Return to Home page of MBESIAbout The Mary Baker Eddy Science InstituteRead Mary Baker Eddy's Books Online!Read Christian Science Books Online!Read Christian Science Books Online!Browse the Books In Print Section of our siteRead Christian Science Articles onlineEl Instituto de Ciencia Mary Baker Eddy

Chapter V – Science and Health Copyright "Act" 1971

Click here to download to your computer or print

When needed tell the truth concerning the lie. Correct the false with the true-then leave the latter to propagate.

Expose and denounce the claims of evil.

Withhold not the rebuke or explanation which destroys error.

Mary Baker Eddy.

Justice also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place--Isaiah 28:17

THE last document under discussion is the Copyright "Act" on Science and Health passed by Congress in 1971. This copyright action was a private bill introduced into the Senate. It was called "An Act for the relief of Clayton Bion Craig, Arthur P. Wirth, Mrs. Lenore D. Hanks, David E. Sleeper, and DeWitt John:" These five named persons were the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors. This private copyright bill was numbered S. 1866. It has no connection with the revised copyright law which took effect January 1, 1978.

Testimony of various witnesses before Subcommittee No. 3, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on S. 1866, can be read in the Appendix (see p. 255).

It is illuminating to read Mrs. Eddy's comments regarding copyright:

Christian Science is not copyrighted; nor would protection by copyright be requisite, if mortals obeyed God's law of manright. A student can write voluminous works on Science without trespassing, if he writes honestly, and he cannot dishonestly compose Christian Science. The Bible is not stolen though it is cited, and quoted deferentially.

To understand the situation it is necessary to go back to the time of Mrs. Eddy's passing. Mrs. Eddy in her Will had left a large portion of her estate to "the church, to be used for "the promotion and extension of the Science taught by [her]. " The five-member Board of Directors (whose office as Directors had actually been terminated by the estoppel clauses in the Church Manual, as we have seen) sued to gain control of this money. Around 1913 the Court awarded them custody of these funds, and thus the Board of Directors also became known as the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy. This is how the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy came into being. The Court, of course, did not realize that through her estoppel clauses in the Church Manual Mrs. Eddy had terminated this Board of Directors.

In 1916 the Board of Directors began the policy of "authorizing literature. " This was a powerful tool in molding church-member opinion in conformity with the convictions of those in authority in Boston. It was a move that stifled growth, understanding, and inspiration.

The next important move of the Board of Directors came in 1919 when they launched a concerted campaign to take over the communications arm of the Movement, the Christian Science Publishing Society. This they accomplished by means of a protracted legal battle, which was covered in Chapter IV


In 1934 the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors moved to get the copyright on Science and Health out of Mrs. Eddy's name and into their own through the renewal of the 1906 edition of Science and Health. This caused a great stir in the Christian Science Field since most Christian Scientists felt Mrs. Eddy wanted Science and Health to be in the public domain at the earliest possible time and she had made no provision for the 1906 copyright renewal, nor had she copyrighted the vital changes made in her last fourteen editions. To give the copyright on Mrs. Eddy's great work, Science and Health, to five individuals in Boston seemed a grave injustice to Mrs. Eddy.

Attorneys familiar with the case felt that as Mrs. Eddy had made no provision to pass on these copyrights, or for the renewal of the still-existing 1906 copyright, it was clearly her intention to let that copyright lapse.

Attorneys also contended that the renewal of the 1906 copyright in 1934 was illegally obtained because under copyright law at that time the only one who could renew a copyright was the originator of the work, meaning in this case, Mary Baker Eddy herself, or the executor of her estate, Mr. Fernald. Mr. Fernald had passed on prior to 1934. In his place Boston appointed an "administrator ." They could not appoint an executor since only the person who initially takes the responsibility of resolving an individual's estate can be termed an "executor." Because the man who replaced Mr. Fernald was merely an administrator, he did not have the legal authority under copyright law, at that time, to renew the copyright on the 1906 edition.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors had usurped power and authority illegally in 1910 at Mrs. Eddy's passing, since the estoppel clauses terminated The Mother Church and its Board of Directors.

(During the years from 1907 to 1910 momentous scientific changes consummated tgghe teachings of the Chrisatian Science textbook Science textbook, Science and Health. While Mrs. Eddy issued 432 editions of Science and Health, her statement on page 361:21 must be born in mind: "I have revised Science and Health only to give clearer and fuller expression of its orginal meaning. Spiritual ideas unfold as we advance." They unfolded in greatest profusion during the years 1907 to 1910, but always as an unfoldment of that "final revelation of the absolute divine Principle of scientific mental healing" she received initially in the year 1866. [See S&H. 107:1-6.]

The 1906 edition of Science and Health was therefore the only edition on which the Board could obtain renewal of copyright, but this edition had not been used by Christian Scientists since 1906 because much-changed and updated later more scientific editions superseded it. Since 1910 the only edition of Science and Health in general use, and for sale in Reading Rooms, is the 1910 edition, which differs radically from the 1906 edition. The 1906 cannot be substituted for the 1910 edition.

Because of the complete control, and the great financial resources of the Board of Directors, this 1934 copyright action was not challenged in the Courts of the land.



Since publication the following facts concerning the illegal 1934 renewal of copyright on Science and Health have come to light, and take precedence over any conflicting statement in this Chapter.

The second codicil to Mrs. Eddy's will states: the residue of my estate...I have left to said The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts" (see Appendix, p. 180, line 24). This codicil, dated May 14, 1904, had priority at any point where there was a variance between it and her basic will dated September 13, 1901. In this codicil she does not mention The Mother Church since the estoppel clauses would terminate The Mother Church at her passing.

In 1901 the four-member Board of Directors was not only the legal entity which Mrs. Eddy created by her September, 1892, Deed of Trust but was also the governing Board of the second organization which was at first called "Mother's Church" and later designated "The Mother Church." Thus the Board of Directors wore two hats and continued to do so until the estoppel clauses in the Manual terminated The Mother Church and the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors at Mrs. Eddy's passing, following which only the four-member legal Board existed.

In order to trace the ownership of the copyrights on Science and Health and to show the illegality of the 1934 renewal of this copyright, we submit the following vital information taken from Alice Orgain's Angelic Overtures to Christ and Christmas, pp. 819-821:

On March 6th, 1907, Mrs. Eddy made a personal Deed of Trust placing her entire earthly fortune in the hands of three Trustees, Henry M. Baker, Josiah E. Fernald, and Archibald McClellan. This Deed of Trust transferred and assigned to these three Trustees ownership of the copyrights to her writings, as can be seen from the following quote from this Deed of Trust:

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: that I, Mary Baker G. hereby grant, convey, assign, and transfer unto the said [three Trustees]. . .all my interest of every kind and description . . . including stocks, bonds, interests in copyrights, contracts, . . . First: To manage, care for, and control all the above granted real estate and interest therein during my earthly life . . . . Fourth: At the termination of my earthly life, this trust shall terminate, and all the personal estate then held by my said trustees shall pass to the executor of my last will and codicils thereto, to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions thereof.

At Mrs. Eddy's passing, the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors, which included the four-member legal Board within itself, refused to obey the By-Laws containing estoppel clauses. This, in effect, amended and annulled these By-Laws, and the four-member Board never discharged its responsibilities, never lawfully took office. This constituted a breach of trust. On p. 133:13, the Manual states:

11. The ommission or neglect on the part of said Directors to strictly comply with any of the conditions herein contained shall constitute a breach thereof, and the title hereby conveyed shall revert to the grantor Mary Baker G. Eddy, her heirs and assigns

(Man. 133:13.)

Remember, Principle, God, dictated the Manual. Did this breach of trust deprive the Board of Directors of any rights to Mrs. Eddy's copyrights on Science and Health? Certainly the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors never had any legal authority to renew the copyright on Science and Health in 1934 or in 1971.

Also, Mrs. Orgain states that in 1934 the courts very definitely said that there is no provision for an administrator to renew. Additionally, it is a definite fact that neither an Executor nor an Administrator so appointed could renew copyrights after he had completed the administration of the estate. Josiah E. Fernald was appointed Administrator by the Court to succeed the deceased Executor Henry M. Baker. Mr. Fernald "closed his final account [as Administrator] March 26, 1914," according to the Register of the Court of Probate for the County of Merrimack in New Hampshire. It was therefore illegal for past Administrator Josiah E. Fernald to renew the 1906 copyright on Science and Health twenty years later. That the Board of Directors knew this is evidenced by the fact that the copyrights of 1890, 1894, and 1901 were properly renewed by Ebenezer J. Foster-Eddy, who, however, had passed on shortly before the time to renew the 1906 copyrights.

