{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45481/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45481","id":"gutenberg_45481","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45481","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Health & Medicine","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian Science"],"text":"WHAT IS CHRISTIAN SCIENCE?\n\nBy M. M Mangasarian\n\nLondon:\n\nWATTS & CO.,\n\n1922\n\n\n\n_In this brochure the author makes an earnest endeavour to understand\nChristian Science and define its mission. He scrupulously verifies all\nhis citations and references, and appeals to the judgment of those who\nare willing to hear both sides of the question._\n\n\n\n\"The blood, heart, lungs, brain, have nothing to do with life.\"\n\n\"The daily ablutions of an infant are no more natural than taking a fish\nout of water and covering it with dirt would be natural.\"\n\n\"Christian Science is more safe and potent than any other sanitary\nmethod.\"\n\n\"The condition of food, stomach, bowels, clothing, etc., is of no\nserious import to your child.\"\n\n\"Gender is also a quality or characteristic of mind, not of matter.\"\n\n\"Until it is learned that generation (birth) rests on no sexual basis,\nlet marriage continue.\"\n\n\"To abolish marriage and maintain generation is possible in (Christian)\nscience.\"\n\n\n\n\nWhat is Christian Science?\n\n|You do not understand Christian Science\" is the usual reply of the\nfollowers of Mrs. Eddy to any one disputing their claims, or trying to\npoint out the many inconsistencies in their creed. If it is impossible\nto understand Christian Science, how does it expect to propagate itself?\nTo answer that one must accept the doctrine before one can understand it\nwould be like asking a man to see before he opens his eyes, or to\nthink _after_ he has made up his mind. It is just as useless to try to\nunderstand Christian Science after it has been accepted as true as it\nwould be for a judge to examine the evidence after a verdict has been\npronounced. And if Christian Scientists can understand the beliefs which\nthey reject, why may not other people have intelligence and honesty\nenough to understand Christian Science without believing in it?\n\nBut can a person who is not a mathematician understand or discuss\nprofitably the intricate problems of mathematics? No; hence no one but\na Christian Scientist may discuss its doctrines and interpret its\nmetaphysics. Neither has that defence any value. We do not have to be\nexpert mathematicians to know that twice two make four. It is possible\nto detect an error in an example of addition, multiplication, or\nsubtraction presented by the greatest mathematician without possessing\nequal knowledge or ability. Mrs. Eddy may be more advanced in\nmetaphysics than any of her critics, but twice two make four in \"Divine\nscience\" as well as in human science. Square your statements with the\nfacts, and you disarm criticism. Ignore, suppress, or tamper with the\nfacts, and you will have the universe against you.\n\n\n\n\nWhy I Discuss Christian Science\n\n|If asked why I devote time and labour to the discussion of such\nseemingly foolish propositions as those propounded by Mrs. Eddy, my\ndefence is that I am very much interested in the people who accept\nChristian Science, and would like to be of service to them, even though\nthey may hold me and my motives in derision. Then, again, I feel that\nif we stand idly by while the Christian Scientists are concentrating all\ntheir efforts, sparing neither time nor money to spread their\ndoctrine, we may wake up some morning to find that all our\ninstitutions--newspapers, courts, schools, etc.--have passed under\nthe control of Mrs. Eddy's followers. That, in my opinion, would be a\nnational menace.\n\nIf the teachings of Christian Science prevail, there will come into\nprominence the type of mentality which will dispense with all forms of\ninquiry, and accept for authority the \"say-so\" of a book, a man, or a\nwoman as all-sufficient and final.\n\nThe passive mind easily becomes the plaything or instrument of every\nkind of imposture--political, economic, or religious. Non-resistance\nwill prove the death of free institutions. I am opposed to Christian\nScience because I am opposed to the least departure from sanity. I\nhave no other motive in this propaganda against the new cult. Whatever\nundermines the _morale_ of the nation or is hurtful to the free and\nrational development of humanity should be combated again and again\nuntil it ceases to be a menace.\n\n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy's Mentality\n\n|The founder of Christian Science was, indeed, one of the busiest women\nof her day. She was preacher, writer, teacher, missionary, organizer,\nmanager, etc. But even a superficial reading of her books will show that\nher activity resembled that of children at play rather than of men\nat work. Mrs. Eddy's mind displayed all the qualities and defects of\nprimitive man. Though incessantly active, she followed in all her mental\nefforts the line of least resistance. Children are never at rest of\ntheir own will; they run and romp almost continually; but it is the\nactivity of play, not of work, which they enjoy. To work requires\nconcentration and effort in a definite direction, and submission to\nrules and regulations; while in play one is at liberty to follow one's\nown fancy, moving in any direction and at any speed one pleases. Again,\nthe worker is expected to show results; the player, on the other hand,\nthough equally busy, keeps going round and round, or back and forth,\njust for the pleasure of being in motion.\n\nMrs. Eddy had the child's fondness for activity and the child's dislike\nfor work. She rebelled against discipline. Rules and restrictions were\nas distasteful to her as to children who have been allowed to \"grow up\"\nwithout discipline, while logic and reason meant no more to her than\nthey would to primitive man.\n\n_Science and Health_ is a book consisting largely of extraordinary\nclaims put forth with the most provoking indifference to the universally\naccepted rules of evidence, and with an abandon suggesting that of\nthe steed who has thrown his rider. If her readers ask for proofs, she\npoints to the authority of her name. Has she not received a revelation?\nIs she not \"the Comforter\" whom Jesus promised to send into the world?\nAnd if there are obscure passages in her writings, it is not because\nthese are really \"dark,\" but because there is not enough light in the\neyes of the readers of her books. This free-and-easy method carries her\nthrough seven hundred pages of her \"masterpiece,\" _Science and Health_,\nwithout encountering the least obstacle or being checked for an instant\nby a single difficulty. Writing was like play to her, and sentences and\nphrases flow copiously and swell into a veritable flood in her pages,\nbecause what satisfied her was that she could say so much, and not\nwhether what she said had any basis in fact.\n\nIn the Preface to _Science and Health_, Mrs. Eddy, in order to prove the\nusefulness of medical knowledge, quotes the example of the antediluvians\nwho knew nothing of drugs, and yet some of whom lived to be nearly\na thousand years old. Mrs. Eddy makes this statement with as little\nconcern as a boy tosses a ball. The reasoning that men were healthier\nand lived longer before the Deluge because there were then no\nphysicians, whose presence in our times has shortened human life, may do\nfor the \"child-mind,\" but is it permitted to a full-grown person to make\nsuch careless use of his or her faculties? How does Mrs. Eddy know that\nthe antediluvians would not have lived longer if they could also have\nhad the services of trained and skilful physicians? It would be just as\nreasonable to assert that there would have been no Deluge had there\nbeen doctors to prevent it, as to say that the antediluvians owed their\nlongevity to the lack of them. Without caring to make sure of her data,\nor to look into the truth of the statement that there was a flood, or\nthat before this terrible downpour men lived to be a thousand years\nold, Mrs. Eddy accepts the rumour of the tradition as if it were a\ndemonstrated fact, and proves by it, to her own satisfaction at least,\nthe utter uselessness and positive menace to the human race of medical\nscience. What an argument and what a conclusion!\n\nI am not accusing Mrs. Eddy of insincerity, but of mental indolence.\nNothing, for example, but a distaste for work could account for her\nfailure to verify her references in the following instances, or to\nsupply to her readers the means of verifying them for themselves. She\nhad to choose between making assertions and offering proofs, and she\nchose the easier of the two. \"I have healed Infidels\" (p. 359). *\nWhat were their names? Where did they live? Of what maladies were they\nhealed? \"One whom I rescued from seeming spiritual oblivion in which the\nsenses had engulphed him\" (p. 382). And what sort of a disease is that,\nand who was the person suffering from it? \"A little girl who had badly\nwounded her finger\" (p. 287); \"A woman whom I cured of consumption\"\n(p. 184); \"A famous naturalist says\" (p. 548); \"One of our ablest\nnaturalists has said\" (p. 553); \"It is related that a father\" (p.\n556), etc., etc. All these stories and illustrations fail completely to\nimpress the inquiring reader, for the simple reason that Mrs. Eddy did\nnot take the trouble to furnish the details to render her testimony\nadmissible. In no court would such statements as \"I heard a man say,\"\nor \"I knew some one who heard a man say,\" or \"It has been said by so and\nso,\" be accepted as evidence. Very likely Mrs. Eddy possessed the data,\nnames, addresses, etc., of the patients and the naturalists she writes\nabout, but she was too indolent to reach for her note-book, if she\nkept one. Again, only mental fatigue or sheer indolence can explain a\nstatement like the following, from which all the important items which\nalone could give it force and effectiveness are left out:--\n\n     * The quotations, unless otherwise specified, are from Mrs.\n     Eddy's _Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures_.\n\n_I have seen age regain two of the elements it had lost--sight and\nteeth. A woman of eighty-five whom I knew had a return of sight. Another\nwoman of ninety had new teeth, incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and one\nmolar. One man at sixty had retained his full set of upper and lower\nteeth without a decaying cavity_ (p. 247).\n\nEvidently these cases are cited to carry conviction with the reader of\nher book; would it not, then, have greatly enhanced their evidential\nvalue had she made it possible for her readers to verify their claims?\nBut how can they do so when no names or addresses are given! If\nChristian Science does not need demonstration, why cite these cases of\nremarkable cures at all; if it needs demonstration, why not supply the\ndetails necessary to complete the demonstration?\n\n\"I knew a person,\" writes again Mrs. Eddy, \"who when a child adopted\nthe Graham system to cure dyspepsia\" (p. 221); and then she proceeds to\nrelate how this led him to death's door and he was ready to die, \"having\nexhausted the skill of the doctors, who kindly informed him that death\nwas indeed his only alternative,\" and how \"Christian Science saved him,\nand he is now in perfect health without a vestige of the old complaint\"\n(p. 221). Surely this fortunate person would have no objection to have\nhis name announced and his case investigated. Why, then, suppress-his\nidentity?\n\nPrinted in italics at the foot of page xii of _Science and Health_ will\nbe found the following notice or advertisement:--_The author (Mrs. Eddy)\ntakes no patients, and declines medical consultation_.\n\nThe above offers an excellent illustration of the distinction between\nwork and play. Mrs. Eddy, with the mentality she possessed, found it\neasier to compose phrases and make vague statements about past cures\nthan actually to grapple with \"patients\" or to take part in \"medical\nconsultation,\" whatever that may mean in Christian Science. After\nrepeatedly asserting that the only way to demonstrate the truth of her\nscience is by healing the sick, she herself positively declines to\ngive this demonstration. It is really puzzling. Here is a woman who had\ndiscovered the only power that can heal the sick as nothing else can,\nand no other person understands the _modus operandi_ of this\npower better or even as well as she does, and yet she will take no\npatients--that is, she will under no circumstances apply her remedy,\nhowever urgent the need for it may be!\n\nSome people might be led to think that Mrs. Eddy's refusal to practise\nhealing was due to her fear that she might not always succeed, which\nwould greatly diminish her prestige and prejudice the public against her\ndiscovery. To claim, as we have explained elsewhere, that Mrs. Eddy's\nmotive in refusing to heal the sick herself was that she might have more\ntime and strength for matters of higher importance would imply that she\nwas not strong enough to do both. But would not such an admission prove\nfatal to the claim that all is divine Mind, and that in divine Mind\nthere is no sin, sickness, fatigue, or limitation of any kind?\n\nThe husband of Mrs. Eddy died; that was an event calling for an\nexplanation from the discoverer of an unfailing remedy for all maladies\nwho happened to be the widow of the deceased. How could any one so\nclosely related to Mrs. Eddy, and taking her treatment, succumb to\nsickness of any kind? Mrs. Eddy looked about for an answer to that\nquestion. \"My husband died from the effects of arsenical poisoning\nmentally administered\" was her first effort at self-defence.