MEDICINE AND THE CHURCH
INTRODUCTION
I
In the Middle Ages practically the only homes of learning were the
monasteries. Here all the knowledge of the time was taught and all
the studies carried on, so that under the same roof the theologian,
the chemist, the artist, and the artificer sat side by side, and
consequently each drew from and modified the study and practice of
the other. In England, at least, the dissolution of the monasteries
changed this order, and though the brilliancy of the Renaissance for a
time obscured the loss to society in general, in the backwater of the
eighteenth century both religion and medicine drifted into distinct
circumscribed professions. The dawn of the nineteenth century saw an
enormous revival of interest and study in both directions, but the
newfound energy with which the two spheres of learning were pushed
forward, proved in the end inimical to the highest interests of the
community, for religion and medicine found themselves carried farther
and farther apart.
Before the stress of life became as severe as it is to-day, most common
complaints could be overcome by rest and ordinary treatment. But under
modern conditions of extreme complexity healing can no longer be
conducted on such simple lines, and as time has gone on the effects of
this divorce of medicine and religion have made themselves felt.
In correspondence with a more highly organised state of society, man
has become a more highly organised being. He has developed faculties
in excess of the man of, say, fifty years ago, and the exercise of
these faculties, that depend for their operation on the nervous
system, entails a strain on that system to which it was not exposed
half a century back. The more elaborate the machinery the more ways in
which it may get out of order. Man to-day is prone to a dozen nervous
complaints whose existence our forefathers were happily able to ignore.
Owing to climatic and other conditions that need not be discussed here,
these nervous disorders first forced themselves on public attention in
the United States of America. The overworked business or professional
man has no time in the rushing life of the great growing cities of
America for rest. Carried off his feet by the tide of prosperity, he
becomes the slave of his inventions instead of being their master.
His sense of proportion becomes atrophied and he fails to maintain a
correct balance between thought and action. A purely materialistic
medicine that ignores thoughts and feelings as being outside the scope
of diagnosis is powerless to prescribe for such a case. And it is small
matter for astonishment that patients of this description have been
drifting into the hands of Christian Science and kindred cults in their
search for relief. These systems of philosophy or religion (if such
they can be called) lack, however, that element of completeness without
which no guide of human conduct can maintain its hold. And as it
becomes realised that these irresponsible and often mercenary societies
are propagating views diametrically opposed to the common-sense
conceptions of the patients, their power will be broken and the cures
cease. Meantime Christian Science undoubtedly does overcome some cases
of nervous trouble, but these in no sense outweigh the mischief done
by its followers in denying the sick medical care. We must clear the
ground before we can commence building, and it may be well to examine
briefly the ‘faith and works’ of Christian Science before proceeding to
discuss the relationship between Medicine and the Church.
Opening Mrs. Eddy’s handbook at random we come across these two
explanatory statements:
(1) It is not scientific to examine the body in order to ascertain if
we are in health.
(2) To employ drugs for the cure of disease shows a lack of faith in
God.
There is nothing new, of course, in these two statements, nor anything
peculiar to Christian Science in them. They are put forward by the
majority of persons with these views, whether they belong to the
Peculiar People or to Christian Science.
With Christian Science, as with all these unorthodox and irregular
religious healing societies, it is almost impossible to find any matter
that is sufficiently definite to enable one to form any conclusion of
their objects. They talk glibly about having effected cures of various
kinds of diseases, but on their own showing there is absolutely no
evidence to prove that the individual ever had that disease or any
other form of disease. Mr. Stephen Paget has very kindly allowed me
to make one or two extracts from his invaluable work dealing with
Christian Science. He has, at great pains, collected cases of Christian
Science cures as reported in their own official publications. It is
only necessary to read a few of these to see the absolute hopelessness
of getting at the bottom of them, not merely from a medical standpoint
but from the point of view of common sense. I would ask any person of
average intelligence to read the following five testimonies to healing
that Mr. Stephen Paget extracted from Mrs. Eddy’s weekly journal,
the _Christian Science Sentinel_, and inform me if they convey any
impression whatsoever to his or her mind:
‘_Mrs. R._--Healed of “sense of fatigue, and throat trouble.” Also,
when knocked down by a bicyclist, she “suffered no pain at all, and had
little sense of shock.”’
