Newspaper Page Text
ESTABLISHED 1821.
WChristiarilfidex
Publlibel Every Thursday
By BELL At VAN NEBS*
Address Christian Index, Atlanta, Ga.
Organ of the Baptist Denomination in
Georgia
SUBSCRIPTION PkICXI
Oneoopy, one year.. IS.OC
One copy, six months 1.06
About Our Advertisers.—We propose
kereafter to very carefully Investigate our
advertisers. W'e shall exercise every care to
allow only reliable parties to use our col
inns.
Obituaries.—One hundred words free of
charge. For each extra word, one cent per
word, cash with copy.
To Correspondents—Do not use abbrevi
ations; be extra careful in writing proper
names; write with ink. on one side of paper.
Do not write copy Intended for the editor
and business items on same sheet. Leave
off personalities, condense.
Business.—Write all names, and post
Offices distinctly. In ordering a change give
She old as well as the new address. The date
Os label Indicates the time your subscription
•xplres. If you do not wish It continued, or
der it stopped a week before. We consider
each subscriber permanent until he orders
his paper discontinued. When you order It
stopped pay up to date.
Remittances by registered letter, money
order, postal note
For the Index.
David, Kin? Over all Israel—Sun
day School Lesson for July 12
2 Sam. 5:1 12.
BY S. G. HILLYER.
Last week we saw David
crowned king over the tribe of
Judah at Hebron. The present
lesson presents him to us as es
tablished as king over all Israel.
I would take this occasion to
make a few general remarks ap
plicable to this and all other les
sons of like character. You will
notice the lesson before us gives
us an item of history in the life of
David. A large portion of the
earlier books of the Bible is his
torical. Many readers do not
appreciate these historical books
as much as they deserve. Many
consider them dry and tedious.
And they are the books w T hich the
enemies of the Bible are often
eager to assail.
Notice first,Bible history is the
basis of Bible religion. It is the
religion of the Bible that invests
the book- with its transcendent su
premacy over all other books.
But its religion rests upon the
facts which it records. Take the
Bible with its facts absolutely
from under our theology, and we
should be relegated to the dark
necessity of learning our religion
from the birds in the air, and
“from the flowers in the field.”
How successfully mankind have
been able to do this, let the
wretched system of priestcraft
and of superstition that nave
cursed the heathen world tell us
David had reigned seven years
in Hebron over the tribe of Ju
dah. His government was wise
and prudent. Ishbosheth reigned
two years over the rest of the
tribes. He was the fourth son
of Saul. His three brothers, in
eluding Jonathan, had been slain
with their father at Gilboa. So
he had, as the oldest surviving
son of Saul, a color of title to the
vacant throne, and eleven of the
tribes adhered to him and made
him their king; but Judah clave
unto David.
There was war between the two
kingdoms, but David waxed
stronger and stronger, while Is
rael became weaker and weaker.
So it came to pass that the elev
en tribes became dissatisfied with
their condition. They remem
bered David as the great cham
pion of Israel in the days of Saul;
and with one accord their chiefs
came up to Hebron and gave
their willing submission to David
as their king; so he was anointed
king over all Israel, and the
words of Samuel the prophet
which he spake concerning Da
vid at Bethlehem were fulfilled.
Soon aft°r he was thus firmly
settled in his kingdom, David
looked round for a city that
would, in all respects, be suitable
for his capital. His choice was
fixed upon Jerusalem. But it was
an alien city. A war-like tribe
still occupied it. It was surround
ed with a wall, and protected
with a fortress of great strength.
The Jebusites had held it against
the forces of Joshua, and at the
time of David they still held it.
It was perhaps within the terri
tory of Benjamin, but close on
the borders of Judah.
The city with its strong for
tress was taken by assault. The
castle that stood on Mt. Zion,Da
vid appropriated as his royal res
idence. He soon added to it other
walls that made it the strongest
fortress in all the land of Israel.
