeutics.
The influence of mind over matter, as well as

250 Christian Science against Itself

of mind over mind, is but little understood
by the masses of the people. Telepathic com-
munication, or conveying thought mentally
without oral speech, is a comparatively new
science, and as yet but little understood. Yet
it is a fact that has been demonstrated in num-
berless instances of mind-reading, etc. This
mysterious power of communication has been
utilized by tricksters, fortune-tellers, and so-
called witches, ever since the witch of Endor
called up Samuel from the grave to gratify
the conscience-smitten Saul. Take notice
that she saw and described an old man exactly
answering the image that the guilty Saul had
vividly in his mind at that time. The message
also was just what Saul was expecting he
would hear if he met the spirit of that illus-
trious and fearless old prophet. It unques-
tionably was simply a case of mind-reading,
such as is very common at the present time,
and is practiced by Spiritualists in their "bo-
peep" games with departed spirits. It has
often been demonstrated that one can make
a Spiritualistic medium see any kind of an

Christian Science Theory and Practice 251

image of a departed friend, or supposed or
imaginary friend, that may be pictured in the
mind, whether the person and image is real or
imaginary, dead or alive. Mr. Hudson, in his
"Law of Psychic Phenomena," tells us of sev-
eral experiments he made with them, by hold-
ing pictures of imaginary persons in his mind,
concentrating his thoughts upon them, till
the medium singled him out in the audience,
and had "a message from a departed friend;''
and proceeded to describe the appearance of
the spirit seen, its relation to the man, and all
the particulars, just as he was holding the
imaginary person in his thought at the time.
Once he pictured a little sister that had died
when a child. He simply pictured a case, and
held the image steadily in his mind till he got
their attention; and then they described the
spirit of this little "angel sister," just as he
had pictured her in his mind. He never Jtad
any sister, except that image that he held in
his mind that day, till he photographed it on
the medium's mind. Let the reader take
notice how this same occult science is used

252 Christian Science against Itself

by all Christian Scientists in their treatment
of disease. The patient usually shuts his eyes,
and the operator talks to him mentally, telling
him that there is nothing the matter with him,
that his disease is "all mortal error," etc.
Thus he is stimulated to the highest pitch of
will power to demonstrate this new idea, and
often actually brought under a state of hyp-
notism by this very process, which is in sub-
stance the same as that employed by hyp-
notists.

Third. Hypnotism, which has always been
practiced to some extent in the so-called
"black arts," has also been but little under-
stood, and never, till recently, has assumed
the dignity of a science. While but little is,
even as yet, understood concerning it, enough
has been demonstrated in late years on a sci-
entific method to reduce it to a science: a
method which Mrs. Eddy seems to know
nothing about, and if she did, could not admit
it to her system, because it has to appeal to
the senses in its experiments, and that would
spoil her whole theory that "the evidence of

Christian Science Theory and Practice 253

the senses is not to be accepted/' Of course,
all her so-called demonstrations appeal to the
senses, and she produces her senses to prove
her cases of healing genuine. But, then, she
either has not seen that fact, or else she has
vainly hoped that others would not see it.

Now, it seems that she has not seen the
part that telepathy and hypnotism play in her
method of treatment, and she even denies that
either has place in it. But that is simply
one of her dogmas, and one which she has
never attempted to prove in her book; she as-
serts it, that is all. But any one who will read
Hudson's "Law of Psychic Phenomena," and
then reflect for a moment on the methods of
Christian Scientists, will see that both telep-
athy and hypnotism are undoubtedly agents
employed in their practice. And, further,
they will see very clearly that all that has been
done by Christian Science can be done just
as effectually without it.

This does not, however, necessarily imply
that Christian Scientists are all base deceivers
and impostors, or that they understand the

254 Christian Science against Itself

true philosophy of their cures, where cures
are effected. It may help them to understand
the philosophy of the failures and the lapses
of those who had supposed they were cured,
and gave their testimony to that effect. Hav-
ing mistaken feeling for fact, and theory for
belief, they have for a time, yielding to the
force of a dominant idea, imagined they were
well. But coming out of the hypnotic illu-
sion, and back to a realization of the stubborn
facts of life, they have returned to a state of
objective consciousness, and found that sick-
ness and disease are still terrible realities.
Many of those whom we have known, have
died soon after, or, like the man in Detroit
recently, become despondent and committed
suicide.

Fourth. The votaries of this science do
not see that the fundamental principles of
Mrs. Eddy's Christian Science make all sci-
ence and scientific investigation an impossi-
bility; for if "the evidences of the [five] senses
is not to be accepted," then there is no scien-
tific investigation possible to man; for if we are

Christian Science Theory and Practice 255

to reject all that we see, hear, feel, taste, and
smell, then there is absolutely no means of
making an investigation of facts, either phys-
ical or mental. The very fact that Mrs. Eddy
herself, in all her so-called demonstrations,
appeals to her senses, and to other people's,
in evidence of her cures, shows that she does
not believe what she teaches in "Science and
Health;" and, further, that she could not
"demonstrate" in any other way than by using
her senses as well as her reason. So her fol-
lowers, simply looking at facts (and then they
are using their senses), and not understand-
ing the higher laws of mental science, have
associated the facts observed with the theories
taught; and so have attributed the cures to
the theories and methods employed, instead
of to the mysterious laws that may be set in
operation by numerous methods, regardless
of the theories assigned for producing the
phenomena. In reality there is no necessary
connection between the theory and the cure,
any further than the theory serves to inspire
faith and stimulate the will.

CHAPTER IX
Christian Science Is Infidelity

If the reader has followed us from chap-
ter to chapter through this work, he has
doubtless discovered that Christian Science,
so called, is neither Christianity nor science in
any true sense whatever. What we now pro-
pose to show is, that it is not only unchristian
and unscientific, and antichristian and anti-
scientific, but it is also open infidelity. Now,
I do not say that all Christian Scientists are
infidel in belief; many people are in their
hearts better than their creeds allow, when
properly interpreted and understood. This
no doubt is the case with many of the follow-
ers of Mrs. Eddy in her "Science and Health."

That many sincere and honest believers
in Christianity are carried away with this ter-
rible delusion, there is no reason to doubt.

256

Christian Science is Infidelity 257

That some of them still believe in, and trust
in, the atonement of Christ for salvation, is
also quite probable. But that they can do so
and accept all that Mrs. Eddy teaches in
"Science and Health" is an impossibility. As
we have shown in a previous chapter, the doc-
trines taught in "Science and Health" destroy
the whole foundations of the Christian sys-
tem. If the reader will run again over the
contents of Chapter IV of this book, he will
see that Mrs. Eddy's teachings utterly repudi-
ate every doctrine taught in the Bible con-
cerning man's fallen condition and his re-
demption through the atonement of Christ.
A system that denies the existence of sin
or the fall of man, and the need of salvation,
can admit no possibility of salvation from sin.
A system that denies the reality of suffering
and death, and ridicules the idea of vicarious
sacrificial atonement (one suffering in the
place of another), can not present a Savior
to the world; for if there is nothing to be
saved from but error, and "that is nothing,"

then a salvation that saves from nothing is
17

258 Christian Science against Itself

also nothing. Hence it provides no scheme
of salvation but an imaginary one.

