434 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



A DEFENSE OF CHRISTIAN SCI- 

 ENCE. 

 To the Editor: You informed me in nry 

 recent interview with you that discus- 

 sions of a religious nature did not come 

 within the scope of the purpose of your 

 magazine. I am convinced by your 

 fair, frank and kindly manner that you 

 are unaware of the injustice done a 

 large class of thinking people and many 

 readers of your magazine by the arti- 

 cle in question between us written by 

 Professor Jastrow and published in the 

 September number of the Popular Sci- 

 ence Monthly. Nevertheless a great 

 injustice has been done in that you 

 have, even inadvertently, allowed a 

 religious movement to be attacked 

 through the press, while the rules of 

 your publication allow no redress. This 

 seems neither in consonance with jus- 

 tice, free speech nor a free press; and 

 now accepting the situation as no mo- 

 tive or act of yours, and inasmuch 

 as you must refuse to publish an 

 article defending Christian Science, un- 

 less the said article be written wholly 

 from a scientific viewpoint, excluding 

 scriptural basis and argument; and 

 inasmuch as Christian Science is not 

 merely a philosophy but a science, hav- 

 ing for its principle God, for its text- 

 book the Scriptures and for its proof 

 the moral, spiritual and physical bet- 

 terment of thousands of its adherents; 

 and inasmuch as the philosophy, works 

 and phenomena of Christian Science can 

 only be discussed or understood from 

 a Christianly scientific standpoint based 

 on the Scriptures, and not from 

 the standpoint of so-called material 

 science or from any hypothesis of a uni- 

 verse without a creator, who is om- 

 niscience (all science), and who, there- 

 fore, governs His creation with spiri- 

 tually scientific, not material, law; and 



inasmuch as that compilation which 

 our race and nation call the Bible, and 

 believe to be a revelation from God as 

 well as ancient history; inasmuch as 

 this book with its key alone unlocks 

 and reveals the consistent beauty, 

 grandeur, might and majesty of spir- 

 itual law or science which the world 

 cannot see, does not understand, and 

 the 'wise' call foolish and inconsist- 

 ent. — Considering all these points and 

 conceding them — because you cannot 

 deny from an opposite premise what 

 I find true — and now, my dear sir, 

 I will ask you to publish this, my letter 

 to you, and a few remarks on Professor 

 Jastrow's article, 'The Occult.' 



To begin with, let it be understood 

 that in very fact Professor Jastrow did 

 not attack Christian Science at all. He 

 thought he did, and was no doubt per- 

 fectly honest in decrying a thing em 

 occult and wrong as what he believed 

 Christian Science to be; and were it 

 such a thing I would join issue with 

 our critic against it — but behold the 

 fact: Christian Science is as far above 

 what Professor Jastrow attacked in the 

 'occult' as the science of astronomy is 

 above 'tiddledewinks.' 



Professor Jastrow says: "Logic is 

 the language of science. Christian Sci- 

 ence and what sane men call science 

 cannot communicate, because they do 

 not speak the same language." Here 

 the Professor, a material scientist, con- 

 fesses profound ignorance of our spiri- 

 tual premises, yet sits in judgment oh 

 mentally scientific and metaphysical 

 statements in Science and Health, vili- 

 fies the science and calls its votaries in- 

 sane. Such a position makes our crit- 

 ic's logic lame. Surely, Professor Jas- 

 trow must be cognizant of the fact 

 that very many, as erudite as he, swell 

 the ever-increasing ranks of scientific 



