its immortal nature.”[1] The great question of psychology herein involved will be taken up later. Here it is desired only to give a passing notice to the subject, and to remark that if this kind of reasoning is correct then all teaching by object-lessons is wrong, for it is imparting ideas by means of the visual sense, that is, it is imparting the spiritual by means of the physical, or stating truth by means of error, as Mrs. Eddy argues.[2]
But do Christian Scientists reject the principle of teaching by object-lessons? Not when it is inconvenient. For example, Mrs. Eddy has permitted her pictures to be scattered everywhere. Plotinus scorned such a thing and was consistent. When one wanted him to sit for his likeness to be taken, he declined, giving for himself and all his followers a satisfactory reason: “As if (said he) it was not sufficient to bear this image (the body) with which nature has surrounded us, you think that a more lasting image (bodily likeness) of this image should be left as a work worthy to be inspected.”[3] What splendid philosophy! How beautifully consistent! Why Mrs. Eddy did not stand firm with her master on the same spiritual pinnacle but fell off and down into materiality in permitting her image to be reproduced may be explained in two ways. It may have been on account of feminine vanity, a materiality which was not fully overcome by her spirituality. The bet-
- ↑ S. and H. p. 260.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 126.
- ↑ Select Works of Plotinus. p. XLIV.
