Contemporary reaction to John Wesley's Primitive Physic: Or, the case of Dr William Hawes examined

Social History of Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 365-378

  Madden, Deborah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

'Faculty' physicians; Dr William Hawes; Eighteenth century; John Wesley; Medicine; Primitive Physic

Indexed keywords

EID: 10244246680     PISSN: 0951631X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/shm/17.3.365     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. L. Tyerman, The Life and Times of the Rev. John Wesley, MA, 3 vols (London, 1870-2), vol. 1, p. 564.
2. G. S. Rousseau, 'John Wesley's "Primitive Physick" (1747)', Harvard Library Bulletin, 16 (1968), 242-56, p. 249.
3. Rousseau, 'John Wesley's "Primitive Physick"', p. 250.
4. This edition was significant also because, in the 'Postscript', Wesley sets out his intention to include electrical therapy, although electricity as an application for various illnesses was a treatment that had begun to make its appearance in the eighth edition of 1759. See J. Wesley, Primitive Physic (9th edn, London, 1761).
5. I. Loudon, Medical Care and the General Practitioner, 1750-1850 (Oxford, 1986). Roy Porter, whose scholarship remains pre-eminent in the field, was largely responsible for this sea-change in the historiography of medicine.
6. M. Pelling, 'Medical Practice in Early Modern England: Trade or Profession?', in W. Prest (ed.), The Professions in Early Modern England (London, 1987), 90-128.
7. J. Lane, A Social History of Medicine: Health, Healing and Disease in England, 1750-1950 (London, 2001), pp. 9-15.
8. A. Guerrini, Obesity and Depression in the Enlightenment: The Life and Times of George Cheyne (Oklahoma, 2000), p. 37.
9. R. Porter, 'The Eighteenth Century', in L. I. Conrad, M. Neve, V. Nutton et al. (eds), The Western Medical Tradition (Cambridge, 1995), 371-475.
10. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
11. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
12. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
13. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
14. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
15. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
16. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
17. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
18. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
19. To some extent Rousseau's inaugural article follows a similar trajectory to A. Wesley Hill's, John Wesley Among the Physicians: A Study of Eighteenth-century Medicine (London, 1958), in that it gives the reader a brief overview of Wesley's medical practice. H. D. Rack's article, 'Doctors, Demons and Early Methodist Healing', in W. J. Sheils (ed.), The Church and Healing (Studies in Church History, 19; Oxford, 1982), 137-52, provides an explication of Wesley's 'amateur' medicine in the context of Methodist spiritual healing. Other such summaries include J. Cule's work, 'The Rev. John Wesley, M.A. (Oxon.), 1703-91: "The Naked Empiricist" and Orthodox Medicine', The Journal of the History of Medicine, 45 (1990), 41-63. Phillip W. Ott and Randy Maddox are Methodist scholars who have written articles and lectures on particular features of Wesley's medical holism, focusing on the theological mainsprings of his interest in medicine. See P. W. Ott, 'John Wesley on Health: A Word for Sensible Regimen', Methodist History, 18 (1979-80), 193-204; idem, 'John Wesley on Health as Wholeness', Journal of Religion and Health, 30 (1991), 43-57; idem, 'Medicine as Metaphor: John Wesley on Therapy of the Soul', Methodist History, 33 (1995), 178-91. R. Maddox has indicated his intention to publish an article, leading from a series of lectures, on this subject (R. Maddox, 'RE: Dissertation' [email to D. Madden], 6 Dec. 2002). Earlier articles include those written by B. G. Thomas, 'John Wesley and the Art of Healing', American Physician, 32 (1906), 295-8; W. R. Riddell, 'Wesley's System of Medicine', New York Medical Journal, 99 (1914), 64-8; G. Dock, 'The Primitive Physick of Revd John Wesley: A Picture of Eighteenth-century Medicine', The Journal of the American Medical Association, 64 (1915), 629-38.
20. See my doctoral thesis, 'Pristine Purity: Primitivism and Practical Piety in John Wesley's Art of Physic' (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford, 2003), which attempts to examine the specific remedies set out in Wesley's text.
21. Rousseau, 'John Wesley's "Primitive Physick"', pp. 249-50.
22. A. M. Lyles, Methodism Mocked: The Satiric Reaction to Methodism in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1960); M. De Porte, Nightmares and Hobbyhorses: Swift, Sterne and Augustan Ideas of Madness (San Marino, CA, 1974), pp. 40-1.
23. A. M. Lyles, Methodism Mocked: The Satiric Reaction to Methodism in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1960); M. De Porte, Nightmares and Hobbyhorses: Swift, Sterne and Augustan Ideas of Madness (San Marino, CA, 1974), pp. 40-1.
24. Ibid.; Madden, 'Pristine Purity'.
25. Ibid.; Madden, 'Pristine Purity'.
26. Revd A. Toplady, quoted in W. Hawes, An Examination of the Revd Mr John Wesley's Primitive Physic (1780; 2nd edn, London, 1780), pp. 56-7. Hawes uses this attack to support his own criticisms.
27. Rousseau, 'John Wesley's "Primitive Physick"', pp. 249-50.
28. Tyerman, The Life and Times of the Revd John Wesley, vol. I, p. 564.
