i

Mr. URBAN,

July 20.

"CONSTANT READER," p. 303, b. griev

ously disappointed" and "astonished," because I have attributed to the Council of Trent " a rule which, he says, did not exist at the time of that Council." When or by whom the rule in question was actually drawn up, I shall not now inquire. In common and fair construction, a General, or other person in authority, is said to perform the exploit, whether laudable or otherwise, which he orders to be done; and it must be evident to any candid reader, that in this sense only, 1 said (Life of Nowell, p. 152,) the Council of Trent

prohibited the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular tongue," as I distinctly referred to "Rules, &c. by order of the Council of Trent. Index Libror. Prohibit. 1758, p. it." So the book itself expressly exhibits these rules: "Regulæ Indicis sacrosanctæ Synodi Tridentinæ Jussu editæ:" "Regulas ipsius Indicis sacrosanctæ Synodi Tridentincæ jussu editas-præmisimus." We learn from Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent *, *, that a Committee, consisting of four archbishops, nine bishops, and others, was appointed, to frame this famous Index Librorum Prohibitorum, and Du Pin him self, before the Council ended, says expressly of this Committee, "they have now set their last hand to the work t." Whether therefore he elsewhere mis-states the fact, in saying, "This Index contained as yet no fules" (though he admits the rules were published, with the Index, a few months afterwards by Pius IV.) and ought not to be looked upon as the Council of Trent's, or made by their authority ;" whe

that the rules

66

* P. 446, English edition.

+ Eccles. Hist. Fol. 1692, &c. p. 389. Can. of Script. vol. i. 1696, p. 255. The Council ended in Dec. 1563, and the Index, Du Pin says, was published in 1564,

f

ther he is wrong in this, or whether the Church of Rome, in a work repeatedly published by authority at Rome, has belied the Council, in saying these rules were published "by the command of the Council of Trent," when, in fact, they never did command them to be published; these are points which I leave to your Correspondent to investigate and settle as truth may lead him; and will only add, that if he can prove that the Council of Trent never did make themselves responsible for these rules by injoining them to be published, he is then perfectly welcome to substitute "the Church of Rome" for "the Council of Trent" in the passage which has given him so much trouble.

Yours, &c.

R. CHURTON.

P. S. One point I had nearly overlooked. Your Correspondent (p. 303,) speaks with " astonishment on finding himself referred for proof of the whole to a rule of the Index Expurgatorius." This is a mistake. I referred to that. rule only for what it relates to, the reading of Scripture. For what is said respecting Catechisms, distinct authorities are given in the note on the passage; Life of Nowell, p. 152. R. C.

Mr. URBAN,

July 22.

the course of the Vaccine contest, it has often been asserted, that Inoculation for Small-pox is a thing so safe as to induce no danger; and wonderful stories have been circulated of practitioners having performed this operation even on thousands without the loss of a single patient. If the floodgates of prejudice are still to be kept open, and a torrent of filth to flow through them against Vaccination, the most important of modern discoveries, it were to be wished that this boasted method of security under Variolous Inoculation might be gene rally known and followed. That there is danger from it, as it is commonly performed, danger to the organs of hearing

bearing and sight, and danger to life itself, the observation of every one will, I believe, readily convince him. In confirmation of this remark, I send you three cases which have lately occurred in one family, at Harpenden, near St. Alban's: an inhabitant of this village named Downes, the Keeper of the Post-office, had five children, two of which were vaccinated about three years since; but the Small-pox being lately in the neighbourhood, the parents were unhappily persuaded to have their other three children inoculated with that disorder. Of these two were twins, aged two years and seven months, and the third an infant only eight months old: nor did their ages only appear favourable for the operation; they were all fine healthy children; indeed, so much so as frequently to attract observation from their more opulent neighbours. In pursuance of the parents' determination, thesevictims were inoculated for the Small-pox by a regular professional man; they all took the disease, which becoming confluent, one of the twins (it is really melancholy to relate it) died on the 11th, the other on the 12th, and the third child on the 14th day from the commencement of the variolous fever, in the paroxysm of which one of them suffered so much pain that he literally tore his flesh from his arm. When the disease assumed alarming appearances, a second medical gentleman of established reputation and extensive practice was called in; but the efforts of science were vain: it is only fair however to add, that, from minute inquiry, no blame seems imputable to the original Inoculator, respecting either the mode of communicating the disease, or the subsequent treatment, The two eldest children of the family, whohad bren vaccinated three years before, were exposed in all possible ways to the infection, even sleeping in the same room with the other three, till the stench became insupportable; and it is only one of ten thousand similar facts to say, that they wholly resisted infection. Though no other instance so remarkable has occurred, these are not the only lives which have been lost pear St. Alban's in the course of the Spring and Summer, through Smallpox Inoculation.

Indnige me, Mr. Urban, with only a few remarks. It is obvious, in the

first place, that the disease in the Harpenden cases had not been caught previously to inoculation; for the usual period elapsed after this before the children sickened: and it may therefore be averred that "the deaths of these three infants were in consequence of Small-pox Inoculation, performed in the customary method by a regular medical man." Think of this, all parents! think of this, all who are interested either for your own families, or your neighbours! and especially think of this, all medical practitioners! Rely not ou your former success, even if it have been comparatively great. What has happened to another, may happen to you! but if mischief less serious than what has been detailed should accidentally re'sult from Small-pox Inoculation under your care; some at least is to be apprehended to those on whom you operate, and to others; how can you answer for the effects of the contagion which you have excited? Grant, that your own immediate patients recover, may not many others through your act be prematurely suatched away? Most of you, I believe, are friendly to Vaccination; but you do not appear to recommend it with sufficient zeal, nor do you object to ino culating variolously at the first request of uninformed people, who, misled by the " fabulæ aniles," which self-interest or obdurate prejudice propagate, prefer that manichean idol, Small Pox, to the security and blessings of Vaccination. Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

HERTFORDIENSIS.

July 23,