Mrs. Eddy did not pay the mortgage. She did not give back the land to the church. What she did was quite other than what she says she did. Through her agents, she took an assignment of the mortgage for the balance of five thousand dollars due upon it, foreclosed it, crowded out all of the original contributors, members of the Church of Christ, Scientist, acquired the title herself, and gave it to trustees for a new organization, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, reserving to herself a right to re-enter and repossess herself of the land with any church that might be constructed upon it. And this cost Mrs. Eddy five thousand dollars, not forty thousand, as she would have us understand, and as Mr. Farlow has represented; nor even twenty thousand, as the more modest Hanna intimates. Real-estate men in Boston would wonder how it was possible for Mrs. Eddy legally to acquire, for the sum of five thousand dollars, by the proper foreclosure of a mortgage, property upon which Mr. Nathan Matthews had been willing to lend nine thousand dollars. Indeed, it is remarkable that Mrs. Eddy should, at an open foreclosure sale, have been able to buy for five thousand dollars a property hundreds of men in the city of Boston would have been only too glad to have paid, at the time, upwards of ten thousand dollars for. Was this foreclosure regular, or was it fraudulent, as were so many of Mrs. Eddy’s transactions? To one who has delved into her methods, as I have, it would seem as if everything that she touched became tainted with fraud or false pretense; and it is simply incredible that here in the city of Boston, after due advertisement, and at a legal public auction, a piece of real estate could be purchased for but little more than half the money so sagacious an investor as Mr. Matthews was willing to lend upon it. And what of the owners of the equity in this land, who were Mrs. Eddy’s own friends and followers, and whom she thus despoiled? They had contributed about $7,000 and were left nothing, while Mrs. Eddy for $5,000 acquired all. Mrs. Eddy, herself, says, “the property was transferred in a circuitous and novel way, the wisdom of which a few persons have since scrupled,” and that her intent, while “spiritually inalienable,” was “materially questionable.” It is interesting to note that the instruments employed by Mrs. Eddy for the executing of the “materially questionable” transaction were two Boston lawyers who have since been disbarred. Again, in the _Christian Science Journal_ for February, 1898, is an editorial statement, evidently prepared by Editor Hanna under Mrs. Eddy’s direction, in which an effort is made to meet the criticism upon Mrs. Eddy’s mercenary methods, he refers to three instances which he calls “evidences of a generosity and self-sacrifice that appeal to our deepest sense of gratitude, even while surpassing our comprehension.” Now, what are these evidences of this extraordinary “generosity and self-sacrifice”?