Cases of healing through prayer and laying on of hands are frequently reported and sometimes referred to as being the divine attestation of the instrument of them. It is asked, Do not the remarkable cures effected show the man who makes them is a man of God ?Are they not proof that God approves him? Do they not show that his mission is from God ?

Now if this is true, it follows that the authority and leadership of such is to be accepted and submitted to. It would be insubjection to God not to endorse or follow men whom He had sent, and upon whom He had put the credentials of His authorization. But it often happens that there is something about such persons, or about their mission or work, from which one well instructed in the ways and mind of God instinctively revolts. Others, less instructed and exercised, settle it at once that the claims to authority and leadership are established by the striking cures, and enthusiastically follow some such pretender, oftentimes to repent of it afterwards, though this indeed is not always the case. Then again, some finding opposing and conflicting movements supported by the same sign of authority, the various leaders of these movements alike possessing the gift of healing, and each constantly augmenting the list of cures, are sorely tried and perplexed in deciding between the various claims. Many indeed shifting from one movement to another like leaves driven to and fro by ever-changing winds.

But, we would inquire, has not the word of God anticipated all this and provided for it ? Does it not settle the question of whom we are to endorse and follow in the most explicit way ? Does it leave us in uncertainty as to claims of authorization which are so boldly made and insisted on ? No truly reverent person can think so. Surely, God has given unerring light on our path, and a sufficient test by which to judge whether the claims men make for themselves and the missions in which they are interested are well founded.

Let us turn to the Scriptures to see if this is not so; to find what God has given us to guide us in this matter.

In Heb. 2:3, 4 we find a very important passage bearing on the question we are concerned with. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God also bearing them witness both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will?" Here we find, First, God has revealed a great salvation. Second, this great salvation, or revelation, was first communicated by the Lord. Third, there were witnesses of what He did, of what He spoke, of the revelation of salvation He made-men who heard Him speak. Fourth, as witnesses of the revelation which He made, in declaring what they saw and heard, they have confirmed the revelation-the truth of the great salvation. Fifth, God has put His divine seal upon their testimony. He has witnessed to the truth of what they declared. The signs and wonders and divers miracles He gave them to do, and the various gifts or distributions of the Holy Spirit, were God's demonstration of the truthfulness of their testimony.

Now what we learn here is that apostolic testimony has been attested. God has accredited apostolic witness. Their confirmation of the great salvation has stamped upon it the sign or seal of divine authority and approbation.
Now let us turn to i Cor. 15:i-2:In this passage Paul declares the gospel-the great salvation he preached, insisting that it was in agreement with Old Testament announcement and prediction. One of the great pillars of this gospel is the resurrection of Christ. He insists that this grand foundation stone of the great salvation, the resurrection of Christ, is a well attested fact. There were reliable witnesses of it. Men who had seen the risen Lord had confirmed the fact of His resurrection by testifying to it. It was not an unconfirmed rumor, but a well-established fact. Among these witnesses he includes himself. Having thus declared the gospel that he preached, and shown that is was a thoroughly established and confirmed gospel, he repeats what he had already insisted on – that it was the gospel they had believed and by which they had been saved. He does not speak here of the witness of God to the testimony of these witnesses-the signs, and so forth, which are mentioned in Heb. 2:But it is plain that the gospel here, and the great salvation there, are identical. The witnesses here are the same as there-those who had " heard Him." Thus the testimony of these witnesses to the risen Christ comes down to the succeeding ages with the seal of God upon it, the signs with which He has stamped His authority upon it. It is a divinely attested and authorized testimony.

Now if other men preached a different gospel, in what light did the apostle regard it ? Galatians 1:6-9 furnishes us the answer. To the apostle, a different gospel was not a gospel at all, and the preachers of it were "troublers" and "perverters of the gospel of Christ." So strongly did he feel about it that he not only anathematized them, but said also that if even he, or "an angel from heaven," should preach a different gospel from that which he had preached and they had received, "let him be accursed."

May we suppose that these preachers of a different gospel could point to signs and wonders and miracles as the evidence of their commission from God ? We would not be too bold in insisting that they did, but of this we may be certain, that in apostolic days there did arise men who claimed to be apostles, who demanded the submission of the saints on the ground that they were duly accredited of God. Revelation 2:2 makes this plain. The saints at Ephesus had "tried them who said they were apostles" and had proved them to be "liars." Whatever evidences they had attempted to adduce as proofs of their claims, it had been found that their claims were false.

No doubt it was more difficult then to test such pretentious claims than it is now. But if the saints of Ephesus did it, when it was not as simple and easy a task as it is now, there is more shame to us if we allow men to turn us from the simplicity of our precious faith, to follow any perversion of it or any denial of it. We shall soon see there is no excuse for being deceived into any complicity with the various corruptions of the gospel that prevail all around us.

We have seen that apostolic testimony has upon it the signs of divine authority. Now it comes down to us as an already accredited witness. It needs no other attestation. The seal put upon it in apostolic times is sufficient. John says, "He that is not of God heareth not us." Just before this he had said, "He that knoweth God heareth us." Now this shows that hearing the apostolic testimony is the mark or sign of one's work being of God. Paul in 2 Tim. 2:2, says, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Here again we see it is apostolic testimony- a testimony with the seal of God upon it, that is to be handed down to succeeding generations. The same is seen in i Cor. 14:37. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." Here again, it is plain, it is apostolic testimony that is to be received and submitted to. So it will be found constantly in Scripture; but I will not pursue it further. Enough has been referred to establish the point that what accredits a man as a teacher of God is that he brings apostolic doctrine.

If then he has the gift of healing and exercises it, that does not constitute the seal of his mission. It is altogether superfluous to seal what has already upon it the seal of God :and this we have seen apostolic testimony has.

How simple ! Does a man preach the faith God has delivered to the saints ? That, not healing, is his credential.

There is a passage in Deut. 13:1-5 which may be helpful to some. If a prophet arose and gave a sign to establish his claim to be a prophet and the sign came to pass, it was not to be considered as the proof of his claim. The children of Israel were to keep the commandments of the Lord. They were to obey His voice. The revelations or communications He had given to them through Moses were to be the test of the voice of a true prophet. A prophet's work must be according to the law of Moses. If he worked miracles, and some of them did, the miracles did not prove him to be a prophet of God. What showed that he was that, is that he spoke according to the law.

It is precisely the same now. The seal of a man's doing the work of the Lord is the truth of God. Is his doctrine apostolic doctrine ? He may, or may not, have the gift of healing. If he has it and exercises it, the healings he effects do not prove his claim to be a servant of God. However much he uses the gift of healing, what marks him as a man worthy of our confidence and support is that he brings apostolic teaching. If we desire to find the seal of God upon what he brings, we must go to the word of God to find it. Apostolic "signs and wonders and miracles" attest apostolic testimony, not present day healings. C. Crain