are a self-appointed arbiter of Dr. Johnson's so-called intelligence. Dr. Johnson, and hundreds of other Johnsons before him, have accomplisht little towards the uplifting of humanity. Your talk, MEDICAL WORLD, page 353, is blasphemous. Fraternally, LIONEL C. CHARBONNEAU.

Both

Brother Charbonneau, you, as a Catholic, should know that the flames cannot destroy truth. Neither can they destroy error. truth and error have been burned many times, only to "bob up serenely" again as tho nothing had happened. Truth is learned, and error forgotten, not by the process of burning.

I suppose the "blasphemy" on page 353 has reference to the birth of Jesus. Here the difference is in the point of view. From Dr. Charbonneau's point of view, the statement that Jesus had (must have had) a human father is blasphemy. And from my point of view, the claim that he had not a human father is blasphemy-it blasphemes my mother and every mother in the land. Yet I tolerate his statement, and Dr. Charbonneau should tolerate my statement. The only way out of a difficulty of this kind is by mutual toleration.

But I referred to the belief in the conception of Jesus without a human father as the "immaculate conception." Here comes a letter from an Iowa brother that may instruct most of us on that point:

EDITOR MEDICAL WORLD:-In your review of the article by Christian Johnson, of Willmer, Minnesota, August number, page 353, you state that the immaculate concep tion was a very doubtful compliment to motherhood in the regular God-ordained way. Now, Dr. Taylor, we fail to grasp your meaning. Have you examined carefully the recognized explanation of the phrase, "The immaculate conception of Mary?"-simply that she conceived the living cell of Christ's body without the original stain of Adam and Eve's disobedience. I am convinced that you are a believer in the doctrin, not only for Mary, but also for all mothers. Allow me to note from Roman Theology and Church History: The dogma defined by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, that the immaculate conception of Mary is an article of divine faith. Accord

ing to the dogma in her activ conception or generation there was nothing miraculous; but in the passiv concep tion or infusion of a rational soul she was sanctified and preserved from the taint of original sin by the foreseen merits of Christ. The traditional day of Mary's conception has been honored with a feast from the twelfth century, and found a place in the calendar in the fourteenth. In the fifteenth century, all doctors of Paris were bound to defend the doctrin, which was warmly adopted by the Franciscans and Carmelites, while the Dominicans, naturally following St. Thomas of Aquin, held the contrary view. The Council of Trent expressly excepted Mary from the decree De Peccato Originali, adopted in the fifth session, June 17, 1546.

It seems to me that Dr. Jack would receive some enlightenment by the reading of an article entitled "The Decline in the Birth Rate," by Frederick L. Hoffman, in North American Review, and reproduced in the July number of The Therapeutic Gazette, page 27 of adver tising matter. Without using the usual flattery to yourself and journal, I am very respectfully and fraternally J. F. POTTER.

yours,

Solon, Iowa.

This letter opened my eyes to the suspicion that I may have, all my life, misunderstood just what the belief concerning the "immaculate conception" really is. I was raised among nonCatholics, and I venture to say that the Protestant understanding of the doctrin of the "immaculate conception" is that it refers to the conception of Jesus, by the Holy Ghost, and without a human father. For many years past I have associated with Catholics as well as non-Catholics, but Catholics are not usually inclined to discuss doctrinal matters with nonCatholics, so I never happened to learn of the Catholic doctrin of the "immaculate conception." The above letter showed me that I must seek information; so I immediately called one

So.

of my Catholic employees aside and learned much to substantiate Dr. Potter's letter. I then went to my friend, Father Coghlan, of the Lady of Mercy Church, and had the matter settled clearly and explicitly, as far as the doctrin of the Catholic Church is concerned. Dr. Potter does not make it very clear, but I will try to do The "immaculate conception" does not refer to the conception of Jesus. It refers to the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus. First must be stated that it is the doctrin of the Church that all men (humanity) are born in sin. But the coming Messiah should not be born in sin-must not come from sin. Therefore, the mother must be specially prepared for giving birth to the Messiah. She had a human father, but when the ovum was vitalized it was protected from the shadow of sin which came from the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Thus protected, she was prepared for her great office, which was to "give birth to God"-and the Catholics refer to Mary as "the mother of God"! What an awful belief: that a woman could be "the mother of God"! Talk about blasphemy-this seems to me to be it. But the point which I wish to make clear-and which I so recently learned-is that, according to the Catholic faith, the "immaculate conception" refers to the conception of Mary, within her mother's womb, as above explained.

