A Sermon against Inoculation
- Written
- preached July 8, 1722
- Place
- London
- Language
- English
- Kind of source
- sermon
- Reading time
- 6 minutes
- Difficulty
- Challenging
- Intensity
- Low: an argument about disease and sin; mentions sores and death, nothing graphic
Massey suggested that when Satan covered Job with sores, he may have done it “by some such Way as that of Inoculation.”
Edmund Massey (1690–1765), a Cambridge-educated Church of England clergyman, rector of Colne Engaine in Essex and lecturer at St. Alban, Wood Street, in London, preached this sermon at St. Andrew, Holborn, on July 8, 1722. Inoculation had just come to England from Constantinople. In April 1721 Lady Mary Wortley Montagu had her young daughter inoculated in London, and on August 9 six condemned prisoners at Newgate were inoculated as a trial. In April 1722 two of the royal princesses, daughters of the Prince and Princess of Wales, were inoculated. Massey’s sermon went through three London editions that year. A reply published under the name of the surgeon Charles Maitland, who had inoculated the prisoners, answered it, and Massey defended his sermon in a printed letter to Maitland.
Massey was not a doctor. In a note at the end he says he deals with inoculation only as far as it seems irreligious, and sends readers to the physician William Wagstaffe for the medical case against it. Deaths after inoculation were being reported and argued over, and in 1722 James Jurin of the Royal Society was only beginning to gather figures. Massey could not know how inoculated smallpox would compare with smallpox caught in the ordinary way.
This is a sermon, an argument from Scripture and morals, not a report of events. Read it for what an educated opponent believed and feared.
Watch what he thinks disease is for, and his claim that the fear of smallpox keeps people good. Here “inoculation” means variolation, giving smallpox matter itself; do not confuse it with Jenner’s vaccination with cowpox, which came only in 1796.
What we know now
Inoculation went on in England despite sermons like this one. A pamphlet published under the name of the surgeon Charles Maitland answered him the same year, and Massey replied with a defense of his sermon (the Vindicated pamphlet, 1722). James Jurin, secretary of the Royal Society, collected reports of every inoculation he could and in yearly accounts from 1723 to 1727 showed that about 1 inoculated person in 48 to 60 died, against about 1 in 6 of those who caught smallpox naturally. Inoculation also gave protection against later smallpox. From the 1720s it became accepted medical practice in Britain, though it remained a risk to the person inoculated and to others nearby, who could catch smallpox from them (Fenner et al. 1988, 254–256).
From 1796 Edward Jenner’s vaccination with cowpox gave the same protection with far less risk, and it gradually replaced inoculation. After a worldwide campaign, smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980 (Fenner et al. 1988, vii, 258–262).
Read alongside
- What the Africans of Boston Knew about Inoculation
In Boston in 1721, the year before Massey preached, the minister Cotton Mather and the doctor Zabdiel Boylston defended inoculation with what Africans in the town told of it. Mather was a clergyman like Massey.
- Engrafting against Smallpox
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu describes inoculation as she saw it in the Ottoman Empire in 1717 and plans to bring it home. Massey calls a belief in fate the reason such practices could spread among people who did not know Christian teaching.
- Instructions for Vaccine Inoculation
Edward Jenner’s instructions of about 1800 for vaccination with cowpox, the method that replaced the inoculation Massey attacked. Jenner writes as a doctor about technique and never raises the moral questions that fill Massey’s sermon.
The edited translation, in simplified modern English. Bracketed words were added for clarity; [...] marks a cut. Tap a note number to read the note.
The silence of Scripture hath given interpreters occasion of guessing at the distemper which the Devil here inflicted upon Job.1 But among them all, it appears not certainly what it was. I will therefore desire to give an opinion, equally I think true, with any that hath yet been taken notice of. It is this: that the Devil, by some venomous infusion into the body of Job, might raise his blood to such a ferment as threw out a confluence of inflammatory pustules all over him from head to foot. That is, his distemper might be what is now incident to most men,2 and perhaps conveyed to him by some such way as that of inoculation.3
[...] I choose to instance in the infliction of diseases, which I will attempt to prove are utterly unlawful to be inflicted by any who profess themselves Christians. Indeed where the doctrines of salvation are not known, and a regular dependence upon Providence4 is postponed to the absurd belief of a fatality,5 there it is no wonder to see men give into impious or unreasonable practices. But in a country where better principles are established, where God’s government of the world is for the most part undisputed, and slavish implicit belief happily superseded by rational inquiries, in such a place, methinks, men cannot easily be reconciled to a practice which abuses their understanding, as well as insults their religion. And if the received notions of God’s Providence be just, [the practice] has its foundation in ignorance, and must be maintained (if at all) by presumption.