As we have shown, Mrs, Eddy denies the
personality of the human spirit, or the plural-
ity of spirits at all; denies the fall of man or
existence of sin; repudiates all that the Bible
says concerning the reality of human life, all
distinctions in human conduct, heaven, hell,
the judgment, regeneration, forgiveness of
sins; ridicules repentance and prayer; denies
the reality of the death of Christ on the cross,
and of any cross, wood, nails, or hammer, and
of any body to be nailed to the cross; yet,
in spite of all these antichristian teachings,
calls her system by the sacred name of "Chris-
tian," in order the more successfully to be-
guile simple souls into her web of philosophy,
in which she can devour them financially.

Every candid seeker after truth is asked
to consider seriously these facts, and then
ask whether Christian Science is really
Christian. And if the reader will give us his
thoughtful attention for a little while, we
shall endeavor to show that this so-called

Christian Science is Infidelity 259

"Christian Science" is the rankest infidelity.
Now mark: I do not say that it is exactly
Atheism. Atheism admits the existence of
no God whatever. But it is Deism, and that
is the same kind of infidelity that Thomas
Paine and other noted infidels taught and
believed, or professed to believe.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE IS INFIDEL.

First. In that it destroys the person-
ality of God and reduces him to mere "Prin-
ciple." Again and again Mrs. Eddy declares
that God is Principle. Just what she means
by "Principle," it would be difficult to deter-
mine from her book. Sometimes she says
God is not a Person but a Principle. Then
again she says, on page lo, "If the term
personality, as applied to God, means infinite
personality, then God is Personal Being."
On page 461 she says, "God is Principle,
incorporeal Being, Mind, Spirit, Soul, Life,
Truth, Love." These terms, she says, "are
synonymous; they refer to one God and

260 Christian Science against Itself

nothing else." Here, then, she makes per-
sonality or being, and abstract principle,
one and the same thing. Love, truth, and
life are merely abstract principles. Being
is concrete. Life, truth, and love are not
being, in themselves, but the qualities of
being. Therefore, the qualities of being
can not be the same thing as the being that
possesses the qualities. So it is evident that
Mrs. Eddy either is not sufficiently "meta-
physical," or analytical, to distinguish be-
tween being and the qualities of being, or
else she is an out-and-out Deist. That her
system is purely Deism, and reduces God to
incorporeal and impersonal or abstract prin-
ciple, is evident, not only from the foregoing,
but from the statement on page 225. Here
she says: "God is Supreme Being, the only
Life, Substance, and Soul, the only Intelli-
gence of the universe, including man.'' God,
therefore, is Principle, Life, Man. Therefore,
God is the only Principle, Soul, or Substance
in nature. God is all, and all is God. In

Christian Science is Infidelity 261

Other words, God is nature, and nature is
God. This is the teaching of Christian Sci-
ence, ^ and this is the teaching of Thomas
Paine and other noted Deists, who are always
called infidels.

Second. / Christian Science, as taught by
Mrs. Eddy, rejects the inspiration of the
Scriptures, while she herself claims an in-
spiration which supersedes the Bible.^ I
have previously shown that her teachings
repudiate the whole doctrines of Scripture.
Throughout most of her book she pretends
to base her theories on the Holy Book; but
toward the close, when she thinks she has her
subjects far enough advanced (or far enough
bewildered) to throw off the mask without
producing too great a shock on their moral
sensibilities, and thus producing a reaction,
she comes out openly and repudiates the
Scriptures as inspired of God. On page 518
she says /"In the Science of Genesis we read
that. He saw everything which he had made,
and behold, it was very good. The corporeal

262 Christian Science against Itself

senses^jdeclare^ otherwise, and the Scripture
record of sin and death favor this conclusion,
if we give the same heed to the history of
error as to the records of truth/\ So we are
to reject all the Scripture record of sin and
death. That is, we are to regard all Bible
history as mortal myth, nothing more. That
which rejects the inspiration of the Scrip-
tures and the truthfulness of their records,
is rank infidelity.

Mrs. Eddy also rejects the whole Mosaic
account of the creation of the world, as we
have previously shown, and denies that there
are any "trees, plants, or flowers," or any
earth for them to grow on.

Third. Mrs. Eddy, in "Science and
Health," ridicules the "Jehovah" God of the
Bible, and makes him nothing but a local
god, or deity, an idol, worshiped by the peo-
ple of Israel (pPv-4J7> 5^8, etc.). She says,
on page 27 y that he (Jehovah) was "only _a
mighty hero or king." On page 34, he "was
a tribal and man-projected god, liable to

Christian Science is Infidelity 263

wrath, repentance," etc. This language is
not only infidel, but it is

BLASPHEMOUS IN THE EXTREME.

1. After telling us that God is Divine
Principle, etc., she tells us, on page 183, that
Christian Science and God are one. That
is, if Christian Science is Truth, and God
is Truth, and there is but one Principle,
Truth, in the universe, then Christian Sci-
ence is God, and God is Christian Science.

2. The Holy Ghost is Christian Science,
and Christian Science is the Holy Ghost
(P- 579)- This is Mrs. Eddy's definition of

Holy Ghost."

3. Christian Science is also "The Com-
forter," which was the Holy Ghost, and
which was promised by the Master, to come
after he had ascended up on high (p. 167).
Could anything be more blasphemous than
such language as this? And especially is it
blasphemous, and even sacrilegious, when
we remember that Mrs. Eddy not only claims
that Christian Science is the Holy Ghost,

264 Christian Science against Itself

but she has actually secured a copyright
monopoly on that which she says is the
Holy Ghost. Horrible teaching to call
"Divine Science!"

4. Mrs. Eddy is again blasphemous in
saying that "Christian Science is the Word of
Godi!! that is, the Logos, or eternal Son of
God (p.. 497; also 28).

5. On page 35, she claims that Christian
Science is Christ. Christ, she says, is Truth,
and Christian Science also is Truth; there-
fore. Christian Science is Christ, according
to this logic. She also says jt is the second
coming of Christ (pp. 43, 126).

6. Christian Science claims to stand in
the place of the Almighty, and take away
the sins of the world (p. 229). And on
page 234 she tells us how this is done. She
says : "To get rid of sin through [Christian]
Science is to divest sin of any supposed
reality/' etc. This is the way she has "ban-
ished sin, sickness, and death from the
world." All these claims are infidel and
blasphemous. It does seem incredible that

Christian Science Is Infidelity 265

any one, believing In Christianity at all, can
accept such blasphemous utterances as
Christianity. Surely God must be sending
them "strong; delusion, that they should
believe a lie, that they all might be damned
who believe not the truth, but have pleasure
in unrighteousness."

