The text is from Daniel iv. 17. where the prophet says, "this matter is by the decree of the WATCHERS, and the demand by the word of the HOLY ONES; to the intent that the living may know that the Moft High ruleth in the kingdom of men; and giveth it to whomfoever he will, and fetteth up over it the bafeft of men." The general application is to the providential government of the world, and the inftance of the bafeft of men, fet up over its kingdoms, is not difficult to be found. But the great bufiness of the former part of the fermon is, to find who are the WATCHERS and the HOLY ONES, mentioned in the text; and to remove errors from that fubject. It has been very common to fuppofe that thefe were angels; and many unfounded and fuperftitious notions on the fubject of angels and archangels have been reforted to, for accounting for their interference in the affairs of this world. The Bishop of St. Asaph contends, that no dominion in human affairs is any where in fcripture afcribed to the angels, nor any office affigned to them, but that of fervants or meffengers of the Almighty. He finds no archangels, excepting Gabriel." For Michaël," he explains, "is a name for our Lord himself," who fights with the old ferpent. "Gabriel fpeaking of him to Daniel," fays the Bifhop, calls him Michaël your prince, and the great Prince which flandeth for the children of thy people—a defcription," he adds, "which applies particularly to the Son of God, and to none elfe." From these, and other premifes, he arrives at length at the important conclufion that the WATCHERS and the HOLY ONES, mentioned by Daniel, are no other than the perfons of the HOLY TRINITY. Hence it follows, with the utmoft confiftency, that they make the decree (who alone have power to make one)" that the living may know that THE MOST HIGH ruleth;" fince undoubtedly, for angels to make the decree would not prove that the Moft High ruleth. It would rather feem as if he had delegated his power to other rulers.

Having thus, in the moft mafterly manner, cleared up the text, the Bishop proceeds to apply the example of Nebuchadnezzar to the general illuflration of the providential government, and to circumftances connected with the occa fion of the difcourfe. As a proof, that "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, giveth it to whomfoever he will, and fetteth up over it the bafeft of men;" and, at the fame time, in explanation of it, he writes thus:

"As at this moment the world beholds, with wonder and difmay, the low-born ufurper of a great monarch's throne raised, by the hand of Providence unquestionably, to an eminence of power

power and grandeur enjoyed by none fince the fubversion of the Roman empire: a man, whofe undaunted fpirit, and fuccefs in enterprife, might throw a luftre over the meaneft birth; while the profligacy of his private, and the crimes of his public life, would difgrace the nobleft. When we fee the imperial diadem circling this monfter's brows; while we confefs the hand of God in his elevation, let us not be tempted to conclude from this, or other fimilar examples, that he, who ruleth in the kingdom of men, delights in fuch characters; or that he is even indifferent to the virtues, and to the vices, of men. It is not for his own fake, that fuch a man is raised from the dunghill, on which he fprang; but for the good of God's faithful fervants: who are the objects of his conftant care and love, even at the time, when they are fuffering under the tyrant's cruelty. For who can doubt, that the feven brethren, and their mother, were the objects of God's love; and their perfecutor, Antiochus Epiphanes, of his hate? But fuch perfons are raised up, and permitted to indulge their ferocious paffions, their ambition, their cruelty, and their revenge, as the inftruments of God's judgments for the reformation of his people: and, when that purpofe is answered, vengeance is executed upon them for their own crimes. Thus it was with the Syrian, we have just mentioned; and with that more ancient perfecutor, Sennacherib; and many more. And fo, we truft, it shall be with him, who now "fmiteth the people in his wrath, and ruleth the nations in his anger." When the nations of Europe fhall break off their fins by righteoufnefs, the Corfican," fhall be perfecuted with the fury of our avenging God, and none fhall hinder."

Again, if the thought, that God ruleth the affairs of the world according to his will, were always prefent to the minds of men; they would never be caft down beyond measure by any fucceffes of an enemy, nor be unduly elated with their own. The will of God is a caufe, ever blended with and over-ruling other caufes, of which it is impoffible from any thing paft, to calculate the future operation. What is called the fortune of war, by this unfeen and myfterious cause, may be reverfed in a moment." P. 21.

With a caution against imagining any particular fuccefs to be the reward of our merit, this admirable difcourfe concludes; and with thefe emphatic words. "Let us give, therefore, the whole glory to God. In the hour of defeat, let us fay, why should man complain, man, for the punishment of his fins! In the hour of victory, let us not be high-minded, but fear."

ART.

ART. VIII. A Differtation on the Failure and Mischiefs of the Difeafe called the Cow-pox, in which the principal Arguments adduced in Favour of Vaccination by Drs. Jenner, Pearfon, Woodville, Lettfom, Thornton, and Adams, are examined and confuted. By George Lipscomb, Surgeon. 8vo, 105 pp. 3s. G. Robinson. 1805.

IN

N a late publication by this gentleman, (fee Brit. Crit. vol. XXVII. p. 319,) he only contended for the fuperiority of variolous over vaccine inoculation. The improvements that had been made in the mode of conducting inoculation for the fmall-pox, he faid, had rendered that difeafe fo fafe, that he thought there exifted no neceffity for trying, by the introduc tion of another difeafe, to attempt its extinction. Whatever could be done by the cow-pox might be done by inoculating the finall-pox, if parents could be induced, or the legisla ture would oblige them to inoculate their children early, and to keep them, during the procefs, out of the way of communicating the difeafe to others. Certainly the complaint, that the infection of the small-pox was kept alive, and the disease diffeminated by the practice of inoculation, fo as to occafion, communibus annis, a greater proportion of deaths by the Imall-pox, than had been used to occur, before inoculation was introduced into the country, was folely owing to the careless manner in which the business was conducted; and to the inoculated patients being allowed to mix with their fami lies and friends, through the whole course of the complaint. In the publication before us, Mr. Lipfcomb appears to have changed his ground; he thinks he has now fufficient documents on which to establish an opinion, that the cow-pox neither affords that complete fecurity, that was promiled, against the infection of the fmall-pox, nor is, of itself, fo harmless as the advocates for it contend; or as it ought to be, to juftify its being introduced into general practice.