Then I askt about the conception of Jesus. Was not that "immaculate" also? No, that is referred to as the "virginal" conception, or the miraculous conception. So now we have clearly and authoritivly the Catholic doctrin of the "immaculate conception," and also of the conception of Jesus. The orthodox Protestants may speak for themselves, tho I think the view which I intimated on page 353 is their view. I thankt Father Coghlan for the information which he gave me concerning the doctrin of the Catholic Church. He well knew that I didn't believe the doctrin, however, and I frankly told him so. But when I touch on a subject it is my duty to take careful pains to get it right.

How such beliefs can be accepted by intelligent people, in this day of enlightenment, I cannot understand. However, I can understand it in this way: Catholics believe that the Church is God's representativ on earth; doctrins are promulgated by the Church, whose head is the Pope; and faithful Catholics accept the doctrins of the Church without question. Orthodox Protestants regard the Book as the Divine Word and Guide. That is the chief difference between Catholics and Protestants. And the reason that Protestants are divided into so many sects is owing to different interpretations of the Word. Catholics are a unit because the Church is one, with one head, and its interpretations of Scripture and promulgations of doctrin are uniform.

A few years ago a distinguisht man, I have forgotten who, said that between the two he would prefer a living church to a dead book as a guide; that the living church could progress and adapt itself to new needs as they arise, while a dead book cannot. Well, maybe so, but in matters of doctrin the Catholic Church is as crystallized and unchangeable as the creeds of the orthodox Protestants. I see, at present, this advantage in the latter: every orthodox Protestant denomination has a progressiv party

within it, remonstrating against old and superseded ideas; and sometime these progressiv parties will dominate, and away will go the creeds of past centuries, along with the witches and ghosts. Possibly, too, the "living church" will sometime "get a move on it" and adjust itself to modern views. I hope so; but there are few, if any, signs of it at present. Bold and progressiv minds concerning doctrin are at once supprest, within the Catholic Church.

Why theological doctrin should be so paralyzing to the rational faculties is a thing I could never understand. These orthodox brethren, both Catholic and Protestant, are reasonable, rational, and progressiv in other fields of thought. However, it is not for me to say, or even question. These are personal matters. What may seem unreasonable to me may seem very reasonable to them, and vice versa. Every one should be honest with himself and tolerant of others. And in a spirit of fraternal toleration, let us take up another communication.

A certain Missouri physician has long been a subscriber, and a few years ago he instructed us to substitute for his former name, "Brother Cosmas," which we did on our books. Think of the earnestness and self-sacrifice that will lead a man to give up his name and individual identity and sink the same in an institution! The following letter is from this devout man: Conception Abbey, Conception, Mo., JULY 26, 1909. Dr. C. F. Taylor, Editor of THE MEDICAL WORLD, Philadelphia.

DEAR DOCTOR-I find your "Monthly Talks" valuable and very interesting. But those on religion, theology, Bible ignorance, gave me some hard nuts to crack. I discust them with a friend, the Rev. Patrick Cummins, O.S.B., D.D., who has spent a great deal of time in Bible studies. His view of your work so imprest me that I begged him to write to you directly, which he kindly agreed to do. I feel sure you will find his communication a "thinkjogger.' With his main contentions I fully agree. Let us have truth, but the whole truth. You are at liberty to make use of the sentiments exprest in Rev. Dr. P. Cummins' correspondence in whatever way you see fit for the enlightenment of your readers. Very truly yours, BROTHER COSMAS, O.Š.B.

I had to ask my good wife the meaning of "O. S. B." (Many of you may be surprised at my ignorance, but I don't think I am alone.) It means Order of Saint Bernard.

