Salvation and the Mortal Body.

Preface.
In the eighth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, is a very important statement concerning the acquisition of truth and its effect.  It is a statement addressed by Jesus, "to those Jews which believed on Hirn."  To them He said: "If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
The process of apprehending the truth consists in continuing in His Word, and the effect of the apprehension of truth is freedom.  This statement should be accepted by all believers as the enunciation of a spiritual law by Him who impressed upon creation, the laws which it obeys.  This law is one that man might never have discovered for himself; but he can verify it by experience and observation now that it has been revealed to him.  He can find abundant confirmation of the fact that knowing the truth, gives freedom, that the more truth one knows, the larger is his liberty, and that the effect of rejecting truth and clinging to error is a corresponding bondage.
Continuing in the Word is the process whereby we apprehend truth, and conversely, the apprehension of truth is the purpose for which we continue in the Word.  We can set no limit to the amount of truth which it is possible for us to apprehend, but we may limit the amount apprehended, and hence, may limit our freedom by clinging to preconceptions after we have seen ln the Word the truth which contradicts them.
One of the commonest preconceptions brought to the study of the Bible is that it deals exclusively with man's spiritual concerns and makes provision for his spiritual needs.  Not that this preconception is always formulated in the mind, but it is securely lodged there, and all the more securely if unconsciously entertained.  There is a pronounced though unconscious tendency to despise material things, and to regard the body as a prison, and to think of oneself as merely struggling to escape from it and from all fleshly and earthly environment.  There is also a tendency to regard ones future as a misty, unsubstantial, disembodied existence concerning which it is impossible to form any clear conceptions.  Nothing could be further from the truth as revealed in Scripture; and one who has had his attention called to the fact, and hence, is put on guard against his unconscious preconceptions, will see how much is made of the human body, as the crowning glory of God's material creation, and of the earth upon which man lives, with all its manifold creatures and its marvels of Divine wisdom and adaptation.  He will find that the human body, and its physical environment, are not experiments which God will abandon as failures, but are His unchangeable purposes, which are to endure to all eternity, and are to be manifested and fulfilled in a glorified body, delivered from all the effects of sin, and in a glorified earth purged from the curse which transgression brought upon it.
The truth concerning the human body is apprehended by the same process as that employed in the apprehension of any other truth. One sees the truth in the Word, believes it, trusts it, and then verifies it by experience.  In this manner, the writer has apprehended the teachings of the Word concerning the Divine provision therein made for the mortal bodies of believers, in sickness and in health.  Having learned that our present salvation is not confined to the soul and having gained knowledge of the relation between the "mortal bodies" of believers and the resurrection life of Christ (Rom. viii. 11), he has come into the enjoyment of the corresponding freedom which that truth confers (John viii. 32).  These pages are intended to set forth for "those who believe on Him,” the pertinent teachings of Scripture on the important subject of the treatment of the body in sickness, and to explain why the writer has been constrained to surrender opinions formerly entertained by him, and very largely held by Christian men and women.
I. 
OUR BODIES. (Rom. viii. 11).
No other writings place upon the human body so high a value or exalt it to so high a place as do the sacred Scriptures.  We need not cite the familiar passages which refer to the marvel of this crowning work of Gods visible creation.  The fact which exalts the human body to the pinnacle it occupies is the tremendous fact that the Son of God has taken for His eternal occupation, the body of a man.  We speak in our title of the "mortal” body as in Romans viii. 11, to distinguish from the immortal, incorruptible body wherewith we are to be clothed at the coming of the Lord. Our present concern is only with regard to this tabernacle of flesh, and our purpose is to search the Scriptures for the purpose of learning whether, and if so, to what extent, the salvation wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ, includes the mortal body.  We know that God's purpose was to give us in the Bible full, clear and explicit directions for our guidance in every phase of the life we "now live in the flesh."  Its whole practical application has reference to "this present darkness," for in the life of the coming age, we shall be in the personal presence of the Lord.  We know that this precious Word of God is rich and full and being prepared with Divine wisdom prompted by infinite love; we firmly believe and hold that it omits nothing which we need for our guidance through this wilderness. Sickness or disorder of the body is one of the most common incidents of life.  Does the Bible contain no directions to be followed by  God's people in case of sickness?  Is God's Word the whole truth for the whole man—spirit, soul and body—or is it in this respect incomplete and imperfect?  This is a serious question for those who acknowledge the supreme authority of God’s Word and who desire to submit all their actions to its control.  
Many Christians sincerely believe and earnestly contend that God has bestowed the skill and ingenuity which men employ in extracting and concocting, from plants, minerals and animal matter, the various drugs and chemicals embraced in the materia medica, and that from Him, come the knowledge of their application to the cure of diseases.  Undoubtedly, all wisdom and skill are gifts of God, but it is equally certain that men do not in all cases use those gifts in ways approved by God.  The question before us is whether the treatment of disease by the introduction of drugs into the body is in accordance with the purposes of God.  Are the systems of cures practiced by the medical profession under the direction of the Holy Spirit, so that believers not only may, but ought to resort to them in sickness?  If drugs and chemicals have indeed been sought out of nature by divinely guided wisdom and are God's appointed instrumentalities for His needy and dependent children in cases of disease, then they who refuse their aid are guilty of despising and rejecting the gifts of God.  Thus do some Christians argue, and their conclusion is sound if the premise be true.  
But there are other Christians who bear in mind the fact that the pursuit of knowledge in the paths wherein men now seek it was not entered upon at the bidding of God, but in direct disobedience to His command, and at the instigation of Satan.  They cannot, therefore, take it for granted that the results of that quest are from God, and are to be used as such.  The presumption is rather the other way. Everything in the realm of nature is created by God, and the powers which man employs ln searching nature's materials and extracting chemical agents therefrom are also bestowed upon him by God.  But on the other hand, these powers are now, and have been since the fall, exercised by the great mass of mankind, not under God's direction, but under Satan’s.  
The condition or scheme of things which is the outcome of man's effort to dispense with Divine aid and guidance does indeed reveal the magnitude, as well as the limitations of the powers bestowed upon him.  It reveals also something of the wealth of the resources which the Creator has stored in nature; but that scheme of things is on the whole so radically different from anything contemplated by God, that He will eventually destroy it completely.  Wonderful discoveries have been made, wonderful laws and forces of nature have been brought to light, and wonderful contrivances for utilizing them have been devised.  Man contemplates these discoveries, laws and contrivances and glorifies himself.  But his world-system is, after all, a thing of makeshifts and expedients—a continual and hopeless struggle against the entrenched principles of corruption and decay. In such a state of things, there is manifest a need of care and discernment and of the aid of all the light that God has given, in order to distinguish between His gifts and man's perversions of them. 
In man's struggle against the forces of disease and death, he has elaborated various methods of defense, to the sum total of which has been given the name “medical science.”  These methods, though far from effectual, have been very helpful in the relief of pain and in repairing injuries to health.  Without the aid of medical science, imperfect as it is, disease would have much freer play upon the unbelieving mass of humanity.  
But, in respect of the causes and agencies to which the ravages of sin and death are due, God has intervened and has offered deliverance from sin and death to all who will accept His offer. Some have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour and have, in consequence thereof, become organically united with Him—members of the Body of Christ.  These are a peculiar people, separated entirely from all the rest of mankind.  The separation is absolute; that which separates them is nothing less or other than death, the death of Christ.  To the world and all its expedients, they are dead (Gal. vi. 14).  They are dead to sin, and its consequences, and to self (Rom. vi. 2; Col. ii. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 11). These are not figures of speech, but tremendous facts, setting forth in the most solemn and emphatic way, the great truth that in the contemplation of God, every believer is identified with Jesus Christ. 
"For we thus judge that one died for all, therefore all died" (2 Cor. v. 14).
"l have been crucified with Christ" (Gal. ii. 20) . 
"For ye died and your life is hid with Christ in God" (Col. iii. 3).
Upon those to whom these statements apply, death has exhausted its power—not that they escape death, which has passed upon all men and from which none escape, but that they have already died in virtue of their identity with Christ.  “One died for all, therefore all died."  Our question concerns only this peculiar class of persons who, though in the world, are dead, having been crucified to the world. That question is, what have these who are dead, to do with death and its agent disease?  Has their death with Christ changed in no respect their relation to and their defenses from these enemies?  
But the above quotations give only a part of the pertinent truth.  Believers are not only identified with Christ Jesus in death, but also in resurrection and newness of life.  Not only did He die for all, but He died that "they which live, should henceforth live no longer unto themselves but unto Him."  The apostle, after declaring the great fact of his crucifixion with Christ, declares the greater fact "nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. ii. 20).  These separated ones, therefore, are not only dead to all wherein they previously lived but are alive to all that whereunto formerly they were dead.  In Christ, all things have become new.  They are no longer dead in trespasses and sins, but are quickened "together with Christ," and not only so, but are "raised up together," and made to sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus" (Eph. ii. 5, 6).
