On the fly-leaf of Mrs. Eddy's now "famous" book appears this quotation from Shakespeare: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." This is given a place of honour in her book because it is supposed to prove the truth of Christian Science. But a wee bit of clear thinking or of the power of analysis would have helped Mrs. Eddy to see that her opening quotation completely destroys all that she advocates in the rest of her book. The doctrine of Mrs. Eddy is that all is God; that God or the good alone exists, and that evil, etc., is mere illusion. According to her teaching, sickness, sin, and death do not exist except for those who believe in them. The only reality is God or goodness. But the text from Shakespeare which she so prominently displays upon her banners denies God or goodness, just as effectually as it does evil and the devil. "There is nothing—," says the great poet. Mark that, Christian Scientists! Is that any text to quote to prove that there is truth, and there is goodness, and there is God? "There is nothing either good"—Pause again: Are Mrs. Eddy's troops of voiceless followers willing to subscribe to that statement? If Shakespeare, Mrs. Eddy's authority, is right, the good is as illusory as the bad, for he says plainly that "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so," which should make God, goodness, health, and truth as much an unreality as sickness or sin.

Moreover, the Shakespearean argument makes man the creator of both the good and the evil in the world, since it is his thinking which determines the nature of things. Mrs. Eddy, on the contrary, maintains that man is merely a reflection of the Deity, who alone exists and is the only reality. It must have been the greatness of Shakespeare's name which tempted Mrs. Eddy to quote from him on the very first page of her book. But metaphysical arguments are like balloons: the bladders burst, and nothing remains.

In order to prove that all disease is mental, the following argument is frequently used. I shall give it precisely as I find it in Christian Science: Its Results (p. 14; copyright, 1918, by the Christian Science Publication Society):—If, then, it is considered that the state of mind may disturb the secretions, causing the tears to flow; or that the state of mind may quicken the action of the heart, causing the blood to rush to the face or away from it; or if the state of mind can affect the organs of the throat, causing huskiness, then it is plain that the state of mind may be held accountable for other derangements of the organs of secretion, of circulation, and of speech. And if of these, why not of other organs of the body?

It is not denied that mental conditions often become manifest in their effects upon the body. But, first, what produces these mental conditions? The Eddyites do not seem to care to penetrate into that question at all. Is it not true that in the majority of cases it is some physical or material cause which has either depressed or exalted the mind—brought tears to the eyes or dried them? The sight of a sudden and terrible accident to a child while crossing the street will, for the moment, rob onlookers of their power of speech, blanch their cheeks and daze them beyond the ability to move or to think. In the same way, the news that a dear son has been gassed or killed in battle will change a happy home into a house of mourning, depriving its inmates of sleep and appetite. On the other hand, the unexpected discovery of a vein of gold on one's farm will exhilarate the mind and banish a hundred fears. These mental moods have physical causes. Just as heat passes into motion and motion again into heat, material events produce mental moods; and these mental moods resolve themselves once more into physical manifestations, such as laughter or tears.

The Christian Scientist observes accurately enough that depression and discouragement cause sickness, but he is too impatient to learn that these mental states are often the result of bad circulation or mal-assimilation of food. Lack of fresh air, defective vision, or a dull but constant physical pain very often lowers the mental tone, proving thereby the interdependence of mind and matter.

The lecturer from whose pamphlet I have quoted realizes "that salt water will flow from the eyes if he is subjected to great grief," and "that the state of mind may disturb the secretions, causing the tears to flow," and concludes therefrom that "dyspepsia and all other bodily diseases and derangements" should be treated "with truth rather than with tabloids and powders." But what if the secretions are disturbed by purely physical causes? A child cries for something to eat, and not from unbelief or fear, which are supposed to be purely mental states; and a piece of cake will relieve his hunger and dry his tears. A splinter in the eye will provoke tears, as will also a sharp, cold wind; the removal of the one, and protection from the other, will immediately dry the eyes. Peeling onions starts the secretions. Do onions come under the class of mental causes?

