The following from Rev. Samuel Grainger relates to smallpox variolation, which is technically the forerunner to vaccination, but in essence it is the beginning of vaccination; vaccination in all but name (both practices are forms of “inoculation”). Thus, arguments against variolation can also apply to vaccination.
In 1721, smallpox variolation was introduced in Puritan New England. Controversy erupted. Some, in ignorance, took the position that it was “safe and effective.” (Why does this keep happening?!)
Others knew better, however, including a one Reverend Samuel Grainger, who took up the pen against this wicked practice in a booklet titled “The imposition of inoculation as a duty religiously considered in a leter [sic] to a gentleman in the country inclin’d to admit it.”
Here are some reasons Reverend Granger gives for refusing this practice:
Smallpox inoculation is a threat to the recipient and to the community
Smallpox variolation was a danger to both the recipient and others (just as the deadly COVID shot today is, as the vaccinated may transmit dangerous effects to others).
Indeed, contrary to what promoters of smallpox variolation claimed, the practice could spread smallpox and cause smallpox outbreaks, as the recipient was a walking bioweapon (especially for a certain period of time after inoculation). Variolation was thus a violation of the Sixth Commandment; a threat to both the one inoculated, and his neighbor. Grainger recognizes this, and rightfully sees it as an Unchristian practice:
IT IS LAWFUL TO SAVE LIFE, and a Duty incumbent upon us, but the Means used for the preservation of mine, must no ways offend or endanger my Neighbour’s safety, for it is written, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self. (p. 2)
The Laws of Nature and Nations, oblige Mankind to consult the good of the Community whereof they are Members; and not to offer any Violence or Injury to the Public Good, upon any private advantage whatever; and what greater Violence or injury can be offered by us, then Enlarging the Borders of Death, & Increasing and Extending the present Calamity under which we labour by this Unchristian and Dangerous Practice. (p. 19)
That whatsoever hath even a TENDENCY, tho it doth not take away my own Life, or the Life of my Neighbour unjustly, yet such a Tendency renders it Unlawful.
I shall now Examine into the Merits of Inoculation, as it stands in respect to this Position.I think it very Evident, that the Voluntary Transplanting upon my self an Infectious and Pestilential Distemper, is the encouraging and producing of a Moral Cause, which has a Tendency to take away my own Life, and the Life of my Neighbour unjustly, if Pestilential Distempers have a Tendency to take away Life, which I hope you will allow. (p. 16)
Supposed success of a practice does not make it morally lawful
The supposed success of smallpox inoculation is not a morally sufficient reason for this procedure (even if it actually was), since it endangered the recipient and the community. It was doing evil that good may come; and so Grainger writes:
To urge the Lawfulness of this practice from its Success, is a very weak argument to prove it so. For should Success become a sufficient plea for the Lawfulness of any action. Every wicked action successfully acted, would become Lawful at that rate. (p. 14)
I make no question but people who have given into this Practice, have many of them acted with a belief of its being lawful, because declared by some to be a Duty, and have proceeded therein with an Upright and Religious Intention, with a good meaning, and to a good End. But will this justify their doing it? It is the Opinion of that Great and Learned Casuist, Doctor Sanderson, “No Intention of a good End, of a good Meaning, of a good Event, of any good whatsoever, either can sufficiently Warrant any sinful action to be done, or justify it being done, or sufficiently excuse the omission of any necessary Duty, when it is Necessary.”