Remembering then our text, I shall not scruple to call that a diabolical operation which usurps an authority founded neither in the laws of nature or religion, which tends in this case to anticipate and banish Providence out of the world, and promotes the increase of vice and immorality.
2. The good of mankind, the seeking whereof is one of the fundamental laws of nature, is, I know, pleaded in defense of the practice I contend against. But I must profess myself at a loss to find or understand how that has been, or can be, promoted hereby. For if by good be meant the preservation of life, it is in the first place a question whether life be a good, or not. But if it be, the preservation of it will be found as little beholden to this practice as any other invention whatsoever. The confessed miscarriages in this new method are more than have happened in the ordinary way.6 And if this be our case now, how much worse must it needs prove, if God, for our presumption and contemptuous distrust of his good Providence, should suffer this delusion to gain ground, and these physicians of no value, these forgers of lies (as Job expresses it),7 to obtain and grow into credit among us! Such I fear they may be accounted who so confidently tell us what is impossible for them to know: namely, that they who undergo their experiment are forever thereby secured from any future danger and infection. This is a bold assertion indeed, and if such experiment were lawful, and consistent with the rules of Christian practice, I could wish to God it were true also. But if neither of these be the case, if the two requisites, prevention and lawfulness, be wanting, I believe I may venture to affirm that the most learned and judicious among the professors of physic will never give into so destructive a scheme. And I hope the time is coming that these venefici,8 these spreaders of infection, will be distinguished from those of the faculty9 who deserve honor, and not permitted to mingle with them, as the Devil among the sons of God, lest, like the disease-giving practitioner, the harlot whom Solomon describes,10 they entice us, till a dart strike through our liver, and we haste to their snare, not knowing that it is for our life. Besides, I cannot apprehend how it conduces to the preservation of mankind to force a dangerous distemper upon them which possibly may never happen unto them, and if it should, may probably be attended with very little, if any, inconvenience, and, as before has been hinted, is no security against future contagion. This is unequally to stake a substance against a shadow, to make men run into a real danger lest they should happen to fall into an accidental one, and contributes no more to the preservation of mankind than it would redound to the honor of a well-provided city to invite the enemy and surrender now, for fear lest sometime hence they should possibly be surprised and taken.
It remains now in the last place to speak of this modern practice, as it tends to promote vice and immorality. I believe it will be readily granted me that there is no one thing so universally dreaded as the disease which this strange method of practice pretends to elude. But there is this of good attending: that the fear of it is a happy restraint upon many people who seem not so sensible of superior obligations to keep themselves in temperance and sobriety, and want no other encouragement to give a loose to their inclinations11 than to be free from apprehensions of this uncertain visitor. Most men’s acquaintance, I am apt to think, will furnish them with instances of persons who would gladly give into the extravagance of these licentious cities, to the apparent hazard of reputation and fortune, did not this providential obstruction, like the angel of the Lord to Balaam,12 stop them in the way, or keep them at a safe distance, in health, wealth, and innocence.
Could then these bold practitioners lessen the severity of this disease, could they entirely secure men from danger under it, could they say to the distemper, as Almighty God does to the proud waves of the sea, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no farther”;13 could they, I say, do all this, I do not see what good mankind would get in the main. They would, ’tis true, have one danger less to fear, but that would be no real kindness, forasmuch as it would be the occasion of their running into a great many more. And if they should happen to be more healthy, ’tis a great chance but they would be less righteous.
Let the atheist then, and the scoffer, the heathen and unbeliever, disclaim a dependence upon Providence, dispute the wisdom of God’s government, and deny obedience to his laws. Let them inoculate, and be inoculated, whose hope is only in, and for this life!