Recognizing these as truths given by God and to be accepted by us with implicit trust, we seek, in humble dependence upon the teaching of His Word and Spirit, to ascertain whether this wonderful salvation contains any provision for the "mortal body."  Are the redeemed of the Lord, saved by the death of Christ from the penalty and power of sin so far as concerns their souls, but left, in respect of its effects upon the body to the same expedients and remedial agencies as the unbelieving?  Has God provided any special means to be used by His children in times when the enemy gains power over these bodies?  This is the question to which we seek an answer, and a consideration of the relation of disease to sin, and a consideration of Christ's work as the Saviour of mankind, will make it very clear that it is not merely a question of choice between different methods of treating and combatting sickness. It involves the question of obedience, and it invokes the honor of our Saviour and the completeness of His work of salvation.
If God has provided means for the use of believers when sickness attacks their bodies, then they disobey Him and despise His remedies if they turn from them to such as the ingenuity of man has elaborated.  On the other hand, if the system of medication is indeed God's appointed means for combatting disease, believers are equally disobedient and presumptuous if they substitute another method. Is there no way whereby we can with certainty decide this question?  Undoubtedly there is. Whatever comes from God, can clearly prove its origin by reference to His Word.  We know from Scripture, that food, drink, clothing, shelter, cleanliness, sleep, sanitation, dietation and isolation from infectious diseases, are divinely ordained.  The minute and careful directions given on these subjects afford us full assurance that if putting drugs (many of them poisonous) into the human body, is in accordance with the mind of God, His Word will clearly say so.  We are directed therein not only how to distinguish between what is wholesome and what is unwholesome for food but are told how we are to partake of food.  We are to be temperate in eating and drinking, and to receive the gifts of food with thanksgiving.  In the plainest language, we are informed that the Lord "giveth food to all flesh" (Ps. cxxxvi. 25) and that it is the Lord ''who giveth food to the hungry" (Ps. cxlvi. 7).  Before Adam's transgression, God explained to him that the fruits of the trees and the herbs bearing seed were given him for meat (Gen. i. 29), "and the Lord God commanded the man saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it" (ii. 16, 17).
Again, after the flood, when Noah and his family were the sole representatives of the human race, God added His sanction and command as to the use of animal food, saying: "Every moving thing that liveth, shall be meat for you; even as the green herb, have I given you all things.  But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, thou shalt not eat" (Gen. ix. 3, 4). And previously, in giving directions concerning the living creatures which were to be taken into the ark, God recognized the distinction between the clean and unclean animals (Gen. vii. 2).  Later on, the distinction between clean and unclean animals was embodied in the Mosaic code, the most minute directions being given with reference to the important subject of food.  Science can now, by its tardy discoveries, point out the hygienic reasons for prohibiting the use of the blood as food, and for prohibiting also the use of the flesh of certain animals.  This affords clear proof that these directions came from One having wisdom and understanding which no man then possessed.
II.
THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE AS TO MEDICINE.
Some persons argue (most superficially) that because one eats when hungry, therefore one should take medicine when ill.  It would suffice, in order to dispose of this proposition, to bring to mind that hunger is an incident to the life of man in the normal state of health, and that food is the Divine provision and arrangement made before the fall of man.  But the conclusive reply is that the two cases of food for replenishing the waste of the body and medicines for treating disease therein are vastly different in this, that the Bible, in numerous passages states that food is a gift from God and gives indications whereby it may be distinguished from substances unsuitable for food, whereas not one word is said of the use of medicines.
The silence of Scripture on this point is a very weighty fact, the weight of which will be best appreciated by those who are best acquainted with Scripture, and who know that the omissions of the Word are as much a matter of inspiration as its utterances.  We now understand clearly that the provisions of the Mosaic code with respect to the use and preparation of food, as well as its sanitary provisions and those relating to personal and ceremonial cleanness, had the preservation of health for their object.  These facts redouble the significance of the omission here and elsewhere in Scripture, of all reference to the employment of chemical agents in combatting disease.  We even find the subject of food and of sickness referred to in the same sentence.  Thus, in Exodus, xxiii. 25, we read: "And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and He shall bless thy bread and thy water; and I will take away sickness from the midst of thee."
What effect shall we give to the significant fact that God here promises His people that He will bless their bread and their water, but omits to say that He will bless their medicines?  And can we not see a meaning in the remarkable change in the midst of the sentence from the third to the first person? Does not this say to us that while God provides and blesses means for satisfying hunger and thirst, He undertakes Himself to remove sickness from our midst?
But we wish to proceed carefully in this inquiry, seeking at this stage merely to ascertain whether the Scriptures teach that drugs are appointed of God for our use in sickness.  If such teaching be found therein, or can be deduced therefrom, that fact would settle the matter for every believer.  But there is no such teaching, nor anything from which it can be deduced.  The advocates of the use of medicine by believers do not pretend that Scripture enjoins it; but we are aware that not all Christians will esteem the silence of Scripture as conclusive against the use of medicines, and we do not wish to push and fall to conclusions which are not clearly justified by it.
Nevertheless, if we believe God's Word to be complete and perfect, we must have as much regard to its silences and omissions as to its utterances.  We must believe that a man will live according to God's will if he, not only does all that is commanded therein, but also goes beyond those commands in no particular.  The Holy Spirit in the Epistle to the Hebrews, bases a great doctrinal truth upon the apparently trivial and insignificant circumstance that the Scriptures make no mention of the genealogy of Melchizedec.
Another omission is not without significance to all who apprehend the truth of the identification of the believer with his Lord.  We are to be like Him in this world, and while we read that He was hungry, thirsty, weary, grieved, and oppressed by sorrow, and that He eat, drank, and slept and rested, and wept and prayed, and brake and distributed bread; we nowhere read that He was sick or that He either took or administered medicines.
When, therefore, it is asserted (as has been said to the writer by a minister of the gospel) that drugs and chemical compounds are gifts bestowed by God upon mankind, to be taken by a believer into his body at the direction possibly of an infidel physician, we must demand first of all, upon what Scripture the assertion is based.  The writer has asked that question but has received no answer. The best of the replies has been a reference to the circumstance that Luke is called the "beloved physician."  This is obviously equivalent to the admission that there is no basis in Scripture for the assertion, since there is not the slightest ground for supposing that Luke wrote prescriptions, or practiced healing in any other way than by the exercise of the gift of the Spirit.
I can, therefore, not do otherwise than reject this assertion as absolutely without foundation; and every fair-minded person must admit, whatever other arguments may be advanced, that not from one passage of Scripture can it be proved or inferred that God taught mankind how to distill and compound the deadly drugs and poisons, or the less baneful medicants, which are contained in the pharmacopeia;—much less that He directs His believing children to use them in cases of disease.
The significance of this silence of Scripture gains in importance as one dwells upon it.  When we consider the immense range of the sacred writings and the infinite variety of the subjects of which they treat, as well as the minuteness with which they deal with every need of man, whether spiritual or physical, the absence of any direction for the use of drugs in case of sickness should impress every faithful heart with the belief that the use of these remedies is not in accordance with the Divine will.  For the purposes of this branch of our inquiry, it will suffice to bear in mind the provisions of the Mosaic code.  This wonderful God-given body of laws and practical directions is in large part devoted to matters of diet and hygiene.  It was, and was intended to be, a complete and perfect manual of living "which if a man do, he shall live in them." (Neh. 9: 29.)  Diseases, such as leprosy, are specifically mentioned, and the law goes into very minute details in matters of health, sanitation, dictation and personal cleanliness.  The reasons underlying some of these provisions with reference to food and cleanliness can only be understood in the light of the modern discovery of the propagation of diseases by means of micro-organisms.  In view of all this, it is impossible to explain the absence of directions for the use of drugs except upon the ground of God's deliberate purpose not to sanction their use by His people. Giving to all these matters their full significance, and considering the scope and purpose of Scripture—the Divinely given light to guide man in every detail of his journey through a Satan-controlled world,—we must conclude not only that the use of drugs in the treatment of disease is without the warrant of Scripture, but that God did not and does not purpose that His people should resort to their aid.
We are not at this point seeking for the light of Scripture upon God's way for healing the sick among His people, but simply to establish clearly the proposition that the use of drugs is not, so far as Scripture speaks to the point, the Divinely appointed way.  At a later point in the inquiry, we will show from the Scriptures that God has a way for the treatment of sickness by His people.  But let us first exhaust our examination of the system of medicinal treatment.  It may conceivably be that, although not directly sanctioned by the Word, it may bear upon it, marks which unmistakably establish its Divine origin.
