AN ANSWER TO A LETTER To the Right Reverend The BISHOP of CLOYNE. Occaſioned by His Treatiſe of TAR-WATER.

WHEN a Gentleman had propoſed a Medicine to the World, which from repeated Experience he had found to be of ſingular Efficacy, one would think he had a Right to be heard with Candour, if not with Applauſe. But the Author of a Letter to the Biſhop of Cloyne, has attack'd him in a Man⯑ner as much below the Character of a Gen⯑tleman to offer, as a Biſhop to receive. It is, to ſay the leaſt of it, what the Author profeſſes it to be, with the UTMOST FREEDOM. He compares him to a Quack, a boaſting Mounte⯑bank [18] Dr. Salmon, Dr. Rock, the Devil ^a. Himſelf the World will probably gueſs to be a Phyſician. A thorough bread Man, no doubt; and, I ſuppoſe, the great Point be has in view is to lie half diſcovered, half concealed, ready to be called forth from his preſent Obſcurity into Practice, when he has raiſed a Character by demoliſhing a Writer of Eminence.

But Phyſician as he ſuppoſes the World will take him to be, I much doubt whether it may mot give to the Biſhop, even in that Reſpect, the Preference. To make a Science a Noſtrum, is as quackiſh as to make a Medicine one. Knowledge is open to every Man of Senſe and Application; and has the Biſhop ſhewn his Want of either in his Study of Phyſic, tho' it is not more immediately his Profeſſion? How frequently have Phyſicians turn'd Divines? where is the Abſurdity for a Divine to become a Phyſician? Is the Pale of Phyſic only ſo nar⯑row that it admits of no Interlopers? What then does this Gentleman mean, when he tells us^b, the principal Points of Knowledge neceſ⯑ſary to a Phyſician, are NATURALLY wanting [19] in a Divine? Alas! it is not the Degree, or the Robe, the tye Wig, or the Gold-headed Cane, that makes the Phyſician, anymore than. Prunella the Parſon. But the Knowledge of either may be concealed under every Habit, and the ſeven Sciences contained without a College Title.

Need I produce Authority or Example for this? the two great Names of Bacon and Boyle will be laſting Monuments, that the Know⯑ledge of Phyſic is not confined to thoſe of the Profeſſion only.

But the Letter-Writer ſays^c, He cannot gueſs, from any Part of the Biſhop's Treatiſe, that he ever made Phyſic his Study. Many others ſay, he talks as rationally of it as thoſe that have. This Author himſelf obſe [...]ves^d, That he has ſearched the Books of Phyſicians for Hiſtories of Diſeaſes, and to find out the peculiar Properties of Medicines; no ſmall Part of a Phyſician's Learning, as much, I believe, as many an one ſets up on. But becauſe the Biſhop has applied it to the magnifying his fa⯑vourite Medicine, this Author will not allow him to have made any Improvement from his Reſearches.

Will it be ſaid, that Phyſic has eluded his Labours, becauſe the Theory of it is more [20] extenſive than any other? The World has ge⯑nerally judged very differently. And, if we conſider how ſacredly the Avenues to this Sci⯑ence are guarded, by myſteriouſly preſcribbing Things unknown in an unknown Tongue, how it is converſant with Mankind in its weakeſt State, when the Mind is drooping, and catches at any Thing that promiſes Relief, the whole Faculty ought with Humility and Thankful⯑neſs to acknowledge the Reputation the World has given them. Nay, I would appeal to this very Writer, whether he is not perſuaded, that e⯑ven a regular Phyſician's Practice does not depend more on his Addreſs to the Whims and Foi⯑bles of his Patients, than his real Skill in his profeſſion. I ask this, when he has compar'd his own Merit with his Practice. I know his natural Pride will extort from him what his artificial Pride would tempt him to conceal.

