/& eulvu-* f WC7
AN
EXAMINATION OF A REVIEW,
CONTAINED IN THE
BRITISH AND FOREIGN MEDICAL REVIEW,
MEDICAL AND PHYSIOL. COMMENTARIES,
BY THE AUTHOR,
    MARTYN PAINE, M. D. A. M.

PROFESSOR OF THE INSTITUTES OF MEDICINE AND MATERIA MED1CA
       IN THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW-YORK.
    /      %
    o  --.:.MtY *?
      v«.iftgtOft»V
      NEW-YORK:
HOPKINS & JENNINGS, PRINTERS,
       111 Fulton-street.
1841. 
 
EXAMINATION  OF A REVIEW,  &c.
 In the April Number, 1841, of the British and Foreign Medical
 Review, a writer bestows  a long notice upon the Medical and
 Physiological Commentaries, which calls  for a reply from
 their author.  He will take  up, and nearly in  their order, the
 principal  points of objection, and it will then  be seen what are
 the  most vulnerable parts of the work, in the opinion of the dis-
 tinguished Journal, and how far the " Commentaries " are correct-
 ly represented.
   It should be premised that the reviewer is opposed,  toto coelo, to
 the cardinal doctrines of the vitalists ; and it may appear that some
 private considerations have also lent their influence.
   The review opens with the declaration that " a great book is a
 great evil," in the case before us.  But, was not the length of the
-Essays necessary to the facts and the illustrations they embrace,
 and were not  the facts and illustrations necessary to questions so
 long and ably controverted?  Are they not the very means which
 have discouraged the reviewer from all attempt to show that the
 doctrines may be successfully impugned ?  Horace, who advocated
 brevity, allows that on all difficult questions, the most trifling cir-
 cumstances should not  be neglected when  they tend  to  multiply
 the  points of view;  and the author had in his way a host of ob-
 stacles which it was necessary to surmount.  To remind the read-
 er that all may not as readily " grasp " the merits of great and con-
 troverted questions as himself, especially where the author was al-
 most " single  handed,"  (Vol. I. p. 391,) the precaution was taken
 of quoting from Zimmermann the following incontrovertible truth,
 namely:
   " :As it is impossible to arrive at  the knowledge of a whole, be-
 fore we are acquainted  with its  parts, it will easily be conceived
 of how much  consequence it will be not to neglect the  least cir- 
4
examination of a review, &c.
cumstance, even that which seems the most known.  This known
circumstance is, as  it were,  the  chain that unites together the
truths we are in search of.  It draws us  nearer to the unknown,
and enables us to see nature  more nearly.'"  The Commentaries
then remark, that "this is our apology for any seeming prolixity,
either here or elsewhere."   {Comm. vol. i.  pp. 492,531, 391, 267 ;
vol. ii. p. 300.)
  It is clearly absurd to suppose that subjects of such magnitude
as are examined in the " Commentaries," where the arguments of
so many profound writers were to  be met, and where so many facts
must be arrayed in opposition, could have been  despatched with
that brevity  which might be most convenient for a Review that
professes to survey the whole field of foreign  and domestic medical
literature.  The author had been too much admonished by the
fate of others, and was  too  respectful of others, to neglect the
available means of sustaining his position ; and  the very course
which has  been taken by the  reviewer is ample proof that the
author acted wisely.
  To illustrate the advantages of brevity, the reviewer institutes a
comparison between Dr. Holland's(: Medical Notes and Reflections,"
and the  " Medical and Physiological Commentaries."  Of the for-
mer, it is said that " the sketches are drawn by the hand of a mas-
ter, though mere outlines;"  and, in farther opposition, they are
said to  "convey a greater number of clear ideas to a reader of or-
dinary capacity than the most highly-wrought of Dr. Paine's fin-
ished compositions."   " The latter contains  a mass  of  materials,
indeed, of great learning," &c.  Now, in the first place, as already
said, the author was writing not  alone for " readers of ordinary
capacity," but for all sorts of capacities, and in view of a torrent of
opposition which he well knew must be encountered.
  The reviewer has thus forced upon his author the necessity of
involving Dr. Holland in this controversy;  and  if the reader will
turn to the " Commentaries," Vol. I. pp. 396, 543, he will find what
coincidence of opinions with Dr. Holland suggested the commen-
dation  bestowed upon his work at the expense of the " Commen-
taries."   The author of the latter will also subjoin in a note some
of the leading doctrinal views of the gentleman with  whom he is
contrasted,  that it may be readily  seen  what are the reviewer's
opinions of " just and  vivid conceptions," " power and  learning,"
" clear ideas," " lucid views," and other criteria by which he would
have the " Commentaries " tried.   It is worth remarking, also, that,
in respect to design, there is not the most remote parallel between
Dr. Holland's work and the " Commentaries."  The former pro-
fesses nothing but to arrange what was already known or suppos- 
examination of  a  review, &c.                5
ed to be known, without attempting to show the truth of what was
controverted. (')
  But suppose an author were to expunge according to the taste,
or the learning, or the prejudice,  of his several readers, how much
of his work  would probably remain in the end?
   Besides the nine principal Essays, the "Commentaries"  em-
brace fifteen distinct, and elaborate Appendixes, each upon specific
questions, and of difficult investigation.   How generous, and  how
respectful of facts,  is the following statement, the author submits
to the reader,  namely: —
  " Of the degree of elaboration our readers may judge, when  we say  that Dr.
Holland's single  volume of six hundred pages contains  thirty-four essays, whilst
in Dr. Paine's bulky tomes we find but nine."  {Review,  p. 383.)
   But,  what if it were  so ?   Would it prove any thing more than
a similar comparison with a medical dictionary ?
   The  reviewer's next objection  is thus  expressed: —
  " To show that a certain law is not capable of explaining all the phenomena
of a given action appears to  be regarded by Dr. Paine as quite  sufficiently  prov-
ing that the law had no bearing on the action."   (Review, p. 383.)
   There is  nothing in the " Commentaries " that can possibly  sug-
gest so  great a  perversion of the author's opinions.   The state-
ment is entirely  predicated of the reviewer's physical  doctrines of
life, and of the author's opposition to them.   The latter fully  con-
cedes that he does  not admit the participation of physical laws in
any " <nven action" of organic beings,— unless  they be of such a
nature  as concern the motion of  the blood, abstractedly consider-
ed.   The power  which generates the motion is the vital power.
But,  the illustration of  the  reviewer which  immediately follows
the foregoing quotation, is neither to the  point, nor does it appear
to bear  out those " relations of ideas" in which  the reviewer is pleas-
ed to consider the  " Commentaries " sometimes deficient, —espe-

  (•) Dr. Holland  is so eminently a humoralist, that he believes that "the blood may take on morbid
conditions  directly transmissible to offspring." " The accumulation of this matter of the disease,"
(gout,) he says, " may be presumed to be in the blood," and he thinks that eolchicum can only act in
three ways  ■ either by "destroying the  matter of gout by some specific change ;" or, by » withdrawing it
from the part affected into the general circulation ;" or, by " procuring its removal from the system,
through some of the excretory organs." " Collectively, they seem to include all the modes in which the
medicine can act."  Not a word of its  possible action upon the diseased solids.
  There is also a long disquisition upon » the Hypothesis of Insect Life as a Cause of Disease."  A
brief extract will servo the writer's purpose in respect to the reviewer. Thus, in adopting the opinion
of the insect origin of the malignant cholera, among the reasons assigned, we read that, "in the hy-
pothesis of production by certain animal species, minute beyond thereach of all sense, we have an ex-
planation of the fresh creation and diffusion of the material cause," and especially as " out of  the di-
rect dominion of the microscope these animals are removed." Again, the " hypothesis " supposes these
ima»inary insects " capable  of exciting vibrations in the air, of which man's grosser hearing u wholly
unconscious • but  which, received by their fine organs as audible sounds, minister to purposes of
enjoyment and activity among beings  unperceived  by any of the human senses."  It is also stated by
Dr H that " Reamur and  other naturalists have  conjectured " that  the clouds are sometimes made
up of these insects. — Dr. H.'s Med. Notes and Reflections, pp. 15, 116,  122, 125,126,127,135, 374,
5-24, 5f 5, 562, 574, 576, 577.  1839. 
EXAMINATION  OF A REVIEW  &.C.
cially when they do not acknowledge  the intimate relation  be-
tween the laws of organic and inorganic beings.  Thus, the Jour-
nal in its very next sentence:—
  "Now, anyone who has given the slightest attention to the science of life,—
Biology, — must be aware how little any phenomena exhibited by living beings
can be attributed to the undisturbed operation of any single law; and how  con-
stantly the physiologist and pathologist are obliged to make allowance for circum-
stances which interfere with the  operation of the  simplest and best understood
principles."  (Review, p. 383.)
   This is all very true, and constantly kept  before the reader in
the  "Commentaries."   (See quotation from  Commentaries  for-
ward.)   But, — what, pray, have the contingent " circumstances"
which constantly  " affect the operation of the simplest  and best
understood principles " in physiology and pathology, to do with
the "law" as expressed in the first quotation?  The last is design-
ed as  an exemplification  of the first;  but, where is the parallel
between the "law" and the contingent "circumstances,"  "the un-
disturbed operation" — where "the relation of ideas"?
   The  reviewer being mainly personal on the subject of the  mi-
croscope, the  author  will say but little  in the  way of defence.
There is  one remark, however, in  connection with this subject,
which serves to illustrate the reviewer.  It is this:—"Dr. Paine
forgets  that, faithfully employed, it [the microscope] can only  dis-
close facts."   This the author denies, and  has brought a mass of
evidence which the reviewer does not attempt to impugn, unless
by general "assertion."  " But facts," he says, " are stubborn things."
This is as readily granted,—but what does it prove? Has  the re-
viewer attempted  to show that the author  has  not proved the
worthlessness of the supposed "facts?"   It is  true, there is  a quib-
ble about the author's satirical representation of the mode of es-
timatino- the weight  of one of the  supposed fossil animalcula,
which  is represented by Ehrenbergh as being "the 187,000,000th,
part of a grain;"  but what connection has this with the author's
great object of showing the inapplicability  of the microscope to
physiological investigations ? And, as to the general contradiction,
the reviewer shall have the advantage of it in his own language.
 Thus:—
  " He quotes a number of instances in which microscopic observers have differed,"
 "but he does not tell us how completely, with instruments much improved during the
 last few years, and with increased knowledge of the circumstances which can af-
 fect the accuracy of the observation, all good mkroscopists are now agreed on these,
 as upon a multitude of other interesting and important  questions." (Rev. p. 384.)
    It is very true the  author has done no such thing, and for the
 reason that he has shown exactly the reverse of what is represent-
 ed by the reviewer, and of the  most able  microscopists of the 
               EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C.              7

present day.   But this  is a small circumstance  compared  with
other perversions.
  Finally, the author has quoted, in  his  " Appendix on the Mi-
croscope," as greatly distrusting and  generally condemning that
instrument, John  Hunter, Dr.  Bostock,  Dr. Hastings, Bichat,
Dr. Granger, the Medico-Chirurgical Review, the Edinburgh
Medical  and  Surgical  Journal, the Dublin  Medical Press;
and, among others, the  British and Foreign Medical Re-
view, 1837, which says,—
  " 'Every one, who has examined doubtful objects by a high  mag-
nifying power, must be aware how much is often left to the im-
agination of the observers ; and it is not difficult to  account for
the great discrepancy which exists in the statements of ani-
mal as well as vegetable anatomists?" {Comm. vol. i, p. 711.)
  The reader will ultimately  feel interested with knowing that
something is said about Dr. Carpenter in this  place, which is as
follows: —
  "The Dublin Medical Press, 1839, in speaking of Dr. Carpenter's
 General  and Comparative Physiology,  remarks that,—'there is
a chapter on the elementary structure of  vegetables, and another
on  that of animals, in which, according to the established usage,
the improbabilities, and fictions of the microscopic observers are
recorded.' 'The student must not place confidence in these wonders
of the microscope.'  ' But, this is entre nous ; for, if it were known
that we entertained such  heretical notions, in  these  palmy days
of the  reign  of microscopes, we  might risk encountering  some
grievous  bodily harm.''"  {Comm. vol. i, p.  711.)
   Having disposed  of the microscope, the reviewer begins a pre-
tended defence of Dr.  Carpenter; but, as this  is subsequently
resumed  at great  length, the author will delay its consideration,
and take  up the long and critical disquisition, which follows next,
as to the proper import of the word " force."  This being the re-
viewer's  great point, it requires at the hand of the author a pro-
found consideration.  The reviewer contends that the author is
wrong in assuming a meaning for the word 'which is not recog-
nized  "by philosophical writers in any  department of science ;"
and yet,  as the author will now show, the reviewer employs it in
the  very  sense which he condemns.  But, let us first have the
maimer in which the reviewer  gets at his premises.   Thus: —
  "Returning to our inquiry," says Dr. Paine, (vol. i, p. 12,) "' what is life V
and to the consideration of its definition by Bichat, and the philosophers of his
school, — we consider the functions as being merely the result of peculiar forces
operating upon organic matter, and that life virtually consists in the co-existence
of these forces and that peculiar substratum. The forces are, to a certain extent,
in a passive state, when not excited by their appropriate stimuli. But, they
are  still the essence of life; and whilst they endure, whether in an active or seem-
j.\t;LT passive condition, life is constituted.'  [The reader will ultimately see how 
8
EXAMINATION of a  review,  &c.
 all this is misrepresented by the reviewer.] Now here, Dr. Paine evidently recogni-
 zes the existence of a' force' as something distinct from matter, on which it acts. In
 the previous paragraph he speaks of 'force' and 'property' as synonymous, [words
 referred to are "forces, or properties, if you prefer;"] and we are thus enabled to un-
 derstand the idea which he attaches to the following definition, contained in a subse-
 quent part of his essay.—' The foregoing considerations' he says, (p. 18,)' would lead
 us to regard life as a cause, and to define it as consisting of certain specific pro-
 perties appertaining to organized matter, which are more or less capable of resisting
 the destructive agencies of inorganic matter, and the forces to which it is liable,
 and of protecting against them the matter in which they are inherent.' " (Review,
 p. 385.)
   Of this definition of life, it is then said, —
  " We do not know when it has been our fortune to meet with a more complete
jumble of ideas, than that which would be involved in the foregoing sentences, if
 interpreted according to the usual meaning of the words composing them."  (Review,
 p. 386.)
  The author will now not only defend his definition  as perfectly
 consistent and accurate in all its parts, but will place his reviewer
 in the dilemma provided for the author.   But, the cunning which
 characterizes the review must be first exposed.  By a specious fraud
 the reviewer endeavours to make his author confound the forces of
 life  with  the  mechanical  forces, when an absolute contradistinc-
 tion is observed  between the former and all the forces of physics,
 throughout the " Commentaries."  It will be ultimately seen that
 the author employs each denomination of force according to the
 acceptation of the  best philosophers in the several departments of
 science.   It should be kept in mind, also,  that the reviewer's crit-
 icism bears mainly  upon the author's definition of life, in which
 both the vital and  chemical forces are spoken of.  But the re-
 viewer, to make out, as successfully as he  might, the imputed con-
fusion, diverts the attention of the reader from  the author's refer-
ence  to the  vital  and chemical forces,  by starting off upon  an
 attempted exposition of his  own notions of mechanical force, and
 thus  endeavours  to impress the reader with the  belief that the
 whole import of the definition, even of the vital "properties," vio-
 lates the signification of force as employed " by philosophical wri-
 ters on any department of science."  As the author has said, this
 expedient is his reviewer's greatest point, since if he could per-
 suade his readers of the imputed "jumble  of ideas" in  the author's
 definition of life, it might  follow in the mind of the reader that the
 whole context was equally a " jumble."
   A second great intention of the reviewer is  to divert the reader
 from the author's argument, which relates entirely to the question
 whether life be constituted  by " the functions" in their  ordinary
sense, or  by the " vital properties," of which  the  " functions" are
 only  a consequence.   The  reviewer substitutes " action of some
 kind" for  "vital functions,"  and fixes his  illustration upon phys- 
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C.              9
ical force.  As to the "action" of which the reviewer speaks, the
author is in perfect accordance with the best physical and chemical
philosophers, and goes beyond Dr. Carpenter and the reviewer him-
self in admitting the necessity of " some kind of action" whenever
vital force may exist; as will be soon set forth.   The author will
now add, that the reviewer's criticism turns entirely upon insula-
ting the expression as to the—"forces of life whether in an active
or seemingly passive condition," — the author thereby referring to
those " functions" which are appreciable, and which, by the phys-
iologists with whom the argument was conducted, are said to con-
stitute life.  {See,  also,  the preceding sentence, p. 7.)
   The author will now proceed to show the stratagem, and, also,
how the  reviewer, whilst weaving the net,  employs the term force
in the very sense which he condemns.
  1. "By philosophical writers," says the reviewer, " on any department of science,
the term force is only applied when an  action of some kind is taking place; thus,
the force of gravity, that is, the attraction subsisting between the earth and the
falling body causes the clock-weight to descend, or  if checked, occasions a pres-
sure against the impeding substance."(i)  (Review,  p. 386.)
   Dr. Carpenter has the same illustration, but substitutes the word
power for force, these being synonymous with him.   Thus:—
  " The power of gravitation is called into exercise when the clock-weight is wound up." (2) (Carp.
Princip. p. 132.)
   Now the reviewer is  here right in his illustration, and obvious-
ly  supposes that the force of gravity is equally  in " action" (or
"exercise") whether the  clock-weight be  at rest or in motion;
which is the  true  philosophy of gravitation.   Such  being his
meaning as to "action," the author fully agrees with him so far, as it
respects  all kinds of physical force.  But, what connection has this
with the author's remark in relation to the forces of life, which he
has shown to be inactive in the  seed as it respects all but vital affin-
ity, and  allowed to  be perfectly passive, in the absence of stimuli,
 even by the reviewer and  Dr.  Carpenter.   The reviewer goes on
thus:—
  2. " The Creator, in giving origin to that which we term  matter, by that very
act created the forces by  which different material bodies operate upon one an-
 other." (Review, p. 386.)
   Now  was there ever a more glaring contradiction, and " in the
 same breath"?  Here  we have positive agents, real "entities,"
 something actually " created" inherent in matter and capable of
 "operating"  on other matter, — since  the reviewer will hardly
 maintain that  when the Creator creates such  "forces" as are
 here spoken of, he means that the Creator created nothing. These
  (1) The author takes the liberty, in common  with his reviewer, of marking certain words in Italics,
 &.C.
  ;") Carpenter's Principles of General and Comparative Physiology, p. 132—1839.
                                2 
10
EXAMINATION  OF  A REVIEW,  &C.
forces, then, may be  either  in an  active or passive state.   Now
 let us hare the next following sentence.   Thus:—
  3. "For ail forces result from  the  action  or operation of the  property*, (thus
 differing essentially from the properties  themselves)  with which matter  is en-
 dowed." (Review, p. 386.)
   This is  more a curiosity than a matter for grave criticism.  In
 one sentence, we  have real substantial forces  inherent in matter,
 ever ready to  operate,  and  the handy work of the Creator, whilst
 in the very next,  the prerogative is snatched  from  the Creator and
 given to  the "properties" of matter, which, of course,  are very
 logically said to  "differ essentially  from "the forces which they
 create.
   The author  cannot help  thinking that his reviewer has been
 again borrowing from Dr.  Carpenter in this instance ;  for Dr. Car-
 penter says:—
  "In machines constructed to take advantage of the physical properties  of matter, and to bring
 them into useful operation, a stimulus to their action  is required, in some means which shall devel-
 ope these properties, and thus create powers [or forces.]  Thus, the power of gravitation is called into
 exercise, when the clock-weight is wound up." (1) (Carp. Princip. p. 132.)
   Thus the winding up the clock is the "stimulus" which "de-
 velops"  "physical  properties," (already developed  in matter  by
 the Creator,) which properties, thus artificially stimulated and de-
 veloped, then " create powers " !   "Vitalists," even the " transcen-
 dental,"  have nothing comparable with this.   But that it is  really
 so  will  more fully appear  from another paragraph  from Dr. Car-
 penter,  by which  it will  be  farther manifest  that the  reviewer
 must have borrowed the whole of this  explanation  from Dr. Car-
 penter's  work,  since he agrees with Dr. Carpenter after the fol-
 lowing verbal  manner.   Thus, Dr. Carpenter:—
  "The term Law of Nature,as already employed, expresses the conditions of action of the prop-
 erties of matter. The Divine Creator of  the Universe ' has, by creating his materials, endued with
 certain fixed qualities and powers, impressed them in their origin with the spirit not the letter of his
 law, and made  all their subsequent combinations and relations inevitable consequences of this first
 impression." (Carp. Princip. p. 134.)
   And yet, in  the same  paragraph, Dr.  Carpenter contradicts this
 fundanental proposition.  Thus:—
  " To suppose, as some have done, that the properties first impressed upon matter would of them-
 selves continue its actions, [yet ' inevitable consequences,') is to deny all that revelation teaches us re-
 garding our  continued dependence on the Creator.  Let it be borne in mind, then, that when a law of
 Physics or Vitality is mentioned, nothing more is really implied than a simple expression of the mode in
 which the Creator is constantly operating on inorganic matter, or on organized structures." (2) (Carp.
 Princip. p. 135. — See,Comm. Vol. I, p. 25, for the perfect accuracy ofthe author's statement.)
   Here, also, the reviewer contradicts himself in the same manner,
 when ridiculing in Dr.  Paine the very doctrine which both him-

   (l)And so the reviewer, thus : —" Does any force  exist until the water has been
 converted into steam by the stimulus  of heat, and thesleam by a still further addition of
 temperature caused to expand with violence? Assuredly not." (Review, p. 386.)
  (2) So thorough is Dr. Carpenter in this contradiction that he says in a note, — " If miraculous in-
 terpositions are exceptions to general laws, they are so only in human estimation." Op. cit. p. 135.) 
               EXAMINATION OF A REVIEW,  &C             11
                              I
self and Dr.  Carpenter would  have us  believe and  disbelieve.
Thus: —
  " Yet this is only carrying out Dr. Paine's doctrine in the mode he himself war-
rants, when he tells us, (Vol. 1. pp. 10,25,) that the Deity is not the immediate cause
of the phenomena of nature, but that he has brought into existence a number of
forces, which are the proximate causes of all phenomena."  (Review, p. 386.)
   Such is exactly Dr. Paine's doctrine throughout the " Commen-
taries," — nowhere violated, nor did  he " mistake  it," as the re-
viewer supposes, " for a new hypothesis."
   The following, therefore,  is the  "relation of ideas," both with
the reviewer and Dr. Carpenter:  1. Before gravitation can be
" called  into exercise " upon " a clock-weight," it must be " stim-
ulated."   2. " The Creator created the forces by which different
material bodies operate upon one another."  3.  " All the subsequent
combinations and relations  of matter are the inevitable  conse-
quence" of the  "forces" or "powers"  so created by the Creator.
4.  But, the actions  and phenomena of organic and inorganic be-
ings are not only not the " inevitable consequences," or " proxi-
mate " results of the " forces " or " powers," or even " properties "
so  created, but they flow directly from the " mode in  which the
 Creator is constantly operating  on  inorganic matter, or on organ-
ized structures."  5.  The Creator did not create the forces which
he did create, but "all the forces" are created by "the properties
with which matter is endowed."  6. But  " the properties " inher-
ent in  matter have  no existence  till "a stimulus"  is applied
" which shall develope these properties and thus create  powers "
or " forces."
   Such  is  the  philosophy of distinguished opponents of vitalism.
The reader will observe that the summary corresponds exactly
both with the reviewer's and Dr. Carpenter's  statements, between
which the coincidence is precise.  The author has kept  them dis-
tinct by appropriating to each writer a particular type.  It was
quite unnecessary, however, to  have  preserved this individuality,
since it will appear that the reviewer  agrees with Dr. Carpenter in
all " his positions," and, through fnany pages, so mixes himself up
with Dr. Carpenter, that it  is extremely  difficult to separate Dr.
Carpenter  from the reviewer.
   If we  now revert to the quotations  from the review, marked  2
and 3, by  putting these  two consecutive sentences together, the
reader will perceive  that the  reviewer also  convicts himself of
identifying "forces "  and " properties," notwithstanding his simul-
taneous  attempt to make one the "creators"  of the other.   The
sentence  number 2  is also a perfect  recognition of the doctrine,
which the reviewer violently condemns in this place as being ad- 
12
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW,  &C
vocated by Dr. Paine, " that the Deity is not the immediate cause
of the phenomena  of nature, but that he  has brought into exist-
ence  a number of forces which are the  proximate causes of all
phenomena."   And, we have just seen by  a quotation from Dr.
Carpenter, that he also sustains this  opinion of Dr. Paine, and yet
declares it otherwise.   The reader will farther observe that, in the
sentence  where an attempt  is made  to  contradistinguish forces
from properties, the reviewer renders his properties, (and, also, in
the sentence about the clock-weight, his force or power of gravi-
ty,) real agents, — acting, creating, fyc.
  Again, take  the following paragraph, in which the reviewer at-
tempts a  distinction between properties and forces, but, in doing
so,  recognises  the  existence of force as an active power like the
properties, and, not only so, he  again  makes the properties,  in
opposition to himself,  (sentence  number 3,)  the creators of the
forces.   Thus: —
  "Having disposed of forces, we will, turn  for a short  time to properties.  And,
we would ask what other notion of matter do we possess than that derived from those
properties which either directly affect our senses, through the material changes they
produce in our organs, or which, by the influence of different bodies on one another,
give rise to forces that produce phenomena of which we in like manner take cogni-
zance]"  (Rev.p.386.)
   " A writer," as the reviewer says, " who can so contradict himself,
scarcely needs to be exposed  by  us."   (This passage will be soon
repeated  in its application to the author.)   The author has said
that the whole of the foregoing explanation of "force," on the part
of the reviewer, must have been  taken from Dr. Carpenter's work.
 And  so it must, — for by no  fortuitous reverie  could  two minds
 have brought about a coincidence so replete with internal proof of
 a common origin.  The " interpretration " is unique,  and cannot
 be imitated.   And so we shall see of other instances.
   Having now taken the question out of the confusion in which
 it has been involved by the reviewer, and  got at its true merits,
 let us see, and for other substantial purposes, how far the author
 is sustained in his imputed  use  of the term "force " or "forces,"
 as they are employed in physical and  chemical science.
    For the foregoing purpose the author will first take the united au-
 thority of Laplace, and Professor Graham of the London Univer-
 sity, and will, also, subsequently confine himself to "philosopical
  writers " who are justly held  in the highest  esteem by the British
  Review.  The author has selected the following out  of many
  similar passages,  as  expressing exactly the import of the word
 force as carried out in the " Commentaries," in its  physical sense,
  and as conveying precisely the meaning in  which it is employed 
               EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C            13

in that part of his definition of life which  relates to the chemical
forces.  Thus, Laplace and Professor Graham : —
   " This supposition is conformable with the views of corpuscu-
lar philosophy entertained  by Laplace.  According to  that pro-
found philosopher, the form of aggregation which a body affects
depends upon the mutual  relation of three forces :   1. The at-
traction of each particle for the other particles which surround it,
which induces them to approach as near as possible to each other.
2. The attraction of each particle for the  heat  which surrounds
the other  particles in  its neighbourhood.  3. The repulsion  be-
tween the heat which surrounds each particle, and that which sur-
rounds the neighbouring particles, a force which  tends to disunite
the particles of bodies.  When the first of these forces prevails,
the body is solid." (')
   Now in the last  of the foregoing propositions, or when " the
body is solid," that "kind of action is taking place," which, by the
reviewer's  illustration, happens in respect to the "force of gravi-
ty "  when  a body is  at rest upon the earth, and by which he so to-
tally perverts his author in  substituting that " kind of action " as
his author's meaning in his argument as to the ordinary " vital
functions." The reviewer's " kind of action," however, the author
maintains  must exist even  in the " seed," as he will ultimately
show, and as fully implied in the extract, page 7.  But the author
also maintains that it is a consequence, not a  cause  of life, as held
by Dr. Carpenter and  " other able  writers on  the same side."
   The doctrine, as stated in the foregoing quotation, is frequently
expressed  in  the " Commentaries."  Thus, in distinguishing  the
vital from the physical forces, the  author says, —
   " Who shall say, that the  fall of a stone, the motions of the plan-
etary system, &c. more clearly evince their dependence upon  the
power that is  called gravitation?   The  ocean rises and falls; but,
this is only another coincident effect, and brings no variety to illus-
trate the force.  The want  of greater  variety leaves  the mind in
doubt; aud it is nothing but these simple effects, which imply a cause,
that satisfies all that some unknoion  force prevails.  [The same
word as used by Laplace.]  But its nature, whether material or im-
material, an emanation  or  an oscillation,  heat  or cold,  light or
darkness, no one can divine. Still there is something, — a sort of
spell, which holds  all  matter, in one uniform way, under its
control, — save only, in  its proper sense,  the living organized
being.   And here we  see the forces of life contradistinguished
from the physical, as they are  from  the  chemical, — since the
forces of life may partially overcome  the force of gravitation. The
man walks, — the bird flies.  It will not, of  course, be said, that
(1) Graham's Elements of Chemistry, p. 65,1837. 
14
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C
 so also does the bow send forth the arrow, and  the  powder the
 ball, — for there is no analogy in the cases." {Comm. vol. i, p. 11.)
   " The forces of life are inherent in every part of living matter,
 and may forever operate per se,  and resist all other [natural]
 forces.  But, in all the other instances, as elasticity,  expansion,
 and all [natural] mechanical forces, they are not the sources of ac-
 tual power.   Self-action, then, is a distinguishing characteristic
 of animals  and vegetables; for the principle reaches every part
 of their organization."  A plant droops and rises again  by its
 vital power.  {Comm. vol. i, p. 45.)

   What the author has said of our knowledge of the force of grav-
 ity, he has  also often affirmed of the chemical and all other inor-
 ganic forces, — and nothing but the gross misrepresentation of the
 reviewer upon  this  fundamental point could have induced the
 author to  prolong this discussion.  In contradistinguishing the
 chemical forces from the vital properties, the author, among other
 general remarks of a similar import, has the following:—

   "In respect to  the forces of chemistry, is it  known with  any
 certainty, what  particular causes are instrumental in effecting the
 chemical union  of different species of matter ?   Are there not most
 remarkable revolutions in  opinion as to the nature of magnetism,
 electricity, heat, and light, and the  laws by which they ar,e gov-
 erned; and  is not the  doctrine of oscillations liable to be sup-
planted by another,  to-morrow?  Indeed, at  this moment, there
exist the theories of emanation and undulations of light.  But,
whether one or the  other be true, it  affects in no  degree,  our
 knowledge  of the  laws of reflection, refraction, &c, by which the
specific existence of light is ascertained.. J^nd, although the phe-
 nomena of light are thus diversified, and present, as it  were, a va-
 riety of laws, we  know less of [the nature of] light than we do of
darkness.  Finally, all that toe know of matter, [organic or inor-
ganic,] and  of the sources by which this knowledge is acquired,
arises from effects."  {Comm. vol. i, p. 45.)