\n\nBut Mrs. Eddy was quick to realize that she could ill afford to admit\nthat an imaginary dose of arsenic mentally administered could deprive\na Christian Scientist of his life, for she hastened to explain further\nthat unfortunately \"circumstances debarred me from taking hold of my\nhusband's case.\"\n\n\"Circumstances,\" then, killed her husband, since had she not been\ndebarred by them she would have come to his rescue with her \"divine\"\nscience and prevented his death. To further exonerate and defend herself\nshe is inclined to blame her husband a little. \"My husband declared\nhimself perfectly capable of carrying himself through, and I was so\nentirely absorbed in business that I permitted him to try, and when\nI awakened to the danger it was too late.\" Now we know why Christian\nScience failed in this particular case. Mrs. Eddy was too busy, and she\nawoke to the seriousness of her husband's condition too late. Besides,\nthe patient himself believed he was quite able to cope with the trouble\nwithout his wife's help. In short, \"circumstances\" proved too much for\nChristian Science. That is why Mrs. Eddy's husband died.\n\nThe more Mrs. Eddy explained, the more she had to explain. If Mr.\nEddy was murdered by means of mesmeric poison (whatever that may be),\nmentally administered by an absent practitioner who, Mrs. Eddy believed,\nwas one of her own apostate disciples--that is, if some one could from\na distance kill her husband--what prevented her, by the same absent\ntreatment, and without taking any time from her other duties, from\ndefeating the work of the mal-practitioner by a thought or two of her\nown? If this could not be done, and since there is a possibility of\nother divine healers being so entirely absorbed in business as to\nneglect their patients, had we not better hold on to the doctors a\nlittle longer, at least until Christian Science has become a match for\n\"circumstances, etc.\"? And if a healer equipped with \"divine\" science\ncan have more to do than he or she has the strength to attend to, in\nwhat sense is \"divine\" science more resourceful than plain, ordinary\nscience?\n\nBut there is more to come. Mrs. Eddy declares that one of her rejected\nstudents tried to kill her in the same way as her husband had been\nkilled. But he could not, \"because I instantly gave myself the same\ntreatment that I would give in a case of arsenical poisoning (mentally\nadministered), and so I recovered, just the same as I could have caused\nmy husband to recover had I taken the case in time.\" There is no such\nthing as failure with Mrs. Eddy. Her husband would never have died had\nshe given him the same treatment as she gave herself. Of course, years\nlater Mrs. Eddy died too; but there, again, \"circumstances\" must have\nproved too formidable for Christian Science, otherwise both the Eddys\nmight be living still.\n\nThe founder of this popular cult believed that she had now explained\nthe death of her husband to the satisfaction of her faithful flock. She\ncertainly could have saved Mr. Eddy's life had she not been too busy\nwith other matters, or \"too late\" in taking hold of his case. To prove\nthis she goes on to give examples of her wonderful powers, as will be\nseen by the following: \"Only a few days ago I disposed of a tumour\nin twenty-four hours that the doctors had said must be removed by the\nknife. I changed the course of the mind to counteract the effect of the\ndisease\"; and of course the malignant tumour took wings and flew away,\ntwenty-four hours of Christian Science being all it could stand. It was\nreally unfortunate that so powerful a healer was prevented by pressure\nof \"business\" from lending a thought to her sick husband. It was not\nbecause she did not want to help him, nor because her \"divine\" science\nwas not equal to his trouble, but because of \"circumstances.\" We hope\nthat in the near future some advanced practitioner of Christian Science\nwill discover a cure for that terrible malady called \"circumstances,\"\nwhich reduced Mrs. Eddy to impotency at the bedside of a dying husband;\na cure which will be as effective against \"circumstances\" as against\ntumours, cancer, etc. In comparison with such sophistry or make-believe,\nhow refreshing is the intellectual honesty which sees true and aims\nstraight.\n\n\n\n\n\"Mortal Mind\"\n\n|Mrs. Eddy's efforts to explain what she calls \"mortal mind\" give us\nan even better insight into her mentality. Though constantly denouncing\nmortal mind as the source of all human ills, the author of _Christian\nScience_ makes no serious attempt to account for its origin. The\nfundamentals of Christian Science as expounded by its author are summed\nup in the following statements:--\n\n     _God is All in All.\n\n     God is Good, God is Mind.\n\n     God Spirit, being all, nothing is matter.\n\n     Life, God, omnipotent good deny death, evil, sin, disease_ (p. 113).\n\nThe important deduction which the founder of Christian Science draws\nfrom these assertions is that sin, suffering, sickness, and death do not\nexist, since there is no room for them in God, who is All in All, or in\na universe where Mind is the sole reality and \"Nothing is matter.\" Our\nexperience and our senses may testify to the contrary, but, replies Mrs.\nEddy, \"I find that God is true, and every (mortal) man a liar\" (p. 113).\n\nIn the opinion of Christian Scientists, that ought to end the\ndiscussion. \"God is true,\" never mind what men may say. But what is the\nproof that Mrs. Eddy is speaking for the Deity? Calvin and Mohammed too\nclaimed to speak for the Deity.\n\nIf God is the All, whence comes mortal mind? The All plus mortal mind\nwould give us more than the All. God cannot be the all unless he is\nimmortal and mortal mind at the same time. It is true that Mrs. Eddy\ndenies reality to mortal mind. By mortal mind she means false beliefs\nabout God and man. But how did false beliefs originate in a universe\nwhere God or Good is the only reality?\n\nMrs. Eddy's efforts to make room for mortal mind in her perfect world\nare really amusing, as will be seen by what follows.\n\nMan is defined as \"God's spiritual idea, individual, perfect, eternal\"\n(p. 115). She explains further that, while man is not God, he is\nnevertheless made in God's image, and is therefore God-like. The\ndistinction between God and man, according to Mrs. Eddy, is one of\nquantity and not of quality. Jesus Christ was not God, she writes; he\nwas only \"the ideal of God, now and for ever, here and everywhere\" (p.\n361). It is true Jesus said, \"I and my father are one\"; but, explains\nMrs. Eddy, what is meant is one in _quality_, not in _quantity_. Jesus\nwas God in the sense that a drop of water is the ocean, or a ray of\nlight is the sun--in essence, not in size. In that sense man too is\nGod, or a little god. Both man and Jesus possess all the qualities of\ndivinity, but in limited proportions.\n\n\"The science of being,\" our prophetess goes on to say, \"reveals man as\nperfect, even as the Father is perfect, because the Soul and Mind of the\nspiritual man is God\" (p. 302), but in quality only, since \"man is in _a\ndegree_ as perfect as the Mind that forms him\" (p. 337). It follows that\nif man were God-like in quantity as well as in quality--that is, if he\nwere not undersized or underweighted spiritually, there would have been\nno mortal mind, and therefore no sin or sickness in the world. But who\nclipped man's divinity, or made him an underling? In a perfect world how\ndoes man happen to be a dwarf?\n\nForgetting her own statement, that man is not so \"bulky\" as God, Mrs.\nEddy insists that, as there is no error or sickness in God, there can\nbe none in man, who is \"God's spiritual idea.\" Yet, in order to\njustify Christian Science healing, she is compelled to make a further\ndistinction between God and man. God is one, but there are two kinds\nof men--the spiritual and the mortal, and it is the latter who need the\nhigh-priced services of healers.\n\n\"God is not corporeal... mortals are corporeal\" (p. 116).\n\nIf we ask Mrs. Eddy how man could possess a body and yet be \"the\nreflection of God,\" who is incorporeal, she replies that this body of\nwhich she speaks is only a make-believe body; the real man is all\nsoul, as is the Deity. \"The description of man as both material and\nspiritual... is the Pandora box from which all ills have gone forth.\nMatter is a fiction\" (pp. 170-1). From which it follows that man is as\nincorporeal as God; but the former _thinks_ he has a body, and hence\nthe sufferings from which the Deity is immune. \"Mistaking his origin and\nnature, man believes himself to be combined matter and spirit\" (p.\n171). This, Mrs. Eddy considers, is as great an absurdity as to think\nof Christ as both God and Devil (Belial and Christ). How, then, did man\ncome to have a body? He has none; he has only come to think he has\none. And how did that happen? \"The human mortal mind, by an inevitable\nperversion, makes all things start from the lowest.\" That is the way,\naccording to the author of _Science and Health_, in which man came to\nbelieve in matter. This false belief is \"mortal mind\" (pp. 172-89), the\nDragon which the St. George of New England offers to slay for what she\nconsiders a moderate price.\n\nLet it be observed that Mrs. Eddy attributes the existence or the belief\nin the existence of \"mortal mind\" to the \"inevitable perversion\" of the\nhuman mind. Mark the use of the word \"inevitable.\" Does she mean\nthat \"mortal mind\"--that is to say, sin, suffering, and death--were\npredestined? If she does not mean that, what made man's departure from\ntruth, or his \"perversion,\" _inevitable?_ Was there another power,\ngreater than the All, who pulled man down into error? And how can\nChristian Science, if it could not prevent the \"perversion\" which\ncalled into existence the worst of all as well as the parent of all\ndiseases--\"mortal mind\"--be a remedy against the innumerable ills which\nflow from it?\n\nIn pronouncing \"mortal mind\" or the \"perversion\" which called it into\nexistence inevitable, Mrs. Eddy has virtually created a power\ngreater than her \"All in All,\" since the latter could not prevent the\ncatastrophe.\n\nOnce more: the reply that man is God-like in every respect except in\nsize, and that the body is a myth, does not help Mrs. Eddy's argument\nin the least. Real or unreal, the human body, or the belief in it, which\ncauses so much suffering, should have no place in a system founded upon\nthe dogmatic declaration that all is Mind, and all is Good, and all is\nGod. The question remains: Why did Mrs. Eddy make room in this perfect\nuniverse for the serpent--mortal mind? As already suggested, without\nthis false belief in materiality Christian Science would have been a\nuseless discovery. Mrs. Eddy was debarred by her creed from admitting\nthe existence of matter; hence she compromised on \"a belief in matter,\"\nwhich works just as great a havoc as real matter. This arrangement has\ngiven to her army of Christian Science practitioners many (imaginary)\nills to heal. Like Don Quixote, Christian Scientists to-day go forth\nto do battle, even though for enemies they have nothing more formidable\nthan windmills. Physicians treat what they believe to be real maladies;\nChristian Scientists combat maladies which they say do not exist--that\nis to say, they fight phantoms.\n\nNot only does the author of _Science and Health_ utterly fail, as all\nmetaphysicians before her have failed, to account for the origin of evil\nor mortal mind, in a universe created and governed by Infinite Goodness,\nbut her doctrine that man, like the Deity, is free from sickness, etc.,\ninvolves her in new contradictions. For example, on page 204 (1910\nedition) Mrs. Eddy says that \"in Christian Science it can never be said\nthat man has a mind of his own, distinct from God, the ALL-Mind\"; and\nmore than once she has asserted that man \"has neither birth nor death\"\n(p. 244). Of course, this is no more than a theory; but, even as such,\nMrs. Eddy makes only a limited application of it--that is to say, she\ndoes not follow her theory to its logical consequences. If man has no\nmind of his own, but is a replica of the Divine mind, why did the Deity\nmake so many copies of himself? Was this self-multiplication of the\nDivine mind from necessity or from choice? If the former, then necessity\nwas greater than the Deity; if the latter, then man was an accident,\nsince the Deity could just as well not have created him at all, being\nfree to do as he pleased. And if man is a copy of the Deity, why did He\nreproduce himself more freely among the inferior races--the blacks\nand the yellows--than among the white peoples?\n\nAgain, if man has no mind distinct from the Divine, the _All-Mind_,\nhe ought to have all the attributes of God. God is painless, sinless,\ndeathless; and so is man, according to Mrs. Eddy. But why stop there?\nGod is omniscient; is man omniscient too? Then why does he go to school?\nGod is almighty; is man almighty? Then why does he have to use tools or\nask for help? God is omnipresent; why is man dependent upon the means\nof transportation to go from place to place? How, then, does man, who is\nnot distinct from the _All-Mind_--God, come to possess only one or two\nof the Divine attributes?\n\n\n\n\nMrs. Eddy's Prayer\n\n|It is reported of Mrs. Eddy that every morning as she arose from her\nbed she repeated the following prayer: \"Clad in the panoply of Divine\nlove, human hatred cannot reach me.