But let us follow a little further these
blasphemous and infidel teachings.^ On page
550 she represents Christian Science as the
Mighty Angel.'\ On page 558 she calls it
the pillar of fire and cloud," or that which
represented the presence of the Almighty
God to ancient Israel, i On page 506 she
represents her insane, and irrational philos-
ophy as superior to the Scriptures, and as
necessary to the interpretation and under-
standing of them. ) Yet the only interpreta-
tion she gives of the Scriptures is a practical
repudiation of all that they contain, both in
history and doctrine. On page 258 she
again calls it "Divine Logic." Divine
Logic with a vengeance, such insane ravings
as these, which no living being can possibly

266 Christian Science against Itself

accept in practice, if he should in theory!
On page 576 she tells us that Christian
Science is the lElias" that was to come; yet
Christ did say "that Elias was come already" \
in his day. On page 579 she says it is
"Hiddekel," which was an ancient river of
Eden. On page 582 it is "miracle." On
page 583 it is the "New Jerusalem," the
heavenly city. On pages 329, 330, and 584,
she informs us that Christian Science is "the
resurrection." Again, on pages 586 and
587, she tells us that this insane fad is "Urim
and Thummim." On page 20 it is Christ.
Now let rational beings think for a moment
what kind of a thing that must be, which is,
at one and the same time, the Eternal God,
the Holy Ghost, the Eternal Word or
Logos, Eternal Truth, the Comforter, the
Second Advent, the Mighty Angel, the pillar
of fire, the key to the Scriptures, Divine
logic, Elias, Hiddekel, the New Jerusalem,
Urim and Thummim, and, last of all, "a
miracle." Well, miracle indeed it would
have to be, to be all these !

Christian Science is Infidelity 267

Now, it is true that she does not always
use the term "Christian Science" in giving
these definitions. But whether she uses this
term, or the terms "Divine Science," or
simply "Science," or even "Truth," it all
means, and stands for. Christian Science;
for she tells us, on page 20, that "the terms
Divine Science, Spiritual Science, Science
of Being, Christian Science, or Science
alone, she employs interchangeably, accord-
ing to the requirements of the context; these
terms stand for everything related to God
as Principle."

From the above statement, taken verba-
tim from her book, the reader will see that
I have not misinterpreted nor misrepresented
her teachings in regard to Christian Science.

But Mrs. Eddy in her teachings and
claims, is not only infidel and blasphemous,
but

SHE IS ANTICHRIST.

As such, she answers all the predictions
concerning Antichrist laid down in the in-
spired Book. She puts herself in the place

268 Christian Science against Itself

of God, not only in the prerogative of the
Almighty to take away sins and work mir-
acles, but she actually claims that she is
God. She denies the reality of the death
of Christ as well as his birth; for both alike
she declares "errors of mortal belief." She
ridicules the idea of vicarious suffering or
atonement, and scorns the need of repent-
ance and faith as the means of securing
pardon, as I have shown in previous chap-
ters of this book. She claims to have ban-
ished sin, sickness, and death from the
world, and to work miracles equal to any
that Christ wrought; or at least that she
is able to do so. And yet the evidence that she
can do these things, or that which she pre-
sents as evidence, is proof positive that her
whole theory is false, and she herself a
gigantic fraud.

I have put these things thus plainly, and

from her own teachings, to show the reader

/that those who accept Christian Science as

jMrs. Eddy has taught it must do so at the

cost of sacrificing all faith in the great doc-

Christian Science is Infidelity 269

trines of the Bible concerning the atone-
ment and salvation from sin, and the hope
of eternal life in the world to come, j Yea,
it is to repudiate all guilt of sin and need
of forgiveness or the atonement of Christ.

Do you say you have not so learned
Christian Science? Then you have been
deceived by her sophistry, or you have not
carefully studied the book, "Science and
Health," as published by Mrs. Eddy, and set
forth in its true character in this work.
How important the injunctions of the
Savior, "Take heed how ye hear!" and
"Take heed what ye hear!"

Let it be remembered that, if you accept
only a part of what she has written as in-
spired truth, and reject part of it, you
thereby ignore her claims to inspiration.
And if you reject that fact, then there is
no reason for placing any confidence in any
other part of her system as Divine Truth.
It may all alike be error. To lean on it is
to lean on a broken reed that will pierce
the hand in the end.

CHAPTER X
Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms

The secret of the strange spell of Mrs.
Eddy's book over many intelligent and ap-
parently well-informed people has been a
great perplexity to many minds. We have
been asked frequently, How is it that people
are carried away with such incoherent reason-
ings as are contained in "Science and Health?"
That question I will endeavor to answer as
fully as space will permit in this chapter.

Let us call attention once more to the

fact that Mrs. Eddy never reasons^ nor do any

of her followers, in teaching the mysteries of

Christian Science. This statement may seem

startling to some at first announcement. But,

from the very nature of the case, reasoning a

point on any logical or scientific basis is an

270

Mrs. Eddy*s Sophisms 271

impossibility in true Christian Science, for the
very reason that it admits, or allows, of no
ground for a scientific argument. Denying
the evidence of the senses in toto, and claim-
ing that the "five senses are five mortal be-
liefs," and that their testimony "is never to
be accepted," there is no ground left for bas-
ing an argument on individual facts, as in the
inductive method. One can not reason from
particulars to generals, nor from generals to
particulars, in dealing with Christian Science,
.either for or against. The moment an appeal
is made to any fact as attested by the senses
in support of a theory, that moment the foun-
dation of Christian Science is assailed; and if
your supposed fact is a real fact. Christian
Science goes down with all rational beings.
That system is based on the assumption that
all the evidence of the senses is "a false sense
of mortal mind," and that is "nothing." Con-
sciousness is not reliable, inasmuch as when
you are supposed to be conscious of pain or
suffering from sickness or disease, it also is
a false sense of mortal mind, which is nothing.

272 Christian Science against Itself

Ignoring both the evidence of the five
senses and of consciousness, there is nothing
left to reason from. So it is a reasonable and
logical necessity, that Mrs. Eddy never reasons
in her book. We challenge any Christian Sci-
entist in the world to point to a single para-
graph in Mrs. Eddy's "Science and Health"
in which she presents a single argument in
support of any position taken by her in that
book; that is, an argument that can be re-
garded in the light of logic or psychological
science. Every statement of doctrine, or what
she calls Truth, is given simply as bare asser-
tion — dogma, and nothing more. She de-
clares that things are so and so in Divine
Science, and that is the end of the whole mat-
ter. Any one who questions or reasons is not
true to Christian Science; and if he demurs
from her teachings in the least degree, he is
cut off from fellowship with the (Christian
Science) saints.

This very fact disarms every student of
her system, and disqualifies him for any pro-
cess of reasoning whatever. He must take

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 273

his choice, and stop reasoning with "false
mortal mind," as it is called, or he can not be
her disciple. Having decided to master the
mystery, or mystifications, of the system, there
is but one thing to do — that is, to shut his
eyes and ears, and go ahead, and "advance in
Divine Science."

Next he reads Mrs. Eddy's statements,
and begins to accept without question. He
must, if he is ever to practice it with any show
of success. Then he is prepared for the ac-
ceptance of any kind of sophistry, which he
takes down much as a man eats oysters —
without chewing. We shall now examine a
few of her sophisms, and show the deceptive-
ness of their character.

I. She assumes and insinuates that it is

currently held that man is a "material being,"

and "that brains, bones, and other material

elements" constitute man; whereas, no such

idea is held by either educated or ignorant

people. Either Mrs. Eddy knows that, or else

she is grossly and shockingly ignorant. It

has always been recognized, both by savage
i8

274 Christian Science against Itself

and civilized people, that the body is not the
real man, but a kind of tenement that the
spirit of man occupies in his relations to a
material world. It is not body that makes
men differ from the apes and from each other,
but the principle of life within. Mental sci-
ence and the Bible both teach that the body
itself does not constitute man. Mrs. Eddy
continually insinuates that it is held, very er-
roneously (as if she had made some new "dis-
covery") that man is material. But this is
not so. Even the savage races have known
better than that. But from this little so-
phistical dodge, she conveys the idea that be-
cause man is not matter only, he therefore is
not material in any sense ; that a material body
is therefore "a mortal belief," and that man is
soul only, and body is nothing.

