C 167 ] 



in which, as in natural hiftory, all dlfeafes were 

 difpofed into clajfes^ orders^ and genera^ founded 

 on diftindtions taken from the fymptoms alone, no 

 regard being had either to remote, or proximate 

 caufes. Before v/e proceed to a particular view 

 of LiNNiEus's method of claffing difeafes, it will 

 be proper to premife, that a nofology on this plan, 

 the great obje6t of which is to pathognomonics to 

 every difeafe, had been long wiflied for by feme 

 writers of the firft character in the profeflion : fuch 

 were Baglivi, Boerhaave^ GorUr, Gauhius^ and Syden- 

 ham \ the latter of whom has thus exprefTed himfelf 

 on this fubje6t, in the preface to his works : Ey.pe- 

 " dit ut morbi omnes ad definitas ac cert as fpecies revo- 

 centur^ eadem prorfus diligentia ac ocxpiI^skx^ qua 

 id fa^um videmus a hotanicis fcriptorihus in fuis 

 phytologiisy Yet, amidft that almoft infinite 

 variety and complication of appearances which 

 are feen in difeafes, the difficulty of obtaining fuf- 

 ficient diftindlions, by which the genus and fpecies 

 may be accurately difcriminated, muft be allowed 

 to be very great; and pofiibly is in many inftances 

 unfurmountable. Hence, fome of the moft emi- 

 nent phyficians have been led to reje6t all fuch 

 arrangements as futile, and impradlicable. This, 

 however, hath not deterred others from paying 

 attention to the fubjed, more efpecially fome of 

 thofe, who, from their province as profelTors, are 

 led to teach the rudiments of the art ; and to 

 whom method, in fome form^ is abfolutely necef- 

 fary. Syftematic writers had ufed various me- 

 thods in the difpofition of their fubjed:. Some 



M 4 had 