From that day begins the his
tory of Jerusalem. Its early his
tory is wrapped in much obscu
rity. Some learned men have
thought that it was the ancient
Salem—the city of Melchizedek,
who was called the king of Salem
and the priest of the Most High
God. This hypothesis may be
true. It is supported by the fact
that it could not have been very
far from the place where Abra
ham met Melchizedek and receiv-
THE ( IIHIS’I’I.W INDEX.
ed his blessing. To identify Je
rusalem with the Salem of that
ancient and royal priest would
invest it with special interest.
The word Salem means peace;
Melch ; zedek was therefore king
of a city whose name was
“peace.” Jerusalem means,“they
shall see peace.” These points
of resemblance make it easy to
believe that Salem was the germ
and the promise of the future Je
rusalem, just as Melchizedek was
the type of the great Messiah
who was ordained to be the king
of eternal peace and a priest for
ever after the order of Melchi
zedek
When David took possession of
Jerusalem his thoughts may not
have ranged beyond its fitness, to
be the capital of his kingdom,and,
as soon as practicable,to be made
also the tinal resting place of the
“Ark of the Covenant,” which
was the abiding symbol of Jeho
vah’s presence.
But in all this there was an un
seen hand that had guided the
movements of David along that
line of eterijal purpose which
God had stretched from Adam to
Noah, from Noah to Abraham,
from Abraham to Moses, from
Moses to David, and from David
to Christ. And that line was the
nucleus around which, from age
to age, were formed the resplen
dent crystals of divine revelation,
glowing at last in the full efful
gence of the gospel plan of hu
man salvation. “Oh, the depth
of the riches, both of the wisdom
and of the knowledge of God!
how unsearchable are his judg
ments and his ways past finding
out!”
David personally worked but a
little way along that line of pur
pose; but he formed the nexus
between the ages that were past
and the distant future—the gio
rious day of Pentecost.
It was not long after David had
taken possession of his new home,
that Jerusalem began to be in
vested with a religious as well
as with a political importance.
It held within its walls not only
the throne of Israel s king, but
also the sanctuary of Israel’s God.
In that sanctuary were the holy
and the most holy places. There
was the altar on which were
burned the offerings of the wor
shippers There was the golden
candle-stick with its seven lamps
symbolizing the light of divine
truth. And there was behind the
mysterious veil, the golden altar
and the ark of the covenant and
the mercy seat, canopied by the
wings of the cherubim and often
glorified with a pillar of cloud
symbolizing the presence of Je
hovah.
David loved that sanctuary.
Hear his impassioned words:
“One thing have I desired of
the Lord; that will I seek after:
that I may dwell in the house of
the Lord forever, to behold the
beauty of the Lord and to enquire
in his temple.”
Yes, David loved the sanctua
ry. And yet, that sanctuary,with
its splendid ritual, was but a
shadow of “better things to
come.”
Dear brethren, it is your high
privilege to live in the full pos
session of all those ‘ ‘better
things.” You need not travel a
day’s journey to reach the house
of God. You may find it in your
closet, in your garden, in your
field,or in your grove—in a word,
wherever you feel inclined, you
may find a Bethel where you
may freely worship the Father
in spirit and in truth; and there
by faith behold the beauty of the
King.
563 S. Pryor st., Atlanta.
The Baptists of England in the Six
teenth and Seventeenth Centuries.
BY A. D. VAUGHAN, JR , D. D.
All that we can know of any
people as remote from us as the
Baptists of these centuries, and
of a people of much more recent
date, is what we learn from his
tory. Nor must we forget in our
investigations of historic matter
that it is not every book purport
ing to be such that is reliable
history.
When I was a younger man
than lam now, a godly man, a
first rate preacher, put into my
hands a book on church succes
sion, written by a Baptist. Tbis
book I read and, for a few years,
quoted. Bui, as my library in
creased, and my reading was of
a wider range, and more judi
cious, I put that succession
book on a shelf in a dark closet,
and there I suppose it is until
this day. The author is unfair
in quoting other authors, even
where he bad read them, and
there is so much that he ought
to have known, but which mani
festly he did not know before he
wrote the book. How are young
men to avoid the danger of rely
ing upon unreliable books which
claim to be reliable history ? The
danger cannot be altogether
avoided so long as some of our
most excellent pastors recom-
A
'SCRIPTION, PcbYi«b.....*S.OO. I
NISTERS. 1.00.1
mend everything that is written
and everybody who writes.