2. She insinuates also that it has been
commonly held by those who believe in the
duality of man's nature, that "spirit is sifted
through matter, or carried on a nerve" (p. 64),
and that it is "exposed to ejection by the
operation of matter." Either she is again

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 275

grossly ignorant of mental science, or else in-
tentionally aims at deceiving her readers by
a sophistical dodge. It is never so taught in
science; but that the spirit operates, in a ma-
terial body in this world, through intelligence
and will; and that the nervous system, includ-
ing the brain, is merely the instrument, or
machinery, through which intelligence and
will operate upon matter, and through matter.
No rational being can deny the reality of a
factory for turning out machinery or cloth.
Even Mrs. Eddy recognized this reality when
she advertised for "three tea-jackets" for her-
self, one of satin and two of silk texture, which
she wished the faithful to present her with,
though she had made, perhaps, millions out
of them through her teachings. Yet neither
she nor any one else will for a moment be-
lieve that the steam pent up in the boiler, and
distributing its force to every part of the mill,
is itself "sifted," or transmitted, through every
part of the machinery. None but an idiot
would fancy that. Yet every one understands
that the energy generated by the steam, or

276 Christian Science against Itsetf

rather by the heat through the steam, is con-
veyed, through wheels and pulleys and shafts,
to every part of the factory. Yet Mrs. Eddy
insinuates, on page 64, that it has been held
that spirit is "sifted" through the body, or
carried on the nerves. Here she erects a man
of straw, and then fights it; whereas, it is
only held that spirit alone thinks, and that it
is only the mandates of thought and will (not
spirit itself) that are "carried on a nerve," as
she intimates. Assuming the absurdity of the
idea that "spirit is sifted through matter,"
which has never been held by educated peo-
ple, she makes an easy step to her conclu-
sion, that "no more sympathy exists between
flesh and spirit than between Christ and
Belial." Thus the uneducated or the careless
reader may easily be caught in such a snare
of sophistical reasoning.

3. Mrs. Eddy again draws on her imagi-
nation, or else attempts to play on other peo-
ple's ignorance, when she says, page 64, "The
fundamental error lies in the supposition that
man is a material outgrowth, and that the

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 277

cognizance of good or evil, which he has
through his bodily senses, constitutes his hap-
piness or misery;" whereas, in mental sci-
ence it has never been supposed that the cog-
nizance of moral good and evil has come
through the bodily senses. Either Mrs. Eddy
knows this, or she is again grossly igno-
rant of mental science as it has been com-
monly taught. But certain it is that Mrs.
Eddy, throughout her entire book (either
ignorantly or intentionally) utterly ignores the
distinction between moral and physical good
and evil. Physical good and evil are indeed
perceived through the consciousness of sensa-
tion. Moral good and evil are perceived, not
through the senses, but through the moral
sense and the reasoning faculties. But a
moral sense Mrs. Eddy evidently has no use
for, either in theory or practice. If she re-
garded her moral sense, she would hardly
copyright, for her own financial gain, a reve-
lation which God gave her to proclaim to this
age. That she does not recognize it in her
teachings is evident from the fact that she

278 Christian Science against Itself

Ignores all distinctions between good and evil
of every kind, and repeatedly declares that
man is "incapable of sin" (or moral evil).
Moral evil is sin. And if there is, and can be,
no sin, then there is no moral sense, and what
she says would be true, that all the senses are
"mortal error." But Mrs. Eddy's confusion
at this point tends to confuse her readers, who
are not versed in mental science. And not
being permitted to exercise their reason, they
are obliged to accept her statement of the case
without questioning.

4. Having caught the idea, vaguely, of the
superiority of mind over matter, or the body,
she has drawn the inference that mind, there-
fore, is the only existence, and matter or body
are nothing (pp. 9, 10). Many Christian Sci-
ence students are caught by this little sophism,
and imagine that Christian Science teaches
only that the mind is superior to matter, and
can therefore overcome disease in the body.
This is, of course, in some measure true, as
has long been known. But that is exactly
what is not Christian Science. Mrs. Eddy de-

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 279

nies the reality of matter, and therefore denies
the existence of man's body entirely; and this
in scores of instances. Yea, she even makes
her treatment depend on the success of the
operator in making the patient believe that he
has no body to suffer.

Building her whole system of teaching and
curing on the assertion that matter and body
are nothing, and that "mind, supposed to exist
beneath a skull-bone, is a myth" (p. 177), she
then goes right on using her own mind be-
neath her own skull-bone, which she covers
with a hat, sends the message out over her
own nerves to control her supposed muscles,
to push a material pen, to transmit to material
paper her thoughts, just like all other mor-
tals. And then, thinking that she has a ma-
terial book, secures by copyright the absolute
control of the material profits, which right she
guards with the utmost care, and converts it
into material dollars, which she fain would
make her followers believe are only "mortal
concepts'' after all.

5. Next she assumes that it has been held

280 Christian Science against Itself

that, because sin and suffering are real, they
are therefore "realities of being." This, of
course, appears absurd, as every one recog-
nizes intuitively that these things are not real
being, and that there is no life in a pain or a
decayed tooth, though it may make things
quite lively sometimes. So it is easy to fall
a victim to another error; namely, that if pain
or sickness are not realities of beingy they are
not realities at all. But they overlook the fact
that if there is pain at all, it is a reality to con-
sciousness, whether the cause be real or im-
aginary. If pain and sickness are not realities
of being, they are realities to being. • This
error or sophism of Mrs. Eddy's consists in
not distinguishing between being itself and
the qualities of being. Pain and sickness are
not being, but being may have real pain or
sickness. Holiness is not being, as Mrs. Eddy
claims, but it is a quality or condition of being.
Happiness is not being, but it is a condition
of being. So sin, sickness, and death are not
realities of being, but they are real conditions
of being, and realities to being.

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 281

6. She assumes also that "God is not in
man," because "the greater can not be in the
lesser." This little piece of sophistry seems
intended to create the idea that it has been
held that God gets himself inside of a man;
and because God is infinite — omnipresent —
man is not big enough to hold him or contain
him. And therefore she reaches the conclu-
sion that God is not in man at all. The fact
is, no such doctrine as she intimates is held.
Here, as usual, she constructs a man of straw,
and then shoots at it. God by his Spirit is
said to dwell in his people; not bodily, but by
his Spirit touching the springs of action, and
ruling in the heart through love. By the
power of love, the will and the affections are
brought into obedience to him.

To assume that "the greater can not be in
the lesser," is again either mere sophism or
the height of ignorance. A watch is a small
thing, but in the watch is seen the greatness
of the maker — man. His mind or soul is not
shut up inside the cases of the watch, but the
potency of his thought is there, and thought

282 Christian Science against Itself

is an attribute of soul. Thus the soul of man
is working through the wheels of the watch.
A steam engine is not a living thing, nor is
man in the engine. Yet the greatness of man
is found in it. A locomotive is not as great
as man, yet the greatness of man's mind is in
the locomotive. Its complex mechanism is
the expression of his thought. Its operation
is the result of the direct action of his will.
He kindles the fire, and fills the boiler, and
pulls the lever, and who will say that the
greater is not in the lesser? So God is not
compassed by man, or inclosed in man, but
what rational being will say that God is not
in man? The complicated mechanism of
man's nature is God's handiwork. Nor is that
all : God through his Spirit dwells in the Chris-
tian heart by faith, "working in him, both to
will and to do, of his good pleasure."

