still think he has not been fairly dealt with. I refer to the charge of scepticism for which he was attacked by Abernethy, and which endangered the loss of his position at Bethlem and his reputation with the world. Lawrence lived too soon, and, like Galileo, Roger Bacon and others, was abused through the ignorance of his detractors, and not because he originally said that which was worthy of such abuse. Nevertheless it must be deplored that in his 'Lectures on Man' he expressed himself in a light, flippant, and foolish manner, on subjects to which religious men justly attach the greatest importance. But these passages did not contain his innermost feelings on religious matters, and such writing, though certainly injudicious, is very different from a systematic and intentional onslaught on the evidences of Christianity on the existence of a Great First Cause. I must advert to the opinions of John Hunter and Abernethy on 'The Nature of Life,' because it was these which called forth Wm. Lawrence's opposition. John Hunter's idea is that life is something superadded to matter, and Abernethy believed that the important teachings and discoveries of Hunter could not be explained, appreciated, or understood, unless the student embraced and believed this theory of life as enunciated by John Hunter. Lawrence, differing in toto with John Hunter and Abernethy, availed himself of the first opportunity he had of expressing his own views on this subject. On the 21st and 25th of March, 1816, Mr. Lawrence gave two lectures at the College of Surgeons, the first entitled 'An Introduction to Comparative Anatomy and Physiology,' the second 'On Life.' Nearly all that Lawrence ever wrote which could expose him to the charge of scepticism is contained in these two lectures, and I shall select those papers which I conclude Abernethy refers to in his attack, as he has not quoted anything to prove it; and you, gentlemen, must form your own opinion. These lectures were published by J. Callow, Medical Bookseller, Crown Court, Princes Street, Soho, in 1816; they were dedicated to Dr. Farre. He dates his work "College of Physicians, July, 1816," where at that time he lived. Within a few weeks his name might have been seen on the portal of the College in Warwick Lane, Newgate Market. After reading the high eulogium to Abernethy which Lawrence paid in his first lecture, I cannot believe that he ever imagined that his opposition to Abernethy's views of life, or the language in which he clothed it, could give the offence which it did to one whom he respected so highly. "To your feelings," says Lawrence, "I must trust for an excuse, if any be thought necessary, for taking the earliest opportunity of giving utterance to the sentiments of respect and gratitude I entertain for Abernethy. You and the public know, and have long known, his acute mind, his peculiar talent for observation, his zeal for the advancement of surgery, and his successful exertions in improving the scientific knowledge and treatment of disease. His singular happiness in developing and teaching others, the original and philosophic views which he naturally takes of all the subjects that come under his examination, and the success with which he communicates that enthusiasm in the cause of science and humanity which is so warmly felt by himself, the admirable skill with which he enlivens the dry details of elementary instruction, are most gratefully acknowledged by his numerous pupils. All these various excellences have been repeatedly felt in this theatre. Having had the good fortune to be initiated in the profession by Mr. Abenethy and to have lived for many years under his roof, I can assure you, with the greatest sincerity, that however highly the public may estimate the surgeon and the philosopher, I have reason to speak still more highly of the man and the friend; of the invariable kindness which directed my early studies and pursuits, of the disinterested friendship which has assisted every step of my progress in life, of the benevolent and honorable feelings, the independent spirit and the liberal conduct, which, while they dignify our profession, win our love and command our respect for genius and knowledge, converting these precious gifts into instruments of the most extensive public good." I will next quote those passages in the lecture on life which I suppose Mr. Abernethy refers to when he speak of sceptics and sceptical opinions. In his subsequent course of lectures Mr. Lawrence gives an explanation which, if given at the time, might have saved him from some of those violent attacks to which he was afterwards subjected. Page 174. "It seems to me that this hypothesis or fiction of a subtle invisible matter, animating the visible textures of animal bodies, and directing their motions, is only an example of that propensity in the human mind which has led men at all times to account for those phenomena of which the causes are not obvious, by the mysterious aid of higher and imaginary beings." Page 178. "To say that we can never arrive at the first cause of the vital phenomena would be presumptuous; but it is most true that all the efforts to penetrate its nature have been equally unsuccessful, from the commencement of the world to the present time. Their complete failure in every instance has now led almost universally to their abandonment, and may induce us to acquiesce on this point in the observations of Lucretius