  Let us now hear Professor Daubeny, of the Oxford  University,
 as to the nature offorce, and how with the  author, he supposes
the chemical forces to be resisted by forces peculiar to the living
body.   The Professor  has lately published a work in which he
 derides all the doctrines of the vitalists, and to whom, therefore,
it may be presumed the reviewer will have no objection.
   " The putrefaction of vegetable and animal matter," says Dau-
 beny, " appears  to  be produced, not by any sudden cessation of
 those  affinities which had previously bound their  respective ele-
 ments together, but by the predominance over them of other nat-
 ural forces,  which we may, without much  difficulty, conceive to
 have  been controlled under the circumstances in which the liv- 
                EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C.             15

 ing body is placed." (x) Graham. — That is to say, " controlled "
 by the vital forces.
   Take up  any author on chemistry and you will find the same
 thing.   Here is Professor Turner, who says,—
   " The tendency of cohesion is manifestly to bring the  ultimate
 particles of bodies into immediate contact; and such would be the
 result  of its influence,  were it not  counteracted by an opposing
 force, a principle of repulsion, which prevents their approxima-
 tion."  Nay, vis inertice itself is almost admitted among the forces.
 " The  indifference of matter," says  Turner,  " to either state has
 been expressed by the term vis inertias, as if it depended on some
 peculiar force resident in matter ; but it arises,  rather, from mat-
 ter being absolutely passive, and thereby subject to the influence of
 every force, which is  capable of acting upon  if."(2) — Turner.
 (Compare this  with the author's definition of life.)  N. B. The
 foregoing may apply to mind as well as to matter.
   And now for the dictionary.  " Force,  L. fortis.  That phys-
 ical property in  a body which may  produce action or motion in
 another  body,  or  may counteract such  action."   " Mechanical
 force,  is the power that belongs to  bodies at rest or in motion.
 The presence,or tension of bodies at rest is called a  mechanical
 force, and so is the power of a body in motion." (3) — Webster.
   The author will now pass on to distinguished  and recent physi-
 ologists as to their use of " vital principle " and " organic force,"
 from which it will appear that  the  author employs the  terms in
 their-acceptation.   Thus, Dr. Carpenter : —
   " The terms vital principle and Life," he says, " are commonly
 employed almost synonymously, to  imply the controlling agent
 by which the phenomena of living beings are directed, if not im-
 mediately produced."{4) — Carpenter.
   And now as to " Organic force."  Thus, Miiller: — " There
 is in living  organic matter a principle constantly in action, the
 operations of which are in accordance  with a  rational  plan, so
 that the individual parts, which it creates in the body are adapted
 to the design of the Avhole; and this it is which distinguishes or-
 ganism." " The organic/orce is manifested only in the organic com-
 pounds produced in those bodies.   The mere accidental coming to.
 gether of the elementary components is not capable of producing
 organic matter."   " Even animals themselves have not the power
• of generating organic matter out of simple inorganic elements or
 binary compounds." He also calls it the  " creative force." Thus;
  (1)  Quoted from the British and Foreign Mud. Rev., Jan. 1841, p. 136.
  (2;  Turner's Elements of Chemistry, Introduction. 1835.
  (3)  Webster's Dictionary.
  (4)  Principles, &o. p. 131. 
16
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW,  &C.
 -—"The creative force exists already in the germ,  and creates in
 it the essential parts of the future animal."  It is also a " creative
 power.   " The formative or organizing principle is a creative
 power, modifying matter blindly and unconsciously."— Miiller.
   Miiller, indeed, goes far beyond the present writer  or Mr. Hun-
 ter, in supposing the " organic force " capable of rapid motion, —
 rapid as thought itself; and  he  also says it is capable of "multi-
 plying itself," and " exerts its influence even beyond the surface of
 an organ, as shown by its effects on  the chyle, in maintaining the
 fluidity of the blood," &c.   "The Vital  Principle  is in a quies-
 cent state in the egg before  incubation."(') — Miiller.
   There is much of this in Miiller, hereabouts,  though he after-
 wards loses sight of it in pursuit of the " chemical forces " to which
 he ultimately gives as  much importance as to the organic force.
   And now  Liebig, who has his substantial chemical  forces as his
 " vital principle " : —
   " In vegetable physiology," says Liebig, " a leaf is in every case
 regarded merely as a leaf, notwithstanding that leaves generating
 oil of turpentine or oil of lemons must possess a different nature
 from those in which oxalic acid  is formed.   Vitality, in its pecu-
 liar operations, makes use of a special apparatus for teach function
 of an organ.   Vegetable physiologists, in the study of their science,
 have not directed their attention to  that  part  of it  which  is most
 worthy of investigation."—Organic  beings "constitute a form of
 reproduction independent of chemical processes.   The chemical
forces are subject to the invisible cause by which this form is pro-
 duced.  Of the existence of this cause itself we are  made aware
 only by the phenomena which it produces.  Its laws must be in-
 vestigated just as we investigate those of the other  powers which
 effect motion and changes in matter.  The chemical forces are sub-
 ordinate to  this cause of life, just as they are  to  electricity, heat,
 mechanical motion and friction." — Liebig.  [Observe the  contra-
 distinction between " chemical forces " and "electricity, heat,  and
 mechanical motion," which the reviewer confounds with " forces."]
 Again, says Liebig,—
   "The vital principle is only known to us  through  the peculiar
 form of its instruments, — that is, through the  organs in which it
 resides." — "In the same way the vital principle governs thechem-
 ical powers [same as "forces"] in the living body."—" If the food
 possessed life,  not  merely the chemical forces, but  this vitality,
 would offer  resistance  to the vital force of the  organism it nour-
 ished." —" The vital principle opposes to the continual action of

 »            (1) Midler's Elements of Physiology, pp.9,18, 23, 25, 27,— 1838. 
EXAMINATION OF A REVIEW, &C
17
 the  atmosphere,  moisture, and temperature upon  the organism, a
 resistance which is, in a certain degree, invincible."^)  Liebig.
   Now the only difference between Liebig and the author, whether
 it respects vital or  chemical force, consists in the doctrine of the
 latter that, "there is no philosophy in the unmeaning multiplica
 tion of causes,—especially when the superadded ones will not ex-
 plain a single phenomenon, or a single result appertaining to living
 organized matter."   {Comm.  vol. i, p. 99.)
   But, where is the difference between the foregoing, and the " vi-
 tal properties" and  "vitality," (according to the mystifying school,)
 " making use of chemical forces ?" (See examination of this sub-
 ject in Comm. vol. ii, pp. 89, 121, 122.)
   And thus Tiedemann :  " Organic beings," he says, " are endow-
 ed with powers of a particular kind, namely, organic powers."
 " All the  qualities of organic bodies should be looked upon as the
 effects of life.  Even those phenomena seen in  them, which they
 exhibit in common with inorganic bodies, undergo modifications
 of their specific action,  and  should be considered as subordinate
 to the organic powers."  "Chemists have not succeeded [then
 nor since] in reproducing organic combinations, as they have done
 the inorganic compound bodies."  " There must be in living bod-
 ies a peculiar power, differing from the chemical affinities, which
 determines the forms of bodies not endued with life, and the ac-
 tion of which produces the diversity which organic forms  with
 similar composition exhibit."   "Even  when the life of organic
 bodies is  extinct,  we should consider the qualities which  they
 possess, from the time  of death to the complete resolution of or-
 ganization, as results of the organic powers which have been ac
 live in them."  [This is a doctrine of the Commentaries.]  " Al-
 ready," he adds,  "it has been  more  than once attempted to de-
 duce life  from the laws of mechanics, physics,  and of chemistry.
 This error has been committed by the physiologists and physi-
 cians of  the iatromathematic and iatrochemical  schools.  In
 every age, distinguished naturalists discovered this error  and
 opposed it." (2) Tiedemann. Observe, "peculiar power" and "or-
 ganic powers."
   The vital principle or organic force is everywhere the  presiding
 genius in  the foregoing work, and is defended in all the attributes
 that are ascribed to it by the  present  writer.
   And Bichat, too, whose "writings" the British and  Foreign
 Medical Review laments,  " are almost forgotten," (3) employs the
 word vital force in  the same sense as  the Commentaries, in amul-
 'lj Liebig's Organic Chemioir, applied to Agriculture und Physiology, pp. 36,355—358. London.
:t40.
        2) Tiedemann'* Physiology, pp. 7, 9, - , 30— leii     (3) July, 1839, p. l£6. 
18
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, AC
 titude of instances.  It is his favorite  substitute for vital proper-
 ties.   Thus, " the disengagement of caloric is always subordinate
 to the state of the vital forces."  " The vital forces, especially the
 tonic power, have a very decided influence upon  the  extrication
 of caloric."  And  here is something for  the  chemical doctrine.
 " If chemists apply their theories to these morbid changes of heat,
 instead of considering them as  a  necessary  consequence of the
 state in  which the vital forces are then found, they  will  neces-
 sarily find in  them an insurmountable obstacle."  And here is
 something to aid the reviewer's conception of the author's philos-
 ophy of bloodletting and of the operation of other remedial agents.
 " It is undeniable that all  remedies have for their object the re-
 storation of the  vital forces to the  natural type, from which
they have been driven by disease. Since the morbid phenomena may
 be considered as different alterations of these forces, the action of
 remedies should also be viewed as the,means by which these  al-
 terations are to be brought back to the  natural type." (') Bichat.
  In  the British and Foreign  Medical Review " the vital princi-
ple" is also fully acknowledged, and the  philosophy of the chem-
 ists as applied  to organic beings and the  humoral  pathology con-
 demned in some of the articles, and to which the present writer has
 referred (with  the commendation to which the reviewer alludes,
p. 401,) in his  " Commentaries."  (See vol. i, pp. 41, 530,714 ; vol.
 ii, pp. 399, 415, 427.)
  The author now comes  to a more specific defence of his use
of the term force, in its different acceptations when applied  to or-
ganic and inorganic  beings.  In  the first place, however, to avoid
a verbal criticism, (which the reader will soon see extends beyond
 the word force) the author defined exactly the meaning of sev-
eral words, and  that meaning is preserved,  respectively, (and the
author believes  without a  conflicting instance,) throughout  the
"Commentaries."  An absolute distinction  between the physical
and vital forces or powers is fundamental  in the work ; and  when
force  is employed  in relation to organic  beings, it is  always
as defined.  Thus:—
  " The words vital principle, vital power, organic force, organic
 power, are used  synonymously, and  refer to the universal  cause
 of animal and vegetable life, and are employed as collective terms.
 Vital properties, vital powers, and vital forces, signify the various
 elements  of the vital principle or vital power,  as they are mani-
 fested in irritability, contractility, or morbility, vital affinity,  sensi-
 bility and sympathy.  {Com. vol. i. p. 10.)
  Again, " The  forces of physics and of chemistry produce precise
 and uniform results; whilst those of life  are attended by an end-
 less variety of modifications.   This is, in itself, an ample proof that
                (1) Gen. Anat. Vol. II, pp. 41, 47, 40; Vol. I, p. 19. 
                 EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C             19

 their essence is wholly distinct.   One set of forces operates mainly
 upon inorganic  matter, and are  not acted upon.  The other  forces
 operate exclusively upon organized matter, are more or less  influ-
 enced by the former, and are acted upon by foreign causes.   (See
 Turner's definition of force, p. 15.)
    " The  former  are always the same under all circumstances ; the
 latter exist in distinct modifications of kind according to  the vari-
 eties of texture which they animate, and they are constantly modi-
 fied in  their nature by an almost endless variety of foreign agents,
 and they may be extinguished by those agents.   Their altera-
 tions constitute  the essential pathology of disease.   We  may cal-
 culate  the  results of one  with perfect accuracy;—we look with
 prophetic ken to the  return of  a comet through a long  vista of
 ages.   But  instability is the  great  characteristic of the vital
 forces,  and  the exact phenomena which  we may contemplate at
 this nwment may vanish  at the  next,  never to be repeated.   The
 physical and chemical forces are  always operating per se,  with
 entire independence, and  their existence is perpetual as their na-
 ture is  unchangeable.  The vital forces, on the contrary, generally
 produce visible actions only when they are acted upon, and the
 mind itself is one of the agents.   They become more or less passive
 the moment those influences are withdrawn, and they may be
 extinguished in a moment by those influences.  {See Reply, pp.
 5, 10,13, 14.)  They have a specific final cause which appertains
 exclusively to organized matter.   This final cause, which consists
 in carrying on the processes of life, has a  natural end, when the
 vital forces become extinct, and give place to the full operation
 of the  forces of  chemistry.   The latter then  lay waste what had
 been the work of the former, and thus prepare new materials for
 the complex process of ultimately fitting them for the work of the
 vital forces  in other animated beings.
   "These  are  broad and important  distinctions.  They
 place the respective forces  in opposition to each other.   The
 distinctions indicate not only the nature of the forces, but  the rank
 of all matter.
   " Powerful efforts are making to  substitute the forces of chemis-
 try and  other physical powers for those of life.  We shall oppose.
 this doctrine in all our future disquisitions ;  and it is therefore
 proper that  we should, in this  place, point out the distinctions as
 well as we may."  {Comm. vol. i, p. 30 — 31. — Also,Reply, p.  5, 6.)
   The author  will subjoin, in a  note, a farther illustration of the
 doctrines of the " Commentaries " as to the nature of " Laws," and
 with a particular  reference to what is  said in  this  Reply at  pao-e
 5, 6. O

 (1)  •' We allude to orkat vital laws, not to  the accidbnts of disease. Mr. Clendening asks,
 'how should there be a rule in physiology, morbiil or healthy, without exceptions T In his acceptation
of a rule, as illustrated by his subject, there is none ; and we think it might be shown, in such instan
cos, that the term is objectionable. Such general rules arc subject to great instability from accidental
causes, and they have no immediate connection with any of the laws of nature. But in respect to
the great principles in physiology, we know of no exceptions in the natural state of the body; and this
is, prima facie, a strong ground for analogical inference, as to the principles upon which morbid conrfi- 
20
examination of a  review, &c.
   And again the author  says,  "We have already explained, that
 we are almost  indifferent as  to the name which the forces of life
 shall  receive,  so long as  authors continue to apply the  same im-
port to more favourite words than  ' vital principle,' or ' vital pow-
 ers.'"   (Comm. vol. i, p. 29.)
   The foregoing  are fundamental doctrines throughout the " Com-
 mentaries," and  will  illustrate other parts  of the review besides
 the author's most perverted definition  of life, which he will  now
 repeat: —
   " The foregoing considerations  would lead  us to regard life as
a cause, and to define it as  consisting of certain  specific proper-
ties [or forces] appertaining to  organized matter, which  are more
or less capable of resisting the destructive agencies of inorganic
 matter, and  the forces to which  it is liable,  and of protecting
against them the matter in  which they are  inherent."   {Comm.
vol. i, p. 18.)
   Now we have in the definition  two kinds offerees,—namely,
the organic force, and the chemical forces.  The organic force, or
" vital properties," according to the definition, is  " more or less ca-
pable of resisting  the destructive agencies of inorganic  matter, and
the forces  to which inorganic  matter  is  liable."  That  is to say,
the organic force is capable of protecting itself, on  all  ordinary
occasions,  against the injurious influence of external  agents, and
the living  body against the forces  to which  inorganic bodies are
liable, — that is,  against  chemical decomposition, which would
ensue  in the organized body were  it not  for the  protection of the
organic force. (See Daubeny's and Turner's explanation, p. 14,15.)
But, to render this meaning obvious to an "ordinary capacity," it
was added to the definition, " and  of protecting  against  them (the
destructive agencies, &c.) the matter in which they (the vital proper-
ties) are inherent." The reader will observe that organic force is sub-

tions depend. Sooner or later the apparent exceptions are  brought within the general law. Thus, it
has been  supposed that the circulation of the brain has a law peculiar to itself, and so, also another foi
the penis. But one of the conclusions is purely hypothetical, and the other is based upon the micro
scope, and has been shown to be an error."
 Again, " When we are told that purulent matter is equally the result of a vital process, and of the
putrefaction of blood, or of the solids, or is at one time generated by the action of the extremo vessels,
and at another may form itself spontaneously in the blood ; and that ulceration, according to M. Louis,
and some others, may depend on inflammation, but again is owing to an ' opposite cause ; ' and thai tho
chemist may form the gastric juice in his laboratory, wherewith he imitates digestion, we consider such
1 exceptions' to  the laws of nature as an indefensible violation of' general rules ' which admit of no
exception.
 "Th« vital powers are certainly distinguished by an instability as it respects their liability to partial
modifications ; and it is upon this that much of the theory of medicine hinges.  But they are always the
same powers, affected in tho same way, ceteris paribus, by the  same causes,  and leading to the same
results according to their modifications respectively.  It is the business of observation to ascertain what
these changes are, and to record them as perpetual landmarks in the great field of Nature, where they
may always stand, rescuing our srienec from the hands of mere  empyricism, and guiding us under thu
name of general principles, which are as applicable, through all time, to tho circumstances of any given
modification, as others are to the most perfect integrity of the vital functions " <c„mn.  vol. i, pp.626,
i,'.>7 note.) 
EXAMINATION OF A REVIEW, &C.
21
stituted, in this explanation, for vital properties, (which are synony-
mous with the author, and which occur in the definition,) that the
substitution may meet  the erratic criticism of the reviewer.
   The reviewer, when employed in perverting the  author's doc-
trine as to the "organic force," and " vital functions" and endeav-
ouring, by turning the discussion upon the nature of mechanicul
force, and by substituting " some kind of {physical)  action " for the
author's argument as to  " vital functions," as well  as by more di-
rect methods, to perpetrate the. offence of making the author con-
found the organic with the forces of dead matter, artfully turns his
physical  illustration upon the author's expression, " The forces (of
life) are to a  certain extent  in  a  passive state, when not excited
by their appropriate stimuli," (Reply,  p. 8,) after the  following
manner: —
   " What should we  think of a person who  should talk  about a «passive force
existing in water, by which are affected the mighty operations of the steam en-
gine?" (») — (Rev. p. 386.)
   The foregoing  expression of the author  is  the  groundwork of
the  diatribe about the necessity of " some  kind of action "  when
physical  force is  present.  But, we  have seen that the reviewer
affirms that
   "By philosophical writers on any department of science, the term force is only
applied when an action of some kind is taking place."  (Rev. p. 386.)
   Let us now present the subject according to  the  premises  in the
" Commentaries,"  which relate to " vital functions " of an apprecia-
ble nature, and it will be found that there is  one  " philosophical
writer," at least, who  thinks  that what is denominated  "vital
force" by the most illustrious physiologists, may exist  in  a per-
fectly passive state, — without the least " action " of any  " kind,"—
and yet that vital force or " vitality " may be present.  This author
is Dr. Carpenter.   But, in the first place, let us hear the reviewer
a  little farther, since he has so identified his own cause with that
of Dr.  Carpenter, it would be unjust in the author  to hold them
distinct in this  mutual concern.   For this  purpose, the author
must temporarily pass  on to another subject, where  the reviewer
says that, —
   " The onus probandi rests upon those who maintain the existence of a principle
which others declare  to be unnecessary."  " We assert that death can never
take place without some important change in organization.   Let our opponents
prove the contrary. (a)  Further, we assert, that in all cases in which an  organ-

 (1)  See Dr. Carpenter's "still closer parallel of the steam-engine with the mechanism of organized
structures," — in his Principles, Slc. p. 132.
  (2) A dog may be killed in an instant of time by applying a drop of hydrocyanic acid,
or of an alcoholic solution of the extract of nux vomica, to the tongue.  A paroxysm of
anger, or of joy, "ill destroy a man with the same  instantaneousness.   How do they 
22
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW,  fcC
 ized body, such as an egg or seed, exhibits  a ritnl pomr of resisting the decom-
 posing effect of external agents, that power is due to smw amount of vital actum go-
 ing on in it; and it is for our opponents to prove that no such action is going on."
 " This Dr. Paine has by no means done."
   But, what mean the expressions, "power of resisting, and that power is due to
 some amount of vital action " ?  (Rev. p. 390.)
   The author will now explain  how far he considers  " action of
 some kind" indispensable to force, whether  physical, chemical,
 or organic ; and, since what he is about to say is no where denied
 in the "Commentaries," but fully laid down in  the work, it will
 only show, the more forcibly, the reviewer's falsification of his au-
 thor's doctrines.
   1.  As to physical force.   This, in  relation to  gravitation the
 author has already explained.   He also  holds that the  force of co-
 hesive  attraction must  constantly operate, or be in action, or the
 particles of matter would fall asunder.  And so on.  {Reply, p. 13.)
   2.  As to the force of chemical affinity,  that, also, must be in per-
 petual action,or the very elements would disunite. {Reply, p. 14.)
   3.  Organic force, even in the egg and seed, must be as  much
 in constant action, and in a way analogous to chemical affinity, or
 the ternary, quaternary, &c. combinations peculiar to organic be
ings, and which depend on the organic force, would separate spon-
taneously or become the subjects of chemical decomposition.  This
is  even expressed  in  the author's definition of life, so  obnoxious
to the  reviewer.   As to the " seed " and " egg," the " Commenta-
 ries" say,—
   ." The history of the  seed and egg probably supplies one of the
most remarkable  illustrations of design  that can be  found in na-
ture, — especially that  of the former.   They are  the  only in-
stances where  the entire forces of life  cease their ordinary [appre-
ciable]  operation  without becoming  extinct;  and, were  it  not for
this interval of repose,  the  species would probably  disappear, —
since, even if the vital forces carried out  the development of the
seed into the plant, the chances of preservation would  be infinite-

disorganize the body?  Upon xohat  do these causes operate?  And, can the reviewer
 suppose that a fulfilment of his requisition  is necessary to the position of the vitalists
 that in such, (and therefore in all ordinary cases,) death  is not the result of "disor-
 ganization," but of an extinction of the vital powers ?  No agents will afterwards restore
 animation, because there remains no vital principle upon which the agents may ope-
 rate.   Are not these facts as good, at least, as the reviewer's assertions ?
  A«»ain, it is equally assumed that disease consists in disorganization.  The whole
 body is disorganized in idiopathic fever, and locally in inflammations.  But, pleurisy,
 croup, &c. may be mainly cured during the process of venesection; or, a dose of qui-
 nine  exhibited just before an expected violent paroxysm of an intermittent, may prevent
 its occurrence. Do these remedies operate by instantaneously repairing disorganized
 parts ?  What is the modus operandi, or how does the quinine send abroad its instant
 influence from the stomach? 
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C.
23
 ly diminished, — and since, also, such as ceased their operation at
 the  maturity of the seed, are supposed by the proposition to be-
 come extinct."
   " The rain falls, and there is  no check to those  actions which
 had brought the seed to maturity; but the vital stimuli urge them
 on, and the forces of life pass the ordinary limit of quiescence with-
 out a momentary suspension of their actions.  These actions, and
 all their results, are exactly the same  as after the seed has been
 dormant for a thousand years; and their uninterrupted progress in
 the former instance shows an identity of force before and after ger-
 mination,  and thus connects the  principle, on which a renewal of
 action depends, with that of uninterrupted action.  This illustra-
 tion also shows,  that a perfect integrity of the vital forces  exists
 during the state  of quiescence, and it is moreover opposed to all
 analogy, that such forces may be reproduced after they shall have
 become once extinct.
   " (Something  like the foregoing is seen in  the hybernating ani-
 mals during their state of torpor.  The influence of cold upon the
 forces of life nearly extinguishes all vital actions; but that life is
 undiminished, is  sufficiently manifest when  the farther and more'
 profound  operation of cold re-establishes all  the phenomena of life
 in  their highest vigour."   {Comm. vol. i. p.  21—22.)
   The reviewer, not content with pirating upon Dr. Carpenter,
 has actually appropriated as  his own the illustration contained in
 the last of the  foregoing paragraphs, to  carry out his conflicting
 doctrine that " some amount of vital action must exist in the living
 egg and seed," and by which he was attempting to persuade his read-
 er that  Dr. Paine had denied  the existence of that perpetual  action
 which  obtains with vital affinity  during the  lowest  degrees of life.
 Thus: —
  " We  therefore feel no doubt that the difference in the  power of resisting cold
 possessed by a living and dead egg is to be accounted for on precisely the same
 principles as that which may be observed  between an hybernating and a dead ani-
 mal."  (Rev. p. 390.)
   Nevertheless, the reviewer may have obtained his idea from Dr.
 Carpenter, who, in reference to the foregoing subject, says, —
  "The state of hybernation, to which many animals arc subject, partly resembles the torpor of the
 seed ; still there is never in them a total suspension of vital action, but only a great diminution."
 (Carp. Princip. p. 142.)
   Now, this  is so like  the author's illustration, that it behooves
 him to  say, that he had not seen  Dr. Carpenter's work, (but only
 the review of it,)  till long after the Fissay on the "Vital Powers "
 was printed.  As it seems improbable, therefore, that this illustra-
 tion should have  occurred to three  writers, it is not unlikely that
 the reviewer leaned rather upon Dr. Carpenter than the author.
  Is it asked, why, after death, and when decomposition is prevenl-
i d,  are the elements still held  together in  their pre-existing combi-
 nations ?   By cohesive attraction, and, as Tiedemann says, through 
24
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW,  «.C.
 " results of the organic forces which have been active in the living
 body."   {Reply, p. 17.)
  The author is now prepared to show how one " philosophical wri
 ter," at least, (Dr. Carpenter,)  does not allow of any " kind of ac
 tion " in the living egg and seed, under particular circumstances.
 But, if the reader will compare  the following statements by Dr.
 Carpenter and the reviewer,  he will perceive that DY C. does not
 disagree with the reviewer, since the latter only supposes the ex-
 istence of " some amount of  vital action "  when  the egg and  seed
 are exposed to the  action of external stimuli.   Herein,  therefore,
 we  have another " philosophical writer " in the reviewer himself,
 who more than sustains Dr. Paine's " position " that " the forces of
 life are to a certain extent in a passive state when not excited by
 their appropriate  stimuli."
  For the  foregoing purpose, we require  nothing more than the
 direct avowal in the quotation just made from Dr. Carpenter;  but,
the  question  being of some moment, we will hear the gentlemen
 farther; and  first, the reviewer, who  says  :—
  " We assert, that in all cases in which an organized body, such as an egg or
 seed, exhibits a vital power of resisting the decomposing effect of external agents,
 that power is due to some amount of vital action going on in it, and it is for our op-
 ponents to prove that no such action is going on." (Rev. p. 390.)
  And so Dr. Carpenter:—
  " But the mere cessation," Bays Dr. Carpenter, " whether apparent or real of vital actions docs
 not constitute death.  Their suspension may result from the want of stimuli which  are  necessary to
 excite the dormant properties to exercise.  Thus, seeds may preserve their vitality for periods of indef-
 inite length, if not exposed to those agents which will stimulate them to germination."  " It is scarcely
correct in such a case to say that the seed is alive, since life (in the sense in which most philosophical mod-
ern physiologists employ it) is synonymous with vital action; but it is possessed of vital properties or of
vitality, so long as no destructive changes take place in its organization." (1)  (Carp. Princip. p. 140.)
  Now,  it may be difficult to interpret the foregoing passage ; but
it certainly begins with the declaration that  "vital action"  is not
necessary to life, and this in the  reviewer's acceptation of insensi-
ble "action"  is more than the "Commentaries" have contended
for.   Will Dr. Carpenter, also, enlighten us farther as to the con-
 dition of the  egg  and  seed when they are  neither " dead "  "nor
 "alive," and yet " possessed of vital properties or  vitality ?" Imme-
diately after the foregoing extract, Dr. Carpenter quotes an instance
 in which Raspberry seeds produced "three plants" after laying in
 the "stomach of a man 30 feet below the surface of the earth prob-
 ably for 1,600 or 1,700 years,"  as an illustration of the intermediate
 state  of  life.   But,  however Dr. Carpenter may fix this matter,
 and  have it  in the same paragraph that the living seed, in the

  (1)  Allow any amount of " vital action," it would not show that " life is constituted
 by the functions " and especially since the premises suppose there is no "vital action "
 when vital stimuli do not operate.  The vital properties, therefore, constitute life, of
 which all vital action is only a result. 
                EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C              25

 absence of stimuli, has no action whilst action is necessary to life,
 and the living seed is yet alive, but not alive, it is important to the
 " Commentaries " where Dr. Carpenter is interested, that it should
 be shown from his work itself, that he makes life to consist in ac-
 tion,  and yet in the vital  properties; since, as just shown,  " the
 seed " may be " possessed of vital properties or vitality, so long as
 no  destructive changes take  place in its organization," and yet
 have no action.  Now we  shall  have adjusted this  luminous ex-
 planation,  by quoting a passage just preceding the last.  Thus:—
   " That there are cases in which a very feeble degree of vital action is sufficient to preserve the prop
 ertics of a structure, will be presently shown.  But when these altogether  cease, the organism
 must he secluded from all the external influences which could injuriously affect it, in order that its vi-
 tality may bo preserved." (Carp. Princip. p. 110.)
   Now compare all this with the "Commentaries," Vol. I. p.22—
 2S :—and,  let us  also ask how the vital properties can altogether
 cease and yet " the structure "  have its " vitality preserved," espe-
 cially seeing that it is affirmed in the quotation preceding the last
 that "life  is  synonymous  with vital action,"  and "vital prop-
 erties" with  " vitality," and more  especially as it is clearly  affirm-
 ed  in the first clause of the last quotation, that "vital action" is
 necessary " to preserve the properties of a structure ;" though this
 is contradicted  in the next clause.  The reader will also see an-
 other contradiction in the first  quotation,  where it is  said  that
 " the suspension of vital action may result from the  want of stim-
 uli  which are necessary to  excite the  dormant properties to exer-
 cise," — it being thus affirmed  that vital actions are  a consequence
 of the exercise of the vital  properties.  This  is the nature of the
 argument held with  Dr.  Carpenter in the " Commentaries,"  and
 which has been so falsified by the reviewer that the subject will
 be again  resumed.  In  the  meantime  the author may say  that it
 was partly the object of his reference to  Dr.  Carpenter, to show
 that he contradicted himself in the foregoing manner.   It  is  also
 worth observing, in reference to what will  be  said of bloodletting,
 that Dr. Carpenter, like the reviewer, in  these quotations, speaks
 of the action of stimuli upon the vital properties, and  that these
 properties are  "excited to  exercise."   Now, such contradictions
 must always abound  whenever a writer is  at war with nature.
   As this " examination " is designed for greater purposes than a
 mere reply, the author will  farther avail  himself of  the foregoing
 doctrine of Dr. Carpenter, that " vitality "  and the " vital proper-
 ties " may exist for more than a thousand years in a  " seed " with-
 out  any vital  action.   \ow, if " vitality " or " vital properties "
can  so exist in any one case, " the functions " or " vital action "
do not constitute life  in any case; but life, (according to the ar-
gument with Di. Carpenter in the " Commentaries,")  must, as here
                               4 
26
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C.
allowed, consist in the vital properties.  It is also true, as affirm-
ed by the reviewer, that, —
  " The doctrine which Dr. Carpenter has propounded respecting vital properties
is essentially the same as that upheld by Dr. Prichard, Dr. Fletcher, Mr. Roberton,
and other able writers on the same side."  (Rev. p. 389.)
  So that the  author  has a full  admission of his own  premises
against the assumption by the same writers, that  life consists in
vital actions upon which the vital  properties are said to depend.
If philosophy be worth anything it must obtain in the foregoing
case ; and the  conclusion  is important in settling the  existence,
the nature, and the  office of the vital principle, and its patholo-
gical and therapeutical bearings.
  The author  now approaches other  not less  extraordinary  mis-
representations of fundamental parts of his work, — and these are,
1st,  an effort of his reviewer to convey  the belief that the author
inculcates the absurd doctrines that the organic or any other force
can  exist independently of organic or inorganic matter; and 2d,
that, in employing vital properties in the same  sense as vital prin-
ciple, the author has as many vital principles as properties.   The
following  are some of the passages  to the foregoing effect.  First,
as to the  separate nature of force : —
  " We cannot ourselves," says the reviewer, " conceive  of a force as having an
existence distinct from the matter  which manifests it.  The Creator,  in giving
origin to that which we term matter, by that very act created the forces by which
different material bodies operate upon one another."  (Rev. p. 386.)
   And so Dr.  Carpenter: —
  " The Divine Creator of the Universe'has, by creating his materials, endued with certain fixed quali-
ties and powers, &c, and made all their subsequent combinations and relations inevitable consequen-
ces of this first impression."  (Carp. Princip. p. 134.)
   Now this very  doctrine is  elementary in the " Commentaries,"
and there is sometimes quite a coincidence between the language
of the reviewer and his  author.   Thus, in the very next para-
graph following that from which the reviewer has quoted the au-
thor's definition of life, is this statement, namely, —
   " It cannot,  therefore,  be said, in an abstract sense, that the forces
of life are the primary cause of organization, till it be shown that
organization is not the substratum in which the forces are origin-
ally inherent.  He,  who created  the powers of life, associated
them with that organization which they were destined  to unfold.
 The rudiments have been perpetuated in connection with the
 living forces since they came from the hands of the Creator, and
 are the present source of all animated beings."   Comm. vol. i,
 p. 18.
   Again, " Dr. Paine," says the reviewer, » maintains that they [the vital proper-
 ties] hover about with a kind of undefined existence, ready to enter organized tis-
 sues when ready for their reception," &c.  (Rev. p. 390.)
   ♦« Further Dr. Paine tells us in one breath, that the vital properties or forces are 
                EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C.              27

essentially distinct from organized matter itself, and that they c&ngo away and leave
this matter in a state of perfect integrity, whilst in the next he informs us that they
cannot exist without it  What becomes of them, then, when they leave the or-
ganized body to shift for itself?  If they have an existence so essentially distinct
as to be capable of leaving it, it stands to reason that they must be capable of ex-
isting without it, yet Dr. Paine says they cannot.  A writer who can  so con-
tradict HIMSELF  SCARCELY NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED BT TJS." (J)  (Rev. p. 387.)
   But, does not the contradiction consist in a most wilful misrep-
resentation  of the  author's doctrine ?  From what has been hith-
erto said, it is scarcely necessary to repeat that the author regards
the vital principle as being " distinct"  from the sensible matter of
organization in the same sense in which it is defined by Dr. Car-
penter, as being generally entertained by vitalists, and  as already
quoted, (p.  15—17); that is to say, it is sui generis, and of course
different or " distinct" from the matter which it animates. He does
not believe, nor has he remotely implied, that the vital principle or
the vital properties can exist independently of organic matter, nor
that they " hover about it;" and he believes with all other vitalists
that when  the  vital principle  " leaves the organized  matter," it
does not " go away," (nor  does he " tell us " so, or imply it,) but
becomes " extinct" and that the  " body,  in shifting for itself," be-
comes the subject of  chemical agencies.   Nor is this all ;  for it
is the principal object of the Essay on the  " Vital Powers"  to
make  out the several  foregoing propositions.   Nay more, these
very premises are directed  against Dr. Carpenter's theory of life;
and here, by the way, the author will  have  an extract from the
" Commentaries," relative  to  one of the foregoing  misrepresenta-
tions.   Thus: —
   " We find the following  statement in the last No. of the British
and Foreign Medical Review. — ' The dependence  of  the vital
properties on the structure, Dr. Carpenter enforces by a consider-
ation of the nature of death ;  showing,  that when integrity of the
organization is  maintained  by the continuance of its vital action,
(particularly nutrition,) the change of structure consequent on the
cessation of the  action necessarily involves the loss of vitality."
{Comm.  vol. i, p. 22.   See  parallel quotations farther on, and
Reply, p. 25.)
   Now here we have "vital properties" depending, 1st,  on vital
action,  2d, on the structure ;  but when the integrity of organiza-
  (1) There is much in the review that labours to convey the belief that the author has
propagated the monstrous absurdity that the vital and other properties of matter can  ex-
ist in a state independently of that matter.  The author will make, in this note, one
quotation more from the  Review.
  " Subtract from our notion of matter all those properties by which we character-
ize it, and what remains ?   Nothing.  On the other hand, we  may ask, if it is
possible for the properties to be  separated from the matter itself?   Can they
have a distinct existence V  And so on.  (Rev. p. 386.) 
28
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C.
 tion is " not maintained by vital  action, the cessation of vital ac-
 tion necessarily involves the loss of vitality," or of those "vital
 properties" which "depend on the structure."   "What,  then, be-
 come of those vital properties" when they are thus "lost" and
 "leave  the organized  body to shift for itself?"  Dr. Carpenter
 says, with Dr. Paine, that they cannot exist independently of the
 matter in which they are inherent, and yet he says that very mat-
 ter may lose them.  But, lest  the reviewer, who commended the
 doctrine, should again impeach his own  interpretation of Dr. Car-
 penter's views, they shall be  presented directly from the  work
 itself.  Thus: —
  "The term death, when applied to individual parts, may signify the loss of their peculiar vital
 properties, either from some change in their organization, or from the cessation of those actions by
 which their structure is maintained in its due perfection."  (Carp. Princip. p. 139.)
   Now Dr. Paine has not even implied so great an absurdity as
 that the  vital  properties may be  lost.   And thus Dr. Carpenter
 again: —
  "The term death, therefore, has more than one signification.  It may be used to dcnoto the separa
 tion of that Bond op Union which so peculiarly unites all the functions of the living system."
 (Carp. Princip. p. 139. This and the foregoing are the "significations.")
   What, then, is this " bond of union," but Dr. Paine's " vital prin
 ciple,"—and where does it "go" when it "separates" from the
 body?  If the reader, also, will connect the two extracts  together,
 which are parts of one paragraph, he will see  that Dr. Carpenter
 attributes " vital properties " to his " bond  of union " as  much as
the author does to his " vital principle."
   What must we  think of those who discourse in the foreo-oins:
manner, (and expressions of the same nature abound in Dr.  Car-
 penter's work, and  in  the  review of the  " Commentaries,") where
 they are simultaneously employed in affirming that these "vital
properties" are merely the results of vital action,  though  at the
 same time declaring, as will soon be, seen,  that they were created
 in the very elements of matter ?   Must  such contradictions, be
 cause exposed in the " Commentaries," (vol. i, pp. 22—28,) be met
 by the worst fabrications  for the purpose of imputing a  " contra-
 diction " to one who has probably in  no single instance merited the
 imputation ?  The author would have cheerfully submitted to any
 severe analysis of any part or of the  entire work, conducted upon
 the common principles of honour.
   Finally, the author repeatedly states his belief that when the
 body dies the vital principle becomes " extinct."  Thus :__
   ('This  part of our subject naturally leads us to speak, again,
 of the complete extinction of ^he forces of life, when the spir
 itual leaves the material part,;  and of the  impossibility of suppo
 sing the extinction of purely material forces." 
               EXAMINATION  OF A  REVIEW, &C.              29

   " They who appear incapable of comprehending the existence
 of such a force as that of vitality, or the vital powers, talk as fa-
 miliarly about death, as any others.  But death of what ?   Surely
 not of the physical or chemical forces ;  for these are now for the
 first time in operation, and in furious operation."  {Comm. vol. i,
 pp. 50, 98.  Also pp. 30, 31, &c.  See Reply, p. 19.)
   The "onusprobandi," as the reviewer says, "rests with our op-
 ponents, — and let them show that" the vital principle does not
 become  extinct; — at least must they show whither it goes when
 " lost" by the organic being.
   The next  perversion of the author's Essay on the "Vital Pow-
 ers" represents the author as  making as many "vital  principles,"
 (and  in  the  author's  acceptation  of" vital  principle,") as  he has
 " vital properties ;" or, as the reviewer says, distinct " entities."
   " As far as we can understand Dr. Paine," says the reviewer,  " all  the vital
 properties,  as we should term them, appertaining to organized matter, as, for
 instance, contractility and sensibility, are to be regarded as distinct existences, the
 combined operation of which produces the phenomena of life.  Thus we  have not
 one vital principle, but many."  (Rev. p. 387.)
   It is, of course, imposssible  that the reviewer should have un-
 derstood  any such thing, since he has quoted not only from page
 10, where the meaning of "vital principle" and "vital  properties"
 is defined, but from other places where that import  is carried out,
 as it is,  indeed, throughout the " Commentaries."   "  Vital prin-
 ciple " is expressly declared to stand for the only " active  princi-
 ple," and since irritability, contractility, vital affinity,  sensibility,
 and sympathy, must belong to the vital principle, the  author has
 distinctly specified  that he considers them only "elements (en-
 dowments or properties) of that vital principle."  This has  been
 already shown  by a quotation, (p. 18.)   But, it so  happens that
 the author was, more than once, very circumstantial  upon this
 subject.   Thus, again: —
   " That we may be fully understood  in this place, we will
 again state the creed which we wish to make out.  We believe that
 the vital principle, vital power, organic force, organic power, are
 one substance, — and  we use  these terms synonymously.  They
 refer, with us, to a universal cause of animal and vegetable life.
 We believe, also, that this principle has various attributes.   Thus,
 we have  irritability, mobility, or contractility, &c. and the modi-
fications  of each of these in the same or different tissues form our
 partial variations.   These properties  are also constantly  varied
 in disease, and these variations we  call changes in kind.   The
 partial modifications, in their natural state, we also call  variations
 in kind.  This is much in conformity with the views of Bichat,"
 &c.  {Comm. vol. i, p. 81.)