But do all histoi ians who are
accredited as being trustworthy
agree on all points of vital im
portance? By no means. When,
therefore, we find such disagree
ment, how are we to determine
which is correct? If we have
not the facilities for investigating
the point or points in issue, for
ourselves, we cannot determine.
And right here parties are
formed, not according to a com
petent judgment of facts, but ac
cording to the circumstances
which most inliuence the heart,
according to men’s preference of
those disagreeing. But if we
have the facilities for investi
gating the disputed points, we
can, with pains, arrive at the
truth. Because, in addition to
the facts specially noted by the
historians, .there are oftentimes
incidental 'references to these
facts by contemporaneous docu
ments, references from different
points of view, and made for dif
ferent purposes, made not for.
the sake of the facts themselves,
but because of their relation to
other things.
Thus the student of history,
when he finds* conflicting state
ments with reference to the same
matter; is enabled by these inci
dental references, which, for his
purpose a e sufficiently explicit,
to reach a correct conclusion.
The Baptists of tie South,
especially, have been for some
little time more or less agitated
about the statements of Dr.
Whitsitt concerning the practice
of the English Baptists prior to
1641.
In the Religious Herald of May
“th ult., Dr. Whitsitt says:
“There was no difficulty in trac
ing the succession of the English
Baptists up to the year 1641; but.
at that point dry land was en
countered and some other expe
dient must be adopted. The
Baptist people of England were
not in the practice of immersion
prior to the date in question. If a
Baptist should now reject immer
sion, we would feel constrained
to renounce church fellowship
with him; if people in England
255 years ago first assumed the
practice of immersion, I cannot
include them in’my chain of Bap
tist succession beyond that date,
and must turn elsewhere for re
lief.”
To Dr. Whitsitt s conclusion
every intelligent Baptist gives a
hearty amen. Nor should any
of us reject the statement on
which his conclusion is based by
simply bawling, “I do not be
lieve it, I will not believe it, I
care not if Whitsitt and every
other historian says it is true.”
Such senliments are unworthy of
a Baptist and evince too much
weakness for any man, woman
or child that has been baptized
on profession of personal faith
in Christ Jesus, the Lord.
If the facts sustain Dr. Whit
sitt, no amount of ranting and
raving will change the jacts, nor
can any honest mind wish, even
wish, to change them, and every
such effort will only hurt us ad
vocates of Bible truth. If the
facts do not sustain the doctor,
when they are thoroughly known,
it will be easy enough to show
that they do not.
Dr. Whitsitt supports his state
ments in the Religious Herald —and
it is with that article that I now
deal —by the testimony of both
Baptists and those who opposed
them; and referring to this testi
mony he says: “The above is
sufficient to show that, first by
the witness of the Baptists them
selves, and secondly by that of
their opponents, immersion was
revived among them in England
in the year 1641.”
A word of criticism before
passing. In one statement the
doctor says he should “feel con
strained to renounce church fel
lowship,” and of course he means
Baptist church fellowship, with
any who should now “reject im
mersion,” and yet in immediate
connection he calls those who
did this 255 years ago “the Bap
tist people of England.” It oc
curs to me that the doctor is un
happy in his use of the term
Baptist.
But the doctor states the issue
between a great number of schol
ars and himself clearly and un
equivocally, and now let it be
met as clearly and unequivocally
Were “the Baptist people of
England not in the practice* of
immersion prior to 1641 ?”
From sources that have never
been, so far as I know, ques
tioned as to their reliability, I
have learned something of the
Baptist people of England in the
sixteenth and seventeenth cen
turies, a/id I shall so put what I
have found that a child may un
derstand it.