A pregnant question, rich in significance and implication, remains unanswered:

Mrs. Eddy previously had always copyrighted her editions at the time any extensive changes were made, regardless of the date of her last copyright. For instance, she took out copyrights on Science and Health in 1375, 1878, 1883, 1885, 1890, 1894, 1901, 1902, 1906. Why then did she not copyright the extensive changes made after the second edition in 19077 She tells us "spiritual ideas unfold as we advance," and after her second edition in 1907 spiritual ideas began unfolding exponentially in her consciousness bringing forth evolutionary statements and changes of the greatest spiritual magnitude, ushering in the "culmination of scientific statement and proof."

Do these extensive spiritual additions, covering the whole range of Science and Health universalize our textbook? Do they evince that her final great illuminations lifted Science and Health beyond the power of law or church to bind?--Do they establish that the Church of Christ, Scientist, is a wholly spiritual state of consciousness, the Church Universal and Triumphant? This must be so because her last 24 or 25 highest statements (other than those in Science and Health) were not given to The Mother Church periodicals but to the WORLD through its own channels: New York World, The Ladies Home Journal, Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Concord Monitor, New York American, The Independent, The Evening Press, Cosmopolitan, Minneapolis News, Boston Post, New York Commercial Advertiser, etc.

"Sweeping down the centuries" Science gathers beneath its wings all humanity, inexorably bringing to light Mary Baker Eddy's successor, man in God's image and likeness, generic man.



"There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; or hid, that shall not be made known."
--Christ Jesus


Dear Reader:

Slowly all the facts in connection with the Copyright Act of 1971 on Science and Health are coming to light.

None of these facts are more pertinent than Mrs. Eddy's letter to William G. Nixon (p. 163 of this book) evincing her fear of legalized suppression of Science and Health through copyright legislation. She wanted Science and Health to be given at once to the people, and expressed utter dismay at the prospect of any copyright legislation that would impede the greatest world-wide distribution of Science and Health, knowing that such legislation would do incalculable harm to the prosperity of her book. The thought of giving certain individuals a monopoly on Science and Health and thus limiting its accessibility to the public through copyright legislation, was intolerable to Mrs. Eddy.

In order to avoid this "great sin," she said, "God's law to 'Feed my sheep,' to give Science and Health at once to those hungering for it, must be obeyed and held paramount to an international law on copyright" (pp. 163 and 164.)

The 1971 Congressional Copyright Act on Science and Health threatens to ruin, totally, the "prosperity" of this book. This 1971 Congressional Copyright Act was "for the relief of' five named individuals in Boston who were the "Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy," and at the same time were also the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors of The Mother Church.

In order to get at the heart of this copyright matter it is important to understand how the "Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy" came into being.

In the second codicil to her will (see p. 180) Mrs. Eddy bequeathed the residue of her estate "to the said The First Church of Christ, Scientist," the local Boston church.

As has been well-chronicled in this book, the estoppel clauses in the Church Manual terminated both The Mother Church and the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors leaving only the four-member legal or fiduciary Board established by Mrs. Eddy's 1892 Deed of Trust. This was a self-perpetuating Board, controlling only the local Boston church.

However, the five-member ecclesiastical Board, which was governed by the Church Manuals estoppel clauses, refused to step down when, at Mrs. Eddy's passing, these estoppels (terminating The Mother Church and its five-member ecclesiatical Board) went into effect. This five-member ecclesiastical Board was made up of the four-member legal or fiduciary Board, which simply wore another hat when it acted as Mother Church ecclesiastical Directors. (A fifth Director was added from the Field in February, 1903.) As fiduciary Board members under the 1892 and 1903 Deeds of Trust this 4-member Board was only a housekeeper for The First Church of Christ, Scientist, the local Boston church. But when they put on their ecclesiastical hat and acted as the Board of Directors of The Mother Church (which they were allowed to do during Mrs. Eddy's lifetime) they enjoyed almost unlimited power, prestige, authority, and "glory".

When Mrs. Eddy passed on in 1910 her estoppel clauses in the Manual ended all that power and authority. This was a pill too bitter for the five-member ecclesiastical Board to swallow. They refused to obey the estoppel clauses, which terminated their Board, and they quickly instituted suit to gain control of the money and property Mrs. Eddy had left in her second codicil NOT to The Mother Church, but to The First Church of Christ, Scientist, the local Boston church which was legally set up to receive it.

In an original will, dated Sept. 13, 1901, Mrs. Eddy had left everything to The Mother Church. But in the second codicil to her will she changed the beneficiary, and left everything to The First Church of Christ, Scientist, a completely different entity from The Mother Church. (By 1911 standards the estate was very large.)

A committee of dedicated Christian Scientists which is making a thorough investigation of the 1971 Congressional Copyright Act on Science and Health, requested the complete New Hampshire Probate Court records in connection with the granting of Mrs. Eddy's estate to the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors of The Mother Church. The Court records arrived without the codicils which in 1904 changed the beneficiary from The Mother Church, as named in the original will of 1901, making the new beneficiary The First Church of Christ, Scientist, the local Boston church.

When inquiry was made regarding the missing codicils, the New Hampshire Probate Court official stated the codicils were not sent because in the Court's opinion they in no way influenced the will. In a telephone conversation which followed, the New Hampshire Probate Court official stated that the lawyers acting for the Mother Church Board of Directors never explained to the Court that The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was a different entity from The Mother Church; instead the Mother Church attorneys allowed the Probate Court officials to believe that The Mother Church and The First Church of Christ, Scientist, were one and the same thing. Thus the New Hampshire Probate Court was kept unaware that the second codicil to Mrs. Eddy's will changed the beneficiary to her estate.

The Court therefore awarded, in error, Mrs. Eddy's estate to the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors of The Mother Church instead of to the four-member legal or fiduciary Board of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, the local Boston Church. But it must be remembered that the two boards were constituted of the same individuals, except for a fifth member. They merely Performed different functions. After Mrs. Eddy's passing the four-member fiduciary Board never lawfully took office, never discharged its duties; thus they broke their trust. These four members of the legal Board, who were governed by the two deeds of trust shown in the back of the Manual breached their trust agreement when they waived the Manual's estoppel clauses and refused to give up the great power and authority they wielded during Mrs. Eddy's lifetime. Because of this breach the entire estate legally reverted to Mrs. Eddy's heirs and assigns as provided by condition No. 11 of the trust agreement, (Man. 133:13)

The probate court, unaware of all the foregoing facts, awarded Mrs. Eddy's estate (which included copyrights) to the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors. And this is how the "Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy' came into being. Thus, the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors now held yet another office.

The estate (including copyrights) should, of course, have gone to The First Church of Christ, Scientist, as Mrs. Eddy intended and specified in the last codicil to her will. But it did not. Instead, the "Trustees under the Will" kept the copyrights for sixty years and derived all revenues, royalties, and other benefits therefrom.

Through the copyright legislation of 1971 these Trustees under the will secured the copyrights not only to the 1906 edition but to all 432 editions of Science and Health, in their own names-in the names of Craig, Wuth, Hanks, Sleeper, and John. This copyright legislation was consummated in December of 1971. A month later, in January of 1972, Craig, Wuth, Hanks, Sleeper, and John sold the copyrights to The First Church of Christ, Scientist, for the reported sum of two million dollars. (This in spite of the fact that Mrs. Eddy had bequeathed her estate, including copyrights, to this church sixty years prior to this time.) Also it must be remembered that Craig, Wuth, Hanks, Sleeper, and John were simultaneously the Board of Directors and the Trustees under the Will.

In view of the above and the fact that many leading authorities found the 1971 Congressional Copyright Act to be unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment prohibition of Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," we feel this 1971 copyright legislation should be rescinded. A petition to return all 432 editions of Science and Health to the public domain would extend to our Congress an opportunity to set the highest example of justice and equity ever to be performed by any government, since it would be asking that legislative body to free the Word of God from legalized suppression by international copyright law, and to let God's Word have free course and be glorified.