DOES MEDICAL SCIENCE DISPLAY THE MARKS OF A DIVINE ORIGIN?
Nothing will here be said in disparagement of the medical profession, in whose ranks many godly men have labored and do now labor unsparingly to mitigate human misery, prolong life and alleviate pain.  The major part of men and women have no one to whom they can go in case of sickness except the doctor.  This applies to Christians as well as to unbelievers, for the major part of the former class take it for granted that God has invested physicians with His healing powers, and can only be invoked to "bless the remedies" prescribed by the latter.  Let us also recognize the fact that progress has been made in combatting infectious and contagious diseases, though the progress has not been so much in the treatment of diseases by medicines, as in their prevention by sound sanitary measures and conditions.  Against this progress, however, must be set the great increase of nervous disorders, brain diseases, insanity, and diseases of the digestive apparatus, which are incident to the twentieth century rate and manner of living.  On the whole, it may be questioned whether the much-boasted progress of medical science has really gained, in the last century, any advantage over the great enemies of the race—disease and death.
All this, however, is aside from our question, and is merely said in order that no reader's susceptibilities may be wounded.  What we are seeking is a clear and authoritative answer to the question whether the use of drugs is God's ordained means for healing the diseases of His people; and we have already shown the improbability of this from the fact that Scripture gives absolutely no direction for the use of drugs, although the healing of diseases was committed by God to His priests of the old dispensation and to His ministers of the new. We are warranted in concluding that, had God intended that His saints should combat disease in their bodies by the use of medicines, He would not only have said so, but would have given directions for their preparation and use, similar to the directions given by Him with reference to dictation, hygiene, and preventive therapeutics in general.
Leaving this argument from the silence of Scripture, let us see what light upon our inquiry is afforded by an examination of the prominent characteristics of medical science. As we survey the field of medical science and practice, the first characteristic that attracts our attention is the utter lack of harmony therein. Instead of one system for the cure of disease, we find many.  There are allopaths, homeopaths, hydropaths, osteopaths, eclectics, and others.  So far from there being any harmony in this "science," there is hopeless discord and disagreement.  Indeed, the adherents of one school do not hesitate to stigmatize others as "charlatans." Now, "God is not the author of confusion," and since these different systems and schools of medicine are fundamentally at variance one with another, it is certain that God cannot be the author of all of them.  If, therefore, we accept the proposition that medical treatment is God's way for healing His believing children, to which they should submit in case of sickness, we have yet to ascertain which of these conflicting systems is His.  Manifestly, there is no way of deciding between the conflicting schools and the only decision which it is possible to reach is that none of them are His.
Looking further into this subject, we perceive that another characteristic of medical science— particularly in the most popular system, called "allopathic,"—is extreme changeability.  The methods of treatment of various diseases in vogue at the present day were, with scarcely any exception, unknown fifty years ago.  This certainly is not characteristic of Him in whom is no variableness.  If drugs and the methods of using them are from God, then we have to admit that God has given different drugs and methods of treatment to different generations of men, and that the gifts of God are not, in this respect at least, "without repentance" (i.e., change of mind), clearly then, the doctrine that medicines are the means through which God works in cases of disease, amounts practically to saying that, in this phase of life, He has simply left man to shift for himself and to discover what remedies he can use.  Certainly, from what we know of God by revelation, it is much easier to believe that when the record of revelation closed, it included a definite unvarying provision for the needs of His children in sickness and in health, which was to be the same for all generations of believers until the end of the age.  That there is, in the Word, a very firm basis for this belief, will be shown later on.
The instability, inconsistency and changeableness of "medical science" are sure indications that it is not from God.  These are the characteristics of all the works of man wrought under Satanic guidance.  Knowledge was the object of the career upon which the human race embarked at the suggestion of Satan, and the descendants of Adam, in their ignorance and blindness, pride themselves upon the results of that quest.  God had planned for His creature, a very different career, of which fellowship with Himself was the chief feature; and we know that this original purpose, defeated in the first Adam, will yet be accomplished in and through the last Adam, and that ultimately, the tabernacle of God will be with men in a better Eden (Rev. xxi).  Man has undoubtedly wrought many great works and penetrated far into the knowledge hidden by God in nature; but in all these works is the element of decay which shows that they are not Divine.  Most conspicuously are these marks of origin stamped upon the teachings and practice of "medical science," so that there seems small excuse indeed for believers in Scripture to mistake its source, or to fail to classify it where it belongs—among the results of partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
There is the best of reasons for the contradictions and changeableness of medical practice in the administration of drugs.  God has kept to Himself, the knowledge of the mysteries of living matter. No man knows, or can know, the chemical action of various reagents upon living tissue in health and in disease.  Living matter cannot be subjected to chemical analysis, for in the very process of examination, it becomes dead matter.  Here is the explanation of the widely varying theories of treatment and rapidly changing methods.  Here, too, lies the opportunity for ignorant dogmatizing, for imposture, quackery and malpractice.  Where ignorance so vast and dense prevails, it is as impossible to deny with certainty as to affirm with certainty.  Hence, the most bare-faced frauds and unblushing quacks have abundant opportunity to flourish; and if it be the truth that God has left mankind to the results of medical treatment in cases of disease, without any means of distinguishing the true method of treatment from the false.  He has in this matter dealt with man after a very different fashion from that shown in all His other dealings with him. No man understands the human body.  Its construction and functions are impenetrable mysteries, save only to Him who created it.  Hence, the command of the apostle to present our bodies to God, and his declaration that the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (Rom. xii: 2; 1 Cor. vi: 13.)
Reflection upon the foregoing characteristics of medical science must lead to the conclusion that it does not bear the marks of a Divine origin.  Therefore, if God has provided for them who trust Him and who believe His Word, a way of treatment for the body in a state of disease, we must look for it elsewhere than to the science of medicine.
At this point, it is pertinent to remark that God's way, when found, will identify itself by its simplicity and universality.  It will have the characteristics of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper—availability at all times and in all places—and it will be such that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."  We shall presently see, from the clear, unambiguous statements of Scripture, that God's way of treatment of physical disorder has these characteristics; the means provided by Him being prayer, the laying on of hands, and anointing with oil in the name of the Lord, which ordinances are to be observed in faith and obedience.
III.
GOD’S WAY IN SICKNESS.
Being fully assured, as the result of our examination thus far, that medical science in respect of the treatment of disease by the use of drugs cannot demand acceptance at the hands of God's people as His remedy for them in sickness.  We look into the Word to learn what, if any means He has appointed for their use at such times.  We go to Him asking, “What shall I do when sick"  This is an important question.  It is a matter in respect to which the enemy will certainly seek to lead us astray.  We may, therefore, inquire of God in His Word, in the fullest assurance that His answer to that question will be clearly given there; that He has not left His Word in an incomplete condition, lacking any information which a child of His may need, but that, on the contrary, "the law of the Lord is perfect."
For a right comprehension of sickness or disorder of the mortal body, we must consider it in    connection with its origin; in connection with its mission and work of the Saviour; in connection with the ministry and operation of the Holy Spirit as He indwells the Church "the one Body" and the individual bodies of believers; and in connection with the will of God and with His method of overruling and bringing good results out of conditions which have arisen contrary to His will.  We shall see that sickness or physical disorder is not ignored in Scripture, but on the contrary, is recognized and fully discussed.
THE ORIGIN OF SICKNESS.
A reference to the origin of sickness will be very helpful in our effort to reach the truth we are seeking. Disease is not in any form or to any extent an incident of man's original state, but on the contrary, is utterly foreign thereto.  It came upon man as a consequence of his disobedience and departing from the will of God.  It is a manifestation of death and a sign in the flesh of the influence of Him who has the power of death.  Sickness is to the body what sin is to the soul.  Nothing, therefore, could be more false, unscriptural and unjust to God than to attribute sickness to Him and to say, as some deem it pious to do, that it comes in accordance with His will.  It would be just as true and scriptural to attribute to God sin, the leprosy of the soul, as to attribute to Him the leprosy or other diseases of the body.  It should not be necessary to dwell upon this, since it must be evident upon a moment's reflection.  But this truth, that sickness is not from God, should be clearly and firmly grasped, for it goes to the root of the question under consideration.  If the proposition be not self-evident, let it be remembered that it is Satan who has the power of death (Heb. ii. 14); that Jesus always treated disease as hostile, "rebuking" the fever (Luke iv. 39) and declaring that the diseased woman was in bondage to the enemy (Luke xiii. 16); and that Paul declared that His thorn in the flesh was a "messenger of Satan'' (2 Cor. xii. 7).