\" Her followers have expressed great\nadmiration for this, the \"Mother's daily prayer.\" But to be forever\nthinking of human hatred, and to live in constant dread of it, shows\na broken-down mind. Only a person haunted by the fear of human hatred\nwould beg daily to be delivered from it. If on getting up every morning\na man were to say, \"To-day my liver shall not hurt me,\" one would have\nreason to conclude that he was suffering from liver trouble.\n\nTo deny human hatred every morning is also proof positive of an alarmed\nconscience. Macbeth saw Banquo's ghost everywhere and dared it with his\n\"avaunt\" and \"hence,\" even as Mrs. Eddy, seeing so much of human hatred,\nran under cover of \"the Divine panoply\" the first thing every morning.\nIs that the way to prove that \"all is mind,\" and that there is nothing\nto fear?\n\n\n\n\nIs Christian Science Scientific?\n\n|Two words spell the name of this so-called \"health\nreligion\"--\"Christian\" and \"Science.\" Let us see if there is anything\nscientific about Christian Science. To begin with, men of science never\ntry to suppress inquiry, because inquiry only helps to advance their\ncause, which can advance in no other way.\n\nScience is investigation. Eddyism, on the other hand, is a dogma.\n\nScience is knowledge, verified, classified, and placed within the reach\nof all. Eddyism is a _copyrighted_ cult.\n\nScience is free; in science we do not have to secure permission before\nobserving, studying, inventing, or teaching. But Mrs. Eddy reads out of\nchurch the independent thinker or practitioner.\n\nScience is open to new truths. Christian Science claims to be a final\nrevelation. For any man or woman to profess to be the custodian of the\nlast word on religion, and then to copyright the same, is not only the\nnegation of all science, which means increasing research and unhampered\ndiscovery, but it is also the most objectionable kind of monopoly.\n\nScience always accepts truth for authority, and never authority for\ntruth. Christian Science, on the contrary, rests on the sole authority\nof Mrs. Eddy's _Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures_.\n\nThe fundamental difference between Mrs. Eddy and a scientist like\nCharles Darwin, for example, is that, while the latter confines himself\nto such statements as are investigable, Mrs. Eddy puts forth claims\nwhich defy investigation. Let me give an example. The founder of\nChristian Science solemnly declares that even the price she should\ncharge for a course of instruction in metaphysics was dictated to her\nby the Deity himself: \"When God impelled me to set a price on Christian\nScience--mind healing--I was led to name $300 as the price.\" And she\nadds: \"This amount greatly troubled me. I shrank from asking it, but was\nfinally led by a strange providence to accept this fee.\" It must have\nbeen a _strange_ providence, indeed! But can a claim of that nature be\nverified? If we desired to make sure whether the Supreme Being, with the\ndestinies of ten thousand worlds upon His mind, found the time to fix\nalso the dividend rate upon Mrs. Eddy's investment in Christian Science,\nhow would he go about it? How shall we make sure that the Deity did not,\non the contrary, plead with her to be satisfied with a more moderate\nprofit?\n\nWhile in Salt Lake City I enjoyed the opportunity of an interview with\na prominent Mormon. Finding me willing to listen, the gentleman told me\nhow Joseph Smith had received a visit from the angels who delivered\nto him the originals from which were copied the articles of the Mormon\nbelief. When I expressed a desire to see the \"heavenly\" documents, my\ninformant replied that Joseph Smith had returned them to the angels.\nIs such a statement investigatable? And what is not investigable lies\noutside the province of science. Neither Mrs. Eddy nor Joseph Smith\ncan be put in the same class with Charles Darwin, who advances no\npropositions which forbid verification.\n\n\n\n\nIs Christian Science \"Christian\"?\n\n|Eddyism is no more _Christian_ than it is _scientific_. Between the\nteachings of Jesus and those of the Boston lady there are irreconcilable\ndifferences.\n\nIt is the claim of practitioners in Christian Science that they\nare following the example and applying the method of the founder of\nChristianity in the healing of the sick. This is one of the \"telling\"\narguments used by Christian Science lecturers in their appeals for\nconverts. But if it can be shown that the method of Jesus was in many\nrespects radically different from that prescribed by Mrs. Eddy, the\nclaim that her religion is founded upon the teachings and practice of\nJesus falls to the ground. In a pamphlet issued by the Christian Science\nPublication Society and copyrighted we read as follows; \"Jesus proved\nfor all time and for all Christendom that the origin of disease was\n_mental_, and He healed it with _mental medicine_.\" Can that statement\nbe squared with the practice of Jesus as we find it described in the\nGospels? The evangelist St. John relates the cure of the man born blind\nas follows: \"When he [Jesus] had thus spoken, He spat on the ground and\nmade clay of the spittle, and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with\nthe clay and said unto him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.'\" Is that\nthe Christian Science way of healing the sick? Do Christian Scientists\nuse clay or spittle? Do they \"anoint\" the sick with salve of any kind?\nDo they counsel bathing or washing for curative purposes?\n\nMoreover, Jesus, in reply to the question of His apostles as to the\ncause of the man's blindness, clearly states that the origin of this\nman's disease was not in human error or mentality:--\n\n_And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or\nhis parents, that he was born blind?\n\nJesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that\nthe works of God should be made manifest in him. (John ix, 2-3.)_\n\nThe meaning of this text is that the man was born blind, not as a\npunishment for his or his parents' sin, nor because of mortal mind, but\nthat through him God may be glorified. Could that text be quoted to show\nthat blindness is a \"mental\" disease caused by unbelief or selfishness?\nor could it be quoted to prove that the man was not born blind, but only\n_thought_ he was blind? Where is the evidence, then, that \"Jesus proved\nfor all time and for all Christendom that 'disease was caused by mortal\nmind,' and that 'mental medicine' was the only remedy he used?\"\n\nWas Jesus in the habit of using words to mislead his hearers, of saying\nthings the real meaning of which would remain hidden for nearly twenty\ncenturies--until Mrs. Eddy could place her _key_ (from three to six\ndollars a key) upon the market?\n\nThe evangelist St. Mark gives another instance of Jesus's method of\nhealing which is again totally different from Mrs. Eddy's:--\n\n_And they bring unto him one that was deaf and had an impediment in his\nspeech, and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.\n\nAnd he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his\nears, and he spit and touched his tongue._\n\nWill the Christian Science healers explain the functions of the \"hand,\"\nthe \"fingers,\" and the \"spit\" in \"mental medicine\"? If it be answered\nthat Jesus resorted to material means to illustrate the power of\nthe spirit, etc., it would follow that material means may be used to\nadvantage, and that there is no such feud between matter and mind as the\nEddyites proclaim.\n\nMany other texts could be quoted to show that Jesus used material means.\nHe touched the bier, he laid his hands on the patient, which is the kind\nof manipulation vehemently denounced by Mrs. Eddy in her comments on\nmesmerism. The \"touch\" so frequent in the miracles performed by Jesus is\ndownright heresy in Mrs. Eddy's system of healing.\n\n_Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers\ndiseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of\nthem. (Luke iv, 40.)_\n\nAgain, Jesus recommends to his disciples dieting by way of abstinence\nfrom food--that is, fasting--for the healing of obstinate diseases.\nEvidently he believed that dieting increased one's healing power.\n\nIn the same pamphlet published and copyrighted by the Christian Science\nPublication Society, the author, William R. Rathbon, member of the Board\nof Lectureship of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston,\nwrites: \"He [Jesus] gave himself no concern about physical symptoms...\nHe cared little about what the sick man had been eating, but much about\nwhat he had been thinking.\" In the New Testament, however, nearly every\npatient's symptoms are described, to which Jesus listened without a word\nof protest and with apparent consent. Had the evangelists believed, as\nthe Christian Science lecturers teach, that disease is purely mental,\nthey would not have gone into details in describing physical symptoms.\n\n\"And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years\" (Mark\nv, 25.) Does not that describe the nature and duration, as well as the\nphysical effects, of the woman's disease?\n\n\"Lord, have mercy upon my son, for he is a lunatic\" (Matt, xvii, 15).\n\n\"And one of the multitude said, Master, I have brought unto thee my\nson\"; and then the father proceeds to describe the symptoms of his son's\nmalady: \"He foameth and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away\" (Mark\nix, 17).\n\nIn all these cases there was not a word of rebuke from the great healer\nbecause of the symptoms described.\n\nJesus himself, on one occasion, asked for certain physical details\nbefore proceeding to heal the patient:--_And he [Jesus] asked his father\n[the father of the sick youth], How long is it ago since this came unto\nhim? (Mark ix, 21.)_\n\nWhat difference did it make when or how the disease was contracted if it\nis true that \"Jesus proved for all time and for all Christendom that the\norigin of disease was mental, and he healed it with mental medicine\"?\nPerhaps the motive for representing Jesus as indifferent to the physical\ncondition of his patient is to excuse the Christian Science practitioner\nfor his ignorance of the human body and his contempt for physical\nscience.\n\nBut the most irreconcilable difference between Jesus Christ and Mary\nBaker Eddy is in the spirit in which they performed their miracles.\nJesus does not appear to have had any financial schemes in his head. He\ntells his followers to give freely the power which they have themselves\nfreely received. The idea of taking money for a cure, or charging a\nlarge sum for the purpose of encouraging appreciation for his gifts,\nwould have shocked the Jesus of the Gospels. The mere suggestion\nthat some day a woman would copyright and commercialize this \"divine\npower\" would have made him indignant beyond expression. It is impossible\nto believe that the Jesus who said, \"Get you no gold, no silver, nor\nbrass, neither two coats, nor shoes,\" and also, \"Freely ye received,\nfreely give,\" could have the remotest sympathy with a woman who not only\n_sells_ what she calls \"the power of God,\" but has also secured by\nlegal procedure \"a corner\" on it. Mrs. Eddy's religion, then, is no more\nChristian than it is scientific. Had she been dealing in food products\ninstead of in religion, the use of a false label would have made her\nliable to prosecution.\n\n\n\n\nArrested Mentation\n\n|Perhaps the term which best describes the thinking which leads so many\nto accept Mrs. Eddy's teaching as both scientific and Christian is what\nthe psychologists call \"arrested mentation.\" The majority of people\nreason admirably up to a certain point, and then they suddenly come to\na full stop. Having followed the right path to a considerable distance,\nthey then deliberately refuse to follow it further. To speak more\nplainly, there are many people who reason correctly enough on some\nsubjects, but on other subjects they manifest a credulity beyond belief.\nThe Moslem, for instance, uses his reason against the claims of every\nreligion but his own. The Christian Scientist argues like a trained\nlogician against all alien cults, but when it is a question of his own\nfaith he bids his reason to hush. For example, he observes, accurately\nenough, as we all do, that the mind frequently creates the conditions of\nthe body. A man may at times think himself sick, or he may think himself\ninto health. The will, too, is a factor to be reckoned with. The truth\nof the saying, \"Where there's a will there's away,\" has more than once\nbeen demonstrated. In the same way, we all admit, since experience\ncompels it, that the greater thoughts or sensations often crowd out of\nthe mind the lesser ones. That is an axiom. If I am suffering from a\ntoothache, the sudden appearance of a burglar in my room, pointing a\nrevolver at me, will in all probability make me forget my toothache\ninstantly. The cavity or the affected nerve which caused my pain is as\nreal as ever, but for the time being I have a more intense sensation\nelsewhere in my system which renders me quite oblivious to the\ncomparatively lesser pain. Within certain limits and in connection with\ncertain maladies this principle--namely, the creating of a more powerful\nemotion in the mind than the one which is absorbing attention--could\nbe, and is, utilized with therapeutic results. For people who worry, who\nimagine things, a complete diversion is usually all the medicine needed.\nSo far, so well.