NEW CHAPTERS IN THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE. i 59 



I hasten now to one of the most singular struggles of medical 

 science during modern times. Early in the last century Boyer 

 presented inoculation as a preventive of small-pox in France, and 

 thoughtful physicians in England, inspired by Lady Montagu 

 and Maitland, followed his example. Ultra-conservatives in medi- 

 cine took fright at once on both sides of the Channel, and theology 

 was soon finding profound reasons against the new practice. The 

 French theologians of the Sorbonne solemnly condemned it ; the 

 English theologians were most loudly represented by the Rev. 

 Edward Massey, who in 1772 preached and published a sermon 

 entitled The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation. In 

 this he declared that Job's distemper was probably confluent 

 small-pox; that he had been inoculated doubtless by the devil; 

 that diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin ; 

 and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is " a diabolical 

 operation." Not less vigorous was the sermon of the Rev. Mr. 

 Delafaye, entitled " Inoculation an Indefensible Practice." This 

 struggle went on for thirty years. Yet it is a pleasure to note 

 some churchmen and among them Madox, Bishop of "Worcester 

 giving battle on the side of right reason ; but as late as 1753 we 

 have a noted rector at Canterbury denouncing inoculation from 

 his pulpit in the primatial city, and many of his brethren follow- 

 ing his example. 



The same opposition was vigorous in Protestant Scotland. 

 The great majority of ministers joined in denouncing the new 

 practice as " flying in the face of Providence," and " endeavoring 

 to baffle a divine judgment." 



On our own side of the ocean, also, this question had to be 

 fought out. About the year 1721 Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, a physi- 

 cian in Boston, made an experiment in inoculation, one of his first 

 subjects being his own son. He at once encountered bitter hos- 

 tility, so that the selectmen of the city forbade him to repeat the 

 experiment. Foremost among his opponents was Dr. Douglas, a 

 Scotch physician, supported by the medical profession and the 

 newspapers. The violence of the opposing party knew no bounds ; 

 they insisted that inoculation was " poisoning," and they urged 

 the authorities to try Dr. Boylston for murder. Having thus set- 

 tled his case for this world, they proceeded to settle it for the 

 next, insisting that " for a man to infect a family in the morning 

 with small-pox and to pray to God in the evening against the dis- 

 ease is blasphemy " ; that the small-pox is " a judgment of God 

 on the sins of the people," and that " to avert it is but to provoke 

 him more"; that inoculation is "an encroachment on the pre- 

 rogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and smite." 

 Among the mass of scriptural texts most remote from any possi- 

 ble bearing on the subject one was employed which was equally 