7. She assumes that because God is omni-
present, therefore nothing else but God can
occupy space. But the Bible says, "In him
we live and have our being." Jesus said to
his disciples concerning the Holy Spirit, "He

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 283

dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." It
is repeatedly declared that God dwelleth in
the hearts of his people. (See i John iii, 24;
iv, 12, 13, 15, 16; Rom. viii, 9; i Cor. iii, 16,
etc.) But all these passages count for nothing
with Christian Science, since Mrs. Eddy has
said that the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ, and
God the Father are all one with Christian
Science. Since God is all, there is no room
for anything else to exist (pp. 234, 235). She
assumes that two things can not occupy the
same space at once.

Now it is evident that this is fallacious,
because it is clear to all thinking beings that
two or more things can, and do, occupy the
same space at the same time. Air, light, ether,
and electricity may all occupy the same space
at once. Metal, heat, electricity, gravitation,
and sound all appear to occupy the same space
in the telephone wires. Of course, these facts
will have no weight with Mrs. Eddy, since,
according to her theory, "there is no physics,"
and all these things will be relegated by her
'to the realm of myth, or nothingness. So, as

284 Christian Science against Itself

we said in the beginning, Christian Scientists
never reason, when they have accepted Mrs.
Eddy as their gfuide.

8. Mrs. Eddy again, on page 235, tells us
that "Divine love is infinite, therefore all that
really exists is Love. Nothing else isJ' Here
she confuses the attribute with the subject,
separates the attribute from the subject, and
deifies the attribute. She is ever making this
confusion in her book. (See pages 461, 235,
473, 582, 578, etc.) On page 461 she tells us
that "God is Divine Principle, supreme incor-
poreal Being, Mind, Spirit, Soul, Life, Truth,
Love'' And these terms, she says, are all
synonymous. That is. Love and God are the
same thing or Being. Now in rational
thought love is an attribute of being, not the
being itself. And immediately after telling
us that Love and God are one and the same
thing, in the very next paragraph she tells us
that the attributes of God are not God. Now
love, being an attribute of God, is not God;
therefore God and Love are not synonymous
terms. But assuming that they are, she says

Mrs. Eddy*s Sophisms 285

on page 235, "Love is Infinite, and therefore
nothing else really exists." But if love the
attribute, and God the subject, are one and
the same thing, it follows also that love the
attribute, and man the subject, must also be
one and the same thing. But even Mrs. Eddy
would never accept love as synonymous with
MAN, or she would have been contented with
love without man. But she has shown her
mortal fondness for man the subject, as dis-
tinct from love the attribute, in choosing so
many husbands. She has told us, on page
225, that God is the only Life, Substance, and
Soul in the universe, including man; and on
page 461, that God and Love are synonymous
terms. But evidently she did not believe that,
or she would have been satisfied to take God,
or Supreme Love, for the companion of her
mortal mind. Evidently she did not believe
that she and God are one, or she would not be
seeking another's love. She certainly does
believe that man is not God, and God is not
man. It is also clear that she does not believe
what she has written on page 235, that all that

286 Christian Science against Itself

exists is Divine Love, and nothing else is, or
she would not indulge in the foolish error
that a man also loves.

But to suppose that love, an attribute of
being, is the being itself, is a serious error of
an ignorant, if not an irrational, mind. No
rational and intelligent being can think of
love as existing apart from the being that
loves. Love can not exist except as an attri-
bute, or volition, of being; and yet is not the
being itself.

Mrs. Eddy makes the same mistake with
reference to Goodness, Holiness, and Truth.
These are also the attributes, or qualities, of
being. They are not being or substance, as
she teaches in her book, but only exist as at-
tributes of being. There is no moral good-
ness without a being to be good; no holiness
without a being to be holy; and no love with-
out an object to be loved. Wherever there
is love, therefore, there must be a subject, an
attribute, and an object. Mrs. Eddy teaches
that God the subject, love the attribute, and
man the object are all one, since "these are

Mrs. Eddy*s Sophisms 287

synonymous terms," and God is the "only
soul, spirit, or being in the universe, including
man." But her apparent mania for husbands
proves that she does not believe what she
teaches in her "Science and Health."

9. One of the most serious and dangerous
of Mrs. Eddy's sophistries is that with refer-
ence to sin. She asserts that "all that is, is
of God's creating." God did not create sin,
therefore sin can not exist. God being all
there is in the universe, "there is no room for
his opposite," sin (p. 234). Of course, she
does not attempt to prove this. That would
not do for an inspired prophetess. She de-
clares it, and it is for mortals like us to accept
it without questioning. She asserts, in nu-
merous instances, that God can not make
sin. Marvelous revelation that! Then by a
piece of mental jugglery she jumps to the
conclusion that, because God is "all in all" —
that is, all there is in the universe, "including
man" (p. 225) — and as there is no room for sin
to exist, God could not make sin if there were
room. Marvelous reasoning that, to be called

288 Christian Science against Itself

by the sacred names of Science and Chris-
tianity! But in the first place, what about
her premises? Are they correct? Not at all.
Her assumption that, as God is infinite, there
is no room for anything else, is purely a dog-
matic assertion, without any proof to sustain
it. There can be no proof of it if true, since
she repudiates the evidence of both the senses
and the consciousness. On those grounds
we could not accept any proof if it were of-
fered. And on the same grounds we could
not be sure of anything being evidence of it
if we were to see it, since the "evidence of the
senses is never to be believed, but reversed,"
Here is sufficient reason why Christian Sci-
entists never reason with you on their doc-
trines. Nothing could be accepted in evi-
dence, either for or against their theories.
With all of them it is simply asertion, and
it is so because Mrs, Eddy says so.

But about this little sophism: her decep-
tion lies chiefly in her not distinguishing be-
tween physical and moral evil, or sin, as we
have pointed out before. While it is believed

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 289

that God does, for wise and benevolent rea-
sons, sometimes send physical evils on the
world, yet it is not held that God creates sin.
Such an idea would impeach his holiness.
But to say that because God can not make sin,
therefore sin can not exist, is to deny the
moral agency of man or any other finite crea-
ture, if there were such. And that is exactly
what Mrs. Eddy teaches in her book times
without number. "Man is incapable of sin,
and "God can not make man capable of sin.
Then added to this is that other proposition
that "there is no finite soul or spirit," and
there is no being in the universe but God.
Then, of course, there can be no sin.