   Now the reviewer has quoted nearly the word^ of the author — 
30
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &,C.
 "collective term, referring to the universal cause of animal and
 vegetable life," (Rev. p. 387,) but conceals all the author's explan-
 ation as rendered  here  and as before  quoted, (p. 18,) and cites
 another passage from the "Commentaries" (vol.  i, p. 29) where
 the author says, — "The more, therefore, we investigate the sub-
ject, the more are we satisfied that life consists in the integrity of
 the vital properties associated with organized matter."   Putting
 these two together, (one from pages 10, and 81, the other from page
 29,) he proceeds to extort  the conclusion embraced in the forego-
 ing extract.   Again, the author says,
  " It seems to be admitted, on all hands, that the  principle of life,
 whatever it be,  is a simple substance, —that is to say, the presi-
 ding forces are not constituted  by distinct species of substan-
 ces.  A contrary supposition would be adverse to  the analogies of
 nature, and to the astonishing harmony amongst the actions »f
 organized matter."  {Comm. vol. i, p. 82.)
  "All  we know of the absolute nature of the organic force or
vital principle,  resolves it into several distinct properties or forces,
 some of which may exist independently of others.   Thus,  we have
 irritability, mobility, vital affinity, sensibility, sympathy.   We infer
 their distinctions from certain  well known phenomena.  They
appear to be  inherent in the several parts  of  the system, and
 not floating about like caloric or the electric fluid.  {Reply, p. 16.
 Miiller.)  They do not  even all belong to the  different tissues,
 since some of them are wholly peculiar to the nervous system."
 {Comm. vol. i, p. 80.)
  Let us now ask if there be any difference between this mode of
 considering the vital principle and its several  endowments or
 " properties " and that which is universally  observed in relation to
 the mind?  Do not  the  best metaphysicians speak of distinct
 "properties" of the mind or soul?  Nay more,  do not  eminent
 phrenologists go so  far as to distribute its " properties" among
 thirty-six supposed organs of the brain?  {Commentaries, p. 81.)
 But, whoever imagined that either the metaphysician or the phre-
 nologist, in thus yielding to the phenomena of the soul, ever meant
 to imply the  existence of as many distinct souls, minds, or "enti-
 ties," as  they assume properties  or endowments ?   The author,
 therefore, puts  it to any candid reader  whether he  has  not em-
 ployed the terms "vital principle" and "vital properties"  in ex-
 actly the foregoing relation of the mind to its imputed properties.
 There is nothing, however, as already shown,  peculiar  to the
 author in this use of the terms or the ideas  which they convey.
   The reader will farther  see in the following paragraph from the
 "Commentaries," why the author was so circumstantial  in defin-
 ing the sense in which he  intended to employ the several  terms
 already explained.  Thus, the Commentaries:— 
examination of  a review, &c.               31
   "Mr. Hunter has also given offence by  speaking of the powers
of life in  the aggregate,  and calling them collectively, as we do,
the vital principle;  when it is obvious from the manner in which
he  treats  of irritability, the principle of  motion, sympathy, etc.
and the modifications of inflammation, that his conceptions of the
properties of the organic force were the  same as understood by
his  eminent objectors."   {Comm. vol. i. p. 94.)   Was this a hint
to the  reviewer? (])
   Finally, the author will now have a full justification from Dr.
Carpenter himself.  Thus:—
  " It must be admitted that the conditions of vital phenomena are not  yet determined with suffi
cient precision, to enable us to refer all observed facts, through the medium of general laws,
to simple  vital properties ; and there might bono peculiar objection to the use of the term vital
principle as a convenient expression for the sum of the unknown powers which are developed
by the action of these [vital] properties. But care must be taken not to rest satisfied in its use."
(Carp. Princip. p 131.)  So, also, Rep]y, p. 28.
   " Unknown powers of the vital principle developed by the ac-
tion of the vital properties"!  [Compare this,  also, with what is
said of the creation  of "powers" and  "forces"  by  the Creator ;
Reply, p. 9—11.]  And  here, too,  we have a "vital principle"
admitted as  perfectly distinct from  "the  vital properties"  to ex-
plain " certain conditions of vital phenomena which cannot be re-
ferred  to the  simple vital properties."  And yet,  on the  same
page it is said that — "the doctrine  of a vital  principle is not only
quite unnecessary to explain facts, but is totally unsupported by
the  analogies of nature, and by what  we know  of the  Divine
Government in  general"!  {Carp. Princip. p. 131.)
              "The veriest hermit in the nation
               May yield, God knows, to strong temptation."—Pope.
   Let  us, also,   have  before us the  full extent of this quibbling
about  the  vital principle and  vital properties,  and  substantiate
the  inductions of the " Commentaries,"  by other quotations, that
our opponents mean the same thing  by "bond of union" and "vi-
tal properties " as is maintained by the vitalists, and that they at-
tribute to them all the reality of existence, and all the functions and
changes that are claimed by the " Commentaries."  This, indeed,
has been sufficiently done already; but, since  Dr. Carpenter is
supposed by his reviewer to have effected  the " extinction " of the

  (1) There appears to be  a determination to revive this old expedient  Thus, in an
article upon Liebig's " Organic Chemistry  applied to Agriculture," etc., contained in
the present No. of the British Review, there occurs the  following remark :
  " Many  escapo from their difficulties by adopting, with Dr. Frout, the old hypothesis of the existence
of independent vital principles or agents superior to and capable of controlling and directing the
agents operating in inorganic matters, on the presence and influence of which the phenomena of organ-
ization and life are supposed to depend.  The chemical forces, acting in the system, are subject to this
invisible cause."  (P. 445.)
  Now, by no fair construction can it be said that Dr. Prout holds in any event, to
more than one vital principle, and Liebig  is very distinct in inferring but one.  (See
Reply p.  16.)  But, where is the difference between the  distinct" vital properties," con-
trolling the "chemical forces" of these  objectors, and the imputed "vital principles"? 
32
examination  of a review, &,c.
 vitalists, (Comm. vol. i, pp. 11, note, 713,) let us  have, in con-
 nection with the foregoing quotation,  the following extracts, and
 when we come  to the reviewer's remarks on bloodletting, our
 chain of evidence will be complete.  Thus, Dr. Carpenter:—
  "The term death, therefore, has moro than one signification.  It maybe used to denote the skpara
 tion of that Bond of Union [vital principle] which so peculiarly unites all the functions of tho living
 system, rendering each so dependent on the other, that the cessation ofono involves that of all trie
 rest." (Carp. Princip. p. 139.)
   Now connect the following,  from the preceding page, and which
 is immediately continuous with  the extract relative to the "ability
 of every uncombined particle of matter to exhibit vital  actions,"
 etc.  (Reply, forward, p. 38.)
  "Experience and observation lead to conclusions not dissimilar.  Organization and vital prop-
 erties are simultaneously communicated to the germ by the structures of its parent; those vital
 properties confer upon  it the means of itself assimilating, and thereby organizing and kndow-
 ino with vitality, the materials supplied by the inorganic world." (Carp. Princip. p. 138.)
   This is exactly the doctrine of Miiller  as to  "the vital princi-
 ple" or "organic agent,"  and who, as we have seen, (Reply, p.
 15—16.) goes beyond the author and Mr. Hunter in  the high at-
 tributes which he ascribes to that principle, though he soon  after-
 wards abandons it for the chemical and physical forces, as set forth
 in the  author's Essay on the Vital Powers.   But let  us have the
 parallel  from Miiller :—
   "The Creative force" he  says, "exists already in the germ,
 and  creates in it the  essential parts of  the  future  animal.
 The germ is potentially  the  whole  animal.  During  the  de-
 velopment of the germ, the essential parts which constitute
 the actual  whole are produced."   " The entire  vital prin-
 ciple  of the egg resides  in the germinal disk alone, and since
 the  external  influences which  act on  the  germs  of the  most
 different organic  beings are  the  same, we must regard the simple
germinal disk, consisting  of granular amorphous matter,  as the
potential whole of the  future animal,  endowed with the essen-
 tial and  specific force  or  principle of the future  being,
 and capable  of  increasing  the  very small amount  of this
 specific force and matter which it already possesses,  by  the
 assimilation of new matter."  And again, "thisforce exists
 before  the  harmonizing parts which are,  in fact,  formed by it
 during the development of the embryo." (') (Miiller.)
   Now all the foregoing is either, according to Dr. Carpenter, the
 work of the " bond of union " and " vital properties," or, according
 to Miiller, of the  "vital principle," and one is as much a real ex-
 istence, an absolute agent, a positive  "entity," according to the
 interpretation, as  the other,—only,  Miiller is always  consistent in
 having but one agent with  certain attributes  called "vital proper-
 ties," whilst Dr.  Carpenter has  a multitude of distinct  ones, be-
 sides a general agent.
             (1) Muller'6 Elements of Physiology, p. 23, — Ib'oS. 
               examination of  a review, &c.            33

  The  author now comes to another induction more important
than the rest, and which settles, by the showing of these writers,
all that  is claimed  by the vitalists, and in its  fullest latitude.
The " vital  properties," says one, and the  " vital principle," says
the other, are the real agents, causes, or entities, by which "the
germ is assimilated,  and by which materials supplied by  the inor-
ganic world are organized and endowed with vitality  ;" or, ac-
cording to the other, which " creates in it the essential parts, the
harmonizing parts, of the future animal, and increases the very
small amount of the  specific force and matter, by the assimilation
of new matter."
   The  rudiments or  " essential parts" of the animal, therefore,
being thus effected by the " vital properties " or by " the vital prin-
ciple," and  being exactly the same as all  "future" additions, it
follows irresistibly from the  admitted premises that the "future"
growth of the animal, in all its details,  depends upon  the same
agents, and that cite mis try and physics have no part or lot in the
matter.   Here is left no loop-hole  for the chemical doctrine.   We
have our premises  from the high  places which  the  author  had
chosen,  as  the  most acknowledged, to  interrogate the  proof by
which nature or art might stand or fall.  And what has  just been
seen of these leading philosophers is the admitted doctrine in every
school of physiology  that is entitled to respectful consideration.
The demonstration is therefore complete ; for, to  call in the agen-
cy of chemical or physical laws, to accomplish  precisely  the same
results at any " future " stage of the organic being as are admitted
to be performed in the development of the " essential parts " of that
being by the  "vital principle" or  the "vital  properties" alone,
would be such a violation of the plainest rule in  philosophy,  that
it can scarcely be supposed  that it will not be admitted that the
foregoing question is now settled.   The author, therefore, connects
this  part of his demonstration, especially, with his Essay  on  the
"Vital  Powers."
   Finally, the three last  preceding extracts from Dr. Carpenter
show a  conflict of fundamental doctrines,  not only in respect to
the assumed dependence  of  " organization " upon chemical laws.
and  the " assertion " that life consists in that organization  and vital
actions, but they prove to us how  natural it is for artificial  sys-
tems to  be contradicted by their own authors whenever they begin
to reason from the phenomena of nature.   The  doctrine on which
Dr. Carpenter most insists, is well  described by Miiller in the  first
of the following sentences;  whilst  in the others, the foregoing
conclusions, which Dr. Carpenter has derived from nature,  are set
                              5 
31
EXAMINATION of  A REVIEW,  &.C.
 forth in a manner which would, otherwise, lead us to imagine that
 they had been derived from Miiller himself.   Thus : —
   "Some have  believed," says  Miiller,  "that life, — the active
 phenomena of organized bodies, — is only the result of the har-
 mony of the different parts,—of the mutual  action, as it were, of
 the wheels of the machine, — and that death is the consequence
 of a disturbance of this harmony."  « But, the harmonious action of
 the essential parts of the individual subsists only by the influence
 of a force, the operation of which is extended to all  parts  of the
 body, and which does not depend on any single parts.   This/one
 exists before the harmonizing parts, which  are, in fact, formed
 by it  during  the  development of  the  embryo."  " The  vital
 force inherent  in  organic beings itself generates from or-
 ganic matter the essential organs which constitute the  whole
 being.   This  rational creative force, (Reply, p. 16,) is ex-
 erted in every animal strictly in accordance with what the  nature
 of each  requires."   (Reply,  p. 33.   ]\Fuller, ut cit. p.  23.  See
 Carpenter, ut cit. p. 138 — 139.J
   The author will now take up that part of the review which more
 specifically concerns Dr. Carpenter's work ; and which, therefore,
 from courtesy, perhaps he should have done first, especially since,
 from the large space allotted, it is difficult to  say whether the re-
 view is intended  as a  fictitious defence of Dr.  Carpenter, or as a
 misrepresentation of Dr. Paine's " Commentaries."
  "He quite prevents Dr. Carpenter from complaining, however, of this  kind of
 treatment," says the reviewer, " by the following preliminary apology.  ' We no-
 tice Dr. Carpenter's opinions without the advantage of reading his work, on ac-
 count of his high reputation and the encomiums of his able reviewer.' We rather
 suspect, however, that Dr. Carpenter would have been very willing to forfeit the
compliment, for the sake of having his views either fairly represented, or passed al-
together without notice."  (Rev. p. .'HI)
   The reviewer also pretends that he too has been " misapprehen-
ded," and " misrepresented."  But, did not the reviewer, who pro-
fesses to be the same as in  the present instance, give us a just in-
terpretration of Dr. Carpenter's " views "1   The author has quoted
fully and verbally,  not only the language of the Review,  but of
 Dr. Carpenter, as stated by his reviewer.  He has also carefully
 revised the whole, and compared it with Dr. Carpenter's work and
 the review, and is  now prepared to  say that there is not only no
 " misrepresentation,"  but  not the  slightest  " misapprehension."
 The reader will find the author's extracts  and  comments in  Vol. I.
 pp. 11, 22—29, 713—714; Vol. II. pp. 117, 119—120, 577. Why
 the reviewer has thought it expedient to institute this charge, the
 reader will easily satisfy himself by turning to those pages.  The 
examination of a  review, &c.              35
discussion, howeveT, is embraced in Vol. I, p. 22—28, — the other
references consisting mainly of extracts. (')
   But  let us  examine the alleged  "misrepresentations" and "mis-
apprehensions," which the reviewer applies  as well to himself as
to Dr.  Carpenter,  and therefore  makes  a joint  concern of the  de-
fence.
   " We shall," he says, «in our present observations, identify our own with them,
[Dr. Carpenter's positions,] more especially as Dr. Paine's criticisms are directed
to both alike;" — "he has so strangely misunderstood and misrepresented our own
views."  (Rev. p. 387.)
   The first charge relates to  Dr. Carpenter, and is as follows:—
   " Dr. Paine accuses Dr. Carpenter of a want of  consistency, in applying physical
and chemical laws to the explanation of some of the phenomena exhibited by living
beings,  whilst he attributes others  to the vital properties  of their organisms."
(Rev. p. 387.)
   Now, the only  paragraph susceptible of the foregoing construc-
tion is the first of page  29, Vol.  I, which is of a general nature,
though connected with the  antecedent  discussion.  It is  only the
last sentence, however, of that paragraph, which  refers specifically
to Dr. Carpenter, and in  that the imputed charge of inconsistency
is  not involved. (2)   But the alleged accusation the author now
makes, and  will abundantly sustain it by quotations from  Dr. Car-
penter's work in this " examination."
   The author's whole argument with Dr. Carpenter, (Comm. vol.
i,  p.  22—28,) is intended to sl\ow the fallaciousness of his  hy-
pothesis that life consists in " vital action," and that it must follow
from Dr. Carpenter's premises that life  is constituted by the "vital
properties " of which the actions are only a result in connection
with organized matter;  and that, by his own showing,  " he  has
as much a controlling or presiding agent  as  Mr.  Hunter."   Per-
haps the author has already shown all  that is necessary upon this
question; but, as it is the only one  upon which he has  imputed
contradiction to  Dr. Carpenter, and  as it is important to the doc-
trine of life, as defended in the " Commentaries,"  we will  hear Dr.
Carpenter again, though  at the expense of some  repetition : —
  " If the application of the term life to some imaginary agent which is the immediate cause of vital
phenomena, be found useless or injurious, it may reasonably be inquired what is to be understood by
it.  If we regard as a living being, an organized structure  which we observe growing, and moving.
and resisting decay, it is evidently no improper use of the term to designate  by it the sum of all the
actions performed by such a being, from its first production to its final dissolution." (See Reply, p. 31,
a contrast.)
   "The term death, therefore, has more than one signification. It may be used to denote the separa-
tion of that bond of union [see p. 28] which so peculiarly  unites all the functions of the living sys-
tem ; rendering each so dependent on the other, that the cessation of one involves that of all the rest.

  (1)  In the review of Dr. Carpenter's work (Jan.  1839, p.  168,) he is called," Mr. Carpenter" but
in tho present, tho title of Dr. is prefixed.  This is stated to explain  the reason why he is called Mr.
Carpentrr in tho " Commentaries."
  (2) The note at page 117, Vol. II, is a quotation from the reviewer, and the language there quoted
corresponds with an extract which will be soon given from Dr. Carpenter.  (Reply, forward p. 40.) 
3(5
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW,  &.C.
 Or, when applied to individual parts, it may signify the loss of their peculiar vital properties, oither
 from some change in their organization, or from tho cessation of those actions by which tln-ir structure
 is maintained in its due perfection ; and their consequent subjection to the Ibwb of mutter in genernl.
 [See Author's definition of Life, pp. 19, 20.]  The first change may be termed systemic, or more prop-
 erly somatic death, the second molecular death." U'arp. Princip. pp. 133, 139.)
   See, also, Reply, pp. 21, 25, 28, where life is also  said to con-
 sist in actions or functions.   But, let us now have an explicit contra-
 diction of all the foregoing statements that life is " synonymous with
 vital actions," and  that it consists  in  those actions.  Thus: —
 "Observation of these actions leads us to arrange them, as has been already stated, into certain
 groups termed functions; and analysis of the functional  changes exhibited by living beings, termi-
 nates in referring them all to certain properties possessed by their component structures; which
 properties stand in the same relation to organized tissues, as do those of gravitation, electricity,
 &c. to matter in general.  They are cvLLED  into A< tion by stimuli of various kinds, adapted to
 excite each of them to its own peculiar operations."  CCaRP. Princip. p. 134.) '
   This is all  that  the most "exclusive vitalist"  ever  contended
 for, — whether in  a physiological, pathological,  or therapeutical
 sense.  And now let the reader compare the foregoing and former
 extracts, pp. 24, 25, 28, with the extract which forms the important
 part of Dr.  Paine's  premises, Vol. I, p. 22, as  derived from the re-
 view of Dr. Carpenter's  work,  and  he will find an exact corres-
 pondence :  whilst the author's object was to deduce from them the
 conclusion  that  life does not  consist in the functions, but that by
 Dr.  Carpenter's  own showing, the functions  depend  upon the
 "vital properties;" and, as Dr. Paine says, that, — "These 'vital
 properties,'  therefore, which have been so much condemned when
spoken of under the  name of ' vital  principle,' or ' organic force,'
are exactly  our vital properties, as they were, also,  those of Hunter
and  Bichat." — This  is all the contradiction or "want of consis-
tency" which the  author  imputed to  Dr. Carpenter,  and  it will
 have been seen, in  the course of this reply, how much farther the
 author is sustained.
   The next " accusation " imputed to the  author  is  equally with-
 out a  shadow of foundation.  Thus : —
  " Neither Dr. Carpenter nor ourselves  ever advocated the doctrine that, organ-
 ization could be the result of any chemical or  physical laws.  On the contrary,
 Dr. Carpenter most distinctly repudiates any such idea, and shows that these laws
 can only operate in the preparation of the oeganizable materials,  which, until
 organized, do  not exhibit vital properties."  (Review, p. 388.)
   As the author  has affirmed, the foregoing is an absolute misrep-
 resentation of what is said in the  "Commentaries"  in relation to
 Dr.  Carpenter and his reviewer.   It is a mere pretence.   Just the
 contrary, indeed, was the  object of the author, who endeavoured
 to show that  the premises of both lead directly to an opposite con-
 clusion ; and, these premises were  quoted by  the  author for the
 purpose of substantiating, by their authority, his own doctrine of
 vitality. (x)
  (1)  The phrase "organized chemistry," vol. i, p. 27, line 23, is clearly a. typographical error for
 organic chemistry.  The first is absolute nonsense. 
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C              37
   But, we will now  have from the  reviewer of the " Commenta-
ries " a brief quotation, in which is set forth, very summarily, the
radical tenets of the physical school; from which, also, the reader
will be able to comprehend how far the reviewer and his associates
do " advocate the doctrine that organization is the result of chem-
ical or physical laws."  Thus : —
   " The doctrine which Dr. Carpenter has propounded respecting vital properties,
and which is essentially the same as that upheld by Dr. Pritchard, Dr. Fletcher,
Mr. Roberton,  and  other  able writers on the  same  side, may be concisely stated
as follows : — Certain forms of matter, (especially oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and
nitrogen,) are endowed with properties which do not  manifest themselves either
in these elements when uncombined, or in those combinations of them which the
chemist effects by ordinary means.  But they do manifest themselves when  they
are united into those peculiar compounds which are known as organic, and when
these  compounds have been submitted to the process which is termed organiza-
tion.  It is possible that the first of these conditions may be imitated by the chem-
ist, but the  last can  only be effected by a previously existing  organism.  We
assert, then, that the very act of organization causes the materials acted on to
exhibit properties quite distinct from those ordinarily termed physical and chem-
ical, which properties cannot be caused to manifest themselves in any other way
than by the series of operations j ust described.  We cannot see in what points this
doctrine is open to objection.  No one can say that the properties do not  exist
in a dormant state because they do not manifest themselves to him." » We argue
that they [the  vital properties] were as much present in the Elements  as any
of their other properties,  which only exhibit themselves  in  certain conditions."
" 1 low do we know that magnetic properties may be made to t-how themselves  in
inni, until we have placed the metal in the  necessary relations with a magnet?
How, then,  can we expect to find contractility or sensibility in any combination of
oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen, until it has been converted into an organ-
ized tissue  [blood !] by a previously existing organism ?  [A very philosophical
induction.]   And have we any more right to say that'vital properties,' or ' vital
forces,' or a  * vital principle,' have been superadded in the last case, than to assert
that 'magnetic properties,'' or 'magnetic forces,' or a  'magnetic  principle,'  have
been superadded in the former one 7  A mode  of expression 'which, if it is to mean
anything like that which the words import, no enlightened physical philosopher
would think  himself justified in employing."  (Review, pp. iH), 390.)

   Now, in the first place, the author has proved the falsity of what is
here  again imputed to him as to the physical properties of matter ;
but he has an argument to show that the vital principle was " su-
pcradded"' to man and animals by the Creator, after  He had com-
pleted their structure, since which, that principle has been perpetu-
ated in connection with all organic beings.   (Comm. vol. i, p.  86 —
10f>.)   This was done by the author to show the  distinct nature
of the vital principle, and to  contradistinguish it from  all "phys-
ical forces,"  which,  the author maintains,  with  greater consis-
tency than the reviewer and Dr. Carpenter, were "created by the
Almighty" cotemporaneously with the matter itself.   ({See Reply,
p. 9_ll.)   As  to the phrases "magnetic  properties," and "mag- 
38
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &.C.
 netic forces," which, by marks of  quotation,  are imputed to the
 " Commentaries," they do not occur in the work ;  nor is there
 anything to lead to the conclusion that the author has any parallel
 between the import of a magnetic force (of which he supposes but
 one) and the "forces" or "properties of a vital  principle."  It is
 all deception  and misrepresentation.  (See  Comm.  vol.  i, p. 45,
 where magnetism and vital powers are spoken of in connection.)
   Here, as in  nearly all the other criticisms and illustrations, the
 reviewer has apparently acted the verbal plagiarist upon Dr. Car-
 penter's work.   Thus: —
  " It cannot,then, be logically correct," says Dr. Carpenter, " to Bpeak of vital properties as superad-
 ded to organized matter, although an apparent analogy has been drawn from physical science in support
' of the assumption." "If an analogy exist between the two processes (which can scarcely be denied), it
 leads us to the belief, that just as the magnetic POWERS [!] are developed in iron, when the metallic
 mass is placed in a condition to manifest them, so the very act of organization develops vital powers
 in the tissues which it constructs. For no one can ASSERT that there does not exist in every un-
 combined particle  of matter, which is capable of being assimilated, the ability to exhibit vi-
 tal actions, when placed in the requisite conditions." (1)  (Carp. Princip. p. 137.)
   Now, 1st. Is it to be  allowed that they who deride the doctrine
 of vitalism "in one breath,"  because the vital principle, like the
 soul can be only proved by its almost infinite phenomena, shall,
 in the next, assume that  vital properties exist  in the very " ele-
 ments" of  matter, where, by their own admission, there is not a
 single phenomenon to sustain the assumption? Besides, what dif-
 ference is  there implied between these assumed vital properties
 as existing in the very " elements  of matter," and the vital prin-
 ciple, except that the former " exist  in a dormant  state  in the
 elements of matter,"  and when they become " developed " are ready
 to take upon themselves some unexplained  office?
   2d.  What is the difference, as it respects " organization" between
 that result and  "organic compounds"? Are  they not  one  and
 the same in a vital sense? The chemist cannot "effect" the latter
 "by  ordinary  means," (p. 37) nor by any means whatever; and, the
 "possibility"  which is implied by the reviewer  is a mere subter-
 fuge, and Dr.  Carpenter shall soon admit it.   The doctrine laid
 down  by Miiller upon this subject  will not be opposed.by the
 chemical physiologists, — especially as  it has not been  invalida-
■ ted.   The one or two supposed instances are purely hypothetical,
 and so allowed by Miiller, whose fundamental position is,  that,—
    "In mineral substances the eletnents are always combined in
 a binary manner.  They are never observed to combine three or
 four together, so  as to form  a compound in which each element

   (1) If the inquisitive reader will compare this review  with Dr. Carpenter's article
 on the "Nature and Causes of Vital Actions," (b. l,c. 1,) he  will find, throughout,  a
 perfect parallel of statements," assertions," argument, illustration, and even of style
 and words.      , 
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C.             39
is equally united with all the others.  This, however, is univer-
sally the case in organic bodies.  Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon.
and  nitrogen, the  same elements which by binary combination
formed inorganic  substances, unite together, each with all the
others, and form the  peculiar proximate  principles of organic
beings.   These  compounds  are termed  ternary, or quaternary,
according to the number of elements composing them." " Although
they may be by analysis reduced to  their ultimate elements, they
cannot be regenerated  by any chemical process."   " Another essen-
tial  distinction pointed out by Berzelius is, that in organic pro-
ducts the combining proportions of their elements do not  observe a
simple arithmetical ratio."   (Midler's Physiol, pp. 3, 4, — 1S38.)
This is also the doctrine of the best professional chemists; though,
like  that at p. 33, it is fatal to all chemical  views of  life.
  There is no distinction, therefore,  in the  vital nature of " organ-
ization" and  "organic compounds."  But, the reviewer and  his
school,  according  to  the reviewer,  maintain that " organic com-
pounds " are the result of chemical  laws.   Therefore, they do
maintain that " organization is the result of chemical or physical
laws."  Nevertheless, according to  the reviewer, it is only after
"organic compounds" are converted  into what he assumes to be
"organization,"  that  the vital properties, which are said  to  be
"dormant in  the elements of matter," awaken into existence.
  3d. Let us, however, have another  mode of reaching  the fore-
going conclusion, that the gentlemen must maintain that "orga-
nization is the result of chemical or physical laws."  The  reviewer,
in different parts of his article, refers to the nervous power, sensi-
bility,  sympathy, irritability, and contractility.  Whether he,  or
the other " able writers on the same side," have any other vital
properties they have never said.  As  the  matter now stands, we
have the contractility of hydrogen gas, —the sensibility of carbon,
__the sympathy of quicksilver, — the irritability of potassium,—
the nervous power  of phosphorus, and so on ; — but especially do
all  the foregoing vital properties repose  in "oxygen, hydrogen,.
carbon, and nitrogen."  In all this, as has been shown, Dr. Car-
penter agrees.   It is  the opinion of the present  writer,  however,
that neither the  reviewer nor Dr. Carpenter will go so  far as to
awaken these " dormant vital properties," and assume that the ele-
ments unite into "organic compounds" in virtue of their "dormant"
presence.  But "organic compounds" are equivalent to  "organi-
zation," from which it follows that organization can  only result
from the " chemical or physical laws."
  Notwithstanding, however, the emphatic manner in  which it
is insisted that the vital properties exist in the elements  of matter,
this doctrine  is wholly lost sight of  at other times, when both the 
40
EXAMINATION  OF  A  REVIEW, &C.
  reviewer and Dr. Carpenter agree with the vitalists that those pro-

  perties are " communicated" by the living organism, and by that

  alone, — as appears abundantly from our extracts,   .farther, also,

  they are said  to depend upon vital action,  and to be " lost" when

  that  action ceases.   (Reply, p.  28, <kc.)
    4th.  Now  let us  have  a series of quotations from Dr. Carpenter

  illustrative of his views of life, and of the question now before us.

  They all occur in three consecutive paragraphs, thus:

   " It will be hereafter shown that the absorption of nutritious fluid is  probably due  to  the physical
  power of endosmose: and the interchange of gaseous ingrodients between the air and the blood in the
  act of respiration, to the transmitting power which all membranes possess. But, tho  continuance of
  these, and of many more which might be named, is peculiarly dependent on the continuance of
  other vitil actions [none having been mentioned !], and can only be effected in  dead matter by
  processes which imitate these "! " A continued absorption may be produced hy a physical contrivance
  which imitates the effects of vital action; as in the wick or a lamp, which draws  up oil to supply
  the combustion above, but will cease to do so when the demand no longer exists.  In  the same man-
  ner, the constant aeration of the blood is dependent upon the continuance of the passage of the fluid
  over the respiratory membrane ".'.'
   "There is another set of changes in which vital actions would seem yet more intimately concerned,
  but which still appear to be immediately dependent upon the same laws as those which regulate
  inorganic matter. [!] These consist in the production, from the alimentary materials, of organic com-
  pounds, either such as gum, sugar,  albumen, gelatine, &e. which  are destined to be still further
  organized. This process must not be confounded with that of organiz vtion, since it only prepares
  the materials upon which that is concerned." (Carp. Princip. p.  H5.  See Comm. vol. i, p. ii?.J

    Now, to understand any part  of these conflicting statements, each

  clause must be taken as an independent whole.  Let us, therefore,

  take  the  words, " immediately dependent  upon the same laws as

  those which regulate inorganic matter."   This gives us what  is

  affirmed by  the reviewer, (and  what will soon be more  direct) that

  Dr, Carpenter, like himself, supposes that  "organic compounds"

  depend  upon "chemical lairs."   And  yet,  in the next following

  paragraph the whole of this is exploded in the following manner :—

   "We  cannot yet succeed in producing artificially any organic compound, even of the simplest
  kind, by directly combining its elements, [mark this] because we cannot brink them together in
  their requisite states and proportions; but, there is no reasonable ground for doubt that ik the
  elements could be S'> brought  together by the hand of man, the result would be the same as the
  natural compound, [!] for the agkncy of vitality, as Dr. Prout justly remarks, does not change the
  properties of the elements, but simply combines them in modes which we cannot imitate" !!
  (Carp. Princip. p. 146, See Reply pp. 17, 35, note 2, 38, and Comm. vol. ii, p. 117, note.)

    "Vitality," then,  "combines the  elements"!    Put  this  with

,  Reply, pp. 33, 39.

    5th.  But we  have, in the review of the " Commentaries," what

  is equivalent  to a distinct affirmation that organization  is the re-

  sult of chemical agencies, thus :

    1. "We shall rest upon the fact, now fully established [!] that, by influences act-
  ing on chemical principles, one organic product  ' not an organized tissue " may be
  converted into another, as distinctly indicating that the elements of all these products
  are held together by no other than chemical affinities."  (Review, p. 389.)