Sin and sickness are, therefore, linked together, being but two different manifestations of the same enemy, sin being the form in which death attacks the soul, and sickness the form in which it attacks the body.  This is too plain, both from Scripture and from common experience, to require further argument for its support.  Therefore, we can as well conceive of jails, reformatories, inebriate homes and other palliatives which man has devised to protect himself from some of the effects of sin in his fellow-man, as God's remedies for sin, as to conceive of medicaments as His remedies for disease. We know that no sooner had the consequence of man's disobedience fallen upon him than God came forward with His remedy.  THAT REMEDY WAS CHRIST; and strange it is that men who are able to see clearly that Christ is God's remedy for the sickness of the soul, and who accept Him as such, should not see the truth declared in the Bible with equal clearness that He is likewise God's remedy for the sickness of the body.
We have said that the Word of God is perfect, containing the whole truth for the whole man.  We now declare the­ kindred truth that Jesus Christ is an uttermost Saviour, the Saviour of the whole man, body, soul and spirit.  This truth is declared in explicit passages of Scripture, but most clearly does it shine out in the records of the life of Jesus, wherein much more is said of His healing the sickness of the body than of His healing the sickness of the soul.  It is an amazing thing for believers in Jesus as the Saviour of man to say that, while He still saves the souls of them who call upon Him, He no longer heals their bodies.  If this has been the reader's view, we earnestly ask Him to consider on what it is based.  Certainly, we cannot believe that God has changed His dealings with men unless we have an explicit revelation to that effect; and we have as good reason to believe that Jesus has turned over the work of saving men from sin to the reformatories, temperance societies and educational institutions as that He has turned over the work of saving them from sickness to the doctors and pharmacists.
Let us have just one passage to show that Jesus did not continue His work as healer to special   cases, but gave deliverance to all men, and cured all manner of diseases and all manner of sickness, just as He taught all men and preached to all, the Gospel of the kingdom: "Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness" (Matt. ix. 35). And that the work of healing as well as that of preaching the Gospel should be continued in His absence; we read a little further on: "And He called unto Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness" (Matt. x. 1).  (See also Luke ix. 6 and 11; Acts x. 38.)
One of the strangest of all lapses from the faith once delivered to the saints is that which has succeeded in substituting the resort to the physician for resort to Jesus.  This lapse is strange because those Christians who make this substitution, deny His unchanging name and nature (one of His glorious titles is "Jehovah that healeth thee," Exod. xv. 36), reject His gift of healing and disbelieve His Word.  His express word to His disciples, recorded in Mark xvi. 17, 18, was that certain signs among these was that “they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.”  That word still stands, but Christians no longer believe it, and are even taught by the graduates of theological seminaries to disbelieve it.  If therefore, anyone asks where to-day are the miracles of healing? we answer that they are to be found to-day where they have always been found, among "them that believe."  Christ did not promise that this sign should follow them that believe not.  It is not the gift of healing that has departed, but the faith in Him who gave it, and whose gifts and calling are without repentance.
We conclude, therefore, from a consideration of the nature and origin of sickness, that God did not omit, and could not have omitted, from His scheme of redemption, provision for the healing of sickness among His redeemed people.  Since, however, it is characteristic of man to prefer his own expedients, God has put the truth before him but left him free to exercise his own choice.  God sets before men His own Son, the supreme gift of His infinite love, to be the complete remedy for sickness of soul and for sickness of body, but He does not coerce His creature man, into the acceptance of His remedy.  Man is free to choose his own way in this, as in all other lines of action, and is, as always, fertile and ingenious in devising plausible reasons to defend his choice.  If the plain declarations of God's Word oppose it, we are told that those declarations do not apply to the times in which we live; and if we ask for some authority for this statement, no satisfactory answer is given. The preaching of God's Word in this matter is clear.  From it we learn that He has provided one remedy for disease; whether it appear in the soul or in the body; for the disease is one and the remedy is one.  In Matt. viii. 16 and 17, we are told that He cast out the unclean spirits with His Word and healed all that were sick, and that He did this "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet saying: Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses."  The passage referred to (Isa. liii. 4) has in the authorized version, the word, “griefs" instead of sicknesses, but, as stated in the margin of the revised version, the Hebrew word is "sicknesses."
The healing of sickness, therefore, is as much the mission and work of Christ as the salvation of souls.  We do not say that it constitutes so important a part of that mission, but it is just as clearly comprehended in it.  To one who has grasped the great truth of the Gospel that belief in Jesus, unites the believer organically with Him, it is clear that the statement referred to above in Isaiah liii and Matthew viii., means exactly what it says.  Because the believer is identified with Christ in death and in resurrection, he puts off upon his great Burden Bearer, the infirmities of both soul and body. Christ bears our sicknesses because He bears our sins.  The Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all, and by His stripes, we are healed.  Therefore, "bless the Lord, who healeth all thy diseases" (Ps. ciii. 3).
IV.
THE INDWELLING SPIRIT.
In the consideration of the subject before us, we should carry always in our thought, the fact that believers, the redeemed of the Lord, are a peculiar people, our Saviour Jesus Christ, having given Himself for us, "that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people," that is, a people for His own possession (Titus ii. 14).  We must consider them as quite distinct and separate from the people of the world.  One of the chief characteristics of the child of God is that he is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God.  This is a tremendous fact, the full import of which far transcends the apprehension of the finite mind; but it is a fact, nevertheless, which we are to believe upon the statement of God's Word.  This indwelling of   the Spirit is an occupation of the bodies of believers, and we have to ascertain the teaching of Scripture as to the purpose and effect of the presence of the Spirit upon the “mortal bodies" which He occupies.  Let us observe before entering upon this inquiry that we are commanded to "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph: v. 18), and a failure to be thus completely occupied by Him can only be viewed as a condition of disobedience.
The principal work of the Spirit, during the dispensation in which we live, is to build "the temple of God”  "the body of Christ,"  "a spiritual house,"  “an habitation of God through the Spirit," which temple or spiritual house is built of "living stones," quarried from the mass of humanity, and shaped and fitted, each into the place designed for it in God's eternal plan (1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 22; 1 Peter ii. 5).  This body of "called-out ones" (the Church) is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, whose desire is to distribute among the members, certain gifts or endowments, which are not among the natural endowments of man (1 Cor. xii).  These gifts are distributed for use to the express end that all believers might come to unity of faith, to knowledge of the Son of God, unto complete manhood according to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, and that they be perfected or fully equipped for the work of the ministry in building up this "body of Christ. (Eph. iv. 11-13).  We cannot suppose that any gift which is within the power and mind of the Spirit to bestow to be unnecessary.  On the contrary, we must be prepared to find in any assembly, where some of these gifts are neglected, that the members do not come to the full measure of the stature of Christ, but are dwarfed and stunted, that they do not hold unity of the faith, and that they are, like children, tossed to and fro and carried away by every wind of false doctrine.  We need not strain our vision to discern exactly these conditions in assemblies where the Spirit is not free to act.  "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.  For to one is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy" (1 Cor. xii. 7-10). And in the same chapter we read: "Now we are the body of Christ and members in particular, and God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that, miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues" (27, 28). This is so clear that its meaning cannot be missed, nor should any of these gifts be lacking in an apostolic church unless through unbelief.  The church has lost the gift of healing, simply through lack of faith to accept and exercise it in accordance with the directions of the Word.  Yet ministers of that Word tell their congregations that God no longer cures by faith and prayer and the laying on of hands, and the anointing of oil in the name of the Lord.  When asked when the Lord changed His plan and substituted the notions of the physician (whom another physician can be found to contradict) and the resources of the drug store, for the ordinances of His Word, they can give no answer; like the man without the wedding garment, they are speechless.
But the Spirit (who, be it remembered, can be easily "grieved" and "quenched," and what can be more grieving to the heart of God than the unbelief of His redeemed children?) not only indwells the Church but indwells individual believers (1 Cor. vi. 19). This was in accordance with the promise of Christ (John xiv. 16, 17), who said of the Spirit, "He dwelleth with you and shall be in you."
Let us, therefore, notice some of the results of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the body of the individual saint, remembering that we are commanded to "be filled with the Spirit'' (Eph. v. 18).  In the first place, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth" (John vi. 64. See also Rom. viii. 14; 2 Cor. iii. 6).  He is our Guide, being given for the purpose of guiding us into all truth (John xvi. 13).  He likewise shows us "things to come", a specific instance being given in 1 Timothy iv. 1, where we are told that "the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith,'' etc. He brings the Word of God to our remembrance (Luke xii. 12; John iv. 26), and He searches the deep things of God (1 Cor. ii. 10).  He reveals the manifold excellencies of Christ to and in us (John xvi. 14, 15), and thus transforms us into the same image (2 Cor. iii. 18).  He enables us to pray in accordance with the will of God (Rom. viii. 27); liberates us from the law of sin and death and sheds abroad the love of God in our hearts (Rom. v. 5).