\n\nBut the Christian Scientists who keep their eyes open to the evidences\nof the mind controlling the body, and know very well how to use these as\narguments, shut their eyes completely to the equally convincing\nproofs of the power of the body over the mind. Hunger or insomnia, if\nprolonged, will put the mind out of commission. Destroy the optic nerve,\nand all the mentality in the world cannot make the eyes see. Stop\nthe full flow of blood into the brain, and every one of our mental\nfaculties--memory, perception, judgment, as well as the power of\nspeech--becomes crippled, if not totally destroyed. Will any sensible\nperson dispute these statements? The Christian Scientist, who sees how\nmany things the mind can do, deliberately ignores the things it cannot\ndo. Can mind, as Herbert Spencer asks, change a field sown in wheat\ninto a cotton field? Can it make a horse into a cow? Can it transform an\nAfrican into an Anglo-Saxon? Can it convert copper or brass into gold?\nCan we, by thinking, make the sun go around the earth? At one time\npeople did think that the sun moved and that the earth stood still. Did\nthinking make it so?\n\nIt would be easier to prove that the mind would be helpless without the\nbody than that the body would be helpless without the mind. Take away\nfrom man his erect posture or his hands, and not even the mentality of\na Prometheus would prevent the decline and deterioration of the\nhuman race. What a wonderful instrument is the hand! It has no doubt\ncontributed much towards the evolution of man. The thumb meeting each\nfinger separately, or all four of them combined, enables one to take\nhold of things.\n\nThe ability to feel things with the hands, to turn them over, to\ntake them apart, to bring them nearer to the eyes for a more minute\nexamination, started the mind into action, just as the same hands, by\nputting food into the mouth, started the machinery of life into going.\nDeprive man of his hands, and he will slowly slip to the foot of the\nladder, no matter how much mind he may have. On the other hand, endow\nan oyster with the human frame, and in time it will develop a mind and a\ncivilization. An oyster with the mind of a Shakespeare would still be an\noyster, while a Shakespeare with the body of an oyster would have no use\nfor his \"thousand souls.\" Why do not the converts of Mrs. Eddy see all\nsides of a question? Because they think so far and no farther.\n\n\n\n\nDo Christian Scientists Use their Minds?\n\n|Despite the frequent use of the word \"mind,\" there are perhaps few\npeople who use their minds less than Mrs. Eddy's disciples. Mental\ndevelopment is possible only where there is freedom to think, to\nexperiment, to differ, and to originate. Are Christian Scientists\npermitted to think for themselves? Are they at liberty to differ or to\nexpress original views? To repeat or imitate another very little mind\nis required. All the Christian Science topics, lessons, and instructions\nare issued from headquarters, and the official readers in the\ndenomination merely repeat these verbatim. In their Sunday meetings\nno original or even individual word is allowed. Of what use, then, is\nmentality to a consistent Christian Scientist, who believes that the\ntruth, the only truth, the final truth, has been discovered and brought\nto him once for all?\n\nIn the Kentucky cave of darkness fishes and mice are found without eyes.\nWhat use could they make of sight in the darkness? Mind may become as\nsuperfluous to human beings who have nothing more to discover as eyes\nare to the denizens of Mammoth Cave.\n\nThe following from a letter sent to Mrs. Eddy and printed in _Science\nand Health_ (p. 615) shows what small use some people have for their\nminds. The writer, whose initials alone are given, \"L. C. L., Salt Lake\nCity, Utah,\" writes how he fell from his bicycle while riding down a\nhill \"at a rapid pace; and, falling on my left side with my arm under my\nhead, the bone was broken about halfway between the shoulder and elbow.\nWhile the pain was intense, I lay in the dust declaring the truth, and\ndenying that there could be a break or accident in the realm of Divine\nLove.\" So saying, he remounts his wheel and rides home and orders\n_Science and Health_ to be brought to him immediately, \"which I read\nfor about ten minutes, when all pain left.\" When he told his story his\nhearers would not believe that his arm could have been broken. To prove\nthat it had he goes to an X-ray physician, who says: \"Yes, it has been\nbroken, but whoever set it made a perfect job of it, and you will never\nhave any further trouble from that break.\" The writer concludes his\nletter with: \"This is the first of several cases of _mental surgery_\nthat have come under my notice.\"\n\nWhat shall we think of the mentality which can be the parent of such\ncontradictions! Here is a man who admits that he fell, though \"there are\nno accidents in the realm of Divine Love.\" He also admits that he broke\nhis arm while \"denying that there could be a break in the realm of\nDivine Love.\" The broken bone is set by the reading of _Science and\nHealth_, although it could not have been broken, for he did not fall,\nseeing that there are \"no accidents in the realm of Divine Love.\" If he\ndid not fall, he did not break his bone. But if the bone was not broken,\nit was not set; and if it was not set, there was nothing to prove the\nhealing power of Christian Science. Therefore, he did fall and did break\nhis bone \"while denying that there could be a break or an accident in\nthe realm of Divine Love\"; and a physician, a man of material science,\nis called in to prove that the broken bone was admirably set by \"mental\nsurgery.\"\n\nLet me add that if _Science and Health_ could set a broken bone, it\ncould also have prevented the accident. If it could not, then Christian\nScience is insufficient; if it could have prevented the fall and the\nbreaking of the bone, and did not, then it was responsible for the\nmisfortune. The further fact that the X-ray discovered that the bone had\nbeen set proves that Mrs. Eddy's _Science and Health_ had not been able\nto obliterate all the marks of the fall and the break; which again shows\nthat accidents do happen and bones do break \"in the realm of Divine\nLove.\" People who make no better use of their minds than \"L. C. L.\" of\nSalt Lake City does might just as well have no more mind than the cave\nfishes have eyes.\n\n\n\n\nExamples of \"Reasoning.\"\n\n|On the fly-leaf of Mrs. Eddy's now \"famous\" book appears this quotation\nfrom Shakespeare: \"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking\nmakes it so.\" This is given a place of honour in her book because it is\nsupposed to prove the truth of Christian Science. But a wee bit of clear\nthinking or of the power of analysis would have helped Mrs. Eddy to see\nthat her opening quotation completely destroys all that she advocates in\nthe rest of her book. The doctrine of Mrs. Eddy is that all is God; that\nGod or the good alone exists, and that evil, etc., is mere illusion.\nAccording to her teaching, sickness, sin, and death do not exist except\nfor those who believe in them. The only reality is God or goodness. But\nthe text from Shakespeare which she so prominently displays upon her\nbanners denies God or goodness, just as effectually as it does evil\nand the devil. \"There is nothing--,\" says the great poet. Mark that,\nChristian Scientists! Is that any text to quote to prove that there is\ntruth, and there is goodness, and there is God? \"There is nothing either\ngood\"--Pause again: Are Mrs. Eddy's troops of voiceless followers willing\nto subscribe to that statement? If Shakespeare, Mrs. Eddy's authority,\nis right, the good is as illusory as the bad, for he says plainly that\n\"there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so,\" which\nshould make God, goodness, health, and truth as much an unreality as\nsickness or sin.\n\nMoreover, the Shakespearean argument makes man the creator of both\nthe good and the evil in the world, since it is his _thinking_ which\ndetermines the nature of things. Mrs. Eddy, on the contrary, maintains\nthat man is merely a reflection of the Deity, who alone exists and is\nthe only reality. It must have been the greatness of Shakespeare's name\nwhich tempted Mrs. Eddy to quote from him on the very first page of her\nbook. But metaphysical arguments are like balloons: the bladders burst,\nand nothing remains.\n\nIn order to prove that all disease is mental, the following argument\nis frequently used. I shall give it precisely as I find it in Christian\nScience: Its Results (p. 14; copyright, 1918, by the Christian Science\nPublication Society):--_If, then, it is considered that the state of\nmind may disturb the secretions, causing the tears to flow; or that the\nstate of mind may quicken the action of the heart, causing the blood to\nrush to the face or away from it; or if the state of mind can affect the\norgans of the throat, causing huskiness, then it is plain that the state\nof mind may be held accountable for other derangements of the organs of\nsecretion, of circulation, and of speech. And if of these, why not of\nother organs of the body?_\n\nIt is not denied that mental conditions often become manifest in\ntheir effects upon the body. But, first, what produces these mental\nconditions? The Eddyites do not seem to care to penetrate into that\nquestion at all. Is it not true that in the majority of cases it is some\nphysical or material cause which has either depressed or exalted the\nmind--brought tears to the eyes or dried them? The sight of a sudden\nand terrible accident to a child while crossing the street will, for the\nmoment, rob onlookers of their power of speech, blanch their cheeks and\ndaze them beyond the ability to move or to think. In the same way, the\nnews that a dear son has been gassed or killed in battle will change a\nhappy home into a house of mourning, depriving its inmates of sleep and\nappetite. On the other hand, the unexpected discovery of a vein of gold\non one's farm will exhilarate the mind and banish a hundred fears. These\nmental moods have physical causes. Just as heat passes into motion and\nmotion again into heat, material events produce mental moods; and these\nmental moods resolve themselves once more into physical manifestations,\nsuch as laughter or tears.\n\nThe Christian Scientist observes accurately enough that depression and\ndiscouragement cause sickness, but he is too impatient to learn\nthat these mental states are often the result of bad circulation or\nmal-assimilation of food. Lack of fresh air, defective vision, or a dull\nbut constant physical pain very often lowers the mental tone, proving\nthereby the interdependence of mind and matter.\n\nThe lecturer from whose pamphlet I have quoted realizes \"that salt water\nwill flow from the eyes if he is subjected to great grief,\" and \"that\nthe state of mind may disturb the secretions, causing the tears to\nflow,\" and concludes therefrom that \"dyspepsia and all other bodily\ndiseases and derangements\" should be treated \"with truth rather than\nwith tabloids and powders.\" But what if the secretions are disturbed by\npurely physical causes? A child cries for something to eat, and not from\nunbelief or fear, which are supposed to be purely mental states; and a\npiece of cake will relieve his hunger and dry his tears. A splinter in\nthe eye will provoke tears, as will also a sharp, cold wind; the removal\nof the one, and protection from the other, will immediately dry the\neyes. Peeling onions starts the secretions. Do onions come under the\nclass of mental causes?\n\nLet me give another illustration. Wishing to prove that the material\nworld is an illusion of the senses, Mrs. Eddy tells us that on a wet\nday, when there is a downpour of rain, and when mist and fog shroud land\nand sea, we can easily assure ourselves that our senses are not\ntelling us the truth, that the weather is really fine, by consulting a\nbarometer, which in the midst of cloud and rain points to clear weather.\nWhat shall we think of the mentality of a woman who appeals to a\nbarometer to prove that matter does not exist? If Mrs. Eddy had not\nsuddenly stopped thinking, she would have seen that if our senses betray\nus when they report wet weather, neither would we have any assurance\nthat what they say about the barometer is dependable. Does she think\nthat our senses are not trustworthy except when they refer us to the\nbarometer?\n\nInconsistent thinking is often also responsible for inconsistency in\nconduct. The Christian Scientist, for example, objects to the physician,\nbut patronizes the dentist. Yet dental surgery is not different from\nmedicine, but is one of its many branches. It is by the science of\nmedicine that the trouble in the body is located, diagnosed, and\nremedied by the knife, if it cannot be by medication. Besides, the wound\nor incision is treated medicinally, which requires medical knowledge\non the part of the surgeon, just as it does on the part of the regular\nphysician. Can a dentist practise surgery without a knowledge of the\nhuman anatomy--that is to say, of how many bones and muscles there are\nin the body, where the nerves are located, to what sort of treatment\nthey will respond, and to what laws of growth and decay they are\nsubject? Does he not treat an abscess or receding gums with medicine?