صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

impeached, if inoculation is fuffered to be abufed, and to lofe its credit, which muft depart, if it is not performed under the infpection of fuch, who are moft likely to be well acquainted with the fmall-pox both natural and artificial. Such is the account this favourite of fortune has been pleafed to give of himself; which he might poffibly think the more neceffary, to fhew both his fitnefs for his fubject, and the difinteraftednefs of his labours.

That, in fome inftances, Inoculation has been undertaken with too little knowlege, or with too much temerity, will icarce be denied. The profeffed defign of this performance is to caution against fuch injudicious or rafh attempts; to which purpose our Author contends, that this branch of practice is the proper province of the phyfician, or at leaft that it fhould not be performed without his fuperintendance. The above quotation may fuffice to fhew, that our Author's excellence does not confift in elegance of expreffion, nor fhall we give ourfelves the trouble of entering into the rectitude of his fentiments. Such as are inclined to fee this question ably difcuffed, are referred to the laft fection of Dr. Kirkpatrick's Analysis of Inoculation *.

See Review, Vol. X. p. 125.

L Art. 10. Obfervations anatomical and phyftological. Wherein Dr. Hunter's claim to fome Difcoveries is examined. With figures. By Alexander Monro, junior. M. D. Profeffor of Medicine, and of Anatomy, in the University of Edinburgh. 8vo. 18. 6d. Edinburgh, Hamilton and Co. and fold by Wilfon and Durham in London.

In this performance, Dr: Monro, by a long deduction of facts and circumstances, endeavours to afcertain his right to two Difcoveries; namely, that of tracing more clearly than had been hitherto done, the feminal ducts, and fhewing the manner of communication between the body of the teflis, and the convoluted tube, which forms the epidydimis. And fecondly, that of the lymphatic veins being a fyftem of abforbing veffels, taking their rife from the cavities of the cellular membrane, and other furfaces of the body; the honour of which has been publicly claimed by Dr. Hunter, who accufes Dr. Monro of having learnt them at fecond hand from him, and of having afterwards publifhed them as his own.

We shall not try the patience of our Readers, by entering into the particulars of this controverfy; or, by comparing the force of their feveral allegations, attempt to determine the validity of the preten fions on either fide. We fhall only take the liberty to offer the following impartial remarks.

In the first place, Dr. Monro feems extremely reprehenfible for writing with an indecent warmth, and for treating a Gentleman of Dr. Hunter's abilities, and eminence, with a degree of unpoliteness which, among men of fcience, efpecially, can never be juflified. In regard, however, to the first point in debate, we apprehend, that even fuppofing Dr. Monro had feen Dr. Garrow's letter to his brother, intimating, that Dr. Hunter had filled the epidly dimis with mercury.

and

and pushed his injection ftill further into the body of the trflis, fcarce any material information could be derived from it, as the particular ftructure and connection of thefe tubuli ftill remained to be investigated. We will further venture to affirm, from the experiments of fome very accurate anatomifts, that in nine out of ten teftes fo prepared, on examination, the quickfilver will be found to be extravafated it is therefore probable Dr. Monro could learn nothing of what he fo particularly defcribes, from the mere intelligence that Dr. Hunter had made fuch a preparation. But be that as it may, every man who cultivates the ftudy of anatomy, is doubtlefs obliged to Dr. Monro, for his industry in diffecting, exactnefs in delineating, and readiness in communicating this, whether really his own or an affumed, Discovery.

As to the other fubject in difpute, if Dr. Hunter can make it ap pear, that he publicly, in his lectures, before he read Dr. Monro's inaugural differtation, mentioned his not being able to fill the lymphatic veins by injections thrown into the arteries; and that, upon effufion, the injected liquor was readily abforbed by the lymphatic veins; he ought not certainly to be denied the honour of firft difcovering, that they are a fyftem of abforbing veffels. Thefe two experiments, however, are ftrenuously claimed by Dr. Monro as his, and he further challenges Dr. Hunter to produce any authentic vouchers of his having ever attempted them before the publication of the above-mentioned inaugural differtation. On this point chiefly, we imagine, the merit of the caufe feems to refl; for as to the other reafons which Dr. Hunter enumerates, and which, as he informs us, induced him to believe that the lymphatics were a fyftem of abforbing veffels, they cannot alone be deemed of fufficient weight to counter-balance the feveral experiments that feemed to render the received doctrine probable; and are all of them, as Dr. Monro obferves, mentioned by Nuck, Cowper, and thofe very Authors who eftablished the opinion of the lymphatic veins being continuations from arteries of the fame kind. From thefe therefore to conclude, that the lymphatics were the only fyftem of abforbing veffels, Dr. Monro afferts, was to draw an inference without premifes,

The pamphlet is concluded with an account of our Author's having fhewn the ducts of the lachrymal gland, the existence of which, from their extreme fmallnefs, has been fometimes doubted. To render this demonftration plainer, Dr. Monro has annexed a plate with figures, reprefenting the gland, and its ducts, with brilles introduced into their cavities.