The effect of the indwelling Spirit on our mortal bodies is clearly stated in Romans viii. 11: "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." And a parallel passage is found in 2 Cor. iv. 11: "For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh." The body then is for the Lord and is the temple of the Holy Ghost.  Health, order and purity in the body are essential for efficient ministry.  Hence, the presence of the Spirit in the body must have the effect of driving out sickness, which is impurity and disorder.  Indeed, it is now seen how we can, in a diseased state, glorify God in our body (1 Cor. vi. 20).  It is plain then, that "if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,” He will surely “quicken your mortal bodies." What then shall we believers do if there be any sickness among us?  Shall we call for the physician, expecting that the compound of drugs shall save the sick?  The answer is not open to any doubt whatever.  One who really accepts the Bible as the Word of God, will not ask for any clearer direction than these:—"Is there any sick among you?  Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." These directions still stand upon the sacred page.  God's voice has spoken them through the same Spirit who distributed the gifts to the members of Christ's body.  We cannot argue about them, for they are too plain to admit of argument.  We can do but one of two things, either believe and obey, or disbelieve and ignore them.
V.
HAVE GOD’S ORDINANCES FOR SICKNESS BEEN EXCHANGED?
It should he enough to satisfy any mind on this point that God’s hand placed the words quoted above in the inspired Scriptures, which He has given us, and that only His hand may remove them, but it seems to be assumed by some Christians, that a practice, custom, neglect or departure from faith, for which antiquity can be claimed, can dispense with the sanction of the Word.  It is very common to appeal, in support of unscriptural practices, to “the fathers," and to "the early church.''  This was ever the way of those who set themselves up to lord it over the flock and to instruct their fellow men in holy things.  Christ had His rebuke for them for laying aside the commandment of God and holding the tradition of men (Mark vii. 8).  "And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition'' (v. 9).  It matters not how hoary with age the tradition may be, it certainly is not of faith to reject for it the commandment of God.  Those who appeal to the "early church” forget that the state of that church was in the eyes of our Lord even at a time anterior to the death of the last of the apostles.  Let them read in the second and third chapters of Revelation, how the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes had come in and the woman Jezebel and her teachings were tolerated; and let them read in the Epistles of Paul, how false doctrines had already crept in and the faith, even in respect of so vital matter as the grace of God, had become corrupted.
It is often pleaded, in defense of the professing church’s disregard of God as the Healer and of His ordinances for sickness, that such disregard has continued for many centuries, and that (as was said to the writer by a clergyman), it cannot be supposed that the Church has been in error all these years.  But the sad fact is that the professing church has been always too ready to neglect and apostatize from the faith.  Many of the most precious truths. such as justification by faith, the imputed and imparted righteousness of Christ, the personal coming of our Lord for His saints before the end of the age, were buried out of sight under a mass of traditions, superstitions and idolatries, until they were recovered during and since the time of the Reformation.
The neglect of God's ordinances is no new thing in the history of His people, and we have warning enough concerning this tendency from the Old Testament.  We know that the institution of the Sabbath year was ignored by the Jews for centuries.  Those upon whom came the judgment of God for this neglect might have attempted (and probably did) to justify themselves by the plea, that for five hundred years, during all the reigns of the good kings, this ordinance had been neglected, and by arguing, as do their representatives to-day, that surely these God-fearing men, with all the learned and saintly priests and scribes could not have been in error in this matter. But God did not forget, and so the Jews went into captivity "until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths," even for a period of seventy years (2 Chron. xxxvi. 21).  
Again, it was commanded (Lev. xxiii. 40-44) that during the feast of Tabernacles, the people should dwell in booths.  From the time of Joshua to the days of Nehemiah (roughly speaking a thousand years), that ordinance had been absolutely ignored, for we read in Nehemiah viii. 17 that "since the days of Joshua the son of Nun, unto that day, had not the children of Israel done so."  Yet the Word of God had not been altered; and when, with the renewed love and obedience which entered the hearts of the restored remnant, the feast was observed in the manner there commanded; it is recorded that "there was very great gladness."
Let us, therefore, put far away from us the wretched and paltry excuse for neglect, that not since the Apostolic days, have the children of the kingdom done, so; but let us obey to the letter, and we too will experience very great gladness.
VI.
SICKNESS AND THE WILL OF GOD.
In Ephesians v. 17, we are commanded to "be not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is."  We have seen that sickness did not come upon man because God willed to have it so.  The idea that sickness in general, or the sickness of any particular child of God, is in accordance with His will is repugnant to every revelation of the Divine nature, as well as to the specific teachings of Scripture. We can understand "what the will of the Lord is” by examining His Word, and if the reader is disposed to give any assent to the idea that sickness ever comes upon a child of God by His Father's will, let him, with the aid of a concordance, simply read the passages of Scripture in which the words "will of God" occur, and he will never again give that idea admission to his mind and heart.
If, however, sickness should come upon a believer by the will of God, that fact would furnish a conclusive reason why he should not try to escape from the sickness, and endeavor by the use of drugs to counteract the will of God. We look to our Lord Jesus Christ as the complete expression,—the living exemplification, of the will of God.  Every act of His, and every word, was an expression of the will of His Father, and from His life, we learn unmistakably God's will with reference to sickness.  Hear Him declare the object of His coming to earth—"Then said I, Lo, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of Me, to do Thy will O God." The attitude of our Lord towards sickness has already been shown from the Scriptures, so we need not dwell longer upon this expression of God's will.
Again, we are to be as Christ Jesus was in this world, becoming like Him by the impartation to each of us of His life and nature.  "I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. ii. 20).  Jesus was never sick.  He suffered, He wept, He agonized in prayer, He was afflicted, tormented, grieved, wearied, hungry, thirsty, but never ill.  We are exhorted to share His sufferings and His reproach; but He had no sickness for us to share, and even our own sicknesses we need not bear, for He has already borne them.
But does God always cure sickness in answer to prayer and in response to the use of His ordinances?  If the inquiry means, does God always cure on the instant in such cases? the answer must certainly be “No."  But we have no reason to doubt that God does heal in every case where His conditions have been met.  He knows why each visitation of sickness has come, and though it came not in accordance with His will, yet He can and often does use it, either for His own glory or to teach a needed lesson.  To make such use of sickness is strictly in accordance with the Divine principle whereby all things, whether for good or evil in themselves, "work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to His purpose" (Rom. viii. 28).  Thus, does He often use the consequences of man's sin, the misery of the drunkard, the shame of the fallen woman, as means for working the mighty work of salvation; yet we would never permit ourselves to think of drunkenness and impurity as coming upon a man or woman in accordance with the will of God.
There are many cases in which healing does not come in response to prayer; but in such cases, we must believe that it is withheld because God has some better thing, and then the listening ear of faith will be able to catch the words, "My grace is sufficient for thee."
We have lately read an article by a good brother, who knows and loves the Word, wherein he reasons that because God does not always heal in answer to prayer, that therefore it is not always God's will to heal.  This is obviously a non sequitur.  Not all men are saved, yet we do not argue therefrom that it is not always God's will to save, for we know full well that He does not will that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life.  This, however, is little more than a matter of definition of terms.  The practical question is, what are we to do in cases where healing does not come in answer to prayer.  Manifestly, if it is not God's will to heal, it is both futile and rebellious to seek healing through the doctor.  If however, we take the view that it is always God's will to heal, we will then, in cases where the healing is withheld, seek to learn from Him what the impediment is, if His will be hindered, or what the greater blessing is which He would have us seek.  Can we possibly imagine the Apostle Paul, after receiving God's answer, betaking himself to the skill of man for the removal of his "thorn in the flesh"?
VII.
"BLESSING THE MEANS."
There are no believers who question God's power to heal by direct action upon the diseased body.  He made the body and can cure its disorders.  There are few, if any, who would question (and who have not indeed experienced) the fact that God does heal in answer to prayer and without the use of so-called remedial agents.  There is then, full agreement among Christians that God can and does in this day cure sickness in response to prayer.  But the question which divides believers may be expressed by asking what is to be done in cases (and they are many) in which healing does not come in answer to prayer, anointing, and the laying on of hands?   When the healing comes, it was plainly God's will that it should come.  When it does not come, it is just as clearly God's will that it should not come; or in other words, it is in such cases clear that His time and conditions for healing have not arrived.  In all this, there will be substantial agreement.  But upon these promises, it would seem to follow as a necessary conclusion, that where God’s purpose not to heal has been manifested, the only course open to the believer is to submit and to seek the blessing or the lesson which God is trying through the medium of sickness to attempt by the use of drugs to defeat God’s purpose in such a case cannot be seriously proposed.