Notes
- Massey’s text is Job 2:7. In the Book of Job, God allows Satan to test the faithful Job by taking his wealth and children and then covering him with sores. back
- Massey means smallpox. It was so common that in the towns of Europe and Asia it caused on average about one death in ten. back
- Here inoculation means what historians call variolation: putting matter from a smallpox sore into a small cut, to bring on a milder case. Jenner’s vaccination, with cowpox, came only in 1796. back
- God’s care for the world and plan for what happens in it. back
- Belief in fate: that everything that happens is fixed in advance. Massey probably has in mind the Turks, from whom the English learned of inoculation. back
- Some people did die after inoculation, and critics pointed to each case. Figures gathered by James Jurin from 1722 on showed about 1 death in 48 to 60 inoculations, against about 1 in 6 cases of natural smallpox. back
- Job 13:4, where Job tells his friends, “ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value.” back
- Latin: poisoners. The word could also mean sorcerers. back
- The medical profession; here, the established physicians. back
- In Proverbs 7:23, a book traditionally credited to King Solomon, a harlot leads a young man to ruin “till a dart strike through his liver.” back
- Give free rein to their desires. back
- In Numbers 22:31, an angel stands in the road to stop the prophet Balaam on a journey God disapproves of. back
- God’s words to the sea in Job 38:11. back
The Silence of Scripture hath given Interpreters Occasion of guessing at the Distemper which the Devil here inflicted upon Job: But among them all, it appears not certainly what it was. I will therefore desire to give an Opinion, equally I think true, with any that hath yet been taken Notice of: It is this, That the Devil by some venemous Infusion into the Body of Job, might raise his Blood to such a Ferment, as threw out a Confluence of inflammatory Pustules all over him from Head to Foot: That is, his Distemper might be what is now incident to most Men, and perhaps conveyed to him by some such Way as that of Inoculation.
The silence of Scripture hath given interpreters occasion of guessing at the distemper which the Devil here inflicted upon Job. But among them all, it appears not certainly what it was. I will therefore desire to give an opinion, equally I think true, with any that hath yet been taken notice of. It is this: that the Devil, by some venomous infusion into the body of Job, might raise his blood to such a ferment as threw out a confluence of inflammatory pustules all over him from head to foot. That is, his distemper might be what is now incident to most men, and perhaps conveyed to him by some such way as that of inoculation.
- Massey’s text is Job 2:7. In the Book of Job, God allows Satan to test the faithful Job by taking his wealth and children and then covering him with sores.
- Massey means smallpox. It was so common that in the towns of Europe and Asia it caused on average about one death in ten.
- Here inoculation means what historians call variolation: putting matter from a smallpox sore into a small cut, to bring on a milder case. Jenner’s vaccination, with cowpox, came only in 1796.
I chuse to Instance in the Infliction of Diseases, which I will attempt to prove are utterly unlawful to be inflicted by any who profess themselves Christians. Indeed where the Doctrines of Salvation are not known, and a regular Dependance upon Providence is postponed to the absurd belief of a Fatality; there it is no wonder to see Men give into impious or unreasonable Practices: But in a Country where better Principles are established, where God's Government of the World is for the most Part undisputed, and slavish implicit Belief happily superseded by rational Enquiries; in such a Place, methinks, Men cannot easily be reconciled to a Practice, which abuses their Understanding, as well as insults their Religion; and if the received Notions of God's Providence be just, has its Foundation in Ignorance, and must be maintained (if at all) by Presumption.
I choose to instance in the infliction of diseases, which I will attempt to prove are utterly unlawful to be inflicted by any who profess themselves Christians. Indeed where the doctrines of salvation are not known, and a regular dependence upon Providence is postponed to the absurd belief of a fatality, there it is no wonder to see men give into impious or unreasonable practices. But in a country where better principles are established, where God’s government of the world is for the most part undisputed, and slavish implicit belief happily superseded by rational inquiries, in such a place, methinks, men cannot easily be reconciled to a practice which abuses their understanding, as well as insults their religion. And if the received notions of God’s Providence be just, [the practice] has its foundation in ignorance, and must be maintained (if at all) by presumption.
- God’s care for the world and plan for what happens in it.
- Belief in fate: that everything that happens is fixed in advance. Massey probably has in mind the Turks, from whom the English learned of inoculation.
