Under the heading "Current Comments," topic, "Healing the Sick," the Watchman of June 4, says: "When any one would have us exercise faith without works, we reply that it would be tempting God." I should think so, indeed.
But how variant are the opinions of people as to what are "works." Isn't it true that the best answer to all criticism on work or convictions ("conviction is not, properly speaking, conviction, till it convert itself into action") is—results? An excellent and trusted doctor goes into a sick room where his patient lies panting for breath between paroxysms of agony which only powerful opiates skilfully administered will restrain. He orders fasting, darkened room, rubbings, pills, tonics, etc. He believes in ."works." But the patient doesn't get well, though the efforts in his behalf are tireless and unremitting. As a "last resort," a despised "Scientist" is called in to get the cursing if the patient dies, and be hushed out of the newspapers if he succeeds—as lie is morally certain to—in raising the sick one to health. The low-voiced, unpretentious Scientist requests attendants to leave the room, throws open the blinds, sits down by the dying(?) patient, and apparently does nothing. But the patient's pain speedily leaves him, and soon he is about his accustomed walks as if no dire calamity had threatened him. This is the result when a true "Scientist" is called upon. But everybody says he (the Scientist) "did nothing," and even the blessed old Watchman, on whose intellectual and religious pabulum I was brought up, whose sound sense and timely hints were my childhood guides, says, practically, that such results are "faith without works;"and benevolently pats me as "luny" if I insist that it is the method of Jesus of Nazareth, who promised that all who truly understood him should show their faith by just such "works."
