Article December 26, 1908 Issue

THE COURAGE TO SAY, NO

SAMUEL GREENWOOD.

To resist evil—to say, No, to wrong suggestions—is generally considered the right thing to do; but until Mrs. Eddy in Science and Health diagnosed disease as a "temptation," capable of being resisted as successfully and in the same manner as the temptation to sin, no one thought of taking that attitude toward sickness. (See Science and Health, pp. 218, 381, 450.) It is safe to say, however, that if this view were more universally adopted, and men realized that they have the same power from God to resist sickness and suffering that they have to resist moral evils, there would be less work for the doctors and a decided increase in Christianity. Jesus treated disease as the work of the devil, or Satan, and we have his authority for doing likewise. He healed sickness and sin with the same word; and on the basis that errors which are subject to correction by the same rule are of the same lineage, we may properly conclude that sin and disease have a common source, and that the truth is the antidote for both.

Christian Scientists are often condemned for denying the sense of sickness, as it is assumed that in so doing they are denying facts, and are therefore telling untruths; but these same critics deny the power of evil whenever they resist the temptation to be other than upright and honorable, and if it is right to deny one it is right to deny every phase which evil assumes. Christians are enjoined to war against the flesh as well as the devil, which surely means that they are to resist the thraldom of pain as well as of pleasure in the senses. The temptation to sin is recognized as wholly a mental suggestion, while sickness is regarded as purely a physical disorder, yet both are trespassers on the individual right of self-government, and both should be resisted for the same reason. It is evident that nothing can enter consciousness except through one's thoughts, since there can be no consciousness at all apart from mind; therefore bodily conditions should not be considered less amenable to thought than are moral conditions, especially when it is admitted that the entire universe is governed by divine Mind alone.

On page 420 of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy states that disease can be resisted and warded off as positively as can the temptation to sin; and again she says, on page 391, "When the body is supposed to say, 'I am sick,' never plead guilty." In other words, say, No!—and why should we not? Why plead guilty and be condemned without defense, especially when the cause of health is right and the other wrong? We say, No, to worry, covetousness, revenge, etc., when they tempt us, if we are wise, and why not to aches and pains when they also would tempt us? Must we believe that the latter have power over us despite our protest, while we know that the former have not? If, through the belief that man can be sinful, one is prompted to lie or to steal, and he says mentally, "No, I will not," and continues to say it so long as the suggestion continues, every one believes this to be the right course and that it prevails. But if, through the belief that man can be sick, one is tempted to think that he is weak or nervous, and so forth, he is apt to say, "Yes, I am." and continue admitting it while the suggestion lasts. How much better it would be for him to say, as in the former case, "No, I am not," and to hold to that position because it is right. The truth that God is infinite good, the divine Principle of being, and that He inflicts no suffering upon man, surely confers upon mortals the right to resist to its overcoming the imposition of any evil upon them, whether it be physical or moral. We have no more right to be sick than we have to be sinful, and if we were as unwilling to sin as we are to suffer for sin, we would more quickly recognize our power to resist both of these conditions. God's law compels no one to accept the dictates of a false, evil sense, no matter what may be the arguments used for their support.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

AN ADDED RESPONSIBILITY