But with characteristic ignorance of all
mental and . moral philosophy, or else with
characteristic rejection of all scientific reason-
ing, she ignores all self-evident truths regard-
ing moral qualities and their opposites. Every
attribute and quality of being implies its oppo-
site. A qualifying term would have no mean-
ing if it did not imply its opposite. Holiness

would mean nothing, if its opposite, unholi-
19

290 Christian Science against Itself

ness, or sin, were impossible. The very term
holiness implies a distinction in moral qual-
ities. The term hardness relates to its oppo-
site, softness. Light stands related to its op-
posite, darkness. So if there are no distinc-
tions between holiness and sin, then there is
no virtue in conduct, and holiness is not holi-
ness, but a necessary and unmeritorious con-
dition. Where there is no choice, there is no
merit. Where there is no merit, there is no
goodness. Therefore Mrs. Eddy's teaching
robs even God himself of all holiness and
goodness, and makes man a nonentity. Still
further, where there is no power to act, there
is no choice. And neither God nor man hav-
ing the power to sin, there is no glory or
praise for goodness due to either. These are
the awful conclusions to which "Science and
Health" drives all rational, thinking beings,
lo. And lastly, Mrs. Eddy plays another
sophistical dodge on the subject of prayer.
She could not make a success of her great
financial scheme unless she could first dispose
of the faith of her pupils in the doctrine of

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 291

repentance and prayer, as taught in the Bible.
With consummate skill she plies her arts to
undermine this old doctrine on which man's
salvation depends; not by repudiating it en-
tirely, but by so mystifying its nature and
meaning as to practically destroy its hold on
the human conscience, and at the same time
to leave the impression that the doctrine is
still retained in its true Scriptural sense. This
little piece of mental jugglery is done with the
usual dexterity which characterizes her entire
method in "Science and Health."

It is highly important that all who value
their eternal salvation should look well to
the grounds on which they stand. Many good
people, not understanding the real nature of
Christian Science, suppose that faith in this
system is faith in God and in prayer as a
means of healing. This is a terrible, and I
fear with some a fatal, mistake. Nothing is
further from Mrs. Eddy's teaching than that.
Those who hold this idea or teach it, are not
true disciples of Mrs. Eddy; and hence not
true Christian Scientists, though they may

292 Christian Science against Itself

suppose they are such. Christian Science, as
taught by Mrs. Eddy, recognizes no such
thing as the necessity of prayer, repentance,
and faith, as taught in the Bible. Let every
honest soul, desiring to "make his calling and
election sure," take notice of this fact. Mrs.
Eddy herself declares, on page 2^, that neither
atheism nor agnosticism, nor profanity, need
interfere with Christian Science healing.
From this the reader will notice that Christian
Science healing is not in any sense the same
as faith healing in answer to prayer. Yea,
more, Mrs. Eddy even goes so far as to ridi-
cule the idea of the necessity of prayer to the
forgiveness of sins; or that there is forgive-
ness of sins in answer to prayer (pp. 311, 312,
330, etc.). But does Mrs. Eddy deny prayer
in totof Not at all; that would be too great
a shock to the religious instincts of the soul
to work well. She must admit the need of
prayer in a sense, or her system would not
take. Man always has been a praying being.
She must not repudiate that fact entirely; but
to make her scheme a success, must convert

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 293

the idea of prayer into such a form as will
appeal to the selfish and willful side of human
nature; that is, so that people can fancy they
are meeting the requirements of the law of
God, and yet do so without the disagreeable
and humiliating feature of repentance and
confession and godly sorrow for sin, which
must be manifested if the old Bible teaching
is correct concerning the reality of sin and its
terrible nature and consequences.

How, then, does Mrs. Eddy accomplish
this? Having, by a little sophism, deluded
her readers into the idea that sin, because it
"is not of God's creation," therefore can not
have any existence, she has prepared them for
the last and fatal step — the rejection of the
idea of the need of genuine repentance and
sorrow for sin, which final delusion is accom-
plished by one more artful, but usually so-
phistical, dodge. First, she assumes that it
has been held in the "old theology" that we
are saved from sin (forgiven) while we still
continue in sin. (See chapter on Prayer.)
True, she does not say this outright, but she

294 Christian Science against Itself

implies it when she fights the idea that there
is forgiveness for sin while sin is persisted in,
since no such doctrine has generally been
taught. Having assumed such a premise
without any foundation in fact, she sets to
work to destroy this man of straw by ridicul-
ing the idea which she herself has conjured
up. And truly enough, such an idea would
be ridiculous. But the fact is, no such doc-
trine has been held by Christians in general.

Having prepared the way by this kind of
sophistry, she begins to enforce the false
theory which she has been keeping under
cover, that prayer is desire, or, rather, that
"desire is prayer." True, she has announced
this already; but its significance has not been
fully realized till her whole theory of prayer
has been unfolded. Then we can see the fal-
lacy, or falsity, of the whole system.

Let us then consider the phrase, "Desire
is prayer," found on pages 307 and following.
The phrase looks very plausible, possibly, to
the unwary soul, who may say, "Yes, prayer
is desire," but whose astuteness is not suffi-

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 295

cient to discern that, while prayer is desire,
desire is not always, nor necessarily, prayer, as
Mrs. Eddy affirms. Is it prayer? Wait a
moment. A little reflection will convince us
that that statement needs qualifying. Is de-
sire alone prayer? Hardly in a true sense.
If it were, then any godless sinner in the world
would be a praying man or woman. Are we
ready for that? Can we believe that the
drunken, licentious, or blaspheming wretch
who hates God and all that is good is really
a man of prayer, because he desires all good
things for himself? Such a thought is shock-
ing to our moral sense. Wherein, then, lies the
fallacy of Mrs. Eddy's proposition and prem-
ise, that "desire is prayer?" It is in this, that
desire is not necessarily or in itself prayer.
It is not true in a worldly sense. Many a man
desires, and then steals to get what he desires.
Even Mrs. Eddy recognized this when she
prosecuted a certain man for desiring "to ap-
propriate" certain things to his own use which
he found in her book, and which she claimed
she had a copyright on, and secured "dam-

296 Christian Science against Itself

ages" because he did not secure her permis-
sion to use them. He evidently desired to use
them, but he did not ask (pray) for permission,
and used them without that permission. Mrs.
Eddy doubtless "demonstrated" to his satis-
faction, if not to her own, that there is a dif-
ference between desire and prayer after all.
Even the "Holy Mother," as she is called by
her flock, would not admit in this case that
the man prayed, though he did desire to use
some of her writings.

To be brief, then, we will say that Mrs.
Eddy's phrase, "desire is prayer," needs qual-
ifying. It is prayer only when it is expressed
in harmony with the laws of being and of cor-
rect action. In other words, desire is prayer
only when it is accompanied by a sincere and
genuine sense of need, and a realization of de-
pendence on another. People are not sup-
posed to pray for that which they already have
or own, nor for that which they may have, ac-
quire, or appropriate by their own effort.
They pray for that which they have not, and
which it is in the power of another to bestow.

Mrs. Eddy's Sophisms 297

Prayer implies not only the desire for that
which we are conscious we do not possess, but
which we may reasonably expect to get by the
consistent asking for it. Mrs. Eddy's idea that
"desire (alone) is prayer," is in harmony with
her theory that sin is nothing but error, that
forgiveness of sin implies only the denial of
sin, and that man himself is a reflection of
God, is coexistent and eternal with him, and
man himself is forever "perfect and unfallen."
It is not, and never can be, in harmony with
God's Word and his revealed plan of saving
men.

