RELIGION AND MEDICINE.
By Samuel McComb, M.A. (Oxon.), D.D. (Glasgow), Elwood Worcester, D.D., Ph.D., and Isidor H. Coriat, M.D.
With a Preface by Somerset E. Pennefather, M.A., D.D., Vicar of Kensington and Prebendary of St. Paul's.
Crown 8vo. 6s. net.
This book sets forth in clear and non-technical language the principles, and the methods by which these principles have been applied, that underlie the notable experiment in practical Christianity known as the Emmanuel Movement. The fundamental conception of the work is that a great number of disorders, half nervous and half moral, which are widely prevalent in American and English society, can be alleviated and cured by means which are psychological and religious. The book illustrates how an alliance between the highest neurological science of our time and the Christian religion in its primitive and simplest form, as modern Biblical scholarship has disclosed it, may become a powerful weapon with which to attack the causes that lie behind the neurotic and hysterical temperament that characterises the life of to-day.
The work is written by two scholars trained in scientific theology, and a physician of high reputation as an expert in psychological medicine.
The Church Times says:—'Dr. McComb's lecture, reported in our columns last week, has been speedily followed by the appearance of a book, in which he and two of his colleagues give a complete account of the work of healing undertaken at Emmanuel Church, Boston. This seems to justify our suggestion that the limitations accepted were designed mainly with a view to the friendly co-operation of the medical profession. Another reason for limitation is neatly expressed:—
'"In the treatment of functional nervous disorders, we make free use of moral and psychical agencies, but we do not believe in overtaxing these valuable aids by expecting the mind to attain results which can be effected more easily through physical instrumentalities."
'There speaks sanctified common sense, in exact agreement with the dictum of St. Thomas Aquinas that miracles are not to be multiplied praeter necessitatem. There is also a recognition of what is presumably true, that miraculous healing—for we prefer the old-fashioned term—is not an easy way of escape from doctors' bills, but a process far more difficult, and involving far more expenditure of mind and will, than the use of drugs or splints. When this is understood, some prejudices will disappear. Meanwhile, the three doctors—one of medicine and two of divinity—should have a respectful hearing for their record of work done.'
