have held and forced them into the ranks of religious liberals. They have urged the 'right of every man to the conclusions of his own thinking, in religious as well as medical matters; and their training has enabled them to separate pure emotion from pure spirituality.

In reading over the biographies of physicians and from observation in my association with medical men, I am inclined to believe that the attitude of most physicians toward religion is a reverent one; that their religious convictions are sincere, and their interest in religious, ethical, and even theological subjects is general and deep, considering the professional demands made upon their time and strength. It even appears that not a few of our profession have made their share of contributions to theological literature.

Why Physicians Largely Believe in a
Supreme Being

Upon consideration, we should not be surprised, perhaps, but rather expect that men whose lives are given up to the study of this wonderful body of ours, and its more wonderful mind; who have devoted themselves to the prevention, correction, and elimination of the disorders which deface and destroy both body and mind-would feel a deep interest in a subject so closely connected with mind and body.

We must accept as a truism, that without religion of some sort the mind of man is like an unmoored ship-it remains restless and unstable.

Not only this. The true physician's attitude toward all humankind is one of sympathy; he comes as near to death in all its phases as a healthy man may, and his heart many a time is torn by anguish of another's suffering, physical as well as mental; he learns by intimate contact with men what the sins of the father bring in their wake, and how physical transgressions are visited upon the third and fourth generations. He realizes, as few can, how brave and cheerful minds can continue bravely and cheerfully to exist in bodies doomed to gradual and painful decay; how insanity, "moral depravity," original sin, and much of the "wickedness"

supposed to be inherent in men are due to bodily disease, and to nothing else; how "criminal tendencies" and vice in children can be referred to some woful lack in the development of their sensitive organisms.

The ancient Greeks said, "The true physician is God-like." While, of course, he may not always be of that high order, he certainly must be impelled to respect and reverence a being who is worshipped as a benign father by so many needy creatures. Not only do I believe that there is nothing whatever in the study of science or in the practical work of scientific investigation to lead one away from God and a sincere faith in a reasonable religion, but I am convinced that there is much in such occupations which tends to develop a reverent, religious spirit; and I do not understand how a conscientious physician who is engaged in the practice of his profession can be otherwise than deeply religious. But he certainly does try to get down to the substance of beliefs-he acquires a contempt for the husks and hulls of things. The kernel he must have in religion the same as in other matters, and to him the scriptural definition of true religion seems to cover the ground: "To visit the widowed and fatherless, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world."

A Few Examples From Life

Without going into an exhaustive study of details, for which I have neither the space nor the preparation, it may be interesting and suggestive to consider the names of a few physicians whose work is more or less familiar to intelligent readers.

In the faculty of my own school, among some twenty-seven physicians and many of these of world-wide reputations, there was only one who could be called ultra liberal. He was an agnostic. The president of the institution was a Unitarian, as were several of his associates; one was a deacon in a Baptist church, and another a prominent Presbyterian worker. One preached us a sermon on "immortality," at our annual exercises, and in the lectures there were numerous thoughtful and reverent allusion to God and religion. But all his appeals were referred to reason; the suggestion was that we ever give to religious matters the same careful thought and study that we gave to the understanding of the body.

Of the eight hundred men who have gone out from this school, with more or less adequate equipment for their work, there are only a few (and those are without any serious purpose in life) who are not in the real sense religious. Some, indeed, have gone into the ministry, and all, I think, feel that their work, in large measure, is to visit the widowed and the fatherless, for the sake of the brotherhood.

In the very earliest times, medicine and theology were closely related-enshrouded, we might almost say, by superstition.

The little that we know of Hippocrates (B. C. 460) entitles us to call him a metaphysician as well as physician; theologian as well as physicist. Probably there were grounds for calling one of the biographers of Jesus the "beloved physician." Thus Harnack says of Luke, the disciple:

"His medical professions seem to have led him to Christianity, for he embraced that religion, in the conviction that by its means and by quite new methods he would be enabled to heal diseases and drive out evil spirits, and, above all, to become an effectual physician of the soul. Directed by his very calling to the weak and wretched, his philanthropic sympathy with the miserable was deepened, in that he accepted the religion of Christ and as a physician and evangelist proved and proclaimed the power and efficacy of the name of Jesus and of the Gospel. It seems to me that no doubt can exist that the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were composed by a physician."

Discussing this same follower of Jesus, Dr. George Homan writes:

"It was given to him (Luke), through intellectual, moral, and spiritual powers never excelled, to lay deeper the foundations of his chosen faith in the consciousness of mankind than any other, or all others, of his coworkers-this being made possible by his true understanding of an appeal to child-nature, and a sense of sympathy and fellowship as a physician with the maim and sick, the halt and the blind. Jesus

911

himself, if he did not perform all the miracles credited to him or in the manner reported, was certainly interested in the clinical side of medicine, and held some of the errors common to the physicians of the day, as we may see in his allusions to insanity and leprosy."