But we cannot be satisfied with any conclusions which are established by mere reasonings of the natural mind.  If they are to stand and are to serve for our support in the hour of testing, they must rest firmly upon the Word.  Whether, in cases where prayer and obedience have failed of visible results, or in any cases, we can look to God to bless in the cure of diseases remedial agencies of man's devising, or whether we should mix prayer and medicine are questions which Scripture answers for us.  The individual instances of healing which the Scriptures narrate, are very instructive, and throw a clear light upon these questions.  In all of them, we see that what is required on man's side are simply faith and obedience, and in all of them we see that God very conspicuously avoided using any remedies devised by the ingenuity of man, that is, anything having so-called curative properties.  This applies to both Old Testament and New Testament times.  As an instance of the former, the healing of Naaman is a striking example.  The prophet declared to this grievously diseased man, God's way of healing, and by following it, he was eventually cured.  But Naaman’s reception of the prophet’s directions was characterized by the opposition and irritation which Christians often display when they are referred to God's ordained means of treating sickness, as explicitly described and enjoined in His Word.
A typical New Testament instance is the healing of the blind man in the ninth chapter of John. In this case, Jesus anointed the sightless eyes with moistened clay and told the afflicted man to go wash in the pool of Siloam.  The physical means used in these cases were not curative agents.  They had no healing virtues whatever but served simply to test the faith and obedience of the sick one.  It is of the utmost significance that God does in every instance, passes by the remedies of medical science, and which He employs physical agencies, chooses such as have no medical virtues whatever.  The lesson is much more impressive than if He had never used physical means of any sort.
Here then, we have a complete answer to the question which is often asked by timid and compromising souls,—“May we not expect God to bless the means when we have taken the medicine prescribed by the doctor?"  The answer is that when we employ means which God has designated and have complied with His conditions, we may with full assurance count upon Him to bless them to the end for which they were ordained.  But when He has taught us that our bodies are His because He made them and because He redeemed them from the enemy by the blood of Jesus Christ, and that in healing them, He does not employ or sanction human expedients; when He has given plain and simple directions to be followed by believers in case of sickness, how can we expect Him to bless the means which we have substituted for those ordained by Him?  We must constantly be on our guard against the tendencies of the natural heart, and one of the commonest is the tendency to set up a plan of our own and to think that we commend ourselves to God in so doing by piously asking His blessing upon it.
God does bless the provision which He makes for the use of our mortal bodies.  We are not left to infer this, for He has so stated again and again in His Word; but we have no promise and hence no ground for believing that He will bless the means which man has devised for combatting sickness in the body.  God has promised repeatedly to bless the labor of our hands, our fields and harvests, our flocks and herds, our food and drink—but never to bless our pharmacopoeia.  On the contrary, wherever (and the passages are many), He has promised to deliver from sickness; He has given no sanction to man's remedies.  The passage already quoted from Exodus xxiii. 25, brings this contrast strongly into view.  He there says: "And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and He shall bless thy bread and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee."
We have here, in a single verse, the blessing promised upon food and drink and the promise of the removal of sickness.  The absence of any reference here (or elsewhere) to the use of drugs precludes the supposition that we have any warrant for resorting to the use of drugs and forbids the assumption that we may count upon God to bless their use, particularly if there be any reason to believe that He will not heal in response to the use of His own prescribed means.
Finally, it is pertinent to observe in this connection, that not only does the Word give absolutely no countenance to the employment of the arts of the physician and the effects of drugs and gives no foundation whatever for the supposition that God works with or through the doctors, but the fact is, that in the only passage where God and the physicians are named together, they are put in opposition.  In 2 Chronicles xvi. 12, we read of the disease of King Asa, that "his disease was exceeding great; yet in his disease, he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians, and Asa slept with his fathers."  
VIII.
THE EFFECT OF NEGLECTING THE TRUTH.
Man pays a severe penalty for disbelieving God and His truth.  The supreme instance of this is the effect of the first lie which Satan successfully imposed upon the race.  A corresponding penalty attaches to every refusal on man's part to believe and act upon what God has revealed. The effect of a refusal to believe the revealed truth regarding salvation for the mortal body is not merely the loss of the advantage which would naturally result from choosing God's way of healing rather than man's.  A test of the two does show that God's way is far better than man's; but that is a matter of relatively small importance.  Whether a sick person be healed by one method or by another, or not at all is of little consequence.  But to obey is always a matter of the highest importance.  In the sight of God, to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams.  Therefore, we do not dwell upon the physical benefits of obedience and the physical detriment resulting from disobedience.  There is another disadvantage resulting directly from this neglect of the doctrine of Divine healing which far outweighs all the physical detriment resulting therefrom.
The spiritual body of Christ is an organism whereof every believer is a member. To this body was committed the faith with the injunction to guard it carefully.  We have a subtle and sleepless adversary, who is always on the watch, and is alert to take advantage of every carelessness and neglect on the part of the church in the protection of the treasures committed to her keeping.  The enemy has been at all times ready to seize any part of the faith that is abandoned, and to utilize it for the foundation of an anti-Christian religion.  The direct result of the neglect by the church of the truth concerning Divine healing is the existence and flourishing condition of that soul-destroying system calling itself "Christian Science."  If the church had preserved and were to-day exercising the gift of healing bestowed by the Holy Spirit, Christian Science would have no power to seduce the spiritual minded and intelligent men and women who, solely because of healing, have accepted its destructive doctrines.  Its power over men lies wholly in the fact that it offers actual experiences—the phenomena of healing and tranquility of mind under trying conditions—as a proof of the religious teachings it presents. From this vantage ground, it can safely defy the professing church and without this unique credential, it is safe to say that no sane person could be induced to believe its preposterously, unscientific and anti-Christian doctrines.
To one who knows the Scriptures and who has also examined the teachings of "Christian Science,” it is plain that the latter exists but for one purpose, namely, to secure the acceptance by as many men and women as possible of the hell-populating lie that there is no sin, and hence, that Jesus Christ did not die for our sins and rose again for our justification.  The heart and core of the system is the denial of Christ and His redeeming work.  In one word, it is anti-Christian and it comes with the promised marks of Antichrist, with signs and wonders and all deceivableness, its ministers being disguised as angels of light. It is to this fearful danger that the faithlessness and indifference of the complacent shepherds have exposed the flock of God.   And shall they not be held to account for it?
''As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because My flock became a prey, and because My flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds feed themselves and fed not My flock. Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the Word of the Lord.  Thus saith the Lord God; behold I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand" (Ezek. xxxiv. 8-10). "Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds: Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do find themselves!  Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? . . . The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick" (vs. 2-4). And what is the attitude of these shepherds of God's flock towards this, one of the most ravenous of the beasts that prey upon it in this land?  It must be admitted that most of the shepherds have a very imperfect knowledge of the doctrines of Christian Science, and hence, they treat it with easy-going indifference.  They seem not to realize that its victims are largely made up of the really spiritually-minded and spiritually hungry souls, who desire to know God as a living reality, and who crave the pasture to which the shepherds do not lead them, namely, a present spiritual experience.  The dupes of Christian Science are not drawn from among the worldlings, but from the church-members, who could not remain satisfied with the dry husks served as spiritual nutriment to the average pew-holder.  The shepherds content themselves, for the most part, with denying the reality of the cures effected under Mrs. Eddy's system, thereby committing the same folly as that justly charged against the Christian Scientist when he denies the reality of sin, disease and death.
Meanwhile, the ranks of this anti-Christian army are recruited daily at the expense of the church, by scores and hundreds, and the generous gifts of these deluded souls, bestowed in grateful regard for that system which healed their bodies, dismissed anxieties from their minds and opened a way of escape from the gross materialism of the world and its ally, the professing church, go to the erection of costly anti-Christian temples, and to the prosecution of a more vigorous campaign against the faith that is able to save men's souls. Can it be denied that this fearful evil in our midst whereby apparently sane people can be persuaded to affirm that white is black and that the most palpable facts and experiences of life are but the products of the carnal imagination, results directly from the neglect by the professing church of the Scriptural teaching with reference to the healing of disease by the direct action of Almighty God?
There is but one way successfully to oppose error, and that is by confronting it with truth, and especially that truth whereof the particular error is a caricature.  The remedy for "Christian Science," falsely so-called, is the recovery and utilization by God's people of the neglected truth to which attention is called in these pages.  The only One who can successfully oppose Satan, is God.  "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
IX.
