The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-06
Christian Science Defended


And he that was dead came forth
u think have made it clear that Chris
ttlan Science follows closely in its healing
both the letter and the spirit of the practice
and the teachings of Jesus Christ and of his
apostles. and, therefore. as I haIe already
said, criticism Of Christian Science Is, ipso
facto, a criticism of the Bible and of our
Savior. DR.. Shutters article, on Dec. 8, en-
titled, Miracles Of Healing in the New Tes-
lament, Is no exception to the general rule
1 deeply regret that duty compels me to call
attention to few Of the typical statements
Of that article.
Among other statements which he quotes
from the gospels is this: ''And Jesus went
about all the cities and the villages, teach
ing IN their synagagues and preaching the
gospel OF the kingdom, and healing all man
ner of disease and all manner of sickness
He then adds: These general statements are
like all other attempts to put things in round
numbers. They are exaggerated and sweep
ing. They belong to that class of express
sions of which the writer of Johns Gospel
mas left so conspicuous an example: And
there are also many other things which Je-
sus did, the which, If they should be written
every one, / suppose that even the world itself
would not contain the books that should be
Written We. certainly must accept this
as an overstatement, unless we are willing
to accept the Interpretation of good man
who said that perhaps, the writer referred
to the world as it was known to the ancients,
which was much smaller than the world as
we now know it, and would not hold so many
books.''
In answer, let me say that the latter quo
tatlon from the Gospel of John could not
deceive, and was not meant to deceive, any
body, but was simply intended to emphasize
In the oriental way the greatness of Jesus
work. The former quotation is of an entire
ly different character, and, unless the gospel
writer testified to falsehood (Which I think
few Christians will admit, proves, not that
the evangelist kept an itemized list Of cures,
but that, to express an admitted fact in a
general and comprehensive way, Jesus did
heal all kinds of diseases and sicknesses In
case of doubt as to which of the two possible
| interpretations to accept, candid critic
should, in common justice, choose that In
depreciation of any passage in the Bible
which is consistent with the honesty and in
teligence Of the writer
Dr. Shutter then considers some of the
specific cases of jesus healing, and assumes
that some of the similar cases are really one
and the same case, some of the narratives
being thus grossly exaggerated. Thus, Of
certain cases of leprosy healed by Jesus,
Dr. Shutter says: 'The simplest account is
that of Matthew. He says nothing of the
severity Of the disease. Luke emphasizes it
and says that he was full of leprosy.' Mat
thew assumes that he obeyed the Injunction
not to speak of it.. Mark and Luke tell us
that, instead Of that he went out and be-
gan to publish it, so that multitudes came
to be healed of their indrmities; and at last
the story blossoms into ten lepers healed
instead of one; and these ten healed at a
distance, instead of by his touch. The same
tendency to exaggeration is seen elsewhere"
| Continuing, DR.. Shutter gives other instances
| upon which he puts similar Interpretation,
adding: "This Is the tendency Of religious
| enthusiasm. Stories grow as they are re-
! Eeated. New features are constantly added,
| until at last it becomes difficult, if not i'm
| possible to get at the original facts In
answer, let me appeal for justice in behalf
| of the Bible writers. In case of doubt, that
| Interpretation or explanation OF any given
| passage of the Bible should be rejected which
| is inconsistent with the intelligence and hon"
esty of the writer of that passage.
DR.. Shutter says: 1.-THE New Testament
theory of disease is that it is caused by devils,
actual evil spirits, which took possession of
! the human body and produced the ailments
| that distress us. Was not exercising devils
| the chief work of Jesus in healing? Is not
| this the theory that lies on every page of
| the New Testament? The only way to escape
from this conclusion Is to interpret the New
| Testament on some scheme that denies the
plain historic sense. But such restorat1ons
were no proof of supernatural power; they
testify to a commanding personality, to a
| deep insight into human nature and to a
| wonderful skill in dealing with men. Indeed,
! it was the casting outSof a demon that first
| gave Jesus his great reputation Here was q
man who had conquered hell ITSELF. OF course
I the people would think that he had come
| from God and was clothed with divine power.
| All that can understand. But why you
and should attach any unusual Importance
| to such an incident from remote and super
stitous age, cannot understand. After cast
ing out, as the people Believed, some demons,
the report spread that he could heal the
| sick; the people believed that he could; the
sick believed it, and consequently we're healed.
| Their faith in him as healer wrought with
his own suggestion and produced a. cure
| AS to the theory of sickness being caused by
devils, I would answer, what of 1t? fail
to see how an erroneous popular theory as to
| the cause of disease can lessen the credit due
| to the power which heals 1t. That Jesus and his
apostles adopted the popular phraseology rela-
| tive to disease does not prove that they be-
| lieved the popular theory to be true. All
through the Bible language Is used adapted
to the comprehension Of the people addressed.
This was wise and right That you cannot
teach person everything at once is no rea-
| son why you should antagonfze him so that
you can teach him nothing. e
The important point for Jesus to impress
| upon the people was that God heals the sick,
as well as the sinful. This was tho teaching
| Of Jesus himself upon the subject Of heal
| Ing He said II can Of mine own self do
nothing; but he also said 'The Father doeth
| the works. In view of these facts, Dr.
Shutters intimation that Jesus healed by
mental suggestion would make Jesus either
| a hypocrite or one who was himself deceived
Christendom does not agree with DR.. Shut
| ter upon this point. Jesus certainly attributed
! the healing works Of himself and of his
| followers to the power of God and not to
n mind
does not believe Jesus to have been hyp-
notist nor to have been self-deceived.
Speaking of the healing of the New Testa-
ment, DR.. Shutter says: "None Of the dis
eases which have proved most fatal in mod
ern times are on the lst-such as cancer
smallpox or Bright's disease. Paralysis,
stiff hand, some cases of blindness and dumb
ness, attributed in most cases to demons
these are the most notable. They are pre-
cisely the things that most easily yield to
mental suggestion The fact is, that all the
cures Of the gospels put together do not
furnish single case Of great moment or
seriousness that the physicians Of
too day THAT day?l with their imperfect
knowledge considered incurable; nothing that
the physicians Of to-day would find insuper-
able Answering, I would say that the
healing work Of Jesus and Of his apostles is
not to- be discredited merely by the fact that
the people Of his day did not know OF the
modern diseases of cancer, smallpox and
Bright's disease. Remember, too, that only,
a few Of the many cures wrought by Jesus
are described in detail. AS to these other
astonishing statements made by DR.. Shutter,
I think they have surprised the public, as
they have certainly surprised me.
DR.. Shutter says: Jesus sometimes used
external means. Even II Jesus did this but
once, this single instance is enough to war
rant the use of outward means. as well as of