Whoever defires farther information in regard to this, perhaps not very interefting, difpute, is referred to the pamphlet itfelf; in which he will find more knowlege than delicacy, and more fpirit than correctness.

1

Art. 11. Notes on the Poftfcript to a pamphlet intitled, Obfervations Anatomical and Phifiological, &c. by Alexander Monro, junior, M. D. Profeffor of Anatomy, &c. Edinburgh, Auguft, 1758. 8vo. 6d. DodЛley.

[ocr errors]

In the foregoing pamphlet, Dr. Monro took notice of fome inaccuracies in a paper publifhed in the Philof; bical Tranfactions, for 1757,

.written

written by Dr. Akenfide, on the origin and ufe of the lymphatic veffels of animals.

In thefe notes on that poftfcript, Dr. Akenfide animadverts pretty fmartly, and indeed with feeming juftice, on Dr. Monro, for affirming, that he only hinted, as a conjecture, in the Gulftonian lectures, what, in fact, from premifes fupported by argument and experiment, himself affures us, he defcribed as the very next thing to a phyfical certainty; and likewife for infinuating, thar Dr. Akenfide's paper owed its appearance to Dr. Monro's Treatife de Glandulis Lymphatifis

Our Author next endeavours to evince, that Dr. Monro, in most of his remarks upon his paper, has either mifunderstood or milreprefented his meaning. In the reply to Dr. Monro's objection, that the lymphatics are not called veins on account of their valvular ttructure, but because the fluid in them moves from the fmaller to the larger branches, and towards the heart. Dr. Akenffde obferves, that they could not be called veins on this account, because at that rate the pancreatic and biliary ducts might have been called veins all. Here however our Author feems to have forgot, that the fluid in the pancreatic duct moves not towards the heart, but into the ductus commugs, and thence into the duodenum. He has however invalidated the force of feveral of Dr. Monro's objections, particularly that of inconfiflence, with which be is charged, in admitting a communication between the blood veffels and lymphatics: He fhews, that he did not fuppofe, that fuch a communication fubfifted between the arteries and the nafcent extremities of the lymphatics, but at the places of their termination into the veins. The probability of which he confirms from experiments mentioned by Cowper. Upon the whole, though the Author of this pamphlet plainly difcovers that he is offended with Dr. Monro's criticisms, yet he writes like a gentleman, as well as a man of fcience. He concludes with the following paragraph.

And fuch at laft are thofe flips, as Dr. Monro ftyles them, which he is pleafed to own may perhaps be thought venial in one who does not make anatomy his particular fludy. In return for which equitable conceffion, he may (not perhaps, but certainly) be affured that Dr. Akenfide has fo much partiality to a liberal ambition in ⚫ those who are entering upon the world of letters and fcience, that into whatever flips, or forward difputes, or overweening conclufions they may be drawn by it in afferting their own pretenfions to any thing praife-worthy; he fhall think them all venial, except want of candour: nor would he have troubled himíelf or any one cife with ⚫ a word in anfwer to Dr. Monro's treatife, but for the paffage quoted • from it in the firft of thefe notes.'

[ocr errors]

*See Review, Vol. XVII. p. 249.

RELIGIOUS and CONTROVERSIAL.

I

Art. 12. A fecond courfe of letters on Baptifm, to the right reverend Author of A plain account of the nature and end of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 8vo. 6d. Ward.

In

In the former letters upon this fubject, (of which we gave an account in the fourteenth volume of our Review, p. 591.) our Author enquired into the manner of this rite, and endeavoured to fhew, that, by the facramental baptifm of water, the New Teflament means, precifely and only, immerfion in water. He now proceeds to enquire into the nature and end of chriftian baptifm, and endeavours to make it appear, that there is no pofitive proof that it was defigned for children; and if it is allowed that there is no pofitive evidence, this, he thinks, is allowing that there is no proof at all: for nothing, he obferves, of a pofitive and ritual nature, can be proved a duty, or a command of God, merely by our own reasonings, and by arguments drawn from fuppofed funefs. If once we admit, as divine appointments, practices grounded on our own notions of fitness, expediency, usefulness, &c. there is no knowing where to ftop; for at this rate a thoufand ceremonies may be introduced into the church, though not one of them can ftand the queftion, Who hath required this at your hands?