29. Quoted in ibid., p. 564.
30. W. Hawes, An Examination of the Revd Mr John Wesley's Primitive Physic (1780; 2nd edn, London, 1780), n. p.
31. Ibid., p. 82.
32. Wesley, Primitive Physic, (1747; 24th edn, London, 1792), p. xvi.
33. Agues (malaria) were divided into the following categories and Wesley explains the division in asterisked footnotes: 'An Ague is an Intermitting Fever, each fit of which is proceeded by a cold shivering, and goes off in a sweat'. A Tertian Ague 'returns every other day' and a Quartan Ague 'misses two days; coming on Monday (suppose) and again on Thursday'. See Wesley, Primitive Physic, 24th edn, pp. 19-22nn.
34. Hawes, An Examination, p. 13.
35. Ibid., p. 70.
36. Ibid., pp. 64-5.
37. Quoted in ibid., p. 64.
38. Quoted in ibid., p. 65.
39. Quoted in ibid., pp. 65-6.
40. Ibid., p. 66.
41. Quoted by Wesley in his letter 'To the Printer of the Gazetteer' (The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley MA, ed. J. Telford, 8 vols (London, 1931), vol. VI, pp. 202-3 (25 January 1776)).
42. Ibid., pp. 202-3.
43. There were several debates conducted by physicians regarding the efficacy of verdigris. The most notable work on the subject was that written by W. Falconer, Observations and Experiments on the Poison of Copper (London, 1774).
44. R. Porter, Health for Sale: Quackery in England, 1660-1850 (Manchester, 1989).
45. B. Beigun Kaplan observes that this was the starting point for Robert Boyle's investigations. See B. B. Kaplan, 'Divulging of Useful Truths in Physic': The Medical Agenda of Robert Boyle (Baltimore and London, 1993), p. 108.
46. R. Mead, A Mechanical Account of Poisons in Several Essays (1st edn, London, 1702), p. 109.
47. Cited by Hawes, An Examination, p. 67.
48. Cited in ibid., p. 67.
49. Wesley, Letters, vol. VI, pp. 225-6.
50. Wesley, Primitive Physic, 24th edn, p. xviii.
51. Hawes, An Examination, p. 21.
52. Wesley, Primitive Physic, 24th edn, p. 59.
53. G. Cheyne, A New Theory of Continual Fevers: Wherein, Besides the Appearances of Such Fevers, and the Method of Their Cure, Occasionally, the Structure of the Glands, and the Manner and Laws of Secretion, the Operation of Purgative, Vomitive, and Mecurial Medicines, are Mechanically Explain'd (1st edn, London, 1701), p. 11.
54. Hawes believed that poultices (warm flannels) transformed benign tumours into cancer and that cold baths would convert skin complaints into internal inflammations. See Hawes, An Examination, p. 25.
55. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
56. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
57. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
58. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
59. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
60. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
61. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
62. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
63. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
64. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
65. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
66. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
67. J. H. Plumb, England in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1950), pp. 95-6. The fact that Wesley was a theologian meant that many late-Victorian historians set him up in opposition to other Enlightenment scientists and philosophers. In the History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (1881), Leslie Stephen claimed to see in Wesley 'that aversion to scientific reasoning that has become characteristic of orthodox theologians'. See L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols (3rd edn, London, 1902), vol. I, p. 100; vol. II, p. 412. Other nineteenth-century criticism includes A. Dixon White's, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols (New York, 1895). This criticism worked its way into twentieth-century historiography, most notably in J. H. Plumb's, England in the Eighteenth Century, and M.Jacob, 'Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview', in D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Los Angeles, 1986), 238-55. There are, however, numerous references to Wesley's populist and 'unorthodox' scientific leanings - too many to cite. Here, I will refer only to those key works where this argumentation is made explicit. R. Porter's early work, significantly perhaps, follows a similar trajectory to that of his mentor and old supervisor, J. H. Plumb. See R. Porter, Mind Forg'd Manacles: A History of Madness in England from the Restoration to the Regency (London, 1987); idem, Health For Sale; R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practitioners (Cambridge, 1985). See also A. Suzuki, 'Anti-Lockean Enlightenment? Mind and Body in Early Eighteenth-century English Medicine', in R. Porter (ed.), Medicine in the Enlightenment (Amsterdam, 1995), 336-59. Suzuki argues that Primitive Physic is an 'aggressively anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical and populist medical advice manual intended explicitly for the poor', p. 349. In contra-distinction to this, however, an earlier work by L. S. King, The Medical World of the Eighteenth Century (Chicago, 1958), summarizes Wesley's contribution to medicine. King argued (p. 39) that Wesley represented what was best about the empiric tradition in medicine.
68. See Primitive Physic, 24th edn, p. 51.