‘_Mrs. E._--Was healed of the pain of a burn. “The healing went on
rapidly, and in a very short time all manifestation of the trouble
disappeared.”’
‘_Mr. W._--Cured of drinking and smoking, and of “stomach and throat
trouble.”’[1]
[1] A good case of a drunkard converted. The healing of the stomach
and throat troubles, of course, followed the giving-up of the drink.
‘_Mamie D._--“I seemed to have burned my hand very badly.” Healed.’
‘_Mrs. P._--“Many physical ailments have been met and overcome by
Truth.”’
And yet if they will refer to Mr. Paget’s book they will find hundreds
of similar instances. In an appendix to the second edition of his work
Mr. Paget quotes the whole of the correspondence in connexion with the
absent treatment of the Hon. A. Holland-Hibbert’s mare, in 1900. This
curious correspondence needs no comment.
The following is an account _in extenso_ of an alleged cure by
Christian Science taken from an article in the _Twentieth Century
Magazine_, published in Boston, U.S.A., October 1909.
The contribution in question is from the pen of the editor, Mr. B. O.
Flower. I leave my readers to form their own opinion on this remarkable
testimony.
‘On the morning of the dedication of the Chicago Church, November 14,
1898, I was in my bedroom in the third story of our house (the house is
three stories and basement). I was getting ready to go to the morning
service, and my little daughter, five years old, was playing about,
when suddenly I felt a silence. I instantly noticed that the child was
no longer there and that the window was open.’
‘I looked out and saw her unconscious form on the ground below, her
head on the cement sidewalk. Instantly I thought, “All is Love.”
‘As I went downstairs the entire paragraph in “No and Yes,” page 19,
beginning, “Eternal harmony, perpetuity, and perfection constitute
the phenomena of Being,” came to me and took up its abode with me,
and with it the clear sense of the great gulf fixed between the child
and the lie that claimed to destroy. The child was brought in, and
as she was carried upstairs she cried. As she was laid down, the
blood was spurting from her mouth, and had already covered her neck
and shoulders. I instantly said, “There is one law--God’s law--under
which man remains perfect,” and the bleeding immediately stopped. The
child seemed to relapse into unconsciousness, but I declared, “Mind
is ever present and controls its idea,” and in a few moments she
slept naturally. During the morning she seemed to suffer greatly if
she was moved at all, and her legs seemed paralysed, lifeless. In the
afternoon, all sense of pain left, she slept quietly, and I went to the
afternoon service rejoicing greatly in my freedom from the sense of
personal responsibility.’
‘When I returned she sat in my lap to eat some supper, with no sense
of pain, but still unable to control her limbs, which presented the
appearance of entire inaction. At eight o’clock she was undressed
without inconvenience, and there was no mark on her body but a bruised
eye. During the day she had not spoken of herself. At eleven o’clock
when I went upstairs, I found her wide awake and she said: “Mamma,
error is trying to say that I fell out of the window, but that cannot
be. The child of God can’t fall; but why do I lie here? Why can’t I
move my legs?”
‘The answer was, “You can move them. Mind governs, and you are always
perfect.” In a moment she said, “I will get up and walk.” It seemed to
require one or two trials to get her legs to obey, but she rose, walked
across the room and back and climbed into bed.... She then sat up, ate
a lunch, fell into a natural slumber, and woke bright and happy in the
morning.’
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave a solemn warning in connexion with
this question at a recent conference at Lambeth Palace, and the
following statement from the medical side is important.
‘Christian Science seems to present one fundamental point of difference
from all other forms of spiritual healing. This is, that whereas the
cures said to be wrought at Lourdes and other shrines are attributed
to the direct action of Christ, exercised at the intercession of His
Virgin Mother or His Saints, Mrs. Eddy and her disciples claim, as far
as we understand the teaching--which is not only obscure in itself, but
often inconsistent--to cure disease by the same power of healing that
was given to Christ. In the sacred book of the sect we read:
‘Our Master healed the sick, practised Christian healing, and taught
the generalities of its divine Principle to His students; but He
left no definite rule for demonstrating His Principle of healing and
preventing disease. This remained to be discovered through Christian
Science. A pure affection takes form in goodness, but Science alone
reveals its Principle and demonstrates its rules.’[2]
[2] _Science and Health._ By Mary Baker G. Eddy. Boston. 1908. P. 41.