Remembring then our Text, I shall not scruple to call that a Diabolical Operation, which usurps an Authority founded neither in the Laws of Nature or Religion, which tends in this Case to anticipate and banish Providence out of the World, and promotes the encrease of Vice and Immorality.
Remembering then our text, I shall not scruple to call that a diabolical operation which usurps an authority founded neither in the laws of nature or religion, which tends in this case to anticipate and banish Providence out of the world, and promotes the increase of vice and immorality.
2. The Good of Mankind, the seeking whereof is one of the Fundamental Laws of Nature, is, I know, pleaded in Defence of the Practice I contend against: But I must profess my self at a Loss, to find or understand, how that has been, or can be promoted hereby: For if by Good be meant the Preservation of Life, it is in the first Place a Question, Whether Life be a Good, or not? But if it be, the Preservation of it will be found as little beholden to this Practice, as any other Invention whatsoever. The confessed Miscarriages in this new Method, are more than have happened in the ordinary Way: And if this be our Case now, how much worse must it needs prove, if God for our Presumption, and contemptuous distrust of his good Providence, should suffer this Delusion to gain Ground, and these Physicians of no Value, these forgers of Lies, (as Job expresses it ) to obtain and grow into Credit among us: Such I fear they may be accounted, who so confidently tell us, what is impossible for them to know; namely, that they who undergo their Experiment, are for ever thereby secured from any future Danger and Infection: This is a bold Assertion indeed, and if such Experiment were lawful, and consistent with the Rules of Christian Practice, I could wish to God it were true also: But if neither of these be the Case, if the two Requisites, Prevention, and Lawfulness be wanting; I believe I may venture to affirm, that the most learned and judicious among the Professors of Physick will never give into so destructive a Scheme. And I hope the Time is coming, that these Venefici, these Spreaders of Infection, will be distinguished from those of the Faculty, who deserve Honour, and not permitted to mingle with them, as the Devil among the Sons of God, lest like the Disease-Giving Practitioner, the Harlot whom Solomon describes, they entice us, till a Dart strike through our Liver, and we haste to their Snare, not knowing that it is for our Life. Besides, I cannot apprehend how it conduces to the Preservation of Mankind, to force a dangerous Distemper upon them, which possibly may never happen unto them, and if it should, may probably be attended with very little, if any Inconvenience; and as before has been hinted, is no Sucurity against future Contagion. This is unequally to stake a Substance against a Shadow, to make Men run into a real Danger, lest they should happen to fall into an accidental One, and contributes no more to the Preservation of Mankind, than it would redound to the Honour of a well provided City, to invite the Enemy and surrender now, for fear lest sometime hence, they should possibly be surpris'd and taken.
2. The good of mankind, the seeking whereof is one of the fundamental laws of nature, is, I know, pleaded in defense of the practice I contend against. But I must profess myself at a loss to find or understand how that has been, or can be, promoted hereby. For if by good be meant the preservation of life, it is in the first place a question whether life be a good, or not. But if it be, the preservation of it will be found as little beholden to this practice as any other invention whatsoever. The confessed miscarriages in this new method are more than have happened in the ordinary way. And if this be our case now, how much worse must it needs prove, if God, for our presumption and contemptuous distrust of his good Providence, should suffer this delusion to gain ground, and these physicians of no value, these forgers of lies (as Job expresses it), to obtain and grow into credit among us! Such I fear they may be accounted who so confidently tell us what is impossible for them to know: namely, that they who undergo their experiment are forever thereby secured from any future danger and infection. This is a bold assertion indeed, and if such experiment were lawful, and consistent with the rules of Christian practice, I could wish to God it were true also. But if neither of these be the case, if the two requisites, prevention and lawfulness, be wanting, I believe I may venture to affirm that the most learned and judicious among the professors of physic will never give into so destructive a scheme. And I hope the time is coming that these venefici, these spreaders of infection, will be distinguished from those of the faculty who deserve honor, and not permitted to mingle with them, as the Devil among the sons of God, lest, like the disease-giving practitioner, the harlot whom Solomon describes, they entice us, till a dart strike through our liver, and we haste to their snare, not knowing that it is for our life. Besides, I cannot apprehend how it conduces to the preservation of mankind to force a dangerous distemper upon them which possibly may never happen unto them, and if it should, may probably be attended with very little, if any, inconvenience, and, as before has been hinted, is no security against future contagion. This is unequally to stake a substance against a shadow, to make men run into a real danger lest they should happen to fall into an accidental one, and contributes no more to the preservation of mankind than it would redound to the honor of a well-provided city to invite the enemy and surrender now, for fear lest sometime hence they should possibly be surprised and taken.