Let me give another illustration. Wishing to prove that the material world is an illusion of the senses, Mrs. Eddy tells us that on a wet day, when there is a downpour of rain, and when mist and fog shroud land and sea, we can easily assure ourselves that our senses are not telling us the truth, that the weather is really fine, by consulting a barometer, which in the midst of cloud and rain points to clear weather. What shall we think of the mentality of a woman who appeals to a barometer to prove that matter does not exist? If Mrs. Eddy had not suddenly stopped thinking, she would have seen that if our senses betray us when they report wet weather, neither would we have any assurance that what they say about the barometer is dependable. Does she think that our senses are not trustworthy except when they refer us to the barometer?

Inconsistent thinking is often also responsible for inconsistency in conduct. The Christian Scientist, for example, objects to the physician, but patronizes the dentist. Yet dental surgery is not different from medicine, but is one of its many branches. It is by the science of medicine that the trouble in the body is located, diagnosed, and remedied by the knife, if it cannot be by medication. Besides, the wound or incision is treated medicinally, which requires medical knowledge on the part of the surgeon, just as it does on the part of the regular physician. Can a dentist practise surgery without a knowledge of the human anatomy—that is to say, of how many bones and muscles there are in the body, where the nerves are located, to what sort of treatment they will respond, and to what laws of growth and decay they are subject? Does he not treat an abscess or receding gums with medicine? And does this not require a knowledge of medicine which to Christian Scientists is nothing but "error"? Why do not these people invite a novice or their cooks or barbers to work on their teeth if a knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and medicine is not necessary to make a man a good dentist? The mere fact that Christian Scientists will not allow any one but a man with a diploma from a dental college to attend to their teeth proves conclusively that they regard a knowledge of medicine just as necessary as we do—only we admit it frankly, and they deny it foolishly. If the Christian Scientists have not progressed sufficiently to demonstrate against surgery, they should at least be grateful to us for taking care of their needs in the meantime, and help support the physical sciences until they are able to dispense with them.

In her Science and Health Mrs. Eddy ridicules those who think that vegetation or flowers can cause sickness, or that there can be such a thing as a "rose cold."

"The rose," she writes, "is the smile of God," and to accuse it of producing fevers or colds is to make God the author of disease. This is strange reasoning. If the rose represents "the smile of God," what do the bugs and crawling insects on its petals represent? And whose smile are its thorns which prick x and draw blood? Further, if a rose, a material flower, can represent the "Divine" smile, why may not other equally material things have a mission in life—such as representing and imparting health? If the Deity can use the rose to reveal his smile, why may he not use herbs or minerals for curative purposes? Why may not soap and water, cleanliness, fresh air, temperance in food and drink and exercise, have as useful a purpose in the "Divine" economy of things as the rose?

On p. 488 of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy writes:—Christian Science sustains with immortal proof the impossibility of any material sense, and defines these so-called senses as mortal beliefs, the testimony of which cannot be true. Nerves have no more sensation, apart from what belief bestows upon them, than the fibres of a plant.

In the above, as also in innumerable other passages, the founder of Christian Science advises her readers to deny the testimony of their senses. They are urged to deny "that matter can ache, swell, and be inflamed." Never mind the witness of our senses; "bones cannot break, nerves cannot feel, the nose cannot smell, and the eyes cannot see." But did she stop to think where such advice would carry us?

I smell something burning in the kitchen or in the basement; but no, the senses lie. There is nothing burning; there is nothing to burn. I feel and see smoke filling the room. I can hardly breathe; but no, the senses are "a fraud." There is no smoke in the room, and I am not choking; for has not Mrs. Eddy demonstrated with "immortal proof" that "corporeal senses defraud and lie," and that they are "the only source of evil or error" (pp. 488 and 489)? If the infant is crying in the nursery because it has fallen from its cradle, or because it has stumbled into the fire, there is no need to rush for help, because the report of our senses that the child is in danger is a lie. "Christian Science shows them [our senses] to be false" (p. 489). Fortunate it is that not many parents are consistent Christian Scientists.

It is said that Christian Science does not deal with man as he appears, but man as he is—"unborn and undying." Very well; is what Mrs. Eddy and her followers write or say about "man unborn and undying" debatable or un-debatable? If debatable, we have a right to ask the Eddyites to conform to the canons of human reason; but if Christian Science is non-debatable—that is, if it cannot be understood by such minds as we possess, then why write or talk about it at all?