Reply to Dr. McGilchrist's "Remarks" on Professor Bennett's introductory lecture, "The present state of the theory and practice of medicine" / by John Glen.
- Glen, John, M.A.
- Date:
- 1856
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Reply to Dr. McGilchrist's "Remarks" on Professor Bennett's introductory lecture, "The present state of the theory and practice of medicine" / by John Glen. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.
19/32 page 17
![tells us (page 12), that analogy is impossible in this instance, because the things are different in kind; but the body of man in the grave and the seed sown in the ground, ape also different in kind, yet a beautiful and valid analogy has been drawn between them in illustration of the body's resurrection. Again, he tells us that analogy is impossible, for the results are dispropor- tionate in degree. Is there, then, no analogy between the intel- lect of man and instinct in the brute creation, because their respective results are notably disproportionate in degree ? Hitherto but one criticism has been offered against this first instance, viz., that it is not equal in importance to the discovery of steam-engines. Now, Dr M'Gilchrist does not adduce any other objection in his own name, but he ventures to put another into the mouth of that injured man whom he has resurrectionized. John Locke is made to pledge his word (in behalf of John M'Gilchrist, M.D.), that the treatment in case of ttenise was the same in his own day, and the day of Celsus, as now, even to the point of forbidding certain articles of diet. If the great logician really said so [Dr M'Gilchrist only asserts he might possibly have said], then from reverence for his authority, we believe: but taking off the mask from this ghost, and dis- covering behind it the features of our friend, we become more sceptical, and demand from him farther proof that the modern practice was in all points known to Celsus and Locke. Dr Bennett's second instance is the cure of favus, as a vege- table mould, by constant exclusion of air from the sporules and thalli; and the vast improvement in point of gentle and succes- ful treatment is, with great interest, unfolded. But the critic declares, that old women cure the same disease by very gentle practice, viz.—good soap and water. Now, query,is it really favus with thalli and sporules which these females treat—query, are they indeed successful in curing true favus—and, query, in what time are they successful? Dr M'Gilchrist evidently takes for gianted that old women can diagnose true favus from eczemas B](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21478168_0019.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