    Now observe the contradiction in the next sentence.

    l>. " Certain forms of niatter, (especially oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen,)
  are endowed with [vital]  properties, which do not manifest themselves either in
  these elements when uncombined, or  in those combinations of them which the che-
  mist effects by ordinary means."  (Review, p. $>[).) 
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C
41
   Now the whole inorganic kingdom and the  chemist are  con-
cerned about the same laws in effecting the  combinations of ele-
ments.  By what laws, then, are those combinations formed which
the chemist and inorganic kingdom cannot effect ?  Certainly not
the chemical,  and  therefore the reviewer  contradicts himself in
saying that "the elements of all these (organic) products are held
together by no other than  chemical affinities," since they must be
" held  together,"  (at least  under ordinary circumstances,)  by the
affinities through which they were united.
   Where then, was the use of swelling the  " great book" by intro-
ducing Dr.  Fletcher's, and Dr. Prichard's, views  of vitalism, of
whose partial exclusion the reviewer complains; especially since the
" doctrine propounded by Dr. Carpenter respecting the vital proper-
ties is  essentially the same " as theirs, and " the other able writers
on the same side,"  — whilst Dr. Carpenter gave us, also, the latest
revision of the "doctrine?"
   Observe, also, the subterfuge in the first of the foregoing extracts,
by which the reviewer would have us understand that he means
that  " organization," or a manifestation of vital properties, consists
in "an organized  tissue."   But, let us  settle  this construction
against him by his own words.   Thus :  —
   "In regard to the main question, we may briefly state our opinion; — that the
vital properties of the blood, — for with such we have formerly shown it to be en-
do wed,—are, like its physical properties, capable of alteration." (Review, p. 393.)
  "It. is almost impossible to consider  it, without admitting that the liquor sanguinis is as com-
 pletely POSSESSED OF VITALITY AS ANY SOLID TISSCE OF THE BODY." (CARP. Princip. p. 287.)
   Let us now show farther that Dr. Carpenter  agrees fully with
 the reviewer in the conflicting doctrines announced in  the forego-
 ing consecutive sentences marked 1 and 2, — the coincidence reach-
 ing even to the words.  Thus : —
  1. " Reasons have been already given for the belief, that the affinities which hold together the
 elements of organized tissues, are the same as those which  prevail in the inorganic world." " Every
 fresh discovery tends to show that the powers immediately concerned, are, like the elements on
 which  they act, the same in all cases." (Carp. Princip. p. 146 )
   That there  should be no doubt about this chemical tenet, Dr.
 Carpenter has it twice over within six pages ; and  we shall repeat
 it on account of another explicit declaration to the same effect which
 accompanies it.  Thus : —
  " Reason has been already given for the belief that the affinities which hold together the ele-
 mentary particles of organized structures, are not different from those concerned in the inorganic
 world  ; and it has been shown that the tendency to decomposition after death bears a vert close
 relation with the activity of the changes which take place in the part during life." !! !  (Carp.
 Princip. p. 140.)
  i>. " For no one can assert that there does not exist in every uncombined particle of matter
 which is capable of being assimilated, the ability To exhibit vital actions, when placed in the requi-
 site conditions." [Compare this with the requisition of the reviewer, pp. 21, 37.] Again, " There is an-
 other set of changes in which vital actions would 6eem yet more intimately concerned, but which still
 appear to be immediately dependent upon the  same laws as  those which regulate inorganic
matter [!1 Theso consist in the production, from alimentary materials, of organic compounds, either
mch as gum, sugar, albumen, gelatine, etc., which are destined to be still further organized, or such
as urea, etc. This process must not be confounded with that of organization, since it only prepares
the materials upon which that is concerned." (Carp. Princip.  pp. 138,145.)
                                   6 
42
EXAMINATION OP  A REVIEW, &C.
   The author has also other objects in bringing the two foregoing
statements into juxtaposition; and first, to indicate the contradic-
tion between what  is said of " organized tissues" in No. 1, and of
"organization"  in No. 2.— Secondly, to show that Dr.  Carpenter
does affirm in the most direct manner that even '•' organized tissues"
are " the  result of chemical or physical  laws."  (Reply, p. 36.)
This appears from No. 1. since, if "the affinities of the inorganic
world (chemical affinities) hold together the elements of organized
tissues," those elements  must, of course, have been  united  " to-
gether " by the same " affinities."  But, what follows in No. 1, from
Dr. Carpenter,  about "decomposition," <fcc,  is  fully conclusive.
Nevertheless, we will show, once  more, how  the spirit of self-con-
tradiction prevails, and how completely  the   gentlemen   acknow-
ledge the existence  of "organization" of the alimentary matter
as soon as it enters  the lacteals.   First, the reviewer, and next,
Dr. Carpenter:—
 " The organization and consequent vitalization of this substance  (albumen)
commences as soon as, being taken into the vessels, it  is admitted into the living
system, to  which,  so long as it remains in the stomach, it is really external."
(Review, p. 397.)
  "With the process of absorption, strictly so called, the organization of the  constituents of the
alimentary fluid, and their endowment with vital  properties [yet  existing in the very elements of
matter, Reply, pp. 37, 38, 39,] may be regarded as commencing in animals as well as in plants." (Carp.
Princip. p. 206.) — a. E. D.
   And yet, are  we gravely told by  these writers,  that  " organi-
zation " means  " organized tissues," and that  it " must not be con-
founded with organic compounds."
   In  immediate connection  with  the foregoing subject we have
from the reviewer the following very apposite remark:—
   " Now we hold  that upon the Newtonian axiom so universally  admitted, which
forbids the construction of unnecessary hypotheses, it is the part of the philosopher
to refuse his assent to any new doctrine of vital affinities, or of the subversion
of chemical affinities by vitality or any other equally  vague speculation." (Re-
 view, p. 388.)
   And so, Dr. Carpenter:—
  " It is a rule in all philosophical speculations not to frame any hypotheses which are unnecessary to
 account for phenomena." "The chief ground for the assumption of a distinct set of vital affini-
 ties, as they have been termed, appears to be," etc. (Carp. Princip. pp. 146, 147.)
    And so, the  " Commentaries " :—
    " Is there  any philosophy," says the Commentaries,  "in the un-
 meaning multiplication  of causes [alluding to chemical agencies]
 especially when the superadded ones will not explain a single phe-
 nomenon, or a single result, appertaining to living organized mat-
 ter." (Comm. vol. i,  p. 99.)
    The author has also quoted in his "Commentaries" the forego-
 ing apothegm from Newton; and, in opposition to the interming-
 ling of  the  chemical and vital forces for the  purpose of expoun-
 ding the phenomena of organic beings.   The spirit  of the apo- 
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW,  &C.
43
 thegm is predominant in the Essays on the " Vital Powers," " An-
 imal  Heat," " Digestion," and the  " Humoral Pathology," and,
 what is not a little remarkable, the author, for this very reason, is
 denounced by his  reviewer as  being exclusive  in not mixing up
 the chemico-physical and vital doctrines of life, and  cultivating
 the no less grotesque inconsistency  of  a combined  pathology  of
 the humoralists and solidists. (Pp. 384, 392, etc.)  How far, also,
 the  reviewer himself  has  observed the foregoing principle, the
 reader requires no  farther illustration.
   But the main  object of the writer in introducing the above ex-
 tract, is to call the attention of the reader to that part of it which
 imputes to the  " Commentaries" the doctrine of  a "subversion  of
 chemical affinities  by vitality."   This, in common with all other
 vitalists, the author holds to be true only  in  respect to the vege-
 table kingdom.   Vegetables subsist  on inorganic, animals  on or-
 ganic matter.  This is  fundamental  in the  " Commentaries." (See
 particularly, vol. ii, pp. 121—122, 201.)  Nor has the author one
 novel idea as to the doctrine of " vital affinities."
   6th. It need not be said that the foregoing chemical doctrine  of
 "organization" is the foundation of spontaneous generation, and
 of that atheistical creed  which are considered in the " Commen-
 taries " (vol. ii, p. 123—140.)  The  reviewer  will now compre-
 hend one of the reasons,  which  he  professes  not to understand,
 that prompted the author to embrace in his work the  " Appendix
 on Spontaneous Generation."  The  author will  also give the re-
 viewer the benefit of repeating his (the reviewer's) doctrine upon
 this subject.  Thus:—
   " But, we may take this opportunity of stating that our belief in the general
 proposition, that' plants or animals of a high degree of organization are capable of
 producing from various parts of their tissues beings corresponding to those of the
 inferior orders of their  kingdoms,' has recently been much strengthened by addi-
 tional evidence."  (Review, p. 398.) What is the evidence ? — See Comm. Vol.
 II, p.  130.
   Dr. Carpenter is of the  same opinion.   Thus :—
 " It appears very difficult, and indeed almost impossible, without some admission of this kind, to account
 for the production of parasitic plants and animals  in the interior of others. That their germs
 have been conveyed from without into the situations where they are'developed, must be held as a
 very forced supposition," etc. (Carp. Princip. p. 395.)
   Suppose it so; — is not the  organization of the "parasite" as
 absolutely specific as that of the more complex  animal, — it may
 be beast, it may be  man ? Where, then, must  this doctrine con-
 duct our philosophers?  Professions, in  such a case,  are nothing;
 and  they are nothing  when  God is confounded with nature.
 (See  Reply, p.  10.)  We  must look at the inevitable consequence
of the principle ; whilst  Dr.  Carpenter and  the reviewer have
also laid the broad foundation, that all the "vital  properties" there
are,  exist in  the "elements of matter," (Reply, p. 37—38), and 
44
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW,  &C
 the former goes so far as to say that — " we may believe that there
 exists IN ALL MATTER A TENDENCY TO BECOME ORGANIZED,"
 (Carp. Princip. p. 394,) and that the elements may be organized
 "by the hand of man "! (Reply, p. 40.) Compare with Tiedemann's
 doctrine in Comm. vol. II, p. 124. There is no difference in princi-
 ple, however the reviewer and Dr. C. may not subscribe to absolute
 "spontaneous generation ;" and the latter says of the hypothesis "that
 an elephant, or an oak, (and why not a man ?) might be produced
 by spontaneous or accidental combination of its elements,"'—that
 "such a doctrine it is impossible to refute, otherwise than by an
 appeal to facts."  (Carp. Princip.  p. 394.) Setting Revelation
 aside as worthless, in  the paramount matters of science, may we
 not bring to bear upon such a question the evidences of the high-
 est  order of Design which are manifested by the organization of
 " an elephant or oak," by the final cause of vegetable in its relation
 to  animal life, by the adaptations of each to air, and to various
 physical conditions of the globe ; aye, and by the instinct  of ani-
 mals,  and  reason of man,  etc. 1  Such a  refutation may not be
 satisfactory to all; but is it not to him who measures  Design by
 the scale of reason 1
   We next come to the Essay on the Philosophy of Bloodletting,
 p. 390—392.  The reviewer  has no other criticism than an ad-
 mission of his inability to understand what bloodletting has to do
 with the " vital properties."  This is the more remarkable, since
 the reviewer himself  starts with " vital  properties" in the very
 " elements of matter."   But, with all this " transcendentalism," his
 "vital properties" are the merest necessity—conceded, either to
 secure a toleration of the real  chemical and physical doctrines, or
 to render the discussion intelligible.  (Comm. vol. i. p. 48.)   As
 we have seen, (Reply, pp. 24,35—36,) the "vital  properties" are
 declared to depend on the functions and actions,  and that "the
 elements of organized tissues are held together by the same af-
finities as prevail in the inorganic world."  Whatever the contra-
 diction, therefore, these " vital properties " have, de facto, no agen-
 cy  in organic beings,  and can only be  brought forward for the
 foregoing  reasons.   The author has endeavoured to illustrate
 this principle in his Essay on  the " Vital Powers," and again Vol.
 II,  page 12, etc.
  The loss of blood, therefore, with the reviewer, operates direct-
 ly upon the  flesh and bones,  by  emptying their contents, —just
 as it would if drawn out of a  well  contrived machine of leather
tubes,  with an injection-pipe to maintain a circulation.  In refer-
 ring^ the author's proposition that the " direct impression of loss
 of blood is upon the vital properties of the solids," among other
derisions of this doctrine we have the following:— 
               EXAMINATION op  A REVIEW, &c.             45

  " Iiet those esteem it as euch who think it of any use to them." " Are we one
whit the wiser after all this learned discussion than we were before V  (Review,
p. 391.)
    But,  what  do the reviewer, and his school, give us  in ex-
change?  Is there any thing remarkably luminous in the mechan-
ical rationale ? The author cannot comprehend how loss of blood
should produce its  remarkable  results but through the direct
agency of the vital properties.   He also  differs from the reviewer
in supposing that the organic system is  neither a physical nor a
chemical  apparatus ; but composed of elements in such proportions
and modes of combination, and such arrangement of these  combi-
nations into tissues, which nothing can effect in the world of dead
matter.   He supposes this to be done through the agency of a real
substantial vital principle  unknown to the inorganic world;  and,
he  supposes, like all others who make any absolute distinction
between  a dead and  living being, that " material  causes can as
well operate upon such a  principle as upon the  mind ; for come
we must  to the latter conclusion before we can reach the soul."
(Comm. vol. i, p. 84.)  He also believes that all vital agents, nat-
ural, morbific,  or remedial, exert their primary effect  upon that
principle, or "vital properties if it be preferred"; and that, when
disease takes place  it is  in consequence of  some  modification,
generally in  kind,  of those properties, whilst a corresponding
change follows in the functions ;  and, agreeing thus with  Bichat,
he  has also adopted his language in saying, "that every curative
method should  have for its object the restoration of the altered
vital powers to their  natural type." (')   It can  scarcely be sup-
posed that the reviewer was ignorant that these are the doctrines
of Hunter and  Bichat; and yet, for some unaccountable  reason
he  has given to the author  of the Commentaries  the credit  of
originality, — probably with a view of carrying out more effectu-
ally his imputation of speculative opinions.  What is peculiar to
the author is the application of the principle to the philosophy of
bloodletting.
  But since the reviewer is so much in accordance with Dr. Car-
penter's positions, let us have his authority :—
  "The powers which move the blood," says Dr. Carpenter, " may altogether result from vital
operations; yet the motion itself is strictly conformable to physical laws."  (Carp. Princip. p. 133.)
  This is exactly the  doctrine  of the " Commentaries."   The
u motion" of the blood is purely mechanical; the rest is " altogeth-
er vital."   But, through what principle is it, but the acknowledged
" vital powers " that the heart suddenly ceases its  action, or near-
ly so, when  syncope  follows the loss of six ounces of blood, or
(1) Bichat's General Anatomy applied to Pbysiol. and Medicine, Vol. I, p. 17. 
46
EXAMINATION  OF A REVIEW, &C
 from the sight of the lancet, unless it be that the loss of blood and
 the nervous influence operate directly upon  the " vital powers "
 of the  heart, by which, it is admitted,  the " motion " of the blood
 is produced?  Or is the effect exerted upon the  flesh itself?  Can
 you recall  the action, should  it happen to cease entirely?  Why
 does a drop of prussic acid kill, when whey nourishes?   But after
 all, the reviewer here, also, contradicts himself,  and quite agrees
 with his author;  for  in speaking of the effects of "unwholesome
 food,"  " wretchedness of mind,'' etc., upon the poor of Europe, he
 says that these causes  "combine  to depress the vital  powers of
 those immediately affected."   (Review, p. 392.)   Of course, then,
 their action is exerted upon the " vital  powers."   The reader  will
 perceive, also, that we have here  an admission that the " vital pow-
 ers " of the solids  are capable of direct " alteration," as we have
 already seen of the blood.  (Reply, p.  41.)  Nay more; we have
 also shown that the reviewer "stimulates" the very properties  of
 inorganic matter,  and thus makes them the   "creators" of those
 "powers"  and "forces" which,  he says, were  "created"  by the
 Almighty,— and  in this,  as  has also  most amply appeared, Dr.
4 Carpenter agrees. (Reply, pp. 9—11,47.)  But,asthis subject should
 not be passed lightly over in  its  connection with the author's  doc-
 trine of the physiological effects  of loss of blood, he will add a few
 more extracts from Dr. Carpenter's work, as to the direct action of
 causes or agents upon the vital properties.  We  have already seen
 that Dr. Carpenter and the reviewer affirm that the " properties "
 of matter, organic and inorganic, do and do not  carry on its chan-
 ges, " actions," "results;" that is to  say, — the " properties " are
 the causes of the  "actions," and the " actions"  are the  causes  of
 the "properties;"  and this, especially, as it regards organic beings.
 (Reply, p. 9—10, etc.)   We will now  first have an extract corrob-
 orative of foregoing ones as to the dependence of the actions, results,
 etc. upon the " properties,"   Thus, in  deriding  the doctrine of the
 vitalists, Dr. C. holds the following language :—
   "Should we not consider it degrading to the dignity of Infinite Wisdom  to suppose that  at the crea-
 tion of each world, He had found it necessary to delegate to a subordinate the control over its
 working, — instead of at once impressing upon its elements those simple properties, from  whose
 mutual actions, foreseen and provided for in the laws according to which they operate,  all the
 varieties  of change which it was  His intention  to produce, should necessarily result?"  (Carp.
 Princip. p. 132. — (Sec Reply, p. 10 ; and Comm.  vol. i, pp. 10, 25.)
    Here, then, we have another of those  affirmations in which
 every  thing is made to devolve  upon  the " properties" of matter,
 and by which the author is farther  sustained in  his  argument
 with Dr. Carpenter, and  in  which he drew  from Dr.  C. though
 in  opposition to Dr. C. himself, the conclusion that life is essen-
 tially  constituted by  the "vital properties," and  not by the "  func-
 tions."  (See  Comm. vol. i, p.  22—28.) 
EXAMINATION OP  A REVIEW,  &C.
47
   Having now once more got the vital properties as the real agents,
and causes of all vital actions, let us see again,  how far Dr. Car-
penter will sustain the author as to the capability of those  agents
being acted upon.   This we find in the  third sentence from the
foregoing extract.   Thus :—
  " For, if we come to inquire into the function of any single organ, or, in other words, into the
nature of the changes produced by it, we find that IT may be referred to the property of the
structure, manifested or called into action byasTiMULUS  of some kind,  to which it is express-
ly FiT-rtD to respond. This is evidently the case even in the inorganic world"! (Carp. Princip.
p. 132.)
   Now, as  to the organic world, the most exclusive vitalists never
went  farther  than  Dr. Carpenter does in the  foregoing extract;
and, in respect  to the " inorganic," no  vitalist, (certainly not the
author, Reply, p. 18—19,) ever supposed that the properties of dead
matter could  be "stimulated" like the vital  properties.  It will
be seen, also, that the author has here  had it conceded to  him, by
one of the most uncompromising adversaries of " vitalism," more
than  he requires  to sustain his fundamental doctrine as to the
physiological effects of the loss of blood, and of all remedial agents,
as well as his corresponding induction that  the passions,  and the
nervous influence, produce their direct  impression upon the vital
properties.  And, just so we have seen of the reviewer.  Take the
affirmative  side from either, and they  go even beyond the author
in what the reviewer denominates  " transcendental vitalism." We
wish  to make  this  subject very clear, and to show that Dr. Car-
penter has as much upon one side as on the  other.  Thus : —
  " The very stimuli," he says, " which would operate in exciting the vital properties, as long as
the organism retains them, have the effect of facilitating its decay when death has taken place."
(Carp. Princip. p. 143.)
   Precisely what  is involved in  the author's definition  of life.
(See Reply, pp. 8,  20,  &c.)  And  how exactly conformable, also,
to the author's  doctrine is the following: —
  " Evory tissue possesses vital properties peculiarly its own, besides that which has been spok-
en oI'as common to all;  and each property of each organ has stimuli appropriate to itself." (Carp.
Princip. p. 148.)
   In  coincidence   with  the author, Dr. Carpenter's "bond of
tjnio.\," (Reply,  pp.  28, 31—32,) is  the foregoing  " common "
principle,  which is  equivalent to  the  author's " vital principle;"
and Dr. Carpenter's " vital properties,"  which appertain  to the
" common " principle in this instance, but held distinct at another
time, (Reply, pp. 28, 31—32,) are  the  author's  "elements or en-
dowments of  the  vital  principle."   (Reply,  pp.   18,  29—30.)
Again: —
  "Observation of these actions leads us to arrange them, as has been already stated, into certain
groups termed  functions: and analysis of the functional changes exhibited by living beings, termi-
nates in referring them all to certain properties possessed by their component structures; which
properties stand in tho samo relation to organized tissues, as do those of gravitation, electricity
Ice. to matter in general."  "They art' called into action by stimuli of various kinds, adapted to
excite each of them to its own peculiar operations." (Carp. Princip. p. 134.) 
48              EXAMINATION  OF A  REVIEW, &C.
   And yet again:
  "Their suspension [vital actions] may result from the want of the stimttm which are necessary to
 ■xcite the dormant properties to exercise."  (Carp. Princip. p. 140.)  Real, exercising, agenu.  .
   But once more, by way of " illustration :"' —
  "Besides the vital stimuli, the influence of which is necessary for the excitement and renova-
 tion of the properties of living beings, there are others which may produce an influence of a different
 kind, by calling into play the animal functions."  " The mode in which  they produce their effects is,
'however, so analogous to that in which vital stimuli operate, that from their evident (because only
 Occasional) action, a good illustration maybe drawn of the more constant (and therefore less ob-
 served) influence of the hitter. Thus, a pinch of snuff applied to the membrane lining the nostrils,
 immediately excites an increase in its secretions," Sec.  (Carp. Princip. p. 150.)
   And now a remark from the review, which also goes to confirm
 the accuracy of the author's induction, that however his opponents
 may hypothetically assign organic processes to the forces of dead
 matter,  the moment they are crowded in discussion, or begin to
 reason from  the phenomena of nature, they suffer  the whole work
 to devolve upon a vital principle.
   " Whatever difference of opinion,"  says the reviewer, " there may be as to
 those changes of composition which are concerned in the formation of organi-
 zable  materials and the products of secretion, [see Reply, p. 38—42,] there is
 none whatever as to the fact of these materials, when organized, being en-
 dowed [yet existing in the elements of matter, pp. 37, 38,]  with properties
 entirely distinct  from any which can be  traced in inorganic matter"! —
 (Rev. p. 389.   See  Reply, pp. 11—12, 24—25, 28—41.)
   Apply the foregoing, and  what  has been formerly  shown,
 (Reply, pp. 24, &c.) to the  author's doctrine  of the physiological
 effects of loss of blood, and of other remedial, and morbific, agents,
 and there  is not the slightest discrepancy.  The only difference
 is, the author  adheres uniformly to the principle, whilst Dr. Car-
 penter and  the reviewer sometimes  sustain it, and at other times
 declare it all nonsense. When Dr. Carpenter, however, comes to his
 chapter on  " Vital Stimuli,'' (p. 149—162,) he is pretty  much
 a " vitalist" throughout, — and, how could he be  otherwise, and
 be intelligible, on  such a subject ?  (See Comm. vol. i, pp. 26, 48
 —49.)
   An artful attempt is made by the reviewer to impress the reader
 with  the belief that  the author attributes to the vital properties a
 species of intelligence.  Thus:
   " The ♦ alarm felt by the extreme vessels and capillaries,'' according to Dr. Paine,
 must be tolerably like the ' sense of danger'  which  Dr. Macartney attributes to
 them."  (fier.p.391.)
   This is  the only instance in the "Commentaries" from which
 the foregoing  construction could be extorted ;  and the reviewer
 has  seized  upon  it,  notwithstanding his  author  has repeatedly
 and strongly objected to the doctrine  of Van Helmont, of Stahl,
 and even  of Hunter,  which  imputes more  or  less intelligence
 or instinct to the vital principle.   (Comm. vol. i, pp. 11, 29,92, 94; 
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C
49
 vol. ii, pp. 169, 174.)   The very obvious motive  for employing
 the word " alarm," was to represent  figuratively,  and therefore
 more forcibly,  the susceptibility of the extreme vessels to the loss
 of blood.  The author  will now do,  what the reviewer has not
 done, refer the reader to the page of the work, Vol. I, p. 126, where
 he will  readily see the nature of the injustice  which is attempted
 by the reviewer.   In immediate connection with this, also, the re-
 viewer represents the philosophical part of the Essay  on Blood-
 letting as being comprehended  in four lines which  he quotes from
 Dr. Macartney  on Inflammation, — such being the general style of
 this review.  In  the first place, however, there is  no parallel be-
 tween the objects of the two writers, and Dr. Macartney's four lines
 relate merely to  an ultimate effect of bloodletting in a particular
 disease.   But the reader shall be the judge both of the reviewer's
 honesty and of  the author's ground of complaint.   The following
 are the lines, introduced by a coarse remark of which the author
 presents only the least exceptionable part: —
   " Dr. Paine's general theory," says the reviewer, " may be concisely stated in
 the following proposition set forth by the latter, [Dr. Macartney.]  ' The intention
 of drawing blood from the system is to produce that kind of impression which is
 followed by a weaker action of the heart, and a more contracted state of all the
 smaller arteries in  the body, and by that means inflamed parts are included in the
 general condition which precludes the possibility of inflammation.' "  (Review,
 p. 391.)
   This  is no more " Dr.  Paine's general theory "  than the most
 mechanical  doctrine which  he has  endeavoured  to controvert.
 It is  the object of Dr Paine's Essay to treat of the physiological
 effects of loss of blood, and to trace them from their beginning  to
 their consummation in syncope, — to consider them under various
pathological conditions, — to indicate the agency of the vital prop-
 erties, and how  far the  nervous influence is instrumental in the ef-
 fects, — to show  the physiological  distinctions between general
 bloodletting, cupping, and leeching, — to apply all this, and much
 more, under a variety of practical aspects, &c.
   The affirmation which follows next, that "Dr. Paine tells us that
 ' a victory is obtained over the disease,' (inflammation) even before
 the blood is expelled from the vessels," is neither quoted in the au-
 thor's language, nor  does it convey the author's obvious meaning.
 The reference being suppressed, the reader will find the remark
 at Vol. I, p. 127.  The  author  may also say, that it is a doctrine
of the " Commentaries," that art never cures.  All that is accom-
plished by  our remedial  agents is to establish a change in the dis-
eased properties of life  which shall enable nature  to take on her
general tendency to a restorative process.   Our remedies are to be
regarded in  the same relative sense, and as operating upon the 
50
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &.C.
 same principles, as morbific agents ; only, in the former instance,
 a morbid condition is substituted which is more favourable to the
 recuperative process of nature.  Hence the importance of making,
 as speedily as we may, the right impression, — neither too much
 nor too little, (tuto, cito, etjucun<h,) — i\n6\ then fall back upon that
 system of watching which should mainly obtain in all the strictly
 self-limited diseases, unless complicated with inflammations of im-
 portant organs.   (See Comm. vol. i, p. 641—661; vol. ii, pp. 174,
 664, 670, <fcc.)
  The reviewer next adverts to the author's strictures upon Dr.
 Hall's unqualified rules in bloodletting, and  observes that, —"Dr.
 Hall is as ready as any one to admit that no principle of treatment
 is without its exceptions, and that this is the case  with regard to the rules
 which he lays down."  (Rev. p. 391.)  But, this is only the review-
 er's opinion; but being so, is not the principle, in common justice,
 equally  applicable to  Dr. Paine ?  Why, however, did not  Dr.
 Hall state more of the important exceptions in respect to a remedy
 of so much moment ?  This brings us to that most flagrant falsi-
 fication, that the author of the " Commentaries " has not indicated
 the injurious effects which may result from bloodletting.  But, let
 us hear the  reviewer :—
  "Believing," he says, "that, whatever may  be Dr.  Paine's qualifications as a
philosopher, he is a man of correct and extensive observation, (on subjects, at
 least, on which his prejudices allow him to use his sight and his sense,) we can only
justify the very free and all but universal recourse which he advises to the use
 of the lancet, by supposing that his countrymen, young and old,  have much more
 stamina than the original stock, — beef-eating and plethoric as it has been usually
 accounted. (Rev. p. 391.)
  It happens, however, that no little part of the " Commentaries " is
especially concerned in illustrating the pernicious and destructive
consequences which may ensue from loss  of blood under many
conditions of disease, whilst the author is simultaneously employed
 in attempting to point out those  conditions, as well as the physi-
 ological  nature of the injurious influences.  The  author, indeed,
 has devoted two long sections, (Vol. I, pp. 239—274, and 342—362,)
 to an exposition of its injurious effects by analyzing  the principles
 of its operation in such instances.   The author, also, more than
 once reminded the reader that: —
   " In all our remarks  upon the pathology and treatment of dis-
 ease, we have reference to those early stages of its existence, when
 the powers  and actions of life  are fairly  within the  province of
 art."   (Comm. vol.  ii, p. 531.   See,  also,  various  precautionary
 and explanatory suggestions, vol.  i, pp. 213—214, 222, 224, 192
 259, 306—308,621, 149, 232, 216, 235—237, 273,165, 185—209,
 621,  646-661, 275—277, 152—155; Vol.  II, pp. 273, 503—505,
 527—536. 511,742.) 
EXAMINATION  OF A REVIEW,  &C.
51
  It is, also, in inflammations, and in idiopathic fever complicated
with local inflammations or congestions, alone, that the author has
advised the remedy ; whilst, in a large class of affections which he
excludes from those denominations, he  holds that bloodletting is
more or less  injurious.  Such is true of the simple  nervous, as
they are called,—of the various conditions  of indigestion when
not attended by inflammation, —of all the strictly self-limited dis-
eases,  as smallpox, measles, scarlatina,  whooping-cough, mumps,
&c, unless demanded by  some supervening inflammation of in-
ternal organs, &c.   What measure of indignation, therefore, may
not the author mete out to one who thus, from page to page, from
line to line, brandishes falsehood in the  very face of fact 1
  Then follows, in relation  to the reviewer's most  unfounded
charge as to indiscriminate bloodletting, another ironical admission
of its possible  propriety among the author's countrymen:
  " We are inclined to think," says the reviewer, " that he especially needs en-
lightenment as to the prevailing constitution of the poor of our large cities, where
deficient and unwholesome food, &c. depravity and wretchedness of mind, and all the
other evils of squalid poverty, which can scarcely exist in anything like the same
extent or degree in any part of the United States, not only combine to depress the
vital powers of those immediately affected, &c.  (Rev. p. 392.)
  The  foregoing  are  exactly  among  the  instances  which the
author has most carefully, and  in  various places, (see the forego-
ing references,)  exempted from the general principles which he
has set forth in relation to bloodletting.  Nay more, the author has
protested against taking  such  subjects  for  the purposes of any
great pathological  or therapeutical principles.   (Comm. vol. i, p.
302—303, and  the Essay on the  Writings of M. Louis.)  True,
the author has objected to  the  " bark and wine " treatment, even
of that denomination of patients, as a general plan, in those dis-
eases where the  antiphlogistic treatment  would  be  required by
better constitutions.  But, in all his disquisitions upon this ques-
tion, the author, as he repeatedly avows, has a  constant reference
to "the early stages of disease."  As to  the imputed want of " en-
lightenment"  about the poor of European cities, and of European
practice, whether it have been  made with justice,  the reader will
be able to decide by referring to Vol..I, p. 279—287, 290, 296__
308, 312—330, 332—344 ; Vol. II, p. 667—676, 631—633, and
Essay  on M.  Louis' Writings.  The reviewer, therefore, leaves
untouched the comments upon that  stimulant treatment of fe-
vers and inflammations among better classes of society which  is
not very uncommon in European  cities, and of which the author
was distinctly and mainly  speaking, when urging the importance
of bloodletting.
  We  have now reached the Essay on the Humoral  Pathology 
-52
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C
 (Rev. p. 392.) Here, as in all the Ussays which immediately concern
 the vital powers, there is no common ground between the reviewer
 and his author.  One is a chemico-mcchanical physiologist  and
 humoralist, the other a vitalist and solidist.   Objections only of
 a general nature are made,  the sum of which  is embraced in the
 statement that this  Essay is " a manifesto of 300 closely printed
 pages."  The reviewer sees a great deal of corrupted blood as the
 primary cause of disease,  whilst  his author maintains a primary
 derangement of the solids, and that the alterations of the blood are
 consecutive.   The  reviewer,  however,  has  one remark in  this
 place,  (already quoted  for another purpose, p. 41,) which induces
 the hope that he may yet  give in his adhesion  to vitalism.   It is
 this:—
  " In regard to the main question," he says, "'we may briefly state our opinion,
 — that the vital properties of the  blood are, like its physical properties, capable of
 alteration by various causes."  (Rev. p. 393.)
   What, then, does the reviewer mean by this supposed " alteration
 of the vital  properties "?  Of course, exactly what he  condemns
 in the vitalists.  It is not the blood itself which is first  altered,
 but its " vital properties."   Then they are something susceptible
 of " alteration."  But, in order to be " altered," something must act
 upon those "vital properties of the blood."  And yet the reviewer
 professes not to comprehend this language when employed by the
 vitalists in relation even to the solids; nor do the latter  allow that
 " the vital  properties  of  the  blood  are altered"  by  any  other
 "causes" than by the  living solids upon which its  formation and
 integrity depend.  And, that such is  truly the  meaning of the re-
 viewer, is amply attested  by our quotations at  pp. 10, 12, 31, 32,
 46—48.
   The author will now exhibit one of the minor instances of per-
 version.  The reviewer  quotes  " three consecutive sentences,"
 which  the author will  present according to  their arrangement in
 his work.  Thus: —
   " These considerations will show us that the blood is neither a
primary cause of disease  in the solids, in virtue of its own mor-
 bid condition, nor can it be an aggravating cause of disease when
 altered in its character by the morbid action of the solids.
   "None will deny what is affirmed by M. Andral, that every mor-
 bid change in the action of the solids  is probably followed by a
 change in the blood; whilst we  fully agree with him, that any
primary alteration of the blood, of a morbid nature, must, with
greater certainty, produce disease of the solids.  The latter propo-
sition is the basis of humoralism."  (Ital. as in Comm. vol. i, p.
646.—Rev. p. 392.)
  The reviewer then assumes that the author's proposition in the 
                EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW, &C.            °°

 first "sentence" is "contradictory"  of  what  he makes  a third
 "consecutive sentence," beginning with the word " whilst;"—the
 first proposition being an induction from the author's premises, tne
 last from those of the humoralists, which had been stated  at great
 length.   But, the reviewer  suppresses the next following senten-
 ces,  which  would have  cleared  up the "difficulty" which he
 had created.   Thus: —
   " There is a specious parellelism about the foregoing proposi-
 tions of which humoralism has taken no little advantage.   It sup-
 poses that the blood and the solids  sustain, reciprocally, the same
 relation to each other; when, in truth, the distinction is about as
 great as-between an agent and the object acted upon.  There is
 this difference, however.   In the present case, in their  natural
 state, the blood is the object, whilst it contributes to the support of
 the agent; but were the blood to become primarily diseased,  it
 would  then  assume the same relation  to the solids as any other
 morbific cause, and even more so on account of the foregoing prin-
 ciple, or in other words,  its constituting  the pabulum vital"
 (Comm. vol. i, p. 646.)
   The  main object  of  the  Essay  is to  show that  the blood  is
 never primarily diseased, in the humoral sense; but, to  prevent
 all misapprehension, the author carefully contradistinguished those
 natural  changes of the blood which arise from deficient or other
 imperfect nutriment, (though not as a primary cause of disease in
 the solids, Comm. vol. i, pp. 609 — 626, 691 — 698,) and endeav-
 oured to show, at no little extent, that the ordinary morbific agents
 can have no primary effect upon the blood.  And,  although the
 reviewer was quoting, in the present instance, from what he found
 an unanswerable argument to the foregoing effect, and professes to
 have read the Essay with "the best attention," he goes on to re-
 mark immediately after the quotation just made, that, —
  " The first of these sentences appears to us so far contradictory of the third, that
 we can only get out of the difficulty by supposing it to be our author's meaning
 that no primary morbid alteration can take place in the blood, — an opinion so com-
 pletely opposed to all that sound  physiology and pathology teach us, that we
 scarcely venture to attribute it to him."  (Rev. p. 392.)
   What is the object of the reviewer's doubt  as  conveyed in
 the last words of the foregoing quotation ?  Does not the reviewer
 clearly endeavour to imply, that  the author has not investigated
 the question, when it is the main object of the Essay to prove two
 propositions, — namely,  that if " a primary disease of the  blood"
produce disease of the solids, there  can be no recovery;  and, sec-
 ondly, therefore, in all curable diseases the morbid condition must
 begin in the solids; otherwise, the  blood being naturally depen-
 dent on the solids, but now becoming more and more diseased, and,
 therefore, more morbific, would acquire an irretrievable ascenden- 
54
EXAMINATION  OF A REVIEW, &C.
 cy over  the  solids.  "Nothing can make healthy blood, but a
 healthy action of the solids."   (Comm. vol. i, p. 611.)
   The researches and doctrines of llaller, Prochaska, Whytt,
 Philip, Reid, Hall, Miiller, and A'alentin, as to the " vis insita" or
 organic force, and the "vis nervea" with its wonderful attributes,
 being  fully before the world,  the author has little  apprehension
 for the fate of his Essays where vitalism and solidism are concern-
 ed ; nor for his principal doctrine that all  organic processes  are
 dependent on the organic force, and are only influenced inciden-
 tally by the nervous power.
   Take also the following: from the review of Dr. Prout's recent
 edition of his work on the " Nature and Treatment of Stomach and
 Urinary Diseases, 1840," contained  in the present number of the
 British Review; and let the author of the " Commentaries " ask
 whether the spirit of the remarks does not sustain the whole founda-
 tion of his Essays relative to vitalism and solidism?  Thus : —
   "Our general estimate of Dr. Prout's treatise maybe gathered from
 the analysis just concluded, and the  strictures scattered through it.
 We acknowledge and have pride in  bearing testimony to the high
 qualifications of our countryman in  the branch of pathological
 inquiry based upon chemical facts.  We recognise the com-
 prehensive sagacity of his speculations, and have respect for the
 patient zeal with which he  has toiled  to erect upon  these a
 stable system.   But we fear the time for such systematizing
 has not yet come ; and, although all speculations on the subject
 are seductive in themselves, and  doubly so  when emanating
 from an individual of Dr. Prout's eminent skill in the department
 of chemical physiology, it cannot, we think, be denied, that in the
 existing unformed and vacillating state o/orcanic chkmistry,
 (Reply, pp. 38 — 39, 40,) tiily sin  essentially in being estab-
 lished on a most unsound basis.  Nor can we avoid entertaininsr
 some solicitude as to the residts of their propagation, which to us
 appears likely to betray minds of inferior order into mere ex-
 travagances.   For these, however, Dr. Prout is not/'airly answer-
 able ; and should his doctrines—when the frail  embryo sci-
 ence on which they are based  has reached healthy maturity — be
recognised as true, he must  almost take  rank with those high-
 est intelligences, whose energy has  outrun the scienitfic  appre-
 hension of their times.  But, meanwhile, Dr. Prout has neither done
 his doctrine, himself, nor his readers justice, in not explicitly stating
 the foundation for and manner of verifying (so far as he is  ac-
 quainted with these himself) his presumed results. The day has
 passed never to return, when the authority of name
 could at will supply the place of demonstration.  Should 
examination of a  REVIEW, &.C.
55
Dr. Prout intend favouring the  public with further volumes, he
would do well to ponder on these admirable remarks of a natural
philosopher, of an eminence not inferior to his own :—' It is not suf-
ficient to say that we have seeti such a thing.   It is saying nothing,
if, at the same time,  we do  not indicate how we have seen it;  if
we do  not give our readers the opportunity of judging of the man-
ner in which the facts which  we record have been observed.'" (')
(Brit,  and For. Med. Rev. April, IS41, p. 363. — See Reply, p. 4.)
   May it not also be, that an observation of the principle enjoined
in the  last clause of the  foregoing quotation is greatly at the foun-
dation of the  other reviewer's complaint against a " great book?"
And, what a contrast between the courtesy, the honesty, the doc-

