plus droit qu'eut l'Europe"; and again, "Vesale me
parait un des plus grands hommes qui ait existe." For the charge
that anatomists dissected living men--against men of science before
Vesalius's time--see Littre's chapter on Anatomy. For the increased
liberty given anatomy by the Reformation, see Roth's Vesalius, p. 33.

X. THEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION TO INOCULATION, VACCINATION, AND THE USE OF
ANAESTHETICS.

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 smallpox in France, and thoughtful
physicians in England, inspired by Lady Montagu and Maitland, followed
his example. Ultra-conservatives in medicine 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 smallpox; 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. 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
following his example.

The same opposition was vigorous in Protestant Scotland. A large body of
ministers joined in denouncing the new practice as "flying in the face
of Providence," and "endeavouring 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 physician in Boston, made an
experiment in inoculation, one of his first subjects being his own son.
He at once encountered bitter hostility, 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 newsp