Let us read the following letter from Father Cummins reverently, appreciating its sweet spirit, and feeling its warm earnestness. We will not put it in smaller type, like the other letters: Conception Abbey, Conception, Mo., JULY 25, 1909. To the Editor of The Medical World:

DEAR DR. TAYLOR:-I have just finisht perusing the Monthly Talk in the May, June, and July numbers of THE MEDICAL WORLD. I am not a subscriber. These articles were brought to my notice by a medical friend. Now, I willingly acknowledge having read your remarks as well as those of your correspondents with the deepest interest. And since you are concerned, as I gather from some statements in your June number, as to what effect your efforts at spreading light may have outside the ranks of your own profession, I wish to ask, as simply and clearly as I can, some questions that burn within me as I turn from your pages.

Do you believe that Christ rose from the dead? That after his death He was seen alive?

Doctor, you may be surprised that I meet you with this question, since in your "Talks" so far

the Resurrection has not been mentioned. But listen: You find no difficulty in refusing credence to two Gospels regarding Christ's birthplace; you imply that your position towards the Bible is, practically, that of advanced German scholarship; finally you admit the "divinity" of Jesus only in the sense that we all are more or less "divine." All this makes me think that you do not accept the Resurrection of Christ as an historical fact. I say advisedly as an historical fact. For not infrequently you find modern writers on Christ admitting His Resurrection in general terms, while on closer investigation the admission means that Christ never rose in His own body, His own person, but only in the creativ, religious imagination of His followers. Such deceit in a matter of transcendent importance like the Resurrection is disgusting. Doctor, I am not afraid that you will cavil in this manner. Your explanation of Christ's "divinity" sets me at rest on that point. But, dear Doctor, please notice, that your very sincerity lays bare the hollowness of modern views on Christ. Christ was "divine," i. e., human in the best sense of the word; Christ was a great, good, noble man, but nothing more. Doctor, isn't that playing with words? What reasonable man denies this? But the question is: Is He nothing more? Did Christ, whilst He bore about with Him a body like ours, a heart and soul like ours, grander indeed, more noble and loving, but still like ours; whilst He is thus our elder brother," and animates "our aspiration and our willingness to strive"-did He, we ask, in many phenomena of His life, transcend the possibilities of human nature? Did He, or not, bring a storm-tost sheet of water to sudden calm? Did He, or not, perform the numerous cures that are ascribed to Him? Did He, or not, above all, come forth alive from the tomb into which His dead body had been laid?

This, Doctor, is the great question. If He did, then He is "divine" in a sense, in which we are not "all more or less divine"-then He is Divine in the sense of the Gospels-He is Divine in the sense of the martyrs, of the thousands of men and women, of tender youths and maidens, of frail boys and girls, who bore tortures and death rather than deny His Divinity. Doctor, you surely do not think that all these died for "a divinity more or less like ours"! Candidly now, if they were alive today, would they not endure the agonies of death again, if necessary, rather than accept the "divinity" of Christ which you uphold? You will answer, that they are to be honored for their “life," for their "religion," for the courage of their convictions, not for their "theology," which was an illusion. But, Doctor, do notice, that they lived and died for their "theology." Their ideas of Christ, their "theology," dominated them as much (rather incomparably more), as "socialism," "single tax" or "charity," which you have enumerated as types of "religion," dominate their devotees. So the "religion" of these heroes and their "theology" belong together. You cannot divorce them. Take away their "theology" of Christ, and you have destroyed their "life," their "religion."

Doctor, note the contrast. The heroes of Christianity "bothered themselves" about their theology so much so as to die for it. "Well-balanced people" of our times, "practical people," according to you (June, page 18), are not bothered much about theology, leaving that to an(Continued over next leaf.)

Extracts from a paper read at a meeting of the American Therapeutic Society by Louis Kolipinski, M.D., Washington, D. C.

Dosage.-Because Chromium Sulphate causes no toxic symptoms, the dose originally given has been much increased. Instead of 1 to 4 grains, 8 grains three or four times a day is the quantity administered. Thirty to forty grains at one time result in no unusual sensations, except a very mild vertigo or lightness in the head.

A 4-grain tablet or pill is the most convenient form It is better taken after than before meals. Occasionally the unabsorbed residue colors the feces. Chromium Sulphate dissolves in water very slowly.