on a parallel subject: "Ignoratur enim quæ sit natura animai; Lawrence in the passages I have just quoted powerfully expresses his ignorance of the nature of life, in opposition to the theories of Hunter and Abernethy, that it was an ethereal essence added to a living body, a sort of superintending spirit. A very interesting writer, in a book lately published,* has confessed a similar ignorance of the nature of vital phenomena, but such confession of ignorance has not and will not expose him to the charge of infidelity. The whole work is highly interesting, consisting of illustrations of the power, wisdom, and goodness of God, as manifested in his works. One of the soundest physiologists of our time, and certainly the last man that could be accused of scepticism, has expressed in beautiful language the same views of life in some lectures delivered at the Royal Institution,† and thoroughly appreciated by the intelligent audience that throng its theatre. * Benedicite,' by G. Chaplin Child, M.D. +On Life and Death,' by Wm. S. Savory, p. 143. Savory says, and I entirely agree with him, "that this dogma of a vital principle has not assisted us in our investigation of the phenomena of life, and that our knowledge of the vital processes has not been in the least measure advanced by any such assumption. "Vital principle,' 'organic agents,' and other like terms, when employed in physiology, are even at the best empirical ones and equivalent to nothing more than the final letters of the alphabet in an algebraical formula, for they are, when used in their least objectionable sense, mere expressions of something unknown. But the assumption of such an agent or principle (however designated), annihilating or suspending the operations of forces acting elsewhere, in its influence upon the progress of knowledge; by referring all vital actions to this obscure agency, while nothing was thereby explained, inquiry was to a great extent checked. The final purpose was discerned, an efficient cause was forthwith assumed. Physiology fell idly back upon a vital principle. "Unfortunately, much prejudice has been mixed up with these doctrines. To explain any of the phenomena of life by the operation of the physical forces, has been stigmatised as irreverent, as an attempt to defame the highest and noblest of the Creator's works. But is not such a charge as this altogether false and scandalous ? "The result being given-Life-it surely more exalts our feeble and imperfect conception of infinite intelligence and power, to understand that the wonderful and mysterious phenomena of vitality have been evolved from the materials and forces around us, rather than by the introduction of distinct and peculiar agents." Lawrence's reply to Abernethy is so powerful and just in the general principles on which it is founded, that you must forgive my quoting some of it. They are to be found in the first of his 'Lectures on Man,' "introductory to the course delivered in 1817," and show, therefore, that Abernethy's attack was made upon the two lectures which herein I have referred to, and not to his 'Lectures on Man.' “That life, then, or the assemblage of all the functions, is immediately dependent on organization, appears to me, physiologically speaking, as clear as that the presence of the sun above the horizon causes the light of day; and to suppose that we could have light without that luminary, would not be more unreasonable than to conceive that life is independent of the animal body in which the vital phenomena is observed.” "I say physiologically speaking, and beg you to attend particularly to this qualification; because the theological doctrine of the soul, and its separate existence, has nothing to do with this physiological question, but rests on a species of proof altogether different. These sublime dogmas could never have been brought to light by the labours of the anatomist and physiologist." In consequence of further attacks Wm. Lawrence was ultimately induced to withdraw his lectures on man from publication, and in this step he decidedly made, as I believe, a great mistake, but even this proceeding has been misrepresented. Letters bearing on the withdrawal of the work, besides other important matter, will shortly be published, when I look forward to a more complete refutation of all the charges which have been made against him than I have either the time or power to express. "I beg leave," says Lawrence, in one of his letters to the Governors of Bethlem, "to assure you that no man is more fully impressed than I am with the importance of religion and morality to the welfare of mankind; that no one is more sensible of the peculiar excellencies of that pure religion which is unfolded in the New Testament; and that no one more earnestly desires to see its true spirit universally diffused and acted on.” We must not omit attention to another most important epoch in Lawrence's life. In 1826 he attended a meeting held at the Freemasons' Tavern. On taking the chair he said, "We meet, gentlemen, in pursuance of an advertisement addressed to the members of the College of Surgeons, and in order to devise the best means of remedying the abuses which exist in the management of that Institution." He then entered on the consideration of that most important subject with great energy and earnestness. The proof that he was right in the view which he took of the necessity of reform is, 4 VOL. VI. |