Thus it is that this arch-deceiver of God's
people leads them on step by step till the
last vestige of faith in the old truths of God's
Word is destroyed; the old doctrines of sin
and salvation through the atonement of Christ
are cast aside as "mortal error;" the human-
divine Christ is rejected as a myth; the Holy
Ghost, the Comforter, is transformed into
Christian Science by the vagaries of this mod-
ern Antichrist, who for the gains that it brings
her will traffic in the souls of her fellow-men

298 Christian Science against Itself

till there is nothing left for the soul to cling
to but the hollow mockeries of this damning
system. No Babylonish harlot was ever de-
picted in apocalyptic visions more clearly, in
all her abominations, than this Antichrist of
the nineteenth century. She bewitches with
her sorceries till her victim falls into that awful
stupor in which Samson was shorn of his
locks, and robbed of his strength, and ren-
dered the hopeless slave of a tyrannical power.
How many are falling to sleep in the lap of
this enchanting Delilah, whose sophistries
have put out their eyes, and left them to grope
in ceaseless and ever-deepening darkness, to
do the drudge-work of slaves, to grind at the
mills that turn out the dollars for this modern
Philistine queen, that she may build her pa-
latial residences, to add to the splendor of her
earthly, and yet hellish, triumphs! Reader,
if you are beginning to feel the strange spell
of this enchantress creeping over your nerves,
in God's name, WAKE UP! WAKE UP!!
WAKE UP ! ! !

CHAPTER XI
Summary and Conclusion

The author began the writing of this
book with the idea that the author of
"Science and Health" was the honest victim
of a terrible delusion. But as he has pro-
ceeded with the investigation, the conviction
has forced itself upon him that Christian
Science, as set forth in "Science and
Health," is a vast, deep-laid, and far-reaching
financial scheme, equaled only by that of
Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Whatever
Mrs. Eddy has done, she has succeeded in
palming off on a large class of the credulous
public a pretended revelation, so cunningly
arranged as to bring both the reason and
the conscience of unthinking people into
the hand and under the control of the

founder of this system^ As we have

299

300 Christian Science against Itself

gathered together the wheels of the vast
system, and put them into position where
they fit one into the other, the conviction
has forced itself upon us that every wheel
in the machine has been carefully carved
out to fit every other part, and all to serve
a great financial scheme in the interests of
the author and founder of Christian Science.

We now ask the reader's attention to a
few facts concerning Mrs. Eddy's fortifica-
tions of her system, and at the same time
of her vast financial scheme.

First. She utilizes the failures in med-
ical treatment to effect cures as a means of
shaking the confidence of her patients in the
efficacy of medicine entirely. Of course she
says nothing of the hundreds or thousands
of failures of her system to produce cures,
though she claims absolute power over
disease and the supposed human body for
that system. If a failure to cure by medi-
cine proves the inability of medicine to cure
any disease, then the failure of Christian
Science to cure every ailment of the human

Summary and Conclusion 301

body proves the inability of that system to
cure any disease whatever.

Second. She tries carefully to connect
mental therapeutics with her system of
philosophy, and thus make it appear to the
untrained mind that the mental cures (which
have long been practiced) are due to her
system, which she claims is entirely new.
Her system of cure is new only in method,
and not in principle.

Third. She utilizes the credulity of man-
kind, especially of the chronic sufferers of
ailments that are chiefly of mental origin.
These ailments, yielding readily to mental
treatment and will-power, give a strong
show of credence to her theories. Being
unable to account for the apparently mi-
raculous cure, which in reality is perfectly
natural, they imagine there must be some-
thing supernatural about the treatment.

Fourth.^ She then backs up her philos-
ophy by a claim to inspiration from God,
and appeals to her cures as evidence of her
claims. The patient, not knowing that

302 Christian Science against Itself

these cures have been practiced for ages by
various methods, but with the same under-
lying principles, naturally gives credence to
her pretensions. He is then in a position to
become instructed in the mysteries of her
"science,'* thinking that to be the true ex-
planation of her art.

Fifth. She next fortifies herself against
any appeal to the Scriptures by professing
to accept them, and yet, by a system of
mystification, she takes out every vital doc-
trine and fact contained in the Holy Book,
leaving only a faint shadow, which the pupil
takes for the Word of God; whereas she has
denied everything in that Book from begin-
ning to end, as we have shown before.

Sixth. She draws a chasm between her
votaries and the Churches so wide that it
is like the impassable gulf between Dives
and Lazarus. She denounces and ridicules
the idea of creeds, thereby pulling a veil of
sophistry over the eyes of her votaries, who
do not appear to see the lengthy creed
which she has formulated in her chapter on
"Recapitulation."

Summary and Conclusion 303

Seventh. She fortifies her scheme
against any appeal to reason by demand-
ing absolute renunciation of all the testi-
mony of the senses, and even of the con-
sciousness itself; so that all reason is choked
off at its birth. No system on the face of
the earth has so completely fettered the
human mind and reason, and rendered it so
completely passive, as this system of Chris-
tian Science. The subject must neither
think, reason, doubt, nor inquire into any
supposed sensation, or phenomena of nature,
or experience, but simply declare all to be
a false belief of mortal mind. Was ever
slavery more abject or hopeless than that?

Eighth. She employs high-sounding and
unintelligible terms to express her theories,
which have a bewildering and bewitching
effect upon the public mind.

Ninth. She uses the Balaamite and
Demasite bait in arranging her hook —
"There's money in it" — even if there is no
such thing as metal or money in the system
of Christian Science.

304 Christian Science against Itself

Lastly. She provides a hole of exit for
convenience whenever she gets cornered.
Base material sense can not comprehend the
higher laws of spirit, [intp this hole she
drops like a prairie dog, whenever there
is the first appearance j)f danger. Here she
is safe from all attacks. 1

Then, having mesmerized her pupil into
the belief that there is no matter, no money,
and nothing material, she winds herself
around her victims, like an anaconda, in a
series of coils (courses of study), till she
extorts from them anywhere from $300 to
$800 of genuine gold or silver, and lets them
go. Neither Mohammed nor Joseph Smith
ever equaled her in the shrewdness of their
schemes or the vastness of their swindle on
the credulity of mankind.

Let the reader reflect a little more on

THE PRETENSIONS OF THIS WOMAN, •

Mrs. Eddy, and then compare her pretensions
and claims with her conduct, and see what
conclusions can be drawn from her.

Summary and Conclusion 305

First. She claims to have discovered
a new method of treating disease, or rather
supposed disease (for "there is neither sin,
sickness, nor death" in the world), whereas
the same kinds of cures have been performed
by various methods for ages, and without
her philosophical theories regarding matter
at all. Then she claims that this new system
of philosophy was given to her by Divine
Revelation directly from heaven. Then after
getting this Divine Revelation as the only
true idea of God, and "not from any human
source," she tells us in her Preface to her
book, that she spent two years in the revision
of her system of "Science and Health" before
she would give it to the world. Revising
and changing and fitting up a Divine Rev-
elation! Think of it! Then, having com-
pleted the revision of this revelation which
God gave her (she says), she went and
secured a copyright on that revelation,
before she would let a copy of it go out
to the world. Yes, she claims a copyright

on a Divine Revelation, which, she says, she
20

306 Christian Science against Itself

was commissioned "to proclaim to this age!"
Think of that! Then, having secured the
legal monopoly to this new revelation, she
charges nearly three times the commercial
value of the book containing this revelation,
and then she charges from $300 to $800 fur-
ther to instruct her converts who are hun-
gering for this knowledge, which, she says,
God sent her to proclaim to the world, and
which God, of course, gave her "without
money and without price." Think of that!
Then, after paying these exorbitant prices
for the privilege of reading and hearing this
new revelation, her pupils get, as the reward
of their labors and their dollars, as the great
secret of her system of philosophy and heal-
ing, the valuable information that there is no
matter, and consequently no such thing as
a book, or a dollar, or silver, or gold; and
that when they (poor fools !) think they have
bought a book, and are reading a book,
they are simply giving credit to their false
senses; and close up the sublime farce by
reading that they must not accept the

Summary and Conclusion 307

evidence of the senses at all; and therefore
they have only fancied that they had any
money to pay, or that they have bought any
book, or that there are any letters to read
in a book, for that which they fancy they
see through their senses is all belief of mor-
tal error!