Gods message to humanity during the past 70 years has been obvious, namely, that a society of sheep invariably begets a government of wolves and that the great need of the hour is for each one to claim and accept his true heritage: government by divine Principle alone.

MARY BAKER EDDY'S CHURCH MANUAL AND CHURCH UNIVERSAL AND TRIUMPHANT was written and published in the hope that human rights can only be violated if the truth is allowed to go unpublished.


The next renewal could have come up in 1962, but due to the new Copyright Act, which was under consideration in Congress, all copyright renewals were extended until the new Copyright law took effect (which would be in 1978).

The many voices of protest raised in 1934 against the copyright renewal on Science and Health caused the Board of Directors to pursue their next copyright plans in utmost secrecy. Accordingly, in 1971 a private bill titled "An Act for the Relief of Clayton Bion Craig, Arthur P. Wuth, Mrs. Lenore D. Hanks, David E. Sleeper, and DeWitt John "was introduced into the Senate.

The Board of Directors' homework was well done and well timed. With the No. 1 and No. 2 principals on the White House Staff and a number of influencial Senators and Congressmen all members of the Christian Science Church and all loyal to the Board of Directors' point of view, the bill was planted in a fertile field.

So, in 1971 while the Board of Directors portrayed the copyright action they were taking as being just a 'renewal" the fact was that it was NOT a renewal. They were actually securing a brand new copyright in their own name, not only on the 1906 edition but on all the other 431 editions of Science and Health most of which had long been in the public domain. They obtained this through a most unusual procedure, which the Congress enacted and President Nixon signed into law. This copyright is to be effective for 75 years.

While the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy are also the Christian Science Board of Directors, it is reported that within t copyright the name changed from Trustees Eddy to "The Christi; transaction is partially Journal of November, section).

Among other things, this same Journal article states:

In her will, Mrs. Eddy made several specific bequests. The balance of her estate, including the copyrights on her books, was left to the Church.

This is not correct. If the reader will turn to Mrs. Eddy's will, reproduced in the Appendix, he will not find anywhere in her Will a bequeathing of her copyrights to the church, and hence not to the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, who are the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors.


Competent legal and constitutional authorities have severely criticized and condemned the 1971 Copyright "Act" on Science and Health as totally unconstitutional. Senator Jacob Javits took a strong position against the bill, S. 1866. He pointed out that it would vest in the Board of Directors (or the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy) exclusive copyright "over Mrs. Eddy's great work, --Science and Health,-- upon which a copyright law for the one edition which was published in 1906. Numerous editions [actually 431 editions] are now in the public domain, and of course other revisions may take place hereafter."

Senator Javits then again requested, that because of the alleged unconstitutionality of this copyright Act, Congress delay consideration of it. Javits wanted to give the New York Bar Association an opportunity to file a statement of its objections to this copyright Act.

Following are some excerpts from report of the Committee of Civil Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on the subject of S. 1866. The report was forwarded with the approval of the President of the Association, the Honorable Bernard Biotin:

On behalf of the Association, we again strongly urge that this bill not be enacted. As you will note, the report recommends the rejection of the bill--or its recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary for hearings on the constitutionality of the issues involved, so as to give its proponents an opportunity to respond to our views as to the bill's unconstitutionality.

In closing they again stress the Copyright Act's unconstitutionality.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee on Civil Rights, after strongly recommending rejection of this copyright Act on Science and Health, stated:

The Association's Committee on Copyright Law, basing its stand on the constitutional provisions for copyright and the policy of copyright law, has announced its opposition...because it would violate the First Amendment prohibition of Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

While the Bar Association's letter urged rejection of this Copyright "Act," on the grounds of its unconstitutionality and its impingement on the First Amendment guaranteeing religious liberty, they may also have seen the grave injustice being done the author, Mary Baker Eddy, in granting to five persons in Boston no but only a copyright on the 1906 edition, but on all 432 editions, 418 of which had long been in the public domain; and the cruelest blow of all to the author, Mary Baker Eddy, came with granting these five persons in Boston the right to bring out their own versions and revisions of Science and Health.

The Bar Association points out that this copyright Act on Science and Health would have the following unfortunate effects:

In sum, the effect of 1866 would be single out Mrs. Eddy's works in the following respects: (a) remove all versions published prior to the 1906 edition from the public domain and impose thereon until 2046 or 2047, either a new copyright or a copyright for the first time; (b) extend to the same date the copyright on the 1906 edition; and (c) allow future versions' [of Science and Health] to be registered for a period of 75 years from date of publication.


(The question many dedicated Christian Scientists are asking is: "If the Directors of The Mother Church are not planning to bring out their own revised editions, why was it so important to have the copyright Act on Science and Health cover "future versions"?)

The Bar Association in its letter urging rejection of the copyright Act on Science and Health listed the reasons given by the proponents of S. 1866, and then stated:

We believe that those very arguments [given by the proponents of the copyright Act] point to the unconstitutionality of the bill--we confess ourselves unable to perceive how S. 1866 can be other than unconstitutional. Its purpose and its ultimate effect are to single out a particular doctrine within a particular church to grant to writings embodying that doctrine protection [?] that has never been made available to any other religious or non religious writings, aid to supply civil and criminal sanctions against those I who, religiously or non-religiously, whether calling themselves Christian Scientists or not, may choose to deviate from that doctrine. Indeed our research... has failed to disclose any constitutional decisions involving similar statutes--an indication, if constitutionality can be regarded as quantitative, how "extremely unconstitutional" S. 1866 is.

Think of Christian Scientists advocating an "extremely unconstitutional" course! No more law-abiding citizen than Mary Baker Eddy ever walked on American soil. She said genuine Christian Scientists are or should be the most law-abiding people on earth. Mrs. Eddy was a strict believer in the Constitution of the United States. She would have deplored Christian Scientists endeavoring to circumvent the Constitution in trying to pass an "extremely unconstitutional" law that deprives dedicated Christian Scientists of religious freedom and deprives the public generally of the benefit of Science and Health, and that will permit the trustees of Mrs. Eddy's estate (the Board of Directors) to publish 'revised versions' of Science and Health. S. 1866 gives the Board of Directors the legal right to bring out revised versions of Science and Health.

Senator Javits summed up his position by stressing that the copyright Act on Science and Health raised fundamental questions concerning conflict between S. 1866 and the First Amendment provisions guaranteeing religious liberty. He agreed with the Bar Association that S. 1866 violated the basic principle which governs the granting of copyrights. Javits reminded the Committee that the Senator from Michigan, Philip Hart, had raised the same objections to S. 1866.3a

It is also clear the the proponents of the bill, representing the Board of Directors' position, had led Senator Javits to believe that the 1906 edition of Science and Health was the edition in general use and sold in Christian Science Reading Rooms. This, of course, was totally false. The 1906 edition has not been sold in Christian Science reading rooms since 1907 nor could the 1906 edition be used by Christian Scientists in "getting their lesson" or in Sunday Church services, since the pagination and lineation of the 1906 edition is entirely different from any of the more scientific 14 editions Mrs. Eddy subsequently published. Her 1910 edition is the one that has been in use since 1910. The 1906 edition has not been in use for nearly three-quarters of a century.

Senator Javits then once again pointed out the Bar Association's severe condemnation of this bill as unconstitutional, as impinging on the First Amendment and supplying civil and criminal sanctions against those who, religiously or non-religiously--whether calling themselves Christian Scientists or not-- may choose to deviate from that doctrine.

Javits observed that no doubt Catholics would like to have a copyright on the New Testament, and he himself knew the Jewish faith would like to have a copyright on the Old Testament. He indicated the entire world had as much right to Science and Health as the world has to the Holy Scriptures--both the Old and New Testaments. He indicated it did not seem quite right to him that a great work like Science and Health should become the personal property of five persons in Boston. "There is a question, " he said, "which a copyright raises, of a monopoly and accessibility of this great book to everyone."

Javits then asked to have printed, among other communications he had received, the following:

To Senator Jacob K. Javits: On behalf of the Committee on Civil Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, I strongly urge that no action be taken by the Senate on S. 1866 'for the relief of Clayton Bion Craig, et al.' which raises serious constitutional problems relating to the constitutional provisions prohibiting the establishment of religion, as well as other constitutional provisions....