\nAnd does this not require a knowledge of medicine which to Christian\nScientists is nothing but \"error\"? Why do not these people invite a\nnovice or their cooks or barbers to work on their teeth if a knowledge\nof anatomy, physiology, and medicine is not necessary to make a man a\ngood dentist? The mere fact that Christian Scientists will not allow any\none but a man with a diploma from a dental college to attend to their\nteeth proves conclusively that they regard a knowledge of medicine\njust as necessary as we do--only we admit it frankly, and they deny it\nfoolishly. If the Christian Scientists have not progressed sufficiently\nto demonstrate against surgery, they should at least be grateful to us\nfor taking care of their needs in the meantime, and help support the\nphysical sciences until they are able to dispense with them.\n\nIn her _Science and Health_ Mrs. Eddy ridicules those who think that\nvegetation or flowers can cause sickness, or that there can be such a\nthing as a \"rose cold.\"\n\n\"The rose,\" she writes, \"is the smile of God,\" and to accuse it of\nproducing fevers or colds is to make God the author of disease. This is\nstrange reasoning. If the rose represents \"the smile of God,\" what do\nthe bugs and crawling insects on its petals represent? And whose smile\nare its thorns which prick x and draw blood? Further, if a rose, a\nmaterial flower, can represent the \"Divine\" smile, why may not other\nequally material things have a mission in life--such as representing and\nimparting health? If the Deity can use the rose to reveal his smile, why\nmay he not use herbs or minerals for curative purposes? Why may not\nsoap and water, cleanliness, fresh air, temperance in food and drink and\nexercise, have as useful a purpose in the \"Divine\" economy of things as\nthe rose?\n\nOn p. 488 of _Science and Health_ Mrs. Eddy writes:--Christian Science\nsustains with immortal proof the impossibility of any material sense,\nand defines these so-called senses as mortal beliefs, the testimony of\nwhich cannot be true. Nerves have no more sensation, apart from what\nbelief bestows upon them, than the fibres of a plant.\n\nIn the above, as also in innumerable other passages, the founder of\nChristian Science advises her readers to deny the testimony of their\nsenses. They are urged to deny \"that matter can ache, swell, and be\ninflamed.\" Never mind the witness of our senses; \"bones cannot break,\nnerves cannot feel, the nose cannot smell, and the eyes cannot see.\" But\ndid she stop to think where such advice would carry us?\n\nI smell something burning in the kitchen or in the basement; but no, the\nsenses lie. There is nothing burning; there is nothing to burn. I feel\nand see smoke filling the room. I can hardly breathe; but no, the senses\nare \"a fraud.\" There is no smoke in the room, and I am not choking; for\nhas not Mrs. Eddy demonstrated with \"immortal proof\" that \"corporeal\nsenses defraud and lie,\" and that they are \"the only source of evil or\nerror\" (pp. 488 and 489)? If the infant is crying in the nursery because\nit has fallen from its cradle, or because it has stumbled into the fire,\nthere is no need to rush for help, because the report of our senses that\nthe child is in danger is a lie. \"Christian Science shows them [our\nsenses] to be false\" (p. 489). Fortunate it is that not many parents are\nconsistent Christian Scientists.\n\nIt is said that Christian Science does not deal with man as he appears,\nbut man as he is--\"unborn and undying.\" Very well; is what Mrs. Eddy and\nher followers write or say about \"man unborn and undying\" debatable\nor un-debatable? If debatable, we have a right to ask the Eddyites\nto conform to the canons of human reason; but if Christian Science is\nnon-debatable--that is, if it cannot be understood by such minds as we\npossess, then why write or talk about it at all?\n\n\n\n\nDo Christian Scientists Practise what they Preach?\n\n|Mrs. Eddy teaches that the material universe is an illusion. Do the\nChristian Scientists try to live up to this? I say, do they try, because\nto try is about all that any one can do, as it is an utter impossibility\nto really live up to such a belief.\n\nLet us see if there is any difference between the way we treat our\nbodies and the way Mrs. Eddy's followers treat theirs. We believe the\nbody exists, and therefore we protect it with clothing. The Christian\nScientists do the same, although they should not believe such material\nthings as flesh and bone exist. We sleep to be refreshed; so do they.\nWe have a roof over our heads; so have they. We close our windows in the\nwinter and build a fire; they do the same. We are growing older; so are\nthey. Now and then we feel unwell, and apply to a helper of some kind\nfor treatment, when we cannot cope with the trouble ourselves; the\nChristian Scientists do the same. We die from some cause or other; so do\nthey. If Christian Scientists never need any treatment, why are there\nso many practitioners among them? How do they make a living if no one\nof their circle is ever taken sick? I admit that we do not take the same\ntreatment, or go to the same helper, or call our troubles by the same\n_name_; but, dear me! why make such an ado over mere names?\n\nIn what respect, then, do Christian Scientists, who do not believe in\nthe body, treat theirs differently from the way we treat ours? We have\nto eat to keep ourselves alive; so do they. We have to take liquids with\nour food; so do they. We bathe our bodies because to do so is refreshing\nand cleanly. Why do they bathe theirs? We need fresh air; Mrs. Eddy rode\nout every day for the same purpose. And does not the Eddyite, like every\none else, repair his house or weed his garden? Does he not Paris Green\nhis vegetables? Does he not screen his windows? Does he not scrub his\nfloors? Why may he not, with equal reason, resort to certain means to\nprotect his teeth, his eyes, or his digestive organs? If Mind is _All_,\nMrs. Eddy's disciples should dispense with the use of powders and\ncosmetics, and their houses and gardens should be free from wear and\ntear, as their persons are supposed to be. Are not tree and plant, house\nand land, face and teeth, included in the _All_ which is _Mind?_ And\ndo Christian Scientists use \"Divine\" healing also for the horse and the\ndog? Do they employ dressmakers to clothe their minds or their bodies?\nIf Mind is All, why do not our trains run without engineers, or our\nships sail without pilots? Are physicians the only people the Deity will\nnot tolerate? If engineers and pilots represent Mind, why not doctors?\n\nIt is admitted by leaders in Christian Science that many among their\nfollowers insure, not only their buildings against fire, but also their\nlives against accident, sickness, and death. Of course, death can be\ncaused only by sickness, accident, or old age. It follows that the\nChristian Scientist takes thought of accident, sickness, and old age,\nand guards against them precisely as non-Christian Scientists do. I\nknow also of Christian Scientists who are in the life insurance\nbusiness--that is to say, while they deny sickness and accident they\nargue with their clients that it is the part of wisdom, as well as\na duty they owe their families, to buy insurance. Is that the way to\npractise what one professes?\n\nLet us continue. Mrs. Eddy declares there is no matter, and then she\nproceeds to write a book. Why could not Mrs. Eddy communicate her\nrevelation to her pupils without the help of a book? Would not that have\nbeen a real miracle? Why should Absolute Mind be dependent upon ink\nand type? Is not a book--its paper, its cloth, its ink, its glue and\nboards--as material as any drug which the chemist manufactures? If Mrs.\nEddy is not able to reach the minds of her disciples without appealing\nto their senses of touch and sight, why condemn the doctors for using\nequally material means to influence their patients?\n\nBut Mrs. Eddy goes beyond the physician in her materialism. A doctor,\nfor example, invents an instrument to render surgical operations less\npainful, but he does not patent his idea to protect his profits.\nMrs. Eddy discovers \"Divine healing\" and copyrights it. Moreover, the\nphysician is the inventor of his own instrument. Mrs. Eddy declares\nthat her book is from God, and then proceeds to copyright what does not\nbelong to her.\n\nThe hosts of people who proclaim Mrs. Eddy's name and bend the knee\nto her do not seem to reflect that to copyright God's thoughts is an\nattempt to copyright the Deity. A New England woman plans to secure a\ncorner on the Divine mind for commercial purposes, else why does she\ncharge such high prices for her book? And yet not one of her admiring\nfollowers breathes even a murmur against it. It has been said that the\nlady copyrighted her books and asked a big price for them, netting her\nnearly five hundred per cent, profit, not because she wanted the money,\nbut to make the buyers appreciate the book. But what becomes of \"Divine\"\nscience if it must count on money to make people appreciate its merits?\nIf the Eddyites may use money to influence minds, why may not a doctor\nuse drugs to get results?\n\nReally the metaphysical fraternity, instead of being sufficiently\nadvanced in \"Divine\" science to dispense with medical help, are often\ncompelled to employ the services of more than one doctor. The devout\nfollower of Mrs. Eddy, if he has a tooth to be extracted or a decayed\nroot to be removed, or an abscess in the ear to be treated, engages,\nbesides the services of an expert physician, also some metaphysical\npractitioner. Thus, while the non-Christian Scientist employs only\none kind of doctor, the believer in \"Divine\" mind employs two. When a\nChristian Scientist goes to a hospital for an operation, he either\ntakes a practitioner of his own faith with him and instals him in a room\nnear-by to give him \"Divine\" treatment while the surgeon is operating\non him, or he goes to the phone just before going under the knife to ask\nhis favourite practitioner for absent treatment. Two doctors instead\nof one--that is how Christian Science has done away with doctors. Of\ncourse, it is true that only in serious cases do Christian Scientists\ncall upon outside help; but, then, in cases not serious anybody can get\nalong without expert assistance.\n\nIn _Science and Health_ (p. 463) Mrs. Eddy gives the following\nexplanation of her seclusion from the world: \"It has been said to\nthe author: 'The world has been benefited by you, but it feels your\ninfluence without seeing you. Why do you not make yourself more widely\nknown?' Could her friends know how little time the author has had in\nwhich to make herself outwardly known except through her laborious\npublications--and how much time and thought are still required to\nestablish the stately operations of Christian Science--they would\nunderstand why she is so secluded.\" Is not this an admission of her\nlimitations? And can a woman, claiming to be one with God, \"unborn\nand undying,\" afford to confess that she has neither the time nor the\nability to do all that is required of her?\n\nOn p. 464 of her book Mrs. Eddy advises her followers to let a surgeon\ngive them a hypodermic injection to relieve their pain, and a few\nsentences after she writes: \"Adulterating Christian Science makes\nit void. Falsity has no foundation,\" She advises her followers, when\n\"Divine\" science fails, to take a hypodermic for help, and then she\ntells them that \"adulterating Christian Science makes it void,\" which\nleaves her disciples between \"the devil and the deep sea.\"\n\nAnd what if there were no hypodermics to relieve the pain which Mrs.\nEddy's doctrine had failed to cope with? What if there were no surgeons\nto administer the drug? Under Christian Science all these material means\nare to be abolished, leaving the whole field to Mrs. Eddy. To whom,\nthen, will \"a Christian Scientist, seized with pain so violent that he\ncannot treat himself mentally,\" go for relief?\n\nMrs. Eddy knows very well that physicians and not surgeons give\nhypodermic injections; but she has not the courage, nor, I regret to\nsay, the honesty, to say anything good of a physician. Is not such a\nmind as Mrs. Eddy's a menace?\n\nObserve again that when a Christian Scientist is in intense pain he must\nnot seek instant relief by an appeal to real science, but must first try\nMrs. Eddy's remedy; only when that fails may he resort to a hypodermic\ninjection. How long a trial should the sufferer of intense pain give\nto Mrs. Eddy's remedy is not stated; but this much is certain, he is\nto suffer the intense pain as long as he can bear it before trying any\nother remedy. Knowing very well that a hypodermic might give instant\nrelief to a patient in intense agony, Mrs. Eddy nevertheless insists\nthat the patient shall try her uncertain remedy first.\n\nBut what follows is really debasing: \"When the belief of pain is lulled\n[by the hypodermic] he, the sufferer, can handle his own case mentally.\nThus it is that we 'prove all things and hold fast that which is good.'\"\nCould there be anything more hypocritical than such reasoning? After\nthe pain has been relieved by a physician, the Christian Scientist will\ntreat himself mentally--for what? It is very much like saying that after\na starving man has been fed let him proceed to demonstrate that food\nis not necessary for the relief of hunger. But the real motive for\ndemanding that mental treatment should follow the hypodermic injection\nis to be able to claim that the cure, after all, was not effected by the\nphysician, but by Mrs. Eddy's remedy.\n\nMoreover, if hypodermic injections are permitted for the relief of\nintense pain, why may not antiseptics be allowed for protection against\ngerms, an\u00e6sthetics to deaden sensation, and antidotes to counteract\npoisons? After the antidote has killed the effects of the poison, the\nChristian Scientist, following Mrs. Eddy's instructions, may treat\nhimself mentally and deny the reality of both poison and antidote.