The man in the street probably imagines that taking the name of God in vain is a mere matter of bad language. He would sum it up in a question of blasphemy. As a matter of fact, the common idea of blasphemy is only the very edge of the matter. It is about included in what Christ Jesus said of the term "raca." That is to say, it is an indication of what taking the name of the Lord in vain may amount to, rather than anything else. Jesus' instance was admirable for his purpose; he took the word "raca," probably a common expletive of the fishermen and shepherds about him, the use of which had been forbidden by the Sanhedrin, and pointed out to his listeners that any one who was heard saying it would be in danger of the council, this same Sanhedrin. But, he went on to declare, anybody who said "Thou fool!" to his neighbor was in danger of hell fire itself. This fire of Gehenna, in the valley where the refuse of the city was destroyed was, of course, merely a figurative term of final punishment. What Jesus was pointing out was that the selection of some definite word as a sort of test of blasphemy was ridiculous. Blasphemy was contained not in a word but in the mental intent, and therefore the man who took the name of the Lord most in vain, was the man who most disregarded Principle. The use of "raca" as a mere common expletive, rather as a habit than by reason of anything else, was as nothing compared to the accentuated malice which might be concentrated in the exclamation "Thou fool!" The taking of the name of God in vain is the equivalent to making nothing of Principle. Therefore blasphemy is really something very different from the futile and foolish use of specific words, it is contained in a man's whole mental attitude in life toward Principle. Every act and thought which makes nothing of Principle is blasphemy in itself, and it gains in wickedness according to the fellness of the intent. The height of blasphemy is, necessarily, that condition of malicious animal magnetism referred to by Mrs. Eddy on page 564 of Science and Health, where she says, "As of old, evil still charges the spiritual idea with error's own nature and methods. This malicious animal instinct, of which the dragon is the type, incites mortals to kill morally and physically even their fellow-mortals and worse still, to charge the innocent with the crime. This last infirmity of sin will sink its perpetrator into a night without a star." Any effort, however, to belittle Principle constitutes blasphemy, and that is why it is so essential to the individual to guard his own thoughts. Words, after all, are a minor issue. They are the result of thought, and never could slip out even in the grossest habitude of indifference, were it not that the human mind has been permitted an unrestrained license which necessarily ends in an excess of language. "For out of the heart," Jesus said, "proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man."

Jesus was speaking of the various Jewish customs, with the various Jewish precautions against defilement, and was pointing out that the mere failure to wash the hands before eating was not a true cause of defilement. As a matter of fact, it was very much on a par with the use of the word "raca." It was the washing of the outside of the platter whilst letting the inside go dirty. Real defilement, he insisted, was what came out of the heart of man. Ultimately, then, blasphemy is in thought, it need never take form in words. It is the idea of the individual that he is able to ignore Principle, it is the feeling of the individual that he is willing to ignore Principle, which constitutes fundamental blasphemy. Not until the individual has deliberately permitted himself to think contrary to Principle, and enjoyed this process of thought, is it possible for him to give outward expression to blasphemy in word or deed. Consequently, when the Third Commandment insisted, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain," it really laid down a terrific demand of acceptance of Principle which has obtained the faintest moonshine of obedience in the avoidance of specific words such as "raca."

It is easy to see, then, why, on page 392 of Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy wrote, "Stand porter at the door of thought." It is absolutely essential to man's progress in any way that he should take this advice. There is a great deal more in Shakespeare's famous saying. "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so," than even he was fully aware of. There is, as a matter of fact, nothing at all of man but thought. The real man is the idea of divine Mind, the physical man the idea of mortal mind. It is, in each case, divine Mind or mortal mind which is the parent, and so there is nothing good or bad except the reality which divine Mind makes good, or the supposititious counterfeit which mortal mind makes evil. The human being is nothing more nor less than the product of hypnotic suggestion, and the only thing which at any time saves him from himself by causing him to struggle to put off the old man with his works, and to put of the new man, is the eternal fact of his actual spiritual reality which can never be hidden or destroyed. Therefore, a man standing porter at the door of thought is battling with the perpetual stream of hypnotic suggestion which is endeavoring to pass into his consciousness, and striving to accept nothing but spiritual Truth. Ultimately, then, it comes to this, that every suggestion of animal magnetism, every idea, that is to say, which is not spiritual, is taking the name of Principle in vain. As a consequence, the man who attempts to keep the Third Commandment must live in the perpetual effort so to stand porter at the door of thought as to reject, so far as he may, every suggestion of mortal mind which tells him anything exists but the image and likeness of God.