From Robert M. Kaufmanns, Chairman, Committee on Civil Rights, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

The Committee on Copyright and Literary Property of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York sent the following telegram to all members of the House Judiciary Committee:

At its meeting last night the Committee on Copyright and Literary Property, of the Association of the Bar of New York City, unanimously disapproved that portion of S. 1866 which purports to restore to copyright protection editions of Science and Health which have long been in the public domain. The bill would create for the first edition of that work a copyright term in excess of 170 years. We believe that such action exceeds the congressional power under article 1, section 8, of the Constitution and would represent unsound copyright policy. We urge you to object to the passage of private bill S. 1866.


On page 2 of the "Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary Representative McClory, a member of The Mother Church, testifying for the Christian Science Board of Directors, stated:

The final edition of the Christian Science textbook was published and copyrighted in 1906..."

This statement is not correct. The 1906 edition was not the final edition because Mrs. Eddy issued fourteen editions subsequent to the copyrighted 1906 edition. Each of these fourteen editions contained changes of the greatest magnitude.

Then Representative McClory continued:

The complete and final revelation of Christian Science, as set forth by Mrs. Eddy, the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, is embodied in the copyrighted edition of the textbook..."

Again, of course, this is not correct. A committee set up to compare the 1906 last--copyrighted edition with the 1910 more complete edition found that Mrs. Eddy had made 3,906 additions, changes, and deletions in the 1910 edition. This means Mrs. Eddy made nearly 4,000 changes in her 1910 edition. Many of these changes had supreme significance in the unfoldment of her Science. For instance, a radical change was made in her fourth edition in 1907 when she changed her definition of God which brought the entire textbook into line with the Science she was teaching.

The complete and final revelation of Christian Science is not set forth in the 1906 edition. Fourteen more editions were required to bring out the final revelation. Mrs. Eddy speaks of her first edition in 1875 as having been revised only to give a clearer and fuller expression to its original meaning. But it took the unfoldment that came with all 432 editions to make the pure Science of Christian Science clear to humanity in such a form and manner as would enable it to be taught in the same way that music and mathematics are taught. A vital part of this unfoldment came between 1907 and 1910. A science does not need to be copyrighted, and Mrs. Eddy stated, "Christian Science is not copyrighted." When Mrs. Eddy made no arrangements to copyright the major developments and profound unfoldments that came with the last fourteen editions, it seems evident that she wished Science and Health to be in the public domain at the earliest possible time.

Continuing on page 3 of the Congressional Record, the Hon. Robert McClory states:

While I speak only as one member of the Christian Science Church, I can assure you that I do, indeed, voice the interest and support of all Christian Scientists...

This seems a rather sweeping statement from Representative McClory when there are perhaps more Christian Scientists outside than inside the official Boston church, and those outside the official church circle (as well as a great many still within the material organization) would tend to feel Mrs. Eddy's writings should be in the public domain just as the Bible is. If "all Christian Scientists" supported taking the copyright out of the name of Mary Baker Eddy and vesting it in the Board of Directors why was it deemed necessary to maintain absolute secrecy in planning this seventy-five year copyright "extension"?

Dr. J. Buroughs Stokes, Manager of the Christian Science Committee on Publication, representing the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, and "spokesman for all Christian Science church members," stated:

Not a single member of our church has indicated any opposition to the passage of this bill, or is opposed to extending the copyright on "Science and Health." Our members realize that the last edition of "Science and Health" is the pastor of this church. To protect this pastor, it is necessary to extend the copyright on "Science and Health," which is owned by the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy. The Christian Scientists know that these Trustees must maintain the book as their pastor in its final form as written by the author, and will not change it, revise it, annotate it, or issue abridged versions. (p. 10 of Committee on Judiciary Report)

Dr. Stokes avers: "Not a single member of our church has indicated opposition..." But he fails to mention that no one knew about the bill. It had been prepared in absolute secrecy. It had not been advertised in any of the Christian Science periodicals or in the Monitor. Shortly before the bill was passed, a student in Washington, D.C. heard of it, by chance, and did what she could to alert Christian Scientists. The worldwide stir aroused by the 1934 copyright renewal obviously warned the Directors of the inadvisability of letting the Field know of their plans. When asked by the Committee if the bill had any publicity, G. Ross Cunningham, Christian Science Committee on Publication for Washington, D.C., replied:

There has been national publicity about S. 1866 in various publications, such as Publishers' Weekly, Variety, and the American Patent Law Association Bulletin. To the extent that this bill can be considered newsworthy to them, the public and publishing interests are informed concerning S. 1866. (p. 6 of Judiciary Report)

No notice of any kind had been sent to the more than three thousand churches or any of the church members. When asked later by an interested member of the Committee why nothing had appeared in the Monitor or any of the Christian Science periodicals concerning S. 1866, the answer given was, "We thought it best to keep it quiet and not to stir up anything."

A second item in Dr. Stokes' testimony asserted that the members realize the last edition of Science and Health "is the pastor of this church. To protect this pastor it is necessary to 'extend' the copyright...." The last edition changes in Science and Health were never copyrighted. The following letter from Library of Congress Office, confirms that no copyright exists on the vital changes Mrs. Eddy made in her last 14 editions:



Washington, D.C. 20559


United Christian Scientists, Inc.

P.O. Box 8048

San Jose, California, 95155

Attention: David James Nolan

Dear Mr. Nolan:

This refers to your letter of August 11, 1980. The following search report is made:

Search in the indexes and catalogs of the Copyright Office covering the period 1898 through 1945 under the name Mary Baker Eddy and title SCIENCE AND HEALTH WITH KEY TO THE SCRIPTURES failed to disclose any separate registration for a work identified under this name and specific title and bearing the year dates 1907 through 1910.

Your remittance of $20.00 has been applied in payment for this search and report.

Sincerely yours,

Robert G. Myers

Bibliographer, Reference and Bibliography Section


Furthermore, the Copyright Act of 1971 was not an "extension' " This "Act" gave the Board of Directors of The Mother Church a brand new copyright, vesting all rights to Science and Health-on all 432 editions-in the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, namely, the Board of Directors.

Dr. Stokes further declared that the textbook will not be "changed, revised, annotated, or abridged."

For a number of years, however, rumors have circulated among highly placed Boston officials that the Board is working on extensive revisions to Science and Health. In the past the Directors have made changes to Science and Health. They have removed Mrs. Eddy's picture from the front of the book; they have moved and deleted testimonies Mrs. Eddy carefully selected; they have changed marginal headings; they have added "Authorized Literature of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts"; they have listed books and booklets on the flyleaf of Science and Health; they have reduced the size of the cross and crown insignia on Science and Health, etc. This is not reassuring for a future policy that "will not change it, revise it, annotate it, or issue abridged editions" now that they are legally empowered to make any changes they may wish to make.

Dr. Stokes offered to show the Judiciary Committee how the "lesson sermon" is carried out with the Quarterly. But this couldn't have been the 1906 edition of Science and Health for which they sought the copyright since its pages and lines are not the same as the 1910 edition currently in use. Church members use the 1910 edition "to get their lesson." It is this edition which corresponds to the page and line listed in the Christian Science Quarterly The 1906 edition was last used for this purpose in 1906, and never since.

Mr. C. Ross Cunningham, Manager of the Washing-ton, D.C. office of the Christian Science Committee on Publication, told the Judiciary Congressional Committee why the Board of Directors was seeking to "extend the copyright on the book Science and Health." After affirming that the most recent copyright was in 1906, and S. 1866 would "extend" the copyright 75 years, he stated that "this book [the 1906 edition] is used together with the Bible, as the basic textbook for all instruction in the Christian Science religion, and for the teaching and practice of the spiritual healing which is a central part of this religion." He stated a copyright "extension" was needed on this book since the present copyright was due to expire December 31, 1971. He said Christian Scientists look to this book as the pastor of their church, and all sermons throughout the world are comprised of scriptural readings together with readings from this book. He explained in detail how necessary this "extension" on the 1906 copyright was. But these statements are not correct. 14 editions followed the 1906, in which Science and Health "gathered momentum and clearness and reached its culmination." The latest is used in Sunday services throughout the world, and by students for instruction in Christian Science. Few, indeed, are the Christian Scientists who have ever seen a 1906 edition of Science and Health.