\n\nInstead of recommending the services of a surgeon, would it not have\nbeen better for Mrs. Eddy to have advised her followers to go about\nequipped, not only with her _Science and Health_, but also with a pocket\napparatus or instrument for giving to one's self or others hypodermic\ninjections in cases where Christian Science failed them?\n\nReally, when Mrs. Eddy says, \"If from an injury, or from any cause, a\nChristian Scientist were seized with pain so violent that he could\nnot treat himself mentally--and the Christian Scientist had failed to\nrelieve him--the sufferer could call a surgeon, who would give him a\nhypodermic injection,\" she surrenders everything, and her metaphysics\ncollapses like a bubble. It goes to prove that, despite her many bizarre\nsomersaults in the air, she cannot avoid landing upon matter.\n\nWhen Christian Science fails, there is still the surgeon with his\n\"hypodermic injection.\" What an anti-climax! Like all metaphysicians,\nMrs. Eddy emerges from the same door wherein she entered.\n\nAgain Mrs. Eddy practically overthrows the foundations of her faith when\nshe writes: \"If a dose of poison is swallowed through mistake, and the\npatient dies... does human belief, you ask, cause this death? Even so,\nand as directly as if the poison had been intentionally taken. In such\ncases a few persons believe the potion swallowed by the patient to be\nharmless; but the vast majority of mankind, though they know nothing\nof this particular case and this special person, believe the arsenic,\nstrychnine, or whatever the drug used, to be poisonous, for it is set\ndown as a poison by mortal mind. Consequently the result is controlled\nby the majority of opinions, not by the infinitesimal minority of\nopinions in the sick chamber\" (pp. 177-78). With that statement it may\nbe said that Christian Science commits suicide. Only a logic-proof mind\ncould fail to see that to admit the helplessness of Christian Science\nwhen in the minority against \"the majority of opinions,\" as Mrs. Eddy\ndoes in the above passage, is tantamount to saying that at present, at\nleast, no patient can be healed by Christian Science, since \"the result\nis controlled by the majority of opinions, not by the infinitesimal\nminority of opinions in the sick chamber.\" Not only does the statement\nquoted deny to Christian Science the power to cope successfully\nwith \"the majority of opinions,\" but it also destroys faith in the\ntestimonials from patients who claim to have been cured by Mrs. Eddy's\ndiscovery. So long as the four hundred millions of China, the three\nhundred millions of India, and the hosts of Africa, to which should\nbe added the multitudes in Europe and America, \"believe the potion\nswallowed to be poisonous,\" or the sickness complained of to be real,\n\"for it is set down as a poison,\" or as sickness \"by mortal mind,\" a\nhandful of Eddyites representing \"an infinitesimal minority\" can effect\nno cures, seeing that \"_the result is controlled by the majority of\nopinions_.\" On page 162 of her book Mrs. Eddy writes: \"I have restored\nwhat is called the lost substance of lungs......Christian Science heals\norganic disease as surely as it does what is called functional.\" She\nalso claims to have \"elongated shortened limbs,\" etc.\n\nBut how could she perform the latter miracle against the opinion held\nby the majority that shortened limbs cannot be elongated, and after\nadmitting, as she does, that in the sick chamber \"the result is\ncontrolled by the majority of opinions, and not by the infinitesimal\nminority of opinions\"? In her attempt to answer the question, why\nChristian Science fails to cure the patient who has accidentally\nswallowed a deadly drug, Mrs. Eddy strips her \"discovery\" of all its\npower to heal and makes \"the majority of opinions the controlling\nfactor.\" In one and the same breath she announces the supremacy of\nInfinite Mind, \"who never endowed matter with power to disable life, or\nto chill harmony......since such a power without the Divine permission\nis inconceivable,\" and admits the helplessness of this \"Infinite Mind\"\nagainst \"the majority of opinions dictated by mortal mind.\" And the\nsame woman writes: \"In this volume of mine there are no contradictory\nstatements\" (p. 345).\n\n\n\n\nChristian Science Cures\n\n|It is urged, however, that Mrs. Eddy's teachings have been demonstrated\nto be true by the remarkable cures they have effected. I need not\nquestion these cures. I hope all of them are genuine. I love humanity\ntoo well to wish that its ills were not cured at all rather than that\nthey should be cured by Christian Science. But when every claim is\nconceded, all that will be proved is that Christian Science has cured\nsome sick people. Of course it has. I hope the Christian Scientists will\nbe equally generous to admit that during the past thousands of years\ncures have been effected also by other agencies. Mohammedanism has\ncured the sick; Catholic saints have cured the sick; holy places have\nperformed cures--else why do multitudes go on pilgrimages to shrines?\nPatent medicines have helped the sick, otherwise the inventors and\nvendors of them could not have made such big fortunes; and the\nleast tolerant Christian Scientist must admit that even physicians\noccasionally succeed in curing the sick. Evidently, then, Mrs. Eddy is\nnot the _only_ healer; which, if admitted, will prove that she has\nnot performed any cures with her \"ism\" which others have not performed\nwithout it. If it be said that other cures are cures only in name, the\nsame is said by unbelievers of Christian Science cures. One objection\nbalances the other. Christian Science would be unique if it never failed\nto cure. But as it fails in some cases from one cause or another, and as\nit limits its practice to complaints which do not require a knowledge\nof surgery, and, again, _as it has never accomplished what the other\nagencies have failed to accomplish_--restoring a lost limb, for\ninstance--it follows without the possibility of contradiction that it is\nat its best no more than any other human agency.\n\nAt a Sunday morning meeting in San Francisco, as the audience was\nleaving, a cripple in her invalid's chair was being wheeled out of\nthe building. Stepping up to one of the ushers who seemed to possess\nconsiderable authority, I asked why the cripple had been brought to\nthe Christian Science meeting. \"To be healed, of course,\" was the\nunhesitating reply. But as she was being wheeled out in the same\ncondition as she was in when wheeled into the meeting, would it not\nfollow, I asked, that she was not cured? Had the occasion permitted, the\nChristian Science usher would have argued that one or two treatments are\nnot always enough to effect a cure. Admitted. But if \"Divine\" science\nmust have more than one chance to hit the mark, how does it differ from\nhuman science? To prove its Divine origin, Christian Science must meet\nthe following conditions: First, it must cure diseases which all other\nagencies have pronounced incurable; second, it must never fail to cure;\nthird, it must prove itself the only power that can cure. Not one of\nthese conditions has been met by Christian Science. It has failed to\ncure many; it has not cured the incurables; and other agencies have\ncured at least as many patients as has Christian Science. In what\nrespect, then, is Mrs. Eddy's doctrine the absolute or the only truth?\n\n\n\n\nChristian Science Testimonials\n\n|Mrs. Eddy devotes one hundred pages of her _Science and Health_ to\ntestimonials from people who have used her \"nostrum,\" very much as\nvendors of patent medicines are in the habit of doing. But while, as a\nrule, testimonials in patent medicine books are signed in full, those\nin _Science and Health_ give only initials. Rheumatism, hernia, fibroid\ntumour, insanity and epilepsy, cancer and consumption, Bright's disease,\nand many other diseases, according to these testimonials, have been\n\"quickly cured,\" often by the mere reading of Mrs. Eddy's book. But\nthere are equally numerous witnesses to prove that these same maladies\nhave been cured by other equally fantastic remedies. I do not feel\nmyself under obligation, however, to take notice of these claims, for\nthe excellent reason that I am not bound to explain alleged facts, but\nonly real facts. Let the healers first prove that their patients had\nreal cancer, and that Christian Science cured them permanently, and then\nI will consider their claims. But some one might say: \"I ought to be\nan authority on my own case. Every doctor had given me up; I was told\nnothing could save me. My disease was pronounced incurable, yet I am\nnow in the best of health through Christian Science.\" If a person may\nbe misinformed about others, he may be about himself. It is the most\nnatural thing to imagine one's self sick or cured. It is equally a\nmatter of experience that doctors often fail to diagnose the case of a\npatient correctly. Their pronouncing any one incurable is not a final\nor infallible judgment. Before a miracle is claimed in the case of any\npatient it has to be shown, by expert and disinterested testimony, that\nthe disease in question really existed, that it was really incurable,\nand that Christian Science really cured it. But is such testimony\nforthcoming? Do healers invite investigation of their cures by\noutsiders?\n\nIn 1898 Mrs. Eddy announced some miraculous performances. \"I challenge\nthe world to disprove,\" she said, \"what I hereby declare! I healed\nmalignant tubercular diphtheria and carious bones that could be dented\nin by the fingers. I have healed at one visit a cancer that had so eaten\nthe flesh of the neck as to expose the jugular vein so that it stood\nout like a cord.\" Who made the diagnosis? How could a novice tell\none disease from another? If it was a physician's report Mrs. Eddy\nis quoting, who was the physician? Besides, for Mrs. Eddy to accept\na doctor's verdict would be to put faith in medical science, which,\naccording to her, is no science at all. Neither does this Divine\npractitioner give the name and the address of her patients. Who\nwitnessed the treatment applied to the case she describes? Who\npronounced the patient cured? I hope Mrs. Eddy cured all her cancer\npatients; but a hope is not a proof, nor is assertion an argument. The\nonly way to demonstrate a power is to submit to all the tests. Compare\nMrs. Eddy's story of how she cured an unnamed patient with the following\naccomplishment by a man of real science: \"A remarkable case of curvature\nof the spine was announced at a Philadelphia hospital. The case was that\nof Adele Weinberg, a young girl hunchback. The surgeon removed part of\none of the lumbar vertebr\u00e6, found it to be diseased, and in its place\nused a section of leg bone. She is as erect as though her spine had\nbeen normal from birth.\" That operation took place in a hospital\nin Philadelphia, before nurses and assisting physicians, who may be\nsummoned as witnesses. But Mrs. Eddy mentions no witnesses whom we may\ninterview in connection with the cancer cure she describes.\n\n\n\n\nGet-Well-Quick\n\n|Christian Science, instead of being either scientific or Christian,\ncomes very near being, and in fact is, a sort of get-well-quick system,\nsuggestive of the get-rich-quick scheme of the speculating fraternity.\nThe gambler does not have to learn a trade or to build up a business\nin order to secure a footing in the commercial world, or to establish\na reputation for honesty and efficiency. He does not depend upon these\nthings for a living, since the throw of a dice, the colour of a card, or\na lucky bet may bring to him in a few minutes more than patient work\ncan offer in years. The Christian Science practitioner likewise does\nnot have to study the human body, the properties of drugs, the nature of\nan\u00e6sthetics or of antiseptics, the germ theory of disease, the effect of\ndiet and climate upon the human organism, the causes of epidemics, the\nmeans of control of contagious maladies--nothing at all of this. A few\nlessons in metaphysics, a copy of Mrs. Eddy's book, and a number\nof texts on the tip of his tongue, and he may begin practising and\ncollecting fees from patients.\n\nShould a call come to the Christian Science healer in the middle of a\ncold, wintry night, he need not even rise out of bed, much less walk or\nride through the storm to see and examine his patient; and if he should\nfall asleep while giving absent treatment, who would be the wiser for\nit?\n\nThere is yet another close resemblance between the get-rich-quick and\nthe get-well-quick systems. What makes gambling attractive is the wealth\nthere is in the world. If labour did not create wealth, there would be\nnothing to gamble with or to gamble for. The gambler is a parasite. He\nthrives on the labour of others. In the same way, the get-well-quick\npractitioner profits from the conquests of material science. If the\nEddyites really desired to give a demonstration of their \"science,\" they\nshould go to those Asiatic countries where sanitary measures are unknown\nwhere there are no facilities for the proper ventilation of dwellings or\nfor personal cleanliness; where the waters are impure, the streets\nare foul, the food insufficient, the climate merciless; where modern\nhygienic precautions are unknown; where the cholera, the black death, or\nsome other plague works unhindered, and where there are no physicians\nto be sent for at the last hour. Let them, I say, work in such an\nenvironment to show what Christian Science can do. But to operate in\nEurope and America--where science, like a watch dog, is guarding the\nhealth of the people, inventing a thousand devices for the comfort and\nsecurity of life, hurrying to the aid of the injured almost with the\nalacrity of thought, building hospitals equipped with all the weapons\nwhich disease dreads, and training men and women to march at any moment\nin full phalanx and armed to the teeth against the first plague germ\nthat lands on our shores from foreign lands--is nothing to boast of.