- Some people did die after inoculation, and critics pointed to each case. Figures gathered by James Jurin from 1722 on showed about 1 death in 48 to 60 inoculations, against about 1 in 6 cases of natural smallpox.
- Job 13:4, where Job tells his friends, “ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value.”
- Latin: poisoners. The word could also mean sorcerers.
- The medical profession; here, the established physicians.
- In Proverbs 7:23, a book traditionally credited to King Solomon, a harlot leads a young man to ruin “till a dart strike through his liver.”
It remains now in the last Place, to speak of this modern Practice, as it tends to promote Vice and Immorality; I believe it will be readily granted me, that there is no one Thing so universally dreaded, as the Disease, which this strange Method of Practice pretends to elude. But there is this of Good attending, that the Fear of it is an happy Restraint upon many People, who seem not so sensible of superiour Obligations, to keep themselves in Temperance and Sobriety, and want no other Encouragement to give a Loose to their Inclinations, than to be free from Apprehensions of this uncertain Visitor. Most Mens Acquaintance, I am apt to think, will furnish them with Instances of Persons who would gladly give into the Extravagance of these licentious Cities, to the apparent hazard of Reputation and Fortune; did not this providential Obstruction, like the Angel of the Lord to Balaam, stop them in the Way, or keep them at a safe Distance, in Health, Wealth, and Innocence.
It remains now in the last place to speak of this modern practice, as it tends to promote vice and immorality. I believe it will be readily granted me that there is no one thing so universally dreaded as the disease which this strange method of practice pretends to elude. But there is this of good attending: that the fear of it is a happy restraint upon many people who seem not so sensible of superior obligations to keep themselves in temperance and sobriety, and want no other encouragement to give a loose to their inclinations than to be free from apprehensions of this uncertain visitor. Most men’s acquaintance, I am apt to think, will furnish them with instances of persons who would gladly give into the extravagance of these licentious cities, to the apparent hazard of reputation and fortune, did not this providential obstruction, like the angel of the Lord to Balaam, stop them in the way, or keep them at a safe distance, in health, wealth, and innocence.
- Give free rein to their desires.
- In Numbers 22:31, an angel stands in the road to stop the prophet Balaam on a journey God disapproves of.
Could then these bold Practitioners lessen the Severity of this Disease; could they entirely secure Men from Danger under it, could they say to the Distemper, as Almighty God does to the proud Waves of the Sea, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no farther; could they, I say, do all this, I do not see what Good Mankind would get in the main; they would, 'tis true, have one Danger less to fear, but that would be no real Kindness; forasmuch as it would be the Occasion of their running into a great many more, and if they should happen to be more healthy, 'tis a great Chance but they would be less Righteous.
Could then these bold practitioners lessen the severity of this disease, could they entirely secure men from danger under it, could they say to the distemper, as Almighty God does to the proud waves of the sea, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no farther”; could they, I say, do all this, I do not see what good mankind would get in the main. They would, ’tis true, have one danger less to fear, but that would be no real kindness, forasmuch as it would be the occasion of their running into a great many more. And if they should happen to be more healthy, ’tis a great chance but they would be less righteous.
- God’s words to the sea in Job 38:11.
Let the Atheist then, and the Scoffer, the Heathen and Unbeliever, disclaim a Dependance upon Providence, dispute the Wisdom of God's Government, and deny Obedience to his Laws: Let them Inoculate, and be Inoculated, whose Hope is only in, and for this Life!
Let the atheist then, and the scoffer, the heathen and unbeliever, disclaim a dependence upon Providence, dispute the wisdom of God’s government, and deny obedience to his laws. Let them inoculate, and be inoculated, whose hope is only in, and for this life!
Questions a reader might ask, with short answers and the sections they rest on. Checked in a separate review.
What happens
What does Massey guess Job's disease was?
Smallpox, a disease that was now common. He suggests the Devil may have given it to Job by a poisonous infusion, in some such way as inoculation.