  (1)   We have had exemplifications from Dr. Carpenter of the influence of the
chemical and physical hypotheses of life upon the philosophy of vital actions; and
in the " Commentaries " they are sufficiently numerous from Dr.  Prout, Miiller,
and other chemical physiologists.  Let us now place in apposition a few extracts
from Liebig's latest work, who, like Prout  and Miiller, has his controlling " vital
principle," and like them justly enjoys " a  European reputation."  (See Rev. p.
436.)
  " It is impossible," says Liebig, " to mistake the modus operandi of putrefied sausa-
ges, or muscle, urine, cheese, cerebral substance, and other matters, in a slate of putre-
faction."  <; It is obvious that they communicate their own state of putrefaction
to the sound blood, from which they were produced, exactly in the same  manner
as gluten in a state of decay or  putrefaction causes  a similar transformation in
a solution of sugar.''!
  " The mode of action of a morbid virus exhibits such a  strong similarity  to
the action of yeast upon liquids containing sugar and gluten, that the two processes
have been long since compared to  one another, although merely for  the purpose of
illustration. [They have often been represented as identical.]  But, when the phenom-
ena attending the action of each respectively are considered more closely, it will  in
reality be seen that their influence depends upon the same cause."  " Ordinary
yeast, and the virus of human smallpox, effect a violent  tumultuous transformation, the
former in vegetable juices, the latter in blood."!   " The  action of the virus of cow-pox is
analogous to that of the low yeast. [!] It communicates its own state of decomposition to a
matter in the blood, and from a second matter is itself regenerated."!  "The sus-
ceptibility of infection by the virus of human smallpox must cease after vaccination,
for the  substance to the presence of which this susceptibility is owing has been re-
moved from the body by a peculiar process of decomposition artificially excited."!
" Cold meat is always in a state of decomposition ; it is possible that this state may
be communicated to the system of a feeble individual, and may be one of the sources
OF CONSUMPTION." !
  " Analogy, that fertile source of error, has unfortunately led to the very unapt com-
parison of the vital functions of plants with those of animals."!  " A cotton wick,
inclosed in a lamp, which contains a liquid saturated with carbonic acid,  acts ex-
actly in the same manner as a living plant in the night.f!]  Water and carbonic
acid are  sucked up by capillary attraction, and both evaporate from the exterior part
of the wick."!  "All substances in solution in a soil are absorbed by the  roots of
plants exactly as a sponge imbibes a liquid, and all that it  contains without se-
lection." !  (Liebig's Organic Chemistry, applied to Agriculture and Physiology, pp.
26, 33, 92,  349, 350, 370, 372, 373.)
  Compare the last with quotations from Liebig at p. 16.  There is much in 
56
EXAMINATION of a  REVIEW,  4,C.
 trines,  the mind, of the reviewers of Dr. Prout and of Dr. Paine,
 and in  articles which stand side by side!
   As appropriate to  the present subject, the author will now tran-
 scribe,  in a note,'from a lecture by Professor John P. Harrisonr
 M.D., of the Cincinnati Medical College, (and which has this day,
 for  the first time, fallen into his  hands,) one of those  luminous
 passages which unfolds that deep thought and research which the
 present writer has stated in his "Commentaries" as characterizing
 his  brethren of the West, where nature  is studied in her simplicity,
 and where so much  evidence has been given, that the practice of
 medicine is pursued  with as sound a reference  to correct  pathol-
 ogy as in any other  part of the world.  (')

 Liebig of the foregoing  nature ;  and, as to the humoral pathology,  he  goes far
 beyond the ancient excesses. (See Comm. vol. i, p. 417 — 420.)   Nevertheless,
 what has  been now quoted is a fair exemplification  of the fruitful results of
 chemistry and physics in their relation to the " present state of medical science."
 The philosophy of Liebig as to  vegetable functions is literally carried out by
 Dr.  Carpenter (Reply, p. 40) and by Miiller (Comm.  vol. i, p. 565, 683—689)
 to the animal kingdom.   The agricultural part of Liebig's work, however, so far
 surpasses anything hitherto given to  the public, we would not have quoted his
 physiology  and pathology, had it not been for the sake of our cause, and for
 many passages like the following: —
  ".7>ttTOa!and vegetable physiologists," he says, "institute experiments without being
 acquainted with the circumstances necessary for the continuance of life,— with the
 qualities and proper nutriment of the animal or plant on which they operate, (Comm.
 vol. i, p.  697 — 698,)  or  with the  nature and chemical constitution  of its organs.
 These experiments are considered by  them as  convincing  proofs, whilst they are
 fitted only to awaken  pity."   (Liebig, ut cit. p. 42.)
  Finally, " We see, therefore, that this mtsterious (vital) principle has many rela-
tions in common with chemical forces, and that the latter can indeed replace it" !
 (Liebig, p. 5f.)
  But, Liebig's "vital principle" is as much an "entity" as the author's,and his
 "chemical  forces" must, according to the foregoing, be equally so as  his vital
 principle,  and, therefore, far exceeding the author's construction.   (See  Reply,
 pp. 16 —17, 9,13 — 14, 18 — 20,26, 28,30,33,37.)
  (1)  " False Theory. — It is a  well established fact, that some of  the most erro-
 neous theories in medicine have originated from men, who professed to  despise  theory.
 And  those men who are most addicted to expressions of contempt against reasoning
 in medicine, are the most disposed to indulge in crude speculation. And the cause of
 this is obvious.  Ft springs from too exclusive reliance on their own individual  experi-
 ence, apart and independent of that accumulated wisdom of ages to be found in books.
 ' To  think is to theorize,' is a proposition not to be successfully controverted.  So deep
 in man's intellectual nature is laid that disposition to account for phenomena, on which
 all philosophy is built,  that he cannot be induced to forego  the gratification it affords,
 under any condition of his being. The employment of reducing truth to its element, is
 one of the most gratifying  and useful occupations of the mind.
  " The luxuriant growth  of our science, from the  multitude of facts which have been
 collected by its assiduous cultivators, demands that comprehensive and accurate prin-
 ciples should be deduced from its many  and  insulated particulars. It  is the object of
 correct theory to reduce the multifarious  appearances of disease to simplicity and order. 
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &.C.                 57
    The reviewer, farther on, recurs to the Essay on the  Humoral
 Pathology. — not satisfied with the representation he had made of
 that  Essay in its  appropriate place.   We have, therefore, the far-
 ther  misstatement, that, —
   "According to our author, although blood may be altered from its healthy con-
 dition, it never can  be, strictly speaking,  diseased ; that is, it must always
 bear a constant relation to the solid tissues.  This he endeavours  to establish in his
 Essay on Humoral Pathology; to which it seems to us quite sufficient to reply
 that,  in all cases of heal disease, the blood must bear a different relation to the
 healthy and diseased solids respectively."  (Rev. p. 398.)

 In the present state of our science, there is  an imperative necessity  for the exercise of
 an inquisitive and powerful reason, to remodel and arrange the facts that are already
 ascertained, and to trace up the analogies,  which run through diseases, to some gen-
 eral principles. Thus we shall be enabled to make a discriminating survey "of the miscel-
 laneous variety of particulars which  are placed beneath our observation.   To frame  a
 correct theory, we must keep in mind the remark of a distinguished medical teacher,—
 ' Medicina neque agit in cadaver, neque repugnante natura aliquid proficit,'— that med-
 icine will neither act on a dead body, nor will it act on a living body  in a way contrary
 to the  laws of the animal organization.   It is from an utter forgetfulness, or contempt,
 of this essential principle, that the  science  has been infested by so many chemical  and
 mechanical theories.   The humoral  pathology rested on a fallacious and shallow con-
 ception of the laws of life.   The nervous system was  [and is] overlooked, its structure
 disregarded, and its laws unobserved."
   " What has humoralism ever done for medicine ?   It has retarded its march, it has
 shut up the avenues to its successful  cultivation, and deteriorated the genuine spirit of
 correct investigation."
   "  The doctrine of the corruption of the blood in diseased states of the  economy is
 amenable to one unanswerable objection ; — this corruption has never been demonstra-
 ted.   It is surely not logical  to contend  for the possibility of a thing which has  never
 been proven, [or shown to b"e possible.]   We are not, as medical philosophers, to es-
 tablish any of our views of morbid action on mere possible contingences."—"This con-
 cession of Cullen bears Sir Gilbert Blane out in the declaration that—'the whole of the
 humoral pathology rested on a fallacious, and shallow, though specious foundation.'"
   " Andral candidly avers — 'that, in the present state of the science, it is the part of a
 sensible man not to adopt the doctrine of humoralism too  lightly, by judging from facts,
 many  of which require re-examination before they are finally admitted, and that  we
 ought  to be particularly on our guard against being in too great a hurry to make practi-
 cal applications of it.'   (Anat. vol. i, p. 419.  See  Comm. vol. i, p. 627 — 641.)
   " A  doctrine so mysterious and impracticable, which must be thus guarded, limited,
 and dreaded,  lest we rashly  employ it for any useful practical purpose, cannot, surely,
 derive  its existence from correct and enlightened experience; and, therefore, if we  de-
 sire to  see the  reign of a just philosophy extending its healthful protection over the sci-
 ence of medicine, we should renounce a scheme of explanation of disease, which is  not
 founded on sound observation, and which exerts such dubious, if not dangerous, tenden-
 cies over the practice of our art."
   " Dr. Armstrong's popular doctrine of congestion is founded on wrong views of anat-
 omy and physiology, and is therefore untenable.  Indeed, at page 288 of his work on
 Typhus, under the head of common continued fever, we have an admission that conges-
 tion and inflammation are the same."
   "The Broussaian pathology of fever is amenable to  a just objection on account of its
 generality."   " Such pathological  views  involve  no laborious process of thought, and
demand no extensive examination.  They are light and portable, easily transferred from
the author's page to the reader's comprehension.  The memory alone is exercised in
their reception.''  (Prof. Harrison's Lectures, p. 39—49:  1835.)
                                     8 
58
EXAMINATION OF A REVIEW, AC
  It is a  doctrine, however, of constant recurrence in the Essny
on the Humoral Pathology, that the  blood  is always absolutely
more or less diseased when the solids are affected, whether general-
ly, or locally if to much extent.  Thus :
  "The solids, which give being and  vitality to the blood, be-
come, in  their  normal state,  it is said, the  subject of its morbific
action; and, according to  the  premises of humoralists  and sol-
idists, when the solids are diseased the hlood undergoes dis-
ease in consequence ; and, since, [according to the humoralists]
the blood was originally the cause of the morbid action of the solids,
every increasing degree of disease, according to the admitted pre-
mises, must be a cause of increasing disease in the solids.   This
must be equally true of local as of constitutional diseases. No por-
tion of the  blood can be, long, morbidly affected more than the whole
mass ; and since, when universally diseased, it should produce one
universal disease of the solids, it is manifest, from  the constant oc-
currence of local affections, that humoralism is striving against the
plainest evidence."   (Comm. vol. i, p. 647.  Reply, p. 52.)
  Again the  Commentaries : —" We shall  notice  here  an  affir-
mation by 31. Andral, since it is regarded by high authorities as
nearly closing the door against farther discussion.  ' Physiology,'
he says, ' leads  us to the  conclusion that every alteration of the
solids must be  succeeded  by an alteration of the blood, just as
evepy modification of the blood must  be succeeded by a modifica-
tion  of the solids.  Viewed in this light, there is no longer any
meaning in the disputes between the solidists and  the humoral-
ists.' "
  " This is any thing but a fair statement of the great question at
issue.  It  is not whether the blood becomes diseased by a morbid
action of the solids; and the solidist  is surprised that the defence
of humoralism  should often turn upon laboured attempts to prove
what every  body admits.   (Reply, p. 52—53.)  Nor is it,
whether vitiated blood, or putrid matter, will  excite disease when
injected into the veins.  The question at issue is whether foreign
morbific causes, and remedial agents, in  their ordinary modes
of operation, produce  their primary effect upon the solids  or
upon the  blood, and the  latter  become the cause of disease  in
the former ; whether we l have hereditary humours, as gout, scro-
fula, etc.,'' and whether we are ' the parents of our own humours,
and that we breed bad humours ;' whether they ' gravitate to the
legs,' or are ' brought to  a part by poultices ;' whether, according
to Andral, 'those derangements of functions and organs produced
by  the experimenter,  when he introduces different deleterious
substances into the blood, are likewise those that are produced by
the  sting  or the bite of certain animals, and are  also  those that
take place in smallpox, measles, and scarlatina, and are the same
derangements that appear in persons exposed to putrid emanations,
vegetable or animal, and to miasmata from the bodies of other
persons that are themselves diseased and crowded in confined pla-
ces, the same  which show themselves in individuals whose blood 
                EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C.            59

 is only imperfectly  or  badly repaired by insufficient or unwhole-
 some diet;' whether, in other diseases, ' where no deleterious sub-
 stance has been introduced into the blood, and in which there is
 no direct proof that any alteration  of that fluid has been  the pri-
 mary cause of the morbid phenomena,' but where  the symptoms
 and morbid appearances may have  some resemblance to those of
 the foregoing affections, ' it appears, as in the preceding cases,  the
 primary cause of disease should be referred to the  blood,' and
 whether 'the whole  blood  must be  altered or corrected' by  'inci-
 sives,  diluents, attenuants, inviscants, incrassants, revulsives, re-
 pellents,  concoctants, deflectants, derivatives, depuratives,  deob-
 struants, detergents, agglutinants, incarnatives, refrigerants,' etc.?
 These are the questions."
    " But  the  most objectionable part of M. Andral's statement,
 by which he calmly identifies solidism and humoralism, is the as-
 sumption that the blood is admitted by  the solidists to be' modifi-
 ed ' without the agency of the solids, and to become,  in conse-
 quence, the cause of disease in the latter; or, in the words of our
 author, 'just as every modification of the blood must be succeeded
 by a modification of  the solids.'   We shall not dwell upon this
 coup de main"etc.   (Comm. vol. i, p. G36—637.)
   The  author often  dwells upon the necessity of a more or less
 " diseased " state of the blood in every diseased condition  of the
 solids, and perfectly concurs with M. Andral, and twice  adopts his
 language, that,
   " No one solid  can undergo the slightest modification,  with-
 out producing some derangement in the nature or quantity of
 the materials destined to form the blood, or to be separated from
 it."  (Comm. vol. i, p. 630.)
   As to the last clause  in the quotation from the review, the  au-
 thor has  much to say as  to the state of the blood in " local dis-
eases," though it  is manifestly the purpose of the reviewer to give
the impression that his  author had overlooked the  considerations
 relative to that question.   Take, as an example, the following pas-
sage : —
   "If we suppose, that  in any serious local inflammation  the
blood becomes more or less altered, according to the  foregoing
principles, is it asked why the universal mass,  being thus modifi-
ed, is not detrimental to other parts  ? It is an obvious answer, that
all other parts are now modified in  their powers and functions by
the sympathetic influences  of the local affection. In proportion as
that affection  is capable of modifying the blood, so does it exert its
sympathetic influence over all parts of the organization. ' Confluxio
una, conspiratio una, consententia omnia. Juxta totiusquidem cor-
poris naturam omnia ; juxta partem vero partes in unaquaque  parte
ad opus.' (x)  The  modifications of the blood, and the constitu-
tional derangement, being produced by a common cause,  the blood
(1) Hippocrates, de Aliment, vei. 45. 
60
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C
 and the solids are universally adapted to each other.   It matters
 not, therefore, how 'black,' 'woolly,' or dissolved, the  blood may
 become in'scurvy,'  and'putrid' fevers; and  that such  patients
 ever recover is especially owino- to the absence  of healthy, stim-
 ulating blood."
   " Nature has endowed the living organization with  numerous
 resources for its protection; some  of which may be  habitually
 dormant, but are called  into action  by  many accidental  causes
 that would constantly endanger life without them."  (Comm. vol.
 i, p. 655.)
   The Essay on the Humoral Pathology being falsified  in less
 than a page, we come next to  that  upon Animal Heat, to which
 about four  pages are devoted.   The  principal theoretical disagree-
 ment between the reviewer and the author consists in the former
 attributing the development of heat  from the blood to " chemical
 changes," whilst the latter ascribes it to a vital process.
   It is astonishing that  a contributor to  the  British and Foreign
 Medical  Review  should not be aware that Hunter, Bichat, and
 other eminent vitalists,  consider the elaboration of heat from the
 blood  a process analogous to  "secretion."  But  here again  he
 gives to  his author the credit of the discovery.  Bichat is so em-
 phatic  upon the subject that he says, (what  is worth quoting for
 other purposes,) that,
  " It seems to me, that the explanation which exhibits nature al-
 ways pursuing an uniform course in her operations, drawing the
 same  results from the same principles,  has a greater degree of
 probability  than that which shows  her separating,  as it  were,
 this phenomenon from all the others, in the way which she pro-
 duces  it."   " The  extrication of caloric is a phenomenon  exactly
 analogous to those  of which the  general capillary system is the
 seat."  " When we place upon one side all the phenomena  of ani-
 mal heat, and on  the other the chemical  hypothesis, it appears  to
 me so  inadequate to their explanation, that I  think every method-
 ical mind can refute it without my assistance."  (Bichat, ut cit.
 vol. ii,  p. 46; and Reply, p. 18.)
  It is  well known, also, to most people, that Hunter maintained
 that — " the power of generating heat in animals  is that power
 which  preserves and regulates the internal  machine."   (Hunter's
 Observations on the Animal Economy, p. 91. 1786.)
  The reviewer supposes that there can be
  "No essential difference between Dr. Paine's hypothesis and that of Dr. Craw-
 ford ; since this pre-existing heat [put into the blood by the reviewer] exactly
 corresponds with the latent caloric of the chemist, which only requires certain
chemical changes to render it sensible."  (Rev. p. 394.)
  The author will make no comments upon this perverted repre-
sentation of his doctrine; but will ask the  reviewer to define the 
                EXAMINATION OF A REVIEW, &C             61

 nature of heat, and  his views as to  its origin ?   The laws of inor-
 ganic and animal heat  are pretty well  ascertained ; and will  the
 reviewer explain the cause of their  difference?  So great a philo-
 sopher as Moore remarks, that,
   " We must allow  the bodies of living animals and vegetables to
 form an original cause of heat, as much beyond our power of ex-
 plaining as the  source  of the  sun's  heat."  (Moore's  Medical
 Sketches.)
   There is  one remark, contrasting the doctrine of the reviewer
 and the author,  of which the former  shall  have  the  benefit  in
 his own language,—a fairness in  which the author takes much
 pleasure, though a very  rare opportunity conceded to the author.
 Thus:
  "In Dr. Paine's opinion, then, as in ours, the acknowledged influence of the ner-
 vous system upon the production of animal heat is exercised through the medium
 of the organic functions ; and the difference between us consists in this, that he re-
 gards it as one of those functions incapable of being explained by any other than
 vital laws, — which, in the present state of our knowledge of those laws, is equivalent
 to saying that we know nothing at all about it ; whilst  we consider it as  a re-
 sult of those functions produced by the molecular changes  which they involve, —
 these changes being themselves governed by the ordinary laws of chemistry.''
 (Rev. p. 396.)
  From the coincidences hitherto indicated between the doctrines
 and language of the reviewer and  Dr.  Carpenter, the inquisitive
 reader may be interested  with knowing that the same parallel  ex-
 ists  between the reviewer's remarks on animal  heat and those of
 Dr. Carpenter's " Principles," &c. p. 377—378.
  The reviewer is peculiarly intent upon the doctrine of respiration,
 and complains that his author did not add to the bulk of his work by
 noticing, more fully,  Newport's observations as to the respiration of
 insects.   But, the main object of the Essay is to disprove that doc-
trine, and the author only felt it necessary in  respect to the ex-
periments  upon  insects,  to refer accurately to the  fact that
 Newport had connected their generation of heat with the process
of respiration ;  which he did in the following manner: —
  " He (Newport) also found that the power of generating heat is
exalted during their  breeding season ; though it might have been
more difficult to ascertain that the amount of heat evolved  is in
 PROPORTION  TO  THE QUANTITY OF  AIR RESPIRED."  (Comm.
vol. ii, p. 66.)
  Now observe the characteristic statement  of the reviewer: —
  " A stimulus, which excites the individual  [an insect] to activity, also increases
the number of its respirations and its consumption of oxygen ; and the temperature
i6 raised, as Mr. Newport has shown, [?] exactly in the same proportion.
Now, in alluding to Newport's experiments,  Dr. Paine entirely overlooks this
fact "!   (Rev. p. 395.) 
62
EXAMINATION OF A  REVIEW,  &C.
   Our  conscientious and verbal critic, —
  " Will not impute the mistake of calling the separation of the oxygen of the at-
mosphere from the nitrogen mixed with it an act of decomposition to Dr. Paine's
ignorance of the meaning of chemical terms."  (Rev. p. o!)3.)
   Nor, on the other hand, will Dr. P. impute  to  the reviewer an
"ignorance" of the fact of its being still sub judice whether the  ox-
ygen and nitrogen  are  simply mixed or  chemically  combined.
Nearly a page is  devoted to showing that the author's experiments
upon the  temperature of trees are not as minutely " recorded " as
John Hunter's.   The material objection is that the temperature of
the earth  was not ascertained sufficiently low down.  The exper-
iments, however, as it regards the purpose  of the  author, are in no
respect invalidated.   The temperature of the earth was ascertain-
ed as low as the  roots of the smaller trees  extended, and as theirs
was almost  always the highest temperature,  and as  those whose
roots reached lowest down  had the lowest temperature,  the neces-
sity of going deeper with the thermometer, so far as respected the
principles the author attempted to illustrate, was  superseded.  All
the experiments,  too, at each observation, were regulated  by com-
mon standards, and the detail, therefore, required by the reviewer
would have unnecessarily increased his objection  to a "great book."
  Page 397 is devoted to a denial of any organization or  vitaliza-
tion of the food until it is " taken into the vessels."
  " The organization and consequent vitalization of this substance commences
as soon as, being taken into the vessels, it is admitted into the living system."
(Rev.p.'S97.)
  And so Dr. Carpenter : —
  " With the process of absorption, strictly so called, the organization of the constituents of tho
alimentary fluid, and their endowment with vital properties may be regarded as commencing in
animals as well as in plants."  (Carp. Princip. p. 20G.)
  And yet these  identical writers " assert," that the very " ele-
ments of matter are endowed with vital properties."  (See Re-
ply, p. 37—38.)   Which way shall we have it ?
  Even so great a defender of the  chemical digestion  of food as
Dr. Prout fully admits an organizing and  vitalizing agency of the
stomach; (l) for  which he  gets a reprimand in another article in
the present number of the British Review, (p. 445.) whilst in yet an-
other article, it is said that, in a later work,(2)—"Dr. Prout maintains
that the stomach possesses a vitalizing and organizing faculty,
whereby it is enabled to fit the crude aliment for contact with the  liv-
ing structure."  (.Ret;, of Prout, p. 332.)   Where does that "vitaliz-
ing and organizing faculty" reside? Is it certain that the stomach,
or the vessels, can vitalize any better than the gastric juice, which

  (1) Prout's Chemistry, Meteorology, and the Function of Digestion, considered with Reference to
Natural Theology, b. 3, c. 3.  (2) On the Stomach and Urinary Diseases, 1640. 
EXAMINATION op  a review, &c.              63
 is especially secreted for the purpose ?   But, Dr. Prout, along with
 Liebig, and even Miiller, (") are marked for the sacrifice by philoso-
 phers who  complain  most  loudly of " transcendental vitalism;"
 though their chemical and  physical theories of life are  duly re-
 cognised as "conformable to the present advanced state of knowl-
 edge." (2)   But, take the following passage from Liebig as one of
 those scintillations  which illuminate and,betray the  errors of a
 master-mind.
   "Theindividual organs,"  he says, "suchas the stomach,cause
 all the organic substances conveyed to them wThich are capable of
 transformation to assume new forms.  The  stomach compels
 the elements of these substances to unite into a compound fitted
for  the formation  of the  blood.   [Can  artificial '■pepsin'' do as
 much ?]  But the blood possesses no power of causing transforma-
 tions.  On  the contrary, its principal character consists in its rea-
 dily  suffering  transformations; and no other matter can be com-
 pared in this respect with it."  (Liebig's Organic Chemistry ap-
 plied  to Physiology, &c. p. 346.)
   The chemical hypothesis of digestion is affirmed by the reviewer;
 but  there is no attempt to show its validity, or to indicate an error
 in the author, except  to class him with the " transcendental vital-
 ists."  The artificial mixtures of " Miiller, Schwann, Eberle," are
 duly approved ; as they are also by Dr. Carpenter.   Thus the lat-
 ter:—
  " Similar effects [to those of the gastric juice] have been obtained by an artificial gastric juice['.]
 which lias been formed, by Muller and Shwann, of a mixture of dilute acetic or muriatic acid, with
 mucus of the stomach ; the simplest way of manufacturing it being," &c. (Carp. Princip. p. 208.)
   The author's  doctrine is presented after  the usual manner of
 the  reviewer, where "vitalism" is concerned.   He represents the
 author as " mixing up the vital properties with the gastric juice,"
 in the way in which we  have just seen  them  " mixed  up " by
 those erudite chemists, Prout  and Liebig, and  forgetting that he
 and Dr. Carpenter had just  " mixed up " the same properties with
 the  chyle and blood,  whilst Dr. Carpenter also endows the fluid
 ovum with such  vital  properties as are capable  of unfolding, and
 without  chemical agencies, all the essential parts of the foetus.
 (See Reply, pp. 32—33, 40.)
   "  We  have next," says the Journal,  " a  learned review of the
 Theories  of Inflammation," (p. 398.)  The  only apparent objec-
 tion to this Essay is the author's doctrine that this " disorder con-

  (1) See condemnation of Muller's " vital principle or organic force," in  British and Foreign Med.
 Rev.  Jan. 1839, p. 172. The  second English edition, however, of Muller's Physiology is said to be ex-
 purgated. See Ibid. January, 1840, p. 244.
  (2) " The British A.-.suciution for the Advancement of Science," 1838, deputed a committee of those
 eminent chemists, Thomson, Prout, and Graham, with whom Prof. Owen was also associated, to make
 experiments upon the ga^nr juice of Alexis St. Martin. Now, we respectfully submit whether the
 foregoing inquiry does not fall uuder the proviuce of the physiologist?  (Sei Reply, p. 54.  Ex-
 tract from Review.; 
 U*             EXAMINATION  OF A  REVIEW,  &C.

 sists in disorder of the vital forces ;"  (Reviewers phraseology,) —
 a rather lame objection  for one who  defends the humoral pathol-
 ogy by affirming  that "the vital properties of the blood are capa-
 ble of alteration by various causes."   And this leads the author to
say that he is greatly misapprehended by the reviewer  in  suppos-
ing that the change of those properties in inflammation  consists
alone in their "exaltation."   The author  supposes them, also, to
be otherwise " altered," just as  his reviewer so correctly supposes
of the  " vital properties of the blood," when that fluid is diseased.
There is no other attempt to  invalidate this Essay.
   As the review naturally divides  itself into  two parts, so  also
should the examination.   That portion  which has been the sub-
ject of analysis is without a clause to mitigate  its rank injustice.
But,  continued misrepresentation would  have been exuberant
when  it ceased to be  useful;  and few are so obtuse as to carry it
beyond  the limit  of satiety.  The  reviewer,  therefore, having
thus disposed of vitalism  and solidism, appears to  have  abruptly
concluded, on reaching the other Essays, that  it might  be as well
to have some reference to a sense of ordinary justice and  decorum.
What  remains to be said, therefore, is defensive only in a passive
sense.   Folly and  Ignorance are  not the  usual companions  of
"much power of  mind,"  "great learning," "zeal, and industry,"
which the  author concedes are  verbally admitted far beyond his
desert by the  reviewer; nor could they  achieve what the sub-
sequent Essays are allowed to embrace, without leaving a trace of
their counter-influence upon that equal bulk of the work, in which
the reviewer sees nothing to impugn but by misrepresentation.
  " The next Essay, the Philosophy of Venous Congestion, is, we think," says the
reviewer, " altogether the most valuable in the work." He also thinks " that the
author is quite right in asserting [showing] that, in many  instances, the  enlarg-
ment of the veins and the stagnation [?] of the blood in them cannot be accounted
for on the ordinary theories, and that they are due to some change in the veins them-
selves.  We are farther disposed to admit the probability that this change is of
an inflammatory character."  " Having established in his own opinion that»ve-
nous congestion  [true congestion] is in no  respect mechanically determined by a
remora of blood,' he proceeds to show, and we think with more success, that a mere
passive relaxation of their parietes will not produce it, and that the  cause  is to
be sought in some  morbid condition of the trunks  themselves. This  he regards
as of an inflammatory nature ; producing varicose enlargements  when local and
chronic, and giving rise to congestive fevers, [not to the  fever.]   A considerable
body of evidence,  from symptoms, post-mortem  appearances, and the effects of
treatment, is brought forward in support of this  view;  and we are  disposed to
recommend it strongly to the attention of our readers." (Review, p. 398—399.)
   Nevertheless, the acerbity of feeling is not yet assuaged.   The 
EXAMINATION OP A  REVIEW,  &C.
65
author has made no greater compromise with the mechanical hy-
potheses of venous congestion, than he had in his former Essays
with the chemical and physical doctrines  of organic processes.
" Excessive dogmatism and exclusiveness," and other unseemly
epithets, continue, therefore, to be favourite modes of representing
the author; nor is there wanting that  more personal offence, of
which examples have already been presented in  attempts to de-
grade the author by distorting his views in the language of insult.
  A page (p. 399) is occupied with entirely perverting what the
author has said in respect to the independence of  true cerebral
congestion, or even mechanical plethora of the cerebral veins, of
remora of blood in pulmonary or other thoracic affections, un-
less, according to the author in obstructions of the jugular veins or
vena cava.   Compare that page with Comm.  Vol. II, pp. 249, 252,
262, 482—483, 217 note (8) 427—428, 232, 248.  And, notwith-
standing  the author has quoted the works  of fifteen writers to
prove  a mechanical injection of the veins of the brain, in cases
of man " hanging," (Comm. Vol. II, p.  255), and has much to
the same effect, (pp. 252—254, 238—246), the reviewer charges
him with ignorance upon this subject, after the following manner :—
  " Surely hanging, whether judicial or suicidal, is not so rare  an occurrence in
America, that Dr. Paine has never witnessed its  post-mortem phenomena."  (Re-
view, p. 399.) — [The reviewer directly and utterly perverts his author's whole de-
monstration and facts, as to the absence of cerebral derangement in natural
" obliterations of the cerebral veins and vena cava," by this management.]
   The reviewer could also "give the Essay higher commenda-
tion, if it were compressed from four hundred  pages to forty."
(Review, p.  398.)  But the author had embarked upon an unex-
plored region, and one, if he were right, of vast  moment to man-
kind ;  he°had prejudices and malevolence, like his reviewer's, to
contend with  as  in all the other Essays: numerous difficulties
were to be removed; artificial experiments to be exposed and di-
vested of influence ; the facts and opinions of great philosophers
to be respectfully examined, etc.   Various other specific questions,
such as the pathology of varix, of venous hypertrophy, of pur-
pura hemorrhagica, of the true asthma, of the cerebral congestions
which  spring =from alcohol, the narcotic  poisons,  cold, etc.; the
diversities and complications of  active phlebitis ; the radical dis-
tinction between inflammation and idiopathic fever, and the modi-
fications of each by venous congestions, and how each disease is
modified by various  predisposing causes; the pathology  of the
true puerperal  fever; the powers which govern the circulation
(venous and arterial); and a variety of other topics indispensable
to the oreat object of the  Essay, are so considered  as to form dis-
tinct drsquisitions in  themselves, whilst they are relatively inten-
 ded for a consistent whole.   May not the facts, also, which  the au-
                            9 
06
examination  of a  review, &c.
 thor has accumulated here and in  other places, be of some advan-
 tage independently of the principles they are designed to illustrate 1
   Events have only satisfied the author that he should not mod-
 ify his plan;  and, when another  edition  shall be  published, in-
 stead of abstracting from  the  present, other materials will be  ad-
ded ;  and,   that a proper issue may obtain between the reviewer
Dr.  Carpenter, and  the author, the present examination will be
incorporated with the work.
  "The next Essay," says the reviewer, "on the Comparative Merits  of the
Hippocratic and Anatomical Schools, contains many sound remarks on the  absur-
dity of the pretensions of the Modern French School  of morbid  anatomy, and the
necessity of the observation of the phenomena of disease in the living state for the
success of medical practice." (Review, p. 400.)
  " The work concludes with a severe review of the writings of Louis, in which 1 >r.
Paine points out certain alleged fallacies of his method of generalizing, and expo-
ses his hasty condemnation of previous observers.  It may  be thought a little
strange that  Dr. Paine should see these faults so glaringly in another, but should
be so utterly unconscious of them in himself;  but alas!! for human nature, such a
self-delusion  is by no means uncommon."
                   [" Oh ! that thov, wouldst tho giftie gieus "I
                   To see oursels as ithcrs see us."      J
  "He seems to  regard M. Louis' system of observation as not  only useless, but
strongly injurious;  and he does not give him, by any means,  sufficient credit for
the mass of valuable  materials which he has collected for the benefit of those
who can use them aright." (Review, p. 401.)
  The author has marked the characteristic sentence  in the fore-
going quotation for the purpose of comment.   It  embraces insin-
uations which are only worthy a mind that  was capable of the
injustice which has  been  hitherto exposed.  Throughout  the
" Commentaries"  the author  has  dwelt upon the importance of
general principles  in medicine, and the whole object of his work
is to  attempt a reduction of  scattered facts  to such  principles.
Nor has he been guilty of the alleged inconsistency of objecting to
this practice in others; but, on the contrary, in numerous places
has he urged  its importance,  and lamented  its  neglect.   (See, par-
ticularly, Appendix on Analogy and Principles in Medicine, Vol.
II, p. 574 — 589.)  As it respects  M. Louis, the object  of the  au-
thor was totally different from  what is implied by  the reviewer,—
it being to exhibit a "glaring" inconsistency in M.  Louis of con-
demning all "generalizing" by others,  while he  himself was ad-
dicted to the practice beyond all medical philosophers.   As to the
implied charge that  the  author has " hastily condemned previous
observers," he can only  make a positive denial, and, by associa-
ting this reply with the work itself, commit the issue to an impar-
tial public.  The author will here have one word as  to his respect for
the writings of Hippocrates, Aretaeus, Celsus,  and other fathers of
medicine.   His main object  was  to institute a contrast between 
examination of a review, &c.
67
their habits of observing nature and the artificial systems of more
recent times.  Like all other sane  men,  he  believes the human
mind to be capable of progression in knowledge, but  also  believes
that this progress may be impeded or arrested by false philosophy,
if he may so call it.   The author's sentiments upon  this question
are fully expressed in Vol. II, pp. 676^-677, 806—815.
  Finally, from what  has been now seen, what must  we conclude
from the following, and other passages of a similar import, which
occur in the review?—
  " As on this subject we formerly expressed our complete accordance with Dr.
Carpenter's positions, whilst differing from him on other points, we shall in our
present observations identify our own with them, more especially as Dr. Paine's
criticisms are directed to both alike."  (Rev. p. 387.)
  Now, lest some subterfuge be concealed in the foregoing assev-
eration, will the reviewer of Dr. Paine's " Commentaries " distinctly
avow that he also wrote  the review of Dr. Carpenter's work? (])
Will the editor assume the  responsibility?^)  But,  however this

  (1) The following is the title of the work to which the author refers : —
  "Principles of General  and Comparative  Physiology, by William B.
Carpenter, Member of  the Royal College of Surgeons,  London ; Late
President of the Royal Medical and Royal Physical Societies ; and Fel-
low of  the Royal Botanical Society, Edinburgh ; and Lecturer on Fo-
rensic Medicine in the  Bristol Medical School. — London, 1839."
  (2) If Dr. Forbes will compare the review of the Character and Writings
of John  Hunter, which appears in the  April No. 1839, of the British and For-
eign Medical  Review, with the Rev. Dr. Channing's eloquent "  Remarks on the
Character and Writings of John  Milton," and then look at an Article in the
April No. 1839, of the Edinburgh  Review, upon Dr. Channing's  " Remarks," he
will see the advantage of requiring initial signatures from the contributors to his
Journal;  whilst such articles as appear anonymously would be duly accredited to
the Editor, and his correspondents  thus protected.   He need not go beyond pages
41^,419, 420,  (a) 422, 423, of the Medical Review to appreciate the force of the
foregoing suggestion.   The author could assign not a few other similar reasons, —
but this for the present.
  Before the reader, however, shall have done with this inquiry, let him  criti-
cally compare the following pages of the article in the Medical Review, with the
following sections of Dr. Carpenter's " Principles," etc.; namely, pages 426—
427,433,  "The human body," etc. with sections 512, 513,514,  515,5; and pa-
ges 430, 332, with section 364. See, also, Dr. Carpenter's  »Preface," p, 7—8.
  The author has quoted his reviewer, (Reply, p. 41), as saying,  that in another
article he had " formerly shown the blood to be endowed  with vitality."  That
article is in the July, (1839), number, and is a continuation of the elaborated re-
view of the Character and  Writings of John Hunter. (See Review, p. 177—183.)
Here, also, compare Channing with page 183, &c.   " What a world of  thought,"
etc.,  " we are  naturally curious to know," etc.
  " His reviewer read for Metaphysics under the letter M, and for Cuina under the letter C; and
combined his information, Sii."-( Pickwick Papers.)
  " We have been induced to make these general remarks to save us tho nscessity of extracting
largely from a work," etc. (Rev. April, 1839, p.42J.)
  (a) "The whole community is  now turned into (medical) readers" : {Channing and Reviewer.)
See other similar metamorphoses. 
68
examination of  A  REVIEW, &,(.'.
may be, there can be no doubt that the author of the " Medical
and Physiological Commentaries " has  met a proud adversary in
ambush, and stamped  him with indelible marks of falsehood and
prevarication.
           "The time hath been when no harsh sound would fall
           From lips that now may seem imbued with gall."—Byron.
   The author in submitting this " examination " to his professional
brethren, regrets that his engagements have rendered it necessary
to execute it with greater haste than he could have desired.  He
has now only to add, that he has endeavoured not to neglect any
criticisms of the reviewer, and to omit nothing which was inten-
ded to operate disadvantageously  to the "Commentaries."  An
apology is  scarcely necessary for the Italics and Capitals which
abound in  the " examination," since, the  reviewer's criticisms
being of a verbal nature, it became necessary to indicate the per-
verted words, and their true import, by appropriate marks.
   In having thus, for the second time, exposed the malevolence of
those  who  have felt annoyed by the author's  criticisms, and, as
there  are many others, particularly in Europe,  from whom the au-
thor has  had the misfortune to differ in opinion upon important
doctrines, he feels entitled to an  impartial consideration of any
strictures upon his  " Commentaries " which may appear hereafter;
and,  in the language of Dr.  Carpenter's successful  appeal, " he
will only now express the  hope that, as his inferences have not
been formed hastily or inconsiderately, they may not be too readi-
ly pronounced crude or unphilosophical."  (Carp. Princip.  Pre-
face.)
   New-York, May 5th, 1841.
  The introduction of the following extracts is in no respect in-
tended either to sustain the foregoing defence, or to advance the
interests of the " Commentaries."   So far as the reviewer, Dr. Car-
penter, and the author are relatively concerned, the latter desires
that  their respective merits should  rest entirely upon their own
ground. But, the author cannot forbear connecting with this pamph-
let a memorial of the kindness which he has received from the medi-
cal press of his own country.  It may be also as well to premise that
the author is personally unacquainted with every editor of the Amer-
ican  medical periodicals, excepting the gentlemen who  conduct
the " New-York Journal  of Medicine and Surgery."  To those
who have done the author the honour of the following notices, (and 
examination  op a  review,  &c.
69
   he believes that the writers are all, with the foregoing exceptions,
   personally unknown  to him,) the author embraces  this opportu-
   nity of conveying  his  profound  gratitude.   Perhaps,  indeed, in
   making the foregoing " examination," he has  been as much influ-
   enced by  a sense of obligation to his unknown friends as by any
  other consideration.


