604 



Retrofpe£i of Domefl'tc Literature. — Medicine, 



common degree of zeal anJ impetuofity ; 

 we mean on the fubjeft of the cow-pock. 

 All great innovations in medicine have in- 

 variably met with oppofition j and it was 

 not likely that the ccw pock fhould con- 

 ftitute an exception to the general faft. 

 It was not likely that the fubftitution of 

 a mild and harmlefs diforder (if indeed 

 it be entitled to the name of a iliforder), 

 for a fevere anJ pedllential difeafe, which 

 not only inflicled fufferingk of an alarm- 

 ing nature to the irdividnal, but extend- 

 ed its baneful influence around to an in. 

 definite extent, (hould be readily received 

 by thofe who exercife medicine as a trade, 

 regardlefs of the facred dutirs of huma- 

 nity, and of the medical /iro/>^(3«. There 

 were praftitior.ers who, prejudiced againft 

 the new difeafe at its introduction, have 

 wached the opportunity of venting their 

 fpleen and iheir prejudices upon the pub- 

 lic, and of traducing the new pradlice by 

 every means in their power. They have 

 Ifated facts upon evidence of the moll 

 queltionable nature; they have caricatured 

 the ordina-^y complaints of the human 

 body, in orter to irnprefs the public with 

 a notion of the r belliality ;" they have de- 

 fcended to fo^hiltry, cant, and declama- 

 tion, with the hope of millading the ig- 

 norant and credulous; and they have not 

 denied themlelves thofe powerful wea- 

 pons, rdicule, wit, and waggery, as if 

 the miferits and calamities of mankind 

 •were objects of joke and meniment. But 

 magna efl -zerifas, et prevalebit. Philo- 

 fophy, which difdains the ufcof arms like 

 thcfe, may be partially opprelTed ard re- 

 tarded for a time, but /he will ultimattly 

 triumph. We cannot indeed altogether 

 approve of the acrimi^ny and afperity wi;h 

 which foine of the advocates of the cow- 

 pock have attempted to fnpport their 

 caufe. But others hive combated witli 

 the firm but mild fpiritof true philofophv, 

 and have fucceeded in completely [invali- 

 dating fome of the evidence of their ad- 

 verfanes, and in throwing a f^iong fhade 

 of doubt and lul'picion upon the relf. 



Dr. MosKLEV takes the lead on the 

 adverfe part of the vaccine com rove fy. 

 Me adrances the ftrange dogma, that ana. 

 logy may fupevfcde the necelTity of expe- 

 riment ; and l.is a priori reafoning, or, 

 more correffly (peaking, his prejudice, is 

 invincible. He " (till thinks, as he 

 thought in the year 1798, that experience 

 3s not necefliry to prove that ihe cow- 

 pnck can be no preventive of fmall-pcx." 

 (See his Preface.) His pamphlet is well 

 written; contains fome wit, and much 

 clalTical allufiun; which, ia truth, are 



his fubftitutes for argument. He has col- 

 lected a ftore of faftv, of the evidence f>f 

 which, iiowever, it has been proved that 

 he has been more attentive to the quantity , 

 than the quality. The ipfe dixit of an 

 old woman is afl'umed as inriubitable au- 

 thority, and hearfay is put down as con- 

 firmed faft. Of the candour and libera- 

 lity of this work we can lay as little Rsof 

 the argument employed in it. A calm, 

 rational, and philofophical anfwer to this 

 rhapl'odical compohrion was publithed by 

 Mr. M^rriman, in a pamphlet which may 

 be recommended to his brother-advocates 

 of the vaccine pra(5fice, as a mdcl of 

 controvei (ial propriety. Mr. Merriman 

 jullly affirms, that in regard to the dif- 

 eafes which Dr. Moieley has alTerted to 

 fuccecd to the cow-pock, the fum of hi« 

 argument is ' pojl hoc, ergo propter hoc.'' 

 Difeafes have occurred ajier (n > matier 

 how long after) the cow.pock, therefore 

 they were the rffe^ of the cow pock. 

 He points out a Itiiking fim.lirity in the 

 controverfy lormtrly commenced by the 

 oppol'eis of I'mall-pox inoculation, and 

 the vaccine controverfy, and ihcws that a 

 lift ot difeafes equsliy loailif^me, and 

 more h' rrible, was afcribed to that very 

 inocnlHiion (viz. of the fmUl-poii), which 

 it is now their intered to recommend. 

 And he lias adduced fatisfaif-ry proofs 

 that in one cale of lu|.pcfed ladure (Mr. 

 Cuifng's child), the fuccee'Hng difeafe 

 was chicken-pox, not fmali-pox; and in 

 another, where the patient was flaied to 

 have died in cinlcqucnce of difeafe left by 

 thecowpock, he die', m i\i6\, of perip- 

 neumony, (everal months after thatdifeale 

 had left him. 



Mr Ring has alfo favoured the pub- 

 lic with " An Anfwer to Dr. Mofelej,"'' 

 which is charaiffe-ized, as heretofore, by 

 acrimony, farcaitn, and confider^ble ar- 

 gimieni. The latter would have been 

 lufficiert'y convincing, had it not been 

 alloyed by the mixture of the two former. 

 This temper in difcuffi .n is much to be 

 drprecateJ, as inconhHeni with that im- 

 partiality of mind which is open to con- 

 virion of error, and alive to the admiffion 

 of truth, even of an unpltafant nature: 

 and as in licating that there is loir.ething 

 mp e, under the rofe, than a mere dcfire 

 for the attainment of a philol>>phical 

 truth. It tends but to bind taller the bi- 

 gotted adherence of both parties to their 

 ielpe6five opinions. 



Dr. Adams, in his " Aajhuers lo all 

 the OhjeRions againji the Cow-Peck," ha$ . 

 attempted, in a populir wav, to refute 

 the Aatements of the anti-vaccinarians. 