Read section 1
Why does Massey say Christians may not inflict diseases?
Only God has the right to send disease. Anyone else who gives one takes an authority founded neither in the laws of nature nor religion, which Massey calls a diabolical operation.
How does Massey answer the claim that inoculation is for the good of mankind?
He says more people have died after inoculation than of smallpox caught in the ordinary way, that no one can know it protects for life, and that it makes no sense to give people a dangerous disease they might never catch.
Read section 4
What does Massey compare inoculation to?
To a well-provided city that invites the enemy in and surrenders now, for fear it might be taken by surprise later.
Read section 4
Thinking further
Why does Massey think the fear of smallpox is a good thing?
He says it restrains people from vice. Without it, many would give in to the extravagance of the cities; the fear stops them like the angel that stopped Balaam.
Read section 5
Would Massey accept inoculation if it were completely safe?
No. Even if it entirely secured people from danger, he says, they would run into many other dangers, and healthier people would probably be less righteous.
Read section 6
Whom does Massey leave free to inoculate?
The atheist, the scoffer, the heathen and the unbeliever, people whose hope is only in this life. He presents inoculation as a sign of distrust in Providence.
Read section 7
Who and what this source names, in the original. Each name links to every source in the library that mentions it. Not yet checked.
Ideas
- Contagion The idea that disease passed from person to person by touch, breath, or objects, long before anyone knew about germs. Sections 4.
- Doctors and healers Doctors, surgeons and other healers: what the writers say they could and could not do. Sections 4.
- God's providence The belief that God watches over and provides for the world, and acts in particular events, sending help, famine or disease. Sections 2, 3, 4, 7.
- Inoculation Giving a healthy person smallpox on purpose, from the scabs or matter of a mild case, so that the illness would be mild and never come again. Chinese, Ottoman and African practitioners knew it before it was tried in Boston and London in the 1720s. Sections 1, 7.
People
- Balaam A prophet in the Book of Numbers, whom an angel stops on the road on a journey God disapproves of. Sections 5.
- God The one God worshiped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Many writers in the library saw his hand in epidemics, cures, voyages and the fortunes of colonies. Sections 2, 4, 6.
- Job The faithful man of the Bible's Book of Job, whom God allows Satan to test by taking his wealth and children and covering him with sores. Sections 1, 4.
- Satan (the Devil) The chief of the evil spirits in Jewish and Christian belief, who, in the Book of Job, afflicts Job with sores by God's leave. Sections 1.
- Solomon The king of Israel to whom the Book of Proverbs was traditionally credited. Sections 4.
Page images of the original object or of the printed edition, from the libraries and archives that hold them. The pages shown are copied here where the holder marks them public domain; titles link to the holder's own viewer. Click a page to see it full size.
Massey, A Sermon against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation, London 1722
Internet Archive. title page and pp. 6, 13–15, 17–19, 24–26, 29 for our passages. Public domain (published 1722).
The London third edition of 1722 (William Meadows), the edition the 1730 Boston reprint follows. Our text is keyed from the Boston reprint and has been collated with these images.
Difficulty: Challenging, hard eighteenth-century English with long sentences and many Bible references; the notes explain them, and short passages read aloud work best.
Fits these units
- From inoculation to vaccine. How did a new way to prevent smallpox spread, and why did people resist it? (Innovation in History)
- Faith and catastrophe. How did religious believers respond, and did responses differ? (Once in a Lifetime)
Key terms
- inoculation
- in 1722, putting matter from a smallpox sore into a small cut to cause a milder case; now called variolation
- Providence
- God’s care for the world and plan for what happens in it
- distemper
- an illness
- sermon
- a talk on a religious subject given by a member of the clergy, usually in church
- physic
- medicine; the work of physicians
- presumption
- taking on more than one has a right to
Questions
- Comprehension
Massey gives three reasons inoculation is wrong. Find each one and put it in your own words.
- Analysis
Massey says the fear of smallpox keeps many people from vice. What does this tell you about what he thought disease was for?
- Analysis (reliability)
Massey says inoculation caused more deaths than smallpox caught in the ordinary way. Where might he have got that idea in 1722, and what would you need to know to test it?