    " £tfo further evidence than these volumes is necessary to show that Dr. Paine is a
  man of extensive and faried erudition, whose industry has never been surpassed in the
  annals of American  medical science.  It would  seem at first view, that the man who
  had written these huge volumes, aside from  the thousands of references to all authors
  of credence from a remote antiquity, minutely and accurately registered in the margin,
  could have done hardly anything else in the course of a long  life.   Notwithstanding the
  praise and respect due his high literary attainments, and his profundity in the circle of
  the sciences, we imagine Dr. Paine will be dealt with severely by the medical press of
  this and other countries.  There are a score of sins and medical heresies to be detected
  by the right worshipful admirers of Louis, which will annoy him  hereafter." — Boston
  Medical and Surgical Journal, July, 1840, p. 383.

    " This work reached us so late as to afford time  merely for a glance at its contents;
  but  this  superficial examination has most favourably impressed us in  relation to the
  learning and  industry of the author."  " But it is not only for the learning it displays,
  that the production of Dr. Paine may be recommended.  The language and style, as
  well as the skill and ingenuity with which he maintains his own opinions, and contests
  those of others, show  him to be a scholar; &c."— The American Journal of the Medical
  Sciences, Phila., Vol. 26, J840, p. 437.

    " We have received this book of Dr. Paine with great pleasure.   It has been long
  expected.   The mechanical execution is beautiful, and the contents,  as was to be ex-
  pected  from the well-known character of the author, are replete with value." — The
  Maryland Medical and Surgical Journal,  Baltimore, July, 1840, p. 365.

   "It may be said, that many of these subjects  are not of a practical nature; and to
  those who regard the mere pouring of drugs, of which they know  little,  into a body of
  which they perhaps know less, this  may be the fact.  We trust, however, that at the
  present day there are few such.  Some there are who doubt the  utility of pathology,
 laugh at auscultation and percussion, and consider that no improvements have occurred
 in medicine of late years — because  they have not instituted  or are ignorant of them.
 Such persons, likewise, may regard the dissertations before us as of but little value ; but
 to the large mass of physicians of the day, who are anxious to improve their profession
 in the only way in  which it can be legitimately and  signally  improved—that is, by a
 proper attention to physiological, pathological, and therapeutical principles, we can re-
 commend them as essays replete with information, the perusal of which cannot fail to
 expand the mind, and  to lead to trains of thought pregnant with benefit  to the profes-
 sional reader himself, and through him to the  community.
   " On many of the subjects, our views are by no means in accordance with those of
 Dr. Paine, but his essays have not been the less welcome on  that account. He is lib-
 eral, well read, argumentative, and candid;  and his volumes  exhibit, that his  attention
 has not  been directed  merely to medical lore, but that his literary qualifications are
 ample also."
   " Surely the intelligent author does not mean to convey the idea, that he is the first
 to treat  of' the philosophy of the operation of blood-letting.'  We admit,  that, ex pro-
fesso, essays on the subject are rare ;  yet we had fancied, that we  ourselves had added
 an humble contribution on  this subject some  years ago, and in a volume, which  the 
70
EXAMINATION OP  A REVIEW, ft,C.
author has done us the honour to cito, but which, — as it respects this topic,— lias not
attracted his attention.''  f Prof. Dunglison's General Therapeutics, p. 390 to I'.'S.]
   "Certain of the author's opinions we shall doubtless have occasion to advert to here-
after.  In the meantime, we advise all to peruse the  work for themselves, which con-
tains a vast fund of information agreeably conveyed." —. lmerican Medical Intelligencer,
PhUa.,July, 1840, p. 1)7.

  "They are disquisitions on important questions in  physiology, pathology,  and the-
rapeutics, with an amplification of argument, and variety and precision of bibliograph-
ical details, which, in this age of microscopical examination on the one side, and trans-
cendental vagaries on the other, is truly instructive and refreshing.  It is easier, by far,
to praise and admire the laborious research of the author than to imitate him;  but  let
not the inability to do the  latter  prevent the former,  which Dr.  Paine may rightfully
claim as his due.  If the ' Commentaries' afford, as they do, food for the  'mind contem-
plative ' of the learned physician,  they will also, and herein we would especially recom-
mend them, habituate by their perusal the young student, and the yet imperfectly read
practitioner, to inquiry and reasoning on  the phenomena of life and the modifications to
which  they are continually subjected.   Our recommendation of this work would  be
nearly  as strong even if we differed from the author in some of his conclusions, as  it
would be if these were entirely in coincidence with our own opinions.  We deem the
perusal of his essays a healthy and strengthening exercise, in the taking of which, much
good will be gained in the course of the journey over his  pages, many  new facts ac-
quired, and pregnant hints offered, even though at the end, the traveller may not ac-
quire possession of an El Dorado, or a mine with unalloyed gold."
  " We must rest content, for the present, with pressing them on the attention of that
class of medical men who may be the least inclined to encounter a  continuous perusal
of the two large volumes of which the work consists.  But they  are not  obliged or ex-
pected  to read them through at once. Let them rather  take up one of the important
themes discussed and study it with care ; and then after a due interval, we will not pre-
scribe its duration, go on with another.  Every hour honestly devoted to a study of the
work will create, we are sure, fresh desire, and, what is more, will give increased ability
for farther progress over  its richly  adorned pages." — Eclectic Journal  of Medicine,
PhUa., August, 1840, p. 382.

  " The features of the work before us are peculiar.  Directing his attention almost
exclusively to questions of physiology and medical philosophy, Dr. Paine has, through-
out his  several memoirs, endeavoured to  show the direct application of his principles to
the practice of the healing  art.  He has touched on  almost every disputed or unsettled
point in medical philosophy."
  " Every inquiry into the  laws that regulate the actions of living bodies, he maintains
must turn wholly upon the vital  forces.   And, says our author, ' he  who shall regard
them as coincident with the powers that  rule in the inorganic world, must, as appears
to us, travel in a route upon which he will be forever losing his way.'
  " How just is this remark  when applied to what  has of late years assumed so much
importance, under the specious show of experimental philosophy !''
  "They are, nevertheless, daily gaining ground; and the bold attempt to substitute
mere physical forces for the vital power, in the study of organic actions, which has re-
centlv  been made by the celebrated Magendie, in his lectures on the blood, is  a suffi-
cient evidence, that at the  present moment, vital philosophy is in need of an advocate,
able and willing to defend it.   Such an advocate is our author." —
  " In conclusion, we would recommend the study of these volumes to the profession.
Few medical men, even amongst our most learned and experienced, can peruse  these
essays without benefit, or without receiving information that may be of avail to them in
future.  We know of but few works, and certainly none in the range of American med-
ical literature, to compare with this, for the extent and variety of professional research
evinced in it." — New-York Journal of Medicine and Surgery, July, 1840, p. 146— 172. 
EXAMINATION  OF A REVIEW,  &C.
71
   " The review passed unavoidably into new hands."  "The more we  examine the
 work, the more are we astonished at the immense research it displays, the more we
 are pleased with the general fairness and candour of its statements.  To this latter ex-
 pression, however, we are compelled to state that there are some striking exceptions ;
 a mistake into which Dr.  Paine has unintentionally, no doubt, been led by his enthusi-
 astic attachment to what he believes the true principles of medical philosophy.  None
 among his warmest admirers are more  convinced than ourselves of his  ardent love of
 truth, or of his devotion to the improvement of medical science; the work before us is
 a stupendous proof of much more even than this, to those who read it with the attention
 it deserves."
   " Equally obscure to  our minds is the true pathology of venous congestion; yet the
 path is clear, and  for  this  we are  indebted to  Dr.  Paine.  His investigations  have
 thrown great doubt on  pre-existing theories: they have called forth a new view of the
 whole question ; the truth of which is not to be tested by empty speculations, but  by
 careful examination and patient thought."
   "That our author is  perfectly sincere and honest in his condemnation of  M. Louis,
 we have no doubt whatever;  but we regret none the less the  attempt he has made to
 crush one whose position  is so firmly fixed in our medical  literature.  The numerous
 admirers of M. Louis cannot indeed fail to be shocked as well as surprised at the bold
 denunciations that are poured  out against him.   They have this consolation, however,
 that the thunder which rolls so loudly does not shatter, and that while a few may pause
 and wonder, none will be  convinced.  In making these remarks, we would not be guil-
 ty of undervaluing Dr. Paine's labours."
   " Of this we feel well assured that those who differ from him the most, will  find much
 to admire,—many  rich sources of instruction by which they may profit and improve."
 — Ibid. Oct. 1840, p. 403—432.

   " The work, whose title is announced in the above heading, is  one of the most remark-
 able contributions that  has been made to the medical literature of our country.
   " As an American production, not only is it unusual in its size and the abundance of
 its matter, it is still more unusual on account of the extent and elaborateness of research,
 especially  in books, and of the great amount and  diversity of learning, both ancient and
 modern, by which  it is characterized;  and, as  respects the latter quality,  we might
 safely add, enriched.  Indeed in both qualities, if we mistake not, it may be pronounced
 unique in the medical annals of the United States.  And in standing sufficiently corres-
 pondent to these are the  magnitude, and  bold  ambitiousness of its  aim and object,
 namely:   To expound, vindicate,  and determine some  of the fundamental principles, and
 most important doctrines in  the philosophy of medicine."
   "Those members of the profession, who are  desirous of attaining a thorough and
 competent knowledge of the work we are examining, must  peruse it themselves; and
 not merely peruse it, but make it a subject of laborious and accurate study.  In no other
 way can their desire be  gratified."
   " Under this head, ("Vital Powers,) Dr. Paine, like a warrior, confident alike of the
 rectitude of his cause and of his own powers to maintain it, promptly shows his colours,
 and heralds forth in no doubtful terms the principles  for which he is resolved to make
 battle.  And battle  he does very strenuously make from the beg-inning to the end, not
 only of the present essay, but of his two elaborate and massy volumes.   Every 'sec-
 tion,' and almost every page of the  entire work, is, more or less,, an arena of conflict.
 To vary our style, rendering it less  warlike, and  therefore more appropriate to our sub-
ject and purpose, Dr. Paine is a controversial writer;  and though we do not, as will
 appear hereafter, concur with him on every subordinate point he discusses,  we consider
 him, as  relates to most, if not all,  his fundamental principles and general doctrines, cor-
rect and triumphant.  The reason of his triumph  is plain.  He contends for truth, as
it is clearly, we think, expressed in the Book of Nature, is master of his own subject,
and possesses ample means for its illustration and defence.   He is, as will be presently
perceived, a Vitalist and Solidist.  And so, if we mistake not, is Xature herself.   His
course, therefore, was straight and obvious." 
72
EXAMINATION  OF  A  REVIEW, &C.
    " He has taken Nature for his guide, marked her footsteps, followed in her path, and
 faithfully  employed, in vindication of sound principles  in  medicine, the all-sufficient
 means, with which  she supplies her industrious votaries and enlightened  advocates.
 And thus pursuing his purpose, with ability and perseverance, (and he  is destitute of
 neither,) his failure to accomplish it may be pronounced impossible.  For the ultimate
 triumph of truth is as certain as any of the other Decrees of Heaven."
   " We speak not here of the positive condition and character of the principles and laws
 that govern the world of living matter. Those great sources and regulators of action and
 change are, in themselves  and in their relations to  one another, as certain, harmonious,
 and stable, as are  any  of the  other elements or attributes of creation.   And creation,
 being the work  of an all perfect being, is  free  itself from imperfection  and  fault.
 The irregularity and unstableness apparent in  it, are only apparent.  They  exist  only
 in relation  to ourselves, on account of the  insufficiency of our knowledge, and compre-
 hension of them.''
   "Without gravely  attempting, at present, to arbitrate between two writers, one of
 them so able and learned  as the American, and the other so popular and fashionable as
 the Frenchman,  we say unhesitatingly, that we have long  witnessed, with dissatisfac-
 tion and regret,  the dense and  unmeasured  clouds of professional incense, that have
 risen to the latter,  from numerous altars in the United States."
   " What, we ask, has Mr. Louis done, for the  real advancement of practical medicine,
 that entitles him  to such homage?  and the only  reply, which truth countenances, is
 nothing!   In point of example, he  is proverbially one of the most unsuccessful  prac-
 titioners in the metropolis of  France, and that is a  high  standard of comparison.   For,
 in that  metropolis, practical medicine, if reports and statistics on the subject be not de-
 ceptive, is in a miserable condition,—a condition lower than in perhaps any other large
 European city — and greatly below its standard condition in the towns and villages of
 the United States."
   "M.  Louis, though  professing to be an unprejudiced observer  and  interrogator of
 nature,  and proclaimed as such by his pupils and followers, is one of the most confirmed
 theorists, and exclusive dogmatists, that has appeared in medicine.  In his condemna-
 tion  of the opinions and  proceedings of  his predecessors and cotemporaries, and in
 assuming that his own method of cultivating medicine approaches perfection, if it do not
 reach it, he is scarcely less sweeping and self-sufficient than Paracelsus.  In his  esti-
 mation,  all, or most at  least, that is professionally valuable,  centres in himself, and is
incorporated in his ' numerical method' and his  pathological  discoveries.   According to
his own estimate of matters, and that of his worshippers, he is the  great medical Jug-
gernaut of modern times,  or  of all times."
  "We shall only  add, under the present notice, an expression of  our hope,  that we
shall find leisure hereafter to give such further analyses and expositions  of Dr. Paine's
'Commentaries'  as  may be more gratifying and useful  to the readers  and patrons of
this Journal, and more worthy of a work so erudite and able, as  that we have been
considering."—The Western Journal  of Medicine and Surgery ; Louisville, Ky. April
 1811, p. 257—270.
  Errata.  At page 15, first line, for Craham read Daubney. Vagu 17, note 2, in a part ofthe edition
for 18-24, read 1834.  Page 18, forty-first line, for morbility read mobility. Page 40, lino 46, beforo and
after " not an organized tissue,'' erase marks of quotation. 
    THE  MED1C0-CHIRURGICAL   REVIEW,

                         April,  1841.   London.

  " A man who by long consideration has familiarized a subject to bis own mind, carefully surveyed
rhe scries of bis thoughts, and planned all the parts of his composition into a regular dependence on
each other, will often start at the sinistrous interpretations, or absurd remarks of haste and ignorance,
and wonder by what infatuation his critics have been led away from the obvious sense, and upon what
peculiar principles of judgment they decide against him."
  " Some seem always to read with the microscope of criticism, and employ their whole attention upon
minute elegance, or faults scarcely visible to common observation."
  " Others are furnished by criticism with a telescope.  They see with great clearness whatever is too
remote to be  discovered by the  rest of mankind; but are totally blind to all that lies immediately
before them."
  " When a book has been once dismissed  into the world, and can be no more retouched, I know not
whether firmness and spirit may not sometimes be of use to overpower arrogance and repel brutality.
Softness, diffidence, and moderation, will often be mistaken for imbecility and dejection.  They lure
cowardice to the attack by the hopes of easy victory; and it will soon be found that he, whom every
man thinks he can conquer, shall never be at peace."  (Johnson's Rambler.)
 Since the  foregoing  was printed, the April No. of the  Medico-
 Chirurgical Review has  fallen  under the observation of the au-
 thor.   It contains a review ofthe " Commentaries," (p. 392—402,)
 in which there is something to excite the author's  thankfulness;
 but there are many misapprehensions of a serious nature, which the
 author will rectify.   In doing this, he will state all  the criticisms.
   The reviewer begins by saying that, —
   " The contents are devoted to the consideration ofthe most abstruse, metaphysi-
 cal, pathological, and physiological subjects; every page abounding with references
 to, or quotations from, authors  of every age, and of every  country;" &c.  " It
 certainly is a favourable specimen of the laborious research and elaborate study of
 the writer.   It reminds us of the German school of authorship ;  or of such books
 in our own language, as Burton's Anatomy, of Melancholy; and puts to shame
 those medical authors who  favour the world with the results of their experience,
 observation,  and acquirements, without indicating always the sources, whence
 they have derived their knowledge.
   " For our own parts, however, we candidly confess that we have a  predilec-
 tion for this latter  class of writers ": &c.  (See Reply, p. 54—55.)
   " The opinion Lord Byron had of the book, to which we have above alluded, as
 a literary work, coincides exactly with our own, respecting this as a medical one: —
 ' Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy,' said he, ' is the most useful book for a man
 who wishes to acquire the  reputation of being well read with the least trouble.
 But, among the medley of quotations, the superficial reader must take care, or his
 intricacies will bewilder him.   If, however, he has the patience to go through his
 volumes, he  will be  more improved for literary conversation than by the perusal
 of any twenty books with which I am acquainted;  at least  in the English lan-
 guage.' "  (Rev. pp. 392, 393.   See Reply, pp. 1, 65.)
   Samuel Johnson, also, was wont to say, that— " Burton's Anato-
 my of Melancholy was the only book that ever called him from his
 bed an hour before his allotted time."
   «In every section of his  Essay, while he displays both industry of research and
dexterity of applying quotations and references;" (') &c.  (Rev. p. 399.)

  (1) The Capitals and Italics are the author's, a liberty which the author has taken in common with
 his reviewer.
                                    10 
74
EXAMINATION OF  A RKVIEW, &.C.
   Were it not that the author's belief in the " immortality of the
soul" has been impugned by the reviewer, he would have been quite
disposed to allow the foregoing remarks to  stand as a commentary
upon the objections which occur in other  places.   The reviewer
also does the author the honour of saying that,  " His work will be
a lasting monument of the author's profound and multifarious
reading," — but  there stands  in repulsive  contrast with this com-
pliment the sentence immediately preceding, in  which it is said
that the work " savours much more of the lamp  than of the dis-
secting-room ; and of the study rather than the  bed-side of the
sick."  (Rev. p. 393.)
  We will soon see how far the foregoing  conclusion is sustained
by the proof which is offered by the reviewer; but, in the mean-
time,  as to the matter of fact, the  author will  now put that at
rest, by stating what is notorious amongst all his familiar acquain-
tances ;  that for  more than a  quarter of a  century, his days have
been laboriously devoted to the practical duties of his calling, and
among those temperate  classes of society where the best opportu-
nities occur for pathological  observation;  whilst  his literary  la-
bours (of which the " Commentaries " are not a moiety of what he
has prepared for publication) have been mainly accomplished dur-
ing those  hours which are commonly allotted by mankind to rest.
So far, the author concedes that " his work " may " savour of the
lamp."  As to the imputed neglect of "the dissecting-room," the au-
thor refers to his  work on the " Cholera Asphyxia of New-York,"
to his Essay on Venous Congestion, and to the general character
ofthe " Commentaries," that he is not obnoxious to the inconsistency
of having neglected morbid anatomy.   The author also in farther
justice to himself will say, that, until the present season, though
always  toiling, it has been, for the last ten years, at the uninter-
rupted expense of health.
   Let us, however, have the facts which  have suggested the  in-
ference that the author has  raised  " a lasting monument  of his
profound  and multifarious reading" by "the lamp," whilst he has
squandered his days in idleness.
  " We shall best enable our readers," 8ays the reviewer,  " to form their own
opinion of the style and value of Dr.  Paine's  comments on other authors, and of
his own practical information, by selecting a few of his criticisms on some of the
more recent writers on bloodletting.—[ The author quoting without omission.]
  1. " Dr. Wardrop says, —«The leading symptom by which the constitutional
disturbance demanding venesection is indicated, will be found in the quality ofthe
pulse.'
  " Our author states, —' There is  scarcely any symptom,  per se, that is less to
be trusted to than the pulse, unless it possess certain positive characters.' "
(Rev. p. 397.  Comm. vol. i, p. 233.) 
EXAMINATION  OP A  REVIEW,
&C.
75
   To which the author immediately adds,__
   " One of these, incompressibility.  Dr. Wardrop defines well.
 Hardness is another characteristic which goes far towards indi-
 cating the propriety of bloodletting, — since both are commonly
 the  result of inflammatory action.   But, the philosophical physi-
 cian will be determined in all his remedies by the general  as-
 semblage  of symptoms;  especially  local  ones,  if  they exist.
 Again, the pulse is well known to be subject to the greatest vari-
 ety  of changes from transient causes."  (Comm. vol. i, p. 233.)
   The author has entered very largely into the consideration  of
 the  state of the pulse in venous congestions,  and congestive  fevers,
 and apoplexies,  to  show that it may, " per se," be a fallacious
 guide; and he flatters himself that what he  has said on this sub-
 ject alone proves sufficiently that he has been not only an atten-
 tive, but an extensive, observer of disease " at the bedside."  (See
 Comm. vol. i, all that follows in immediate connection with  the
foregoing quotation, from p. 233—239, and particularly the fol-
 lowing  also,  pp. 197—209, 342—343,  184—194, 239—309, 328
 —335;  vol. ii, pp. 294—298, 231—249, <fcc.)
  2.  "Again, page 236, our author states,"  says the reviewer, — "'We think
 that  very few will agree  with Dr. Wardrop that,' — "there is usually no ap-
 pearance of the buffy coat  in blood removed from persons  affected with vio-
 lent inflammations until the latter stage of the disease,  and  at the
 very period when the further abstraction of blood would be pernicious." (')
  "'On the contrary, indeed,' Dr. Paine says,' we find in ninety-nine of one hun-
 dred  such cases, that the buffy coat is presented at the first bleeding; and has dis-
 appeared, more or less, when the ' further abstraction of blood would be pernicious.'"
 (Rev. p. 398.  Comm. vol. i, p. 236.)
   The author has no comments to make.
  3.  "'Again, Dr. Wardrop says,' — "in almost every case where venesection is
 necessary, there is present along with the disturbed action of the arterial system
 some local pain, more or less severe."   " ♦ Now this,' says our author, ' is noto-
 riously not  ths case in very many instances of venous congestion, in many
 chronic inflammations, and  often in severe cases of pneumonia; in all of which
 bloodletting may be indispensable."  (Rev. p. 398. Comm. vol. i, p. 237.)
   The author is content.
  4. « Dr. Arnott states," says the author, "' that it is a great modern improve-
 ment in the practice of the healing art, in bleeding for the cure  of  inflammation,
 to take the blood away as quickly as possible ; since intense inflammations of
 the brain, lungs, bowels, &c. are equally removed by faintness, whether it
 happens after the loss of  ten ounces of blood,  or of fifty.' " "'This,' says
our author, «is a fallacy.'"  (Review, p. 398.  Comm. vol. i,  p.  215.)
 ; "{or even, as sometimes occurs, when it happens without bleed-
ing  at  all, after merely  tying the arm  in preparation.'" (3)
 (Comm. ibid.)
  The foregoing  words in Italics are  a part of the author's  ex-
trauUfrom Dr. Arnott, and are continuous with the word " fifty,"

  fl « ' Wardroo. on Bloodletting, p. 41.' "    d) " Arnott'. Elements 0n>hy9irs, vol. i, pp. 470^2." 
7fi
EXAMINATION  OF A  REVIEW, *,C
  where the reviewer broke off.  As the reviewer, also, was exhibit-
  ing examples of the author's "style  and comments,"  as well as
  "practical information,"he should have begun the quotation with
  the " comment" as it occurs in the Commentaries. Thus : — " From
  the foregoing considerations will  appear the fallacy of the
  statement made by Dr.  Arnott,  ' that it,'" etc.  The author has no
  such abruptness, as, " this is a fallacy."   The reviewer goes on, —
   " Dr. Paine adds, in a significant note, —'Hence, too, appears the fallacy of ap-
  plying the elements of physics to considerations of this  nature.' " (Review, p. 398.)
    Such  is the author's doctrine throughout the " Commentaries."
   5. " In the same ex cathedra style Dr. Paine criticises the opinions of other
  writers.  He thus concludes his strictures on Dr. Marshall Hall. — 'But the mc«t
  exceptionable  part of Dr. Hall's rules, as it appears  to us, applies to the repeti-
  tion of bloodletting. " If much blood has flowed," says, Dr. Hall, " before in-
  cipient syncope has been induced, revisit your patient soon;  and you will proba-
  bly have to repeat the bloodletting in consequence of the severity of the disease,
  especially if you were not called in early in the first instance.   If, on the contrary,
  little blood has flowed, neither does the disease  require, nor would the pa-
  tient beak, farther general depletion. Is not this an interesting and important piece
  of information] "—(Review, p. 398.—Comm. vol. i, p.218.)
   " We have made these quotations, which we might extend to any length, partly
  to exhibit the style of Dr. Paine's criticisms, and partly to give greater currency
  to the valuable  suggestions which he so strongly reprobates." (Review, p. 398.)
    But again, the reviewer, after some general comments:—
   6. "In Vol.  I, page 337, Dr. Paine says, — 'we hold it (bloodletting) to be
  more important in infancy, under equal circumstances, than at any other age ;
  and this ratio increases as we ascend to the hour of birth.'   In page 361, among
  the aphorisms  ["general results"] with which he concludes his essay is the fol-
  lowing.
   7. "'Bloodletting is equally safe at all periods of life, but  is most indispensable
  in old age.'
   " Now, we submit, that if Dr. Paine's practice had been guided by experience
  instead of theory, he would not have come to conclusions, and have made unqual-
 ified assertions so fraught with danger." (Review, p. 399.) [The author has
  quoted all the examples, and uninterruptedly.]
    In the first place,  the  reviewer  will admit  that  there is a
 great difference between the  expression "we hold it to  be"  and
 " we hold that it may  be," which last are the words  of the au-
 thor  at  the beginning  of the quotation  marked 6;  and  this,
  more especially as  the  author was then engaged in  surrounding
  the  operation of bloodletting in infancy with a  variety of pre-
  cautions.  The reviewer will  also  take notice that  he has  com-
  mitted a great injustice by leaving out a part of the sentence which
  forms the quotation 7,  and  by inserting the word "  but,"  and by
  then placing  the words  "most indispensable" in  Italics; — by
  which he makes his author contradict himself as to  what rJSttSl
~3aiti? in  No. 6, of the greater  importance, in a  general  sense^ of 
              EXAMINATION of a  REVIEW, &C.             I t