If this discussion has demon
strated any one thing more than
another it is that the bulk of
Baptists, including the ministry,
have not given that attention to
their history which the subject
demands. And so if springing
ATLANTA, GA., THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1896.
the discussion will revive an ac
tive, earnest painstaking study
among the Baptists of their his
tory it will be fruitful of great
good.
From many a Baptist pulpit
the subject of baptism will be
more intelligently (Jtecussed, in
that less attention will be given
to the words of men, more to the
words of God, and this cannot
fail of beneficial results.
Statement by Dr. ithltsitt
Whether the people in Eng
land now called Baptists were in
the practice of immersion before
the year 1641, is purely a ques
tion of history. Being confined
to the domain of comparatively
modern history, it does not affect
a single point of Baptist doctrine
or practice. These are all firmly
established upon the foundation
of the apostlesand tne prophets,
Jesus Christ hitaself being the
chief corner-stone. The rite of
immersion was inaugurated in
New Testament times by divine
authority and made essential to
baptism. It stands or ails with
the New Testament. 1 doesnot
stand upon the practice of Chris
tian people in England before or
sir.ee the year 1641.
Considering this subject as in
teresting mainly to scholarly his
torians, I chose to make the
first announcement of my re
searches regarding it in the New
York Independent. That unde
nominational journal had long
been known as a forum of public
resort for scholars of all creeds
and confessions. It seemed to
me that this topic might be
brought forward there with en
tire propriety.
In view of the misunderstand
ing of my purpose and motives
on the part of some of my breth
ren, I am now of the opinion
that I should have acted more
wisely had I brought the ques
tion forward first rn a journal of
my own denomination. None of
us can definitely foresee the fu
ture; therefore I do not under
take to defend my conduct in this
particular. If it be pronounced
a blunder, I affirm that it was a
blunder of the head and not of
the heart. Many me i have com
mitted blunders of th i{t kind.
Objection has bet n taken to
the fact that I emrtoyed the
word “invention”
with
it so
sion iWriult
art in England fronu the year
1509, the accession of Henry VHT,
to the year 1641, following the
imprisonment of Archbishop
Laud. During the earlier part
of that period the immersion of
children was well nigh univer
sal, while during the latter the
sprinkling of children became
almost universal. The river had
shrunk to the pool; the pool had
shrunk to the font, and the font
was constructed of such dimen
sions as to preclude the immer
sion of adults. In the rubric of
the English church before 1661
there was found no office at all
for the baptism of adults. It
would be difficult for an archae
ologist to produce any well au
thenticated instance of the im
mersion of adult believers in Eng
land duringthisperiod. Even the
Anabaptists, who entered Eng
land in this period, came from
Holland where Anabaptists had
then no such custom as immer
sion. This last rite had to be
found out, invented anew, in the
England of 1641, under the light
of Gods Word, and of the in
creased freedom of thought and
action which then was dawning
upon the nation. It was in view
of the above condition of affairs
that I employed the phrase “in
vention of immersion.” The ex
pression is harmless when under
stood in the sense in which I in
tended to use it.
It is a grief to me that breth
ren, beloved and honored, seem
to have mistaken my sentiments
and misunderstood my opinions.
For their sakes, as well as for
the furtherance of truth, I pur
pose to issue soon in pamphlet
form, a fuller statement of my
position and some of the grounds
on which it rests. If this can be
successfully controverted by in
disputable fact or valid argu
ment, it will give me pleasure to
correct my views, and make pub
lie acknowledgment of any mis
take. If not, as a loyal Baptist,
I’must hold to the truth even
when it runs athwart__ of some
cherished traditions €
The fundamental Articles of
Faith of our Theological Semi
nary constitute one of the sound
est creeds now current among
Baptists. When I subscribed
these Articles twenty-four years
ago, I believed from the heart
every doctrine set forth in them.
I still joyfully hold and teach
every word and line of them
and if I should ever cease to do
so, it would become my plain
duty promptly to sever my con
nection with the institution.