Aetius of Mesopotamia (502 A. D.) was the first medical man of his age to profess Christianity, and he always used "invocation" along with other therapeutic mea

sures.

D. Benedictine (1058) was the first physician who afterward became pope. He wrote four books on healing, founded a hospital, and provided shelter in his monastery for Constantine, another Christian physician, who wrote a book on medical essays.

Indeed, in the middle ages, preaching the gospel and the practising of medicine were required of the priests, and out of this dual office came the orders of St. Mary, St. Lazarus (hence lazaretto), St. John of Jerusalem, and all the Daughters of God, with all the hospitals that are connected with them.

We have a good record of Guy de Chauliac (1300), a famous physician who became chapel-reader for Clement VI at Avignon. Chauliac was quite liberal for his time, and the following from his medical essays is good ethics even for the present day:

"Let a physician be learned, expert, ingenious, bold where he is sure, timid where he is in doubt, avoiding bad cures and practice, being gracious to the sick, generous and compassionate, wise in prediction, but chaste, sober, pitiful and merciful; not covetous, not extortionate, but receiving moderate fees, according to circumstances of his patients, the character of his case and of his own dignity."

Our attention has been called anew to Servetus (1511) by Dr. Osler's sketch of his life: A learned man, physician, scientist and theologian. He practised medicine at Avignon and Charlieu, then took a postgraduate course at Montpellier, resuming practice at Vienna. He also took a course in theology at Louvain. Servetus was the first physiologist to notice that there were no bones in the heart, and that the walls between its cavities were not porous -a very important observation, which anticipated the discovery of the circulation of the blood.

Dr. Joubert, France (1529), who practised medicine and wrote a book on "Popular Errors," taking a stand much in advance of his day.

George Von Parris (1551), a doctor who proclaimed his Unitarian belief and was burned for it at Smithfield.

A little anterior to this event celibacy, which had been required of physicians as well as of priests, was no longer required of healers, and the two, medicine and theology, dissolved official partnership, much to the advantage of both.

George Blanduata, physician and active Unitarian, who fled to Geneva, in 1554, to escape the Inquisition.

Paolo Alziati, contemporary of Blanduata, who wrote and worked with him in the Unitarian cause.

Severino (1580), a physician and theological writer, driven out of Naples by the Inquisition.

Thomas Browne was born in London, in 1605, and became a celebrated physician and author. He practised at Norwich, and wrote on medicine, his "Religio Medici," "Mescellany Tracts," "Christian Morals," and other published evidences of his deep interest in the spiritual welfare of his fellowmen.

John Bulwer (1654), less known but an active physician and philanthropist, who wrote "The Deaf and Dumb Man's Friend."

John Clark (1609), physician and publicist; one of the founders of Rhode Island and the founder of Newport. He organized the Baptist church, of which he became the pastor in 1644.

Jean Astrue (1684), physician, lecturer and writer, whose avocation was theology. He is best known for his great work, "Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, don't-il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese." This book, published in Geneva in 1753, is acknowledged to be the basis of our modern criticism of the Pentateuch.

Cadwallader Colden (1688), physician, publicist and educator. His correspondence

with the leading scientific men of the day shows him to have been an advanced thinker upon religious subjects.

Dr. Stahl of Jena (1734), physician and author. "He was a great pietist, faithful to his laboriously acquired convictions; indeed, he regarded his convictions as revelations from God."

Ph. Pinel (1745) was a great physician and philanthropist, who bravely advocated reforms in the prisons and the more humane treatment of prisoners.

William Hunter (1718), first a theological student, he afterward became a distinguished scientist and medical writer, but who never forgot his first love.

Edward Jenner (1749), son of a clergyman and always deeply religious. Park says: "The idea of vaccination so struck Jenner as a means of affording protection to the whole human family that the subject never left his mind."

As is well known, Darwin's father's father, Erasmus Darwin, was a physician (1731). His philosophical treatises show his liberal spirit, and much that he wrote was condemned by the orthodoxy of the time.

We have our own Benjamin Rush (1745), contemporary and friend of Franklin and Jefferson, who, like his friends, was a liberal in belief.

We must not forget Joseph Priestly (1733), who belongs to us because of his residence among us as well as for his active Unitarianism; a great physician, associate of Erasmus Darwin at Birmingham in all good works, and discoverer of oxygen.

John Mason Good (1764), who was a kind and able physician as well as a writer of books. His "Nature of Things" and "Study of Medicine" are well known. His invocation, called "The Great Doctor's Prayer," is worthy of a place here:

"O Thou great Bestower of health, strength, and comfort!

"Grant thy blessing upon the professional duties in which this day I may engage. Give me judgment to discern disease and skill to treat it; and crown with Thy favor the means that may be devised for recovery; for with Thine assistance, the humblest instruments may succeed, as without it the ablest must prove unavailing.

