walk
across the room, we shall be rudely stopped by the brick wall at the
opposite end when we come to it. No matter how strongly we believe that
such a wall does not exist, it does, nevertheless, stop us; we have to
live _as if_ it existed. And, just so, it seems to me; no matter how
strongly we may believe that the body does not exist, we always have to
live and act _as if_ it existed--so long, at least, as we live in and
inhabit the body at all.

Christian Science says that hygiene, diet, etc., are unimportant factors
in the cure of disease. They "do not count." Apart from the immediate,
practical disproof which cases of blood-poisoning, etc., would offer to
such a theory, it may also be disproved theoretically. For if it be
unnecessary, e.g., to fast during illness--if food is a negligible
quantity and can be left out of account--why do Christian Scientists
ever eat at all? If food is unimportant in one case, it must be in the
other case also. And if it be replied to this, as it is, that the only
reason for food is because the Christian Scientists are not yet
sufficiently "advanced" and have not yet sufficient "enlightenment" to
do without it; then, I reply, by the same logic they are not as yet
sufficiently advanced, and have not as yet sufficient knowledge to treat
all cases of accident and disease, which, in point of fact, they do
treat. If the limitation be acknowledged in one direction, it must be
acknowledged in the other direction also. Christian Scientists cannot
yet live without food because they have not yet sufficiently "perfected"
themselves. So, in like manner, they should not treat many cases of
disease they do treat because they have not yet sufficiently "perfected"
themselves.

I might advance arguments such as the above to fill many pages. But I do
not think it necessary. As a cure for certain functional diseases, for
nervous disorders, and for many of the affections of the mind, mental
methods of treatment must be acknowledged to be a great and a most
important factor. But when an organic lesion is present, in grave states
demanding immediate attention, I think it little short of criminal that
such states should meet with almost total neglect because of the
perverted ideas of physiology and a sickly sentimentalism illogically
extended from the philosophical doctrine of idealism. As a metaphysical
doctrine, it may be correct; as a basis for medical practice, it is
certainly incorrect. Let us once