Wm. H. Whitsitt.
Co operation of Churches.
BY D. W. GWIN, D.D.
While our churches are sover
eign and independent, it is yet
their duty and privilege to aid
each other in the furtherance of
common interests, in the main
tenance of common beliefs
and enterprises. As “no man
liveth to himself,” so no church
liveth to itself, to others are due
the benefits of our wisdom and
experience and resources. “In
the multitude of counselors there
is safety;” “in union there is
strength.” Baptists certainly
should “stand fast in one spirit,
with one mind, striving together
for [withJ the faith of the Gos
pel.”
Neighboring churches of the
“same faith and order,” should
form and maintain a scriptural
alliance, “offensive and defen
sive,” for their mutual better
ment —a moral, not govern mental,
union for practical efficiency.
Do not Baptist churches need to
cultivate more deeply the ties of
a divine family? As regards
doctrine, this family-loyalty is
quick to be aroused; it is sensi
tive and conserving; its moral
authority cannot be denied or ig
nored. No one questions its in
fluence and value; no one dare
underrate the consensus of
Christians who take “the Bible
as their only rule of faith,” but
our canon adds “rule of practice.”
Through the recognition of this
helpful oneness in “practice,”
we have preserved “the ordi
nances as they were delivered to
the saints,” and no small factor
in this pre serving work has been
a certain scriptural “care of all
the churches,” without in the
least impinging upon their sov
ereignty—a living, practical,
moral oversight and helpfulness.
This has wrought, within the
sphere of independency, free
from all hierarchical domination
or superintendency, a denomina
tional unity which has been an
amazement, if not a mystery to
all others.
The inspiration of this basal
affinity and oneness, the author
ity of the principles of Christ in
“the Great Commission” and
elsewhere, the assembling of the
Christian democracy in conven
tion at Jerusalem, and other
practices and injunctions of the
■Sk^it- taught, apostles, have war-
< ♦Baptist b: ,11,er:::- :
associations for
the purpose of combining their
wisdom and gifts ‘for the fur
therance of t e Gospel. This il
lustrates, co ordinates, focalizes
the aims and energies of God’s
people —t/iis, unity of heart, of
labor, of instrumentalities.
Now, brethren beloved, “mark
and inwardly digest” this corol
lary: Neighboring churches should
form an alliance to help each other
in the field which they occupy. This
can be done both (1) in city and
(2) in country. Suppose, for in
stance, the churches of Atlanta
should, through their delegates,
form a Baptist alliance, co-oper
ative union, or church-helping
brotherhood, the name is not now
under consideration—which, in
the recognition of their family
responsibility, would come to the
aid of weak churches in securing
wise locations, in building houses
of worship, in fostering mission
stations, in short would agree to
call forth and combine their en
ergies and resources for the
strengthening of the churches in
the evangelization of the neigh
borhood, who can tell the amount
of good w’hich would flovfrom
this? A resolution to this effect,
offered by the writer, has been
indorsed by the Baptists of At
lanta, and a meeting for organi
zation will be held at the First
Baptist church the second week
in September.
How our country churches
could make this practical, I can
not say in detail, but I am sure
much could be done through their
efficient pastors. I know a num
ber of communities in this State
and in other States which illus
trate some of the benefits of such
co-operation. Whtnbwas profes
sor in Hollins Institute, Virginia,
and pastor of the Roanoke Bap
tist church, I used to hear mem
bers of the executive committee
of the association of that locality
speak of this and that “field”
which was explained to mean
two or more churches that united
to engage the same pastor, and
which owned a pastor’s home,
and which harmonized as one
church for the common welfare
of their neighborhood—a har
mony once wrought out that is
comparative easy to maintain.
Let “the strong help the
weak;” let the weak combine,
“one shall chase a thousand, and
two shall put—it is not two
thousand, the natural law of pro
gression, but—TEN thousand to
flight.” O, divinest arithmetic!
O, Father, teacher us to unite
unite thy children “in every
good word and work.” Let our
watchword be co-operation.
