Memoirs of John Abernethy / With a View of His Lectures, His Writings, and Character; with Additional Extracts from Original Documents, Now First Published

by George Macilwain

Still, the poverty of language is such, as regards the expression of natural phenomena, that necessity has obliged us to clothe the forces in nature with some attribute sufficiently in conformity with our ideas to enable us to give them an intelligible expression; and, whether we talk of luminous particles, ethereal undulations, electric or magnetic fluids, matter of heat, &c. we apprehend that no one now means more than to convey an intellectually tangible expression, of certain forces in nature, of which he desires to discourse; in order to describe the habitudes they observe, or the laws which they obey. This is all we think it necessary to say on the scientific conduct of the argument by Abernethy.

The public have long since expressed their opinion on Mr. Lawrence's Reply and Lectures; and whatever may be regarded as their decision, we have no disposition to canvass or disturb it. There was nothing wonderful, however unusual, in a young man so placed, in a profession like ours, getting into a controversy with a man of such eminence as Abernethy, particularly on speculative subjects. There were in the present case, to be sure, very many objections to such a position; but these it was Mr. Lawrence's province to consider. On this, and many other points, we have as little inclination as we have right, perhaps, to state our opinion. Nevertheless, we must not omit a few words in recognition of Mr. Abernethy's efforts, and a few observations on the conduct of the governing body of the College at that time. In the first place, we feel obliged to Mr. Abernethy for the defence he made on that occasion: not from the importance of any abstract theory, but from the tendency that his whole tone had to inculcate just views of the nature and character of the profession. But we can by no means acquit the Council of the College, at the time of the said controversy, of what we must conceive to have been a great neglect of duty. There is, amongst a certain class of persons, an idea that the medical profession are sceptical on religious subjects; and many of these persons are people of whom it is impossible not to value the respect and good opinion. We never could trace any legitimate grounds for the conclusion. On inquiry, it has always appeared to be nothing more than a "vulgar error," resting, as "vulgar errors" generally do, on general conclusions drawn by people who have deduced them from insufficient particulars.

Sometimes, the persons indulging in this idea have known a medical man whom they consider to be unstable in his religious views; another knows that Mr. A. or B. never goes to church; sometimes, even political differences have been held sufficient excuse for impugning the soundness of a man's ideas on the all-important subject of religion. We have never been able to discover any grounds on which they could, with any show of justice, support so serious an imputation. For our parts, we know not how the necessary data are to be obtained, and therefore should shrink from anything so presumptuous as an attempt to describe the religious character of any profession.

We have no means of obtaining the evidence necessary even to examine, much less to support, so serious and difficult a generalization. The great bulk of our profession are general practitioners; and in forming opinions in regard to any class of men, we naturally look to the greatest number. So far as our own experience has gone, we cannot find the slightest ground for the degrading imputation. Like all other medical men, their labours are incessant, their hours of recreation few, and far between. In their requisitions on their time, the public regard neither night nor day, nor the Sabbath, when they require attention. Then, if we look to conduct as no unreasonable test of religion, we may, like all other professions, have blots. We have, in all grades, it may be, our fee-hunters and long-billed practitioners; but whether we regard the physician, surgeon, or general practitioner, we verily believe that there are no men in the kingdom who, as a body, conduct themselves more honourably, none who are less mercenary, none who, in relation to their position, are less affluent—no bad test—nor who do one-tenth of the work which they do, without any remuneration whatever.

With regard to the alleged absence from public worship, there may be (however explicable) some ground for the remark, and especially as no profession shows, in the general respectability of their conduct, a more ready and respectful acquiescence in the established usages of mankind.

But let the question be fairly stated. How many medical men can go to church every Sunday, and to the same church, without a compromise of a paramount duty? We are ready to concede, that the necessities which professional calls impose on so many occasions, may have a tendency to form habits, when impediments are less pressing; but is it not rather the exactions of the public, than the choice of the profession, which imposes the necessity? How many of the public would be satisfied, if they wished to see a professional man on any pressing occasion, and were told that he could not be seen for a couple of hours, as he was going to church?

Highly as we venerate the benign and beautiful ordinance of the Sabbath, important as we think it, that, on all accounts, it should be observed with reverence and gratitude,—still we should hesitate before we regarded the single act of attendance or absence on public worship as a safe or charitable exposition of any man's religious stability. We, therefore, as far as in us lies, repudiate the charge; we regard it as groundless; and think that, as no profession affords more frequent opportunities for a constant awakening and keeping alive the best sympathies of our nature, so no profession can be more calculated to impress the fragile nature of the body, as contrasted with the immortal spirit which inhabits it, or the constant presence of that Power by whose laws they are both governed. But groundless as we think the charge, we must contend that the apathy of the Council of the College, at the time Mr. Lawrence delivered the lectures in question, was a serious neglect of duty. In those Lectures, Mr. Lawrence spoke of the Old Testament in a tone which must, we think, be regarded as irrelevant to, or at least unnecessary in, a course of Lectures on Comparative Anatomy.

We hold no sympathy with that sort of persecution with which several well-intentioned people visited the book; but we must always regard the Council of the time as having been neglectful of their duty. Lectures on Comparative Anatomy do not render it necessary to impugn the historical correctness, or the inspired character, of the Old Testament. What answer could private individuals make, or with what influence could they oppose the prejudices of the public in relation to the religious securities afforded by men in whom they confide, when they saw a young professor allowed to introduce into lectures—given to an audience composed of the most aged and eminent of the profession, as well as of many of those who were just commencing their studies, delivered, too, at the chartered College of the profession—matter which was not only not at all necessary to the most ample exposition of the subject, but which, as we have said, only alluded to the Old Testament in a manner calculated to weaken its authority as an historical document, and to impugn its inspired character?

Surely there was no more certain mode of giving an ex cathedrâ sanction to the unfavourable impressions of the public; impressions which tend to tarnish the lustre of a profession which founds its claim to respect on its high office in kindly ministrations and unquestioned utility; and to arm a vulgar and unfounded prejudice with all the influence of Collegiate recognition. If, indeed, the College had desired to support the alleged favourable tendency of Mr. Abernethy's views, or the alleged opposite bearings of those to which he was opposed, they could hardly have done better than to have allowed of the irrelevant matter in question. But we have done. It is no part of our business to quote passages, or further to renew discussions long since passed away, than is necessary for our proper objects. But when we consider on how many points Abernethy must have been hurt, the very difficult and perplexing position in which he was placed, we cannot too much admire the very measured tone he adopted throughout; or the evidently wounded feeling, but still dignified yet simple statement in the published Postscript in his Lectures; and though there had been no subsequent exemplification of his forgiving temper—which was not the case—we should still have felt obliged to regard the whole affair as indicative of great goodness of heart; and, when all the circumstances of disappointment and vexation are duly weighed, of almost unexampled moderation.