She tells us that ‘when God called her to proclaim His Gospel to this
age, there came also the charge to plant and water His vineyard.’
What she calls her ‘sacred discovery’ was made in 1866, and since
then it has become widespread in America and in this country. It does
not commend itself to the Latin mind, which is nothing if not lucid
and logical. Its methods and results are fully discussed by some
representatives of the most advanced medical thought in the present
issue of the _Journal_, and we have nothing to add to what they say.
To anyone who wishes to see the whole case against Christian Science
put most clearly and convincingly from the medical point of view, we
cordially recommend Mr. Stephen Paget’s book on the subject.[3] It is
attractively written, well ‘documented,’ and informed with the true
scientific spirit.
[3] _The Faith and Works of Christian Science._ Macmillan and Co.
1909. The book is now in a second edition.
We need say only one thing more about Christian Science, which, to
speak plainly, is a repulsive subject, inasmuch as it shows, in a way
no other form of spiritual healing does, the depths of degradation
to which the human mind can sink under the weight of superstition.
That it cures cases of the kind that have been healed at all sorts of
shrines--pagan, Christian, Buddhist, Mohammedan--from time immemorial,
it would be idle to deny. That it brightens the lives of some persons
who have no aim in life, and have nothing to do but evoke pains and
ailments by thinking of their health, is also true. But, none the less,
its pretensions go far behind anything that is credible, except by
such as accept Tertullian’s paradox, _Credo quia impossibile_; and,
instead of courting the light as other methods do, it seems to love
the darkness. We have asked over and over again for facts that would
convince a trained mind, but none are forthcoming. Christian Science
may, indeed, be described as faith with the least possible amount of
works and the largest possible number of words. Here are fair specimens
of the kind of facts which forms all the evidence vouchsafed to us
of its healing efficacy; they are taken from the _Christian Science
Sentinel_ of May 28, 1910, p. 777:
‘A short time ago I was taken sick with fever. My mother asked for
Christian Science treatment for me, and I was almost instantly cured.
I have been reading “Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures,”
by Mrs. Eddy, and have been benefited in business and in health ever
since. I am very grateful for Christian Science, and thankful to God,
whence all good comes.
‘FRED. WERTH, Dallas, Tex.’
‘Some time ago I was attacked by stomach and bowel trouble. A Christian
Science practitioner was called, and my ailment soon left and I was
again able to resume my duties. I am very thankful for the good done me
and others, and praise God for speaking to us through Mrs. Eddy.
‘TILLIE WERTH, Dallas, Tex.’
There is nothing new in Christian Science except the colossal impudence
of its pretensions. Mark Twain spoke in ignorance when he said:
‘The Christian Scientist has taken a force which has been lying idle in
every member of the human race since time began.’
We have shown that it was not left to Mrs. Eddy to discover this force,
and that, so far from lying idle, it has been active in temples and
churches, at shrines and tombs, for thousands of years. In one thing
Christian Science has probably a unique record of achievement: beyond
any sect or system that we know of it has succeeded in exploiting human
imbecility and turning airy nothing into solid cash.[4]
[4] _British Medical Journal_, June 18, 1910.