No unpleasant by-effects have been observed in patients who have taken it continually for as long a period of time as four or five years.

The diseases in which Chromium has been used with success are: Cirrhosis of the female breast, castration, menopause, functional impo- | tency in men, chronic alcoholism, nervous vomiting and vomiting in pregnancy, neurasthenia, locomotor ataxia, exophthalmic goiter, and the migraines.

Of these neurasthenia, exophthalmic goiter and locomotor ataxia are of particular interest and importance. Results from this salt are speedy and striking. In the forms of neurasthenia it deserves the unique position of being the only drug which is curative, dispensing with all treatments of rest, travel, diversion of mind, dietetics and physico-mechanics.

In exophthalmic goiter the rapid pulse and churning motion of the heart are invariably reduced to nearly normal; the pulse remains so. The nutrition of the body is bettered, the trembling ceases, likewise the state of nervous erethism and irritability. The bulging eyes and struma recede slowly.

Fresh

part old, neglected or mismanaged ones. cases yield prompt results. Founding his opinion on this treatment, the writer cannot believe that surgical operation in this disease is proper. The risk to life and instability of cure make such an undertaking uncertain and extreme.

Locomotor ataxia is curable with Chromium Sulphate. The more recent the case and the earlier the treatment, the quicker the result. The neuralgic pains and the several forms of crises, especially the epigastric, succumb to its use: Hypnotics, anodynes and anti-neuralgics are not administered. The writer has seen a number of first-stage cases in which all symptoms vanished and no further ones appeared.

Later successes with Chromium Sulphate are chronic enlargement, hypertrophy of the prostate gland in old men. A symptomatic cure is usually achieved in a few months. The patient becomes able to retain and void a pint of urine. The frequent impulses to urinate and the recurring desire at night, cease. The patient enjoys either an undisturbed sleep, or is awakened not more than once, and that toward morning.

Successes with this salt in prostatic enlargements have been had in men of ninety years. Chromium retards the growth and reduces the size of uterine fibroid tumors. Most striking results are apparent in young women.

The writer has observed a shrinking of twothirds of its former value of an interstitial fibroid in a woman of thirty-four years. The growth of the tumor had been so rapid that surgical removal of it had been strongly advised by sincere and competent operators.

We are prepared to supply Chromium Sulphate in 4-grain tablets

for every-day use we cut it down to Chromiac Tablets.

The formula is as follows: Chromium Sulphate, 2 grs.; zinc phosphide, gr.; extract nux vom ica, gr.; cannabin, gr.; cantharides, gr.; avenine, gr.

The tablets are sugar coated green.

·

Newark, N. J.

other life. There could be no greater contrast. The former "bothered themselves," intensely, all their life, died rather than cease doing so the latter not much, and, it can be hoped, will outgrow even that little. Now for the former, their views on Christ, His life, His commands, His demands of belief, His promises, the channels by which He poured His life into theirs, for them, I say, their theology was religion and life. "Christ is my life" they would say in the words of St. Paul. For the latter, the masses of the people of our times, who are bothering themselves ever less about "theology," what conclusion can you draw except that "Christ is not their life." They may, indeed, consider Christ an inspiring model-but as such He stands on a level with other great men, with Washington, e. g., or Lincoln. Imagin them possest with the idea that Lincoln, great and good tho he was, was God, as Christians held Christ to be! Imagin them dying rather than abandon that idea! No, Lincoln is not their life; and so neither is Christ, if He be but a model.

Of course, Doctor, if you follow a certain body of German scholars, you will still contend that typical Christians of past centuries were victims of a delusion. You will go on and say the same of the first disciples of Christ. You I will indeed admit W. P. Paterson's statement: "Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples of Jesus believed that, after being crucified, dead and buried, He rose again from the dead on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter He met and conversed with them in different places. The proof that they believed this is the existence of the Christian Church. It is simply inconceivable that the scattered and disheartened remnants could have found a rallying point and a gospel in the memory of one who had been put to death as a criminal, if they had not believed that God had owned Him and accredited His mission in raising Him up from the dead." (Dictionary of the Bible, Scribners, 1909, page 456a.) This you will admit, and still say they were deluded. And why? Because anything supernatural, anything miraculous, is simply impossible. This is a fundamental tenet with those scholars you are following. They profess, indeed, to approach the subject in a "rational" manner, without presuppositions, without "prejudices." And yet they presuppose that the Gospels as they stand are false, that miracles never happened and never will happen, that Christ never rose from the dead in reality, that Christian thinking on Christ was for nigh 2,000 years fundamentally false. We may dispute about terms, but if such a way of acting is not "prejudiced," it is only because it deserves a still more opprobrious name.