The manner in which he proceeds is this: he confiders our Saviour's commiffion to his apoftles, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, &c. then enquires into the practice of the apofiles and firft teachers, as being the best and most authentic comment on their mafter's law; and, laftly, examines the feveral pafiages of fcripture, which are commonly thought to countenance infant baptim. From examining the inftructions of Chrift, and his apoftles, he is of opinion, that the two pofitive inftitutions of the gofpel fhould go hand in hand; and be received about the fame time; and none baptized, till, like St. Peter's audience, they gladly receive the word, and are qualified for chriftian fellowship, and breaking of bread, Acts ii. 41, 42.

The original defign of baptifm was, he tells us, that the perfons baptized fhould therein teftify for themtelves, and as their perfonal act, their acknowledgment and belief of Jefus Chrill to be the Meffiah, and Son of God; and their obligation and purpose of obedience to him. Their baptifm, at the very time of receiving it, was a folenn declaration of their being believers, and of the obligation they, knowingly, and of choice, took upon themfelves, to walk worthy of the Lord. But now, he obferves, inftead of the perfon baptized chufing for himfelf, and promifing for himfelf, he is a mere paffive creature; of an age that knows nothing; incapable of choice; but promifes by proxy, that he will, if he lives long enough, be a good chriftian.

Without pretending to determine whether this Author's notions of the nature and design of baptifm are juft or not, we shall only observe, that he writes with candour, and in a very fenfible manner; and that there are no marks, in his letters, of that intemperate heat, and violent party-fpirit, with which the writers in this controversy, more perhaps than in any other, have generally difgraced both themselves, and their fubject.

R

Art. 13.TheCreed of the Apostle Paul, as laid down in the fourth chấpter of the Epiftle to the Ephefians, verfes 4, 5, 6. confidered,

and

and practically improved. Addreffed to the Chriftian Laity, 12mo. 3d. Griffiths.

Intended to affert the rights of private judgment, and to promote freedom of inquiry, in matters of religion.

I.

PRE

SERMONS, fince Auguft.

REACHED at Crosby-fquare, Sept. 18, 1758; on the death of Benjaming Grofvenor, D. D. By John Barker. 8vo. 6d. Buckland, &c.

2. God, the unerring leader of his people, to a city of habitation. On the death of Mr. Jofeph Mayor, who departed this life August 3, 1758. By John Stephens. 8vo. 6d. Keith.

3. At the vifitation of the bishop of Durham, at Durham, July 27, 1758. By Robert Lowth, D, D. prebendary of Durham. 4to. 6d. Dodfley.

In this difcourfe, the learned Dr. Lowth traces the rife and progrefs of the chriftian religion, which he vindicates against the impofitions of popery on the one hand, and the mistaken zeal of narrow-minded proteftants on the other. His own fentiments, indeed, fhew that he is himself as entirely influenced by the true fpirit of christianity, as he is ably qualified to defend its doctrines; and the following proof of his juft refpect for that facred TRUTH and LIBER TY wherewith CHRIST hath made us FREE, affords alfo a noble difplay of the rectitude of his judgment: the rest of his excellent difcourse, at the fame time, fully indicating the benevolence of his heart.

The only means, he obferves, by which religious knowledge can be advanced, is freedom of inquiry.

[ocr errors]

Christianity itfelf," fays he, was published to the world in the most enlightened age; it invited and challenged the examination of the ableft judges, and ftood the test of the fevereft fcrutiny: the more it is brought to the light, to the greater advantage will it appear. When on the other hand the dark ages of barbarifm came on, as every art and science was almost extinguished, fo was chriftianity in proportion oppreffed and overwhelmed by error and fuperftition: and they that pretended to defend it from the affaults of its enemies, by prohibiting examination and free enquiry, took the fureft method of cutting off all hopes of its recovery. Again, when letters revived, and reafon regained her liberty; when a fpirit of inquiry began to prevail, and was kept up and promoted by a happy invention, by which the communication of knowlege was wonderfully ⚫ facilitated; chriftianity immediately emerged out of darkness, and ⚫ was in a manner republished to the world in its native fimplicity. le has always flourished or decayed together with learning and liberty: it • will ever fand or fall with them. It is therefore of the utmoit importance to the caufe of true religion, that it be fubmitted to an open and impartial examination; that every difquifition concerning it be al

6

·lowed

« السابقةمتابعة »