He further stated that without the copyright extension on this [1906 edition] of Science and Health "there would be serious danger that the course of Christian Science church services and the basis of individual religious study by Christian Scientists would be seriously impaired. The result, " he said, "would be a definite limitation on the freedom of adherents of this denomination to practice their religion! These statements, again, are not correct.

As has been previously brought out, the 1906 edition of Science and Health has not been used by Christian Scientists either individually or in church services since 1906. Mary Baker Eddy never copyrighted any of the more than 4000 changes she made in the 14 editions of Science and Health published after 1906. As has been previously brought out, she made no provision in her Will or elsewhere for an extension of copyright on Science and Health after it had run its normal course of 28 years.

Ignoring the fact that the edition of Science and Health currently in use in all Christian Science churches should have been in the public domain since 1934, Mr. Cunningham told the Congressional Judiciary Committee: "Our concern is that if this book goes into the public domain, as a practical matter, the public will not know whether it is buying or reading what Mrs. Eddy wrote ....."

Mr. Abe Goldman, General Counsel, U. S. Copyright Office, like Senator Javits and others, based his testimony before Congress on his understanding that the 1906 edition was the one now used in church services and by individual Christian Scientists, which the proponents of the bill had obviously led him to believe. Mr. Goldman stated:

We understand that the 1906 edition, the one still under copyright, is the one now used by the Christian Science Church as the basic text... for instruction in the Christian Science religion, and for the practice of its teaching and its church services.

Since all the witnesses representing the Board of Directors knew that the 1906 edition had not been used by Christian Scientists or for church services for nearly three-quarters of a century, how could this copyright have been legitimately obtained?

Mr. Goldman testified that there had been little opposition to the bill, S. 1866. But it must be remembered no one knew about the bill. It was kept a closely guarded secret until the very last minute. It was only when Senator Javits requested a postponement of the bill that the supporters of the Christian Science Board of Directors launched a concerted drive for support.

At this point an interesting episode developed. The Directors of The Mother Church had hoped to steer the bill smoothly through the Congressional hearing without the Christian Science Field hearing about it. And from May, when the bill was first entered, until late November they had succeeded in keeping it wholly hidden from the Christian Science Field. But when Senator Javits of the State of New York requested the bill be held up indefinitely, those supporting the bill decided the time for secrecy was past. All Christian Science church members (in New York State) and their friends, and all Sunday School students and their friends were then urged to send letters and telegrams to their Senator, Mr. Javits, saying, "Please release bill S. 1866, protecting copyright on Science and Health, our Pastor."

Thousands of identical telegrams began pouring into Senator Javits' office. The great multitude of senders did not realize they were crying: "Crucify Mrs. Eddy's textbook, crucify Science and Health!" The flood of telegrams received was in sharp contrast to the intelligent, meaningful letters received by Senator Javits from dedicated Christian Scientists unalterably opposed to the Directors' latest attempt to get the copyright out of Mrs. Eddy's name and into their own. Membership in branch churches today consists for the most part of those who believe in material organization and, thus, would naturally support the Board of Directors' position, since they tend to read only what is 'authorized" by the Board of Directors. This probably accounts for Senator Javits hearing mostly from those favoring the Board of Directors' position, since Christian Scientists who do not attend church services -and who surely far outnumber those who do-would have had no way of knowing about the Board of Directors' copyright action.

Senator Javits, to his everlasting credit, saw the unconstitutionality of the bill, and voted "No!" However, he did not continue to take a determined stand on the bill mainly, perhaps, because true and pertinent facts concerning this copyright action had been withheld from him, and he also had been led to believe, as had others, that the 1906 edition on which copyright still existed was the final edition, the one for sale in Reading Rooms, and used by Christian Scientists individually and in church services. No doubt the telegrams received from Sunday School children and their friends and from church members, had also had their effect. All these factors, plus the normal Senatorial pressures, weighed against his taking an uncompromising stand against what he "obviously" felt in his heart was an unlawful and unconstitutional act.

Mr. Cunningham, Manager of the Washington, D.C. office of the Christian Science Committee on Publication, stated:

The copyright on Science and Health is owned by...the five individuals named in the caption of the bill (S.1866)....The trustees under the will [of Mary Baker G. Eddy]...own many other copyrights, some of them on the works written by the author of "Science and Health"....

As previously noted, if the reader will turn to the last Will and Testament of Mary Baker Eddy in the Appendix he will not find that Mrs. Eddy bequeathed the copyrights to any of her writings to either the temporary five-member Board of Directors which the estoppel clauses in the Church Manual terminated at Mrs. Eddy's demise, nor to the four-member self-perpetuating Board left legally in control of the local Boston First Church of Christ, Scientist. That she did not copyright changes in her last fourteen editions and made no provision for extending the 1906 copyright is a clear indication that Mrs. Eddy wanted that copyright to lapse, and go into the public domain also.

Regarding the $200,000.00 yearly profit from the sale of Science and Health, the Honorable Robert F Drinan of Massachusetts, member of the Judiciary Committee, asked:

If the copyright were not renewed, I would assume Bantam Books or MacMillan...would put out a paperback....And I would assume that this would mean some dimunition of revenue from the person who now owns the copyright.

Congressman Drinan said he was making the point because a publisher had said he was opposed to the bill. This publisher was no doubt typical of many who feel that after a copyright has run its course the book should pass into public domain so that everybody, wishing to, could publish it and derive profits from it.

To this argument Dr. Stokes, representing the Christian Science Board of Directors, responded that it was the aim of the proponents of the bill to "protect religion." "We have got to protect religion, " he said. "We have got to protect what God wants his children to hear." This, regardless of what the author of Science and Health obviously wanted when she made no provision in her Will or elsewhere for extending the copyright on the textbook after its normal run.

Congressman Drinan replied, in substance, that the U. S. Supreme Court said in the case of Kedoff that state protection of any particular denomination is forbidden by the "establishment clause." Congressman Drinan stated that in the U. S. Supreme Court opinion there is a long line of cases now saying that the establishment clause means no aid to one particular religion and no aid to all religions across the board.

When Attorney Peterson, C.S., was asked, "Can you give us an idea how accessible the copies are?" he responded:

Yes, there is a bookstore edition that is published for sale in commercial bookstores. We would like it to be much more generally carried in the bookstores than it is. We make every possible effort to make it available to them.

The sad fact, here, is that after the new seventy-five-year copyright was granted, Science and Health and other writings by Mary Baker Eddy were withdrawn from bookstores and are now for sale only in the rapidly closing Reading Rooms.

All through the hearing the proponents of the bill insisted the copyright protection was necessary because of the possibility of someone publishing a distorted version, but when a member of the Judiciary Committee asked Attorney Peterson, "Can you give us examples of where people have tried to distort or change or misrepresent them? [meaning any of the 418 editions of Science and Health that have long been in the public domain]." Attorney Peterson answered, "No, no one has tried it as far as we know"

Returning for a moment to Mr. Goldman, General Counsel, U. S. Copyright Office, we can see from his testimony that he had been entirely misled as to the reason for seeking an "extension" of the copyright.

His statement on page 33 of the Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, is here quoted, in part:

They say they need this bill to protect the integrity of the work. With respect to the 1906 edition, which is the one still under copyright, and which is the one I understand is the present text used in the practice of the Christian Science Church, it could be that its integrity is extremely important to them for the reason they state that even the pagination, the numbering of the lines, and the precise wording must be maintained because it is used all over the world, and references are made to it by page and line number for the purpose of indicating what text is for the week's service.

These statements by Mr. Goldman indicate he had been led to believe that the pagination, numbering of lines, and wording in the 1906 edition of Science and Health matched the Quarterly in use by Christian Scientists in "getting their lesson, " and in church services. Mr. Goldman's testimony shows he had been allowed to believe something totally false. The fact is it is the 1910 edition not the 1906-which in 1971 should have been in the public domain for 37 years--that has been used all over the world since 1910 in church services, and is the only edition for sale in Christian Science Reading Rooms.

The fundamental changes made in the 14 editions following the 1906 copyrighted edition were not submitted for registration, as we saw from the Copyright Office's letter to Mr. Nolan, (see p. 142a).

