Editorials

In the case of Harold Frederic, the inevitable re-action has already set in. Some of the newspapers which at first were severe in their denunciation of Christian Science, in connection with that case, are now writing more impartially and dispassionately upon the subject, and some are publishing the Christian Science side of the question.

The love of the Rev. Mary Baker Eddy for our flag, and her perception of its symbolic significance, have been heretofore referred to.

As Divine Principle is imperative, so are His demands imperative. There is neither broad highway nor narrow byway affording escape therefrom.

The latest pamphlet of the Rev. Mary Baker Eddy, "Christian Science versus Pantheism," is among the most valuable of her recent contributions to our literature.

We endeavor below to answer some of the questions that are most frequently propounded to Christian Scientists. We may remark, by way of preface, that it is much easier to ask questions than to answer them, especially when a single question may sound the depths of an infinite subject.

We are in receipt of letters which indicate that funds are being raised for the purpose of furnishing a certain Christian Science church with chairs and seats, under the "endless chain" system. The Journal has heretofore spoken in disapproval of such methods, and we hereby again call attention to the fact that from our point of view such methods do not properly belong to Christian Science.

( Personal ). Where God is, the devil cannot be.

We earnestly request the Field not to send subscriptions and other matters pertaining to the Publisher's Department, in letters enclosing articles for publication. The departments are separate and should be separately addressed.

Doubtless the readers of the 'Journal were surprised,— and we trust agreeably,—upon receiving the Christian Science Weekly. The purposes of the Weekly were sufficiently set forth in the first issue to advise the Field thereof.

The Christian Scientist who reads the attempts of certain non-Scientists to tell others what Christian Science is, cannot but wonder if there ever was a religious philosophy so utterly misapprehended, misrepresented, and distorted as is this one. He wonders if public speakers in general are so much in the habit of discoursing upon, and even attempting to instruct their audiences concerning, things about which they know so little, as are many who assume to tell the public what Christian Science is and what it is not.