METHOD OF STUDY. 435 



great deal of fallacy, the rendering it complete must still be at a 

 great distance. But while the dogmatists ought to acknowledge 

 all this and the present dogmatists readily do so they, how- 

 ever, still plead, that such is the difficulty and fallacy of estab- 

 lishing a common nature of diseases upon an empirical footing 

 that an attempt to do it by ascertaining their proximate causes, 

 may give much assistance, and is almost unavoidable. This is 

 the true state of the dogmatic plan : while it takes advantage of 

 every part of the empiric, it proposes to make an addition to it 

 from the lights of anatomy and philosophy ; and while it does 

 so with the same accuracy and circumspection that observation 

 and history require, it is supposed to be done with sufficient 

 safety. A dogmatist knows well, that anatomy and philosophy 

 are not so absolutely perfect as to give a complete system of 

 physic, but he thinks that they give an useful and applicable illus- 

 tration of many parts of it, and that he may safely study it 

 with respect to the whole, while he takes care to distinguish what 

 is tolerably palpable and applicable, from what is purely specu- 

 lative and uncertain. Now, to prove certainly that a dogmatist 

 may make some useful additions to our empiric plan, it is only 

 necessary to prove that anatomy and philosophy have thrown 

 light upon the nature of diseases. With regard to the first, it 

 is not a question at present ; for nobody doubts that anatomy, 

 in many cases, has informed us very exactly with regard to the 

 more obvious organic affections ; and even where these are in 

 the internal parts, anatomy has often explained their connexion 

 with external symptoms, so as to establish a common nature in 

 different diseases more certainly than any observation of the 

 symptoms alone. There is no doubt, therefore, that anatomy 

 was very improperly rejected by the ancient empirics ; and I 

 doubt if the present writers on the Nosologia methodica are right 

 in so universally rejecting the distinction of diseases by their in- 

 ternal seat. With regard to philosophy, the use and application 

 of it must have a considerable effect in explaining the proximate 

 causes of diseases, and at the same time the nature of remote causes 

 is entirely the business of philosophy, mechanical or chemical. It 

 will be equally evident, that the nature of experienced remedies 

 must in many cases contribute. to explain the nature of diseases. 

 But the nature of remedies is also the business of philosophy, 