Our Part.
J n this faith
I Shull not eount'tbe chances—lui'o that nil
A prudent foresight asks we shall not want,
And all that bold and patient hearts can do
We shall not leave undone. The rest la God’s.
—Selected.
The Cure of Hezekiah.
This is but one instance among
many reported in Scripture of the
efficacy of prayer in the healing
of disease; and it illustrates the
well-nigh universal faith of Chris
tian people upon this subject. In
that faith they hold:
First, that God hears prayers
for healing as for other bless
ings. One of his names is Jeho
vah Rophi—the Lord our Healer,
and the healing is not merely
spiritual but includes the body,
which is the temple of the Holy
Ghost. The Prayer Hearer lis
tens to every item in that long
catalogue of wants which his peo
ple pour continually into his ear.
That ear catches the petition for
deliverance from pain as quickly
as the petition for deliveiance
from sin. When the Praying
Son taught us to pray “Give us
this day our daily bread,” he
must have intended us to include
the body into which that bread is
to be received, for what good
would bread do to one whose
physical condition was such that
he could not eat? We ought
therefore to pray, Give us our
health day by day. He who gives
us the bread gives also the health,
each in its own measure and ac
cording to his holy will He who
has power over the earth that it
may bring forth seed to the sower
and bread to the eater, has power
also over the body and its ail
ments and infirmities. Every age
of the Church, both before the
time of Hezekiah and after, both
in the days of Christ and up to
the present day, has been full of
instances in which God has heard
prayer and has raised up his
children from the verge of the
grave. Thousands are living to
day in answer to prayer, and
thousands more are full of grati
tude to the prayer hearing God
w T ho has heard their prayers for
the life and health of those dear
to them. To all such it is pass
ing strange that one can doubt
this precious truth, and they are
tilled with amazement when they
are themselves reproached with
unbelief in it. because they re
fuse credence to some passing
claimant of divine authority and
supernatura’ power. Yet for the
sake of others it is needful that
we confess our faith anew in this
fundamental truth and examine
soberly in the light of Scripture
the claims of these who, from
their different standpoints, assail
the faith of the Church.
Second, that God’s answers to
prayers for healing ordinarily
come, as Jiis answers for other
blessings ordinarily do, through
the natural order. He is not
bound down to means. He could
have healed Hezekiah by a word
without the medicinal agency of
the lump of figs, even as he has
healed many others by the naked
exercise of divine power. But
what God can do is sometimes a
different question from what he
does. In the case of Hezekiah,
God put his blessing upon the es
tablished remedial agency of the
time, a lump of figs, which hast
ened the rising of the swelling
and thus brought the process of
mattering to its conclusion. Un
der God’s blessing upon this rem
edy the royal patient recovered.
Tbis remedy, so effective in Hez
ekiah’s case, was recognized by
medical authorities in the times
of Dioscorides, Pliny and Sb Je
rome, and it is highly esteemed
by medical authorities to-day.’
The divine method in the case
of Hezekiah showed not only that
God works through means, but
also that he uses the means which
are at hand in the provisions of
nature, and as the result of hu
man experiment. Naaman, the
Syrian, and the man born blind
in the days of Christ are both in
stances of God’s blessing upon
means Naaman was only healed
of hi« leprosy when, at the com
mand of Elisha, he washed in the
river Jordan seven times. The
man born blind only began to see
after his eyes had been anointed
by Jesus with clay made of spit
tle and he had washed in the
pool of Siloam. But in neither
o these cases was a recognized
remedial agency used,so that the
cure of Hezekiah stands forth as
reflecting the divine blessing
upon those medical preparations
w’hich experience has shown to
be effective. It is not disbelief,
therefore, to use these prepara
tions. It is rather sinful pre
sumption to refuse or to neglect
them! One might as well refuse
to eat, expecting that God would
miraculously sustain his life; or
to study, expecting that God
would miraculously endow him
with learning; or to work and to
save, expecting that God would
miraculously endow him with
wealth, as refuse the means ap
pointed for the maintenance and
VOL. 76--NO. 28
recovery of health,expecting that
God will honor our daring pre
sumption in defying that order of
nature which his own wisdom has
appointed.