\nIndeed, it is the progress of the physical sciences which has made the\nChristian Scientist's profession profitable. \"Divine healers\" eat of the\ngolden fruits of the tree of science, and then turn round and stone the\ntree.\n\n\n\n\nChristian Science Fashionable\n\n|How, then, explain the remarkable growth of Christian Science? But\nthe imposing edifices, the prosperous looking disciples, the number\nof automobiles in front of their churches, prove only that Christian\nScience is fashionable--that is all. The question we are discussing is\nnot Is Christian Science fashionable, but Is it true? Does the rapid\ngrowth and wealth of Mohammedanism, for instance, with its Alhambra\nand Alcazar, its illustrious and extensive conquests, prove its Divine\norigin? Does the progress of Mormonism, which reared a great city as if\nby magic in the Western wilderness, prove Mormonism to be of God? The\nCatholic Church at one time owned everything in Europe and ruled every\none. To her belonged all the wealth, the culture, the art, and the power\nof Christendom. Yet Christian Scientists do not consider the Catholic\nChurch Divine. Why should the rapid spread of one creed surprise us any\nmore than that of another?\n\nMoreover, it takes less courage to follow the crowd than to resist it.\nThe crowd picks up the weak and carries them along. Was it not Horace\nWalpole who said, \"The greater the imposition the greater the crowd\"?\nWhat Matthew Arnold said of the multitude in England is true also of\nthe American multitude: \"Probably in no country is the multitude more\nunintelligent, more narrow-minded, and more passionate than in this. In\nno country is so much nonsense so firmly believed.\" Alas, that is true\nof the multitude in every country.\n\nAgain, the faith habit is an older heredity, exerting upon us the\naccumulated force of thousands of years, while the inquiry habit is too\nrecent an acquisition to have much force upon the generality of peoples.\nThat is another explanation of the greater popularity of dogma, which\nrequires only belief, and the comparative unpopularity of a movement\nwhich demands individual thinking. \"Superstition,\" as Goethe says, \"is\nso intimately and anciently associated with man that it is one of the\nhardest things to get rid of.\" The only progress most people are capable\nof is to part with one superstition for another. The Pope is given up\nfor Mrs. Eddy, but the idea of an infallible teacher to tell us what to\nbelieve is not outgrown. The keys of heaven and hell placed in the hands\nof the Vicar of Christ provoke scepticism in a Christian Scientist,\nbut he accepts without the shadow of a doubt the key to the Scriptures\ndelivered to Mrs. Eddy.\n\nBut how account for the presence of so many judges and lawyers among\nthe converts of Christian Science? And how account for the judges and\nlawyers who are not Christian Scientists? It was not so long ago when\njudges condemned innocent women as witches, and sentenced them to be\ntortured to death. Did that make witchcraft a fact, or can it be quoted\nto justify the belief in witchcraft? The late Chief Justice of the\nUnited States was a Catholic. What does that prove?\n\n\n\n\nChristian Science and Witchcraft\n\n|Without wanting to give offence, I would say that Christian Science\nis, in many respects, the modern version of the witchcraft belief,\nwhich smote New England some three or four hundred years ago. If mental\ntreatment can cure, according to Mrs. Eddy's admissions, it can also\nkill. Over her own signature Mrs. Eddy declares that her last husband\nwas killed by poison \"mentally administered.\" The devil possessed\nwitches, too, were supposed to be able to injure and kill people\nmentally. Mrs. Eddy teaches that, \"If the right mental practice can\nrestore health, it is self-evident that mental malpractice can impair\nhealth.\" She also contends that a person may commit mental murder or\n\"mental assassination.\" In the _Christian Science Journal_ of February,\n1889, she demands that \"mental assassins\" be turned over to the\nexecutioner.\n\nOn May 14, 1878, Mrs. Eddy, her attorney, and some twenty witnesses,\nappeared at the opening of the Supreme Judicial Court in Salem and\npractically accused a certain Mr. Daniel Harrison Spoffard of sorcery\nand witchcraft. Mrs. Eddy's bill of complaint recited the injuries which\nSpoffard was mentally, and of course by absent treatment, inflicting\nupon one of Mrs. Eddy's students, a Miss Lucretia Brown, and begged the\nCourt to restrain him from giving malicious mental treatment to said\nMiss Brown. Does not that suggest darkest Africa? Let me give a few\nlines from Mrs. Eddy's bill of complaint:--\n\n_By the power of his mind he (Mr. Spoffard) influences and controls the\nminds and bodies of other persons, and uses his said power and art for\nthe purpose of injuring the persons and property of others. Among the\ninjuries Mr. Spoffard has communicated to Miss Brown are severe spinal\npains, neuralgia, temporary suspension of mind._\n\nFortunately for the reputation of our courts, Judge Gray dismissed the\ncharges against Mr. Spoffard, declaring, with a twinkle in his eye,\nthat it was not within the jurisdiction of the courts to control Mr.\nSpoffard's mind. Had the Judge been of Mrs. Eddy's persuasion, the old\nregrettable Salem persecutions against so-called witches might have been\nrevived. How well has it been explained by John Fiske that \"one of the\nmost primitive shapes which the relation of cause and effect takes in\nthe savage mind is the assumed connection between disease or death and\nsome malevolent personal agency.\"\n\n\n\n\nMarriage and Death in Christian Science\n\n|Let us now investigate some of the other teachings of Mrs. Eddy,\nwhich are at present more or less kept in the background, or which are\npresented only to those who have become adepts or advanced students of\nthe cult. A careful perusal of Mrs. Eddy's miscellaneous literature will\nshow that she practically denies sex, marriage, birth, death, the\nhome, the family, as well as education and morality. It seems a serious\naccusation to bring against any one posing as a reformer or as the\nfounder of a religion, but the evidence warrants the charge. Has no one\never observed that Christian Science journals do not announce marriages,\nbirths, or deaths? Of course, like other people, Christian Scientists\nare born, marry, and die; but no official recognition of such events is\npermitted. There must be a reason for it. In Christian Science there\nis no room for sex relations and for children, even as there is no\nrecognition of that other natural phenomenon, death. But do not Mrs.\nEddy's disciples die? Is not her body buried in a cemetery, and marked\nby a monument raised over her remains by her admirers?\n\nThe explanation for this apparent contradiction between the profession\nand the practice, from the Christian Science point of view, is as\nfollows: Every believer in Mrs. Eddy's revelation is expected\nto demonstrate over death as over sickness; and just as, when a\npractitioner fails to demonstrate over sickness, it is because of some\nerror or belief somewhere, and not because of the insufficiency of\nDivine power, likewise, if a Christian Scientist dies, it is because he\nhas not applied the new doctrine rightly, and not because the doctrine\nis not strong enough to prevent death. This teaching really makes of\ndeath not a beneficent economy of nature, but a crime, or a miscarriage,\nas it were, of Christian Science.\n\nIn the State of Michigan there is a religious sect called \"the House of\nDavid.\" One of their doctrines is that a Christian cannot die. \"But,\" I\nasked the man whom I was interviewing in Michigan, \"do not the members\nof your sect die like other people?\" His answer was that they die only\nwhen they fall from grace.\n\nIn the same way, if a Christian Scientist dies, it is because he has\ndeparted from the truth as taught by Mrs. Eddy, or because some one has\nkilled him mentally by \"malicious animal magnetism\" or \"mortal mind.\"\nThat was how, Mrs. Eddy asserts, her husband was assassinated. If\none member of a family is a Christian Scientist and the treatment he\nreceives from a practitioner does not cure him of the complaint, the\nblame is liable to be thrown upon the non-Christian Science members of\nthe family, who, by resisting the operations of \"Divine\" power, prevent\nits manifestation. It is witchcraft come back. Could anything be more\ninhuman than to hold an unbelieving parent responsible for the failure\nof Christian Science to save his child from an attack of typhus or\nscarlet fever after the practitioner has deprived the patient of the\nservices of medical care and treatment? But can a \"Divine\" healer\nadmit failure? Rather than confess defeat, he will accuse the nearest\nrelatives of the patient of malpractice. I am sorry to conclude that at\ntimes Christian Science is as cowardly as it is cruel.\n\n\n\n\n\"Suffer it to Be So Now\"\n\n|According to Mrs. Eddy, marriage, like death, suggests materiality, and\nis therefore an error. The words of Jesus, that in heaven they shall be\nlike the angels who do not marry nor are given in marriage, are quoted\nto prove that sex is an illusion of mortal mind. Of course, the Eddyites\nmarry, but only for the same reason that they die--because they are not\nsufficiently advanced in Christian Science to demonstrate over these\nerrors.\n\nIn the _Christian Science Sentinel_, June 16, 1906, and in the\n_Christian Science Journal_, July, 1906, Mrs. Eddy calls marriage\n\"legalized lust\"--this from a woman who had been three or four times\nmarried!\n\n\"Suffer it to be so now\" is the text quoted by Christian Scientists\nto defend their inconsistency. But how long a time does the word \"now\"\ncover? Jesus, in using the word \"now,\" must have meant his own day,\nwhich was nearly two thousand years ago. But is it still \"now\"? A \"now\"\nthat lasts so long might just as well mean \"indefinitely.\"\n\n\"Suffer it to be so _indefinitely_\" would be the real meaning of the\ntext as the Eddyites interpret it. Accordingly, when the Christian\nScience dispensation shall be in full swing, marriage, birth, children,\nthe family, as also sickness and death, will be no more. That will be, I\nsuppose, when it is no longer \"now.\"\n\nI have already quoted Mrs. Eddy's belief in regard to sex: \"Gender is\nalso a quality characteristic of mind, and not of matter.\" She will wink\nat marriages \"until it is learned that generation [birth] rests on no\nsexual basis.\" I do not know what kind of reasoning led her to say:\n\"To abolish marriage and maintain generation is possible in Christian\nScience.\" Are not such foolish as well as mischievous doctrines a menace\nto the community? Can a man, can a woman, believe in such absurdities\nwithout becoming unbalanced mentally sooner or later?\n\n\n\n\nThe New Autocracy\n\n|Mrs. Eddy has banished all freedom of thought from her Church, as\nLuther and Calvin did from theirs. Christian Science is as distinctly\nhostile to the liberty of teaching as were the dogmatists of the\nReformation.\n\nIn the _Christian Science Quarterly_ Bible Lessons definite instructions\nare given to read the following explanatory note before reciting the\nlesson-sermon:--\n\n_Friends,--The Bible and the Christian Science Text-book are our only\npreachers... The canonical writings, together with the word of our\ntext-book, corroborating and explaining the Bible texts in their\nspiritual import and application to all ages, past, present, and future,\nconstitute a sermon undivorced from Truth, uncontaminated and unfettered\nby human hypotheses, and divinely authorized._\n\nIt is absolutely necessary to repeat this at every Sunday meeting. It\nwill be seen from the formula imposed upon her followers that only Mrs.\nEddy's voice is tolerated in Christian Science churches. But does she\nnot also permit the reading of the Bible? Only as _she_ interprets it,\nno other interpretation being allowed, which makes the Bible nothing\nmore than a medium for Mrs. Eddy's thought. Outside of her book all is\ncontamination. _Science and Health_ and the book to which it is the key\nare alone Divine, everything else being \"human hypotheses\" which enslave\nand corrupt. Has the intellect of man ever been subjected to a greater\npinch than that?\n\n\"He who does not believe my doctrine is sure to be damned,\" said Luther\n(Professor E.M. Hulme, _The Renaissance_, p. 363). Will Mrs. Eddy admit\nthat there is any salvation outside her church, or that there is any\nother infallible guide than her own _Science and Health_? And just as\nboth John Calvin and Martin Luther called upon the civil authorities to\ndraw the sword against heretics, so Mrs. Eddy repeatedly summoned\nthe State to punish \"mental assassins.\" Where there is no freedom\npersecution is inevitable, since there is no other effective way\nto suppress freedom. It was the great Swiss reformer, Beza, who\ncongratulated Calvin on the burning of Servetus: \"To claim that heretics\nought not to be punished is the same as saying that those who murder\nfather and mother ought not to be punished, seeing that heretics are\ninfinitely worse than they.