EDITOR'S TABLE. 



407 



ing in the treatment of what ho re- 

 gards as religious errors. 



A line is to be hero drawn, clear 

 and sharp, separating this mode of re- 

 garding religion from that which pro- 

 claims it to be a sham, an imposture, 

 and a mere invention of priestcraft to 

 cheat credulous people. Between him 

 who believes that religion is a great 

 and sacred reality, and him who de- 

 nounces it root and branch, as a delu- 

 sion originating in fraud and knav- 

 ery, there can be no common ground. 

 These are not the "same opinions," 

 but diametrically opposite opinions. A 

 criticism of religious errors, however 

 trenchant it may be, if it gives the sub- 

 ject sincere and respectful considera- 

 tion, is as different as any two things 

 can be, from a spiteful, ruthless, and 

 exasperating assault upon the religious 

 sentiment of the community. And 

 w r hen these opinions are published for 

 no other reason than to startle and 

 shock the public by their audacity, and 

 for no other than a sordid purpose, the 

 case is still further aggravated. "The 

 Popular Science Monthly " has left oth- 

 ers to make what they might out of this 

 policy. 



The writer in the " Post " complains 

 that we have not published the views 

 of such men as the Duke of Argyll, to 

 which we reply: 1. That we should 

 have been glad to publish the Duke of 

 Argyll's articles, but had no room for 

 them. 2. That we started a supplement 

 to make more room, and did publish 

 the views of the Duke of Argyll. 3. 

 That the papers of his Grace have been 

 very widely reprinted in other channels, 

 so that the public has experienced no 

 inconvenience from the want of them. 

 The " Monthly," we must remember, 

 was established, not for the display of 

 polemical pugilism, but for the serious 

 purpose of placing before American 

 readers the most important results of 

 scientific thought as presented by its 

 ablest expositors. So far, indeed, has 

 it been from seeking sensational pa- 



pers, that its main purpose was to pub- 

 lish a class of valuable scientific arti- 

 cles, which, because they are too heavy 

 or will not pay, or conflict with public 

 prejudices, were systematically excluded 

 from our current magazines. While 

 striving to make our pages as varied 

 and attractive as possible, we have not 

 sacrificed the character of the maga- 

 zine to promote its pecuniary success 

 We have maintained a steady course, 

 our last issue is strictly in the lino of the 

 first, and all the wide approbation that 

 has been accorded us from the begin- 

 ning is as applicable now as it ever was. 



The " New York Observer," in com- 

 menting upon this subject, agrees with 

 the writer in the "Post" that the 

 " Monthly " is as bad as the " Eeview," 

 if not worse, and it very plainly says: 

 " We with thousands hope sincerely 

 that the commendable course taken by 

 the eminent publishers, in kicking the 

 ' Review ' out of their premises, will be 

 followed in regard to the 'Monthly.' 

 Or, what would be better still, let us 

 hope the ' Monthly' will omit its athe- 

 istic teachings, and become such an or- 

 gan of science as the great body of in- 

 telligent people will admit with confi- 

 dence into their homes." 



We have exploded the charge of the 

 " Post " writer, here repeated, because 

 he gave us his evidence, and we had 

 something tangible to deal with. But 

 the " Observer " scents atheism in ev- 

 erything scientific, and, if we began to 

 expurgate in accordance with its no- 

 tions, we should have to expunge the 

 whole "Monthly." For does not the 

 " Observer " hold evolution to be athe- 

 istic ? And what would " The Popular 

 Science Monthly" be, minus evolution? 

 It is the new dispensation of scientific 

 thought, cropping out everywhere, an- 

 tiquating old views, affording new 

 explanations, reorganizing knowledge, 

 and guiding the researches of scien- 

 tific men in every field of investigation. 

 . Those who do business on old opinions 

 are in a great state of perturbation and 



