Article August 3, 1912 Issue

It is strange to us that the reverend gentleman, after...

R. Stanhope Easterday

La Porte (Ind.) Herald

It is strange to us that the reverend gentleman, after making such sweeping concessions as he does in admitting "multitudes in every communion have been marvelously healed by more or less direct coming into the presence of God," and knowing, as he must know, something of the all-power of God, should object if the church is "challenged to abaridon all other means and depend solely upon the method of Jesus." We fail to understand, furthermore, how such reliance upon divine power can possibly be construed "neglect," how any better "skill" could possibly be conceived than that of the divine Mind, or how it can be considered in any sense "presuming" to look to God exclusively for surcease from human ills, in the light of the Scriptural assurance that it is God "who healeth all thy diseases." Neither can we appreciate what use God could possibly have for the mediation of human or material methods or means in His inscrutable exercise of the healing prerogative. It cannot be denied that Jesus, who did the most and the best healing that was ever done in the world, and who came into the world to "destroy the works of the devil," among which he classed disease as well as sin, did not use or recommend drugs or manipulation, did not diagnose disease or recommend the study of anatomy.

When his students on one occasion failed to heal a case, the great Teacher assured them that it was lack of "fasting and prayer," not of anatomical knowledge, that prevented them. It would logically seem then that "fasting," i.e., abstaining from the material that the higher and spiritual may be brought into evidence, and "prayer," i.e., intelligent communion with God, constituted the entire pharmacopoeia of the "great Physician." Coupling with this our Lord's dual command to "heal the sick" as well as to "preach the gospel," and his insistence that certain "signs following" should constitute the only criterion of true discipleship, and the preponderance of healing in his own earth ministry and during the activities of the early church,—all these would seem to justify the Christian Science contention that it was our Lord's theology that healed the sick and that the followers of the great Teacher should heal by their preaching and preach by their healing.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible or in history calculated to bear out the idea that Luke, the "beloved physician," practised medicine after he affiliated with Jesus, or that anything other than a growing knowledge of spiritual truth is essential to healing all manner of diseases. It is, to say the least, unjust to insinuate that an intelligent reliance upon God and faith in prayer on the part of any individual in a community renders that individual an unsafe member of society, and facts do not bear out the contention. On the other hand, there is slight evidence to bear out the insistence that vaccine or antitoxin effectually and unfailingly prevents and safeguard. As a matter of fact, there is considerable evidence that these serums are both dangerous and fatal, in too many instances.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

It is strange to us that the reverend gentleman, after...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access