\" Mrs. Eddy, nearly four hundred years\nlater, appealed to the courts in the United States to punish one Richard\nKennedy, a former disciple of hers, for _malicious animal magnetism_,\nand called upon the police to avenge the death of her husband by\narresting the culprit who administered poison to him \"mentally.\"\n\n\"Oh, why does not somebody kill him?\" Mrs. Eddy was heard to exclaim\nwhen she imagined herself the victim of the malpractice of one of her\nrivals. In _Science and Health_, chap. vi, p. 38, 1881 edition, Mrs.\nEddy, writing of another of her dissenting disciples with all the\ntheological fury of the Dark Ages, calls him the \"Nero of to-day... he\nis robbing, committing adultery, and killing,\" etc. And on page 2, in\nthe same chapter, she calls Kennedy a \"moral leper,\" to be \"shunned as\nthe most prolific cause of sickness and sin.\" Listen to this language of\nLove:--\n\n_Behold! thou criminal mental marauder, that would blot out the sunshine\nof earth, that would sever friends, destroy virtue, put out truth, and\nmurder in secret the innocent, befouling thy track with the trophies of\nthy guilt._\n\nThen she predicts \"a hailstorm of doom upon the guilty head\" of Daniel\nSpoffard, another of her former students (_Science and Health_, 1878\nedition).\n\nChristian Science shows many of the symptoms of the early stages of the\nProtestant Reformation. \"Justification by faith alone\" was the slogan\nof Luther and his associates. Good works were not necessary at all.\nSalvation was a divine gift, and all that the sinner had to do was to\naccept it. Doing was a deadly thing.\n\nMrs. Eddy, like another Martin Luther, preached the doctrine of\nsalvation and health by faith alone. \"Quit trying to get well by your\nown efforts and trust in Divine Mind\" was her ultimatum. Mrs. Eddy\nhad no more use for sanitary measures or for self-help than the German\nreformers had for good works. And just as Mrs. Eddy taught that to\nresort to material means destroyed the patient's chances of being\nhealed by Christian Science, the Lutherans declared that good works\nwere prejudicial to salvation because they made man self-confident and\nboastful.\n\nAnother resemblance between Luther and Mrs. Eddy is to be found in\ntheir common contempt for human science. To Luther the intellect was the\ndevil's bride. When he used stronger language he denounced reason as\na whore. He had no use for the universities, and prayed to see them\npulverized. More than once he boasted openly that there was not a dogma\nof Christianity that did not offend human reason. But what is human\nreason worth? What is it but, as Mrs. Eddy would reply, \"mortal mind\"?\nThe founder of Christian Science showed even less respect for human\nintellect than did the reformers of the sixteenth century.\n\nThe words of Erasmus, the distinguished scholar of Holland, \"The triumph\nof the Lutherans is the death of good learning,\" could also be said\nof the followers of Mrs. Eddy. The cause of culture, of intellectual\nachievements, of discovery, of political and physical advancement, is\nsure to be, and is, neglected by people who are too eager to demonstrate\nthe wonders of metaphysics. Any movement which does not include the\nentire field of human knowledge is bound to be both narrow and sterile.\nGoethe believed that the Lutheran doctrine, which confined the world\nto one book, upon the meaning of which no two interpreters agreed,\npostponed the emancipation of the human intellect for a thousand years.\nLuther led the world out of the Catholic darkness into the Protestant\nfog. Of Mrs. Eddy it could be said that she has brought her people out\nof the land of Egypt into a pathless wilderness.\n\n\n\n\nThe Menace of Christian Science\n\n|Imagine again what would happen to our educational system if it were to\npass under the control of Mrs. Eddy's party. The majority of studies\nnow pursued would be eliminated from the course. No Christian Scientist\nwould see the need of knowing anything about physiology, anatomy,\nchemistry, biology, botany, geology, or any of the fundamental physical\nsciences. To teach these would be an admission of the reality of the\nmaterial universe and a denial of the doctrine that all is illusion and\nerror except \"Divine\" mind. But what would become of a nation reared\nin ignorance of the physical world and the laws which govern it?\nIndustrially such a nation must slip to the bottom of the line, leaving\nthe commerce of the world in the hands of those who study and master\nthe physical sciences. The Eddyites would not care, since they are not\ninterested in the material life, and would be glad to demonstrate that\nit is possible to maintain life without food, as it is possible to\nmaintain generation without sex.\n\nWith the Christian Science dogma in force, every book out of harmony\nwith it would be excluded from our public libraries. Think you a\nChristian Science librarian, if free to do as he thought best, would\npermit the reading of books filled with \"mortal error,\" the cause of\ndisease and death, and thereby postpone the coming of the kingdom of\nMrs. Eddy? If to-day you can scarcely find a Christian Scientist who\nwill read or hear anything opposed to his creed, and if at present\nChristian Scientists allow in their churches only two books--the Bible\nand the works of Mrs. Eddy--are they going to allow more than two books\nin our schools, libraries, and homes, should they acquire control of the\ngovernment? People think that Eddyism is only a sort of drugless cure\nand no more; on the contrary, Eddyism, with its overemphasis on the\n_divine_ is the sworn foe of everything human. Huxley has well said that\nmodern civilization rests upon physical science. \"Take away her gifts,\nand our country's position among the civilized nations of the world\nis gone to-morrow. It is physical science that makes intelligence\nand morality stronger than brute force.\" How splendidly true, and how\nrefreshing is common sense after so much nonsense!\n\nThe physical sciences are not the only studies which Christian\nScientists will suppress should they come into power. History, ethics,\nand the humanities will also be forbidden. To a Christian Scientist the\nhistory of the centuries before Mrs. Eddy's discovery is summed up\nin one word--error. No Christian Scientist will teach the history of\nerror--of illusion and \"mortal mind.\" Even the late World War was to\nthem only an unreality. There was, according to Mrs. Eddy's followers,\nno war at all, for war means disharmony, and in God's universe there is\nroom only for harmony. It is true that young men of this faith went\nto war, and some of them, unfortunately, were killed in battle.\nNevertheless, no Christian Scientist could be conscious of anything but\nharmony, and therefore no Christian Scientist logically could write\nof the War or of any event in history which would necessitate the\nrecognition of evil. God himself, who is perfect harmony, did not know\nthere was a war in Europe, said the committee on Christian Science\npublications in explaining the attitude of their Church on the War.\n\n\n\n\nChristian Science and Morals\n\n|Morality, too, as a scientific study, will be banished from the schools\nunder Eddyism. In the Infinite there is no more room for sin than there\nis for disease, and, since man is but the image of the Infinite, he is\nas free from sin as he is from disease. Mrs. Eddy practically denies the\npossibility of sin in Christian Science.\n\nAt the age of fifty-six, on January 1, 1877, Mrs. Eddy contracted a new\nmarriage, this time with Mr. Asa G. Eddy, giving her age as forty, as\nshown by her marriage licence. With a gesture Mrs. Eddy swept aside the\ncharge that she had suppressed the truth about her age, and justified\nthe misrepresentation on metaphysical grounds. In her _Science and\nHealth_, pp. 245-6, she asserts that a woman could not age while\nbelieving herself to be young. Eternity, according to her, has nothing\nto do with chronology, and \"time-tables of birth and death are so many\nconspiracies against manhood and womanhood.\"\n\n\"Never record ages,\" she advises. But if it makes no difference to a\nChristian Scientist how old or how young she is, so far as the number of\nyears is concerned, why did Mrs. Eddy under-state her age? In pretending\nto be younger than she really was did she not show her fear of advancing\nyears? Perhaps Mrs. Eddy also believed that _truth_ as well as _time_\nhad lost all claims upon Christian Scientists. To change a lie into a\ntruth, all that is necessary is to deny that \"time-tables and calendars\"\nhave any meaning to the believer in eternity.\n\nOne could even commit murder and deny that a bullet or a knife could\npossibly deprive a man, who is _all mind_, of his life. Mrs. Eddy and\nher book, I suppose, will be about all the protection we shall have\nagainst the lightning, the storm, or the cold, or against hunger,\nignorance, and crime. It is not difficult to imagine the kind of world\nthis would be when stripped of everything but Mrs. Eddy's \"inspired\"\nmetaphysics.\n\nIn the State of Washington the Christian Scientists, as soon as they\nhad acquired sufficient political power to do it, abolished the law\nrequiring the medical inspection of children in the public schools.\nBut who will be the greatest sufferers from this foolish ordinance?\nThe children, of course: the pupils afflicted with defective vision\nor throat and nose maladies will be deprived of the benefits of human\nknowledge and experience. Their prayer for better sight, for freer\nbreathing and unhampered speech, will remain unheeded, upon the plea\nthat sight, hearing, and speech are of the Mind, and that bodily\nobstructions cannot interfere with them. The Washington state law\nabolishing the physical examination of public-school children gives us\nan idea of what to expect under a metaphysical government.\n\nAnd under Christian Science who, for example, will care for the deaf and\ndumb unfortunates in the community? Material science, seconded by human\nsympathy, has greatly helped to rob deafness and dumbness of more of\ntheir power to discourage and depress. I have met deaf people who\nwere so well trained to read the movement of the lips as to be able to\nconverse freely. What will Christian Science do for these unfortunates?\nHas it ever taken thought of them? And has Christian Science ever\nplanned or built homes for crippled children--the poor little ones who\ncannot walk or move without pain? And what has metaphysics ever done in\nthe fight against the white plague? Has it made a single discovery, or\ngiven a new weapon to man against any of the evils human flesh is heir\nto? With this Asiatic superstition or fatalistic belief, masquerading as\nChristian and scientific, in control of our institutions, all sanitary\nlaws, such as the pure food law, the law requiring the fumigation of\nhouses or the isolation of their inmates suffering from contagious\ndiseases, the laws requiring the inspection of ships from plague-ridden\nports, those requiring fireproof public buildings or providing for fire\nescapes and a hundred other safety-first measures, will receive scant\nattention.\n\nTo see and fight evil is wiser than to shut our eyes to it. The rose is\nno more real than the thorns which guard it. The tear is as natural as\nthe smile, and equally divine. To be able to suffer for those we love,\nand for a cause we prize, is a privilege.\n\nChristian Science robs people of the feeling of sympathy, without which\nman and marble become alike. But sympathy is born of the consciousness\nthat there are pain and suffering, evil and error, in the world.\nCognizance of evil is not permitted to a Christian Scientist. Being in\nNirvana himself, the disciple of Mrs. Eddy neither sees nor feels, or\nat least he pretends not to see or feel, the sorrow that draws the tear.\nAre there not times when, as the poet Hood in his _Ode to Melancholy_\nsays, the genuine tear is nobler than the artificial smile?\n\n          Oh, give her, then, her tribute just,\n\n          Her sighs and tears and musings holy!\n\n          There is no music in the life\n\n          That sounds with idiot laughter solely.\n\n\"Christian Science makes people happy\" is an argument often advanced.\nNo doubt it does. But we are not discussing \"Is Christian Science\nComforting?\" but \"Is it true?\" Ignorance is bliss, it has been said;\nbut does that prove that ignorance should be cultivated and knowledge\nsuppressed?\n\nI met a young woman just the day before her mother's funeral who behaved\nas if she and the woman who had borne her, nursed her, carried her in\nher arms, who had watched day and night over her cradle and risked her\nlife for her a hundred times, were total strangers. The young woman was\na Christian Scientist. Eliminate the sympathy which consciousness of a\nstruggling and suffering world inspires, and art, literature, poetry,\nmorality, and the humanities wither like a branch deprived of the\nquickening sap.\n\nJesus was called the man of sorrows. Could he have been a Christian\nScientist?\n\n\"Jesus wept\" is written in the Gospel of John. Sorrow and tears are\nheresies to the perpetually smiling followers of Mrs. Eddy.\n\nLet us have men and women who fear neither the thorn nor the tear, but\nwho use them as stepping-stones to greater strength. The way to meet\nevil is to grapple with it soldier-like. Man is not an ostrich, and\nburying one's head in the sand is a coward's policy.\n\nTo live is to act, and to act is to combat.\n\nBut darkness cannot be overcome with jargon. To conquer we need the\nweapons of Prometheus--knowledge and courage!","title":"What Is Christian Science?","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":18625}