Political Godmother: Nackey Scripps Loeb and the Newspaper that Shook the Republican Party

The Course of God’s Providence is framed as history but is likely to be most useful to scholars of religion and those interested in the doctrine of Providence. The author situates the central arguments within scholarly conversations about theology and secularism rather than the history of medicine, epidemics, reproductive health, or intersections between medicine and religion broadly conceived. Likewise, the analysis centers on ideas but not the historical contexts framing them. I kept wondering about the events taking place in eighteenthcentury America, Germany, and England as these texts about providence were written. I also would have loved to learn more about the yellow fever epidemic in the chapter on benevolent responses to the outbreak in Philadelphia. Readers unfamiliar with the history of medicine might find it useful to have a fuller discussion of the medical theories that underwrote the narratives of health in the book’s initial chapters. Whether by virtue of disciplinary norms or by design, the focus of this book is not historical events and lives; it is theology. Perhaps as a result of this focus and the author’s background in religious studies, the book at times overstates the originality of its historical claims. One example is when the author refers to accounts of suffering and death in the letters of Molly and Eli Forbes as an “overlooked story” since historians of early modern medicine “often focus on epidemics” (56). Far from overlooked, stories of everyday illness comprise an entire subfield on the history of the patient. One book cannot do everything, of course, and Koch’s deep focus on Providence provides a thought-provoking path for future scholarship on the fascinating intersections between religion, health, and medicine.