That the Librarian of Congress had also been misled and was unaware of the facts, can be seen from The Report of the Librarian of Congress, dated September 30, 1971, which stated:

We understand that the 1906 edition, which is still under copyright, is the one now regularly used for the teaching and practice of the Christian Science religion. (House of Representatives Report No. 92-604, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, accompanying Senate Bill S. 1866.)

This misleading of Mr. Goldman, the Congressional Librarian, Senators, Representatives, and others, by the church authorities, shows the length to which they were willing to go to betray Mrs. Eddy, their professed Leader, in their reach for place, power, and authority.

Earlier we quoted testimony by the Honorable Robert McClory of Illinois, found on page 2 of the Congressional Judiciary Report" in which, testifying on behalf of the Christian Science Board of Directors, he said:11

The final edition of the Christian Science textbook was published and copyrighted in 1906.

Evidence has already been produced to show that the 1906 was not the final edition, that the 14 editions which followed it contained the greatest fundamental and comprehensive changes Mrs. Eddy ever made in all her 432 editions. We have also seen that chief among the nearly 4,000 alterations distinguishing the 1910 edition from the 1906 was the change Mrs. Eddy made in her definition of God in 1907, which constituted perhaps the most important and basic change Mrs. Eddy ever made in her many editions.

No doubt Mrs. Eddy purposely did riot copyright vital changes in her last 14 editions in which the culmination of her discovery of Christian Science, as a Science, was reached. A Science, she said, does not need to be copyrighted. In 1906 she had not yet reached this culmination of her discovery as a pure Science. But once this Science had reached its culmination, in 1910, she knew it no longer needed to be copyrighted.

During her last years Mrs. Eddy gave all her messages to the world-press rather than to the Christian Science periodicals which reached only a limited number of people. Mrs. Eddy was always eager for her discovery to reach the entire world, and she yearned for her students' spiritual progress. The majority of her students, on the other hand, were always more interested in building up a material organization.

In December, 1887, Mrs. Eddy asked a student to insert part of one of her (Mrs. Eddy's) letters in the Journal. It read:

True Christianity began to wane as Truth became hid in churches and ritualistic forms; and just as you lay more stress on the formation of church-organizations than you do on the work of healing, will your cause decline and eventually be lost.

...Not all your churches and preachers will do as much to win people to the Truth as the few good healers....Science and Health greater than any Church....This book, or rather the truth therein, needs no church to proclaim it or bolster it...I condemn the mistaken policy of embalming any truths. [The last statement no doubt refers to the fact that church organizations tend to embalm Truth, to fix it in a static condition, leaving no opportunity for growth or development.]

In the June Journal of 1887 in an article, Mind-Healing History, Mrs. Eddy wrote:

My discovery promises nothing but blessings to every inhabitant of the globe. This glorious prospect seems to incense some degraded minds, and stimulate their unscrupulous efforts to thwart its benign influence and defeat its beneficence.

Many earnest dedicated students of Christian Science are today asking: "Since Mrs. Eddy did not make provision for extending the copyright on Science and Health, and did not copyright the revisions, doesn't this prove beyond cavil that she wanted Science and Health to have the widest possible exposure and acceptance, rather than be confined and limited by copyright regulations? As was pointed out, the Old Testament has not suffered because those of the Jewish faith did not protect it by copyright regulations, and the New Testament has not suffered because neither Catholic. Mrs. Eddy counseled: Let the Word [the scientific Word embodied in Science and Health] have free course and be glorified12

Almost from the beginning Mrs. Eddy's students tended to confuse her idea of Church as "the structure of Truth and Love" with material organization. This cast a heavy burden on Mrs. Eddy As we learned earlier she stated, "All the trouble I have had has been with my students' " In Science and Health she comments sadly, "If the Master had not taken a student he would not have been crucified. The determination to hold Spirit in the grasp of matter [to hold the spirit and the absolute letter in a church organization] is the persecutor of Truth and Love. " While Mrs. Eddy turned unreservedly to God for comfort and direction, her students occupying the highest offices were turning to human law and legal power. We saw this was true even before Mrs. Eddy left us-when they turned to legal opinion in the matter of theestoppel clauses in the Church Manual.

As we have been seeing, there was considerable determined opposition to S. 1866, but it was successfully throttled. It is a matter of record, and of deep regret, that unbelievable manipulative pressure was brought to bear upon those members of the Judiciary Committee--Congressmen and Senators--to rescind their objections to the bill.

Senator Philip Hart, who voted against the bill, stated that this copyright would grant a monopoly over expression, and limit what may be freely said and heard in public, thus conflicting with the guarantees of free speech under the First Amendment. (See page 12 of Committee on Judiciary Hearing, Appendix p. 303.) Senator Hart also insisted that Congress does not have the power to grant copyrights to trustees of an estate. He was concerned the bill might put the support of the government on the side of the established Christian Science Movement in any dispute it might have with groups differing from the view of the official Boston hierarchy.

Some opposition surfaced on the present difficulty of obtaining the earlier editions of Science and Health. A letter read into the Congressional record stated:

Dear Sirs: I am a member of The Mother Church and have been for over 25 years. I urge the Committee to vote against S. 1866 on the ground that it would shut off completely availability of all earlier editions of Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy, none of which The Mother Church publishes or makes available to its members or the general public...

The Board of Directors' refusal to make available the early editions of Science and Health has effectively eliminated a most useful aid in understanding Christian Science, namely, the help of following the evolution of the Science as Mrs. Eddy developed it in her many revisions. Former high officials in the church report that early editions were bought up by the church so they would not be available to students seeking them. They also report that the fear of the Board of Directors' legal arm prevented any but the most intrepid from reproducing a few of the earliest editions.

In the Christian Science Journal, April, 1891, p. 7, Mrs. Eddy, through an article dictated to her student, Rev. Norcross, urged all Christian Scientists to keep their editions. In this article Mrs. Eddy stated:

A practical suggestion or two regarding study of the new edition: In the first place, do not attempt to dispose of the earlier editions. Some are asking, "Can we be permitted to exchange?" Probably not; but you do not want to do so, even if you can. Fortunate is he who has all former revisions with the original edition of 1875! They are indicators of successive stages of growth in Christian Science; and as such, a some future day will not only possess historic value, but will be extremely difficult to procure. Keep them all; they will prove a "treasure trove ." Again, Let the new volume be studied in connection with earlier editions. The very contrasts help to see how the thoughts have risen only as we have been able to receive them. This, again, will reveal why the new edition could now be written for us. It is simply because the advancing thought, or demonstration, of Christian students has ascended to that plane which makes it both possible and practicable for us to have the new work. [Italics are in the original.]

Many Christian Scientists have been led to believe that Mrs. Eddy warned against studying the earlier editions. This is not true as can be seen from her article in the Journal, just quoted. She, of course, recommended that her last edition, published in 1910, be the basic edition used, since it alone contained the full and final revelation of her great discovery. As we saw in comparing it with the 1906 edition, the 1910 editions contained nearly 4,000 changes, additions, and deletions.

Genuine Christian Scientists dread the consequences of robbing the world of the privilege of having all 432 editions of Science and Health in the public domain.

The Christian Science Field owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Ralph Geradi of Rare Book Company for reprinting a number of the early editions, principally the much sought after and highly prized first edition.

Mrs. Eddy left a good share of her estate to the church to be used for the promotion and extension of the Science taught by her. This would surely mean, for one thing, the reproduction of the books written by her. Also in her Deed of Trust given to the Publishing Society she stipulated the profits were to be used for the promotion and extension of the Science taught by her. Again, what is more important than making available the "treasure trove" of her 432 editions of Science and Health to students of Christian Science? Most of the funds, however, were spent to support the organization, and as we saw, for such things as quadrupling the Directors' salaries shortly after Mrs. Eddy's departure, and for legal fees, funding of lawsuits, etc. This apparent lack of a genuine interest in the promotion and extension of the Science taught by Mary Baker Eddy was a substantial factor contributing to the precipitous decline in the spread of Christian Science that became noticeable as early as 1935.

When the Congressmen asked if any publishers were known to be interested in publishing Science and Health, representatives for the Board of Directors said, "No. " This was not entirely true, of course, because over the years there have been those who wished to do so but feared the legal arm of Boston. Recently, however, Eric W. W. Taylor of Seven Lakes, West End, North Carolina, 27376, published a magnificent reproduction of the 1910 edition of Science and Health with all details exactly as Mrs. Eddy left them, including the frontispiece picture of Mary Baker Eddy.