‘Every false system of philosophy, of ethics, of morals, and of
religion is floated on the vast ocean of conduct, of character, and of
conviction by some element of truth. This corresponds to a water-tight
compartment in a vessel which is in danger of being sunk, through
dishonest contracts, imperfect mechanism, ignorant seamanship, or the
stress and strain of storm. But for this compartment, the ship would
disappear in the gurgling green of the ocean. In the moral Order, and
in all our controversies, there is this unsinkable truth. It keeps
afloat all with which it is for the time united, until the balance is
lost. Then the system is submerged. But the truth sails on.’[5] In the
case of the system we have had under examination this truth is the
power of the mind over the body and the efficacy of faith. Christian
Science undoubtedly cures certain kinds of neurotic troubles, just as
it may do incalculable harm by teaching that scientific medicine is
not only useless but mischievous. If its followers confined themselves
to merely enunciating the truth on which the flimsy superstructure is
founded little could be urged against them. As we have seen, however,
by a careful examination of their official records, they contradict the
cardinal doctrines of the Christian Churches, and encourage a disregard
for all bodily complaints that is not merely foolish in the extreme,
but where the sufferings of others are concerned, distinctly brutal,
and in either case often leads to the most disastrous results.
[5] Dean Lefroy on _Christian Science_.
This indictment is a serious one. But then the claims of Mrs. Eddy’s
supporters are so portentous that they cannot be lightly dismissed,
and we must not forget that, as the Bishop of Birmingham points out in
a letter printed further on in this volume, both the Church and the
medical profession have played into the hands of Christian Science by
ignoring the facts that Mrs. Eddy has been occupied in distorting.
However much it may have been possible in the past for the doctor and
the parson in dealing with the less nervous, more easy-going type to
look upon him as composed of two distinct and separate parts, body
and spirit respectively, having no intimate relationship and amenable
to quite different influences, such a view of men and women is to-day
out of the question. To entertain it for a moment is to court failure.
Mind and matter act and react upon one another, and more than this,
without faith all human enterprise would be stultified. Faith plays no
less important a part in medical treatment than it does in the more
commonplace affairs of life. This aspect of the question cannot be
better expressed than it has been recently by Professor Osler.[6]
[6]
‘_From the Regius Professor of Medicine, Oxford._
‘_Nov. 18th, ’09._
‘Dear Sir,--
‘The question as you say bristles with difficulties, but no doubt
in the stirring of the pool healing in some form or another will be
the outcome. You are of course at liberty to use any writings of
mine.--Sincerely yours,
W. Osler.’
‘Nothing in life is more wonderful than faith--the one great moving
force which we can neither weigh in the balance nor test in the
crucible. Intangible as the ether, ineluctable as gravitation, the
radium of the moral and mental spheres, mysterious, indefinable,
known only by its effects, faith pours out an unfailing stream of
energy while abating nor jot nor tittle of its potency. Well indeed
did St. Paul break out into the well-known glorious panegyric, but
even this scarcely does justice to the Hertha of the psychical world,
distributing force as from a great storage battery, without money and
without price to the children of men.’
Three of its relations concern us here. The most active manifestations
are in the countless affiliations which man in his evolution has worked
out with the unseen, with the invisible powers, whether of light or
of darkness, to which from time immemorial he has erected altars and
shrines. To each one of the religions, past or present, faith has been
the Jacob’s ladder. Creeds pass; an inexhaustible supply of faith
remains, with which man proceeds to rebuild temples, churches, chapels,
and shrines. As Swinburne says in that wonderful poem, _The Altar of
Righteousness_:
God by God flits past in thunder, till his glories turn to shades:
God to God bears wondering witness how his gospel flames and fades.
More was each of these, while yet they were, than man their servant seemed:
Dead are all of these, and man survives who made them while he dreamed.
And all this has been done by faith, and faith alone. Christendom lives
on it, and countless thousands are happy in the possession of that most
touching of all confessions, ‘Lord! I believe; help Thou my unbelief.’
But, with its Greek infection, the Western mind is a poor transmitter
of faith, the apotheosis of which must be sought in the religions of
the East. The nemesis of faith is that neither in its intensity nor in
its effects does man find any warrant of the worthiness of the object
on which it is lavished--the followers of Joe Smith, the Mormon, are as
earnest and believing as are those of Confucius!
Again, faith is the cement which binds man to man in every relation
of life. Without faith in the Editor of the _Journal_ I would not
have accepted his invitation to write this brief note, and he had
confidence that I would not write rubbish. Personally I have battened
on it these thirty-six years, ever since the McGill Medical Faculty
gave me my first mount. I have had faith in the profession, the most
unbounded confidence in it as one of the great factors in the progress
of humanity; and one of the special satisfactions of my life has been
that my brethren have in many practical ways shown faith in me, often
much more than (as I know in my heart of hearts) I have deserved. I
take this illustration of the practical value of the faith that worketh
confidence, but there is not a human relationship which could not be
used for the same purpose.
