vor to explain her life, and
as her life grew better, stronger and more refined, she changed her
book. Her book reacted on her life, and the person who got the most good
out of "Science and Health" was Mary Baker Eddy herself.

"Science and Health" is mystical and beautifully human. The author's oar
often fails to catch the water. For instance, she tries to show that
animal magnetism, spiritualism, mental science, theosophy, agnosticism,
pantheism and infidelity are all bad things and opposed to the science
of "true being."

This statement presupposes that animal magnetism, infidelity, theosophy
and agnosticism are specific entities or things, whereas they are only
labels that are clapped quite indiscriminately on empty casks or full
ones; and the contents of the casks may be sea-water or wine, and are
really unknown to both mortal and divine mind, whatever these things
are. Theosophists like Annie Besant, Spiritualists like Alfred Russel
Wallace, Agnostics like Huxley and Ingersoll, are very noble and
beautiful people. They are good neighbors and useful citizens.

"Science and Health" is an attempt to catch and hold in words the
secrets of an active, honest, healthful, seeking, restless, earnest
life, and as such is more or less of a failure.

Our actions are right, but our reasons seldom are.

Christian Science as a plan of life, embodying the great yet simple
virtues, is beautiful. "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures"
does not explain the Scriptures. The book, as an attempt to explain and
crystallize truth, is a failure. It ranks with that great mass of
literature, written and copied at such vast pains and expense, bearing
the high-sounding title, "Writings of the Saints."

* * * * *

All publishers are familiar with inspired manuscripts. Such work always
has one thing in common--unintelligibility. Good literature is lucid to
the average mind. In fact, that is its distinguishing feature. We
understand what the man means. No able writer uses the same word over
and over with varying sense. Alfred Henry Lewis and William Marion Reedy
use the mortal mind, and their work is understandable. You can sit in
judgment on their conclusions and weigh, sift and decide for yourself.
They make an appeal to your intellect.

But you can not sit in judgment on "Science and Health," because its
language is not the language we use in our common, every-day intercourse
with one another. I