"Save me from all sordid motives; and endow me with a spirit of pity and liberality toward the poor, and of tenderness and sympathy toward all; that I may enter into the various feelings by which they are respectively tried; may weep with those that weep and rejoice with those that rejoice. And sanctify Thou their soul as well as heal their bodies. Let faith and patience and every Christian virtue they are called upon to exercise have their perfect work; so that in the gracious dealings of Thy spirit and of Thy Providence they may find in the end that it has been good for them to have been afflicted."

John Abernethy (1764), "a physician whose personal bearing and broad religious views, freely expressed, made him a wellknown and impressive personage."

Thomas Beddoes (1760), physician and essayist, author of "Essays Medical and Moral."

Benjamin Brodie (1783), a distinguished physician, who wrote "Psychological Enquiries."

Thomas Brown (1778), who found himself inspired by his medical studies to take up philosophy, ethics, and poetry. His support of Hume's theory of causation made him the object of abuse from the orthodox.

John Brooks (1752), a physician of Massachusetts, who practised at Reading, then entered the Patriot Army. Was governor of his state, 1806-1823, and president of the Massachusetts Bible Society.

913

Henry Dearborn, of New Hampshire (1751), a liberal physician, who was secretary of war under Jefferson, and who took an active part in religious and educational

matters.

John Jebb (1786), a physician of Cambridge, England, who joined Lindsey's secession movement out of the established church.

John Thompson, M. D. (1783), founded the Unitarian Fund for Mission Purposes.

John Dalton (1766), eminent physician and physiologist, was very active in literary and ethical work, in Manchester, in his day, and a pronounced liberal in religion.

Josiah and Joseph Goodhue (1759 and 1764), both physicians in Massachusetts; patriots, and active supporters of liberal religion.

Dr. Henry Calloway (1817), entered the ministry after practising medicine for several years; later became Bishop of Kaffraria and wrote, "Religious Systems of the Amazalu."

John Brown (1810), physician and ethical writer. Best known for his "Rab and His Friends," and "Our Dogs."

The following physicians were all distinguished as educators, ethical writers or philanthropists:

Joseph Warren, J. C. Warren, Combe, Sir Jas. Clark, Alonzo Clark, S. G. Howe, F. B. Hough, Gross, Wells, Cooper, O. W. Holmes, Sir W. Fergusson, Austin Flint, John W. Draper, J. C. Holland, Sir A. Clark, Maudlesley, Thompson, Sir Joseph Lister, B. Hale, Lawson Tait, William James, and many more.

T

HAVE SOLVED

HERE is an anecdote, told about Beranger, the French poet, which runs somewhat as follows:

"What, Monsieur Beranger," asked a lady one day at dinner, "you drinking water-you who have sung so well the pleasures of wine?"

"Ah, madame," was the Frenchman's quick response, "'tis my Muse who drinks all my wine."

Widal, diazo, Russo tests-these are words constantly on the tongue of every doctor. They are discussed in the medical societies, glorified or damned in the journals, and debated in consultations; but their practical application, like Beranger's wine is often left to the muse.

Quite in contrast, stands out the work of Gambill and Hawley, of Watertown, Illinois; and it is with pleasure that we read the experiences of these two physicians. Instead of debating the value of the typhoid reactions, they have been trying them out-all of them-side by side; and the report of their observations, in The Illinois Medical Journal for May, 1912, is certainly worth the reading.

In this communication, I can but select a few cases in which these tests have been applied-instances where actual experience has brought forth valuable information. Used separately, any one of these typhoid tests-so I have decided-fails to give satisfactory results. Taken together and repeated at intervals during the fever, they rarely or never fail to lead to valuable diagnostic and prognostic conclusions concerning the disease-process at hand. Just how this is done, and the value and limitations of the interpretation of the respective reactions, does not find a place in

rather to the specific applications.

I recall one case and this is but one of the several-where, in the first days of the fever, positive diazo or Russo tests often would practically "cinch" the diagnosis, although the Widal reaction was delayed. Many of my readers, I am certain, have observed such instances.

Before Russo had proposed the methylene-blue reaction, and we were still forced to rely mainly upon the other reactions as our laboratory aids, we used the diazo test with excellent results. For example, the urine of one man, who appeared in the physician's office complaining of a persistent headache, showed a positive Ehrlich's test, and the diagnosis of typhoid fever was made. Exactly five days later, a positive Widal reaction was obtained.

A certain percentage of cases of true enteric fever fail to produce a positive agglutination test. In others, the diazo reaction may persistently be absent. The actual percentage contrast, in either instance, is subject to so many limitations that I should hesitate to state definite figures; but it is probable that the Widal test fails in about ten percent of all cases of typhoid fever. It is likely that the figures for the diazo test are about the In some cases of enteric fever, one reaction may be constantly absent, while the other may be observed. Thus the Widal, or specific, test, may be observed in about fifty percent of those cases where the diazo reaction is absent, and vice versa. Using the two tests together and repeating them at intervals during the fever, it will be seen that few cases should escape undiagnosticated.

same.

It is being claimed that the Russo reaction is invariably present in true