Mr. Ralph Geradi of Rare Book Company reports he has had many requests for copies of the 1910 edition, meaning, of course, the 1910 edition just as Mrs. Eddy left it, containing her picture, 700 full pages, and without the various changes that were made in Science and Health after Mrs. Eddy's departure.


The last witness to be questioned by the Committee on the Judiciary concerning the copyright on Science and Health, was Attorney Mary Cook Hackman of Arlington, Virginia. She apparently believed strongly that the 418 editions of Science and Health should remain in the public domain, and that the 1906 should also be allowed to go into the public domain along with the 14 subsequent editions, having had 65 years of copyright protection. She said:

The proponents have basically advanced two arguments: One, that what they have asked you to do is a legal thing for you to do; that is, it is constitutional. I would question that, on the First Amendment basis. And as for the citations they have given you, they all go back to 1898 and before, and we all know that the Constitution is interpreted very differently in the last 30 years than it ever was prior to then. I also feel that there is some question as to whether the Trustees [C.S. Board Of Directors] under the Will of Mrs. Eddy, as a matter of fact, violate the rules against perpetuities....

The second argument that the proponents use is that they need this legislation for protection....We feel that the better understanding of Christian Science itself requires the greatest possible distribution of the textbook, Science and Health.

Attorney Hackman advanced the feeling that the motives of those seeking this copyright legislation "are the perpetuation and protection of the church as an organization and this, of course, is specifically in violation of the Constitution. The church organization is what they [the proponents of the bill] feel is at stake here. " The church organization is what the proponents want to maintain at any cost.

Christian Scientists, she said, are by nature non-contentious people, and that is why there is not more opposition. This aside from the fact, of course, that only a dozen or so non-church Scientists knew about the copyright action. And they only heard about it at the very last minute, when it was too late to organize any type of resistance.

Miss Hackman felt there would be no problem at all about maintaining the purity of the contents of Science and Health, just as there has been no problem maintaining the purity of the Bible. This argument about "purity," she maintained, was only the decoy; what the proponents of the bill were really seeking, was absolute control of the church organization: "And that, " she said, "is the real purpose of this bill, it is to protect the organization of the church rather than the spiritual teachings of Mrs. Eddy."

One senses from Miss Packman's testimony that this copyright action is sought more to protect the public from access to Mary Baker Eddy's writings than to protect the writings from possible distortion by the public. Mrs. Eddy wanted everyone to be blessed by the teachings of Science and Health: "My discovery," she said, "promises nothing but blessings to every inhabitant of the globe." With Francis Thomson she knew that

All things by immortal power

Near or far


To each other linked are,

That thou canst not stir

a flower

Without troubling of a star.

Mary Baker Eddy's great work on earth was not done for her own self, nor for God; she dipped her pen in the well of Love and wrote for all people wherever they might be, to bless them and show them their divinity Innately all humanity has the capacity to understand what is in Science and Health; it should have the widest possible distribution rather than have its accessibility restrained and shackled by copyright regulations.

Attorney Hackman had been given only five minutes in which to present the side of perhaps the vast majority of Christian Scientists in the world today. Her excellent arguments for obedience to the laws of the land and for the religious liberty our great Constitution provides, fell largely on deaf ears, however. The 75-year copyright on Science and Health "For the relief of Clayton Bion Craig, Arthur P. Wuth, Mrs. Lenore D. Hanks, David E. Sleeper, and DeWitt John," was passed by both Houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Nixon.

Having secured a new copyright in their own name, on all 432 editions of Science and Health, the Christian Science Board of Directors in Boston is now free to remove Mrs. Eddy's name entirely from Science and Health, as in 1911 they removed her name and office as Pastor Emeritus from the Church Manual when, at that time, they put out a Manual of their own. Her name remained removed for fifteen years until pressure from the Field caused its restoration.

Writing in the April edition of the National Educator, Ron Bartlett (not a Christian Scientist) stated in part:

Haldeman and Ehrlichman, those two so-called Christian Scientists, were able to get the government under President Nixon to carry out a copyright on the writings of the Founder of the Christian Science religion, when she expressly wanted her works to go completely public as the Bible [is], as her book must be studied with the Bible. She prayed for her country; asked others to pray for our country; but apparently the Directors of The Mother Church took over after her death and did her in. The religion declined, members vanished from the churches....

Writing from the Republic of South Africa, a Christian Scientist of world renown gives his opinion:

It can now be said that in those copies of Science and Health --printed after 1971--the seemingly innocent and harmless words, "1971 The Christian Science Board of Directors copyright under special act of Congress. All rights reserved in all editions, " constitutes--by all that is sealed beneath them--a ghastly vilification of Mrs. Eddy.

It can be clearly shown that this so-called copyright is the very antithesis of Mrs. Eddy's committal of Science and Health to "honest seekers for Truth"....Science and Health has a rebuke for every action taken by the Christian Science Board of Directors to achieve that Act of Congress, and divine Principle will not allow that evil work to stand.

Then, writing about the Board of Directors' current legal action in which they are claiming they own the term "Christian Science," this same gentleman writes: "Now, what must surely be the final act of their [the Christian Science Board of Directors'] own self destruction, the Board places "Christian Science" on trial by its own god, legal power."

Another student writes, "the more one studies the history of Christian Science, the more one becomes aware of the intent of evil to separate the Discoverer of Christian Science from her discovery. This is as true today as it was a century ago. Evil's design and aim is, secondly, to separate the students from Mrs. Eddy through denying her place in prophecy- denying that Mrs. Eddy fulfilled step by step Jesus' prediction to St. John regarding the woman of the Apocalypse in chapter twelve of the Book of Revelation. This Woman brought Science and Health, the Comforter, promised by Jesus in chapters 14 and 16 of the Gospel of St. John which, in turn, fulfilled his parable of the 'leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.'"

Robbing Mrs. Eddy of her rightful place in scriptural prophecy, world esteem, and human history is an error that must be exposed. 'It requires courage to utter truth Mrs. Eddy states, and also, it requires the spirit of our blessed Master to tell a man his faults and risk displeasure ...... Writing in Historical Sketch of Metaphysical Healing, Mrs. Eddy says, "There is but one way to deal with sin; namely, if you can't stop it, expose it, for the safety of others."

Writing in the 1885 May Journal, on Love and "over what worlds of worlds it has range and is sovereign", she says she stands in awe before it, but states that

Sometimes this gentle evangel comes to burst the pent-up storm of error with one mighty thunder-bolt, and clears the moral atmosphere, foul with human exhalations. It is a born blessing at all times, either as a rebuke or a benediction.

Many alert Christian Scientists have been asking: "Was the 1971 copyright on Science and Health--which took the copyright away from Mrs. Eddy and gave it to the five individuals--legal? Or was the 75-year copyright obtained by misrepresentation and fraud?"

On page 253 of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy writes:

If you believe in and practice wrong knowingly, you can at once change your course and do right.

Nothing prevents those who advocated a wrong course of action from admitting a mistake was made, and from doing all in their power to rectify the error. This would require moral and spiritual courage, but it would attract respect.

Elsewhere she tells us, "All bonds that hinder progress will be broken." Evil will be seen powerless, and God, good, will be seen as infinite and omnipotent. In Science and Health we read, "It is Christian Science to do right, and nothing short of right-doing has any claim to the name."


Chart prepared by Dr Harry R. Shawk of Lacey, Washington

In an article (13) a few years ago the Board of Directors declared the organization to be "the watchful and tender guardian of human consciousness in its ascent Godward"! and in a letter to a Christian Science teacher in England, John Lawrence Sinton, the Board asserted that "any attempt to teach or lecture on Christian Science in any manner other than as provided for in [the Board's interpretation of] the Manual, constitutes an attack upon the sufficiency and finality of the revelation embodied in the textbook, its author's establishment of the church organization, and her divinely inspired provisions for its growth and progress. "14 At this time the Field had already been warned, says Braden, that any preference for the "irregular and unauthorized (literature] is distinctly a manifestation of mortal mind," and the Field had been reminded that if there were need of additional literature on the subject of Christian Science "it would naturally be recognized and satisfied by the Board of Directors."

