Volume 1

Mr. Maitland's account of inoculating the small pox vindicated [by himself], from Dr. Wagstaffe's misrepresentations of that practice, with some remarks on Mr. Massey's sermon.

  • Charles Maitland
Date:
1722
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Mr. Maitland's account of inoculating the small pox vindicated [by himself], from Dr. Wagstaffe's misrepresentations of that practice, with some remarks on Mr. Massey's sermon. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    49/76 page 41
    flierd. Fourthly, Beloved, this confluent Sort of Small CPox were more gentle, to be fare, than the common natural Ones 5 for he feems neither to have had Delirium, fore Throat, nor Shortnefs of Breath 5 he talk’d dlftindly and good Senfe. Now hctc a Queftion arifeth, Whether an honeftMan can do that which the Devil has done } I anfwcr in the Affirmative 3 there are three things mention’d; of the Devil’s Aflem- bling himfelf (as in this Place) with the Sons of God y Believing, and Quoting of Scripture. All thefe Things a good Man may not only do, but is bound to do. I readily agree with this Reverend Divine, that if Inoculating the Small Fox be an un¬ lawful Adi on, it cannot be juftify’d by the Good which may enliie from it; but that it is unlawful, muft be prov’d, either by fome natural or pofitive Law : That this Reverend Gentleman has brought no fuch Proof, either from natural or reveal’d Religion, will ap¬ pear plain upon a very fliort Review of his Difcourfe. Page 13.] He fays he will attempt to prove, That ilifeafes are utterly unlawful to be infi¬ lled by any whoprofefs t hemfe Ives Chriflians: He terms it very right 3 for it is an Attempt to Prove, and no more. By reftraining the Prohibition to Chriflians, one would think, there was feme pofitive Command in the Go- Ipel againft it 3 but he has brought none,which, G by
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3