But, Doctor, please notice, that when they deny Christ's Resurrection, they are forced to a statement still more incredible. That statement is this: The Christian Church, the grandest, most long-lived, most comprehensiv fact in history, rests on a sham. Its founders were poor dupes. They heated themselves into believing a lie. They persuaded thousands to accept the same lie. They died rather than abandon that lie. That lie, the most hideous ever invented, has been to mankind the source of unnumbered blessings. How much less nobleness and heroism and civilization there would be in the world, were there not that colossal, towering lie for it to flow from!

Doctor, doesn't your common sense recoil

from such conclusions? If this lie could be so beneficent, why not start a similar one about Lincoln ? Or if modern enlightenment makes that impracticable, why didn't some of their enthusiastic followers do it for Socrates or Alexander? The very supposition of keeping up such a lie in the case of other men is absurd. Why not then in the case of Christ? The only answer is that it was not a lie, that He really rose from the dead.

Doctor, I do not deny that "German scholars" have cast much light upon the Bible. They have done so and are still doing so. I feel thankful for it, and I praise you for the aid you are giving in dispelling Bible-ignorance. But I beg you by all you hold dear, not to be misled by them into ignoring the all-important fact in the Bible, i. e., the superhuman, supernatural, miraculous side of Jesus Christ. They treat Him as a corpse laid out like other historical figures for dissection. They shut their eyes and keep them shut to the fact that He did not remain a corpse, but rose to life, and still lives. You say they are reverent in their treatment of Christ, and they may think they are. A professor of anatomy, if he is a man at all, treats with reverence the corpse he is about to dissect. Will you on that account allow him to treat a living body as he does the corpse?

But why, you will ask, this practical unanimity among scholars, in rejecting the supernatural in Christ? First of all, you are too sure about that practical unanimity. There are hundreds of scholars who do not reject it, who uphold it. Of course, if you restrict, as many do, the name "scholar" to those who accept unquestioningly the unproved, unhistorical, absurd tenet of the impossibility of the supernatural, then doubtless you must find unanimity. But it is a unanimity like that of an ancient, haughty race, who kept proclaiming "there are no noble men but Romans," till their empire crumbled beneath the manly strokes of those they had despised.

In the second place, to accept the supernatural entails some mighty consequences, some terrifying sacrifices. And from these men shrink back. They want to do good, but in their own way. They feel satisfied with themselves as they are. They strive to live in harmony with their surroundings, and cannot entertain the idea of a superior power entering in to disturb, as they conceive, the even tenor of their life. To admit the supernatural might lead them to views of life which they are afraid to entertain. It might lead them to submit to the Institution which this supernatural Christ establisht and continues to uphold as the channel for conveying to mankind His own Divine, superhuman life. It might lead them, as it led among so many others John Henry Newman, one of the grandest minds of the last century, to beg for admission into the Catholic Church. By the way, Doctor, have you ever read his "Apologia," or his "Development of Christian Doctrin"? The latter especially will give you more insight into the vital problem that is at stake than all the articles on the question in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Another work you should have for your Talks is the Dictionary of the Bible (in one volume), publisht by Scribners, from which I quoted above. Not that it upholds my theories everywhere. On the contrary, I find scarcely a page with which I fully agree. But it gives the arguments on both sides fairly. Now, Doctor, I am at an end. I have en(Continued over next leaf.)

FOR SALE $1,200 country practise, drugs; no property. Dr. Bradley, Centerville, Ind. FOR SALE Practise $2,500, Ohio, near city. Town 400, no opposition. Fine home.