Third, that Hezekiah s recov
ery shows that health is not the
highest blessing which man can
have. In his case, recovery was
most unfortunate; for the moral
catastrophe of his life occurred
after it and largely in conse
quence of it. Had he died when
the summons was sent him first,
his record as a sincere and con
sistent servant of God so far as
we have it would have been un
blemished; but during the fifteen
years which, in answer to prayer,
God had added to his life, his
heart was lifted up in pride and
self glory. He entered into al
liance with Merodach-baladan,
king of Babylon, and received
his presents and rendered not
unto God for the benefits which
God had done him. His sin
brought its doom in the captivity
of his people, and there was
wrath upon him and upon Judah
and upon Jerusalem. Though the
captivity was postponed until af
ter his death, yet death to him
must have been bitter indeed,for
it was clouded with the con
sciousness that his own pride
had brought ruin upon the peo
ple whom he loved and whom he
sought to serve.
Sickness and d c ath in the
Christian view are not the great
est evils one can undergo. Out
of them have come some of God’s
richest blessings. The man that
was born blind, through no sin of
his own nor through any sin of his
parents, could look back,after he
had been healed, upon his years
of darkness with rejoicing, and
see wherein by his darkness God
had been glorified. The man who
had an infirmity for thirty-eight
years, and who year after year
lay at the pool of Bethesda, hop
ing in vain that he might reach
the pool, could look back upon
thosej thirty-eight weary years
without regret after he had been
given sight by the Lord Jesus.
Lazarus, when dying, doubtless
felt grieved,as his sisters certain
ly did, that his Friend and Lord
had not come to save him from
the bitterness of death. And yet
when after four days that Lord
raised him from the dead, how
glad they were that he and not
they had ordered the issue of the
sickness! They saw then that
the glory of God shines even
through death. Paul’s thorn in
the flesh, which probably was
some physical infirmity, called
forth from him three earnest
prayers for relief, none of which
were answered; but that thorn
became a blessing, even while it
rankled, in that it brought with
it the promise, “My grace is suf
ficient for thee, for my strength
is made perfect in weakness.”
And the reverent reply of the
sorely-afflicted apostle separates
him from the modern claimants
to supernatural power in the heal
ing of disease, for, instead of
making a clamorous demand that,
the thorn be removed,he patient
ly submitted to the divine will
and said, “Most gladly, there
fore, will I rather glory in my in
firmities,that the power of Christ
may rest upon me.” The power
of Christ! this was his great de
sire and the thorn that brought,
it was a blessing in disguise.
The Christian life is something
more than physical health.
Prayer has a higher and nobler
purpose than mere freedom from
pain. Some of the brightest
lights in the kingdom of God
have for years been never free
from pain. Their prayers for
health, like Paul’s have not been
answered; but God has given
them something better than phys
ical health, and they have been
willing patiently to submit to his
will. Sickness is not a mark of
the divine displeasure. Death to
the Christian is not a bugbear.
The grave has been entered by
One who as he lay in it spoiled
its victory. He has made it the
entrance-way to the heavenly
home and the eternal glory.
These comforting truths are in
marked contrast with the teach
ings of some ■who assume to speak
by divine authority, and they
show how far astray these .teach
ers are. To the sick and the dy
ing and the bereaved the Scrip
ture comes soothingly. The an
guish and horror occasioned by
these claimants to divine author
ity prove that they are not sent
by him who does not break the
bruised reed nor quench the
smoking flax.
These features of the cure of
Hezekiah illustrate the Christian
doctrine of prayer in its relation
to health. It expresses the faith
of thousands of Christians who
act upon it year after year, with
out ever questioning it. These
are of many names and of various
creeds, but they are all at one in
their faith in the God who hears
prayers for health as for all other
blessings.— Prayer and the Heal'
ing of Disease.—Bryan.