This is Christian Science! How shall
we account for any rational creature being
carried away and blinded by such self-con-
tradictory and self-destructive nonsense as
that, except on the ground of hypnotic
delusion? Think of intelligent people buy-
ing one hundred and forty-five or fifty
editions of a book at $2.50 or $3 a copy,
and eagerly devouring its contents, and
then seeking to practice what they find
therein, when, if the contents of the book
are true, there is no book in the world, and
all they fancied they saw in the book is a
delusion of false sense! This certainly is
the case if the statement in the book is true,
that the evidence of the senses must "never
be accepted," for sight is one of the senses.

308 Christian Science against Itself

Think of what these one hundred and
forty-four editions (mine is one of this edi-
tion) would yield in dollars, if there were
any dollars, and selling at even $2.50 each!
Think of the enormous sum that would
accrue from the great number of pupils who
are paying hundreds of dollars each for the
several series of lectures which the author
gives to instruct them that there are neither
books nor dollars ! Think how rich this new
prophetess would be if these dollars were
only realy and not a delusive dream of mortal
sense, as her system teaches! Think, what
in the world she is going to all this trouble
for to gather these glittering dollars, if, as
she claims to believe, they are all a dream of
mortal error! Surely, she must like to
indulge in pleasant dreams!

Well might the old prophet exclaim to
the people of this generation, "Why do ye
spend your money for that which is not
bread, and your labor for that which satis-
fieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and
eat ye that which is good, and let your soul

Summary and Conclusion 309

delight itself in fatness." But O! what
leanness there must be to a soul that has
been feeding on such vain philosophies as
those contained in Mrs. Eddy's "Science and
Health !"

Let us take one more glimpse of this
awful delusion before leaving it with the
reader for his final decision.

If Mrs. Eddy believes, as she declares,
that "the testimony of the senses is never
to be accepted," but that, rather, "their
evidence is to be reversed," and "their testi-
mony is false" (see p. 653, Index, "Senses"),
then she must know that the testimony of
her sense of sight was false, when she fancied
she was writing a book on "Science and
Health," and setting forth the principles of
her system. And, as the testimony of the
senses "is to be reversed," the conclusion is,
that she did not write a book; and what we
read therein is not to be accepted, but "to be
reversed;" and, consequently, the contrary of
what she states is the truth. This is the only
conclusion deducible from her premises, that

310 Christian Science against Itself

"the testimony of the senses is never to be
accepted," but is "to be reversed."

Again, knowing, as she says she does
know, that the testimony of the senses is false,
and that there is no matter, and therefore no
books, dollars, nor copyrights, and all these
beliefs of such things are "mortal errors," she
goes right on perpetuating these errors and
encouraging them in her credulous readers,
by encouraging them in the idea that books
and dollars are real things, and that they
should accept the testimony of their senses
when they are reading her book, though they
are not to accept the evidence concerning
anything else that they fancy they see, hear,
touch, taste, or smell. If she meant that they
should make an exception to the rule of her
book, when they are reading that book, and
reject the testimony of their senses in every-
thing else except in the study and practice of
her system, then why did she not say so in
her book ? But, alas ! we look in vain for any
such instructions. We must conclude, there-
fore, that either Mrs. Eddy was so dull that

Summary and Conclusion 311

she could not see this logical and necessary
application of her fundamental propositions,
or else she fancied her readers would be so
stupid that they would not see it, which would
be no high compliment to their intelligence,
to say the least.

If Mrs. Eddy did believe that matter, dol-
lars, and copyrights are all mortal errors of
"false sense," then why did she indulge in the
still further false notion of mortal mind, that
another "false concept'* of a copyright would
protect her in her visionary scheme of getting
imaginary dollars out of her imaginary book?
If she did not believe her propositions con-
cerning matter, and does believe in the reality
of material dollars, then she has perpetrated
a gigantic fraud and swindle upon the gullible
part of the public. Which horn of the di-
lemma will she choose in this case?

She declares "the testimony of the senses
is never to be accepted,'* yet she claims, on the
testimony of her own senses, that she has
really written a book on "Science and
Health," and has really secured a copyright

312 Christian Science against Itself

on such a book, and is so fully convinced that
this IS a real book, covered by a real copyright,
that she prosecuted one of her competitors in
the civil courts for infringing on her copyright
of a book by stealing something that she
claims was actually written there, and even se-
cured pecuniary damages for such infringe-
ment. Yet the whole argument contained in
her book is to the effect, and for the purpose
of making her readers believe, that there is no
matter, and "the testimony of their senses is
never to be accepted" regarding the reality of
material things. We are to understand that
she means "the testimony of their senses," and
not hers. Certainly, if this declaration con-
cerning the testimony of the senses is true,
then those who read her books, or hear her
lectures, are to believe that they neither have
received any book for their money, nor do
they handle or read any book, nor do they
really hear any lectures ; for if they really think
they do see, feel, or hear anything whatever,
they are not to "accept the testimony of their
senses," but to "reverse that testimony."

Summary and Conclusion 313

Therefore, if Mrs. Eddy's teachings are true,
her whole pretensions are a gigantic fraud;
and if her whole financial scheme, concern-
ing book, copyright, and lectures are realities,
and there are material dollars, then the teach-
ings of her book are false to the core; and if
Mrs. Eddy is not an idiot, she knows this as
well as we. No sane person can believe that
he has actually purchased a book, or is read-
ing one, or has heard a lecture, without ac-
cepting the testimony of his senses in every
case; and to accept such testimony is to ac-
cept the reality of physical sense and material
things, and reject Christian Science.

On the other hand, if Mrs. Eddy really
believes she has written a book, and copy-
righted it, and is getting money for it, then
she demonstrates that she does not believe the
doctrines she has taught in her book. If she
does believe the doctrines taught in her book,
and believes, as she has taught us to believe,
that the ideas concerning books, copyrights,
and dollars are all mortal errors, then why not
come out and "demonstrate" that she does

314 Christian Science against Itself

believe it, by giving her book and lectures
free, instead of going through the form of in-
dorsing "a mortal error" by taking imaginary
money for her imaginary books?

To the intelligent, candid, rational mind,
there is, and can be, from the foregoing facts
and considerations, but one conclusion; viz.,
that Mrs. Eddy demonstrates, by her copy-
rights and charges, that she does not believe
what she has written and taught in her "Sci-
ence and Health" concerning the non-reality
of material things. The way she has of eat-
ing, drinking, and clothing herself, demon-
strates that she does not believe what she has
written concerning the non-6xistence of a
material body. The way she has married dif-
ferent men as husbands, demonstrates that
she does not believe what she has written con-
cerning the unreality of sex distinctions, and
the sexual relations. The burial of her hus-
bands and friends demonstrates that she does
not believe and practice what she has taught
concerning the unreality of death and the
grave. The temple she has built proves that

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Christian science against itself"

See other formats