THE OPPOSING VIEW CONSIDERED.
Many Christians do not accept the conclusions herein stated and to which I have been led by an earnest and prayerful examination of the Scriptures.  It certainly costs something to receive and stand for this truth; and it moreover requires a showing of one's faith by one's works such as is not demanded by other Christian doctrines.  Many are therefore, afraid of it, being "willingly ignorant."  But, among those who are professedly willing to submit every matter of doctrine to the test of Scripture, I have not yet found one who was able to give any reason why believers should set aside God's plainly written ordinances for sickness, or who was able to cite a single passage of Scripture directing or authorizing the children to resort to the use of drugs.
My attention has lately been directed to an article entitled, "Prayer and Healing," by James H. McConkey, printed in the May number (1905), of "Hearing and Doing," and also circulated in tract form.  I have read this paper with great interest and attention, and the more so because I have derived great blessing and spiritual benefit from other writings of this brother.  I feel sure that, if it were possible to find in Scripture any basis for an objection to the doctrine and practice which I have herein urged upon believers, Brother McConkey would be able to present it with all possible force and clearness.  The careful perusal of this paper has therefore served to confirm strongly the belief that God has made full provision in His Word for the conduct of His people when afflicted by sickness, and that they who will to do His will in such cases need be in no uncertainty as to the teaching, whether it be of God. “Prayer and Healing” is written with the purpose of justifying the resort by Christians to the use of drugs for the purpose of combatting sickness, and it will surely be profitable to examine with care what the writer has to say on this important subject.
The writer begins by asserting that the subject "may best be considered under four heads, namely:
“Is God able to heal?"
"Does God ever heal?''
"Does God always heal?"
"Does God use means in healing?"
It will be at once observed that there is little room for difference of opinion among Christians as to questions 1, 2 and 3; that the practical and important question is No. 4; and that the writer confines himself under that caption to the question whether God uses "means," and does not squarely put the question whether His Word directs believers to use medicines.
We will take these questions in their order.
(1) "Is Cod Able to Heal?"
To this our author responds with an unqualified "Yes."
(2) "Does God Ever Heal?"
Again, our author says that "the Word of God plainly records the exercise of God's power in the healing of the sick.  And not only was this true in the time of our Lord upon earth, but also even in all the centuries which have elapsed since He left it."  Thus far we are in full agreement.
(3) "Is It Always the Will of God to Heal?”
Many columns are devoted to the discussion of this question, although it does not seem to have much bearing upon the practical question, "What shall the believer do in case of sickness?" The answer to the question in the caption is manifestly a mere matter of placing the emphasis. We know that all God's thoughts toward us are thoughts of peace, and that He desires all His redeemed so to live that He may continually bless them.  Therefore, we can confidently say (and who may gainsay it?) that it is always the will of God to heal them that are sick.
On the other hand, we know that God often permits sickness to overtake a believer and does not respond immediately (and sometimes seemingly not at all) to the prayer for healing.  In such cases, it may be said that it was not God's will to heal.  This is what Brother McConkey argues; but it would clearly be more accurate to say that in such cases, God's will is interfered with.  He permits but does not will the continuance of the sickness.  To me it seems to matter very little which form of statement one adopts; but our author argues very laboriously in support of the proposition that the failure of a manifestation of healing of the sick one necessitates a negative answer to the question, "Is it always the will of God to heal?"  The character of some of these arguments will be briefly indicated.
"Sickness is of Satan."  The writer admits this to be true but says "that there are many things which are of Satan, which God yet permits to exist until His time for their removal has come." Our good brother seems to be quite unconscious of the fact that he has here completely refuted his own contention.  He cites many instances of evils coming upon mankind from the author of all their woe, and which God yet permits.  He cites for example, death, sorrow, suffering, temptation, the assaults of the adversary upon Job, and (of course) Paul's "thorn in the flesh" ; and he might have added the eternal destruction of the finally impenitent. ”So,” he says, ”sickness may be an assault of the adversary upon our bodies, yet God may permit it."  How could the author fail to see that he must either contend that sorrow, temptation, death, and the destruction of the wicked are in accordance with the will of God, or he must admit that sickness is not in accordance with His will.  Of course, he knows that it is not the will of God that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  Yet the majority do perish, and but a few repent and live.  We do not so much wonder at our author's overlooking the fact that God's will for mankind is interfered with in such matters as sickness, death, and temptation; but we do wonder that he should have been at pains to prove that fact and then have presented his proofs as if they established the very reverse.
"Healing is in the Atonement." This also our author concedes; but how does he avoid the force of this admission?  By the assertion that the enjoyment of this benefit of the atonement is postponed to the millennial age.  This is a very extraordinary assertion, and those who are willing to accept it must do so on the authority of Brother McConkey, for he cites no other.  The Holy Spirit in Matthew viii. 16, 17, declared that when Jesus "healed all that were sick," He did it "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases" (R.V.).  No, Jesus fulfilled this prophecy and its benefits were not reserved for those who are to be occupying mortal bodies (for the incorruptible bodies will have no sicknesses to be healed) in the millennial age. It is very difficult to escape the truth of healing in the atonement, if, in order to do so, one must adopt such a course as this. "By the Experience of His children."  It is a fact of everyday observation, says our author, that God uses sickness for the correction and purification of His children.  No one will dispute this; but it does not support our brother's contention, and he himself has disposed of this fact by showing that God permits many things which proceed from Satan.  God uses, as vehicles of blessing, many things which are contrary to His will, according to the unvarying principle that "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose."  If, however, our loving Father has indeed seen fit, in His wisdom to send (or use) sickness for the correction or purification of His child, does that child do well to seek, by its use of drugs, to escape out of the correcting Hand? Surely, if we accept this idea, we must also believe that, when God has accomplished the purpose for which the sickness was sent, He will remove it, and that until then, submission is the only attitude for the believer.
“Because of the Silence of God’s Word.”  This is given as another reason in support of the proposition that God’s will is not always to heal, but our brother completely spoils it for his purpose by showing, from numerous passages of Scripture, that God’s Word is by no means silent on this subject.  But, he says, “If the deliverance from sickness is so sweeping as is claimed,” why should Paul have continued to bear one of those self-same infirmities? (2 Cor. xii. 7-9.)  We do not know who has “claimed” that “deliverance from sickness is so sweeping,” or how sweeping the claim of these unknown persons is; but our good brother seems to have forgotten that he is discussing any question of the extent of God’s deliverance of His saints from sickness, but the very different question whether it is always His will to heal.  He has clearly shown that we cannot know the will of God by mere observation of what He permits in individual cases, for the reason that He frequently permits things to happen which are not in accordance with His will.
It cannot escape the attention of the careful reader that the cases of protracted illness happening to God 's saints, and to which Brother McConkey appeals, give no countenance whatever to a resort to the use of drugs either as a substitute for, or an auxiliary to, the New Testament ordinances.  The great majority of such cases are in the doctors' hands and are made the subject of regular and continuous medical treatment.  The appeal to these for the purposes of our brother's argument has in it an element of the ludicrous.
"The prayer of faith shall save the sick."  Our author has exceeding great difficulty in bringing this explicit statement of Scripture into seeming accord with his views.  Fortunately, these words are too clear and simple for human reasoning to effect any diminution or distortion of their meaning.  The only exegetical result that the writer can accomplish in several columns of words, is to establish the proportion that not all prayers are prayers "of faith"—which no one will dispute.  Indeed, this is just what those contend, who take the view that failure to be healed is due to lack of faith—a view which our brother vigorously opposes. This entire passage in James v. is one of those which defies all effort to modify its meaning. Either it must be believed and accepted or disbelieved and rejected.  It does not admit of being dissipated by interpretation.  The writer takes occasion in this connection to make some just remarks about forced or sham faith, but these are wholly aside from the argument.
After reviewing carefully all that is said under this caption, it is plain that it is only by giving a peculiar slant to the question "is it always the will of God to heal,” that the writer's reasons and citations can be made to support a negative answer.  A slight amendment to the language of this proposition would bring all he says to the support of the views of those Christians who look to God alone to heal their sickness.  Thus, all that brother McConkey says would tend to establish the following proposition: That it is always His will to save, but that His will is sometimes interfered with. Touching the argument from cases in which it appears that healing has not been granted on compliance with James v., it should be observed that the number of these cases is probably very much smaller than might be supposed.  If we had any means of sifting them out, it would probably be found that the number of cases which have been actually placed absolutely in God's hands, and in which His directions have been strictly followed, and in which nevertheless He has not exercised His healing power, is very small indeed,—far less in proportion than the failures of the most eminent medical practitioner.