And a third aspect is one of very great importance to the question in
hand--a man must have faith in himself to be of any use in the world.
There may be very little on which to base it--no matter, but faith in
one’s powers, in one’s mission, is essential to success. Confidence
once won, the rest follows naturally; and with a strong faith in
himself a man becomes a local centre for its radiation. St. Francis,
St. Theresa, Ignatius Loyola, Florence Nightingale, the originator of
every cult or sect or profession, has possessed this infective faith.
And in the ordinary everyday work of the doctor, confidence, assurance
(in the proper sense of the word) is an asset without which it is
very difficult to succeed. How often does one hear the remark, ‘Oh!
he does not inspire confidence,’ or the reverse! How true it is, as
wise old Burton says: ‘That the patient must have a sure hope in his
physician. Damascen, the Arabian, requires likewise in the physician
himself that he be confident he can cure him, otherwise his physic will
not be effectual, and promise withal that he will certainly help him,
make him believe so at least. Galeottus gives this reason because
the form of health is contained in the physician’s mind, and as Galen
holds confidence and hope to be more good than physic, he cures most in
whom most are confident’; and he quotes Paracelsus to the effect that
Hippocrates was so fortunate in his cures not from any extraordinary
skill, but because ‘the common people had a most strong conceit of his
worth.’
Faith is indeed one of the miracles of human nature which science is
as ready to accept as it is to study its marvellous effects. When we
realise what a vast asset it has been in history, the part which it
has played in the healing art seems insignificant, and yet there is no
department of knowledge more favourable to an impartial study of its
effects; and this brings me to my subject--the faith that heals.
Apart from the more specific methods to be dealt with faith has always
been an essential factor in the practice of medicine, as illustrated by
the quotations just given from Burton. Literature is full of examples
of remarkable cures through the influence of the imagination, which
is only an active phase of faith. The late Daniel Hack Tuke’s book,
‘The Influence of the Mind on the Body,’ is a storehouse of facts
dealing with the subject. ‘While in general use for centuries, one
good result of the recent development of mental healing has been to
call attention to its great value as a measure to be carefully and
scientifically applied in suitable cases. My experience has been that
of the unconscious rather than the deliberate faith healer. Phenomenal,
even what could be called miraculous, cures are not very uncommon. Like
others, I have had cases any one of which, under suitable conditions,
could have been worthy of a shrine or made the germ of a pilgrimage.
For more than ten years a girl lay paralysed in a New Jersey town. A
devoted mother and loving sisters had worn out lives in her service.
She had never been out of bed unless when lifted by one of her
physicians, Dr. Longstreth and Dr. Shippen. The new surroundings of a
hospital, the positive assurance that she could get well with a few
simple measures sufficed, and within a fortnight she walked round
the hospital square. This is a type of modern miracle that makes one
appreciate how readily well-meaning people may be deceived as to the
true nature of the cure effected at the shrine of a saint. Who could
deny the miracle? And miracle it was, but not brought about by any
supernatural means.’[7]
[7] _British Medical Journal_, June 18, 1910.
If, then, faith is so important an adjuvant to ordinary medical
treatment, we see at once that religion that stands for faith
in its highest and purest form should represent a tremendous
recuperative force. We have said that medicine and religion had become
estranged--the one given over to a rigid materialism, and the other so
busy with men’s souls that it forgot their bodies altogether. This book
is a humble attempt to bridge over the gulf. There is a great movement
that has its roots in history that is already written and that will go
on into the far distant future, around about us. It is a movement that
stands for Idealism and Optimism. It is the harmonising of all kinds
of human experience into one great philosophy. Scientific medicine is
coming to reconsider its position and to realise its responsibilities.
This synchronises with a broadening of the basis of Christian teaching.
