Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 58.djvu/443

Rh Christianity; and in face of these facts his position, to say the least, seems unfair 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 adverse to Christ's teachings, but just how the good Professor determines the finality of what has defied eighteen centuries 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 Brooklyn, in the Christian Enquirer, a Baptist 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 certainly 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 Professor Jastrow's argument on this point has any force at all? Professor Jastrow also says Christian Science is not a science, and that Materia Medica is a science. This first assertion is most wanting in reason 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 science. The second assertion that Materia Medica is a science challenges the wisdom of experienced men who are authority on this subject, while Professor Jastrow is not. The 'Standard Dictionary' says of Materia Medica: 'It is the most empirical and tentative 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 Philadelphia teacher of medical practise; Dr. Waterhouse, Professor in Harvard University; Dr. Mason Good, a learned professor in London; Dr. Chapman, Professor of the Institutes and Practise of Physics in the University of Pennsylvania. Sir John Forbes, M. D., F. R. S., Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of London, says: "No systematic or theoretical classification of diseases that therapeutic science has ever promulgated 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 efforts 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 classifying the sciences nor of sitting in judgment on Christianity.

Mr. Jastrow acknowledged 'the