- Connection
Read What the Africans of Boston Knew about Inoculation, by Cotton Mather and Zabdiel Boylston. Cotton Mather, a minister like Massey, supported inoculation. Compare how each uses religion to argue about the same practice.
Activity
Students hold a public meeting set in London in the summer of 1722. One group speaks for Massey, one for the surgeon Charles Maitland, and one plays parents deciding whether to have their children inoculated. Each speaker may use only evidence available in 1722. The parents then explain in writing what they decided and which argument weighed most.
A printable worksheet for this source · More on Hearth Learning
From the English text of the sermon in the Boston reprint of the third edition (1730), as keyed by the Text Creation Partnership, compared with page images of the London third edition (1722). Spelling, capitals, and punctuation are modernized (“chuse” to “choose,” “Physick” to “physic,” capitalized nouns lowercased). Many long sentences are split where Massey has a colon or semicolon, and in one place a bracket supplies a subject he leaves to be understood; otherwise his words and their order are kept. About a fifth of the sermon is included.
- Original
- Text as printed in the named edition or on the object, read from page images. Edition: Our text: Edmund Massey, A Sermon against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation, “From the Third Edition” (London, printed; re-printed at Boston for Benjamin Indicott, 1730; Evans 3315), pp. 8, 15–17, 19–21, 26–28, 31, as keyed by the Text Creation Partnership (Evans-TCP N02782, CC0) and extracted by code from the TCP XML (github.com/textcreationpartnership/N02782). Collated with the London third edition (William Meadows, 1722), from its page images on the Internet Archive (pp. 6, 13–15, 17–19, 24–26, 29); the two agree word for word except for the few readings given in the unit notes. The sermon had three London editions in 1722. The TCP prints long s as ſ, here given as s. Marginal Scripture references are not copied.
- Editor’s review
- Not yet.
- Specialist review
- Not yet. Readings a specialist should confirm are listed for later review.
- Rights
- Original: public domain. Edition: public domain. Our translations and notes: CC BY-SA 4.0; credit “Hearth Library, hearthinteractive.com” with a link.
Sources for the notes
- Massey, Edmund. A Sermon against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation. From the third edition. Boston: Benjamin Indicott, 1730. Text Creation Partnership, Evans-TCP N02782. The whole sermon and postscript.
- Massey, Edmund. A Sermon against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation. 3rd ed. London: William Meadows, 1722. Internet Archive, bim_eighteenth-century_a-sermon-against-the-dan_massey-edmund_1722. Title page and pp. 1–29.
- [Maitland, Charles?] Mr. Maitland’s Account of Inoculating the Small Pox Vindicated, from Dr. Wagstaffe’s Misrepresentations of That Practice, with Some Remarks on Mr. Massey’s Sermon. London: J. Peele, 1722. Wellcome Collection record works/q9rzxv6k (which notes an attribution to John Arbuthnot made in 1723); copy of the second edition (1723), Internet Archive b30545237, for the remarks on Massey’s sermon and the title page’s mention of Massey’s Vindication of his sermon.
- Maitland, Charles. Mr. Maitland’s Account of Inoculating the Small Pox. London, 1722. Wellcome Collection copy, Internet Archive b30774354_0001. Pages 8–9 (Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s daughter, April 1721) and 20–21 (the six condemned criminals at Newgate, August 9, 1721).
- Fenner, Frank, Donald A. Henderson, Isao Arita, Zdeněk Ježek, and Ivan D. Ladnyi. Smallpox and Its Eradication. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1988. Foreword, page vii (smallpox deaths in towns; the declaration of 1980); chapter 6, pages 254–256 (variolation in Britain, the princesses in April 1722, theological opposition, Jurin’s figures) and 258–262 (Jenner and the spread of vaccination).
- Venn, John, and J. A. Venn. Alumni Cantabrigienses. Part 1, vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924. Entry “Massey, Edmund” (admitted to Trinity, 1708; rector of Colne Engaine, 1718–65).
- The Grub Street Project. “Publications of Edmund Massey.” grubstreetproject.net/people/1610/works/ (editions of the sermon, from the English Short Title Catalogue).
- Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. Entry “veneficus.” Perseus Digital Library.
- The Holy Bible, King James Version. Project Gutenberg text. Job 2:7, 13:4, 38:11; Proverbs 7:23; Numbers 22:31.