Without abandoning any of the cardinal tenets of their faith, the
churches are coming to see that Christianity is a much more wonderful
truth than they had ever dreamed; and, instead of there being any
conflict between Christianity and science, science, like all work for
the good of humanity, must be an integral part of the Church’s service
to mankind.
Medicine and religion had a common origin in pagan temples, and we
have already seen that in medieval times all such learning was the
monopoly of the monks. Healing by means of influence on the mind of
the patient is no newer a branch of the art than surgery or treatment
by drugs. History abounds with instances of cures effected at shrines
by means of relics, and by saints. Of all modern pilgrimage shrines
the one in the Pyrenees is by far the most famous. That cures actually
take place at the Grotto of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception at
Lourdes is undeniable. The cases have been medically diagnosed and the
certificates may be examined in the Record Office at Lourdes where
such documents are preserved. Whether such cures differ in character
from other cures by what is termed suggestion is an open question. In
fairness to those who believe them to be due to the direct intervention
of the Almighty it is perhaps only right to give here the opinion
of Mr. Butlin, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, who
recently said:
‘When such cures take place in the presence of vast masses of people,
although it may be possible to explain all the steps through which
the emotion has produced the “cure,” how can we be surprised that the
people fall on their knees before God and bless His holy name for the
miracle which He has wrought?
‘I defy anyone to read Zola’s story of the cure of Marie le Guersaint,
written by a sceptic (Zola’s “Lourdes”), without being moved by it and
without feeling convinced that all true Catholics who were present,
priests and people, with the unhappy exception of the Abbé Pierre
Froment, truly believed that Almighty God had been moved by the
intercession of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception to display His
divine power by instantaneously restoring the health of the poor girl
who had lain paralysed upon a couch for seven years. In the eyes of
all who witnessed it, it was a miracle, for every medical man who had
seen her had, with one exception, believed her to be suffering from
a damaged spinal cord. There is therefore no excuse, in such a case
as this or in ninety-nine out of one hundred cases which are cured by
faith, to impute dishonesty and deliberate deception to the priests
and the people who proclaim such cures to be the work of God. From the
little I have seen of the priests actively engaged in the grotto at
Lourdes, I can feel no doubt that the most of them honestly believe
that the cures which they have seen are genuine. I would no more think
of accusing them of deliberate deception than I would accuse my own
relative of it.’[8]
[8] _British Medical Journal_, June 18, 1910.
We have spoken of a great movement, that tends to bring into closer
co-operation all human effort and to consecrate it to one ideal--the
service of mankind.
We are here more particularly concerned with a smaller movement
that exists within the greater. It has made itself felt at Church
Conferences and at Medical Councils. It is a movement to bring the
medical profession and the Church into a closer practical connexion to
fight disease. That such an intimate co-operation is not only desirable
but possible, the thoughtful chapters contributed to this book by
eminent authorities go to show. As regards the general principle
underlying this joint work for the sick, the Archdeacon of London
recently gave expression to what would appear to be the feeling of the
leading ecclesiastics and foremost physicians in his charge to the
clergy of his archdeaconry in the following words:
‘Religion and medical science should always co-operate, while the
ultimate responsibility must lie with the accredited physician.’
When the scheme for the present volume was drawn up over a year ago,
it was felt that some authoritative statement was needed to guide the
public in thinking out the topical questions of Spiritual Faith or
Mental Healing. There has, in recent years, been an endless series of
books issued from the European and American presses on this subject.
