(ii) Christ's healing activity was therefore strictly limited in scope. It may be asked, Was it a 'unique manifestation of a unique Personality'[1] or did it differ in degree rather than in kind from the wonderful works of human healers, or, at all events, of healers who have wrought 'in the name of Jesus Christ'? The latter view by no means commits its advocates to a 'humanitarian' view of the Person of Jesus Christ: while it amply satisfies the facts. Again, it is not necessary, for the purpose of the present discussion, to digress into the field of New Testament criticism. Renan, in his 'Vie de Jésus,' feels himself constrained to apologise for the miraculous action of Christ, on the ground that 'the rôle of thaumaturge was unwelcome to him, but was imposed upon him by his contemporaries.'[2] To Loisy, a critic of profounder learning and far more reverent temper, it appears that the miracles were in reality 'works of mercy . . . and not a direct argument in favour of the Messiahship of the Saviour,' a complexion which was afterwards put upon them more or less unconsciously by the Evangelists.[3] But it is quite consistent with a reverent
Page:Medicine and the church; being a series of studies on the relationship between the practice of medicine and the church's ministry to the sick (IA medicinechurchbe00rhodiala).pdf/199
This page needs to be proofread.