To Senſe and Study has not the Biſhop join'd Experience? Experience founded on his own unbounded Generoſity to the Poor, itself an Hoſpital without adventitious Sub⯑ſcriptions. And is he not to be believ'd, when he tells us, without Fee or Reward, he has known, frequently known, after repeated Tri⯑als, upon various Conſtitutions, his Medicine prove ſucceſsful? The Letter-Writer ſays the Facts were all^d miſunderſtood, and endea⯑vours to prove from Theory, that^e Tar [21] Water is no Medicine, ſomething HARDLY worth the Name of one, and that it can care no one Diſeaſe. Nay, to make ſure Work, and to be as far in one Extreme as the Biſhop in the, other, That it can do no Good^f, but may do Harm. He aſſures us Cold Water oured on Tar can take none, not the leaſt of its Medicinal Virtues: That, if we ask the Chemiſt, he will tell us, "Oil cannot be mix'd with, or drawn forth by Cold Water." Now in Obedience to this Gentleman I have ask'd the Chemiſt, and he tells me, that ſome of the Virtues of the Oil of Tar may be drawn forth by Cold Water. And I have actually taſted Water, wherein the Oil of Tar was waſhed (two Ounces to a Pint) ſtrongly im⯑bued with its Virtues, and which had much the ſame Taſte with Water wherein the Oil of Benzoin was waſhed. In Analyzing Tar there are found to come over ſome fine Flow⯑ers, ſo quick with the Oil that they cannot be ſeparated, which may be communicated to Water. And it is well known, all Acids will imbibe ſome Part of the Flowers, or fineſt Part of the Oil of all Reſinous Subſtances. As it may afford ſome Satisfaction to the Let⯑ter-Writer, and enable others to determine more particularly the Virtues of Tar, I ſhall ſet down the Product of 22 Pound of the beſt Norway Tar by two Retorts; viz.

[22]

After Theory the Letter-Writer proceeds to prove that Tar Water can do no good, from Experience. Here then, let Iſſue be joined, and from one Aſſertion, which all the World may judge of, let this Writer's Credit ſtand or fall:—Crimine ab uno—Diſce omnes.

He ſaies, Of this Medicine's Power of doing Harm, we have too many Proofs, if we could overlook the Fatigues of the Phy⯑ſicians and Apothecaries unable to go through the Load of Buſineſs and the viſible Increaſe in the Bills of Mortality! The Fatigues of Phyſicians! His own, I ſuppoſe, included in that Number, in the midſt of which it was Exceſs of Good Nature to find Time to write ſo long a Pamphlet. The Increaſe in the Bills of Mortality! To them then let us go: The Biſhop's Book was publiſhed in England I think, about the Middle of April: The Medicine recommended in it came into greateſt Vogue about the beginning of June, and the Bills of Mortality ſtand thus:

So that, we ſee, after all this mighty Parade about the Bills of Mortality, they were low⯑eſt, when Tar Water was in its higheſt Repute; or, take which Period you pleaſe, afterwards for its Seaſon, before this Au⯑thor's Book appeared, the Alteration was in⯑conſiderable; increaſed the next Week 33, and decreaſed again 23. Such abundant Rea⯑ſon had he to ſet out with a Maxim which he learnt from his own Experience more than univerſal Conſent, That Truth and Partiality are inconſiſtent.

After theſe Specimens of his Skill in the Nature of Medicines and of his Faithfulneſs in the Hiſtory of Caſes, he may charge the Biſhop with Deficiency in both Particulars, and pleaſe himſelf with the Thoughts, that the World will probably gueſs' himſelf to be a Phyſician. I leave him and it in the quiet Poſ⯑ſion of that Satisfaction.

[24] The reſt of his Letter is chiefly taken up in Mirth and Paſtime; he plays the Doctor, as he calls it, and throws out plenty of Jokes to gather the Crowd together, and help off a Six-penny Packet.—He deſcribes the Witty Reflections of the Company he kept,—or ſuch as he has made for them.

Take a Specimen of the Weak Defender of the Biſhop, and of the acute Opponent; Come ſays another with a World of important Nothing in his Look, the Biſhop is a Man of ſound Learning, I avouch it, and I have read—And what then, ſays another [the Letter-Writer,] his Knowledge is borrowed from the Writings of other Men ^g. I wonder how this Author got his: I fancy, as Serjeant Kite, ſaies, he came into the World of his own Head.

Another witty Obſerver ſaies, the Biſhop has ſerv'd his Medicine juſt as Pope ſerv'd him, by giving it ev'ry Virtue under Heaven upon which the Author notes:—unleſs it be true, what ſome People ſay, That he never praiſed any Body, but with an INTENT that the World ſhould conſtrue it into ſomething more bitter then his ſevereſt Raillery ⁿ.

[25] Great and Generous, thus with a ſingle [...]roke to deſtroy the general Character of an [...]ſent Biſhop, and a Poet juſt cold in his Grave! But as the Diſcovery it wonderful, it [...]ght not to be concealed; and there is leſs Reaſon to expect it ſhould, bccauſe it carries [...] own Reward with it. For this Author and [...] Friends will go on to conſtrue the reſt of [...] Works of that great Genius backwards, [...] for the Comfort of their Party invert the Dunciad into a ſerious Panegyric. Thus for [...]ding out the Intention of the Poet, they [...]all be bleſſed with their own Deluſion, and [...] their's, the World's Conſtruction. I have [...]ard a Story of a Hero in Bedlam, who told a [...] ſecret to his Friend that it was the World [...]road which was really mad, they within [...]ere only reputed to be ſo; it was ſo they [...]nſtrued among one another, however others [...]ight miſconſtrue them?

