Eddyism is no more Christian than it is scientific. Between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Boston lady there are irreconcilable differences.

It is the claim of practitioners in Christian Science that they are following the example and applying the method of the founder of Christianity in the healing of the sick. This is one of the "telling" arguments used by Christian Science lecturers in their appeals for converts. But if it can be shown that the method of Jesus was in many respects radically different from that prescribed by Mrs. Eddy, the claim that her religion is founded upon the teachings and practice of Jesus falls to the ground. In a pamphlet issued by the Christian Science Publication Society and copyrighted we read as follows; "Jesus proved for all time and for all Christendom that the origin of disease was mental, and He healed it with mental medicine." Can that statement be squared with the practice of Jesus as we find it described in the Gospels? The evangelist St. John relates the cure of the man born blind as follows: "When he [Jesus] had thus spoken, He spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle, and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay and said unto him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.'" Is that the Christian Science way of healing the sick? Do Christian Scientists use clay or spittle? Do they "anoint" the sick with salve of any kind? Do they counsel bathing or washing for curative purposes?

Moreover, Jesus, in reply to the question of His apostles as to the cause of the man's blindness, clearly states that the origin of this man's disease was not in human error or mentality:—

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (John ix, 2-3.)

The meaning of this text is that the man was born blind, not as a punishment for his or his parents' sin, nor because of mortal mind, but that through him God may be glorified. Could that text be quoted to show that blindness is a "mental" disease caused by unbelief or selfishness? or could it be quoted to prove that the man was not born blind, but only thought he was blind? Where is the evidence, then, that "Jesus proved for all time and for all Christendom that 'disease was caused by mortal mind,' and that 'mental medicine' was the only remedy he used?"

Was Jesus in the habit of using words to mislead his hearers, of saying things the real meaning of which would remain hidden for nearly twenty centuries—until Mrs. Eddy could place her key (from three to six dollars a key) upon the market?

The evangelist St. Mark gives another instance of Jesus's method of healing which is again totally different from Mrs. Eddy's:—

And they bring unto him one that was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.

And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit and touched his tongue.

Will the Christian Science healers explain the functions of the "hand," the "fingers," and the "spit" in "mental medicine"? If it be answered that Jesus resorted to material means to illustrate the power of the spirit, etc., it would follow that material means may be used to advantage, and that there is no such feud between matter and mind as the Eddyites proclaim.

Many other texts could be quoted to show that Jesus used material means. He touched the bier, he laid his hands on the patient, which is the kind of manipulation vehemently denounced by Mrs. Eddy in her comments on mesmerism. The "touch" so frequent in the miracles performed by Jesus is downright heresy in Mrs. Eddy's system of healing.

Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto him; and he laid his hands on every one of them. (Luke iv, 40.)

Again, Jesus recommends to his disciples dieting by way of abstinence from food—that is, fasting—for the healing of obstinate diseases. Evidently he believed that dieting increased one's healing power.

In the same pamphlet published and copyrighted by the Christian Science Publication Society, the author, William R. Rathbon, member of the Board of Lectureship of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, writes: "He [Jesus] gave himself no concern about physical symptoms... He cared little about what the sick man had been eating, but much about what he had been thinking." In the New Testament, however, nearly every patient's symptoms are described, to which Jesus listened without a word of protest and with apparent consent. Had the evangelists believed, as the Christian Science lecturers teach, that disease is purely mental, they would not have gone into details in describing physical symptoms.

"And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years" (Mark v, 25.) Does not that describe the nature and duration, as well as the physical effects, of the woman's disease?

"Lord, have mercy upon my son, for he is a lunatic" (Matt, xvii, 15).

"And one of the multitude said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son"; and then the father proceeds to describe the symptoms of his son's malady: "He foameth and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away" (Mark ix, 17).

In all these cases there was not a word of rebuke from the great healer because of the symptoms described.

Jesus himself, on one occasion, asked for certain physical details before proceeding to heal the patient:—And he [Jesus] asked his father [the father of the sick youth], How long is it ago since this came unto him? (Mark ix, 21.)

What difference did it make when or how the disease was contracted if it is true that "Jesus proved for all time and for all Christendom that the origin of disease was mental, and he healed it with mental medicine"? Perhaps the motive for representing Jesus as indifferent to the physical condition of his patient is to excuse the Christian Science practitioner for his ignorance of the human body and his contempt for physical science.

But the most irreconcilable difference between Jesus Christ and Mary Baker Eddy is in the spirit in which they performed their miracles. Jesus does not appear to have had any financial schemes in his head. He tells his followers to give freely the power which they have themselves freely received. The idea of taking money for a cure, or charging a large sum for the purpose of encouraging appreciation for his gifts, would have shocked the Jesus of the Gospels. The mere suggestion that some day a woman would copyright and commercialize this "divine power" would have made him indignant beyond expression. It is impossible to believe that the Jesus who said, "Get you no gold, no silver, nor brass, neither two coats, nor shoes," and also, "Freely ye received, freely give," could have the remotest sympathy with a woman who not only sells what she calls "the power of God," but has also secured by legal procedure "a corner" on it. Mrs. Eddy's religion, then, is no more Christian than it is scientific. Had she been dealing in food products instead of in religion, the use of a false label would have made her liable to prosecution.