DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 



435 



Christianity; and in face of these facts 

 his position, to say the least, seems un- 

 fair and unkind. 



The statement that Dr. Quimby 

 practised Christian Science or that his 

 mental method contained some of the 

 essentials of Christian Science accounts 

 for the further assertion that Christian 

 Science is not Christian. Professor 

 Jastrow deserves credit for discerning 

 that Dr. Quimby's methods were ad- 

 verse to Christ's teachings, but just 

 how the good Professor determines the 

 finality of what has defied eighteen cen- 

 turies of time and scholastic theology 

 is a mystery; to wit: the Doctrine of 

 Christ. Why, ages have wrangled and 

 fought over this subject until history 

 points with scarlet finger to unchristly 

 deeds and impotent creeds, all in His 

 name; and even yet the lack of unity 

 among Christian denominations and the 

 utter want of that power and glory 

 which characterized the founder of 

 Christianity and the early Christians 

 puts to shame the theological labor of 

 the centuries. 



Professor Jastrow is not an authority 

 on Christianity, yet he pronounces 

 Christian Science unchristian. Let me 

 quote some authority on this subject: 

 Rev. Edward T. Hiscox, D. D., of Brook- 

 lyn, in the Christian Enquirer, a Bap- 

 tist organ, says: "The modern Church 

 would be elevated to a much higher 

 plane of Christian living than it now 

 occupies if it were to follow them. I 

 am profoundly convinced that the great 

 need of all our churches is more of the 

 religion I have seen in the lives of the 

 Christian Scientists whom I know." 

 Rev. Dr. E. C. Bowls, of New York City, 

 President of the State Convention of 

 Universalist Ministers, in speaking of 

 Christian Science, says: "There is cer- 

 tainly a perception here of the true 

 foundation of Christianity." I might 

 quote from Phillips Brooks and many 

 theologians of like note, but quantum 

 sufficit. Who will venture to assert in 

 face of the evidence given that Pro- 

 fessor Jastrow's argument on this point 

 has any force at all? 



Professor Jastrow also says Chris- 

 tian Science is not a science, and 

 that Materia Medica is a science. This 

 first assertion is most wanting in rea- 

 son or proof, for if Christianity is not 

 scientific it is not true. Anything 

 which has a demonstrable principle is 

 said to be science. If Christianity lacks 

 a principle, it is nothing but theory or 

 belief; on the other hand, if the 

 Christian religion has a principle, it is 

 a scientific religion or a Christian sci- 

 ence. The second assertion that Ma- 

 teria Medica is a science challenges the 

 wisdom of experienced men who are 

 authority on this subject, while Pro- 

 fessor Jastrow is not. The 'Standard 

 Dictionary' says of Materia Medica: 

 'It is the most empirical and tenta- 

 tive of all sciences.' Many eminent 

 medical teachers and practitioners do 

 not agree with Professor Jastrow's 

 views on Materia Medica. Of these I 

 will mention Dr. Rush, the famous Phil- 

 adelphia teacher of medical practise; 

 Dr. Waterhouse, Professor in Harvard 

 University; Dr. Mason Good, a learned 

 professor in London ; Dr. Chapman, Pro- 

 fessor of the Institutes and Practise of 

 Physics in the University of Pennsyl- 

 vania. Sir John Forbes, M. D., F. R. S., 

 Fellow of the Royal College of Physi- 

 cians of London, says : "No systematic or 

 theoretical classification of diseases that 

 therapeutic science has ever promul- 

 gated is true or anything like the 

 truth, and none can be adopted as a safe 

 guidance to the practise." 



The above is to show the weakness 

 of Professor Jastrow's argument, and 

 not to depreciate the philanthropic ef- 

 forts and labor of the noble multitude 

 of M.D.'s who have alleviated much 

 suffering and done much good in the 

 world. We honor them for the noble 

 lives and the good they have done and 

 are still doing. 



Professor Jastrow is no doubt a very 

 clever and very learned man, but he 

 has not proved himself capable of classi- 

 fying the sciences nor of sitting in judg- 

 ment on Christianity. 



Mr. Jastrow acknowledged 'the pop- 