V., care MEDICAL WORLD. Wish to retire. PRACTISE and property for sale or lease. Terms reasonable. Excellent opening; will introduce successor. West Central Illinois. Box N, London Mills, Ill.

DOCTOR-I want an enterprising partner who can furnish $2,000 cash, to buy half interest in an office practise averaging $750 cash per month, in a city of $40,000 in this If you mean business, address

state.

F. W. McAfee, M.D., 146 Melbourne Ave., Detroit, Mich. WANTED-Young, unmarried physician to take charge of unopposed town and country practise, established 30 years. Nothing to sell. Dr. Herman, Health Dept., Harrisburg, Pa. $2,000 practise free to the doctor who buys my drugs. Good churches, schools, and good pay. Address Dr. R. E. Dillard, Minerva, Texas.

$800 buys my entire outfit.. Practise from $3,000 to $4,000 yearly. Collections 98%. No opposition. Address D. W. Cole, M.D., Jackson, Pa.

MY seven-room residence; 2 acres, orchard, well, barn, drugstore, and $2,000 unopposed practise. All for $3,000. Dr. Ed. Beck, Quail, Texas.

FOR SALE $2,000 practise, new 5-room house, garden, orchard, barn, buggy-house; 2 good wells of water; horse and buggy, cow and calf. Carpets and everything complete. Price, $1,500. Must be sold. Good healthy location, railroad town 250 inhabitants, three good churches, eight months' free school. Good farming country.

J. O. Vance, M.D., New Edinburg, Ark. SPLENDID unopposed country practise with house, lot, and barn. Price, $700. Address Dr. Clare Camp. Mentor, Ohio.

YOUNG licensed physician wants to assist some doctor in his practise. Good references.

Address "G.." 826 Main St., Towanda, Pa.

FOR SALE New York State-$3,000 practise, fine furnished residence and grounds. Growing village of 5,000. Price, $6,500, terms easy. Excellent opportunity for experienced doctor. Address "Omega," care MEDICAL WORLD. FOR SALE $2,500 Illinois practise. Town 80 miles from Chicago, population 1,000, one other physician. Will take $350 for driving outfit and rent residence. An excellent opening. S., care MEDICAL WORLD. FOR SALE $1,000 buys residence and office. opposed village and country practise free. 35 miles S. W. San Antonio, Texas.

Un

Address Dr. A. Whitaker, Big Foot, Texas.

physicians' stanhopes, cheap.

Kircher Carriage Co., Peoria, Ill.

WANTED A partner. Young married man capable of taking entire charge of small sanatorium, preferred. Address 1325 Sixth Ave., Des Moines, Iowa.

FOR SALE $2,500 country practise. Don't write unless

you mean business.

F. E. Lee, M.D., R. F. D. No. 7, Aberdeen, Miss.

FOR SALE-Driving outfit, drug store, and office equipAddress Box 276, Newport, Ark.

ment.

$2,500 buys $2.000 practise, 7-room house, 7 acres, driving outfit, drugs. No opposition. Going to city. Two churches and school within 300 yards. Box No. 25, R. F. D., Hanna, W. Va.

FOR SALE My home and practise. Property worth
more than the price asked. For particulars address
M. D., Box 100, Fruitland, Md.

WILL exchange home, small practise (near Richmond),
for large country practise and home. New Jersey or
Maryland.
Dr. A. R. Gray, Bell's Cross Roads, Va.

AV
VON PARK, Florida, wants a young physician, with
some money and some vim; for a winter practise. Ask,
J. Bruyiere, Avon Park, Florida.

FOR SALE-Yales, Harvards, Clark & Roberts and many

other chairs and tables, in shopworn and second hand stock. The prices range from $10 to $35 on the payment plan. We have some splendid cabinet bargains, too. Write for list W, 3. W. D. Allison Co., Indianapolis, Ind. WANTED-To buy practise with or without property. Willing to pay for what you have, if you have no Lock Box 9, Ellston, Iowa.

goods.

FOR SALE, for $1,500-price of residence and drugsgeneral practise. Good opportunity. Village. Railroad. Nearest opposition 8 miles.

Dr. G. W. Southern Lincoln, Texas. (Continued on page 30)