That he may ſtill keep his Hand in at play⯑ [...] the Doctor, he examines carefully the very [...]xcrements of the Biſhop's Book, the Index. [...] wonder; it was in Search of a Medicine for [...] Cough, and why ſhould not Tar and Honey [...] found where Album Graecum is, a Medicine [...] no very different Purpoſe? But the Difficul⯑ [...] is, How Tar and Honey came there, ſince [...] is not in the Body of the Book. I will not [...]etend to account for the Phaenomenon, but [26] ſhall only obſerve almoſt as odd an one in this Writer's Letter. As an Inſtance how the Senſe of Words may be perverted, he tells us a Story of great Effects^a produced by a trifling Altera⯑tion in the Pointing. "Inſtead of Cain's ſaying, I have killed a Man with a Colon at the End, which makes it a Confeſſion of Guilt, only write it thus, I have killed a Man." Where is the Difference? This Story, it ſeems made him wonder, when he heard it, and it makes the Reader ſtare, when he reads it. It ſhould be, I ſuppoſe, Have I killed a Man. But when he tells us how the fame Blun⯑der came to ſtand in his ſecond Edition, as well as in his firſt, we may find out perhaps how Tar and Honey came to be in the Index only.

The Biſhop having illuſtrated how Acid are ſheathed by Alkalies from a Simile of Spi⯑gots and Faucets, this Author's Modeſty I much offended at it. Hail! Woodward lives I cannot but admire, ſaies he, the perfect Decency of your Lordſhip's Manner, your ex⯑cellent Cleaneſs as well as Delicacy in Sm⯑lles. Which reminds me of the Lady that could not bear a Chapter of hard Names for Fear there ſhould be ſome what immodeſ in them.

But it is not enough that he cut down the Biſhop in Phyſic, unleſs he makes Repriſals [27] upon him in Divinity. He charges him with making the Scriptures ſerve the Turn of his Philoſophy by new Tranſlaitions, and even where there was no need of it. This, I ſuppoſe, alludes to §. 179. where the Biſhop obſerves that the Paſſage in the Pſalms, who maketh his Miniſters a flaming Fire, might as well be rendered, and more agreeably to the Context, who maketh flaming Fire his Mini⯑ſters. If it is more agreeable to the Context, why will this Author ſay, There was no need of the Alteration? And, as to the Charge of Novelty, there is ſcarce a Commentator but gives the Paſſage the ſame Conſtruction, tho' they have nothing to do with the Biſhiop's Hypotheſis. Without a Pomp of Quotations, I recommend only to this Author's Polite Taſte, Buchanan's Verſion; or, if that is more ſuitable to it, Sternhold and Hopkins.

In the ſame Place he ſaies, I ſhall only commemorate to your Lordſhip's Honour as a Biſhop, that you can ſoften Atheiſm into Miſ⯑conſtruction. Ay, and this very Lordſhip he honours and reſpects, As A Bishop, whom as a Physician he deſpiſes. It is plain, his perſonal Charity is as great as his publick Zeal, which could prompt him to conſute an Author, half dead as he was with the Fatigues of Practice which that very Author had helped him to.

[28] But how has his Lordſhip been guilty of leſſening Atheiſm? Why he has vindicated, it ſeems, Ariſtotle and ſome other Philoſophers from that Imputation, by ſhewing how their Principles have been miſtaken. Atheiſm the Biſhop leaves juſt what it was; but ſhews thoſe Venerable Sages did not come within the Verge of it. Where is the Harm? If we will not take them as Partners of our Natural Creed, another Sett of Men will be proud of them. Here our Author's Zeal gets the better of his Charity, and he betrays a little of that un⯑ſociable Temper by which he excluded the Clergy from the College of Phyſicians, ſome of whom, I am perſuaded, cure more than many a Licentiate. From the ſame Turn of Mind he ſeems proud to characteriſe himſelf at parting, when he lets the Biſhop know what he ſhould have done to have prevented the Attacks of ſo formidable an Adverſary: Then, ſaies he,^b No carping Wit or ſour Pbiloſopher would have dared to have blamed you.