INOCULATION. 



to rrrfons of better condition, wlio, under apprehenfion of 

 this lo.ithfome and infeftious difoider, were all their former 

 days fubjeil to groat anxiety and conltant fear. 



The biihap commented with great ability upon the ad- 

 vantage that inoculation afTords of communicating the fmalU 

 pox at the mo'.l favourable time of life, viz. infancy, when 

 the difeafe is mod inclined to put on a mild form. He men- 

 tioned, authirntically, that, out of ijoo perfons inoculated 

 ty Mr. ferjeant Ranby, Mr. ferjeant Hawkins, and Mr. 

 * •Middieton, only three died. 



: - He ilated to his congregation, that, from the annual ac- 

 f count within the bills of mortality, (in which many places in 

 i land near the city were omitted,) it appeared that, in twenty 

 I 'years, viz. from the year 1731 to the year 1750, inclufive, 

 no hfs than 39,11 J perfons died of tiiis fatal diftemper ; 

 ' which, including tiie piaces not infertcJ in the weekly bills, 

 , muit have been coniiderably rhore than 2000 every ycai", that 

 fell in the two Edjjining cities and parts adjacent. And, he 

 I noticed, thai if only one in feven is fiippofed to die by the 

 I diftempea- taken in the natural way, then the whole number 

 of perfons who, in this period of twenty years, were thus in- 

 fefted, muil have amounted to 280,000, of which number 

 ■no lefs than 40,000 perifhed. But if one in every 200 

 ■fliould be fuppofed to die under inoculation, which is really 

 more than fall by that artificial infeflion, inftead of 40,000, 

 "only 1400 would have died in one diftritt in twenty years, 

 tad inoculation been univerfally adopted. Thus the differ- 

 ence in that Ihort period, in one fpot, would have been no 

 lefs than 38,600 lives prcferved, befides the numerous polle- 

 lity that might have been derived from them. 



The learned divine infilled, that humanity, regard to our 

 tountr)'-, the diftates of reafon, and the precepts of religion, 

 are all in favour of the fyftem of inocXiiation. 

 ■ During the oppofition to the introduction of inoculation, 

 ■many afFeCled to be aftnated againii it by religious fcruples, 

 and the praftice was alleged to be unlawful. 



In anfwer to this, the fcriptures afk, Is it lawful to fave 

 life, or to dellroy it ? Luke, vi. 9. We Ihould alfo remem- 

 ber, that, as the fail of man brought the danger of difeafes 

 into the world, fo to evade, oppofe, or deftroy it, is not only 

 liis right, but duty, if in his power. When danger fiir- 

 rOunds us, no conduct is more proper than to inquire into, 

 and purfue the means of efcape. To neglect our fafety is 

 to fnik below brutes, which are taught by inftinft to fhun 

 - the evil to which they are expofed. Inoculation is certainly 

 in many inftances a means of laving life, and of moderating 

 the feverity of affliction. And, in a moral point of view, 

 wilfully neglefting the means of preferving life muil appear 

 almofl as bad as the guilt of murder. 



' The bringing of a diftemper on ourfelves was likewife re- 

 prefented by bigotted individuals as ufurping the facred 

 prerogative of God. 



As to the firit part of this objeftion, if by diflempers are 

 meant ficknefs and pain, the fame thing is prattifcd daily in 

 Other inftances, in concurrence with the fcripture dictate, 

 wz. of two evils choofe the lead. Inoculation is not done 

 from a mere wanton defire of imparling any difeafi-, but is 

 performed in order that the patient may go througli an un- 

 avoidable diltemper with the leaft difficulty, and tlie greatefl 

 chance of recovery. The natural fmall-pox being highly 

 i)erilous, it muft be a great defideralum to avoid it, and in- 

 oculation enables us to do fo, by deftroying that difpofition 

 in the body, without ■which-the difeafe cannot take place. 



Refpedting the olTence given to God, a reliance ou provi- 

 dence does not im.ply that wc are not to prevent or oppofe 

 the evils which we forefee, iud which we'have it in oiit 



power to guard againft by prudent precautions. Would 

 thcfc objedtors, in other inftances, refnfe the means of lef- 

 fening the malignancy and danger of difeafe, than which the 

 practice of inoculation is no more ? Let the alTertors of the 

 'rights of God fay, whether, when God permits the difcovery 

 of preferving ourfelves, he forbids our ufirg it ? If our Ma- 

 ker ofters us a remedy, it is offending h'm to rejeft it. 



It was moreover objeded, that the decrees of God liave 

 fixed the commifliou of every difeafe, and that our precau- 

 tion cannot prevent ■what He has determined. 



To this it was anfwered, that, however tr\ie it is, our days 

 are determined, &c. yet it is Gods revealed will, and not 

 his fecret purpofes, which we are to regard as the rule of 

 duty. God lias required of us to have a tender regard of 

 our lives ; and they who difobcy hini therein are guilty of a 

 degree of felf-nnirder, and will never be acquitted of that 

 guilt by the fecret determination of Heaven concerning 

 them. Belidcs, God, who has ordained the end, has alfo 

 determined the means leading to it. St. Paul, in his dan- 

 gerous voyage, had a fpecial revelation to allure him, that 

 all who were with him flionld efcape ; and yet, when the 

 feamen were getting out of the fhip, he declares, that if they 

 did not Itay in it they could not be faved. Acts, xxvii. 31. 

 God pnrpofed -to preferve them in the way whereby they 

 were afterwards delivered. 



It was likewife contended that we ought not to do evil, 

 that good may come. 



On the other hand, it was acknowledged, that if inocu- 

 lation is, in its own nature, a moral evil, it certainly fhould 

 be rejected, however great its advantages may feem to be. 

 The prolpect of relief from any calamity in life fhould not 

 tempt us to offend God. But they who make the foregoing 

 objection proceed upon a miftake. Their principle is true 

 with regard to moral evil, but is not fo when applied to phy- 

 fical. It is certainly lawful to pull down one hoiife to fave 

 a great number from being burnt. This is a phylical evil, 

 which can hardly take place without fome degree of moral 

 evil ; and many other inftances may be pointed out, where, 

 for a greater good, a leffer ill is fubmitted to. 



It was further objected, that the patient might die, and 

 then his laft moments would be diilreffed, and the future rer 

 flections of his friends grievous. 



This objeftion led many to decline the praftice of inocu- 

 lation, even while they allowed the theory of it to be reafon- 

 able. ■ They entertained hopjcs of efcaping the diftemper 

 in the natural way, and they had fears of dying in tlu's, and 

 ttius they were prevented from undergoing the diiorder. 

 But they fhould have confidcred what- grounds they had for 

 either their hopes or fears, and what was to be advanced to 

 balance the account, in an examination of the different dp>- 

 grecs of probabihty attendant on what they hoped for, and 

 what they were afraid of, in the negleCl or adoption of ino- 

 cidation. Dying is an awful thing ;. but i£ inoculation w.iis 

 a probable and lawful means of preferving- life in a time of 

 danger, it was a duty to comply with it ; and what reflec- 

 tion could be more peaceful than tliat of :dying in tlie way 

 of duty? 



It was further objetted by the religious ofppofers of the 

 new prndtice, that fear was a dangerous paffion'in the fmall- 

 pox, and that inoculation increafed the caufes of fear, by 

 leflening our faith and truft in God.. 



When the fmall-pox was left to nature, fuch were its ra- 

 vages, that, not to fear, would have been to fink beneath 

 Iiumanity : its confequences were too grievous to be viewed 

 with indifference. Experience manifclled the advantages 



and 