This opinion, however, is taken up, and refts only on the credit of the reports of Drs. Rowley, Mofeley, Squirrel, and Mr. Birch, whofe prejudices this author has adopted fo far, as even to fancy, that he has feen two of thofe extraordinary cafes, fo eloquently depicted by Dr. Rowley, in which the faces of the children were metamorphofed into thofe of oxen. As the imaginations of these gentlemen are fo fertile, we fhall not be furprised to hear a ftory of fome good woman being delivered of a calf; the refemblance of fome fœtuses, to a calf, being full as near as the refemblance of the faces of thefe children to oxen. But this author has not only implicitly followed

followed the opinions of the writers against vaccination, as to the mifchievous tendency of the procefs, but he has also adopted the rude and illiberal mode of treating those whom he confiders as opponents to his new opinions, which forms the most objectionable and offenfive part of the conduct of those whom he imitates. Thus while his new-adopted friends, even down to Dr. Squirrel, are all learned, witty, and ingenious, those who have the unhappiness to offend him, by writing in favour of vaccination, are fcarcely allowed to have common sense, or common honefty. A paffage or two from the pamphlet will fhow the juftice of this obfervation, and may be the means alfo of restraining other writers on the subject, from writing in a manner so very offensive.

"Paracelfus, and fome of the writers on vaccination," Mr. Lipfcomb fays, note, p. 91, " may not very improperly be mentioned together. As a writer the former was fo unequal, that in one page were feen difcoveries indicating a wonderful fuperiority of genius, and amazing penetration; and in the next, the dialect of Bedlam. The latter have often deferved the cenfure, but feldom, if ever, the applaufe; there is frequently the dialect of Bedlam, but almoft never the indication of great genius, or deep research." In the following, without any reafon, or provocation, as we should think, Mr. L. chooses to level his cenfure against an individual. "Some doubt, the Rev. Mr. Warner has faid, în a fermon, the fecurity of vaccine inoculation. They have fears that it is not the right fort; and fome few stories have been told, of perfons inoculated with the cow-pox, who afterwards caught the fmall-pox. Neighbours, depend upon it, that these stories are in fome degree, or altogether untrue."

Mr. Warner had been informed, by thofe whom he had a right to look up to, and to trust (or at the leaft he ought not to be cenfured for trufting in them) that the cow-pox was a mild and fafe difeafe, and a perfect fecurity, against the infection of the fmall-pox. He had thence been induced to inoculate a great many of his parishioners, and had experienced that one part of the information, namely, that it was a fafe and innocent difeafe was true. He had feen ne ox-faced boys, or any of thofe new, and before unheard-of difeafes, which the illuminated, copying after one another, “ Servum pecus imitatorum" fancy they have feen. Reports, however, were in circulation, that the cow-pox had failed in giving the promifed fecurity againft the infection of the small-pox. These he did not, and probably does not now believe, for certainly the manner in which thefe ftories have been propagated, is not well calculated to add to their credibility; he

66

therefore

therefore fays, Depend upon it neighbours, that these ftories, are in fome degree, or altogether untrue."

66

"No

thing ever equalled," Mr. Lipfcomb fays, p. 66, this conclufion; but the ribaldry and malicious falfehoods, which lately appeared in the Monthly Magazine." We have not feen the Monthly Magazine, but certainly there is nothing in the paffage here quoted from Mr. Warner's fermon, that could, in the mind of any cool, and temperate person, subject him to fo coa fe a cenfure.

The author will not fufpect from the obfervations here made, that we wifh to ftifle all inquiry into the real merit of vaccination, nothing can be farther from our intention; but fuch an examination, to be useful, or to be depended on, must be undertaken with a fpirit very different from that which appears to pervade this, and feveral other works we have lately feen on the fubject; which are fo far from giving credit to the pretended refults, that they rather tend to make the motives of the enquirers fufpicious. We have said, inour examination of the former works by this writer, that if the vaccinators had not been fo affiduous in depreciating inoculation with the matter of the fmall-pox, he would probably have had no objection to compromifing the business with them; though we cannot vouch that this would have been the cafe, yet certainly Mr. L. appears to be fo fore on the fubject, as to give fome probability to the conjecture.

ART. IX. Serious Reafons for uniformly objecting to the Practice of Vaccination; in Anfwer to the Report of the Jennerian Society. By John Birch, Surgeon to St. Thomas's Hospital, c. 8vo. 74 p. 3s. Callow. 1806.

WE have more than once had occafion to notice the acrimony with which the writers on the fubject of vaccination treat their opponents, and the exultation which those who write against the practice fhow, on hearing any inftances of failure, which they collect with aftonishing avidity; forgetting that fhould they have a real fubject for triumph, it would be a triumph at the expence of humanity.

The writer of the article before us, having early declaimed against the practice of vaccination, feems to think himself obliged to proceed in the fame ftrain, and favours the world with this production, to fhow them that he has not altered hist opinion upon the fubject. Something indeed he fays about calming the minds of fome worthy perfons" who are in

the