“Whatsoever the End be we intend, it is certain that Intention cannot be good, which putteth us upon the Choice of Evil Means. And that Means must be Evil, which to preserve our own, hazards and endangers our Neighbor’s Life.” (p. 24)
The use of fake news and numbers to support inoculation does not make it morally lawful
Just as today, fake news and fake numbers were used to “legitimize” inoculation:
Your other Arguments of Example, Numbers and Success, are very insufficient, though supported with the Testimony of a News Paper; that it is safe and Useful for all this is but Argumentum Turba [argument from “the crowd”]. To bring Armies of Africans, and Troops of Mahometans, to prove it lawful by their Success with it, is like their proving the Religion of Mahomet, as true Religion, because successfully propagated, and maintained by the Sword, and profess by vast Numbers, which fill whole Nations of the Eastern World. Example, Numbers and Success, are far from being a sufficient proof that it is Lawful. Had you proved it a good and perfect Gift come down from the Father of Lights, then it ought and would have been Received with adoring Thankfulness. But as it is suppo [supposed?] to have been at first introduced, and practiced by profess Enemies of the Cross of Christ, and Infidels, who Sacrifice their Fellow Creatures as a Peace Offering to the Devil. As it opposes the Royal Precept, and Characteristic of the Gospel Love, as it is represented to be a Way to defend our selves against a Dreadful and Deadly Disease (which is own’d a Judgment) by Over-ruling it in the Way of its coming at us, when we see it is a Coming. I see no Reason why we should Comply with it as our Duty, but reject it as Scandalous to the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST and Dangerous to Society. (pp. 25, 26)
Inoculation as an unlawful attempt to thwart God’s judgment
Grainger recognizes that disease can be a means used by God to bring a nation to repentance for its sins. Thus human invention, such as inoculation, can never thwart God’s judgment: whatever God determines to happen, it will be achieved.
National repentance is the correct response to God’s judgment, not medical malpractice. (And of course, for those unsaved, believing the Gospel is of utmost importance.) Yes, we may take measures to protect our health with legitimate means (which rules out vaccination), but even then, this is secondary to getting right with God.
Vaccination/inoculation (with its assurance of safety and efficacy) both gives people false hope to continue in their sins, and ironically intensifies disease and death.
[O]n all sides it is granted lawful to use Means for our preservation from a Desolating Judgment, provided such Means be Warranted by God’s Word, to which we are more immediately directed, at the time God sends his Judgment, to seek what are the Ways to Escape the Extremity and Destruction at least, if not the TOUCH of it. This Mercy at all times God graciously affords us. Examine that carefully I entreat you Sir, and produce if you can, any other appointed Means for preventing or removing a National Judgment, then that of a National Repentance and Reformation. (p. 4)
It is impossible that any Humane Means, or preventive Physick should defend us from, or Over-rule a Judicial National Sickness; for were it so, Wicked and Atheistical Men would have the same terms and conditions of Security in a Physical Respect, with the most Holy and Religious. And National Judgments would not have the Designed Ends for which they were sent National Amendment. The Voice of Judgment proclaims irresistible power, & calls to men to reflect upon their Ways and Doings, and forsake the Evil of them, least Iniquity be their Ruin both here and hereafter. When the Judgments of the Lord are abroad in the World, the Inhabitants of the Earth will learn Righteousness. p. 9
Is not the practice of Inoculation a Wall of untempered Mortar, can it avail against a Judicial Sickness, doth it not strengthen the hands of the Wicked, that he should not turn from the wickedness of his ways by promising him Life, and do not you promise him Life to declare that none ever died under Inoculation; and ’tis probable, nay MORE than probable they never will : and that you dare almost warrant it to be a Security against the Malignity and danger of the worst of Plagues. That it is a way to defend our selves against it by OVER-RULING the way of its coming. I would not charge all with this; God forbid, but it has been published in the face of the World, without reproof or contradiction; and the pleasing representation of a safe and easy practice has seduced more than a Belief of its Lawfulness, to approve what they ignorantly have embraced. (p. 11)
We should not be silent regarding the evil of inoculation
We must never be silent in the face of such evil practices as smallpox inoculation and vaccination and general. Too much is at stake. Countless people have died, and others are walking time bombs due to the COVID shot. Grainger’s point is well taken:
But when the Honour of Religion, and the Safety of a People in general are concerned. Who can wish well to either, and be silent. Life is too valuable a Blessing to be Endangered by a Practice acknowledged to be Infectious and hazardous, and Religion a point too tender to justify our proceeding with it.
Let the Arguments on both sides be laid in the Balance together, and weighed by the Shekel of the Sanctuary, and let Scripture Light be the Standard to Determine the goodness of them. (p. 27)
Quotes from Samuel Grainger, The imposition of inoculation as a duty religiously considered in a leter [sic] to a gentleman in the country inclin’d to admit it (Boston, MA: Printed for Nicholas Boone, at the Sign of the Bible in Cornhill ; and John Edwards, at his shop at the head of King-Street, 1721).
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
