see, are unreal. Therefore, to do this thing is to give ourselves up to unreality and to forsake reality. That is, it is turning away from the light of day and going into the shades of night. It is not good logic, she thinks, for one unreality to consume another smaller unreality.
Very well, but she should reason the same way about swallowing any other piece of materiality. Mrs. Eddy should have continued the application of her logic and advised us thus: “My little children, bread is unreal and your body is unreal. It is not necessary for one unreality to chew up and swallow down another unreality or for one shadow to consume another shadow. The whole physical performance is a delusion of the flesh and the very thought of it jars us out of harmony with the universe of reality. So from henceforth eat nothing. The spirit should dominate the body, not the body the spirit.” But who ever heard of a Christian Scientist fasting? They have to swallow down as much unreality of this kind as the rest of us do, and seem to enjoy it equally as well. It has never been claimed for the founder of Christian Science, so far as I am aware, that she failed to pay her respects daily to the materiality of food.
Finally, consider the psychology involved in the rejection of the Lord's Supper. It is using the physical to suggest the spiritual. It is using error to teach truth. With flourishing rhetoric and empty profoundness, Mrs. Eddy says: “If we array thought in mortal vestures, it must lose