bloodletting in infancy ; and this is farther  enforced by the man-
agement of the quotation^.   The author will now state the "gen-
eral result" as it stands in the "Commentaries :" —
   " It [bloodletting] is  equally safe  at all periods of life, is most
indispensable in old age, though not less important in many dis-
eases of infancy."   (Comm. Vol. i, p. 361.)
   The reviewer will  farther perceive  that he had overlooked
much of the author's extended remarks on bloodletting in infancy,
when  he attributes to the author " unqualified assertions so
fraught with danger."  Nor are they "assertions," but the result
of  large experience, of a  long process  of  reasoning upon  that
experience, and sustained by numerous citations from the highest
authorities in medicine. The author has quoted, in  his  remarks
upon bloodletting in infancy,  the language of Piorry, Syden-
ham,  Rush,  G.  Baillou,   Forestus,  Evanson and Maunsel,
Lommius, and  has referred to many others, who go to the full
extent with the author as to bloodletting in  infancy.  In the au-
thor's remarks upon old age, he first cites Celsus, Hippocrates, Ga-
len, and Trallian, as commending bloodletting in the diseases for
which the author has advised it.  He also quotes  Wepfer, Fores-
tus, F. Hoffmann,  Van Sweiten, Vitel, Foucart, Sir C. Blane,
Rush, Hosack, Hourman   and Dechambre,  Piorry,  Frank,  Gui
Patin, Freteau, Guersent,  Lancisi, Coschwiz, and refers to others,
as going to the full extent with himself,  and even much farther,
in respect to bloodletting in old age.
   But, the reviewer farther  committed a great oversight in attribut-
ing to Dr. Paine, exclusively, the quotations marked 6 and 7, since
the author, (finding them justified by his own experience, and by
the best of the profession,) adopted both of them from Dr.  Rush,
who  goes, however, a little farther than the author.  Thus, the
" Commentaries " say,—
   " Dr. Rush thinks, [says] 'that bloodletting is more necessary
in the diseases of infants, under equal circumstances, than in
adults.' He was an unhesitating advocate of bloodletting in inflam-
matory affections at all stages of infancy." (') (Comm. vol. i, p. 336.)
   And again  Dr. Rush, as  to old age:—
   "It is manifest,  from what was stated of  Rush's experience of
bloodletting in infancy, that he considered  the  remedy most im-
portant at the extremes of life; for, in  another work he says,—
1 Experience proves that bloodletting is more  necessary, under
equal circumstances, in old age, than in any other." (2) (Comm.
vol. i, p. 340.)
 (I) " Rush's Sydenham, p. 167, note, and his Medical Observations."
 (2) " Rush's Cleghorn's Diseases of Minorca, c. 6, p.  106, note."
 The author's reviewer, in the British and Foreign, also quotes the extract 7, without the slightest
pference to the author's qualifications ofthe remedy, or to his numerous authorities, whom he brought
to his support.-(See Reply, p. 50-51.) 
78
examination op  a REVIEW, &.C
   And yet the reviewer was  quoting from these pages, and says
 that he had given to the work " a careffy perusal."  (P. 393.)
   As  to the  illustrious Dr. Rush, he laid the foregoing " aphor-
 isms " before the world without the  slightest qualifications; and,
 indeed, they were so irresistibly prompted by his vast "experi-
 ence," that he appended them as notes to the works of others, and
 where his notes are rare and brief.  At another time, in speaking of
 bloodletting in old age, he says, —
   "I have nothing to say upon the acute diseases of old people
 except to recommend bleeding in those  of them which are at-
 tended with plethora, and an inflammatory action in the pulse."(')
 (Comm. vol. i, p. 340.)
   Equally reluctant is the author to record an observation which
 immediately  follows the foregoing  citations  from the reviewer.
 Thus:—
  "The same recklessness in recommending bloodletting pervades the work."
 (Review, p. 399.)
   The author has no farther comment to make,  than to  refer  the
 reader to the quietus he  has given this charge at page 50—51 of
 this Reply.  But, was there ever a Brunonian who would toler-
ate a page of the  " Commentaries "?
   It will have been thus seen, that  both reviewers have thought
that an onslaught upon the author's practical  habits and infor-
mation would be the most successful mode of wounding his rep-
utation, as a writer  and practitioner.  But, the author, having
quoted all the  evidence to the intended effect, is fully willing to
rest his reputation for experience upon the citations, without  ex-
ception, even in their isolated and mutilated shape.
  True, the reviewer charges that the author " not unfrequently per-
verts the opinions of writers, and even distorts their facts,  if they
militate against his preconceived views."  (Rev. p. 400.)  But, if
such were really the fact, it would have been an easy matter for the
 reviewer to have shown it, since the  author has always referred to
the page of the work  from which he may have quoted, or have
derived an opinion, — and this not a little to the surprise of the
 reviewer.  (Reply, p. 73.) This course would have been just to the
 injured, and highly gratifying to the author; since he would have
been as ready to acknowledge any act of injustice, as he ever will
be to defend  himself.  The reviewer then goes on  immediately
 thus:
  "On the other hand, he arrays on his side of the question  [solidism] as solidista
or vitalists, men whose writings cannot be so fairly interpreted ;  and many living
writers we apprehend, will be surprised to find themselves in such company.
(1) "Med. Inquiries and Observations, vol. i, p. 453." 
examination  of a review,  &c.
79
  " For instance, he designates this Journal as ♦ that stable solidist, the Medico-
Chirurgical Review ;' and adds ' we consider Dr. Johnson himself in all respects a
solidist.'  Now we need  only appeal to our readers, whether this Journal has not
invariably advocated the opposite  doctrine."  "Ex UNO DISCE OMNES !"
(Rev. p. 400.)
  But, why has not the reviewer mentioned others ?  For the
plain reason, that he would have incurred the risk of the author's
contradiction.  It was even an act of rashness to have gone as
far he has, as the author will now show.  " Ex uno disce omnes!! /"
  Had the reviewer  quoted the sentence from which he has culled
the words " stable solidist," &c. there would have been no neces-
sity  for the  subsequent appeal to his readers, who would have seen
the true import of the word "stable."   Thus :
   "'It is not  improbable,'  says  that stable solidist,  the Medico-
Chirurgical Review, 'that a practical basis will  be laid, for
the  distinction  of fevers dependent on the  state of  the
blood, from those where the nervous system is the primary seat
of disease.'"  " 'M.  Bouillaud is  too sharp-sighted not to perceive
the weak points of his pet doctrine, and not to see the necessity of
admitting that the  fluids as  well as the solids may become pri-
marily altered in some diseases.'"  "' Like most men of sense and
experience,  Dr.  Maitland  inclines to the  opinion  that solidism
went as far in one extreme of error, as the humoral doctrine did in
the other, — much farther indeed.'"  (Comm. vol. i, p. 393.)
   Indeed, the entire page 393  is devoted to  extracts from the
Medico-Chirtirgical  Review, for  the purpose  of showing that the
Journal had become a humoralist, (as we now see  it broadly af-
firmed by its editor,) and the word "stable" refers to the Journal's
former defence of solidism, and its more recent support of humor-
alism.  Upon  this page  the author quotes to  the foregoing effect,
from "Vol. XV. p.  354 ; Vol. XXX. p. 388 ;  Vol. XV. p.  337 ;
Vol. XI. p.  337 ; and  Jan. 1839, p. 69."  In other places he has
similar quotations  from the Journal.  Introductory to the fore-
going, the author has the following remark:
   " As we purpose ' breaking a lance ' with philosophers whom we
hold in great  reverence,  and to whom, as we sincerely think, none
can be more indebted than ourselves for sound information on other
subjects, it  seems to us proper  that we should first pay our respects
to the reviewers.  Not that there has been any attempt, on their
part, to crowd the doctrine, but
                "The name of Cassiushonours this corruption,
                 And chastisement doth therefore hide his head.'
   "  We certainly do not intend to review the reviewers.  This, we
admit would be indecorous, and beyond our province, since it is
conceded that they  possess a '  final jurisdiction.'  Besides, we are
single handed, (') and have nothing but facts for our weapons. The
  (») It is very rare that  the author " arrays on his side " any authorities in a general
sense.  Hunter &. Bichat he rather defends against the imputed taint of humoralism.
(Comm. vol. i. pp- 626, 633-636.) 
so
EXAMINATION  OF  A REVIEW,  ft,C
 contest,  therefore,  would be  manifestly  unequal; and being so,
 we have  long since made  up our minds—'that discretion  is the
 better part  of valour.'  ;Obseq.uium  amicos, Veritas odium
 parit;'  < yet would we reluctantly hazard the latter  by offering
 our sentiments on  the doctrine laid down by them, did we not
 consider  that all enlightened  minds are  open  to  the  impression
 of truth,  and that in scientific pursuits, it is not the man but the
 opinion  which is  the  subject of disquisition.'"  (Comm. vol.  i,
 p. 391—392.)
               " Careless of censure, nor too fond of fame ;
                Still pleased to praise, yet not afraid to blame." — Pope.
   And now, as to  the author's special exception  of Dr. Johnson,
 senior.   The author  has always  had  a great veneration for this
 philosopher, and has endeavoured to manifest it  in  his " Commen-
 taries."   (Vol.  ii, p. 671, &c.)   His only  motive for making the
 reservation  was  his firm conviction that this eminent man  was
 mainly, if not wholly, a solidist, and  it was done merely as an act
 of justice.   It  occurs  in a note at  the  page where  the author was
 quoting largely from the Medico-Chirurgical Review in behalf of
 humoralism.  Thus : —
   " We consider Dr.  Johnson  himself, in all  respects, a  solidist.
 See Med.  Chir. Rev. July, 1836, p. 148."   (Comm. vol. i,  p.  393.)
   Let us now turn  to  that number ofthe Journal, and see how far
 the author is sustained in this act  of common honesty.  We read
as follows ;  Dr. Johnson speaking in propria persona : —
  " There is, after all, but little real difference between Dr. Addison and Dr. John-
son.  The chief difference is this :  The former thinks the entrance of medicines,  as
 well as poisons, into  the circulation, unnecessary. The latter thinks that medicines,
and poisons in medicinal doses, do enter the circulation before their full remedial agency
 can be effected, — always excepting, of course, those  medicines which act, and  are in-
 tended to act, locally, as purgatives, Sic.  Proposed Modus Operandi of Medicines.
 I submit that, in cases where medicines are exhibited  in medical doses, viz. for the re-
 medy of disease, and not for the destruction of life, the  Modus  Acendi consists of
 three distinct and consecutive processes, as far as the evidence of our  senses  is con-
cerned.
  " First. The physiological action ofthe medicine itself on the nervous system ofthe
part or parts to which it is applied.
  " Secondly. The  physiological action or reaction of the nerves on the vascular,
glandular, or fibrous tissues ofthe same part or parts.
  " Thirdly. The Physiological action  induced in the vascular, glandular, and  fibrous
 part or parts, by the two preceding processes ; in  other words, the remedial effects
 or products  ofthe medicine employed."  "In these three consecutive processes, then,
 this triajuncta in uno, we have the modus operandi of medicines.  The medicinal
 agency is the  first, — the nervous  agency is the second,— the vascular agency is the
 third."  " The only question that remains, and in this I differ  from the exclusive sym-
 pathetic doctrine, is this: — i3 the nervous system of the various parts remote from the
seat of primary impression, (the stomach, for  instance, when mercury is exhibited,) ex-
cited into action by purely nervous sympathy  with  that primary part, or by the presence
ofthe mercury, however  decomposed or modified,, carried to these parts by the circula-
 tion ?  This is the problem to be solved, and my own opinion is, that the probability is
in favour of the latter supposition, — namely, that the mercury permeates throughout 
                EXAMINATION  OF A review,  &c.             81

 the whole system, and acts on each individual organ and part, through the
 nerves and vessels, in the same way as it did on the part to which it was first
 applied." (Dr. Johnson in Med. Chir.Rev. July, 1836, p. 147—149. Author's caps. &c.)
   Dr. Johnson, therefore, is, or was in 1836, an exclusive solidist,
 though he differs from the author in not denying the absorption of
 mercury and such medicinal agents as do not  act as cathartics, or
 whose action is local.  What is true of medicines, is equally so of
 morbific agents, as to their modus operandi ; but, we have in the
 " Commentaries " Dr. Johnson's direct opinion, to the foregoing ef-
 fect, as to the latter. (See Comm. vol. i, pp. 473, 474,486, &c.  Also,
 pp. 515,527—529, 546—562.) The author laments the necessity of
 so much detail;  but, this work must not be imperfectly done.  The
 reviewer has  no other charge, well or ill-founded, under his re-
 marks on the Humoral Pathology, unless it be  that he states that
 the author
  "Exposes, and attempts to controvert the opinions of all writers, from Galen
 downwards, who advocate the humoral pathology."  Also, — « He is a confirmed
 solidist, and demolishes, with unsparing  criticism, hosts of authors  whom he
 quotes, whose views militate against his own." (Review,  p. 400.)
   The reviewer quotes the author as  to  the  great question  be-
 tween the solidists and humoralists, and says, " it is fairly stated
 by the author."   The statement occurs  in this  Reply, p.  58.
 The reviewer then adds, that " we are satisfied with the answer of
 M. Andral to this question," which the reviewer quotes, as  it oc-
 curs in this Reply, p. 58, beginning with "Philosophy  leads us,"
 etc. (See Reply, p.  57, note, Andral;and Comm.voL i, p. 626-632.)
   The reviewer agrees to  the  " existence of vital forces, proper-
 ties, or something  inherent in living beings  totally distinct from
 chemistry, galvanism, or other analogous powers,  and which can
 neither be produced  nor  imitated by any of these agencies;" but
 thinks that " many of the  processes of life  may  be  modified by
 chemical  and mechanical causes."  He objects, however, that,
  "The author treats with great severity the opinions  of  those philosophers who
 attempt to explain the phenomena of life on chemical or other analogous prin-
 ciples, and whom he terms the chemical physiologists." (Review, p. 394.)
  He remarks, in this place, that the author "unfairly" " demolishes
 the doctrines of Prout, Philip, Davy, Bostock,  Elliotson, Miiller,
 et id  omne genus" (p. 394;)  but he  does not say in what  in-
 stance any unfairness occurs.   The author, therefore,  can make
 no  reparation, nor is any  one protected by asseverations of so
 universal a nature.   May  it not be, also,  that  there is as  little
 ground for this imputation, as there was for the charge in respect
 to "the stable solidist" and "Dr. Johnson"? (See Reply, p. 78.)
As to the style and  manner in which the  author's criticisms  are
executed, the world must judge between the author  and the few 
82
EXAMINATION  OF A REVIEW,  AC
who may not receive the author's remarks in that spirit of liberali-
ty  which  is  the general characteristic of  philosophical  minds.
The author certainly made no distinction between the distinguish-
ed Journals who are the subjects of these remarks, and those wri-
ters who do not exercise the  critical pen;  and  even  Dr. Forbes'
" Cyclopaedia of Practical  Medicine " came under the author's con-
sideration.  (Comm. vol. i,  pp. 531—539, 576—581.)
  In  respect  to the Essay  on animal  Heat, the reviewer states it
as the opinion of the author, that,
  " Heat is secreted oreliminated through the united agencies of these [vital] pow-
ers from the  blood, in the same  manner as the bile or gastric juice.  This is cer-
tainly a very  plain and simple statement of the matter. But, there is no great
novelty in it.  Hunter maintained the same  opinion." (Review, p. 401.)
  Certainly,  and so did Bichat, and many others whom the author
has quoted to the same effect.  Why, then, this insinuation? Had
not the doctrine become " obsolete "  (as Dr. Carpenter's reviewer
more than  implies of the " vital  principle,") (') when the author
wrote ? No matter what denials may now be made ;—the records are
strewed around us.  The reader, who may take the trouble of com-
paring the  foregoing statement of the present reviewer with his of
the British and Foreign,  (Reply, p. 60—61) will find an  amus-
ing discrepancy between the critics, as on many other topics.  He
of the Medico-Chirurgical also quotes the remark of Hunter  which
occurs at that page, (and which, by the  way, was printed  before
the author knew  of the existence of  the present review), — he
quotes it, we  say, for the purpose of showing that the  theory be-
longs  to Hunter, and  in  a way that leads to the belief that the
fact had  been overlooked by the author; when, indeed, that quo-
tation, among several others  of similar import,  stands as a motto
to the author's Essay upon this  subject.  (See Comm.  vol. ii, p. 1.)
Nevertheless,—
  "The author shows clearly, we think," says the reviewer, "that there  are ma-
ny anomalies that cannot be accounted for on the theory that animal heat results
from respiration, and the changes induced on the blood by that process." (P. 401.)
  The reviewer, with all  his skepticism upon the question  of sol-
idism, and the author's doctrine as  to the physiological influences
of bloodletting, acknowledges "a vital principle"; but the  author
can discern no  other reason  for it than what  he has already as-
signed at page 44, this  Reply.
  " But, as this vital principle," says the reviewer, " usually makes use of
chemical and mechanical agents for its purposes, we may, by  investigating the

  (1) " It excited our surprise," he says " when reading the Physiology of Muller, to find him clinging
to a notion which it is high time should become obsolbtb. His'Organic Force* corresponds in
most respects to the 'vital principle.' "—British and Foreign Medical Review, Jan. \K.'J, p. 172.  See
Reply, pp. 15, 32—34, 40,63. 
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C
83
 laws of these agencies, be assisted in explaining some of the phenomena of ani-
 mal heat," &c.  (Rev. p. 401.) — See Reply, pp. 32—34,40.
   The " chemical and mechanical agents," therefore, do the work.
 (See Reply, p. 42, Newton's aphorism.)
   " Coming events  cast  their shadows before."  The reviewer is
 evidently impressed  with the belief that the author has, also, done
 some service in his  Essay on the Philosophy of Digestion.
   "In the next," says the reviewer, on "the Philosophy of Digestion, the author
 states that the gastric juice is a substance, sui generis, endowed with vital
 powers — that it can only be generated by a l.ving stomach — that it cannot
 be imitated by art ; and that through its agency alone digestion is performed.
 These are truisms which  few, in the  present state  of our knowledge, will be
 hardy enough to controvert."  (Rev. p. 401.)
   And this, in the very face of his own chemical theory of organic
 results, and of the multitudinous, living writers, whom the author
 has quoted in direct  contradiction of all the foregoing propositions.
 (See,  also, this Reply, p. 63, Dr.'Carpenter and note 2.)   The
 review, however, has the following saving  clause  in a note,
                " For fear some prudish readers should grow skittish."
   » For some interesting experiments on Artificial Digestion, we  beg to refer
 our readers to two Essays by Professor Miiller and Dr. Schwann, in < Archiv. fur
 Anat. und Physiol, for 1836.' "   (Rev. p. 401, note.)  [See, also, the same, exten-
 sively, in the author's Essay.]
   The reader will  have  also  observed that the  reviewer  goes
 with the author in supposing the gastric juice  to be " endowed
 with vital powers "; or, in the peculiar language of the British and
 Foreign, he "mixes them up with the gastric juice."  (Reply, p. 63.)
   Having now got rid of vitalism and  solidism, (Reply,  p. 64,) the
 remaining Essays are disposed of in the following manner:__
  "The succeeding Essay  is a review of the various theories of Inflammation.
 All are rejected by our author ;  and his own, the vital theory, considered the only
 true one.
  " The next Essay is on The Philosophy of Venous Congestion.  It is most elab-
 orate; occupying more than half the volume.   As it consists, however, mainly
 of quotations and criticisms,  we shall not attempt to analyze  or  abridge it.
 [May it not "consist mainly  of" something more ?]   (Reply, p. 64—65.)
               [" One hates an author that's all author."— Byron.]
  "Two Essays on the Comparative Merits ofthe Hippocratic and Anatomical
 Schools, and on the Principal Writings P Ch. A. Louis, M. D., conclude the work.
  "In the brief sketch we have given of this very voluminous and erudite per-
formance, we  have endeavoured to lay before our retders the peculiar views
and opinions ofthe  author."  [?]  " We willingly award to him the merit of mul-
tifarious reading and research; and of untiring zeal  in the support of his doc-
trines."  (Rev. p. 401—402.)
              Confessed the truth that could not be concealed,
              That fraud might drive his author from the field.
  The author now comes  to his reviewer's most  important misrep- 
84
EXAMINATION OF  A  REVIEW, fcC.
 resentation.   The reviewer, in referring to the author's argument
 derived from Scripture, in behalf of the specific nature of the vital
 principle,  (Comm. vol. i, p. 86—98,) quotes the  author  as  fol-
 lows : —

   " Assuming Scripture as a ground of argument, the author says, —
   1. "4 It is manifest that man was completed in his structure without life before
 he became endowed with a soul, and that the act, which created his soul, bestowed
 also the vital forces.  One appears to be as much a new creation, distinct from
 the forces of dead matter,  as the other.  When man  was already perfected in his
 structure, he was without life.  But, by the act of breathing into his nostrils, his
 peculiar physical life and his soul were simultaneously created ; and such is their
 companionship whilst life continues, that some  philosophers have considered
 them identical.  And how perfectly in harmony is  all this with the exit of man.
 His soul and the vital forces leave the corporeal frame simultaneously;  nor  will
 either be restored but by another act of creative energy.'  (Comm. vol. i, p. 87.)
   !«He then triumphantly shows, [that is, four pages farther on,] that,—
   2. "'The vital forces cannot be generated by matter, since upon them organiza-
 tion depends ; nor by the forces of physics, since these are perfectly incapable of
 restoring the structure, or even its elementary composition, after the  organiz-
 ed matter  is decomposed, or of reanimating the  machine after  decomposition
 has begun'"; whilst, on  the other hand, these are the forces which lay waste the
 structure, and only so, after the signs of the vital forces shall, have totally disap-
 peared.'  [The words in italics  being omitted by the reviewer.]  ( Comm. p. 92.)
   " We need scarcely point out," the reviewer  goes  on, " the incongruity of
 these passages.   In the  latter, the author states that  the vital forces are the
 cause of organization, whereas in the former  it is shown that man was  per-
fected in his  ' structure,' [to  which the reviewer adds — or organization] be-
fore he was endowed with the vital forces: nor need we advert to the irreverent
 expression that' the soul will  not be restored, but by another act of creative
 energy.'  We do not mean to insinuate [!] that in this and similar passages
 the author denies the immortality of the soul ; but his language on this —
 the creation  of man,  and other sacred  subjects,  is so vague, and often so
 contradictory, that we fear doubts may be engendered in the minds of many
 of his readers."   (Rev. p. 395.)   The capitals are  the author's.
                     "  Fear not to lie, 'twill seem a lucky bit:
                       Care not for feeling, pass your project jest,
                       And stand a critic, hated yet caressed."
   First.   Taking the import ofthe extracts in their isolated state,
 the reader  will at  once perceive that the imputed  " incongruity "
 has  not a shadow of existence;  since in the extract marked 1,  the
 author's argument relates to the  creation of the soul and vital
 powers by a direct Act of God ; whilst in  that marked 2, the dis-
 cussion is  intended *to demonstrate the Creative Act by showing,
 that after  the Act of creating the vital powers, the reproduction of
 organization is made to depend upon the integrity  of those  powers
 in their established connection with organized structure, and  that
 " they cannot be generated by matter, nor by the forces of physics."
 No. 2, therefore is, as designed, a full demonstration ofthe Creative
 Act of God;  whilst  it is  equally opposed  to  spontaneous genera-
 tion.  But, the  whole  argument  in  this place,  extending over 
                 EXAMINATION  OF  A REVIEW, &C.              85

many pages, bears directly in opposition to the reviewer's imputa-
tion of " incongruity."
   The reckless, and ad captandum assumption is then put forth,
(in immediate connection  with the foregoing,) that
  " Discrepancies of the kind to which we allude, may be found in almost every
page of this Essay, [Vital Powers.]  For instance, in the passages we have
quoted above [1 and 2,] the author is compelled to have recourse to Divine
agency for the creation of his vital forces ; yet, in a note, he says that«the whole
work of creation was miraculous, and therefore is not connected by any analogies
with the subsequent processes of nature ;' [where is the "discrepancy " 1] and in
page 10, he states : — < Some able writers have lately appeared, who, admitting
that life consists of a certain series of phenomena peculiar to organized matter, and
having endeavoured to explode the entire doctrine which regards the forces
upon which those phenomena  have  been supposed to depend, have proceeded
so far as to affirm that the Deity  himself is the immediate cause of all the phenom-
ena of nature.  [See extracts from D. Carpenter; Reply, pp. 10, 46.]  The latter
construction has arisen, in part, from the irresistible conviction that actions of all
kinds require a certain power for their development.  With this class of reasoners
it will be  difficult to argue, since their doctrine is a matter of faith, and not of
reason.  There is no common  ground  betwixt us.'" — (Rev. p. 395.)  [Where
again, is the " discrepancy "}   Here the review breaks off; but the author will
go on.] " We will say, however, that whilst we equally acknowledge the superin-
tending care of the Creator, his method of governing the material world consists as
perfectly in the agency of certain  forces appertaining to matter, as the matter con-
sists of something distinct from the Deity.  The existence of  both depends
equally upon his will ; — that is to say, the Maker of the Universe having
brought them into existence, it is His will that they shall so continue, and that the
forces of matter, like the mind,  shall operate after a certain manner, and accord-
ing to their respective  endowments.  Any thing beyond this we believe to be
sophistry ; and, all writers who deny to living matter an' organic force,' begin
to expound the actions of life  through the medium of such a force,  the moment
that those actions become the  subject  of consideration."  (Comm.  vol. i. p. 10.
— See Reply, pp. 9-12, 26-27,29, 31-34,36-38,40, 46-48.)
   Here, then,  we have all the "discrepancies" that are imputed to
the author, and it  may be well supposed that his work was thor-
oughly hunted,
                  " With mind well skilled to find or forge a fault."
  But that  there is the  slightest discrepancy in  the foregoing
statements, the author does  not allow;  and, he submits to any just
and intelligent critic that they are all perfectly compatible with
each other, with reason, and with Revelation.   Creative Energy
and second causes, the author holds to be distinct; inasmuch as
One is Self-Existent,  and the  other a subordinate agent created
by  the Self-Existent Being.
  The author has  emphasized the word " compelled," in the  ex-
tract from the  reviewer, to show the quo animo in which the critic
perverts  his author's  meaning  to carry out the  imputation  of
" discrepancies," as well as of infidelity.  If the reader will also
consider   the  author's rebuke  ofthe  doctrine  of  "Spontaneous 
86
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, AC
Generation," and the approval which that Appendix receives from
the reviewer, the employment ofthe word "compelled", in  its
foregoing connection, will show in itself the temper of mind under
which the entire review was written.
                "'Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill
                  Appear in writing, or in judging ill."
   The British and Foreign Medical Review, and the Medico-Chi-
rurgical Review, having thus put forth comprehensive but vague
charges of conflicting statements in the  "Commentaries," and the
author having shown that all their examples are perfectly exempt
from the imputed fault, he will now challenge those Journals to
substantiate one instance in  the whole work, where there is any
clashing of opinions, of doctrines,  or of argument.   Should  the
Journals think it due to propriety to accede to this proposition, the
author will then solicit the favour either of admitting, through the
same Journals,  his mistake, or of defending the statement or state-
ments  that  may be pronounced  contradictory;  and, in  doing
which, he will endeavour to be at least as courteous as his  critics.
   Secondly.  As to  the charge of gross infidelity.  This must
surely have  been silenced by the reader, from  the  obvious im-
port of  the word "restored," (*) — by which  the author clearly
means, "restored" to "the corporeal frame"; the author thereby
avowing his belief not only in the "immortality of the soul,"  but
in the resurrection of the body.  And who will be so  impious as
to deny that "an Act of Creative Energy" will  be  exercised  in
raising the dead,  and in reuniting the soul  to the body ?  Fi-
nally, the whole spirit  and language of the Essay on  the Vital
Powers, and of the Appendix on  Spontaneous  Generation, go  to
prove the soul's immortality.  Of this  Appendix, the  reviewer
observes, that,  it " contains  some  sensible and well written  re-
marks  in opposition to the theory of spontaneous generation."
(P. 401.) As to the reviewer's general imputation of "similar pas-
sages,"  " vague and  contradictory," the  author can  only commit
himself and his  reviewer to the ordeal  of  a  juxta-position with
the work which is thus impugned; ("trio juncti in uno":) the
author being, of course, perfectly disposed to abide by his  own doc-
trine as expressed  in this Reply, at page  43—44.
   The author, in speaking ofthe "extinction" ofthe vital powers, (a)
(Reply, p.  19,) would have the reader understand, that  through-
out his Essay, he contradistinguishes them entirely from the soul,
as he also does the " instinct of animals," with which they are con-
founded by Miiller and many others.  Take the following expos-

  (1) " Restore. L. Restauro.  To return to a person ; to replace; to return, as a person or thing to a
former place ; to bring back."  (Webster's Dictionary.)
  (2) The vital powers, the author supposes, will be recreated in common with the "incorruptible
body," whatever that body may be.  The soul never dies. 
                EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C              87

tulation, for instance,  which is also one of the passages in which
the author solemnly avows his belief in the " immortality of the
soul," and which stands on the page opposite to that from which
his reviewer was quoting for the purpose of raising an odious suspi-
cion of infidelity, and who, indeed,  subsequently  makes the last
words ofthe paragraph apparently the author's sole ground of im-
putation of materialism against Miiller; (" he accuses Miiller of ma-
terialism." P. 396.)   The author,  therefore, accomplishes a double
purpose in presenting the paragraph; but he will first say, as it re-
spects the German philosopher, that all the premises, from which
the following inductions are made, had just antecedently occupied
near a page ; and, again, other quotations from Miiller, to substan-
tiate the imputation, are continued in a long note proceeding from
the paragraph  which the  author will now introduce :—
   " Our author's (Muller's) argument, as it respects man and the
upper  ranks, is founded  mainly  upon the phenomena of genera-
tion ; and, although it may be that our author would not advocate
materialism, in its proper  acceptation, yet when he comes to  the
divisibility of the soul of man '  in a certain limited sense,' and
associates it, as a parallel case, with the complete divisibility of
instinct, (or, as our  author calls it, ' the mental principle',) in the
lowest  animals, it appears to us but little better than  materialism.
This grows, in part,  out of our  confounding together mind and
instinct; in part from identifying both with the vital prin-
ciple  ; and, in part, from speculating upon a subject so far beyond
all human comprehension as the endowment ofthe fcetus with a
rational,  immaterial, immortal soul." (') (Comm.  vol. i, p. 85-86.)
   So emphatic, indeed, is the author's whole  argument in support
of all the  attributes that have  ever been ascribed  to the soul,  he

   (1) We will now have the reviewer's  management as to Miiller.  Thus:—
   " Again " says the reviewer, " he accuses Mailer of materialism, ' in part from spec-
ulating on a subject so far beyond all human comprehension as the endowment of a
foetus with a rational, immaterial, immortal soul.' — Whilst in page 13, he argues on the
same point himself;—
   [The author will quote from his own woik more extensively than the reviewer, pla-
cing in italics what is omitted by the reviewer;]
   "And yet, if we admit the foregoing premises, [BichaVs,] the conclusion will also follow,
that the sold has no existence till the brain begins to receive impressions, and Us intellectual
operations shall have commenced.  According  to Bichat's rule, if there be no judgment, re-
flection, fyc, in the perfect fatus, it is like one born without a head.  But, Bichat's position
is here indefensible; and [quotat;on begins] since, therefore, the fcetus or a new born in-
fant has as much a soul as man, we argue, that if the child sees,  hears, tastes, smells,
and feels, as soon as it enters the world, the properties on which those functionsdepend,
had a full existence in the foetal state at the time  of birth." (Rev. p. 396, — Comm.
vol. i, p- 13.)
   The reader will now be able to understand the difference between Miiller's
speculations as to the soul and the author's, as well as the proper  ground of the
author's imputation of " materialism, to Miiller." The author desires that the
whole of his note, Comm. vol. i. p. 86, should be examined; when the reader will
be also  able to do full justice to the author and his reviewer. 
88
EXAMINATION  OF  a review,  &c.
  was apprehensive, from having regarded the instinctive  principle
  of animals as an  immaterial  substance, that it might be thought
  that his doctrine  in relation to the soul inculcated the  inference
  that  the instinctive principle is "immortal"  also.   He therefore
  carefully contradistinguished the two ; and, finally introduced the
  following remark, which, in  itself,  is  sufficiently  significant of
  what the author had been saying as to the soul of man.  Thus:—
    " It may be  said, that  it is the  tendency of the  foregoing
 doctrine to assign an  immortal  spirit to brute animals.  We
 think not;  although we cannot doubt that the substance on which
 instinctive actions depend, is immaterial." (Comm. vol. i,  p. 97.)
    The author is mainly interested, at present, in placing the fore-
 going subject  in its proper aspect, as he  is soon to publish a de-
fence of Revelation, in  two volumes, as objectionable in point of
 size and of "facts" as his  "Commentaries," and which  will also
 "savour ofthe lamp." (')   This work  is designed  to  embrace an
 examination of all the principal facts which lay at the foundation
 of Theoretical Geology, and will contain  the author's Interpreta-
 tion  of the Narrative  of Creation, and of the  Deluge ; that inter-
 pretation being in  conformity with the literal structure of the Nar-
 ratives,  and, as the author endeavours to show, with  the sternest
 of geological facts.
                " Philosophy, that leaned on Heaven before,
                 Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more."— Pope.
   The work  will  also  consider, extensively, the  Plutonic  and
 Neptunian theories;
            " Such as Creation's dawn beheld, thou rollest now." — Byron.
Also, the imputed causes of the coal-formations, which the author,
in common with other geologists, considers of vegetable origin ; —
with other, perhaps exhausted, topics.
              "But,' why then publish '? There are no rewards
                 Of fame or profit, when the world grows  weary.
              I ask in turn, — why do you play at cards 1
                 Why drink 1 Why read ? — To make some hour less dreary.
              It occupies mo to turn back regards
                 On what I've seen or pondcr'd, sad or cheery ;
              And what I write I cast upon the stream,
              To swim, or sink.-----------------"
   The author is, therefore, a practical geologist:  and as this may
  (1) See Reply, p. 73. — That great and dignified critic, Samuel Johnson, advises authors — " to con-
sider, how they whom publication lays open to the insults of such  as their obscurity secures against
reprisals, may extricate themselves from unexpected encounters." It is obvious that one of the im-
portant expedients, in cases of this nature, lies in raising the veil, and surprising tho offender.  There is
but littfe in the review now under consideration, by which the author can accomplish this desirable
purpose. Nevertheless, he submits, whether the following declaration do not involve a responsibility
as to an important position of the Journal, that identifies  the  writer with " Henry Jambs Johnson,
Esq"., the junior editor, — and this more especially as some of his  tenets arc more characteristic of an
" Esquire" than of a Doctor of Medicine.
  " Now," says the reviewer, " we need only appeal to our readers, whether this Journal has not m
variably advocated the opposite doctrine V' [the Humoral Pathology.] (Rev. p. 400.)
                 " A critic was of old a glorious name.
                     *   *****    *
                  Conscious of guilt, and fearful ofthe light,
                  They lurk enshrouded in the veil of night."— Churchill. 
EXAMINATION OF  A REVIEW, &C              80
 appear to militate with what he has said of his professional habits
 at page 74, it is proper that he should state, that geology and min-
 eralogy have supplied the only relaxation in which he has indulg-
 ed for  more than twenty years.   These personal statements hav-
 ing been forced upon the author, he wiLl make no other apology. (')

   The  author  is  not disposed  to leave what he has said, in his
 work, on the subject of " fossil  animalcula,"  without farther  de-
 fence.   The question  is interesting to him from the manner in
 which he has connected it with physiological investigations; and
 especially so as this is the  only part of his Appendix on the Mi-
 croscope  which he is  aware of having been  attacked.   (See Re-
 ply, p. 6.)
   In the first place, with  the foregoing exception,  the whole of
 that Appendix relates to soft organic substances;  and to the inves-
 tigation of these, by the microscope, his objections are intended to
 apply.  He has therefore said : —
   " It will be readily seen, also, that there is a vast difference be-
 tween the  solid and soft structures ofthe body,  and  that minute
 observations  may  be  perfectly practicable in  the  former case,
 when they would  fail entirely in the latter."  (Comm. vol. i,
 p. 707.)
   The author certainly never doubted that strong  resemblances
 exist between the supposed fossil shields and  those of living ani-
 malcula. But, this does not prove the supposed coincidence. The
 question then arises as  to  its probability,  and  this  will depend
 much upon the absence of contradictory facts.
   Chalk,  and its imbedded seams and nodules of flint, are said to
 be composed  of these supposed  animalcula.   Chalk is  light,  the
 flint exceedingly compact.   Each must have formed simultane-
 ously, according to the hypothesis.  Now,  then,  1st,  how was the
 requisite amount of animalcula  crowded into  the spaces occupied
 by the  nodules  of flint, which are often of great size?  2d. How

  (1) An appeal to the moral philosopher, upon some of the foregoing subjects, may not
 be inappropriate ; and the author will therefore quote the Rev. Dr. Channing upon his
 side as to the question between himself and the reviewer regarding the resurrection o(
 the dead • as well as to the distinction which the author has made between  the " work
 of creation," and " the subsequent processes of nature."  (See Reply, pp. 85—S6.J   In
 speaking of " miracles" and " Creative Energy," Dr. Channing says,—
  " If then the great purposes ofthe Universe can best bo accomplished by departing from its estab-
 lished laws  these laws will undoubtedly be suspended."  "Xnture, then, we fear would not have
 brought back the world to its Creator. And, as to the doctrine of Immortality, the order ofthe nat-
 ural world had little tendency to teach this. The natural world contains no provisions or arrangements
for reviving the dead. The re>earches of science detect no secret processes for restoring the lost powers
of life-  If m"11 is to live aSain>,ie is not to "ve ,hrouS'J any known laws of nature, but by a Power
hi"hor than nature ; and how then can we be insured of this truth, but by a manifestation of this
Power that is by miraculous agency confirming a future life ?"  (Channing's Discourse on Revealed
Ucli"io'u deliverod before the Uni\er»ity of Cambridge at the Dudleian Lecture, 1821.) 
00
EXAMINATION OF A REVIEW, AC
are the geodes of quartz to  bo explained?  '3d. Why is the Hint
composed of siliceous shields and the chalk of calcareous !  4th.
Why is  the flint  disconnected  from the  chalk?   Those ques-
tions must be answered in a way that shall have some plausibility.
It has been imagined that these enigmatical formations of flint
were primitively sponges, which is  probably often true; and the
author has  heard it  confidently said that Ehrenberg  explains
their conversion into siliceous animalcula upon the principle that
the sponges subsisted upon  this particular species.  Other phi-
losophers, as the author knows, sustain this opinion as the only
solution that can be offered ; but to which the following apparent-
ly insuperable objections apply.
   1st.  It supposes that the sponges merely digested the  soft parts,
without having got rid of the siliceous shields.
   2d. It supposes that the sponges continued to devour the ani-
malcula, till they became totally converted into  their  shields.
   3d.  It  supposes that this curious phenomenon must be going
forward in living sponges.   Are there the'necessary analogies?
   4th, It does not explain why the siliceous shields of the flint do
not abound in the surrounding calcareous deposit, the frequent ab-
sence of which must be accounted for.
   5th. The animalcula of the flint being specifically different from
those ofthe  chalk, increases the 4th objection.
   6th. The vast disproportion between the density ofthe flint and
that of the chalk is  not explained.  Pressure will not account for
it, since the accumulation being gradually progressive,  the great
disproportion should not  exist.
   Unless the questions, therefore, which have been, now propoun-
ded, be answered in a more plausible manner, the assumed consti-
tution of  nodules and veins of flint must be employed  as a lever
to overthrow the whole  hypothesis.  Whatever  may be the evi-
dence  of  affinity between the shields of the supposed  fossil ani-
malcula and those of living species, that must be  sacrificed to the
exigencies of physical impossibilities.
   Other difficulties might be raised, — such as the necessary sup-
ply of organic nutriment (the vegetable remains in chalk being rare,)
—the vast disproportion between the supposed animalcular forma-
tions and  those of visible animals, &c.   If the disconnected state
of flints be  compatible with the  hypothesis that they are casts of
spongiform  zoophites,  the  interpretation of their metamorphosis
as given  by Bakewell, (Geology,  p. 245,)  and others,  would be
quite satisfactory.   Infiltration might then take place to an indefi-
nite extent, whilst the animalcular doctrine necessarily supposes an
apparently  fatal limitation.    The inquiry, however, is certainly 
EXAMINATION  OF  A  REVIEW, &C                  91
the most interesting and magnificent that has  yet fallen  under the
microscope
see the hypothesis substantiated
and none would be  more gratified  than the author to
   Note. — It has been susgested to the author that he  is not sufficiently direct in his
note at  page 67.  To avoid this imputation, he will now say that the note is intended
to expose  a p'agiarism of an extraordinary nature.  The author has also good reasons
for believing, (and such as will be apparent to others,) that the Critic !  who perpetrated
the plagiarism, is alarge contributor to the British and Foreign Medical Revibw ;
                         " Whereby 'tis plain its light and gifts,
                          Are all but plagiary shifts."—Hudibras.
  The critic who stands  thus arraigned^ having thought it not inconsistent to draw as
welt upon the reputation ofthe author ofthe  "Commentaries,'' the latter will establish
the justice of his imputation, by exhibiting a few examples of what the reader will find,
on farther  comparison, to abound in the surreptitious articles.   It will be also observed
that the critic has  taken  a critic's liberty with the style of the  American  orator.
  Extracts from Dr. Channing's "Remarks
  on the Character and Writings of Miltoh."
  "The wisdom of each  age is chiefly a derivation
 from all preceding ages, not excepting the most an-
 cient, just as a noble stream, through its whole ex-
 tent and in its  widest overflowings, still holds com-
 munication  with  its infant springs, gushing out
 perhaps in the depths of distant forests, or on the
 heights of solitary mountains.  We  mean not, that
 Milton should have neglected the labours of his pre
 decessors-  We only mean to say, that the stream of
 religious knowledge is to swell and grow through its
 whole course, and to receive new contributions from
 gifted minds in successive generations.  We only re-
 gret that Milton did not draw more from the deep and
 full fountains of his  own soul.  We mean not to
 complain of Milton for not doing more.  He ren-
 dered to mankind a far greater  service  than that of
 a teacher of «n improved theology.  He tnught
 and exemplified that spirit of intellectual freedom,
 through which  all the great conquests of truth are
 to be achieved."  "We mean  not, that Milton
 should have neglected the labours of his predeces-
 sors."  (P. 65.)  [Lrast sentence is the present wri-
ter's repetition.]
   " Far from regarding Milton as standing  alone
 and unapproachable, we believe that he is an illus-
 tration  of what all  who are true to their nature
 will  become in the progress of their being; and
 we have held him  forth,  not to excite  an  inet
 fectual admiration, but to stir up our own and oth-
 ers' breasts to an exhilarating  pursuit of high unci
 evergrowing attainments in intellect and virtue."
 (P. Oti.)
  " The attention to these works has been discour-
 aged by some objections, on which we shall bestow
 a few remarks.  And first, it is objected to his prose
 writings, that  the  style is difficult and  obscure,
 aboundin" in involutions, transpositions," and so on.
 We mean not to deny that these charges have some
 grounds ; but they seem to  us much exaggerated ;
and when we consider that  the difficulties  of Mil-
 tom's stylo  have almost sealed up his prose writ-
m-s, we cannot but  lament the fastidiousness and
  Extracts from the British & Foreign Mud
      ical Review.  Remarks on Hunter.