A vast gulf yawns between such "paternalism" and Mrs. Eddy's basic teaching that every individual is entitled to freedom of thought and action in religion and Science, since the only "enemy" is the belief in a power apart from God. So, she counseled,

Let us serve and not rule...and allow to each and everyone the same rights and privileges we claim for ourselves" (Mis. 303).

Christian Science is not copyrighted....A student can write voluminous works on Christian Science if he writes honestly... (Ret. 76).

Spiritual rationality and free thought accompany approaching Science, and cannot be put down... (S&H 223)

Let the Word have free course and be glorified. The people clamor to leave cradle and swaddling clothes...Truth cannot be stereotyped; it unfoldeth forever. (No. 45)



What has been the result of the seventy-year rule in disobedience to the Church Manual's estoppel clauses?

Mrs. Eddy's estoppel clauses were intended to terminate the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors. This was her way of assuring that there would be no one to stand between her writings and the world. She wanted all mankind to be the owner of her writings and to be blessed by them.

Mrs. Eddy was betrayed; her plan was scuttled.

The chart prepared by Dr. Shawk, p. 160 shows how the number of registered Christian Science practitioners has dwindled from a magnificent 12,000 to perhaps less than 5,000 today Of the approximately 800 churches that have closed, more than 500 have closed in just the last four years. As the churches close, the Reading Rooms they maintained also close. The closing of the Reading Rooms at this alarming rate makes it increasingly difficult and inconvenient for the public to obtain the writings of Mary Baker Eddy since the Christian Science Board of Directors in Boston allows Mrs. Eddy's writings to be sold only in Reading Rooms, as the profits are doubtless needed to support the church organization.

Fortunately, today thousands of Christian Scientists are awakening, and as they do, they find it almost impossible to conceive how free people can be deluded into supposed obedience to such dictatorial rules controlling their lives and their thinking.

How many spiritually-minded, gifted writers have been prevented by the Boston hierarchy from sharing their divine inspiration with the field through the media Mrs. Eddy provided--the Christian Science Publishing Society--the only 'official" teaching institution Mrs. Eddy established legally, under a perpetual and irrevocable Deed of Trust to continue the spiritual education of the world when she was no longer here.

How many divinely gifted teachers have been prevented by Board-of-Director edicts from teaching and sharing their Christly input? Mrs. Eddy freed everyone to teach, requiring only that our great desire be to live the life of Love. Mrs. Eddy closed her College at the height of its prosperity. When it was re-opened, under her control, she used an estoppel clause to make sure that "organized" teaching would cease when she was no longer here to supervise it. Teaching Christian Science was, to Mrs. Eddy, a proper preparation of the heart from which teaching, practicing, and living would follow naturally. A prepared heart can give to the world the benefit of its preparation, and teach and heal with increased confidence, speaking, teaching, and writing freely the truth of Christian Science-the absolute letter combined with the spirit. The kingdom of heaven is within you, Mrs. Eddy emphasized-not afar off-but right within that which you accept as mind, as consciousness, and this includes all that you call person, place, or thing, all that appears as a book, a church, or a remedy.

Speaking to the "remnant" Mrs. Eddy counseled:

The letter of your work dies, as do all things material, but the spirit is immortal. Remember that a temple but foreshadows the idea of God, the "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, " while a silent, grand man or woman, healing sickness and destroying sin builds that which reaches heaven. Only those men and women gain greatness who gain themselves in a complete subordination of self.15

It is only "the adamant of error" that keeps us from this complete subordination of self, which is gained through obeying the sixteen chapters of Science and Health. These sixteen chapters of our textbook constitute our true body and our true Mind. Mary Baker Eddy's writings give us a whole new frame of reference, a totally new standpoint. As we learn to reason and deduce from our one divine Principle, we achieve that paradigm shift out of the world's way of thinking, into oneness with our true divine being. Our only need is to discover our divinity, and in that divinity every need is met.

This divinity is gained as we assimilate the divine character through exchanging mortal beliefs for the divinely scientific facts taught in Science and Health. This is why Mrs. Eddy felt that suppression of the textbook, such as has been accomplished by the 1971 Congressional Copyright Act, was far more dangerous than copyright violation. In Mary Baker Eddy's Six Days of Revelation Richard Oakes writes: "Mrs. Eddy's concern was not that someone else might print and sell her much as the possibility of legalized suppression.... Mrs. Eddy wrote William G. Nixon: 'Some worldly-poor Christian in England and elsewhere, can publish it for the good of our race; or translate it with more facilities than we can, in the old countries (Europe). Let them do it. It is God's Book and He says give it at once to the people. . . . There is a great sin being committed by delaying or suffering my Book, Science and Health, to be delayed for money consideration. If this course is pursued the unprecedented prosperity of this Book that I have always conducted on the opposite basis will go down in the hands of those who do this. This I know.

"God's law to 'feed my sheep,' to give Science and Health at once to those hungering for it, must be obeyed and held paramount to an international law on copyright."


EMBOLDENED by their success in wresting the copyrights on all editions of Science and Health from Mrs. Eddy, the Board of Directors are now claiming they own the term "Christian Science"-that the term Christian Science is a trademark, and as such it is the property of the Boston Board of Directors. The Board, as we saw in the Preface, is now in the process of suing the Independent Christian Science Church of Plainfield. The question before the Court today is: Do five individuals in Boston own the term "Christian Science"? Can the members of Independent Christian Science Church of Plainfield be deprived of their constitutional right to religious liberty and freedom to practice their religion in accordance with their interpretation of the teachings of Christian Science? Can any Christian Scientist anywhere in the world be summarily stripped of his right to call himself a Christian Scientist? Can only those who have permission from the Boston Board of Directors call themselves Christian Scientists?

The last By-Law in

No new tenet or By-Law shall be adopted, nor any Tenet or By-Law amended or annulled, without the written consent of Mary Baker Eddy, the author of our textbook, Science and Health.

When Mrs. Eddy lifted this By-Law out of the ecclesiastical document (the Church Manual) and placed it in the heart of her legal Deed of Trust (see Manual, p. 136) it made all 26 or more estoppels in the Church Manual a part of that Deed. By annulling the estoppel clauses every Director since 1910 has been in breach of the trusts contained in the 1903 Deed. This 1903 Deed, conveying land for church purposes is a legal instrument over which the Courts of the land do have jurisdiction. The Board of Directors in their suit against the Plainfield church may find their legal action has no basis whatever.

Furthermore it may well develop, at long last, that the Courts will recognize that the five-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors was made non-existent through the operation of Mrs. Eddy's estoppel clauses.

Mary Baker Eddy faced a world sunk in materialism. But she brought the message from God which was to bring change. On the capstone marking the place of her birth were four inscriptions--facing North, South, East, and West. The inscription facing west reads:



This new order of the ages which Mary Baker Eddy's writings initiated points "westward,(16 ) to the grand realization of the Golden Shore of Love and the peaceful sea of harmony. Mrs. Eddy's "MANUAL" embodying the spirit of her Magna Charta and her Declaration of Independence, breathes the omnipotence of divine justice which is the matrix of that peace which passeth all understanding . It lifts thought to the point of ascension where organized animate matter is no longer a legitimate state of man's conscious evolvement , and mortality is no longer seen "to be the matrix of immortality."17

'This is the higher spiritual message of the Manual and the reason Mrs. Eddy said, "Notwithstanding the sacrilegious moth of time, eternity awaits our Church Manual, which will maintain its rank as in the past , amid ministries aggressive and active, and will stand when those have passed to rest. 18

In studying the Church Manual, ones admiration and profound respect and gratitude for Mrs. Eddy is immeasurably heightened : one's heart overflows with love for this lone brave woman who single-handedly laid the foundation for the new order of the ages--a world government based on divine Love manifesting itself in brotherly love. Her Manual estoppel clauses lead the way: "It remains for the church to obey(them)." Mrs. Eddy finished the work God gave her to do. Of the kingdom her Science brought there can be no end. It will unfold forever.

« Back | End


Mary Baker Eddy's Church Manual & Church Universal and Triumphant

Introduction | Ch. 1 | Ch. 2 | Ch. 3 | Ch. 4 | Ch.5



©2012 The Mary Baker Eddy Science Institute – All rights reserved.
The Mary Baker Eddy Science Institute is a 50l(C)(3) non-profit tax-exempt organization.