Some of these publications being obviously the hand-books of societies
whose name spelt their own condemnation, thinking people passed them
by, but, on the other hand, much literature of a very misleading
character has been placed on the market and purchased by many in the
belief that they were learning from it the official views either of the
Church or of the medical profession, or of both. The qualified medical
practitioners of this country do not lightly decide to give expression
to their views on therapeutics in books issued to the general public,
and whenever they circulate opinions it may be taken for granted that
they are the result of patient investigation of facts and of carefully
thought out conclusions deduced from those facts. If one may be allowed
to indicate in a general way the position taken up by the doctors who
have written for the following pages, it is one of scepticism towards
quasi-miraculous healing as a practical means of combating disease, but
at the same time it is an attitude of extreme cordiality towards the
minister of religion--in his capacity as a messenger of hope and expert
in peace of mind. Of all the weighty evidence that has been gathered
together to build up this book, the opinion of Sir Clifford Allbutt
forms no unimportant section. Few of us can escape sickness altogether,
and although some illnesses may be blessings in disguise, nevertheless
our desire for health is only second to our desire for life, and it
is right that it should be so. ‘The highest spiritual life depends on
the best bodily health,’ Sir Clifford Allbutt tells us. The Bishops at
Lambeth admitted with regret that ‘sickness has too often exclusively
been regarded as a cross to be borne with passive resignation, whereas
it should have been regarded rather as a weakness to be overcome by the
power of the spirit.’ That there exist potentialities of healing apart
from physic to-day no one can refute, but it is to be feared the Church
and the medical profession have much lost ground to recover, through
having in the past ignored those psychic forces that are now the object
both of scientific inquiry and of theological study. The marvellous
chemical discoveries of the past few years have revolutionised
scientific conceptions. New theories of matter and of energy are
being framed to explain the result of new researches. The wonders of
radio-activity have converted the scientist from a materialist who
believed in nothing unrevealed by test-tube or microscope, into an
idealist prepared to argue from the unseen to the seen. Just as there
are in the world of physical science forces whose existence we are only
now beginning to recognise and whose capabilities are still unknown
to us, there are undoubtedly psychic forces in man that are capable
of development, but of whose exact nature we at present are ignorant,
although we can trace their effects.[9]
[9] The biologist who used to expect to discover the source of life
by dissection and analysis would be rather astonished at the modern
tendency among scientific men to substitute doctrines of ‘energies’
for ‘atoms.’ As Dr. Putman has pointed out, the modern physicist
scarcely feels the need of atoms for the world of his conception. We
may even go a step further. ‘Energy’ is ‘immaterial,’ ‘consciousness’
is ‘immaterial.’ May they not accordingly have a common denominator?
‘In the case of vital truth ... it may be necessary for a writer to
say some hard things,’ but criticism, prompted by no petty spirit,
but by a noble desire to bring out the best, will never be resented
by right-minded people. Two great and noble professions are about to
make a combined attack on sickness and suffering. They have too great a
sense of their responsibility to enter upon such a campaign lightly.
Much counsel is needed before the allies can give battle.
The respective spheres of action of the cleric and the doctor have to
be mapped out; so that all the efforts of the one may support and never
hamper the other.
It will be seen that the medical contributors, not unreasonably,
seriously deprecate any attempt on the part of the minister of religion
to invade the province of medicine. Such intrusion is none the less
dangerous because it may be unintentional. All ‘treatment,’ whether it
be by means of drugs, surgery, or hypnotic suggestion, must necessarily
be a matter for the doctor and those working under his immediate
direction: and for them only. In so far as he may be concerned with
physical disabilities the priest must inevitably defer to the physician.
At the same time the value of spiritual ministrations in sickness is
emphasised on every page of this book.
‘Probably no limb, no viscus is so far a vessel of dishonour as to lie
wholly outside the renewals of the spirit,’ says Sir Clifford Allbutt.
But we may go further than this in certain directions. Remembering
that the health of mind and body are mutually dependent, and that
troublesome thoughts may bring sickness in their train, we see that
there may exist sicknesses that are not amenable to medical treatment
only. These are among the ills that the _British Medical Journal_ has
told us cannot be cured by pills and potions alone.
Dr. Jane Walker writes pertinently on this, under the heading of ‘The
Relationship of Priest and Doctor to Patient.’ As she points out, when
a character has to be remoulded, it is the priest rather than the
doctor who can best help the patient.
‘A true and philosophic religion raises the mind above incidental
emotionalism and gives stability,’ says Dr. Hyslop: this is the
stand-point adopted by all the eminent theologians who have written for
this book.
Mental and physical pain is part of the evil in the world. It makes
a great difference, however--it may be all the difference between
sickness and health--whether we allow trouble to break down our
self-control and weaken our will, or whether we face it boldly with a
supreme serenity of spirit, strong in a knowledge of greater things.
INTRODUCTION