Finally, it must be evident that whether one regards such cases as indicating that it was not God's will to heal in them, or as indicating that His good, acceptable and perfect will was interfered with in such cases, is a matter of no practical importance.
(4) "Does God Use Means in Healing?"
At this point, we leave the region of doctrine and come to the highly important matter of practical application.  The doctrine in this case ls useful only to guide the believer clearly into God's way in case of sickness.  Of those who have sufficient interest to examine this subject at all, it is not to be supposed that there is one who would not prefer to await God's time for healing (though it should never come in this earthly tabernacle) than to be healed in a way and by means not ordained of Him.
It is observed that, at this point, where the clearest directions and surest Scriptural basis are to be sought and expected.  Brother McConkey parts company with Scripture entirely and gives us only conclusions reached by human reasoning from ultra-scriptural data. We must carefully note these premises, for if they be not scriptural, the conclusions deduced from them (even though the reasoning be flawless) would be unsound and unsafe for the believer to adopt.  Our brother begins by saying that "there are two classes of believers who are in error here:—Those who look to God and rule out means.  Those who look to means and rule out God."
Discussing the first class (which alone concerns us), he says that there are "three forms of healing,” and these he names respectively (1) the supernatural, (2) the natural, and (3) the remedial, wherein medicines are used.  This is fundamental, and we naturally look for at least a show of authority for the "principles," which our brother says "may be laid down here concerning healing"; but we look in vain.
If we ask, who lays down these important principles, we are given to understand that our author himself does this.  Proceeding, he tells us that God works in all these forms of healing, and that "all healing is Divine."  To say that there are three forms of healing, and that God works in all of them, is to assume the whole matter in question without the slightest attempt at proof.  No more need be said to those who make Scripture, the rule of their faith and conduct.  We content ourselves, therefore, with saying that we must decline to believe that "all healing is Divine," or that there are "three forms of healing" in all of which God works, because we have absolutely no basis upon which such beliefs can be grounded.  How any one can say, with the facts of healing by the Satanic system of Christian Science before him, that "all healing is Divine," is very hard to understand.
Continuing, our brother says that "it is not for me, the patient, but for God, or the physician, to decide whether means shall be used or not."  Surely, it is for Him to decide in all things and for us to obey.  It is just here that the difficulty with our brother's "principles" is most clearly manifested; for if God uses, according to His Sovereign choice, in each case, one of "three forms of healing" (regarding which He has given us no information in His Word) and if He has omitted (as our brother admits) to show us how we are to know His choice in each case as it arises, what is the believer to do?  Shall he experiment first with one form of healing and then with the other?  If so, which shall he try first, and how long before he abandons it for another, and then which shall he try next?  Our brother attempts to answer these serious questions by saying that we are "to wait on Him in prayer and communion until He shows us by His Spirit what He would have us to do."  To this solution we are not disposed to take exception, for clearly it amounts practically to the making of a choice, and to the choice of that method which our brother calls "the supernatural."
And here we are content to leave it, with one more question: Has ever a believer, who has followed this advice of our brother, been directed by the Spirit of God to send for the doctor and to take drugs?  We can confidently say "NO" to this, for among the innumerable cures mentioned in the Bible, not one was effected by the way called "remedial."  According to Scripture, God works solely in the way our brother calls "supernatural." We therefore agree that it is for God to choose His way of healing; but we are able to add that He has chosen and has plainly stated His choice.
X.
DOES DIVINE HEALING BELONG TO THIS DISPENSATION?
A question has been raised as to whether Christ's miracles of healing can be taken as a guide for the conduct of believers in this dispensation.  Those miracles belonged to a previous dispensation and were not wrought during the age of the Gospel of grace, which did not begin until after Pentecost.  Because then, Jesus healed "all manner of diseases and all manner of sickness," and empowered His disciples to do the like (Matt. ix. 35, and x. 1), are we, the members of the Body, gathered out from among the Gentiles, warranted thereby in believing that we may take our sickness to Him, and leave it absolutely in His hands?
Sir Robert Anderson, whom God is using so mightily in these days to stem the rising tide of apostasy and rationalism in the professing Church, has undertaken in one of his books (The Silence of God) to deal with a great difficulty, the weight of which has been felt by many believing hearts.  This difficulty is to explain the silence of God in this church-age or dispensation of the Gospel of the grace of God.  The fact that God has given no public manifestation of His sovereignty in the affairs of men since apostolic times, is dealt with in this book, and an explanation furnished which is very satisfactory to the mind and heart of the believer.  We will not risk doing injustice to that explanation by endeavoring to condense it here but will only state so much as is strictly pertinent to our subject.
Sir Robert shows very clearly that the miracles (or rather "signs") wrought by our blessed Lord during His earthly ministry were not for the purpose of accrediting His Gospel to the nations, but on the contrary, were for the purpose of identifying Him to the Jews as the promised Messiah, of whom their Scriptures witnessed.  Miracles were not wrought to produce faith, which comes "by hearing''; but on the contrary, faith is necessary to produce miracles.  Now we see from the history of the Acts of the Apostles, which covers the transition period from the dispensation of law to that of grace, and of which the central theme is the turning away of the offer of salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles, that just as this transition is effected, God's public dealing with men ceased.  The public miracles which abound at the beginning of the Acts while the order is still "to the Jew first," die away towards the end, when the natural branches are cut off and the process of grafting in the wild olive branches is taken up in earnest. The Apostle Paul, mightily delivered from the jail at Philippi with manifest supernatural demonstrations, is left in the concluding chapter chained to a Roman soldier.  And so with the Apostles Peter and John, who, when their ministry to their own nation is completed, submit to the cruelty of the world powers with no angel of God sent to open the prison doors, or to save from death.  In all this, there is a suggestion that the exercise by Almighty God of His power for the direct healing of His redeemed people in response to the prescribed ordinances of His Word, ceased with the other "signs” as not belonging to the time when God has ceased to deal in Sovereign majesty with His people Israel, and is instead dealing in grace with all who will receive the Gospel of His Son.
We see however, that the Holy Spirit has taken pains to place within the reach of all who are willing to believe and trust God for everything, is ample proof that the healing of the sick does not belong in the category of those miracles which had only an evidential purpose, and which accordingly ceased before the last chapter of the Acts.  To this end doubtless, it is written in that very last chapter, verses 7 and 8: "And it came to pass that the father of Publius, lay sick of a fever, and of a bloody flux; to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.  So, when this was done, others also which had diseases on the island, came, and were healed." Here we have the ordinances of prayer and laying on of hands, as prescribed in the New Testament, practiced among Gentiles and heathen.
Finally, a conclusive answer to the question stated above is found in the fact that gifts of healing are specially mentioned as among those bestowed upon the Gentile church at Corinth (1 Cor.  xii. 28-30).
XI.
CONCLUSION.
Lest in a discussion of considerable amplitude, the central and important things be obscured, permit me a few closing words directed to these essential matters.  Brought to a simple statement which all can comprehend, the duty of the believer when sickness gains hold of his body, as I see that duty defined in Scripture, is to take the case to God and leave it with Him, carefully and trustfully following the directions of James v.  If healing does not come, continue to wait upon God, asking Him to show what hinders the operation of His healing power, in order that the impediment may be laid upon the altar and dealt with by Him as a "devoted thing," and particularly asking Him to search the heart to see that the blessing of health is desired in order to employ it for His service.  We should not expect our wise and loving Father to bestow a blessing upon us if it is to be used in self-indulgence, in seeking enjoyment, or in the pursuit of worldly advantages; for in that case, restored health would not be a blessing at all.
And now, what should be the motive deciding our course of action when sickness overtakes us?  To one of the sheep who knows that the Shepherd will be with him even in the valley of the shadow of death, and whose chief desire is to see Him as He is, sickness and suffering have no terrors.  But to displease Him, to keep not His Word or to deny His name, that would be terrible indeed!  
Dear fellow-Christian, to you who have followed this discussion thus far, let me, in conclusion, speak a solemn word, heart to heart.  We look forward to the day now very near, when we shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, to be tested according to the deeds done in the body. As we look back upon the light affliction in the mortal body, which was but for a moment, it will seem a matter of small consequence whether healing came, or how.  But if asked why at that time, I sent for the elders of the church, and employed the "means" of prayer, laying on of hands, and anointing with oil, it seems to me that I can confidently answer "because so it is written." How shall it be with you?  If when sick, you sent for the doctor and used the “means" prescribed by him, and you are asked, "Why did not you send for the elders of the church and do as directed in My Word?"  Have you any reply you could make to that question?
“The Christian and Missionary Alliance” 1905