SPIRITUAL HEALING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17179, 24 October 1923, Page 4

SPIRITUAL HEALING.

UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES. Tho subject of spiritual healing was dealt with bv Archbishop Julius, in the course of his presidential address at the opening of the Diocesan : Synod yesterday. ! His Grace said that the near approach of the visit of the Hickson Mission to Christchurch, the interest it had aroused and the fact that the I movement must be regarded as a venture foreign to the experience of the Synod, must excuse an effort on his part to unfold the principles underlying the Christian ministry of healing, more especially if it were found that their application had a far wider range than the healing of the body, j “ Now the root principle of all heali inp is this,” added the Archbishop, “ that the redemption that is in Christ . Jesus includes every part of man’s nature, body, soul and spirit Indeed, St Paul is not afraid to say that it includes all creation. He who said to the paralytic ‘ Thy sins be forgiven thee,’ said also ‘ Take up thy bed and walk.’ The restored vitality of the spirit penetrated with healing efficacy to mind .and body. 1 need not labour the point. His own witness is sufficient —* Go and show John again those things which ye do see and hear; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, tho lepers are and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up. and the poor have the Gospel preached to them.’ CHRIST’S MINISTRY OF HEALING. “ There are certain characteristics of our Lord’s ministry which throw a flood of light upon Spiritual Healing. The first is this—He never failed. The disciples failed, but not their Master. So far twj we know, he never laid his hands on any who were not healed, nor spoke any word of command which wa3 not. obeyed. ‘ His touch has still its ancient power,’ but, communicated through human agency, it suffers loss. Unlike ourselves He knew no sin, His spirit was never clouded with doubt or fear. His trust in God was absolute, His energies ol mind and spirit unimpaired, and the miraci.es tnat He wrought were the natural outcome of His unique personality. Yet we observe that the exercise of His power was limited. The incredulous amazement and hostility of the people of Nazareth so stayed His hand that He could do no mighty work among them. Again, if we compare the ministry in Galilee with that in Judea and Jerusalem, we cannot fail to see how free was the outflow of healing power in the one, how comparatively restrained in the other. Any psychologist will tell us that the perverse, critical and hostile attitude of the Jew would be fatal to any hope of mental healing. Certainly, in no less degree, it closed the door upon the spiritual healing of the Christ. Perhaps this temper of the Jew in Jerusalem, and spiritual dullness in Galilee, may account for tho fact that our Lord frequently enjoined silence, avoided publicity and hid Himself away. “ When wo pass from the earthly ministry of our Lord to the Apostolic age, we find the same ministry of healing exercised with wonderful power, if with some loss of grace and beauty. There is no lack of confidence, for the fairth shattered by the Crucifixion is established by the resurrection from the dead. Nor is there loss of authority, for they speak not in their own, but in the name of their risen God. ‘ /Eneas. Jesus Christ maketh thee whole.’ We all acknowledge that our I.ord is the one source of spiritual healing, and that ho has given power to His church to heal in Ilis name. The difficulty remains— Why has the power ceased to be exercised? We must acknowledge, on the testimony of the fathers, that what we call miracles were dying out by the end of the second century, and we allow that if miracles might be. and probably were, wrought in later times, they differed much in character from those of Christ and His Apostles, and were very rave. But miracles of healing must be carefully distinguished from cosmic and other miracles. Indeed it is open to question whether the term ‘ miracle ’ properly applies to them. Their source is spiritual, their operation mav be governed bv what we call natural law. “ Stvritual healing has novpr ceased, although for a time it h*»s been neglected and Forgotten. Tt has never ceased, for who can measure th« healing influence upon mind and b-dv of a suirit brought into harmony with th« Divine will. But it has been ignored. STUDY OF PSYCHOLOGY. “ At this time, by many ways, the Spirit of God is leading us to earnest study, and perhaps to the revival oi the ministry of healing. On the one hand, medical science, with infinite patience and research, is approaching more nearly to the ultimate source?, oi disease- The study of psychology, almost a new science, is pursuing the same course, and the Church, studying afresh the mystery of the Incarnation and of sacramental grace, is learning that body, soul and spirit are alike partakers of the life of the Incarnate Christ. So, not in rivalry of other means of healing, but rather in cooperation with them, ive seek to revive and exercise the Christian ministry ol healing. We are not careful for results, and desire most earnestly severe scrutiny and unbiased inquiry. In the nineteenth century such inquiry on the part of science was impossible; to-<Lay we mav fairly say that the criticism which condemns spiritual healing as the offspring of folly and credulity, is simply unscientific and out of u&teThe movement is growing steadily. It needs no advertisement, but many prayers. Not the least of our gains is a great revival of corporate intercession. Mr James Hickson, a pioneer of the movement, and a loyal and devoted churchman, conies to us on the invitation of all the bishops of this proSpeaking of the Tiecd for training the clergy for the ministry of Christian healing, the Archbishop said that the healing ministry of the Church was befoie all else a healing oi the individual sinner. It must be confessed that for such purpose the clergy were most inadequately trained. Ho •was not so much referring to their knowledge of Scripture and theology or to their power of applying it in preaching and teaching, but to the>r knowledge of men. “ We know something of the medicine of the Gospel, and very little of the patient#,** added his Grace. If only the Senate of the University of New Zealand knew tho meaning of the word ‘ University.’ we should have theological degrees, the course of study for which would certainly include the sciences of psychology and education. Failing these, the Board of Theological Studies should give far greater prominence to these subjects. I am profoundly grateful to nianv of the Professors of Canterbury College who have done more than they know to stimulate post-graduate study. A liealthv man does not trouble the doctor. The sick man is thankful that there is a general practitioner within reach to whom he can unfold his woes, able to examine him and afford relief. Although we do pot often publish the invitation our Church speaks thus to her children :—-If there be any of you, \ who by this means canuot quiet his

own conscience herein, but requireth comfort or counsel let him come to me. or to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God’s holy Word lie may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly course l and advice, to tho quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness. There must be thousands of men, burdened with sin. anxious for relief of conscience and the healing of tlieir souls who would thankfully accept such an invitation if they had as much confidence in the skill of their parish priest as they have in his good will. “ A medical specialist, without some general knowledge, is a dangerous person, likely enough to bring his patient to the grave. A specialist in theology, in his treatment of in-drvi dual souls, may be no less dangerous, unles ho has some knowledge of human nature. It cannot be denied that our Lord was n master of psychology. Ho knew what was in man. The confidence He thus inspired made men receptive of llis healing grace.”