   "The wisdom of every age, w> may remark, i-i
 chiefly a derivation from all preceding ages, not ex-
 cepting perhaps (ho  most ancient, and should hold
 communication with them, just as a river, through its
 whole extent and in its widest overflowings, still con-
 tinues to receive tribute from  its infant springs. [!
 We wish not, therefore, to acquit Hunter of culpa-
 ble neglect in this respect; although in his case we
 regret it the less, because it made him draw more
 deeply from tire full fountains of his own vast and
 comprehensive  mind. By his researches into  the
 book  of nature, he rendered  to his profession a
 far greater service than if he had moulded into new
 and more beauteous forms  the wisdom and  the
 wealth of all his predecessors.  He taught and  ex-
 emplified that spirit of intellectual  energy through
 which all the great conquests of truth have been
 and are to be achieved."  " It has also been made
 a matter of complaint that Hunter should  have
 been so little acquainted  with the  labours of his
 predecessors.
   We have been induced to make these general  re-
 marks to save us the necessity of extracting
 largely from  a work which has been so long
 KNOWN TO THE PROFESSION"!  (APRIL, 1839, p.
 423.)
   " Far, however, from regarding Hunter as stand-
 ing alone and unapproachable, we believe that ha is
 an illustration of what many who dream not of this
 might arrive at in the course of their being ; and we
 would hold out his fame, not to excite an ineffectual
 admiration, but to awaken others and ourselves [!]
 to the free use and expansion of our noblest facul-
 ties."  (Ibid. p. 423.)

  " On this point we shall take the liberty of stating
 our own sentiments. [!]  We cannot admit that the
 reasons which have been assigned offer a just ex
 planation of Hunter's obscurity of style ; first, be-
 cause they would only account for some inaccura-
 cies of expression, or statements too hastily or in-
 sufficiently put together,"  and so on.  "While we
 mean not, therefore, to deny that the charge which
has been made has some grounds^ we think, at the
same time, that it has been much exaggerated; and 
92
EXAMINATION  OF  A  REVIEW,  &,C.
effeminacy  of modern  readers.
                               We  know that
simplicity and perspicuity are important qualities) of
style; but there are vastly nobler and more  impor
tant ones;  such as energy and richness,  nnd in
these Milton is not surpassed. The best style is not
that which puts the  reader  moBt easily, and in the
shortest  time,  in  possession of a writer's naked
thoughts; but  that which is the truest image of a
great intellect,  which  conveys fully and carries far-
thest into other souls the conceptions and feelings of
a profound and lofty spirit.  To be universally in
telligible is not the  highest merit. A groat mind
cannot, without injurious constraint, shrink its,-If to
the grasp of common passive readers.  Its  natural
movement is free, bold, and majestic ; and it ought
not to be required to part with these attributes that
the multitude  may keep pace with it.  Tlicro are
writings which  are clear through their shallowness.
For ourselves, wo love what  is  called easy reading
perhaps  too well, especially in our hours of relaxa-
tion ; but we love too to have our faculties  tasked by
master-spirits." '• Such sentences  are worthy  and
noble manifestations of a great and far-looking mind,
which grasps at once  vast fields of thought, just as
the natural eye takes in at a moment wide  prospects
of grandeur and beauty. We would  not indeed have
all compositions of this character. Let abundant pro-
vision be made for the common intellect."  Impose
upon genius no strict laws, for it is its own best law.
Let it speak in  its ov, n language, in tones which suit
its own ear.  Let it not lay aside its natural port, or
dwarf itself that it may be comprehended by the
surrounding multitude.   If not understood and rel-
ished now, let it place a generous confidence in other
nges, and utter oracles which futurity will expound.
We are led to these  remariA, not merely for
Milton's justification, but  because  our times
seemed to demand them.   Literature, we fear, is
becoming too popular. The whole community is
now turned into readers, and in this we heartily re-
joice; and werejoico,  too, that so much talent is em-
ployed in making knowledge accessible to all.  We
hail the general diffusion  of  intelligence as the
brightest feature ofthe present age.  But good and
pvil are never disjoined ;  and one bad consequence
ofthe multitude of readers, is, that men of genius are
too anxious to please the multitude, and prefer a pres-
ent shout of popularity to  that lesB tumultuous, but
deeper, more thrilling note ofthe Trump of Fame,
which resounds and grows clearer  and louder
through  all future ages."   (Ibid. p. 20—22.)
  "Without meaning to disparage the 'Treatise
on Christian Doctrine,' we may say that it owes
very much ofthe attention which it has excited,to the
fame of its author.  We value it chiefly as showing
us  the  mind of Milton on that  subject, which,
above  all others, presses upon men of thought
and -i nsibility.   We want  to  know  in what
conclusions such a man rested after a life of extcn-
ivhcn wo reflect that tho obscurity  of III ntbr'b
style has deterred many from availing themselves
of his invaluable labours, we cannot  l>ut regret tho
fastidiousness  nnd cn'ctiiinncv of modern rcndeM.
We  nro  aware that simplicity and perspicuity nro
essential  attributes of a good style ;  but there are
others, as energy and depth of thought, equally no-
ble and important; nnd in these we will  not  admit
that Hunter has ever been surpassed.  To be univer-
sally intelligible is not the highest merit.  The iiest
style is not that which puts the reader  in tho shortest
time in possession of tho author's naked thoughts,
but that which is the truest imago of a great intel-
lect, and  which conveys  fully  nnd carries farthest
into other minds the conceptions  and feelings of a
profound and  lofty spirit.  A great mind, such as
Hunter  possessed, cannot, without injurious con-
straint, lower itself to the grasp of ordinary individ-
uals.  Its own natural  movement is frco, bold, and
majestic; anil  it ought not to be  compelled to part
with these attributes in order that the multitude muy
be able to keep  paco with it.  There  aro  mnny
writings which are clear through  their shallowness.
For our own part, we prefer easy reading, especially
in our moments of relaxation ; but we delight, ut
the same time, in having our faculties tasked by
master-spirits.   There  are  minds, again,  which
grasp at  once  vast fields of thought, just as the eyo
surveys nt once wide fields of grandeur nnd beauty;
and  which,  in their moments  of inspiration, when
thick-coming thoughts and images crowd  in upon
them, pour out their treasures in  a manner perplex-
ing to ordinary readers,  but kindling to congenial
spirits  like  their own.   We would  not have all
compositions of this  chnracter,  but  we would
impose no over-strict laws on a great mind.  W«
would let it address us in its own language,  and in
a tone which accords with its own ear.  If not un-
derstood at the time, let it  look forward with a
generous  confidence to  the  improvements of suc-
ceeding  ages, nnd utter thoughts which others  in
future years will unravel. We have hken led to
these remarks, not so much  in vindication of
Hunter as that we think our own times seem  to
demand them. [!]  Medical literature is becom-
ing in some respects too common and too popular.
[!]   The  whole community is now turned  into
medical readers [I]  With this we so  far acquiesce ;
nay, we rejoice that so much talent  has  been cm-
ployed in making a certain kind of knowledge ac-
cessible unto all.  We look, indeed, o/i the general
diffusion  of knowledge  as one  of the noblest and
most distinguished features  by which the coming
will be separated  from  past ages.  But good  is
often conjoined with evil; and  we  fear lest men
of genius be led away, by the shout of popular ap-
 plause or the  desire of obtaining sudden wealth, [!J
from pursuing that  deeper and  stiller path  where
that thrilling note alone is heard which sounds louder
and clearer throughout all succeeding generations."
(Ibid. p. 419—420.)
  " Without meuning to disparage the 'Treatise
on the Blood and Inflammation,' we may  say
that it oweB very much ofthe attention which it has
excited  to the previous fame of its author.  Wo
 value it  chiefly as shoaing us  the mind of a mas-
ter on a subject, which, nbove  all others, presses
itself upon the attention ofthe physician or sur-
 geon.   We are  desirous of ascertaining in what 
EXAMINATION  OF A  REVIEW,  &C.
93
sive and profound resenrch, of magnanimous efforts
for  freedom and his  country, and of communion
with the moat gifted minds of his own and former
times"  "Milton had no dread of accumulating
knowledge, lest it should oppress  anil smother his
genius. He was conscious of that within him, which
could quicken all knowledge, and wield it with ease
and might, which could give freshness to old truths,
and harmony to discordant thoughts  ; which could
bind together,  by living ties and mysterious affini-
ties, the most remote discoveries, and  rear fabrics of
glory and  beauty from the rude  materials which
other  minds had  collected.  Milton  had that
universality which marks the  highest  order of intel-
lect.  His healthy mind delighted in genius, &c.
lie  understood too well the rights, and dignity, nnd
pride of creative imagination," &c.  "He had not
learned the superficial doctrine of  a later day, that
poetry flourishes most in an  uncultivated soil, and
that imagination  shapes its  brightest visions from
the  mists of a superstitious age."  (Ibid. pp. 4, 5.)
  " From  the  very nature ofthe  work, it cannot
engage and fix general attention," &c.  Milton aims
to give us the doctrines of Revelation in  its own
words.  Wo have them in a phraseology long fa-
miliar to us, and we  are disappointed; for we ex-
pected to see them not in the  language ofthe Bible,
but as existing in the mind  of Milton,  modified by
his  peculiar intellect and sensibility,  combined and
embodied  with his various knowledge, illustrated by
the  analogies, brightened by tho  new lights, and
clothed with the associations, with which they were
surrounded by this gifted man."  (Ibid. p. 3l>.)

  " lie prize it chiefly as a testimony to Milton's
profound  reverence for the Christian religion, and
an assertion ofthe freedom and rights ofthe mind.
We are obliged to say  that  the work throws little
new light  on the great subjects of which it treats.
Some will say, that this  ought not to surprise
is ; t or new light is not to be looked for in
the department of  theology."  "The Chief
cause of Milton's failure was, that he sought truth
too exclusively in the past, and among the dead."
(Ibid. p. 62.)  [ What the critic terms, " relations of
ideas;" see Reply, p. 5.   Here occur, also, other
similar p arallels.]
conclusions such  a  man  rested,  after  a life  of
magnanimous efforts to unfold the hidden laws of
nature, and to trace  the order  and regularity with
which they occur.  [See  July  No. below.]   The
work before us shows that Hunter's natural pro-
gress was from one field of discovery to another ;
that hccould give a freshness and vividness to truths
which had betome worn, we  had almost said tar-
nished,  by long and familiar  handling ;  that  he
could bind together,  by mysterious affinities, remote
discoveries,  and rear fabrics of utility and beauty
from the rude materials  which other minds had
neglected. [!]   Hunter's intellect was  naturally
creative, restless, stirred by a  burning desire for the
discovery of truth, and he was conscious of that
within him which  could quicken all knowledge and
wield it with matchless power.  In treating of prac-
tical subjects, he had not learned the superficial
doctrine of later days, of discarding or setting  at
naught legitimate  theory."!  (Ibid. p. 420.)

  "To  place it clearly before others, he feels the
necessity of viewing it more  vividly himself.  By
attempting to secure his thoughts, and fix them in
an enduring form, he finds them vague and unsatis-
factory, to a degree which he  did not suspect; and
toils for a precision and harmony of views, of which
he never before felt the need.   He places his  sub-
ject in  new lights ; submits it to a searching anal-
ysis ; compares  and connects  with it his various
knowledge ;  seeks for it new illustrations  and anal-
ogies ;  weighs  objections ; and, through these pro-
cesses,  often arrives at higher truths  than he first
aimed to illustrate."  (Ibid. p. 418 )
  "  Wcpriie, then, the volume before us, ns  being
the first in which more just views were disseminated,
and a new light thrown over the subjects of which
it treats "!  " Hence the reason why so many cor-
rections are required in the new edition, to  bring
down this portion ofthe subject in accordance with
the more correct views of the present day.  This,
however, was not the fault of Hunter, but of the
ago in which he lived.  At this we need not ex-
press  surprise,  seeing  that the ground had
BEEN PREVIOUSLY UNTRODDEN."  (Ibid. pp. 421,
422.) [j3 slur upon  Hunter's great vital doctrine
of inflammation.]
  We shall now  repeat Dr. Channing, for the  purpose of showing how the plagiarist
repeats him three times, — twice in the April article, and once in the next following (Ju-
ly)  number ofthe Journal.   See as above.
  " We want to  know in what conclusions such a
man rested after  a life of extensive and  profound
research,  &c. and  of communion with  the  most
gifted minds  of his own and  former  times."
(Channing's Remarks on the Character and Writ-
ings of John Milton, Boston, 1830.—See as above.)
  " Considering the amount  of labour and  time
spent in this investigation, we are naturally curious
to know, even at this distant period of time, in
what conclusions such an acute observer as Hunter
rested."  (April, 1839. p. 424.)
  " Considering the amount  of labour  and time
  [The reader will find in the opposite place, from ; spent in this investigation, we are naturally curious
the July No.,  a farther repetition of the April No. : to know, even ut this distant period, in  what
Dr. Carpenter in his Principles repeats himself ver- j conclusions  such  an acute observer  as Hunter
bally ; an example of which occurs in this Reply at rested."  (July, 1839, p. 183.  See, also, Reply, p.
page 41, — showing the writer's habit.]            07, note 2.)

   The author has endeavoured to present a variety in the examples which he has quo-
ted • and, bavin"  been induced to be  tints explicit, he  will carry out the full intention.
or this  note.  Throughout his  " Examination" of the article m the British &. Foreign
Medical Review he has identified Dr. Carpenter as the reviewer, and that nodouht
should remain upon any  mind as to the author's general purpose, he referred in a note
at pao-e 67  to  numerous  parallel  passa^s which occur in Dr. Carpenter's  Principles,
ice. and  the foregoing  review  ofthe Writings of John Hunter, in which the  reader will 
94
EXAMINATION  OF  A  RF.VIF.W, ft,C.
detect peculiar views, and identity of language.  The author also  shows In that note
that his reviewer acknowledges the authorship of these articles.  Take  the following
example from the second article on Hunter, relative to the vitality of the blood, the proof
of which Dr. Paine's reviewer assumes  to himself, — observing, in  his article on Hun-
ter, (p. ]7.*<), that Hunter had offered " nothing like proof"!!
             Review op Hinter.

  "The strongest evidence that tho coagulation of
the blood, when drawn from the living body, is the
result of the vital properties which  it still retains,
appears  to us to bo derived from the  fact that a
process essentially the same is the preliminary to the
organization of the blood within its natural ravi-
ties." " Now, however, it is known that coagulable
lymph and the liquor sanguinis are almost identi-
cal, and  that the red particles are passive, at nearly
so, in the coagulation ofthe blood.  There is, there-
fore,  a strong argument from analogy for consider-
ing this change in Uie blood in the same light as in
the  lymph."   "Those who deny vitality to the
blood on account of it* fluidity, or, in other  words,
maintain that its properties  are only those  of inor-
ganic matter, seem to for»ct that other  fluids un-
questionably exhibit vital  properties."  " Will  it be
maintained that any mixture of chemical products
can imitate tho effects of these V  " By such com-
parisons, it appears to us, we may not  only refute
the objection urged against the doctrine of tbe vital-
ity ofthe blood, on the score of its fluidity, but ob-
tain  an affirmative argument  of no mean  value."
(Rev. of Hunter, July, 1839, pp. 179,180.)
                                                   Dr. Carpenter's Principles, &c.

                                              "The liquor sanguinis, or fluid portion ofthe
                                            circulating blood, is that in which the  tendency to
                                            coagulate exists ; and it is probably that which ii
                                            chiefly concerned in supplying nutriment to  the tis-
                                            sues,-—the globules, so far as can be ascertained,
                                            bemg merely passive  in the circulation."  " It is
                                            almost impossible to consider it without  admitting
                                            that the liquor sanguinis is as completely possessed
                                            of vitnlity as any solid  tissue of the  body."  " An
                                            organized character is not, however,  peculiar to
                                            living solids ;  (see Reply, p.3C—42,) for some traces
                                            of it may be detected in the circulating fluid, which
                                            is also possessed of properties that must be consid-
                                            ered as vital, since they differ from any which a mere
                                            mechanical admixture ofthe ingredients could pre-
                                            sent. Thus, the  phenomena of the coagulation of
                                            the blood cannot be satisfactorily explained without
                                            this admission "   Carp. Princip. Sec. 364, 343.)
                                              [The whole of the "proof of tho vitality ofthe
                                            blood," in the articles  on Hunter, is repented here-
                                            abouts.  Besides the  references in  Reply, p. 07,
                                            compare  April article, 1H39, pages 426 to 427, 429
                                            to 435, 440,  with Carpenter's sections  364, 365,
                                            366  307, 368, Hi, 233, 38, 115, 5 ; and July article,
                                            1839, p. 171 with  s. 303;  p. 175 with  s. 318; p. 174
                                            »ith s. 367, .W ;  p.  180 with s. 364, p. 173  with s.
                                            43; p. 177 with s. 365; p. 181 with s. 364 ; p. 192
                                            with s. 364, 365; p. 186—187 with s. 367; p. 188
                                            with s. 368 ]


  Again, Paine's  reviewer claims the authorship of Dr. Carpenter's article on " Vege-
table Physiology."   Thus:—" But we may take this  opportunity  of stating that our
belief in the general proposition, which we long ago put forth in an interrogalive form,
Vol.  4th, p. 20, &c.;" (Rev. of Paine, p. 398.   See this Reply, p.  43.) — Now,  take
the following  from Dr. Carpenter's  Principles, &c.: —

  "In the following pages is embraced the substance of an Essay on the 'Laws regulating Vital and
Physical Phenomena,' to which was adjudged the annual student's prize, Slc. ; and also of un Essay on
Pome departments of Vegetable Physiology," &c.  The author has freely availed himself, also, of
the liberal permission of the editors ofthe British and Foreign Medical Review to make what use he deem-
ed proper of his contributions to that Journal; especially in regard to two papers, — one on the  Study of
Physiology as an Inductive Science, and the other on  the Functions ofthe Nervous System,— which
have been recently honoured with a place in its pages."  (Preface, p. 7—8.)

  Again, Dr. Paine's reviewer acknowledges the authorship ofthe  article on  " Macil-
wain's Medicine and Surgery One Inductive Science," (Rev. of Paine, p. 400,)  and in
that article the reviewer says,— "We are not without hope that the exposition which  we
gave in our last number of the objects and means of Physiological enquiry,"  he.   (Rev.
ofMacilwain, July, 1838, p.'J8.)  Now,this "last"  article is the one on " Physiology an
Inductive Science," and which Dr. Carpenter acknowledges in his "Preface."  The ac-
knowledgments  are made rather in the way of claims; and  the coincidences in views
and language  betweep the different articles are such as to dissipate all doubt as to the
individuality of the author.  The readers ofthe Journal will also readily recognise numer-
ous other elaborate articles by the same hand, who appears to be tbe critic-general for the
Journal.  The author may safely say that our plagiarist averages more  than one very
extensive article for the several numbers ofthe Review, and  that most of the principal
writers, especially on Physiology and Pathology, whose works have been reviewed in the
Journal,  have been assigned to his critical pen ; and, if  the reader will now  glance
his eye over the articles, he will find in  their general spirit a remarkable contrast with
that  which distinguishes the Review of Carpenter's  " Principles,"  which,  with  its
author, is lauded  without mitigation.  Ofthe extent of this hostility to distinguished
worth,  and of its common source, the present writer had no just appreciation till he be-
gan this" Examination."   But, the spell is broken, and  worlh redeemed.
  Connected  with the foregoing review  of Hunter's works are critical remarks upon
Macartney on "Inflammation," Carswell's "Illustrations,"  &c, and  R.asori  on the
" Theory of inflammation."  The reader will  find in the July No.  many parallel crit-
icisms uoon  the writings of Macartney with  those  which are bestowed  upon Paine's.
The remarks upon Macartney's doctrine as to the operation of bloodletting are strik-
ingly peculiar  and coincident.   (Rev.p. 199.)   Take, also, the following triple  coinci-
dences of peculiar views on the subject of animal heat: — 
EXAMINATION  OF  A  REVIEW,  &C.
95
Hunter's, &o. Reviewer.
Paine's Reviewer.
IDr. Carpenter's "Principles,"
              &c.
  "Dr.  Macartney is more  than!  "Now  what will our  readers!
usually  mystical upon the subjeet.lthink is the doctrine, &c.   Neither!  "That many ofthe  nutritive
He quotes the e-xperiments of Bro-'more nor less than  this, that  ani-'processes are  connected with the
die, as if their  fallacy had ncverjmal heat is a secretion; and, like'evolution  of  animal  heat  can
been exposed, [!] to show that an- other secretions,  a production of scarcely be doubted ;  but it seems
im.il heat does not depend upoii|pure  vitality."  " We believe it peculiarly to  depend upon those
respiration;  and considers that we (respiration)  to operate  through .changes in which the function of
are to look  upon animal heat as|the nutritive  processes,  and  the respiration is concerned,—viz. the
' one of the  phenomena of scnsi- molecular changes  which  they in- extrication of carbon from the sys-
bility.'   We do not see how  thisivolve."  "In  Dr. Paine's opinion, tem,  in  combination  with oxygen
can be  regarded as  a step in the then, as in ours, tho  acknowledged derived   from  the   atmosphere.
inquiry.  There  can  be no doubtjinfluence  ofthe  nervous system Wherever  the aeration  of the
that its evolution is greatly influ- upon the  production  of animal bleod is extensively and actively
enced by the nervous system ; but,
as we conceive, only-through the
medium of those molecular chan-
ges to which it is immediately due,
and which are without doubt con-
trolled to a certain extent by the
agency of that system." " It  is a
well-known fact, that, when n por-
tion of the  surface ofthe body is
inflamed,  the  respiration  (so to
speak) of that portion, — in other
words, its conversion ofthe oxy-
gen of the air in contact with  it
into carbonic acid,—  is increased ;
and this, harmonizing with what
we know from  other sources  of
the relation between  the disen-
gagement of carbon from the body
and  the maintenance of its  tem-
perature, seems to us nearly deci-
sive of the  question ''!
  " We are fully convinced that it
is in the altered  state  ofthe nutri-
tive processos that we are to look
for one cause ofthe high tempera-
ture," Sec.   (Rev. of Hunter, &c.
July, 1839, p. 197—198.)
heat is exercised through the me- carried on, there is a proportionate
dium  of the organic tunctions."|elevation  of temperature." "The
" We consider it as  a  result  of .carbon which is thus received into
those functions produced  by the'he blood is evidently disengaged
molecular changes which they in- from the tissues during the process
iohe—these changes being them-|of nutrition, &c.  This (the libera-
selves governed by  the ordinary!tion of caloric) will in general be
laws of chemistry, as we Aauee/se-,nearly uniform throughout the sys-
where endeavoured to show." " In item ;  but there  are many cases in
these processes there are probably Jwhich increased action is going on,
many chemical changes  involved, either as a natural condition or as
besides the combination of carbonia diseased state ;  and a higher lo-
ind oxygen ; and it  is to  the ag- cal temperature is thus produced.
gregate"  of all these, — the last, This  would seem to be in  some
however,  being the  chief, — that degree connected with the influ-
we attribute the liberation of calo ence of the nervous system; but it
ric which  was previously latent." may be regarded as probable that
"The case  stands  simply  thus :|tho evolution of caloric is not de-
oxygen is introduced into the sys- pendent upon  nervous action in
tem from the'atmosphere. In some any other way than through those
part  of the system  it combines organic processes which stand in
with carbon, set free in the ordi-relation to both.  The results ob-
nary processes of nutrition ; and gained by various experimenters
in this state  it is thrown off in thewould appear  to indicate,  that
gaseous form from the body. Now some other organic  processes, be-
will Dr. Paine tell  us why, since sides those connected with the ex-
we know that the combination of cretion of  carbon  through  the
carbon and oxygen elsewhere pro- lungs, must contribute to the main-
duccs heat, it should not  do  so tenance of  the  heat of warm-
here T'  (Rev. of Paine, p.  393 — blooded animals " (Carpenter's
396.                            ^Principles, &c. Sec. 494.)
  In conclusion, the author will state a few-parallel passages from Dr.  Carpenter's
Principles, &c.  and the Writings  of the  Rev. Dr. Channing,  by which  his  circle of
evidence  will be complete.   To avoid  all unnecessary complexity, as well as to pre-
serve an unity  of illustration,  the parallels will still be  limited  to  the writings ofthe
Rev. Doctor.  The reader will have observed, at the close ofthe foregoing coincidences
with Channing, the  tact of the critic in disguising his goods, without essentially im-
pairing their lustre.
           Dr.  Channing's Works,

  "The great use which I would make ofthe prin-
ciples laid down  in this discourse, is to derive from
them just and clear views ofthe nature of religion."
'  Shall [ deem a property in the outward Universe
as the highest good, when I may become partaker
of the very Mind from which it springs, of the dispos-
ing wisdom, through which its order, beauty, and
beneficent influences subsist." " We regard nothing
so important to a human being, as the knowledge of
his own mind, and of  its intimate connection with
the Infinite Mind."   "To bring  the created mind
into living union  with the Infinite Mind, so that it
shall respond to Him through its whole being, is the
noblest function, which this harmonious and benefi-
cent Universe performs."  (Channing's Works, pp.
198, 468, 469, 492.)
  " In proportion as the trie and sublime concep-
tion of God shall unfold itself in the soul, and shall
become there a central sun, shedding its beams on
all objects of thought, there will he a want, &c.  It
will be felt that the poet has seen nature only under
clouds, if he have not seen  it under this celestial
light."   (Ibid. p. 208.)

  " In proportion  as wo approach and resemble the
Mind of God, we are brought into harmony with the
Creation;  for, in that proportion we possess  the
         Dr. Carpenter's Principlks.

  " Every step  which we take  in  the  progress
of generalization,  increases our admiration of tho
beauty of the adaptation, and the harmony ofthe
action,  of the laws we discover; and it is in this
beauty and harmony that the contemplative  mind
delights to recognise the wisdom and beneficence of
the  Divine Author of the Universe.   This, in fact,
is one ofthe highest results to which the exercise of
our intellectual  faculties should lead ; and we can-
not  but believe  that the Creator, in  endowing us
with these faculties, intended that they should con-
duct us nearer  to the conception of His Infinite
Mind."
  " When our knowledge is sufficiently advanced to
comprehend these things, then shall we  be led to a
far  higher  and  nobler conception  of the Divine
Mind than we have at present the  means  of form-
ing.  But, even  then, how infinitely short ofthe re-
ality will be any view that our limited comprehen-
sion can attain,  seeing, as we ever must in this life,
' as through a glass, darkly;'  how much will re-
main to be revealed  to us in that glorious future,
when the Light of Truth shall burst upon  us in
UNCLOl DED LUSTRE."
  "In proportion to our attainment ofthe general-
izations to which we are thus led, we acquire fresh
proofs of the Omnipotence  of Creative  skill; for, 
96
EXAMINATION OF  A   REVIEW,  &C.
principles from which the Universe sprung; we parry'at nvrry successive stop, nro wo able to comprolmnd
within our-elves the perfections of which its beauty, new r. briioiis between facts that previously seemed
magnificence, order, benevolent  adaptations, and
boundless purposes, are tho rosults and manifest a
lions.
                                                  oiifmod and insulated, new objects for what at first
                                                 seemed destitute of utility ;  and in 'lie same propor-
                                                 tion  will the contemplative spirit  be led to appre-
                                                 ciate the vastness of  that Deigning Mind,  which,
                                                 in originally ordaining the  laws of the animated
                                                 world, could produce micIi harmony nnd adaptation
                                                 amongst their innuinerablo results.
  It is possible, that the brevity of these  hints may   To avoid nil chance of being misunderstood  in
expose to the charge of mysticism, what seems to  these views, it  may not bo useless to ndduco, in  li-
me the calmest and clearest truth.   What man can  lustration of them, ono ofthe  most  obvious and
examine the structure of a plnnt or an animal, and'simple  adaptations every where presented  in the
see the adaptation of  its parts to each other and to'structure of animals, — that  of the  muscles  to the
common ends, and not feel, that it is the work of an'skeleton.  We constantly find,  in pursuing our nmi-
Intelligcnceakin to bis own, and that he traces these|tomical  inquiries,  that, for the advantageous at-
inarks of design by the snme spiritual  energy in  taebment of muscles to bones, some particular lorm
which they had  their origin? "   "Nature in it>|of the latter is provided :" &c    " But lie (the phy-
lowest  and  inanimate forms, is pervaded  by  Ili>sio!ogi»r will obtain a much moro elevated view
Power; and when quickened by the mysterious prop-  of the nature of  Creative l'owcr, if  lie carry his in-
erty of life, how wonderfully does it show forth tlielquiries farther." "Those (facts  in physiology) which .
perfections of its Author.  How much of God may'would seem to  bo ofthe most trifling consoquonco,
be seen in the structure of a single leaf, which though  if viewed in this light only, (physiologically,) are ol-
so frail as to tremble in the wind [and be torn,] yet
holds connections and  living communications with
the earth,-the air, the clouds, nnd the distant sun ;
nnd through these sympathies with the Universe, is
itself a revelation ofthe Omnipotent Mind."  (Chan-
ning's II orks, pp. 45.S,  466.)
  "The discoveries of science have continually ad-
ded  strength to that great principle, that the phe-
nomena ofthe Universe are regulated by general and
permanent laws, or that the Author ofthe Universe
exerts His Power according to an established order.
Nature, the more it is explored, is found to be uni-
form. Wp observe an unbroken succession of causes
and  effects.  Many  phenomena once denominated
irregular, and ascribed  to  supernatural agency,
are found to be connected with  preceding circuru
stances,  as regularly as the most common ewnts.
The comet, we learn, observes tho same attraction,
as the sun and planets.  That attention to the puw
ers of nature, which is implied in scientific research,
tends to weaken tho practical conviction of a Higher
l'owcr;  and  the laws of the Creation, instead  ol
being regarded as the modes of Divine operation,
come insensibly to  be considered as fellers on Ins
agency, as too sacred  to be suspended even by their
Author.  When a new phenomenon now occurs, no
one  thinks it miraculous, but believes, that when
better understood,it may be reduced  to lawsulrcady
known, or is an example of a law not yet investiga-

  "To a man, whose belief in God is strong nnd prac
tical, a miracle will appear as possible as any othe
effect;  and the argument  against miracles, ilrawi
from the uniformity of nature, will weigh with  him
only as  far as this uniformity is a pledge and [iron
of the Creator's disposition to accomplish his  pur
poses by a fixed  order  or mode of operation.   The
Creator's regard or attachment to such an order may
be inferred from the  steadiness with which he ob-
serves it; nnd a strong presumption  lies against any
violation of it on slight occasions, or for purposes to
which the established  laws of nature are adequate.
God adheres to the order of the Universe because it
is  most suited  to accomplish  his purposes."  "If,
then, the great purposes ol the  Universe can  best
be accomplished by departing from its established
laws, these laws will  undoubtedly be suspended."
(Chanm.nu's Works,  pp. 338, 339.  Boston, 1830.)
 ten found, when properly applied, to possess un un-
 expected and momentous import.  A broken  twig,
 a  torn  leaf, a  fluttened blade  of grass, are  signs
 which an ordinary travellor would pass without ob-
 servation ; but, to the practised eye of the denizen
 ofthe woods, they are nliko certain nnd express-
 ive."  (Carpentkr's  Principles, &c. Sec. 598 —
 GOi.;
   "The  unchangenbleness of Mis  nature is  mani-
 fested by his continued action in the material Crea-
 tion, ncrorriing to the same plan by which He nt first
 adjusted the relations of its parts.  Ourbcliof in the
 uniformity of Nature, which  loads  us to  sock for a
 common causo when a number of similar phenom-
 ena  aro presented to our observation, is based, not
 only  upon  experience, but upon  the  conviction
 wlmh every believer in tho existence ofthe Deity
 feels of his immutability.  If it were otherwise, wo
 should bo led by analogy only to infer the evidence
 of law and order wht;re none is evident."  "To ima-
 gine, therefore, that the plan ofthe Universe,  onca
 established with a definite end, could require alter-
 ation during the continuance of its existence, is at
 once to deny the perfection ofthe Divine uttributes ;
 JStc.   I.el  it be borne  in  mind, then, that  when  a
 law  of Physics or Vitality is  mentioned, nothing
 more is really implied tliu.u a simple expression  ol
 the mode in which the Creator is constantly opera-
 ting  on inorganic matter, or  on organized struc-
 tures."  "Ifthese (miraculous interpositions;  are
 exceptions to general laws, they are so only in hu-
 man estimation ; sinco they are as  much a part of
 the Divine Will, and were as much foreseen by Di-
 vine  Omniscience, as  any of those  occurrences
 which are usually regarded as constituting the order
 of Nature."
  "To suppose that the adaptation of these laws to
 rich m!.her, and to those of the external world, could
 be otherwise than perfect would be to cast a stigma
 upon Infinite Wisdom." "Thus, the motions of tho
 i-olar  system all resnlt  from that universal property
 of matter, gravitation, which,  originally  balanced
 against  other  forces, will continue to  producn the
 same effects as  long as may be  consistent with the
 designs ofthe Creator.'Y)  (Carplnter's Princi-
ples, &c. Sec. 147, 148, 9.  London, 1839.)
  [Dr. Channing abounds with eloquent remarks to
the foregoing effect, and  they are common in the
" Principles."]
  (1) Sec the contradictions (Reply, p, 10 — 11,25, 2*, ?1 —33, 36, 40, 43 — 43. 52, 62, 4c.)  to which this habit of de-
peiulcuce unftfuidi,:^  tends; sinct such a writer can be guided by no " PrincijAci," &c.
  Errata, continued from page 72.— At p. 07, thirteenth line from  bottom, for 332, read  432.
76, second line from bottom, for he had said read the reviewer has fabricated.